Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[OUTLAW 09]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the KSA.

The use of Wahhabism was the KSA attempt to control that Sunni global community and at the same time encircle the Shia global community with what they viewed a purer form of Sunni Islam.

Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

Right now there is an estimated 3K Saudi's (many former military trained types) fighting with the IS and the KSA has broken up a large IS cell recently inside the KSA.

The IS has been actually threatening the destruction of the twin holy sites in the last week as they now view the KSA as not being radical enough--actually they do not view the KSA to be Takfiri enough for them. There is some indications in informal polling that the young generation inside the KSA are now more and more identifying with the IS and their messaging. By the way Wahhabism is not the same thing as Takfirism inside Sunni Islam.

Check the IS Caliphates' map they released when they called out the Caliphate---they are taking Islam back to the golden age of the expanded influence they had in Spain, North Africa and the Arabian peninsular and that appeals to the young Muslim of today.

IS has now become a direct threat to the KSA as well as a direct threat to Iran due to their deep Salafist hate of the Shia and any other religion that is not Salafist.

This is not a Christian Islam thing ---it is a pure Sunni power politics debate for the heart and soul of the Sunni global community.

[AmericanPride]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.

it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the KSA.

Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.

Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

[Bill Moore]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.



Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.



The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes. There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion). Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

King Jaja makes important points, as do other religious groups who are being targeted by the Islamists. We can ignore them and look at the world differently, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of why people are fighting. A theory is only good as long as it works, our political theories of conflict don't explain what is happening today. I disagree with Outlaw that this conflict has nothing to do with Christians, they're certainly being targeted throughout much of the Muslim world by Islamists. That leads to formally normal citizens like Slapout, embracing extremist ideas of their own and the character of the conflict evolves/changes over time. King Jaja may be able to spread light on this, but even 20 years ago various international Christian groups were smuggling arms into Nigeria to help the Christians battle/defend themselves against the Muslims. This wasn't sponsored by any state, but by religious groups. It is a multi-dimensional problem of which religion plays a significant role.

[KingJaja]

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes. There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion). Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

King Jaja makes important points, as do other religious groups who are being targeted by the Islamists. We can ignore them and look at the world differently, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of why people are fighting. A theory is only good as long as it works, our political theories of conflict don't explain what is happening today. I disagree with Outlaw that this conflict has nothing to do with Christians, they're certainly being targeted throughout much of the Muslim world by Islamists. That leads to formally normal citizens like Slapout, embracing extremist ideas of their own and the character of the conflict evolves/changes over time. King Jaja may be able to spread light on this, but even 20 years ago various international Christian groups were smuggling arms into Nigeria to help the Christians battle/defend themselves against the Muslims. This wasn't sponsored by any state, but by religious groups. It is a multi-dimensional problem of which religion plays a significant role.

I don't know about Christian groups smuggling arms to local Christians in Nigeria, but we've had a low intensity religious war between Muslims and Christians going on in Northern Nigeria for close to 20 years - the roots of this conflict even go further in the past.

If you listen carefully to Boko Haram, they tap into the grievances of Muslims - there have been massacres in Yelwa, Kaduna, Dogo na Hawa - pitting each side against the other.

About 10 - 30,000 people killed last decade - this was before Boko Haram

[KingJaja]

Let me also add that I'm not sure the US fully understands what's going on here - it is focused on "terrorism" with a minor focus on "social justice", but one thing that escapes the attention of many US analysts is this: the post-colonial order in Afrika and the Middle-east is being challenged.

There is state failure and yes, there is state formation. Somalia is a failed state, it gave rise to terrorism, but it also gave raise to Somaliland - a de facto, not de jure state under international law. In the 20 odd years in which the rest of Somalia failed, Somaliland has done remarkably well in building its own institutions.

Just like US prefers to maintain the fiction that Congo is a "state", it persisted in maintaining the fiction that a united Iraq can exist without a brutal, unifying dictator. ISIS has triggered what was always going to happen - a partition of Iraq & has also created new facts on the ground.

US has spent the past 50 years maintaining French, British & Portuguese spheres of influence in the developing World without asking deep questions about the "hows" and the "whys" of "state formation" in these parts of the globe.

US is invested in the Sahel, ostensibly to check the "spread of terrorism" - but has anyone asked about the roots of the Toureg rebellions of 1962 -64, 1990 - 95 and 2012 in Mali?

US intervenes, then it looks like Iraq again - a lot of the underlying issues were kept hidden by the French, then US discovers a lot of stuff it should have known going in.

[AmericanPride]

US has spent the past 50 years maintaining French, British & Portuguese spheres of influence in the developing World without asking deep questions about the "hows" and the "whys" of "state formation" in these parts of the globe.

I think this is central to what is going on in Iraq. Compared to the West, all of the states in the Middle East are relatively young (some exception could be argued for Iran and Turkey). Iraqi state formation never achieved the level of stability found in Europe - and this problem existed before the emergence of organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The collapse (read: destruction) of the Iraqi state in the midst of the revival of militant Islam created an opportunity for the formation of such groups.

[AmericanPride]

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes.

Bill - in my analysis, religion (and other forms of identity) are frames through which to view political and economic structures. Between 1948 and 2014, the structures in the Middle East have remained remarkably resilient - minus the revolution in Iran and the destruction of Iraq. What has changed however is that the post-War frames of colonial-anticolonialism, nationalism, republicanism, and of course the Cold War have all disappeared. This started in 1973 with the defeat of the Arab republics of Syria and Egypt, spelling the death of Arab nationalism. What has occurred since then? 1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia; the Iranian revolution; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These events set into motion the strengthening of Islamism as an organizing principle and so the structural conflicts that were present before (i.e. Iranian-Saudi animosity) took on a religious tone. This is not to say that religion is unimportant - it absolutely is important. But I think it's difficult to argue that it is the cause of the current strife in the Middle East when the problems existed long before the emergence of militant Islam as a credible movement in its modern incarnation.

There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

This is true in the post-1973 period. Who here remembers the communist Palestinian terrorist organizations like the PFLP and the DFLP or consider them serious threats to international security today? The paradigm has shifted from nationalism to religion but that doesn't mean the nature of the base conflict has also fundamentally changed.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion).

I agree - religion is a powerful organizing principle. But even during the Cold War, ideological militants also behaved similarly, just not on the same scale.

Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

I don't think religion can or should be ignored. But I also don't think (1) resolving whatever religious grievance is presumably at the heart of the conflict will actually end the conflict or (2) that understanding the nuances of the theology is helpful in understanding a path towards conflict termination. Twenty years ago ISIS did not exist. Ten years ago it was in its infant stages. Now militants are flocking to its banner - what has changed? I don't think it's because people are any more zealous than usual or because the ISIS message is more relevant now than previously; this is a path of conflict escalation created by the break down of civil society in Iraq framed by religion. The Arab world has been an ideological desert since 1973 and Arab nationalism is virtually non-existent, so that leaves religion as the only credible organizing principle with which to frame conflict. Minus the semantics, would the grievances and justifications be fundamentally different if religion was replaced by, say, nationalism or communism? I doubt it. The disputes between Iraqi-Iran, KSA-Iran, Israel-Arabs, etc would still be present.

[slapout9]

1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia;

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

[AmericanPride]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

[slapout9]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

Why did they do it then?

[KingJaja]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

I'm going to deviate a bit here - I don't agree with your thesis on religion, i.e. that is is a "mere organizing principle". The Muslim Brotherhood was formed as long ago as the 1920s.

Okay, if we assume that politics is major factor driving religious movements in the Middle-east; what politiks is responsible for the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the Developing World - from the slums of Lagos to the favelas of Brazil?

I'm from an interesting nation; Nigeria - you can see a rise in religious fundamentalism in both major religions - Islam & Christianity.

I'm not sure this has to much to do with Middle-east politics.

[carl]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

Slap, rather than flattening those places, which I think would be unwise, how about taking them? I don't mean us taking them, I mean other Muslims taking them from the Saudis. Where is it written that the House of Saud must have authority over those places? Why not the Kurds, or the Turks or the Malaysians? Why should those lazy, fat trouble making Saudis have them if they refuse to shape up? IS is eventually going to go after those places anyway and the Saudis couldn't stand against those guys but others could. Maybe we should look at openly backing a side in the contest that is occurring within Islam between the takfiri killers and everybody else. If the takfiris win the contest it will be all of Islam against the rest of the world. That is what they are aiming to bring about. We should recognize that and try to figure out how to stop it.

[slapout9]

Slap, rather than flattening those places, which I think would be unwise, how about taking them? I don't mean us taking them, I mean other Muslims taking them from the Saudis. Where is it written that the House of Saud must have authority over those places? Why not the Kurds, or the Turks or the Malaysians? Why should those lazy, fat trouble making Saudis have them if they refuse to shape up? IS is eventually going to go after those places anyway and the Saudis couldn't stand against those guys but others could. Maybe we should look at openly backing a side in the contest that is occurring within Islam between the takfiri killers and everybody else. If the takfiris win the contest it will be all of Islam against the rest of the world. That is what they are aiming to bring about. We should recognize that and try to figure out how to stop it.

It's already happened sort of anyway and Bin Laden name was all over it. This is part of Muslim prophecies. A false Mahdi would attack Mecca and fail!!!!!!!thye beleive it happened in 1979. The real Mahdi will lead the Black Flaged Muslim Armies to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan or so the prophecy goes.Watch the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6m8K21O8Y

[OUTLAW 09]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.

Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.

The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

See AP this is exactly why you are so often off base to the point of hanging onto the aged idea of negotiations which is suppose to solve everything.---but I guess it goes to the fact that you never served in Iraq either in the military or as a civilian.

Really go back and fully understand Khomeini and his Green Crescent expansionism of Shiaism. Go back and fully understand the Iraq/Iran war from 80/88 as an attempt by the Sunni's to reign in that Shia expansionism by Khomeini.

Go back and fully understand exactly how Hezbollah arrived carrying the Green Banners of Shia from Iran to "support" their brothers in Lebanon, fully understand how that led to the Marine Barracks bombing, how the US Embassy bombing destroyed virtually the entire CIA ME field agents as a pay back by "guess who" Russia for issues inside Iran just after the Revolution, then onto to Syria.

Once you fully understand all of this then go back and fully understand the Sunni Shia clash for the last 1400 years---and then fully understand the "Green Crescent" and what it means to the current Iranian leadership especially to the Iranian Supreme Religious Leader.

When you fully understand all of that then realize that when we arrive in 2003 in Baghdad we walked into a full scale Salafist insurgency against Saddam that had been going on since mid 90s and we the US and Bush knew absolutely nothing about this insurgency. Remember IS is not the only fighting group on the ground in Iraq---it is being supported by the Sunni tribes, and the Sunni coalition that fought us from 2003 to 2010 ie the IAI, the ASA, 1920, JM and then the al Duri first with his NB and now his War Councils.

One wonders why they are militarily so good --check the number of former Sunni Army and ISS officers fighting with the Sunni coalition.

On top of all of this the IS is using their experience gained in swarm attacks used against us from 2005 onwards which if one asks the 1st Cav especially in 2007 they were highly successful at doing.

If you had read my Musings article you would have understood a little about that insurgency and who led it---we were in a full scale Mao defined Phase Two guerrilla war and never realized it---even today the Army runs from that idea and it totally contradicts their COIN victory concept.

Zarqawi arrived in Baghdad in 2002 and linked into that Salafist movement and created then his QIBR, which we renamed AQI and then it morphed into ISIS and now IS after his killing.

This is indeed a Sunni Shia clash and that is what is behind the regional hegemony infighting.

We need to stay out of this clash as far as possible--yes protect the civilian refugees that are on the move, protect the Kurdish regions but allow the Sunni and Shia to finally work this 1400 years out of their systems.

I had a great Kurdish interpreter who had fought in the Iran/Iraq war as a Iraqi Army officer, and at the same time as a Phesmerga intel officer tell me during the ethnic cleansing---Arabs must fight each other so brutally until both are on the floor and can barely move--then and only then will they sit down and work a compromise--we are not there yet in this current cycle.

See AP we started now with the bombing--guess what up to the US air strikes al Baghdadi never voiced the IS desire to strike the US--that was broken when we bombed and now they will strike us and you think AQ was a problem--the IS is AQ on steroids--is gaining massive popularity among European Muslim men and their fighters are reaching a fighting ability that rivals even US standards. AQ was never able to achieve that--by the way most of the other major AQ groups have sworn allegiance to the new Caliphate and al Baghdadi.

It would have helped to have served some time in Iraq and if you had then you would not be stating it has nothing to do with religion.

AP you really do need to fully understand the region of Iraq and Syria and it's relationship to US/Russian politics--or have you recently noticed that instead of assisting the US in seeking a solution in Syria Russia has resisted us at every turn--so again AP notice the linkage back into the Ukraine?

[Firn]

Exodus from the mountain: Yazidis flood into Iraq following U.S. airstrikes

The attacks helped at least some of the Yazidis escape, said Zaim Hassan Harmouch, 66, who said the bombings destroyed the militant positions that had blocked their route out. He led his wife, six sons and seven grandchildren down from the mountain overnight, crossing the border into a Kurdish-held region of Syria and then back into northern Iraq.

“It was because of the planes that we could leave,” he said. “They opened the way.”

The level of IS brutality and it's scale are becoming worse and Maliki is not fiddling but going one step further to conserve his power.

On the military side I think nobody thinks that air strikes alone will stop IS, but maybe they can play an important part the package. With Maliki doing again his best to destroy his country to save himself the US seems to be more open to support a regional factor like the Kurds.

[AmericanPride]

See AP this is exactly why you are so often off base to the point of hanging onto the aged idea of negotiations which is suppose to solve everything.

Where did I state that negotiations "solve everything"?

---but I guess it goes to the fact that you never served in Iraq either in the military or as a civilian.

Really go back and fully understand Khomeini and his Green Crescent expansionism of Shiaism. Go back and fully understand the Iraq/Iran war from 80/88 as an attempt by the Sunni's to reign in that Shia expansionism by Khomeini.

This is indeed a Sunni Shia clash and that is what is behind the regional hegemony infighting.

That schism is really a pretext by superficial Western analysts like yourself to excuse any effort at building a rigorous understanding of the problems of the region and the states within it. And since we've been busy since 2003 implementing a strategy on the basis of this myth, we've helped actually make it a reality. What's behind the regional hegemony infighting is an unstable regional security system heavily penetrated by outside actors (namely the U.S.) complicated by the large concentration of fairly weak states.

I did not state that it has "nothing to do with religion". You should really spend more time investing in your education because if you had, then you would not be mistating other people's comments.

[AmericanPride]

AP you really need to fully understand the region of Iraq and Syria and it's relationship to US/Russian politics--or have noticed that instead of assisting the US in seeking a solution in Syria Russia has resisted us at every turn--so again AP notice the linkage into the Ukraine?

I pointed out weeks ago the linkages in the international system when I asked you repeatedly about the potential consequences for U.S. security if the U.S.-Russian conflict continued to escalate and Russia opted to pursue a strategy as a spoiler. You failed to provide any answers.

[Firn]

Luftbruecke zu den Jeziden, Sinjar, Irak is a video uploaded by Michel Reimon, the Austrian EU parlamentarian and current delegate in Iraw. It has footage from the helicopter operations. He says at the end that no additional missions could be flown due to lack of fuel and that they even had to land away from the starting base. It took him seven hours to come back into his 'clean room', seeing thousends of refugees during the drive.

[AmericanPride]

I can call back up you long list of things the West needed to do that you recommended which read like a mirhond article which he gets into sometimes.

Be my guest.

So there is no linkage as you seem to argue?

You would be once again mistaken since I have made it clear in multiple posts that there are many linkages in the international system; a fact which you have with great effort avoided addressing when I have asked you repeatedly about the potential consequences of continued conflict escalation in the U.S.-Russian relationship.

[OUTLAW 09]

So yes I tend to understand the Sunni Shia clash---you really do need to read the Koran more often and a couple of recent USC books that have hit the market on the Sunni Shia Clash.

Highly recommend one reads the following two books and couple of others on the Muslim Botherhood;

The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr

Wahhabi Islam From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J. Delong-bas