Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Bob's World]

I don't know how many times reality needs to validate the inherent fallacy of "Building Partner Capacity" as adopted in recent years by the US Military.

We are not the British Colonial Office, we are not seeking to secure the British Empire; and it is not 1914 - yet we pursue this line of illogic as if all those things were true.

We should focus on developing our own understanding, relationships and influence among the populations, governments and places where our truly vital interests manifest most. And then we need to learn to accept a degree of risk in terms of who might rise to power in those places in any particular time, or what form of governance might be employed for some period as well. So long as we are in a position of understanding and influence we are unlikely to be overly put out by any temporary rise of some brand of governance that offends our idea of what right looks like.

But in an era where people and countries everywhere are working to be more like themselves, it is an unwise to invest in security capabilities and capacities that are intended to conform them to US perspectives and interests.

It is time to move on to a better model, one more attuned to the world as it actually exists, rather than one attuned for a world long relegated to the annals of history.

[omarali50]

The ANSF does not have to be next. The US does not make the SAME mistake everywhere...the biggest mistake would be to think that everything is the same.
In Afghanistan, the US supported regime and its army are both viable. They have been badly served by many US mistakes and they have thdir own weaknesses, but none that are necessarily fatal. The mistake here would be to dump them because the mess in the middle east proves the US did nothing right...

[omarali50]

In Iraq and Syria, the US made almost every wrong assumption possible and continues to make new ones. The most rational strategy there would be to support the Kurds with US taxpayer's footing the bill, to help defend the oil kingdoms and Jordan with THEM footing the bill and publicly asking for and defending that assistance, and to let the rest find their own way. Iran can defend Shia Iraq and Alawite Syria, maybe with Russian help. Turkey can stew in its own BS while being kept out of Kurdistan by the US.
Nothing like this will happen of course...I am just saying that would be somewhat rational.

[CrowBat]

Few points here:

1.) Afghanistan: the US went in there and cleaned up the Taliban, back in 2002-2003, which was 'all nice and fine' - but de-facto 'curing effects of disease, not the disease itself'. Nothing was done about Pakistan, and nothing about primary supporters of Wahhabism. And where is Wahhabism an official state religion...?

(Connect the dots for yourself.)

And to make matters worse: the US then de-facto forgot about this war and started the Iraq-quagmire instead.

What a surprise then, the Taliban 'are back'. How could that happen...?

2.) Iraq: yes, the US did really everything wrong there. But what's worse, Obama seems to be so insistent on building-up and expanding Bush Jr's mistakes... I really have a huge problem believing what kind of nonsense is he doing there.

Result: given there is not a word of complaint from Tehran about Shi'a ethnically cleansing Sunnis from areas still under Baghdad control (actually: being more busy with this than fighting the Daesh), I would say Iranians are perfectly happy with having a better part of Iraq delivered under their control. That said, they were already in economic control of much of it before, but now they're going to establish themselves so firmly there, there will be no way to do anything in Iraq without consent from Tehran.

But hey, Obama says Iran is fighting the Daesh and that's making even such terrorists like the IRGC, and such Islamist fanatics like their Shi'a militias from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere...'friends'...?!?

3.) Syria: ....sigh... what I find as amazing as Obama's insistent failures in Iraq, is not only the US, but general Western ignorance of the fact that the Assadist regime there is now completely dependent on Tehran. Nobody cares about the fact that two organizations from FBI's list of 'terrorist organizations' - namely the IRGC and Hezbollah - are in charge of regime's military and intelligence apparatus, nor that this apparatus now consists of IRGC/Basiji-like mix of militias (half of these non-Syrian) and little more but gangs of criminals that are using chemical weapons as they like.

But, 'who cares', eh? Saving Iranian-controlled parts of Iraq is so much more important...?!?

Why? Because 'Iraqi government is US-friendly'....?

4.) Kurds: oh yeah, but sure, lets support Kurds, they're the 'good' ones, they're laicist, and pluralist, and inclusive and thus 'unlike all the Moslems that are all terrorists'.

Hey, has anybody there beyond the great barn realized that:

- a) Kurds are fighting for their own, Kurdish state only, not for the USA, not for a unified Iraq, nor for anybody else?

- b) majority of Kurds are Moslems?

- c) nearly a third of Daesh is consisting of Kurds?

- d) none of major Kurdish 'political' parties is 'pluralist', and they act as 'inclusive' only for show?

- e) half of various important Kurdish groups are considered 'terrorists' not only by the USA, but by Turkey, Iran, even Iraq etc.?

5.) Sunni Arabs: the US politics in the Middle East already proved costly for local Christians and other minorities. Now it's proving exceptionally costly for supposedly major 'Arab' allies of the USA - the Sunnis.

But hey: no problem. Keep on teaching Sunnis that they're incompatible with democracy, pluralism, and non-inclusive, and that they should stick with their police-kingdoms. Because these are maintaining control of their population with help of brutal oppression and extremist religion.

All of this is 'perfectly rational', of course - as long as it's for the sake of oil: who cares if the latter is meanwhile hardly interesting for anybody else but for China, India and Japan...

[AmericanPride]

But hey: no problem. Keep on teaching Sunnis that they're incompatible with democracy, pluralism, and non-inclusive, and that they should stick with their police-kingdoms. Because these are maintaining control of their population with help of brutal oppression and extremist religion.

Just FYI, from the Washington Post: Saudi sentences iconic Shiite cleric to death

“I think the message that Saudis are saying is: ‘We will arrest anybody. We don’t care how high profile they are. ... nobody is above this. We don’t have any tolerance. We don’t have any flexibility,’” Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle said.