Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Ray]

Cited in part:

The cited source is to say the least odd. I recently came across an article regarding Africa and it was simply wrong, if not stupid. So I would disregard it.

I would believe what you say.

But the events confuse me.

You all are close to the event since you are in the US, some in contact with your think tanks and the Administration and many who have been in Iraq and aware of the ground situation.

I do not have that advantage.

What befuddles me is that

1. this article on the Caliphate.

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/...r-john-mccain/

That said, it is worrisome when there is reports that McCain has met AQ in Syria and while we are influenced by western media, we also have to have a more non partisan views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVZ6B5HvGCo

The world is really going crazy!

Honestly what is going on?

[Ray]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

[OUTLAW 09]

A really good article worth the read on how we came to saddle ourselves with Malaki by the US official that pushed Malaki and how he tried to get the US to distance itself from him in 2010.

why he is writing this now inside of once a year since 2011 I cannot understand ---after thoughts are our worst enemy these days--we the US simply do not do hindsight well.

Really worth it to read it and then go back and do some open source research on WH media comments over the same period 2006 to 2010 on their support to Malaki.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9f1_story.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

Ray,

My beliefs are not based on political correctness, they are based on personal experience and studying human nature.

Human nature is universal, at least among humans. Belief systems are conditional, a combination of resource availability and history.

Besides, history of the ME demonstrates the divisions exist and they can be manipulated, as long as you do not try to ultimately control the territory. Boots on the ground is a bad idea, but allying yourself with one subgroup or another can be advantageous for both parties. The problem is usually not them, it is our arrogance and feeling of superiority - that we are somehow genetically better than the Arabs or Persians. Again, not political correctness, just a realization of the faults in our own human nature and how they influence us to see threats when we should be looking for opportunities.

And as long as we are on the subject, lets examine this statement:

"But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them."

Interesting, because if we are going to use pride and the propensity to think of the world as their playground then the biggest threat to world peace is ... Great Britain, which has invaded 9 out of every 10 countries on the planet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...uxembourg.html. The United States, about 70. http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm. Compare that the the ominous threat of China. If you go back to the 12th century, you will see that they have a total of perhaps twenty five countries, only ten or so in recent times. http://www.quora.com/China/How-many-...in-its-history.

[davidbfpo]

Always interesting to read how Israeli intelligence, in this case Mossad, see their potential enemies. Hat tip to Bruce Hoffman on Twitter, citing an article in today's Haaretz by the Head of Mossad on IS/ISIS in:

This organization is here to stay. Hamas is a lightweight organization by comparison

The actual article is behind a paywall. Here is a little I assume he said on other threats:

The biggest threat to Israel’s security is the conflict with the Palestinians and not Iran’s nuclear program, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said Thursday at a meeting at a private home attended by 30 businesspeople.

Link:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.603249

[davidbfpo]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/t...ted-caliphate/

It ends with:

The bottom line is that business in the jihadi world will largely continue as usual after the declaration. Over time, the new caliphate will come to be seen as just another militant group, albeit a very presumptuous one. In the meantime, it is probably wise for Western governments to let the internal jihadi debate run its course. Premature military intervention will give the caliphate a jump start it does not deserve.

[Bill Moore]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/t...ted-caliphate/

It ends with:

After reading this I reviewed some other papers, and listened to a talk, by Dr. Hegghammer. The general theme of his message is his increasing uncertainty, so at best he is sharing some random thoughts on potential directions that ISIS (or IS) could evolve in. I think it is a bit of pipedream to believe, or hope, it will remain a localized terrorist or jihadi movement. The number of foreign fighters and stated ambitions indicate they have wider aspirations. The question is do they have the capability? His recommendation of not intervening at this time is based on a logic bias of not acting without better information, which is usually good advice, but in this situation I'm not so sure that caution is the best answer. On the other hand, if there was an opportunity to prevent or reduce this situation in the first place it is long past, so holding off on intervention, if required, may be the best answer. In either case (intervention or not), we can only speculate on the possible outcomes. We won't know the result of taking or not taking action until we watch the situation unfold, and then we still risk attribution error (e.g. our intervention or lack there of is what caused X to happen).

Dr. Hegghammer certainly doesn't dismiss the potential of high rates of terrorists returning home and staying active after their adventure in Syria and Iraq ends. There is certainly a history of it after AQ and other jihadists left Afghanistan. JI in Indonesia, ASG in the Philippines, and others throughout Africa and the Middle East. It would be a mistake to confuse the percentage of foreign fighters that remain active combatants when they return home with the risk they pose to their home countries. Even if a paltry 2% remained active, that is enough to form terrorist cells, train new recruits, and conduct sophisticated attacks. In the West, at least in the forseeable future, we don't have to worry about large scale mobilization of Muslims into the Jihad (like we see in Syria and Iraq), we have to worry about London bus bombings, the Madrid train bombing, hijacking and/or blowing up civilian aircraft, individuals conducting small scale acts of terrorism. Any of these events will result in a media frenzy and force a reaction by our governments that is disproportionate to the scale of attack we suffer.

So whether a low or high number seek to conduct attacks outside the current Caliphate (notional), ISIS will not remain focused on just Iraq and Syria, they'll focus on the broader the Middle East, which does threaten our interests, and some will have aspirations to target the West. Did al-Qaeda or Lebanese Hezbollah restrict their attacks to the local area of jihad? Absolutely not, so why would we expect ISIS with their large number of foreign fighters to do the same?

I do think throwing a large number of Western troops into the fray would backfire on us in many ways, but active support of the Iraqi Army to get them back in the fight, and possibly providing fire support and precision targeting is an option worth implementing sooner rather than later. I'm very much undecided at this point, and I'm of the belief we have a choice of bad and less bad options at this point.

[Bill Moore]

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA...T-20130718.pdf

The Future of Anti-Western Jihadism

I have been doing academic research on al-Qaida since before 9/11, and never has the future of the jihadi movement seemed more unpredictable to my eyes than now. Still, for this testimony I have decided to look ahead and speculate about the long-term future of al-Qaida.

First, it is my assessment that we are past the peak of organized jihadi terrorism in the West. Al-Qaida Core is weak and most affiliates are not systematically targeting the US homeland.

My second and more pessimistic point is that the jihadi movement writ large is thriving and will be with us for another decade at least.

My third point, which is more of a guess, is that I expect a “second wave” of serious plots in the West some 4-6 years down the line.

[Dayuhan]

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

The "banner of Freedom and Democracy" is not intended to stabilize the targets of intervention, it's intended to make intervention acceptable to the American domestic audience. This is one of the stronger reasons for the US to avoid "regime change" where possible: the requirements of the domestic audience are too restrictive too allow realistic post regime change action.

I don't know that drones or anything else the US can send are going to stabilize Iraq. The construct we call "Iraq" is inherently unstable; either it's held together by force under a dictator or it falls apart.

And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/...r-john-mccain/

That's only a "bombshell" if it's corroborated by reliable sources. Lot of nonsense on the internet, have to be skeptical of everything we read.