That’s interesting in light of some of what Joshua Landis was saying in a CNN interview yesterday: http://cnn.it/1Ef74tTOriginally Posted by Bill Moore
That’s interesting in light of some of what Joshua Landis was saying in a CNN interview yesterday: http://cnn.it/1Ef74tT
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Another we need a political solution speaker that ignores the reality of human passion and hatred. We'll just draw a line on the map, you guys can have this area, and you guys can have that area. This problem will ultimately be solved weapons and force, and unless ISIL is put under significant more pressure than they are now why would they seek a political solution? Unless they the speaker thinks they're happy with the current boundaries of Caliphate? Does he assume Turkey and Iraq will be content with these proposed boundaries? Iran? Seems overly simplistic to me.
I understood him to suggest Turkey as contributing substantially to the “weapons and force” part of the equation.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
I was doing dishes the first time I listened, and this time I heard "we need to drag the Turks into this to disarm them and establish a good government." Paraphrased, but close to what he said I believe.
Staying in my grumpy and defiant mood, what are the chances Turkey wants to do this? Are they capable of helping them establishing a good government? Why wouldn't Turkey continue to arm the Sunni Syrians to finish off Assad's regime? Granted he is a regional expert, but it all seems out of the reach of reality to me.
From my on the fly transcription:
[3:13] What one would have to do if they wanted to solve this problem, and not just make a narrow counter-terrorism approach to it, would be to try to draw the Turks into Syria with Saudi, American backing, and NATO backing, to try to disarm the militias and set up a government that was a good government, that everybody could get behind and pour money into for development […]First question: You got me. Almost none at the moment? The chances might go up with a few third party incentives and 5–10 more years of the current status quo.
Second question: A completely fair point. I think you can see what Landis is trying to get at when at 5:08 he discusses the need to realize that a de facto Sunni state has already been created. I think the Western government in a box + aid money approach that has been attempted in Afghanistan is almost certain to fail, too. But maybe a neighbor with longer term interests and a better understanding of the dynamics would stand a better chance. Emphasis on maybe.
Third question: Also fair. The counterweight of Iranian support for Assad?
Landis is putting it out there. For all I know he is playing Devil’s advocate, saying, “If you think what I am saying sounds out of reach of reality…”
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Just published new security report for first week of Nov. 2014 in Iraq. Attacks remained relatively low but casualties took a jump due to IS massacres of Albu Nimr tribe in Anbar. Fighting in Anbar has hit a stalemate. IS went after Shiite pilgrims with car bombs in Baghdad. ISF and militias consolidating hold upon Jurf al-Sakhr in Babil while IS has relocated just to the north of it. ISF also on offensive in Salahaddin trying to surround Tikrit and cut off IS units there from their supply lines. Here's a link to the article.
Iran has followed almost the same strategy in Syria and Iraq. Tehran did not trust the Syrian military to put down the protests in 2011 and the ISF was disintegrating after the fall of Mosul in 2014. With the unreliability of the government forces Iran pushed to using militias. In Syria Iran advised and helped create the Shabiha, the Popular Committees and then the National Defense Force. As the fighting intensified it also brought in its militia allies from Syria. It advised the Syrians at the strategic and tactical level and sent in thousands of its own fighters into Syria as well as using Hezbollah for advising and combat operations. Similarly in Iraq Iran sent in advisers to form strategy as well as at the tactical level. Jan 2014 Iraqi militias were starting mobilization for fighting in Iraq and have become the backbone of the defense forces. Many brought back their fighters from Syria for deployment to Iraq. Hezbollah is also operating as advisers in Iraq. Iran wants Damascus and Baghdad to defeat their insurgencies and to increase its influence which it has exponentially done as it is seen as THE key ally supporting the home governments. In Iraq there is an additional goal which is to make sure Iraq does not emerge as a powerful state again, because it doesn't want that rivalry reborn as it was during the Saddam era. Tehran has far greater ability to make sure Iraq doesn't come out of this war a strong country now than ever before. Here's my complete article on the topic.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks