Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Bob's World]

Well, as a casual observer, a few things seem logical/likely to me:

1. The Obama administration seems to have wisely determined that the artificial, temporary stability achieved in Iraq under the original plan was neither durable, nor anything we could hope to artificially sustain at reasonable costs. Besides, to what benefit?

2. Concern about the de facto shift in the Shia-Sunni line of competition; moving it from the Iraq-Iran border to the borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; it made sense to back the Saudi scheme of pushing that line back up into Iraq.

3. By providing aid to any Sunni rebel group in Syria we essentially made that aid available to every Sunni rebel group in Syria and Iraq. I imagine the leadership in KSA and DC rationalize that providing aid that helps groups like AQ and ISIS today is ok while we share common interests and objectives - and that we will be able to deal with whatever consequences come from that later once those interests and objectives once more naturally diverge. I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.

4. Lastly, while there are risks to this approach, it is way more feasible, acceptable, suitable and complete than any idea of simply roaring back into Iraq with a large American presence and forcing the old, infeasible, unacceptable, unsuitable, incomplete solution we tried before to finally work.

The bottom line is that one cannot attain any sort of natural stability within any system of governance until one can get to some reasonable degree of trust between the parties within that system. How does one get to trust in modern Iraq or Syria within the confines of those clumsy colonial borders? I don't think one can. A strong leader like Saddam could force an artificial stability (like exists within prisons...), but that is not anything we can create or facilitate. And frankly, even the Saddams, Titos, Stalins, Mubaraks, etc of the modern era find a much more difficult challenge that their preceding role models in the current strategic environment where people are so connected and informed.

I know this will be messy, but I for one, am optimistic that it might actually produce a reasonably durable result that is not overly branded with US ownership.

[Ray]

I was listening to a programme on Indian TV on Indian hostages in ISIS area.

An Arab journalist mentioned the Caliphate Project.

I googled and came up with this:

The Islamic State, the “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”

While the US State Department is accusing several countries of “harboring terrorists”, America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) –which operates in both Syria and Iraq– is covertly supported and financed by the US and its allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Moreover, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan, among others.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isl...rorism/5389530

What is the credibility of this?

US Senator McCain meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi today. Google indicates links that indicates that McCain has contacts with the AQ and Syrian rebels. This is the first time I heard of this and the Caliphate Project.

One wonders why McCain came to India.

Lots of speculation is rife out here.

Can anyone throw some light and clear the air?

[JWing]

Here's my latest article " Insurgent Offensive Wreaks Havoc Across Central Iraq In June 2014". Comprehensive province by province breakdown of violence in Iraq in June.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am beginning to believe that it is in the long term interests of the U.S. to NOT actively fight ISIL or the creation of the “Caliphate” but, instead, to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.

It weakens Syria. It will weaken ISIL once the internal fights for actual control over the Caliphate begin (it could even destroy it). It weakens Iran’s “control” over the territory that is currently Iraq. It allows for the creation of a Kurdish state – one which I personally believe we can align with fairly easily. It creates states that will have populations who are more likely to trust each other. It corrects colonial era mistakes. Plus all those points COL Jones makes ... and if ISIL ends up in contrl of the Caliphate they are then a much easier target for a Saudi backed insurgency as well as a traditional military invasion.

Of course, as Outlaw notes, it can open the door to the idea that there is now a new International Norm, one that allow for any group to declare their independence and draw new borders, but that will probably happen anyway. We now have an opportunity to create mechanisms in the UN to allow this to happen in an orderly fashion … so … of course, that will never happen.

[JWing]

Outlaw

Still nothing definitive about how many fighters IS has or the wider insurgency in Iraq. One number that's been thrown around is that IS has 10,000 fighters in both Syria and Iraq, another is 3,000-5,000 fighters just in Iraq. Who knows what the real figure is. Plus no one has anything on other insurgent groups just where they operate.

[davidbfpo]

Cited in part:

:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isl...rorism/5389530

What is the credibility of this? Can anyone throw some light and clear the air?

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.

[davidbfpo]

Bob's World referred in part to:

I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.

TheCurmudgeon referred to:

...to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.

The concept of moderation in Islam comes from wishful thinking within Western governments, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows what a 'moderate' Muslim is. Indeed in the UK being called a 'moderate' Muslim can reduce your credibility.

Then there is the suggestion that the policy of the KSA will 'ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control'. For a very long time the KSA, both officially and privately, has sponsored one particular school of thought within Islam which is not known for making compromises. Let alone the funding of fundamental groups, which use violence to gain control, as we have seen in Syria.

[Maeda Toshiie]

On the topic of KSA. As far as I am aware, the ruling class are not true believers of Wahhabism; instead they use it as a means to placate the clergy and the masses (ie giving them more religion). While actual funding of jihadist groups do not necessarily originate from the al Sauds, they are complicit. I find a parallel to be drawn with respect to Pakistan's use of the Taliban in meddling the affairs of Afghanistan. The Taliban has shown itself to be capable of defying their "masters". I'm waiting to see the same happen in KSA.



@JMA

Reversing Crimea requires a lot of pain on the EU side, not the US. Boots on the ground was and is out of question, since it was clear that Russian troops was on the ground. The Ukrainian Army can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone Russian contract troops. The only possible leverage was economic, by implementing the entire spectrum of sanctions against the Russians. The Russians will invariably retaliate by turning off the gas supply to the EU, which is the great pain that EU will not endure.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bob's World referred in part to:

TheCurmudgeon referred to:

The concept of moderation in Islam comes from wishful thinking within Western governments, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows what a 'moderate' Muslim is. Indeed in the UK being called a 'moderate' Muslim can reduce your credibility.

Then there is the suggestion that the policy of the KSA will 'ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control'. For a very long time the KSA, both officially and privately, has sponsored one particular school of thought within Islam which is not known for making compromises. Let alone the funding of fundamental groups, which use violence to gain control, as we have seen in Syria.

I guess I would define moderate as "a Muslim who does not feel the need to kill Westerners on sight."

I have met Muslims in both Iraq and Afghanistan who I would considerate moderate. They do not feel that Shiria law was unbending or that peaceful relations with others, even others who were not "people of the book" could be advantagous for both parties. They were pragmatists. So I believe they do exist.

We have managed to maintain relationships with KSA for quite some time, so I am fairly certain that such a relationship is possible. I can't say what would happen if the house of Saud were to fall, but I would like to think that it would spell the end of having a "moderate" government in the ME.

[OUTLAW 09]

The move Malaki is making towards the moderate Sunni will not be working as it is far to late and the Sunni will see the move as an attempt to retain his power.


BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki offered a general amnesty Wednesday in a rare conciliatory move to undercut support for militants whose offensive has overrun swathes of territory and threatens to tear Iraq apart.
The offer comes after a farcical opening to the new Parliament, despite international leaders urging Iraq’s fractious politicians to unite to help combat insurgents, as the military struggles to seize the initiative on the ground.
International leaders have warned Iraq’s politicians there was no time to waste, while the head of a powerful jihadi group that led the militant advance urged skilled professionals to flock to help its newly proclaimed pan-Islamic state.
Al-Maliki’s surprise move, made in his weekly televised address, appeared to be a bid to split the broad alliance of jihadis, loyalists of executed dictator Saddam Hussein and anti-government tribes that has captured large chunks of five provinces, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
“I announce the provision of amnesty for all tribes and all people who were involved in actions against the state” but who now “return to their senses,” excluding those involved in killings, Al-Maliki said.
It was not immediately clear how many people the amnesty could affect, but analysts have said some form of political reconciliation will be necessary to convince Sunni Arabs angry with the Shiite-led government to turn against their co-religionists and jihadis.
The vast majority of Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority do not actively support the Islamic State group spearheading the offensive, but analysts say anger over perceived mistreatment by the authorities means they are less likely to cooperate with the security forces.
Meanwhile, a BBC report based on strong evidence said that Iran has supplied Iraq with attack jets.
Russia supplied an initial delivery of the aircraft just a few days ago.
But analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said that a further delivery, on 1 July, originated from Iran.

[OUTLAW 09]

If one reads this article from WaPo today DoD is setting the stage to send US combat troops back into Iraq although the 750 already there have been defined as "advisors" another VN buzz word for combat troops so the WH/Obama has already violated the statement "no boots on the ground".

Iraqi security forces are probably incapable of retaking large swaths of territory seized by Sunni insurgents in recent weeks without outside help, the Pentagon’s top leaders said Thursday as they sketched a bleak assessment of turmoil in the country.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference that U.S. commanders are still considering what potential military courses of action they will recommend to the White House and that it remains unclear whether U.S. troops will take a more active role in the conflict. But they said any further U.S. involvement would hinge on Iraq’s ability to overcome deep-seated political and sectarian fissures and form a national-unity government.

Dempsey said the Iraqi army had “stiffened” its resistance to a fast-moving insurgency led by the Sunni fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has renamed itself Islamic State and declared a caliphate on captured territory. He said government forces were “capable of defending Baghdad” but added that they would be challenged to go on the offensive without external support.

Dempsey said the U.S. government was contemplating the possibility of airstrikes, as well as providing help beyond what is being provided by about 750 U.S. military advisers and other troops that have deployed to Iraq in recent weeks “What will we be willing to contribute to that cause?” he said. “That’s not a question that we’re prepared to answer just yet.”

The answer, he added, would depend on political developments in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has alienated Sunnis, Kurds and other groups, and it is unclear whether he can muster the votes in parliament to win a third term. If Iraq is unable to form a new government that can draw support from all factions, “then the future’s pretty bleak,” Dempsey said.

Hagel and Dempsey sidestepped questions about whether the Obama administration might send more troops to Iraq, what they will do and how long they might stay there.

The defense secretary said, “President Obama has been very clear that American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.” But when asked how that could be the case if Obama orders airstrikes in Iraq — which probably would be guided by U.S. forces on the ground — Hagel said he was referring only to the U.S. advisers and assessment teams now in the country and acknowledged that their mission could change.

“We have one mission today, and that’s assessments,” Hagel said. “I don’t know what the assessments are going to come back and say or what they would recommend.”

On June 18, during testimony before Congress, Hagel and Dempsey downplayed the possibility of a U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq to weaken the terrorist organization. They questioned the strategic objectives of airstrikes and said Sunni insurgents had blended into the local population, raising the likelihood of civilian casualties.

On Thursday, Dempsey said intensified surveillance flights and the deployment of U.S. advisers and liaison officers had improved the Pentagon’s grasp of the battlefield. But he added that it was still difficult to sort out hard-core Islamic State fighters from disaffected Sunnis opposed to Maliki’s rule.

“We have a much better intelligence picture than we did two weeks ago, and it continues to get better,” Dempsey said. “The complexity, though, is the intermingling of [Sunni] groups. . . . And that’s going to be a tough challenge to separate the two........

[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

[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.