Page 12 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 1150

Thread: Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

  1. #221
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Here's my latest piece

    The Islamic State of Iraq Attempts To Create A State in Syria And Iraq Interview With Aaron Zelin

    Aaron Zelin is from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and I discussed with him how ISIS has tried to set up a proto-state in Syria and is now doing the same in Mosul

  2. #222
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
    AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore
    With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments.
    From a structural perspective, the name of the organization is really a matter of semantics. The protracted popular war (PPW) as a model I think is applicable regardless of its origins in Maoist political theory. The value in communist theory is not its ideologically prescriptions for the ills of capitalism, but it's rigorous dialectical materialism which divorces analysis from the subjective normative values that so often cloud assessments. The Islamist movement was born in its current iteration in 1979 - the Iranian Revolution, the attack on the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We are witnessing today the culmination of an escalating series of events which trace their roots directly to those three events.

    That said, I do agree with TC (and with the COIN FM) that the 'insurgency' is most vulnerable when transitioning from one phase of conflict to the next. I do not think ISIS is incapable of governing in the most broad and basic sense - that is, to monopolize violence in its territory and to extract rent from the population. As another poster stated, they have done that already in Syria. Fundamentalist movements have been successful in those basic tasks in Iran (1979), Afghanistan (1996), and Saudi Arabia (~1924). I have no illusions that ISIS will somehow form a Westphalian, bureaucratic, complex state. That's not in their politics.

    Here's what we know: the ISIS is well-organized, relatively well-armed, apparently relatively well-disciplined, and flush in cash. The question is how they will translate that into sustainable political power. There are clearly undercurrents we are not observing given their ability to mount a Tet-like surprise offensive across northern Iraq in a matter of days. Who are their power-brokers and stake-holders? Does ISIS have a state-sponsor (looking at you Saudi Arabia)? Overt intervention by Iran and/or the United States could degrade their material capabilities but probably add to their political and ideological legitimacy. After all, it was the original US invasion of Iraq that spurred their growth and consolidation in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slapout
    Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?
    Why can't it be both?

    From a US perspective, we should be considering what this change means in the security dynamics of the region. The weakened Syrian and Iraqi governments are displaced by violent, fundamentalist movements - that's not a coincidence after 35 years of violence in the region and the total delegitimization of the secular regimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray
    The root of the issues?
    Boundary issues are pretexts for conflict, not cause of conflict in themselves. How many peaceful border disputes exist elsewhere? Since 1979 there has been a gradual regime change in the politics of the region - from the secular Arab nationalists to the religious fundamentalists. This is compounded by the competing fundamentalisms of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and US penetration of the region with its odd couple allies in Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; none of which presently constituted make for 'natural' alliances with one another. ISIS is the culmination of the escalating religious fanaticism, the degeneration of governance and legitimacy, and the proliferation of weapons and cash. With every state failure and war, where do the weapons go? Say Iraq beats back the ISIS offensive or the Syrian government makes peace with its secular opponents, where do the insurgents migrate then? The PLO was a similar problem after being expelled first from Palestine and Jordan, making their way to Lebanon and Syria and contributing to the civil war in the former country.

    I disagree that this is a Shia/Sunni issue - it is that issue superficially, but as a pretext. The root cause is political; the way power is organized and distributed in the countries and region in question. Resistance movements - secular, religious, whatever - will continue to emerge in the Middle East until those political problems are solved. Some groups like ISIS are apparently more successful than others. It doesn't have to be that way.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  3. #223
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Thanks, It has a pretty detailed history of Al Baghdadi. If it is to be trusted then ISIL rapid advance into IRAQ is less a matter of military prowess and more a matter of home turf advantage. It was most of the key players old stomping grounds. His second in command is a former Iraq Army Officer. They knew who to trust and who not to.

    If accurate, then they will have trouble extending influence beyond that territory. I can't say how many Sunni's will follow them willingly - how much of the traditionally Sunni territory they can maintain. We will see.
    In my 18 months of dueling against them on the intel side and talking with the Sunni insurgents individually for literally hours and having to really learn their thinking and the reasons behind the why just to talk with them---one thing that stuck me while we in the rest west assume they are aggressive, brutal, and "crazies" BUT if one takes the time to fully understand their logic built on the Koran and how it affects their daily lives and their outlook on politics they are not so "crazy". But one has to put one's preconceptions, biases, religion behind one's self---but working within a system that does not allow for private opinions even in the face of reality on the ground-- since I have left that world the world actually makes sense.

    The ISIS and the other major Sunni insurgent groups do not really want to takeover Iraq--but they do want to punish Baghdad along the way---they understand the numerical differences since Saddams' fall--what they want is a piece of Iraq that they can rule as their Sunni piece and they wanted a part of the oil revenue sharing as well as power sharing. They learned from their 2005 refusal to vote and in 2010 came out in strength and supported a secular Shia who won and we the West refused to push Malaki out the door---our mistake not the Sunni's. When Malaki drove over their protest camp in December 2013 and killed Sunni's the West meaning we the US did not lift a finger.

    The Sunni's via their "Awakening" ---not our "Awakening" took on AQI and pushed them out and what did they get? Nothing for their efforts. Did they get officer positions in the Iraqi Army of Security Forces---no in fact they were driven out, were their politicians respected--no driven out under charges of being "terrorists", did the Bremer passed anti Baathist law get rescinded which we the US indicated would happen for the "Awakening"?-No.

    What you see now is a unified to a large degree of Sunni's across the board who are revolting against the Shia Malaki and against the US who they view as actually supporting Malaki and not following through on their promises.

    Now comes the hard part--if in an attempt to rein in ISIS the Shia via Iran will be attacking other Sunni groups along the way and with the memories of ethnic cleansing of 2006-2008 in the back of their minds--this reinforces then the Sunni and then watch how the sidelines of the KSA, Jordan, the Gulf Sunni states get involved---there is a certain automatism then in gear.

    The core question is this what ISIS wants as they inherited Zarqawi's ideas and he was pushing for a Holy War? Or do they really believe they only want a Caliphate that is the Sunni triangle and the Sunni areas in Syria---are they content with that---am not so sure as the Salafists/Takfiri's have a complete hatred of the Shia again based on their reading of the Koran.

    On top of this the Kurds are attempting to finally get the additional territory they were pushed back from in 2011 in the current turmoil.

    My question is where are the political types and the political pundits who drove this mess into the ground in 2003?---they never paid any price for their mistakes but those that "believed" them suffered, lost, and will never be quite the same---and now they are coming out of the woodwork again with the same arguments.

    They will never admit they have set the ME on fire for years to come.
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 06-17-2014 at 06:16 PM.

  4. #224
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Ray, IMHO there is too much political correctness which is used as a cheap means of censorship. Like in the US any criticism of Obama is written off as racist.

    You referred earlier to the Wolfowitz Doctrine which if you take the Wikipedia article at face value is a direct example of how by sanitising the wording all meaning is lost.

    See here: Wolfowitz Doctrine

    The example of the Russian threat.

    First draft wording:



    All meaning lost in final draft:



    The world worries that the two countries that have the ability to destroy the earth have such unstable and incompetent leadership... and damn right too.

    .
    I have read the Defence Policy Guidelines, along with the National Economic Policy, both during Cheney's time as Secretary of Defence..

    I used Wiki since I could not find that.

    I am also aware that when that Policy got leaked, then a politically correct document was manufactured.

  5. #225
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Boundary issues are pretexts for conflict, not cause of conflict in themselves. How many peaceful border disputes exist elsewhere?
    Coming from a nation where the boundaries were arbitrarily chalked out and in areas the boundaries kept vague, and where there were religious divisions that festers, I understand what it is to be a victim of such machinations , if you will.

    I also understand sectarian divides which are inflammable at the slightest pretext like the Shia Sunni divide, which we used to encounter regularly every Mohurrum. Luckily, with education and strict control, it appears to have become a thing of the past, even though there still is some space wherein it can still erupt.

    And since I live in a country which is the said to have the second/ third largest Muslim population and living cheek by jowl, I have a fair idea of how the Muslims tick. And it is not theoretical or opinion acquired from a distance or opinion acquired through forced condescension of a situation thrust on one.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-17-2014 at 06:17 PM.

  6. #226
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    In my 18 months of dueling against them on the intel side and talking with the Sunni insurgents individually for literally hours and having to really learn their thinking and the reasons behind the why just to talk with them---one thing that stuck me while we in the rest west assume they are aggressive, brutal, and "crazies" if one takes the time to fully understand their logic built on the Koran and how it affects their daily lives and their outlook on politics they are not so "crazy". But one has to put one's preconceptions, biases, religion behind one's self---but working within a system that does not allow for private opinions since I have left that world --the world actually makes sense.

    The ISIS and the other major Sunni insurgent groups do not really want to takeover Iraq---they understand the numerical differences since Saddams fall--what they want is a piece of Iraq that they can rule as their Sunni piece and they wanted a part of the oil revenue sharing as well as power sharing. They learned from their 2005 refusal to vote and in 2010 came out in strength and supported a secular Shia who won and we the West refused to push Malaki out the door---our mistake not the Sunni's.

    The Sunni's via their Awakening ---not our Awakening took on AQI and pushed them out and what did they get? Nothing for their efforts.

    What you see now is a unified to a large degree Sunni's across the board who are revolting against the Shia Malaki. and against the US who they view as actually supporting Malaki and not following through on their promises.

    Now comes the hard part--if in an attempt to rein in ISIS the Shia via Iran will be attacking other Sunni groups along the way and with the memories of ethnic cleansing of 2006-2008 in the back of their minds--this reinforces then the Sunni and then watch how the sidelines of the KSA, Jordan, the Gulf Sunni states get involved---there is a certain automatism then in gear.

    The core question is this what ISIS wants as they inherited Zarqawi's ideas and he was pushing for a Holy War? Or do they really believe they only want a Caliphate that is the Sunni triangle and the Sunni areas in Syria---are they content with that---am not so sure.

    On top of this the Kurds are attempting to finally get the additional territory they were pushed back from in 2011 in the current turmoil.
    I understand the collectivist mindset and the way they think. And to be honest, the religious bent is really not that different from the Right Wing Religious groups here in the states. Their religious beliefs are guiding principles in their lives and they feel that they should be the foundation of all law. It is not really that hard to understand, groups like ISIS just taken to the extreme.

    From what I can tell ISIS is a group that takes orders from no country. They have managed to provide their own funding through various criminal enterprises, so they are beholden to no one. While it is too early to tell, it would seem that their aims are limited to the Sunni sections of Syria and Iraq. They do not want a holy war, they want their own State. The question is can they really make it work? It is one thing to let slip the dogs of war, particularly a war built on so deep and personal a belief system as religion. It is another to rein those dogs in.

    I don't think we should get on the side of Maliki. I personnaly believe that we should find a moderate Sunni and back him. Then once we have routed ISIS, let him keep the territory as a seperate state. Let the Kurds have their state. Let the Shiite have theirs. Disolve Iraq. I don't see any other way to keep these groups from doing this again in a year. From what I can tell they have been doing this since Iraq's inception as a nation.

    I keep thinking that we learned the wrong lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union: Let me offer a short alternative history. It is 1989 and the Soviet Union stands on the verge of collapse. In fear of the chaos and devastation the internal collapse of a nuclear power might yield, the United Nations with Yeltzin’s consent puts together a Peacekeeping force to help stabilize the situation. The mandate includes installing a democratic state while maintaining the Soviet Union’s territorial integrity. Initially things go well but over time it becomes clear that power sharing is problematic. Elections yield a Russian President that Georgians and Ukrainians don’t trust. The voices of moderates are drowned out by sectarian ultranationalists who begin terrorist campaigns to break away from central control. And while the peacekeepers do their best to keep order, and the politicians argue that they key is democratic reforms and greater power sharing, the country falls into the exact chaos the peacekeepers were sent to forestall. Sound impossible? I would turn your attention to the former Yugoslavia. The real history is much more pleasant. The Soviet Union peacefully dissolved into fifteen separate states along traditional ethnic and historic lines. But it might have been different if we foolishly tried to hold together a country that did not view itself as a single sovereign territory. I think that is the foolish mistake we are making in Iraq.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 06-17-2014 at 06:21 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  7. #227
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Ray,

    I think resolving the boundary questions would go a long way in removing the pretext for conflict in the Middle East, but it would only displace the violence onto some other pretext; much the same way that destroying the legitimacy of the secular Arab nationalists promoted the emergence of Islamism. Violence will always find its outlet unless the actual root causes of violence are addressed. I don't think boundary changes in the Middle East will suffice - not to mention all the other legal, ethical, economic, and political problems that would emerge from such a transformation.

    Why do groups like ISIS form? Is it because of misdrawn boundaries? Or is there something deeper? I don't think the Shia-Sunni explanation goes a long way either; who has the power and wealth? And lastly, to what extent is it in US interests to put a stop to all state-sponsorship by the region's actors of armed religious fanatics?
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  8. #228
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

    A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

    How far is that correct?

  9. #229
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

    A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

    How far is that correct?
    If you look at any national operating movement - violent or otherwise - that is nearly always the case. It was true for the Bolsheviks, the IRA, Viet Minh, the Republicans and Democrats, and for ISIS. Really the question is how much fidelity do we have on their internal dynamics, and what is holding them together? What will break them apart? How is affecting their goal-making and strategy? Almost always the problems if internal cohesion are caused by power relationships, and they are resolved through a number of methods: formation of stable coalitions, formal division, purges, demotions, massacres, etc.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  10. #230
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Ray,

    I think resolving the boundary questions would go a long way in removing the pretext for conflict in the Middle East, but it would only displace the violence onto some other pretext; much the same way that destroying the legitimacy of the secular Arab nationalists promoted the emergence of Islamism. Violence will always find its outlet unless the actual root causes of violence are addressed. I don't think boundary changes in the Middle East will suffice - not to mention all the other legal, ethical, economic, and political problems that would emerge from such a transformation.

    Why do groups like ISIS form? Is it because of misdrawn boundaries? Or is there something deeper? I don't think the Shia-Sunni explanation goes a long way either; who has the power and wealth? And lastly, to what extent is it in US interests to put a stop to all state-sponsorship by the region's actors of armed religious fanatics?
    The problem with Islamic people, as has been my experience, is that each one is a lord in himself or what we call khalifa (Caliph). Unlike others, they have a tremendous energy to be one up on the other - a highly competitive spirit. That is a good thing, but most used not in a positive way. In fact, the nearest example I can find is that it is like the crabs in a pail syndrome - bring the other down. That is what is happening amongst the Shias and Sunnis. Note the mindless massacre of each other in Pakistan, even though they have the same God, the same Prophet, the same book they consider holy and the same genetic stock.

    The root cause, as would be my personal opinion, is not the esoteric wonders of freedom and democracy that the West wants to impose on them. They couldn't care less. The root cause is the historical transmogrification of Islam after the death of their Prophet where Spiritual Islam gave way to Temporal Islam. In short, the quest for POWER for control over all Muslims.

    I said that they are highly competitive and that is what grips them. And they are not known to forget slights either or any dilution of their religious and traditional beliefs - that is why you have the Honour killings or even interpreting religious diktats without concern of the contemporary environment and interpretations. A timewrap, so to say.

    If there were boundaries drawn that kept the Sunnis separate from the Shias, then it would be less of the problem that we see now; not that they would still not fight amongst each other. They would do so as separate nations - the desire to be supreme in being the real and true Muslim being too ardent a fire to douse with reason! At least that would be easier to handle.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-17-2014 at 06:39 PM.

  11. #231
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Ray,

    I think you bring up a great point. Islam provides the political environment in which to compete for power and legitimacy - the Sunnia/Shia divide is one such mechanism to distribute power. Much like in the US how 'conversatism' or 'liberalism' provides the context in which Republicans and Democrats resolving internal conflicts - but mostly through the electoral process starting with primaries and moving through the general election. It's why you see politicians picking up and letting go of supposedly deeply held principles that are really just ideological leverages in the political battle.

    So there's a couple of chess boards being played simulatenously in the Middle East - one is the region, another is each individual state, and still another is Islam. The secular regimes prior to 1979 had this problem as well as they competed for the mantle of leading their anti-Zionist alliance arrayed against Israel. But this fundamentally a political problem - not a cultural or religious one. Who has the power and who wants it? The Middle East is unstable because so many people are not part of the formal political process. And after many years of conflict and radicalization, democratization only intensifies these perceptions. How do we deescalate the conflict in the Middle East and what political problems do we need to solve to do that?
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  12. #232
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

    A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

    How far is that correct?
    Would disagree. Iraqi insurgency is made up of a bunch of small groups with ISIS dominating. ISIS is a unified group with a command structure, departments, etc. He might have been mixed up and was talking about the insurgency in general in Iraq

  13. #233
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?
    Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.

  14. #234
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Ray,

    I think you bring up a great point. Islam provides the political environment in which to compete for power and legitimacy - the Sunnia/Shia divide is one such mechanism to distribute power. Much like in the US how 'conversatism' or 'liberalism' provides the context in which Republicans and Democrats resolving internal conflicts - but mostly through the electoral process starting with primaries and moving through the general election. It's why you see politicians picking up and letting go of supposedly deeply held principles that are really just ideological leverages in the political battle.

    So there's a couple of chess boards being played simulatenously in the Middle East - one is the region, another is each individual state, and still another is Islam. The secular regimes prior to 1979 had this problem as well as they competed for the mantle of leading their anti-Zionist alliance arrayed against Israel. But this fundamentally a political problem - not a cultural or religious one. Who has the power and who wants it? The Middle East is unstable because so many people are not part of the formal political process. And after many years of conflict and radicalization, democratization only intensifies these perceptions. How do we deescalate the conflict in the Middle East and what political problems do we need to solve to do that?

    AP--
    There is a totally other point that is not being clearly seen that is a driver of the ISIS which actually surprised me as I have not heard it mentioned at all in any of the long conversations with captured AQI and IAI members and cell leaders.

    There was a short 3 minute battle video released shortly after the fall of Mosul that has not shown back up on the jihadi sites which means to me as someone who has watched hundred of hours of these videos---someone screened it and took it off---it would surprise people to know just how tightly they control the messaging even back in 2006.

    The speaker was in the standard fighter/balaclava garb carrying though an Mark 4 shouting the standard ISIS victory slogans---then he pointed to the Mosul city limits town sign and stared straight into the camera and shouted "this is now the end of Sykes-Picot"-- end of the statement.

    That was something that was not anticipated and was a total surprise---so a Sunni from the ME are a well educated European jihadi as many jihadi's I have talked to would not even know the term Sykes-Picot?

    So is ISIS following the Putin Doctrine and changing territorial boundaries based say on religion or as in the case of Crimea on Russian culture and language?

    Or is there thinking inside ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle and Syria should in fact be a totally new country that has some oil assets and if a new country are they not open then to financial support for the other Sunni governments of the ME?

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 06-17-2014 at 07:07 PM.

  15. #235
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWing View Post
    Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.
    Why did the Iraqi Army just quit before giving battle and let the ISIS run amock?

    Did the Sunnis stand their ground along with the Shia in the Iraqi army?

    Just wanted to know.

  16. #236
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Outlaw,

    What are 'borders'? Borders are (usually) mutually agreed upon territorial boundaries between different power centers. They are organized around geography, culture, population, or sometimes just convenience. But most importantly, in the Westphalian conception of the state, they are reinforced by strong normative values and the mechanisms through which such values are enforced (principally violence but occassionally diplomacy and other conflict resolution mechanisms). ISIS does not accept these principles since principles are propagated through the political system by the dominant power - and ISIS is in opposition to the dominant power. Here in the West we are generally dismissive of this fundamental difference and assert a legal or normative right that's only self-reinforcing and generally has no legitimacy among the opposition (otherwise, why would they be taking up arms if they were satisfied with the status quo?).

    Borders will change. Sure. They are indicators of political organization but not the source of political power in themselves. The concern for me is that ISIS (1) has a globalized agenda, unlike the pre-2001 Taliban, and (2) it is centrally located in the most volatile region and further situated between the two dominant competitors in the Muslim world: Iran and Saudi Arabia. I expect to see this conflict as one to be fought to the death, at least as far as ISIS is concerned. It will be business as usual in Riyadh and Tehran.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  17. #237
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    AP--
    There is a totally other point that is not being clearly seen that is a driver of the ISIS which actually surprised me as I have not heard it mentioned at all in any of the long conversations with captured AQI and IAI members and cell leaders.

    There was a short 3 minute battle video released shortly after the fall of Mosul that has not shown back up on the jihadi sites which means to me as someone who has watched hundred of hours of these videos---someone screened it and took it off---it would surprise people to know just how tightly they control the messaging even back in 2006.

    The speaker was in the standard fighter/balaclava garb carrying though an Mark 4 shouting the standard ISIS victory slogans---then he pointed to the Mosul city limits town sign and stared straight into the camera and shouted "this is now the end of Sykes-Picot"-- end of the statement.

    That was something that was not anticipated and was a total surprise---so a Sunni from the ME are a well educated European jihadi as many jihadi's I have talked to would not even know the term Sykes-Picot?

    So is ISIS following the Putin Doctrine and changing territorial boundaries based say on religion or as in the case of Crimea on Russian culture and language?

    Or is there thinking inside ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle and Syria should in fact be a totally new country that has some oil assets and if a new country are they not open then to financial support for the other Sunni governments of the ME?

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2
    Make sense of all this confusion.

    ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle

    Divide all Muslim nations on their sectarian affiliations.

    Won't bring peace. It will at least bring some Method to this Madness.

    But will it be permitted?

    The leverage that some countries have in the Middle East to keep it on the boil because of the intense hatred of each other = Sunni vs Shia - will vanish!
    Last edited by Ray; 06-17-2014 at 07:19 PM.

  18. #238
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWing View Post
    Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.
    JWing--the ethnic cleansing in the 2006-2008 periods was often targeted against the mixed marriage individuals and mixed communities and many of the refugees on the move were from mixed marriages---the ethnic killers from say the Sunni side would kill the Shia partner and the Shi killers would kill the Sunni partners or both killing groups would simply kill the entire family to include children.

    This focus on targeting mixed marriages by both sides was seen for the first time in say Muqdadiyah near Buqubah and in Buriz in mid to late 2005. The focus on specific ethnic killings of say Shia began for the first time outside of Baghdad in again Muqdadiyah in the summer of 2005 during a wedding when a suicide bombers killing over and wounding in the 100 range-- Zarqawi wanted to see the reactions of the ethnic groups-Zarqawi was experimenting with the idea in early 2005.

    His idea was that if one could destroy the mixed marriages meaning the two religions could co-exist and did exist for years--- then the idea of a Sunni Caliphate would go nowhere.

    The ISIS has been targeting the Awakening personnel extremely effectively over the last two years---in Mosul the ISIS literally had lists of Awakening members which is today an automatic death sentence if caught.

    Would argue Sistani was well respected by Sunni's when we were still in Iraq but he missed a critical opportunity for taking a firm position concerning the 2010 elections but he did/said nothing--a number of leading Sunni's had tried to get him motivated to engage in the Malaki conflict but again he did nothing so I do not think his "voice" carries much weight with Sunni's after the protest camp clearing ops ordered by Malaki in Dec 2013. Many thought that in the 2005 elections he would have gotten more involved--he simply was interested in religious matters and did not want to get into the political infighting. It was interesting that he was behind the drive for early elections, but settled with Bremer for 2005 being the first election.
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 06-17-2014 at 07:56 PM.

  19. #239
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Make sense of all this confusion.

    ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle

    Divide all Muslim nations on their sectarian affiliations.

    Won't bring peace. It will at least bring some Method to this Madness.

    But will it be permitted?

    The leverage that some countries have in the Middle East to keep it on the boil because of the intense hatred of each other = Sunni vs Shia - will vanish!
    Actually the ISIS is doing nothing more or less than what Putin is doing in first the Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine.

    The Putin Doctrine as Putin in his recent Crimea DUMA speech stated---as a new international norm----territorial boundaries can in fact be changed to reflect ethnicity, culture, and or language regardless of treaties, agreements, or memorandums.

    Now just add the word religion--- and then ISIS/al Baghdadi are in fact using the Putin Doctrine to change territorial boundaries---so why can Putin do it but not ISIS?
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 06-17-2014 at 07:44 PM.

  20. #240
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Some indirect thoughts

    American Pride's post (229) deserves an answer, even if from an armchair. AP was respoinding to Ray's post:
    A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

    How far is that correct?
    AP:
    If you look at any national operating movement - violent or otherwise - that is nearly always the case. It was true for the Bolsheviks, the IRA, Viet Minh, the Republicans and Democrats, and for ISIS. Really the question is how much fidelity do we have on their internal dynamics, and what is holding them together? What will break them apart? How is affecting their goal-making and strategy? Almost always the problems if internal cohesion are caused by power relationships, and they are resolved through a number of methods: formation of stable coalitions, formal division, purges, demotions, massacres, etc.
    Yes 'any national operating movement' is a coalition that starts around a cause, nationalism / independence / communism / liberty / religion etc. Invariably this cause starts small and a "spark" gives their cause traction way beyond the small group. When violence dominates the small group are totally committed, less so those who sympathise and assist - rarely do they assist the 'authorities'. If the later's (not always just the nation-state) methods and objectives fail to gain traction or popular support by being an effective response violence continues. Over a long period the small group's cause is seen as illegitimate and ineffective - enabling the 'authorities' to exploit human weaknesses within the group.

    Now how the 'colour revolutions' fit is a moot point in my thoughts and this has been discussed in several SWC threads.
    davidbfpo

Similar Threads

  1. The USMC in Helmand (merged thread)
    By Wildcat in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 03:13 PM
  2. What happens in Iraq now?
    By MikeF in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2011, 04:17 PM
  3. Iraq: Strategic and Diplomatic Options
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-02-2006, 11:36 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2006, 07:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •