Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[JWing]

I hear what you say and it reaffirms the view that the non-Kurd Sunnis are struggling to come to terms with their change in status in Iraq. I would ask the Kurds whether they would prefer to go it alone or play second fiddle to the non-Kurd Sunnis who even together still comprise a 40-60 minority to the Shias in a unified Iraq. Then of course you need to ask the Shia whether they want to remain in a state with the minority Sunni whose areas produce little oil contribution to the national economy. It could get interesting.

The Kurds are definitely moving towards independence. They need to produce enough oil to support themselves, which is still a bit away though. They like the rest of Iraq have created an oil dependent economy with a huge public sector with the government being the largest employer and 70% of the budget going to govt salaries and pensions and imports just about everything.

[JWing]

Ray, you are taking the same, shallow, biased tact that everyone else is taking. This is not religious. That is just the way it manifests itself. This is Identity Warfare. The same type of identity warfare that caused the religious wars in Europe or the genocide in Rwanda.

It is a combination of three factors. 1st, a social identity. Depending on your specialty this is either Identity Theory or Social Identity Theory. It is derived from the need for self esteem. The second element is limited resources. In a world of limited resources people tend to band together more tightly into the group that they identify with. This is derived from our need for security. The final element is some form of injustice, real or perceived. This causes them to lash out against those they see causing the injustice. The fact that this is an identity war should be clear from the fact ISIS claims Takfiri status - able to decide for themselves who shares their identity as a true Muslim and who does not.

The second and third elements are relative. Resource constraint was far greater 200 years ago. Each group compares themselves with other groups - where do they stand relative to others.

There are three ways to fight an identity war, 1) diminish the identity - you do this by crushing it (Not advised); 2) replace the identity - the idea behind creating a state identity (we are all Iraqis) or an individual identity* (the liberal or democratic peace); or 3) divide and conquer - find the fault lines within the group and exploit them. That is a temporary solution, but it can work.

Besides the fact that we are missing the reality of the situation, as long as we think this is a religious war it will never end ... well, it can end, when you kill off all the "radical" Muslims. But odds are that, the farther you go, the larger the group of "radical" Muslims becomes until you wipe them all out.

*creating a liberal identity requires removing the resource limitation. Once resources are sufficient then people no longer feel the need to band tightly together and begin to accept others for their individual characteristics instead of their stereotypical group identity.

Completely agree Iraqi politics were not always about sect, in fact for most of Iraqi history it was not, but since 2003 it has become one about conflicting politics of identity.

For the best book about this check out Fanar Haddad's Sectarianism in Iraq. He argues that sect and identity are constantly changing and based upon the socio-political-economic situation in the country.

http://www.amazon.com/Sectarianism-I...s=fanar+haddad

Here's an interview I did with Fanar as well:

http://www.musingsoniraq.blogspot.co...ianism-in.html

Another good book is by Harith Hasan's Imagining the Nation Nationalism, Sectarianism and Socio-political Conflict in Iraq. Harith's thesis is that Iraq suffers from failed state building and that is what has given rise to the current trend of sectarianism in the country. The state has failed to create a shared sense of identity and history and that's what has given rise to the current wave of sectarianism

http://www.amazon.com/Imagining-Nati...ing+the+nation

Here's an interview I did with Harith

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/20...tionalism.html

Finally here is an article that I wrote about how the current Sunni sectarian identity is in fact a recent creation that came out of the community's inability to deal with the changes in Iraq after 2003

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/20...raq-after.html

[davidbfpo]

Joel,

What I find remarkable is that the incredibly bitter and bloody Iran -v- Iraq war from September 1980 to August 1988, appears to be forgotten by Iraqis. A good number of whom now look to Iran for help, largely as they are Shia co-religionists.

Is there not any lingering distrust, even hatred of Iran and vice ser versa?

[Bill Moore]

Ray, you are taking the same, shallow, biased tact that everyone else is taking. This is not religious. That is just the way it manifests itself. This is Identity Warfare. The same type of identity warfare that caused the religious wars in Europe or the genocide in Rwanda.

It is a combination of three factors. 1st, a social identity. Depending on your specialty this is either Identity Theory or Social Identity Theory. It is derived from the need for self esteem. The second element is limited resources. In a world of limited resources people tend to band together more tightly into the group that they identify with. This is derived from our need for security. The final element is some form of injustice, real or perceived. This causes them to lash out against those they see causing the injustice. The fact that this is an identity war should be clear from the fact ISIS claims Takfiri status - able to decide for themselves who shares their identity as a true Muslim and who does not.

The second and third elements are relative. Resource constraint was far greater 200 years ago. Each group compares themselves with other groups - where do they stand relative to others.

There are three ways to fight an identity war, 1) diminish the identity - you do this by crushing it (Not advised); 2) replace the identity - the idea behind creating a state identity (we are all Iraqis) or an individual identity* (the liberal or democratic peace); or 3) divide and conquer - find the fault lines within the group and exploit them. That is a temporary solution, but it can work.

Besides the fact that we are missing the reality of the situation, as long as we think this is a religious war it will never end ... well, it can end, when you kill off all the "radical" Muslims. But odds are that, the farther you go, the larger the group of "radical" Muslims becomes until you wipe them all out.

*creating a liberal identity requires removing the resource limitation. Once resources are sufficient then people no longer feel the need to band tightly together and begin to accept others for their individual characteristics instead of their stereotypical group identity.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean Ray's comments are shallow are biased. The Indians have lived with this threat within their borders much longer than we have and don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines accusing others of being shallow and biased. In fact our political correctness is its own form of bias that often prevents us viewing things as they actually are, instead we interpret events, data, etc. through a very biased perceptional lens, one that hasn't been overly helpful in recent years.

This is not religious.

This statement as a standalone statement is ridiculous.

Fortunately you wrote:

That is just the way it manifests itself. This is Identity Warfare.

I have been saying this for years, using the same logic with street gangs, insurgents, etc., but the key driver to that identity is religion in this case. Take the religion out of it the identity isn't there for most of these groups we're discussing. Not unlike communism, it can be a global identity and result in mobilizing people globally, which is why the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. is not simply a local issue. How this identity manifests globally will vary based on those who identify with it, some will act locally (spread the conflict between Shia and Sunni), some will travel to the jihad and only act in the field of battle, other travelers will return and continue their jihad in their host or native country. We have seen this happen for decades, yet seem to lack an appreciation of this challenge.

I agree it is certainly more than religion, and I agree with the argument that we can't solve this problem with the military alone. If the Maliki government remains in power there appears to be little chance of reconciliation, so it will be a fight that continues for decades unless one side gains sufficient strength to defeat the other. At best we can defend Baghdad and keep a corrupt government in power, which may be the lesser of two evils for western interests compared to having a Caliphate ran by a group with a vision similar to Al-Qaeda.

You offer three ways to defeat an identity war, but you can't defeat war, so I think you meant take the wind of out the identities that have resulted in war? In other words you're looking at achieving peace, not defeating one identity or the other. I agree you can't crush an identity, any attempt to do so will only make it stronger, which is partly why our GWOT efforts have resulted in an expansion of global AQism. We supported their narrative, which is why I'm a believer in clandestine, covert, low visibility operations to kill off the AQ members that threaten us without the fanfare, but we're well past that point.

We're not capable of replacing the identity with a state identity, in fact the West has attempted that, and that is largely what has led to much of the violence in the world. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is an example, the West drew the lines that latter became states that didn't work, and of course we did the same in Africa and elsewhere. If this isn't a normative model I don't know what is. Individuals decide who they will identify with, we can't replace that. We try to offer alternatives, and in this recent conflict our alternative identities have been rejected, so back to drawing board. As for divide and conquer, how will this work? This reminds me of the Brits leveraging minorities in their territories to help control the territory, which almost always led to major bloodshed after the Brits left, to include the millions killed when India formed East and West Pakistan. If anything this simply strengthens the identity of the opposing groups.

I'm not convinced on the argument that if you remove the resource limitation that people will not band tightly and accept others. I think we're confusing our model in the U.S. which is based on much more than economics with the idea model what will resolve conflict around the globe. We also have a different level and type of education, Judea-Christian based value system, a national norm that promotes equality in opportunity (not in practice always, but it can be pursued through the legal system when it is denied), etc. Attempting to solve the problems in Iraq through economic development alone will not result in the same conditions we enjoy.

We have to be realists while at the same time I hope we continue to be idealists. The situation in Iraq threatens more than Iraq, and each country will perceive that threat differently based on their interests and how it manifests in their country. When it comes to being bias, we are often at the top of that list.

[JWing]

Joel,

What I find remarkable is that the incredibly bitter and bloody Iran -v- Iraq war from September 1980 to August 1988, appears to be forgotten by Iraqis. A good number of whom now look to Iran for help, largely as they are Shia co-religionists.

Is there not any lingering distrust, even hatred of Iran and vice ser versa?

The Shia militias with the exception of Sadr's forces all look towards Iran. All of them from Badr to Asaib Ahl al-Haq were created by Iran so that's to be expected. Sadr however deeply resents Iran and its attempt to take over his movement. That's the reason why he never sent any of his fighters to Syria. Maliki went into exile originally to Iran during the Saddam era, but then left for Syria because again Iran was trying to take over his Dawa party. I think for the majority of Iraqis the relationship with Iran is ambiguous. There is lots of interaction between the two countries with trade pilgrims funding of militias etc, some is seen positively others not so much.

[Bill Moore]

JWing,

Does the PUK still maintain relations with Iran? They were aligned with Iran to some extent when they were fighting Saddam and the KDP was aligned with Saddam to fight the PUK. Pure craziness, but then again that's Iraq.

[JWing]

JWing,

Does the PUK still maintain relations with Iran? They were aligned with Iran to some extent when they were fighting Saddam and the KDP was aligned with Saddam to fight the PUK. Pure craziness, but then again that's Iraq.

Actually both the KDP & PUK fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq War. What you're referring to was the Kurdish civil war that occurred in the 90s when Barzani asked Saddam to come in to help with advances by the PUK who were backed by Iran.

Iran has connections to both parties today but the PUK is considered closer. The PUK is in disarray because Talabani has been in Germany for months after a stroke so the party is literally ruderless right now.

[JWing]

More stories of ISF collapses today.

After 3 days of fighting in Qaim in western Anbar ISF withdrew from there and several other cities giving most of the western region to insurgents. ISIS now controls all border crossings with Syria and Jordan in Anbar. Reports are that 80-90% of Anbar is now under insurgent control.

ISF also suddenly withdrew from Tal Afar in Ninewa after days of fighting. Just day before people were talking about Tal Afar would be the linchpin of a counter offensive to retake Mosul. So much for that.

[Ray]

Ray--was not one of the core Kashmir Sunni insurgent groups is in factIndain and one even the Indian government has had problems with and reports are coming in that they have returned in strength back into their home territory inside India with combat experience out of the Kashmir?

Also the Sunni fundamentalists will in fact target India eventually because India was one point in the world where both Shia and Sunni have gotten along exceptionally well over the last 300--400 years.

Which core Kashmiri Sunni insurgent groups.

Many return and surrender.

[TheCurmudgeon]

First off, Ray, I want to apologize. I did not realize how much of my first sentence in my last post sounds like a personal attack. It is not. I was just trying to make the point that we have to get past the obvious if we are really going to create a viable, long term solution.

Second, JWing and Dave, I am also fascinated by how mailable the Iraqi identity seems to be. Perhaps it is because Saddam never fully instilled a nationalistic identity in those outside his clan/sect. Maybe it is tied more closely to economic conditions. My personal feeling is that it has to do with the hierarchy of identities. Everyone wants to be associated with, and a part of, whomever is on top. But even that does not seem to explain it. It seems that it takes about ten years to alter an identity. The Sunni's have clearly created a new identity since we invaded. But it was not always anti-coalition either. As Dave notes, it is as if the Iraq-Iran war never happened.

[OUTLAW 09]

The Shia militias with the exception of Sadr's forces all look towards Iran. All of them from Badr to Asaib Ahl al-Haq were created by Iran so that's to be expected. Sadr however deeply resents Iran and its attempt to take over his movement. That's the reason why he never sent any of his fighters to Syria. Maliki went into exile originally to Iran during the Saddam era, but then left for Syria because again Iran was trying to take over his Dawa party. I think for the majority of Iraqis the relationship with Iran is ambiguous. There is lots of interaction between the two countries with trade pilgrims funding of militias etc, some is seen positively others not so much.

The interesting thing about Sadr was and still is---he was never so anti-American until we attacked due to an arrest warrant issued by Malaki regime (pushed by the US) and when we attacked directly the Madhi then he turned against us verbally.

If you noticed in the last couple of days he has openly criticized Malaki for not reaching out to the Sunni side---maybe political opportunism but I do not think so--he diverted into Iran to avoid his arrest and our pressure against Madhi but then came back out of Iran and has been since then been basically avoiding Iranian connections and the Quds. He has as well since the Dec 2013 attacks at the Sunni by Malaki come out often in support of the Sunni both from a political position as well as a religious position.

All forms of Sunni insurgents we captured and their cell leaders as well as from AQI would often tell us the true enemy that we should have been watching was Badr from the very beginning which in those days I found strange when we were dealing mainly with the Sunni insurgent side but then the Shia EFPs started and the Army never took the Shia JAM/SG under as massive an attack as we did the Sunni side-yes we would strike the JAM/SG but never to the extent say of AQI and the IAI or Ansar al Sunnah--a missed opportunity as we were afraid of agitating Malaki even though Malaki used us to attack the Mahdi when he perceived Sadr as a threat.

We as a military never quite got the finger pointing game done by Malaki that would then cause us to attack an opponent of his. In 2006 he would for example send the MoI Special Police Wolf Bde into Diyala without even informing the US Army arrest literally hundreds of Sunni and take them back to Baghdad--this was the initial start of the ethnic cleansing game ---we just did not recognize it as the MoI would claim the hundreds of Sunni's were all either Baathists or insurgents which was the standard Malaki view towards all Sunni in general and still is.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Just because you disagree doesn't mean Ray's comments are shallow are biased. The Indians have lived with this threat within their borders much longer than we have and don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines accusing others of being shallow and biased. In fact our political correctness is its own form of bias that often prevents us viewing things as they actually are, instead we interpret events, data, etc. through a very biased perceptional lens, one that hasn't been overly helpful in recent years.

I apologized to Ray. It was not meant as a personal attack. That said, I am not advocating siting on the sidelines, I am advocating getting to the root of the problem. As long as we portray this problem with religious overtones we bring in all sorts of prejudice and bias that do not HAVE to be part of the equation.

You offer three ways to defeat an identity war, but you can't defeat war, so I think you meant take the wind of out the identities that have resulted in war? In other words you're looking at achieving peace, not defeating one identity or the other. I agree you can't crush an identity, any attempt to do so will only make it stronger, which is partly why our GWOT efforts have resulted in an expansion of global AQism. We supported their narrative, which is why I'm a believer in clandestine, covert, low visibility operations to kill off the AQ members that threaten us without the fanfare, but we're well past that point.

Yes, you are correct. You cannot "defeat" war, it is part of the human condition. You can, however, limit the number of groups of people a population is willing to go to war with.

In regards to this situation, you are correct. I would advocate taking the power out of the identity or limiting the number of people who see themselves as aligned with that identity.

We're not capable of replacing the identity with a state identity, in fact the West has attempted that, and that is largely what has led to much of the violence in the world. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is an example, the West drew the lines that latter became states that didn't work, and of course we did the same in Africa and elsewhere. If this isn't a normative model I don't know what is. Individuals decide who they will identify with, we can't replace that. We try to offer alternatives, and in this recent conflict our alternative identities have been rejected, so back to drawing board.

Once again, correct. One of the ideas behind "nation building" (I hate that term) was to create a national identity. If that could be created and you successfully supplant other, more decisive internal factions, then you can build a state.

This idea is a post-Westphalian construct. It assumes too much of the target population. It assumes a individualistic value system that, in most cases, is not present. The value system is communal based on an identity that is either tribal, ethnic, or religious (or a combination of them).

So yes, I am not advocating this idealistic folly.

As for divide and conquer, how will this work? This reminds me of the Brits leveraging minorities in their territories to help control the territory, which almost always led to major bloodshed after the Brits left, to include the millions killed when India formed East and West Pakistan. If anything this simply strengthens the identity of the opposing groups.

I think you are jumping ahead. The first step is simply to weaken the enemy. In this case it is a ISIS/Sunni coalition. There is ISIS, the major threat - and there are other elements of the Sunni coalition. We need to divide these groups. Sow fear, hate, jealousy, whatever works. Once internal fighting begins (and it will eventually anyway unless ISIS consolidates power by killing off its rivals), the whole group becomes manageable.

I'm not convinced on the argument that if you remove the resource limitation that people will not band tightly and accept others. I think we're confusing our model in the U.S. which is based on much more than economics with the idea model what will resolve conflict around the globe.

That one has been proven (at least as far as these things can be). See the worldvaluessurvey.org and the work of Inglehart and Welzel. Also see the meat of my paper "Schizophrenic Doctrine" for a thumbnail sketch of the theory.

We also have a different level and type of education, Judea-Christian based value system, a national norm that promotes equality in opportunity (not in practice always, but it can be pursued through the legal system when it is denied), etc. Attempting to solve the problems in Iraq through economic development alone will not result in the same conditions we enjoy.

I would not begin to believe that we could "solve" the problem of Iraq with economic development. But, economic development, in the form of a population with a middle class independent of the state or religious or ethnic patronage, is the only way to maintain a group of people who are not reliant on that ethnic or religious affiliation to ensure their personal and familial security.

We have to be realists while at the same time I hope we continue to be idealists. The situation in Iraq threatens more than Iraq, and each country will perceive that threat differently based on their interests and how it manifests in their country. When it comes to being bias, we are often at the top of that list.

Hence, I am all for covert disruption of the existing Sunni coalition, probably via contacts in Saudi Arabia.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Completely agree Iraqi politics were not always about sect, in fact for most of Iraqi history it was not, but since 2003 it has become one about conflicting politics of identity.

Thanks for all the references. I wish I had time to read all of this.

Here is one other. It is a thesis by a Wellesly College student but pretty good. It is where I stole the term Identity Warfare, although I am sure she is not the first to use it.

http://repository.wellesley.edu/cgi/...esiscollection

[Ray]

TheCurmudgeon,

It is fine. I do not take offence, for after all, everyone has their own views and I appreciate those views and glean fresh ideas from contrarian opinions.

[Bill Moore]

That one has been proven (at least as far as these things can be). See the worldvaluessurvey.org and the work of Inglehart and Welzel. Also see the meat of my paper "Schizophrenic Doctrine" for a thumbnail sketch of the theory.

I'll take a look at the model, I'm sure there is some merit to it, but to state that any social science is proven IMO seems to be a stretch, since unlike the hard sciences the social scientists can't control the conditions of the test, so they can't account for all variables. I'll accept there is a strong correlation.

I also don't see how this model applies when many wealthy Muslims join these fights, they have their slice of the pie and then some. Nonetheless it seems logical in theory and worth testing.

[Ray]

Whenever we find such conflicts raging, I am reminded of the phrase, "you can defeat the persons involved, but to win you have to defeat the 'idea' that spurs them on" or words to that effect.

My experience is that it is a long haul since one finds the 'root' to the evil, if one may call it so, is wrapped up with too many layers, many beyond the control to penetrate because of external and powerful influences and protection.

[JMA]

"You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea." - Medgar Evers

or

"A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death." - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Whenever we find such conflicts raging, I am reminded of the phrase, "you can defeat the persons involved, but to win you have to defeat the 'idea' that spurs them on" or words to that effect.

My experience is that it is a long haul since one finds the 'root' to the evil, if one may call it so, is wrapped up with too many layers, many beyond the control to penetrate because of external and powerful influences and protection.

[OUTLAW 09]

Whenever we find such conflicts raging, I am reminded of the phrase, "you can defeat the persons involved, but to win you have to defeat the 'idea' that spurs them on" or words to that effect.

My experience is that it is a long haul since one finds the 'root' to the evil, if one may call it so, is wrapped up with too many layers, many beyond the control to penetrate because of external and powerful influences and protection.

Bill---this "root" goes back 1400 years and Islam has not had it's own internal "reformation" as the Catholic and Protestants did say during the 100 and 30 years wars on central Europe that left entire areas devoid of human life. Once both sides realized that there were virtually no human life left in the contested regions did they finally come to an agreement.

Right now that single "root" ---the dispute over the killing of Hussein and who was to follow in Mohammad's footsteps will "haunt" the world until they finally settle the issue but in order to do that someone with religious authority on each side has to step up and lead but in Islam there are any number of Mullahs/Imams "wanna be leaders" with countervailing views which was not the case in the Catholic and Protestant wars which tended to singular leadership.

Layer then this deep problem over the issues of power sharing, revenue sharing, regional hegemony and one has the makings for a really long time conflict and the price of oil at 115 USD per barrel which will then slow down a large portion of the world's economy leading thus to other issues.

[OUTLAW 09]

This is an interesting WaPo article and goes to the heart of the problem--the COIN FM cannot instill nationalism into a military, nor the will to fight for a country due to a flag---it is and has been all about governance---which is addressed in the FM but at a certain point even the FM cannot "create" good governance. We gave up the ability to create good governance in 2005 and then it was all over---and that was a civilian decision not covered under the COIN FM.

Seems the ISIS and allies have taken a page out of the US "shock and awe" and al Baghdadi must have read Sun Tsu a few times in his five years at Bucca.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

[OUTLAW 09]

For those that appreciate great messaging (goes to the religious explanation of ISIS) here is a ISIS video linked to by jihadology.net. I have been watching their video messaging since 2004 and this is a slick really slick made video depicting a number of foreign fighters who this time are not hiding their faces as in say 2006/2007.

http://jihadology.net/2014/06/19/al-...without-jihad/