Page 30 of 58 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 1150

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

  1. #581
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    As I tend to do, I went back to find the source documents of the poll referenced in the article. It can be found here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Apr07_rpt.pdf

    Now, the poll was really aimed at determining how much support there was in the Muslim world for AQ and its aims. Threrefore, there will be a slight skew in the results based on a psychological bias created by "priming" - inserting an idea in the head of the person who is asked the question. With that in mind, here is the paragraph from the report citing the results:

    The two remaining goals [of AQ] represent potential threats to governments in the Islamic world. The first is “to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.” Majorities in all countries polled perceived correctly that al Qaeda wanted to achieve this: 67 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Indonesia, 60 percent in Egypt and 52 percent in Pakistan. Majorities in three countries also agreed with this objective themselves: Pakistan (74%), Morocco (71%), and Egypt (67%). Indonesia was the exception: only 49 percent agreed that Islamic countries should be united into a caliphate.
    It is worth noting that, except for Indonesia, the percentage of people who believed that restoring the Caliphate is or should be an objective of Islam is higher than the percentage of muslims who felt that restoring the Caliphate was a goal of AQ.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-10-2014 at 08:43 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  2. #582
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Dayuhan---I will paraphrase something JMA told you recently--it is far easier as you do to tear something about-but then that is what your and mirhond both tend to do calling it debate.
    Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Finally say something that means anything, finally have your own opinion---unless you can counter the Robert concept of rule of law and good governance then not say anything. If you noticed which you did not I was paraphrasing Robert not putting words in his mouth which you tend to do.
    My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

    Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Do I as a superpower having invested say at the least 1 tillion USDs with a big T, having lost 4.4 KIA over 200K WIA and had one MIA until 2009---have I actually "pressure" power to get an inclusive government if I play my game correctly. This "pressure" is also not counting at least 160K troops inside your country and oh by the way the corruption money you are making off of me in the millions of USDs counts as well as "pressure" does it not?
    Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    The actual question should be if you read carefully my comments---just why did not "we" play the "game?
    We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

    If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

    The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  3. #583
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.



    My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

    Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.



    Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.



    We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

    If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

    The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.
    Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

    1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
    2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
    3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

    Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.

    Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.

    Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

    Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.

    Are we at that point and will we ever get to that point---not in my life time nor yours.

    So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.

    BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

    If so then why did we not use it?

    So explain that piece to us in order that we might understand your thinking so we can dissect it.

  4. #584
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.
    Easier than you stating what you believe in some detail rather than just picking holes in what others post. You are not contributing to the discussion at all... just a distraction.

    Came across a number of people in my time who waited for others to contribute then criticised them for all it was worth. Where I was able I posted them out of my command/unit and kicked them off the officers courses I ran. Nasty people, bad for morale.
    (I have come to learn that this problem is likely to be caused by a neurological chemical imbalance which is easy to fix)
    Last edited by JMA; 07-11-2014 at 08:01 AM.

  5. #585
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Dayuhan---will nudge you to think about this.

    1. QJBR (AQ in the Land of Two Rivers (2004) which formed out of the 90s Tahwid group) then AQI (2005) then ISIL/ISIS and now IS---if one strictly looks at the group---outside of claiming they were initially part of AQ and now no longer part of AQ and if one accepts the fact that they were assisting Iraqi Sunnis resisting an illegal invasion by the US and if we see them fighting Assad which the US has stated it wants removed from Syria--and the organization has not declared the US it's avowed enemy nor the Great Satan and from their messaging seems to not be interested in striking the "homeland"-------

    1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.

    As a thinking refresher exercise just go back and read the press articles about the GWOT and the AQ/Taliban from the 9/11 to 2005 periods.

    As a thinking refresher go back and reread the many us vs. them articles during the same period.

    2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?

    3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".

    Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.

    When was the last time you read a report of AQ attacking a water tower in the middle of Des Moines, Iowa?

    I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

    The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

    On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

    So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

    But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.

    Look how far that got the CIAs Chief of Station here in Berlin yesterday when the US government was asked for some direct answers to alleged CIA spy recruitments---they tap danced and provided nothing and the COS is being diplomatically "sent" home after getting a great career boost by coming to Berlin.
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 07-11-2014 at 12:33 PM.

  6. #586
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    From the CENTCOM homepage. Mentions the minimal concern over the materials stored at the site.

    http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/artic...icture-in-iraq

    NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE KINGS BAY, Ga. – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey are seeing initial assessments submitted daily from teams in Iraq, but only the full range of assessments seen as a whole will tell the story in Iraq, Hagel said July 9.

    The secretary spoke with local and traveling media at this southeast Georgia installation.

    Reporters asked Hagel about U.S. military efforts in Iraq that are focused on two missions: securing the American Embassy and personnel in Baghdad and assessing the situation in the country and advising Iraqi security forces. The strategy involves supporting Iraqi forces and helping Iraq's leaders resolve the political crisis that enabled the advance of the armed militant extremist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, also known as ISIS.

    On July 1, the United Nations reported that Iraq’s violent insurgency had claimed 2,400 lives, half of them civilians, during June. The U.N. added that June was the deadliest month in the country since 2007.

    The secretary said he and Dempsey are receiving updates from Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command and the person in charge of overseeing U.S. military security and assessment efforts in Iraq, based on each 24-hour report he gets.

    These glimpses, Hagel said, “are starting to form and shape a picture of what our guys are picking up. But they're not complete.”

    The full context of the different assessments will include information on such topics as the strength of ISIL and strength and depth of tribal integration into ISIL, he said. Another assessment topic might include learning the strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces as they have pushed further outside Baghdad, Hagel added.

    About 640 troops are divided between the two missions, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said at a July 8 news conference. The assessment mission includes six teams, based mostly in and around Baghdad, and two joint operations centers, one in Baghdad and one in Irbil, the admiral said.

    Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights have increased sharply since the assessment first started, he said, from an initial 30 to 35 daily sorties to about 50 now.

    The assessments are nearing the end of their initial phase, which was expected to take two to three weeks, Kirby said.

    Responding to a question about media reports of ISIL taking control last month of a former Iraqi chemical weapons plant, Hagel said the United States has known about the facility for years. The chemicals inside the facility “are not chemical weapons munitions, they are not weaponized,” he said. “They are old chemicals from many years ago,” he added. “We know where they are, we've known about them, we're keeping our eye on them.”

    In 2004, the CIA published the 1,000-page Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The portion that covers Iraq’s chemical warfare program describes the complex’s history.

    “The entire Al Muthanna mega-facility was the bastion of Iraqi’s chemical weapons development program,” the report says. “During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it amassed mega-bunkers full of chemical munitions, and provided Iraq with a force multiplier sufficient to counteract Iran’s superior military numbers. Two wars, sanctions and [United Nations Special Commission] oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities.”

    Hagel said the United States is assisting in every way it can “to help the Iraqi people defeat the brutal fundamentalists that are attempting not just to destabilize Iraq, but essentially take control of Iraq.”

    The assessments will be completed in the next few days, he added, “and we'll have a further context of what recommendations they'll make.”

    “In the meantime,” he said, “we're doing everything we can … in those two general areas: protect our people and assist the Iraqi security forces in their efforts to defeat ISIL.”

    The secretary said the American people and Congress should not make the mistake of thinking ISIL is not a threat to the United States.

    “This is a force that is sophisticated, it's dynamic, it's strong, it's organized, it's well financed [and] it's competent,” Hagel said. “It is a threat to our allies all over the Middle East. It's a threat to Europe. It's a threat to every stabilized country on Earth, and it's a threat to us.”

    Though ISIL may not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, the secretary said, it is a threat to the United States and poses a clear and imminent threat to U.S. partners in the area.

    Hagel noted current events in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Gaza Strip, Libya and Egypt.

    “There is hardly a stable country in that area of the Middle East, and that's very dangerous for all of us,” he said

  7. #587
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Highlander "There can only be one"

    Nightwatch reports today that:

    Iraqi Sunni rebel factions have agreed that "each group should operate in its zone of influence," and that "the issue of unifying them under one command is currently not on the table." They also agreed that Sunni rebel groups would seek to conclude a truce with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in order to halt infighting and to give up the ISIL demand for a pledge of allegiance.
    Ba'athist militants have started "a systematic assassination campaign" against ISIL commanders in areas under their joint control in Diyala Governorate. Some smaller tribes near Mosul also said they killed several ISIL commanders today.
    Other reports indicate IS are conducting their own purge of Ba'athists in Mosul and other areas.

    This attempt to consolidate power is normal in most revolutions/insurgencies. Ho ruthlessly consolidated power in N. Vietnam by killing off his political rivals, the LTTE did the same in Sri Lanka, and in El Salvador there were several factions within the insurgent movement which frustrated the Cubans who wanted them to unite so they could provide effective assistance to them. This is obviously an opportunity to keep them relatively weak if we can prolong the divisions in the ranks between the ISIL, Ba'athists, and Sunni Tribes.

    Further reports of oppression in Mosul by IS may indicate that waiting for the IS to show their true colors to the people may be a useful strategy. If the IS turns the population against them, it will make a subsequent military operation much easier. The missing step that both the Iraqi government, our occupation, and ISIL share is the inability to effectively consolidate tactical victory into an enduring strategic gain.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 07-12-2014 at 04:47 AM.

  8. #588
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default A call to arms: what lies beneath Sistani’s potent fatwa?

    A short article by an Israeli academic 'A call to arms: what lies beneath Sistani’s potent fatwa?':
    Ayatollah Sistani’s fatwa, urging collective responsibility for Iraq’s religious sites, has been variously construed as a Shi’i mobilization campaign or a nationalist call to arms. But beneath the fatwa’s surface lie deeper roots: the very ruptures and fissures that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.

    (It ends with) Sistani’s potent fatwa might have been misconstrued as an attempt to mobilize Iraqi Shi’is against ISIS and the Sunni insurgency, instead of a call for all Iraqis to defend their homeland and its various religious sites as intended by its author. But its real significance lies less in the gravity of ISIS’s threat to Iraq and more in its reflection of the profound divisions that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.
    Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-aw...s-potent-fatwa
    davidbfpo

  9. #589
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

    He definitely is losing his oil fields.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...oses-divisions

  10. #590
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    IS is still grinding it out on the ground with a new move on Ramadi---evidently they still hold portions of Ramadi---is an attempt to relieve pressure on Fulluja.

    Malaki seems to be losing his mental state with his latest round of uncontrolled tirades/reactions (throwing out the Kurdish FM) against the Kurds who with those comments appears to really want to lose the Kurdish regions. Two more oil fields in the north are taken over by the Kurds.

    http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/ur...uk-bai-hassan/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/....html?hpid=z10

    If in fact Ramadi goes over to the IS---IS has successfully begun to implement an encirclement of Baghdad. They simply need to blockade it not take control of it in order to prove to the Sunni global community their victories over the Shia thus the legitimacy of the Caliphate.

    The JCoS Dempesy virtually said that last week when he indicated they could only defend the city but not recover lost terrority.

    http://www.arabnews.com/news/600431
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 07-12-2014 at 08:49 AM.

  11. #591
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

    He definitely is losing his oil fields.
    I expect the Kurds will go their own way and take the northern fields with them. The larger reserves in the south remain firmly in Shi'a territory and don't appear to be going anywhere. If Iraq dissolves along sectarian lines, the Shi'a portion will still have plenty of oil.

    If (when?) full dissolution occurs it will be interesting to see whether the Kurds will try to take Mosul and the Baiji refinery complex, which apparently is still contested. If ISIS can gain control of some of the northern Iraqi fields they will have more oil than they can get from Syria.

    This prior post is so chaotic that it's difficult to figure out what the point is or how to reasonably respond, but to try to address specific questions...

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.
    Direct connection to AQ is not a prerequisite for "terrorist" designation... though I'd certainly agree that the official "terrorist" designation has been widely abused and misused.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?
    Are you assuming that we must engage with them at all? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".
    Why should we be involved in redrawing the boundaries of Iraq? How well have our previous attempts to shape the pattern of Iraqi governance worked out?

    As far as I can see, we should not be involved in that process unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals to our involvement. What would those be? I can't see trying to keep Maliki in power as something the US should be getting behind, same for keeping the physical "Iraq" that we know intact. So what's the goal? If we aren't clear on what that is, better to let the Iraqis hack it out themselves and deal with whatever emerges at the other end.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.
    Yes, the whole "us vs the terrorists" routine is simplistic and pointless. What's the point? Is that pointing toward some variant on the "let's support the good guys" theme?

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

    The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

    On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

    So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

    But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.
    Having a "voice" doesn't mean anyone will listen to your "voice", and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have been ignoring our voice for generations, perhaps partly because we keep giving them money even when they ignore us. Nothing unique to this administration about that: it's been going on for decades. If it were up to me I'd declare a pox on both their houses, cut off all the money, and maybe think about restoring some if the parties come to us offering specific concessions, but obviously it isn't up to me. If the money is intended to buy influence or to buy a voice, the ROI is unacceptably low, to put it very mildly.

    I do not believe that being a superpower means you must have a finger in every pie, everywhere: overextension is ever the grave of empire. That doesn't mean we should never get involved, it means that we should only get involved where we have a clear and compelling interest at stake, where we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and where we have realistic and practical plans for achieving those goals. Jumping into someone else's mess just because we're a superpower and the superpower ought to be there just doesn't seem very smart to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

    1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
    2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
    3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

    Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.
    I think we both know the answer to those. The US traditionally does not hold its leaders accountable for the consequences of their decisions, we just vote the fools out and vote a new bunch of fools in. There was no shortage of voices in the leadup to the Iraq invasion warning that a post-Saddam Iraq would be unmanageable and would likely dissolve into civil war; the voices were simply ignored. The leadership didn't want to hear it, and the post 9/11 public just wanted to see some Arab butt getting kicked. It was not an environment conducive to rational thought, and what little there was on the table was quickly swept away.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.
    The conversation is going on, all over, it just hasn't reached any very attractive conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

    Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.
    I don't think anyone here is declaring everything a terrorist, so that's a bit of a straw man, but again, I'm not sure where you're going with that. Is it pointing toward some variant on the "support the god guys" theme?

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.
    My opinion, stated repeatedly, is that unless there's a defined and compelling US interest involved, unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and unless we have a practical and realistic plan for achieving those goals, we should not be getting involved in these fights, directly or by proxy. Winning is achieving your goal, and if your goal is nebulous, ephemeral, or aspirational, your chance of winning is near nil from the start. Why engage on those terms? The start of any conversation on action, intervention, or engagement has to be defining the interests at stake and the specific goals of the action. Those ingredients are all too often missing from the conversation. How can there be a rational discussion of method if we aren't clear on what specifically we are trying to achieve?

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

    If so then why did we not use it?
    We did use it. We just didn't use it effectively.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  12. #592
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Little update on some events.

    Iraq Oil Report finds that IS is smuggling oil from the northern fields it controls into Kurdistan making an estimated $1 mil/day.

    With regards to the Kurds they are taking a two track policy. On the one hand they are trying to hep form the new Iraqi government. They haven't decided who will be president yet, keeping with the ethnosectarian quota system, but once the Shiite National Alliance decides on whether to keep Maliki or not this issues will be quickly decided. It will probably end up being Barham Salah. Their second poicy is to continue to move towards independence. That is not going to happen anytime soon. They are not a financially viable state. Just take a recent announcement by the Natural Resource Minister Hawrami who said that Kurdistan will suffer from gas shortages or 2-3 years until it build more refineries. Until then there are huge lines of people waiting for gas throughout the region and the regional government has had to increase purchases of gas from Turkey. Its estimated that the Kurds need to export an average of around 1 mil/bar/day to pay for themselves. They only have a capacity of 400,000 bar/day. Adding Kirkuk field does not help because the Kirkuk pipeline is down and the insurgents control much of the territory it passes through.

    In Anbar the insurgents are moving on Ramadi. They had a presence in the southern portion of the city since the beginning of fighting in December but now control the western half and are moving on the rest of the city. Reinforcements were sent but these are the new recruits which supposedly are only getting 3-10 days of training and will probably be cannon fodder. Insurgents are also trying to take Haditha Dam but have been repulsed. I would suspect that Anbar will eventually fall in the coming months. Insurgents already control around 85% of the governorate.

    The 6th consecutive security operation is taking place in northwest Babil with major militia support. As usual the government is claiming this is a great success. I expect a 7th security operation to be quickly announced after this one as IS has proven resilient in the area.

    One positive the Sunni parties have picked Salim Jabouri to be the new speaker of parliament.

    Forgot to mention that I just posted about 15 videos on Iraq covering Asaib Ahl Al-Haq and Badr Brigade militias, the Iranian SU-25s, a longer discussion of the situation in Iraq at the London Frontline Club, and others. Here's a link.
    Last edited by JWing; 07-13-2014 at 06:34 AM.

  13. #593
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Appears the fighting is now moving into Baghdad proper---this attack is interesting as they moved in their typical fashion using trucks and that inside Baghdad---which shows some ease in freedom of movement despite all the extra Shia militia being called up. There had been rumors of IS cells in place months ago--appears to be true.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-kill-le...203144904.html

    Also heavy fighting 30 miles south of Baghdad in the Sunni belt ---Iraqi's admit to 21 killed but "claimed" dozens of IS killed---in their typical over estimating of IS for the public fashion.

    This over estimating is actually hurting them as it leads them to assume they are holding on well when they are not.

  14. #594
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    For those that speak German---this link goes to the core reason the Sunni's are splitting Iraq as I doubt seriously they even believe it possible to have a federated Iraq as long as the Shia do not stop the torturing, random killings, large scale detentions of local Sunni's under no legal charges, raids on peaceful protest camps, declaring Sunni politicians terrorists or worse Baathists, and "disappearing" of Sunni's also on a large scale---and now we wonder about why the Caliphate was created?

    http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/i.../10190082.html

    These types of activities we the US Army saw in Iraq starting just before the elections in 2005---not starting with the Shia ethnic cleansings in late 2006 early 2007---it was there to be seen by all we just did not want to believe it possible.

    Notice while the world ie the West in particular panic about a "Caliphate" and the IS attacks---not a single western country and or western leader has openly attacked Malaki for the summary killings of over 250 Sunni prisoners---ever wonder why?---because they hold the same belief mechanism---well if he was arrested he must have been a terrorist and we do a GWOT going on.

    We in the West spend a lot of time claiming we support human rights and that international law/international military law must be held to as a critical part of good governance---but is it really just mouthing the words in order that we have a good feeling that we are doing something positive in the world or is it deeply embedded in our own DNA? Really doubt that it is in our DNA these days?

    The US Army claimed that they had extensively trained the ISF on prisoner handling, the use of legal evidence, and the courts as an anchor for good governance.

    But did we just go through the motions on a good governance checklist just to get out of Iraq just as we went through the motions in setting up the ISF as a military requirement to get out?
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 07-13-2014 at 08:34 AM.

  15. #595
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Islamic Khmer Rouge: KSA miscalculated as did others

    Some very tart passages in this article by Patrick Cockburn 'Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country':http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-9602312.html

    Here is one:
    The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.
    davidbfpo

  16. #596
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Re IS state functions. It has now set up a police force in Mosul. The group posted pictures of its police cars with IS logo on the car doors.

  17. #597
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Outlaw that article is actually about a raid on prostitution houses in Zayouna Baghdad. No one is sure whether it was militias or insurgents. Either way was not a sign of fighting within Baghdad but rather murderous morality police like the regular bombing of liquor stores.

  18. #598
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWing View Post
    Outlaw that article is actually about a raid on prostitution houses in Zayouna Baghdad. No one is sure whether it was militias or insurgents. Either way was not a sign of fighting within Baghdad but rather murderous morality police like the regular bombing of liquor stores.
    JWing---typical for the old AQI--they often attacked the houses and alcohol establishments even in 2005-thru to 2009.

    That led to clashes between the locals in Baqubah in 2005/2006 when they tried to make women walk on one side and men of the other side. Locals won out and AQI pulled back off the streets.

    Shia tried the same things in the zones they controlled in Diyala.

  19. #599
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/1...2F100%2F&ihp=1

    Witnesses describe how Islamists leveled Sunni village as a warning


    The Islamic State heralded the “cleansing” of the village, which is near Tikrit in northern Iraq, in an Internet posting, bragging that it had blown up villagers’ homes, which it called “hideouts,” killed 28, wounded many more and driven the remainder from the village. It warned that “all those who may even think about fighting the Islamic State and conspiring against the caliphate can know what their fate will be.”

    The threat was clearly aimed at any suggestion that Sunni Muslim tribes would organize to fight the Islamic State _ a strategy that the U.S. military used to defeat al Qaida in Iraq during the American occupation. The extremist rebels now have seized roughly half the country with little resistance from Iraq’s hobbled army, and it’s unclear how they could be routed short of a tribal uprising or foreign airstrikes.
    Our men were ready to fight, but it was the mortar barrage that won the battle,” Jubouri said. “Negotiators were calling everyone they knew on the other side, but the other side refused.”
    Assuming this report is accurate, at least there are sources indicating it is, I think it points out two things: the IS are very worried about tribal uprisings and are attempting to quell them before they can gather steam through the use of terror. The same type of terror Saddam used to quell any tribes or organizations that were plotting to rise up against him.

    Second, and I realize this is reach based on one statement in the article, but "if our men were ready to fight" is true, then the divisions between IS and the tribes may already being taking place.

  20. #600
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    ISIS's hardest fight and greatest challenges will come after they "win."

    They will find that their state sponsors will shift their support to more moderate voices that are more likely to govern in a manner that is not a challenge to their interests.

    They will find that many who either joined them or simply stood on the sidelines as they surged to push back current state control will form into discrete and active organizations with their own popular bases of support to compete for turf, influence or even dominance.

    They may have to deal with a Shia based, Iranian backed counterattack that will come in a wide range of asymmetric and irregular forms. To include Shia foreign fighters from India and elsewhere who are every bit as motivated as the Sunni foreign fighters working with ISIS today.

    The better governance the people hope for will likely elude them for a decade or a generation or two or three. It is a process.

    Like the US learned in 03, ISIS will get the big strategic lesson learned - "winning" is the easy part.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 07-14-2014 at 01:09 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

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
  •