Islam, Catholisism, religion, and conflict

[Bill Moore]

Bill, strategic understanding is only politically correct by coincidence.

Tactical action is politically correct by design.

Besides, neither you nor I know what our government's plan is for Iraq. But if one simply assesses the facts with an open mind it looks like the Balkanization of Iraq and Syria is the one thing that the Gulf States, Turkey, the US, and probably Iran, Israel, Russia, and most others seem to tacitly agree upon in a long time.

Bob, I wish it was that simple, strategic understanding is biased by political correctness and a lot of other factors involving the individuals seeking that understanding. Action may or not be politically correct. Some would argue using drones to kill U.S. citizens in Yemen may not have been politically correct.

As for dividing Iraq, there was a recent statement made by either the President or his Press secretary that the U.S. policy was to support a united Iraq. That policy could change in time, but we all are aware of another situation where division of a country was supposed to lead a better peace, and that was UK's division of India to include West and East Pakistan. The actual division of the country resulted in up to a million killed during the migrations to one side or the other. Then it resulted in several wars, and still they have border skirmishes and are one of the more likely locations for a nuclear weapon exchange. Dividing the country won't be easy, and it will be most likely be very violent, so I'm not sure Turkey or any other country in the region wants to see a divided Iraq.

Interesting report from CSIS

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...vidingiraq.pdf

Dividing Iraq: Think Long and Hard First

Recent elections have made it clear, however, that its cities and 18
governorates all have significant minorities, and any effort to divide the country would require massive relocations.

Moreover, Iraq is heavily urbanized, with nearly 40% of the population in the
divided Baghdad and Mosul areas. Kirkuk is already a powder keg, and Basra is
the subject of Shi’ite Islamist “cleansing.” Ulster and the Balkans have already
shown how difficult it is to split cities, and with Iraq’s centralized and failing
infrastructure, and impoverished economy, violence and economics cannot be
separated.

[Bob's World]

Surely our government would not say one thing and do, support or wish very hard for another?? (tongue firmly in cheek).

I really don't know, but sure looks like letting the current governments hold onto some portion where the majority is more autonomous (and the minorities too small and weak to cause much trouble) is what is most likely to occur. it will be messy, and while it may take a generation or two, is probably the best bet for getting to some degree of trust and natural stability for all of the many and diverse people of this region

In shah Allah. And if the Sunnis want to call their portion a "Caliphate," more power to them. Better to have a tangible Caliphate that is a small, weak state on the west banks of the Euphrates - than to retain the Caliphate as a powerful, unifying idea in the minds of frustrated young Sunni men.

As to the state of Iraq clumsily cobbled together by the US, it no longer exists. We will make the same mistake we made in Lebanon in the early 80s if we think this is still a national government and national security force and attempt to prop them up. This is now quickly becoming a de facto Shia government and Shia militia. To go in now is to take a side, and that does not serve our interests now any more than creating the perception that we were Christian Americans siding with Christian Maranites did then.

[carl]

In shah Allah. And if the Sunnis want to call their portion a "Caliphate," more power to them. Better to have a tangible Caliphate that is a small, weak state on the west banks of the Euphrates - than to retain the Caliphate as a powerful, unifying idea in the minds of frustrated young Sunni men.
.

Why would the one preclude the other? It seems to me the weak state does not preclude the unifying idea at all. In fact its very existence gives that idea something tangible to coalesce around. Frustrated young might rather like something tangible to fight for. And weak states can develop into strong ones. This one is already strong enough to take over large parts of two countries and stand off forces from the Baghdad gov and Iran.

[Dayuhan]

As for dividing Iraq, there was a recent statement made by either the President or his Press secretary that the U.S. policy was to support a united Iraq. That policy could change in time, but we all are aware of another situation where division of a country was supposed to lead a better peace, and that was UK's division of India to include West and East Pakistan. The actual division of the country resulted in up to a million killed during the migrations to one side or the other. Then it resulted in several wars, and still they have border skirmishes and are one of the more likely locations for a nuclear weapon exchange. Dividing the country won't be easy, and it will be most likely be very violent, so I'm not sure Turkey or any other country in the region wants to see a divided Iraq.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "we" (however "we" might be constructed) should divide Iraq. It's not a question of Iraq being divided by some outside party or parties, more a matter of outside parties accepting the reality that Iraq is in the process of dividing itself. It is of course true that this process is violent and will get more violent, but I don't see what anyone is supposed to do about it, short of a decision to either run Iraq as a de facto colony or to install a new dictator and provide that dictator with enough armed force to hold it together.

Dissolution was a predictable and widely predicted consequence of removing Saddam, so there's really no need for affectations of surprise at the outcome.

[Bill Moore]

Dayuhan,

It isn't rocket science, we (to include other states who take an interest in this) have a number of tools to support the central government and weaken opposition parties who desire to break away. We, along with other states, have a long history of supporting governments that some parties would have desired to break away from, but due to foreign assistance the governments were too strong to challenge.

With the exception of the Kurds, I haven't heard any other group express a desire to further divide Iraq. Has anyone heard Sunnis and Shia agreeing on a potential division of Iraq? If the Kurds control the northern oil fields and the Shia the southern oil fields, what does that leave for the Sunni?

I really don't think dividing Iraq into three separate states will work upon further consideration for a lot of reasons. Maybe promoting and enabling an independent Kurdistan would be in our interest.

[Dayuhan]

It isn't rocket science, we (to include other states who take an interest in this) have a number of tools to support the central government and weaken opposition parties who desire to break away. We, along with other states, have a long history of supporting governments that some parties would have desired to break away from, but due to foreign assistance the governments were too strong to challenge.

I'm not sure there is a viable "central government" at this stage. There's a Shi'a government that claims to be a central government, but despite very prodigious foreign assistance it cannot control much of it's nominal territory. I think the reality that we don't want to face is that there are only two ways that a central government is going to control Iraq. One would be through genuine inclusion and cooperation, a lovely idea that neither we nor anyone else can impose. The other is Saddam's style, which is probably no longer possible. We attempted the first method, and (predictably) failed. In the process we broke down the dictatorial apparatus so thoroughly that it probably can't be reconstituted. How long do we keep doubling down and trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again before we recognize that it's no longer our decision to make?

With the exception of the Kurds, I haven't heard any other group express a desire to further divide Iraq. Has anyone heard Sunnis and Shia agreeing on a potential division of Iraq? If the Kurds control the northern oil fields and the Shia the southern oil fields, what does that leave for the Sunni?

Of course the Sunni and Shi'a don't want division. They both want the whole thing, but neither has the capacity to take the whole thing. This is not going to be settled by people sitting down at a table and deciding on a polite division. They will kill each other until either there's a winner and a loser or they get too tired to keep fighting and agree on a division out of exhaustion.

The Sunni of course will be left with not much, though ISIS has apparently taken (and may or may not be able to keep) some of the northern fields in the Mosul area. If Iraq is ever stable enough for serious exploration it's very possible that oil will be found in Sunni areas, but that's not likely any time soon.

I really don't think dividing Iraq into three separate states will work upon further consideration for a lot of reasons. Maybe promoting and enabling an independent Kurdistan would be in our interest.

Certainly an externally imposed division wouldn't work. The process just needs to play out; we may have started it but it's no longer under our control and the Iraqis are going to have to work it out for themselves. It's not going to be pretty.

[Bill Moore]

https://news.vice.com/video/rockets-...nge-dispatch-7

These Jews put the Torah over the state. A very interesting video, well worth watching to capture the atmospherics of the settlers.

[Red Rat]

Pertinent tweet from an Islamic State (IS) affiliated Twitter account.

The context of the conversation was comment on IS nascent air capabilities and their probable lack of necessary logistical support. An unsolicited response received was (verbatim):

"we taught u u a lesson in how a trained Heart doesn't fail. Unfortunately u didnt pass"

Clearly for many in IS this is a religious war, which to my mind puts the political dynamic closer to that which the Israelis perceive in their dealings with Hamas. This is not a battlespace (political or military) which the West appears comfortable in dealing with. As Alastair Campbell said with regards to the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "We don't do God".

[TheCurmudgeon]

Pertinent tweet from an Islamic State (IS) affiliated Twitter account.

The context of the conversation was comment on IS nascent air capabilities and their probable lack of necessary logistical support. An unsolicited response received was (verbatim):

"we taught u u a lesson in how a trained Heart doesn't fail. Unfortunately u didnt pass"

Clearly for many in IS this is a religious war, which to my mind puts the political dynamic closer to that which the Israelis perceive in their dealings with Hamas. This is not a battlespace (political or military) which the West appears comfortable in dealing with. As Alastair Campbell said with regards to the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "We don't do God".

It is not that we "don't do God", western states cannot legitimize a religious war. We can legitimize a war for freedom. Freedom is what we are willing to fight and die for. We can replace oppression with freedom. It is harder to replace religion with freedom. I would argue that it is impossible to do by an outside source.

The result is that we are fighting two different conflicts, almost fighting past each other. Western states with their quasi-religious belief in freedom as the cure for all political ills and groups like ISIS who use religion to legitimize both their war and their rule. In any case, the result is a war without end, because we can never control the ultimate battle space, the support of the population if our aim is to give them freedom. Freedom does not include forcing them to give up or modify their religious beliefs.

The ultimate result is war without end ... at least as long as you see force as a way to de-ligitimize religion and "impose" freedom. There are things that have to occur from within.

Which brings me around to my questions/comment. The only countries that currently attempt to impose freedom are countries with a judo-christian history. I could argue that Christianity is a "individualistic" religion in that each individual is capable to reaching salvation based on their own individual life choices (depending on which parts of the bible one consults). Does that matter?