Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[OUTLAW 09]

Sunni's and Kurds walk out of the first Parliament meeting after the recent elections---so much for a "negotiated" inclusive new government minus a Malaki.

Even A. Chalabi who got us into the war with false intel is talked about as a possible replacement for Malaki---now how would a US government deal with a Chalabi who was at one time under an arrest warrant issued by the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/wo...ast/iraq.html?

[AmericanPride]

I think it's clear by now that the Obama administration is not entirely concerned with the survival of the government in Iraq. The administration requested $500 million to train and equip the rebels in Syria - the same government the Obama administration has condemned for attacking ISIS in Iraq to the applause of the Iraqi government. Both US and Saudi Arabia have warned Iran about coming to the aid of Iraq, and most recently, the purchase of Russian fighters by Iraq after US refusal for any substantial support. The US priority is the overthrow of the Assad regime - which means less pressure on ISIS and the virtual isolation of Iraq - and it seems like the assumption is that ISIS can be dealt with at some undetermined point in the future.

[JWing]

AmericanPride the Obama administration is unlikely to act in Iraq until a new government is formed. They're putting pressure on Iraqi politicians to get rid of Maliki and using the little influence they have i.e. air strikes to push that point. As for the aid to Syrian rebels, part of that is to actually boost the groups that are fighting ISIS so it is also supposed to help the situation in Iraq by diverting resources back to Syria.

[JWing]

My latest interview "Update On Iraq’s Insurgency Interview With Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi" Tamimi is one of the top researchers on the Iraqi and Syrian insurgencies. I go through each one of the contested provinces in Iraq with him and which groups are active there. It is readily apparent that the Islamic State is spearheading the vast majority of operations in Iraq right now and pushing out many other organizations across the country.

[OUTLAW 09]

This was a comment by Tom Rick's on his Best defense Blog over on FP---kind of goes to the heart of the new COIN FM.

"Hey kids, looking for a good dissertation topic?: How about Iranian intervention in Iraq as a model of a modern training and advisory campaign? Low profile, high impact: Compare and contrast."

[TheCurmudgeon]

TC---have never said pop centric is dead as it has been at the heart of every guerrilla war in the last 300 years---what is dead is COIN as it was never designed to fight an aggressive UW/IW war which Iraq was even in 2003.

You are correnct, my apologies.

I am not sure it is dead even in aggressive cases, but I believe aggressive cases require greater attention to what is causing the deeply held convictions that make it an aggressive UW/IW war. Any/all wars amongst the people are fed by something. I would argue that the "something" is a combination of a clearly distinguishable identity that seperates the insurgents from the greater population (or at least the population who controls the power) and a deeply held feeling of injustice. You will have to address one or both of those factors eventually. If you don't, then you just kick the can down the road.

[OUTLAW 09]

My latest interview "Update On Iraq’s Insurgency Interview With Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi" Tamimi is one of the top researchers on the Iraqi and Syrian insurgencies. I go through each one of the contested provinces in Iraq with him and which groups are active there. It is readily apparent that the Islamic State is spearheading the vast majority of operations in Iraq right now and pushing out many other organizations across the country.

JWing--an interesting article and it raises two questions that seem to be unanswered by many pundits reporting in the last few days.

1. Just how many fighters and armed sympathizers does the Sunni coalition ie
JRTN, Ansar al Sunnah, Jayish M, and the Islamic Army have and how deep into the tribes do they extend and exactly which Sunnni tribes are supporting the Sunni coalition.

2. Exactly how will the Caliphate announcement target the mothership AQ---the announcement was a general call to young Muslim men to join the global fight against the West and that in itself targets the AQ at it's core.

The reason I say that is that AQ has lost the overall "Islamic" messaging months ago to the IS, AQ use to be the general funder and that has disappeared, AQ use to recruit and funnel fighters---that has all but disappeared as well so are we seeing the overall "replacement" of AQ by the IS because if one really reads the IS messaging releases the last few days they are basically saying that to the face of AQ.

We are starting to see the oath of allegiances' to IS come in from around the world plus a number of great "wishes" as well coming in from the various jihadi groups.

What I think is occurring and we see no comments by the pundits---the jihadi movement is splitting into a radial wing ie based on the Koran and what I would call a moderate/"secular" wing that is driven by a political instinct.

What strikes me in the article is that while IS goes for the political messaging the Sunni coalition goes for the weapons which makes sense if one is arming far more individuals than currently "seen" on the surface so indirectly the comments indicating the Sunni coalition could if need be hold IS in check might actually be true.

Keep similar articles coming---they are far better than what the general media is putting out there.

[OUTLAW 09]

You are correnct, my apologies.

I am not sure it is dead even in aggressive cases, but I believe aggressive cases require greater attention to what is causing the deeply held convictions that make it an aggressive UW/IW war. Any/all wars amongst the people are fed by something. I would argue that the "something" is a combination of a clearly distinguishable identity and a deeply held feeling of injustice. You will have to address one or both of those factors eventually. If you don't, then you just kick the can down the road.

TC-that is the point we started in 2008 kicking the can down the road in Iraq in the name of the COIN FM---meaning every BCT or Divison would roll into their new AO and go through the RIPTOA process and that meant taking over the same campaign plan and the same LOEs as the previous unit and usually if at all there was little to no major change by the incoming unit for say about six months then the changes were small as all were afraid of jiggling the campaign plan.

Thus say from 2008 to until 2011 one could see the same basic LOE tenets with little change to reflect as you correctly state a recognition of what the "triggers" are.

[JWing]

Outlaw,

Thanks for the compliment on the interview. I'm trying hard.

When Anbar first blew up in Jan I tried to write a little bit about the tribes there. It seemed like they were split almost 50-50 on whether to back the govt or insurgents. The problem is I haven't really seen anything else in the rest of the country other than just passing mentions of the generic "tribe" so no idea how it's playing out right now. Zaid al-Ali is an Iraqi constitutional scholar with family & friends in Tikrit and said many tribes there are standing on the sidelines waiting to see who has the upper hand and then will jump on the bandwagon. He said one tribe stopped the ISF from crossing its territory during the current fighting in Tikrit.

As for the IS vs AQ dynamic I think the Islamic State has continuously built up its brand and gained the advantage all the way back to its origins with Tawhid wal Jihad as Nada Bakos pointed out in her interview. Al Qaeda central was doing very little after 9/11 while Zarqawi was burning up Iraq and gaining more and more followers. Obviously that wasn't a consistent trajectory as IS was reduced to a small terrorist group by 2012 but has now made a huge comeback.

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---seems like the ISF have stalled in Tikrit and in Anbar and other than appearing to be building a defensive line around Baghdad and to the north/west/east there is not much happening.

In some aspects this defensive line is in fact a de facto division of Iraq along the Sunni/Kurdish regions.

Also appears that Iran is getting nervous about the split being seen and is trying to verbally impress the Kurds---the Kurds have their own region now and I think in the long term they will be clashing with Iran whose Kurdish population are not that small.Baghdad

(IraqiNews.com) The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for the Arab-African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said on Sunday that the wise Iraqi Kurdish leaders are not thinking about autonomy, adding that certain parties that speak of splitting Iraq, are not aware of the consequences.


"A statement by the Iranian News Agency (IRNA) received by IraqiNews.com quoted Abdollahian, as saying “Iran underlines respecting Iraq’s independence, national sovereignty and solidarity and territorial integrity in line with the country’s Constitution.”

“Wise Iraqi Kurdish leaders do not consider autonomy and adhere to the country’s Constitution, he said,” he added.”

“The remainder of Saddam and Takfiri terrorists will not be allowed to put the Iraqi and regional security at risk,” he concluded.

This last sentence shows me that have bought the Malaki line that is all about the "Baathists/IS" and them seem to be overlooking the serious underlying Sunni grievances with Malaki to led to the uprising.

[Bill Moore]

You are correnct, my apologies.

I am not sure it is dead even in aggressive cases, but I believe aggressive cases require greater attention to what is causing the deeply held convictions that make it an aggressive UW/IW war. Any/all wars amongst the people are fed by something. I would argue that the "something" is a combination of a clearly distinguishable identity that seperates the insurgents from the greater population (or at least the population who controls the power) and a deeply held feeling of injustice. You will have to address one or both of those factors eventually. If you don't, then you just kick the can down the road.

Pop centric has been around for centuries, the terrorist targets the population very publically and the population gets the message, and they cooperate with the terrorist. The idea that ISIS won through a U.S. like pop centric approach is simply wrong headed. By most accounts the ISIS is using pretty severe tactics to coerce the population, while simultaneously some elements are offering a little kindness which most recognize it for what it is.

Pop centric as a strategy in and of itself isn't dead, it never existed in the first place. The population was one aspect of the environment combatants had to manage one way or the other, unfortunately the other way (coercion) tends to work best for rapidly establishing tactical control, and it is very effective at countering the hearts and mind approach, since personal security will normally rank over nice to have items. Still at the end of the day controlling the population through either method is not decisive.

[OUTLAW 09]

It really seems that all members of the current Iraqi Malaki government cannot fathom just why they lost the Sunni triangle or exactly why thye Sunni's rose up against them.

this comment from the Iraqi US Ambassador is just another step in the please, please, please fight for us (when they ask for assistance it really means fighting for them) and this is not the time to demand from Malaki an inclusive government.

We fell for it all the time from 2005 to 2011 and even now US politicians seem to forget we carried the bulk of the fighting in Iraq and we sill got no influence over Malaki---he even ignored our repeated warnings.

So really why now support him---let him figure out whether the fair weather friends of Russia, Iran and Syria in the end keep Iraq together or cause it to split up.

"Faily said that "because of the urgency on the ground," this was the wrong time for Washington to make U.S. support for Iraq dependent on Maliki either stepping down or truly reaching out to Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish minorities."

Note: With the exact reason for the Sunni uprising staring them in the face they still look for a way out to protect the sheer amounts of money they are racking in via corruption, extortion, and bribes---so the Shia are really no different than the funding raising practiced by the IS.

"Sunni leaders in Iraq's heartland are so angry with Maliki that they are backing the brutal ISIS, who they believe is willing to take the fight to the Iraqi leader and his Shiite allies. "Don't condition it," Faily said. "The risk is too immediate. The threat is too important for us to think about conditionality."

Note: Again once the Sunni are put down who really believes Malaki will create an all inclusive government?

Malaki personally simply hates anything Sunni---that is his core belief system so why is he to compromise?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Pop centric has been around for centuries, the terrorist targets the population very publically and the population gets the message, and they cooperate with the terrorist. The idea that ISIS won through a U.S. like pop centric approach is simply wrong headed. By most accounts the ISIS is using pretty severe tactics to coerce the population, while simultaneously some elements are offering a little kindness which most recognize it for what it is.

While I won't disagree on the brutality (at least in our eyes) of ISIS, I believe you are wrong in your assessment that ISIS is not fighting a Pop-centric war. It is exactly what they are fighting. ISIS is not using coercion to control other Sunni groups. They are using the shared identity and the recent history of oppression by the Maliki government to foster an alternative to that government. They are fighting a war of legitimacy, plain and simple. They can win with such small numbers exactly because they do not need coercion to maintain control over the population. Most of the population either supports the idea of separation from the Maliki government or overthrowing it. Either way, ISIS is offering a path to those goals.

As for their repressive tactics, that all depends on who the victims are. If they are primarily Shiites or Sunni collaborators the population will be right behind them, because it is exactly what they want to do. Just like Nazi collaborators after we liberated France and Belgium. It is justice in their eyes. ISIS is setting the world right, getting retribution for prior injustice.


Eventually the Sunni people will have to deal with ISIS and their ultra-conservative religious views, but that time is not now. The truth is ISIS does not have the personnel to enforce that view. They can sing their religious imperatives from the minarets but that is about all for now. The fight is elsewhere. If they succeed in creating a separate Sunni state then the real fight for control will begin. They will need significant numbers for that fight. I am not sure they have them.

If my assessment is right, it means that ISIS has probably hit a wall. They cannot offer legitimacy in Kurdish territory nor can they offer it to the Shiites. They will have to use good ole coercion to win in those places. I will bet that they will not succeed in either place.

[Bill Moore]

I don't see identity politics as population centric insurgency or COIN. It is irregular warfare so it almost goes without saying the combatants will have an identity to rally around. Street gangs also have an identity, as do prison gangs etc., so. Identity is a factor but the decisive element is warfare. Being able to mobilize your base is important whether you're a state or irregular actor, but then you have to employ it, which brings us back to warfare.

It all matters so I'm not discounting your points, but I don't agree they have run out of steam yet, and I definitely don't agree they don't need weapons to defeat their adversaries. The army didn't collapse because the people rose up, there was much more to it than this. Saddam demonstrated tanks and armies are very effective at suppressing popular uprisings. Maliki lost control of his military.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't see identity politics as population centric insurgency or COIN. It is irregular warfare so it almost goes without saying the combatants will have an identity to rally around. Street gangs also have an identity, as do prison gangs etc., so. Identity is a factor but the decisive element is warfare. Being able to mobilize your base is important whether you're a state or irregular actor, but then you have to employ it, which brings us back to warfare.

It all matters so I'm not discounting your points, but I don't agree they have run out of steam yet, and I definitely don't agree they don't need weapons to defeat their adversaries. The army didn't collapse because the people rose up, there was much more to it than this. Saddam demonstrated tanks and armies are very effective at suppressing popular uprisings. Maliki lost control of his military.

Fair enough. I can see how these can be seperated.

I don't believe they have run out of steam, I think they have run out of allies. They will not be able to depend on other insurgent or Baathist to help them in other parts of the country. It will not be so easy to take territory against groups that feel Sunni's are not welcome there. They will not be able to hold it without the support of the local population. If they do take territory they will end up fighting an insurgency against their insurgency.

I suppose time will tell, but I think they will have to transition to a more traditional form or war from the revulitionary style they have been fighting. They will not be seen as liberators in the rest of Iraq. They certainly have the moral and the financial resources. I don't think they have the orginizational structure or the logistical capabilities to allow them to take the rest of Iraq.

[JWing]

My latest article "Deaths In Iraq Return To Civil War Levels In June 2014". All the major organizations that track Iraqi deaths had June return to figures not seen since 2007 when the civil war was still raging.

[OUTLAW 09]

Iranian SU-25s being flown by possible Quds pilots.

http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-pol...oi-su-25-jets/

[OUTLAW 09]

Looks like the ethnic regional separation into three regions is already in the minds of the Kurds.

Saw somewhere today a new map redrawn to show the separation of the Kurds/Shia/Sunni/Alewites together with the Christian regions---basically it has redrawn Sykes-Picot as many wanted it years ago.

The most important development, however, was obviously what KRG President Masoud Barzani told the BBC on July 1. Fresh from his rather de-Gaulle-in-Paris tour of the Iraqi city of Kirkuk, which the Kurds consider their “Jerusalem” – and which peshmerga militia wasted no time in seizing and securing following ISIS’s incursion into Mosul last month – Barzani said that Iraq was “effectively partitioned” and that his semiautonomous government planned to hold a referendum on independence within months. “Everything that’s happened recently shows that it’s the right of Kurdistan to achieve independence. From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal.”

Read more: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsf...#ixzz36LR7NMaD

This was also today sent by the Kurds to al Sistani that indicates to me that if al Sistani does not make the right moves over the next few days the Kurds are headed to an independent country thus fulfilling really what the IS wants as a main political goal for the entire ME--the elimination of Sykes-Picot. If Sykes-Picot is removed then AQ is dead and will never recover as it will be viewed as a IS success in "defeating" this "western creation".

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The President of Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani sent on Wednesday a message to the Supreme Religious Authority Ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, over the updates of the Iraqi situation.

Member of Kurdistani Democratic Party, Mahdi Haji, said to IraqiNews.com “The message talked about the threats that target Iraq due to the wrong policies of the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, who spent 8 year in office without presenting services according to the Kurds’ views.”

“Barzani wanted al-Sistani to be aware that Iraq is facing the danger due to the lack of adherence to the constitutional timings and the accords among the political blocs,” he added.

“At the end of the message, Barzani said that Iraq should be divided into three Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish regions along with a Central Government that adheres to the constitution,” he concluded

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---it appears that the IS and the Sunni Coalition has apparently moved around the outside of Baghdad in enough of a force to "motivate" the White House to send more "non boots on the ground".

So really what are the current IS and Sunni Coalition numbers on the ground?

"We have seen them reinforce themselves around Baghdad enough to convince us more troops was the prudent thing to do."

[Bill Moore]

Fair enough. I can see how these can be seperated.

I don't believe they have run out of steam, I think they have run out of allies. They will not be able to depend on other insurgent or Baathist to help them in other parts of the country. It will not be so easy to take territory against groups that feel Sunni's are not welcome there. They will not be able to hold it without the support of the local population. If they do take territory they will end up fighting an insurgency against their insurgency.

I suppose time will tell, but I think they will have to transition to a more traditional form or war from the revulitionary style they have been fighting. They will not be seen as liberators in the rest of Iraq. They certainly have the moral and the financial resources. I don't think they have the orginizational structure or the logistical capabilities to allow them to take the rest of Iraq.

Do they desire control of all of Iraq? Seems like the best option for them is to sustain pressure on Bagdad to force a deal to divide Iraq into three states. They can then consolidate their gains. If they keep pushing they'll reach their culminating point.