Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[AmericanPride]

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes.

Bill - in my analysis, religion (and other forms of identity) are frames through which to view political and economic structures. Between 1948 and 2014, the structures in the Middle East have remained remarkably resilient - minus the revolution in Iran and the destruction of Iraq. What has changed however is that the post-War frames of colonial-anticolonialism, nationalism, republicanism, and of course the Cold War have all disappeared. This started in 1973 with the defeat of the Arab republics of Syria and Egypt, spelling the death of Arab nationalism. What has occurred since then? 1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia; the Iranian revolution; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These events set into motion the strengthening of Islamism as an organizing principle and so the structural conflicts that were present before (i.e. Iranian-Saudi animosity) took on a religious tone. This is not to say that religion is unimportant - it absolutely is important. But I think it's difficult to argue that it is the cause of the current strife in the Middle East when the problems existed long before the emergence of militant Islam as a credible movement in its modern incarnation.

There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

This is true in the post-1973 period. Who here remembers the communist Palestinian terrorist organizations like the PFLP and the DFLP or consider them serious threats to international security today? The paradigm has shifted from nationalism to religion but that doesn't mean the nature of the base conflict has also fundamentally changed.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion).

I agree - religion is a powerful organizing principle. But even during the Cold War, ideological militants also behaved similarly, just not on the same scale.

Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

I don't think religion can or should be ignored. But I also don't think (1) resolving whatever religious grievance is presumably at the heart of the conflict will actually end the conflict or (2) that understanding the nuances of the theology is helpful in understanding a path towards conflict termination. Twenty years ago ISIS did not exist. Ten years ago it was in its infant stages. Now militants are flocking to its banner - what has changed? I don't think it's because people are any more zealous than usual or because the ISIS message is more relevant now than previously; this is a path of conflict escalation created by the break down of civil society in Iraq framed by religion. The Arab world has been an ideological desert since 1973 and Arab nationalism is virtually non-existent, so that leaves religion as the only credible organizing principle with which to frame conflict. Minus the semantics, would the grievances and justifications be fundamentally different if religion was replaced by, say, nationalism or communism? I doubt it. The disputes between Iraqi-Iran, KSA-Iran, Israel-Arabs, etc would still be present.

[AmericanPride]

US has spent the past 50 years maintaining French, British & Portuguese spheres of influence in the developing World without asking deep questions about the "hows" and the "whys" of "state formation" in these parts of the globe.

I think this is central to what is going on in Iraq. Compared to the West, all of the states in the Middle East are relatively young (some exception could be argued for Iran and Turkey). Iraqi state formation never achieved the level of stability found in Europe - and this problem existed before the emergence of organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The collapse (read: destruction) of the Iraqi state in the midst of the revival of militant Islam created an opportunity for the formation of such groups.

[slapout9]

1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia;

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

[AmericanPride]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

[slapout9]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

Why did they do it then?

[KingJaja]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

I'm going to deviate a bit here - I don't agree with your thesis on religion, i.e. that is is a "mere organizing principle". The Muslim Brotherhood was formed as long ago as the 1920s.

Okay, if we assume that politics is major factor driving religious movements in the Middle-east; what politiks is responsible for the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the Developing World - from the slums of Lagos to the favelas of Brazil?

I'm from an interesting nation; Nigeria - you can see a rise in religious fundamentalism in both major religions - Islam & Christianity.

I'm not sure this has to much to do with Middle-east politics.

[KingJaja]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

[ganulv]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

[AmericanPride]

Why did they do it then?

Inside the Kingdom by Robert Lacey provides good context and consequences for the incident on Saudi Arabia. In it, he describes how the material prosperity of KSA in the 1970s triggered a religious reaction (not unlike other societies that experience similar changes). The surprise and audacity of the event shocked the Saudi leadership, and in the hopes of repairing their religious legitimacy as they built their material wealth, the Saudi state made a deliberate decision to move closer to its own religious right to appease the anxiety about modernization and Western influences. For al-Otaybi and his men in particular who seized the mosque - they thought they were ushering in the arrival of the Mahdi and the overthrow of the House of Saud. They were all killed or executed.

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

There is no long term plan. The U.S. does not do long-term strategy and what strategy it does do, it does not do very well.

[KingJaja]

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

Politics doesn't explain the growth of Evangelical Christianity in China - and it has experienced quite significant growth there.

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

[JMA]

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.

And what will be created by the destruction of Christian sites by radical Muslems?

[ganulv]

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

With due respect, you are the one delineating a neat category. I am the one saying that religion is one part of life tied into many others.

[JMA]

Posted by JMA

As for Syria leading to the situation in Iraq, it certainly didn't help it (nor could we have changed that dynamic), but it would have happened anyway. Read about AQ's strategy in Iraq, they were making significant progress independent of anything happening in Syria. ...

I appreciate just how humiliating it is for Americans right now but when the signs were that it was all going pear-shaped the 'flock' blindly supported a failing policy and attacked anyone who strayed 'off-message'.

Certainly in time we will have more clarity on this and other matters. In the meantime the best advice is to resist any knee-jerk defence of obvious failure.

[Bill Moore]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

1. Spiritual fills a void (most humans are spiritual, intellectual, and physical), and also provides a narrative that explains what is happening in the world. I think AQ and Islamist narrative resonates because so far it does explain what is happening in the world to many poor and not so poor people. Early 2000s, there was an article in the San Antonio Times that expressed surprise in how many Mexican Catholics were converting to Islam, the reporter interviewed a few converts, and they said Islam explains what is happening in the world and fills a void that Christianity didn't. It would be interesting to explore that further and identify what that void is, and if it is the same void that leads some Muslims to take an extremist path.

2. Agree very strongly, but our Department of State doesn't seem to recognize this. This may be an unfair comment, but we tend to keep pushing the same narrative even though it fails to resonate with only a few educated people at tea parties and who have some degree of wealth. We're not so good at sensing ground truth in the masses who are living off a dollar or so per day.

3. I think the Western narrative is freedom, democracy, and capitalism (free markets). Freedom means different things to different people, an Islamist may desire to be free of Western forms of government so he can impose his views and laws on others. Democracy is a messy form of government, and young democracies are highly unstable and the majority fail. I tend to agree with Churchhill that it is the least bad form of governance, but you can't transition to a democracy overnight. Certain conditions must be created over decades related to education, economics, social norms, etc. before it has a chance to develop. Capitalism and free markets mean competition, when there is competition there are losers and winners, and those living off a dollar a day are going to compete effectively against those that have means (money, education, networks, etc.). Capitalism will likely be losing proposition for the economically oppressed, and simply expose them to more exploitation. Again we need to identify transitional/condition setting objectives to enable that transition if we insist on keeping this as a goal.

4. In my opinion we need to slow our roll and deeply self-reflect about what we want to accomplish in the world, what can be accomplished, and what is moral. I'm just one voter among millions, and I'm not aware of any politicians in our country running on that platform, so it is just another worthless set of ideas from one concerned American.

[Bill Moore]

I appreciate just how humiliating it is for Americans right now but when the signs were that it was all going pear-shaped the 'flock' blindly supported a failing policy and attacked anyone who strayed 'off-message'.

Certainly in time we will have more clarity on this and other matters. In the meantime the best advice is to resist any knee-jerk defence of obvious failure.

I don't think you have a good appreciation for how our country works. Obama's plans for Iraq were bitterly attacked, and his failure to follow through with his redline comment was bitterly attacked, and Libya, and Afghanistan, etc. I admit the democratic party has in many ways has become Nazi like where there is no deviation of thought allowed within their ranks; however, since Obama's policies are increasingly unpopular, we're starting to see fissures in their party (they're starting to look like an American political party again, instead of mindless conformists). We have three branches of government that counterbalance each other, the President is not all powerful.

As for the military, we're subordinate to civilian leadership, but that doesn't mean our leaders don't speak truth to power, but they do quietly behind closed doors. Once the decision is made they execute.

I agree it will take more time to understand what is happening in Syria and Iraq, who all the players are, why certain decisions are being made, etc. Of course we're trying to avoid a knee jerk response now, and that course of action comes with its critics also. I would like to say it isn't a popularity contest, but in democracy it too often is very much about a popularity contest. Some politicians have the courage to do what is right versus what is popular, but they're a minority.

[Dayuhan]

LOL... another Obama man throwing in a defence. The one plus with the US is that eventually it all comes out. Bush and Obama are guilty... we just wait to hear what complicity or otherwise the military has in all this.

Complicity sounds so... conspiratorial. I don't think the military is complicit in anything beyond trying to do what they were told to do. Sometimes badly, arguably, but anyone who hands an army a mission like "nation building" has to expect that things won't all go well.

I don't think Bush is "guilty" of anything beyond hubris, and if that's a crime there's a lot of criminals out there. Catastrophic results, of course, but that's often the case. I don't think Obama is guilty of anything beyond doing what he was elected to do... the eternal inconvenience of democracy.

[JMA]

Complicity sounds so... conspiratorial. I don't think the military is complicit in anything beyond trying to do what they were told to do. Sometimes badly, arguably, but anyone who hands an army a mission like "nation building" has to expect that things won't all go well.

The US military goes a bundle on ethics and moral courage and the West Point Honor Code but seldom live up to the standard.

Shinseki's projection on the requirement for post invasion forces was probably more accurate but cost him his job.

So we will learn in due course who said what and who resigned and why. The pliant sycophants will also be exposed. It all comes out in the end.

I don't think Bush is "guilty" of anything beyond hubris, and if that's a crime there's a lot of criminals out there. Catastrophic results, of course, but that's often the case. I don't think Obama is guilty of anything beyond doing what he was elected to do... the eternal inconvenience of democracy.

The body count in Iraq since 2003 stands at 193,000 and no American is to blame or no American President has responsibility?

[carl]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

Slap, rather than flattening those places, which I think would be unwise, how about taking them? I don't mean us taking them, I mean other Muslims taking them from the Saudis. Where is it written that the House of Saud must have authority over those places? Why not the Kurds, or the Turks or the Malaysians? Why should those lazy, fat trouble making Saudis have them if they refuse to shape up? IS is eventually going to go after those places anyway and the Saudis couldn't stand against those guys but others could. Maybe we should look at openly backing a side in the contest that is occurring within Islam between the takfiri killers and everybody else. If the takfiris win the contest it will be all of Islam against the rest of the world. That is what they are aiming to bring about. We should recognize that and try to figure out how to stop it.

[OUTLAW 09]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.

Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.

The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

See AP this is exactly why you are so often off base to the point of hanging onto the aged idea of negotiations which is suppose to solve everything.---but I guess it goes to the fact that you never served in Iraq either in the military or as a civilian.

Really go back and fully understand Khomeini and his Green Crescent expansionism of Shiaism. Go back and fully understand the Iraq/Iran war from 80/88 as an attempt by the Sunni's to reign in that Shia expansionism by Khomeini.

Go back and fully understand exactly how Hezbollah arrived carrying the Green Banners of Shia from Iran to "support" their brothers in Lebanon, fully understand how that led to the Marine Barracks bombing, how the US Embassy bombing destroyed virtually the entire CIA ME field agents as a pay back by "guess who" Russia for issues inside Iran just after the Revolution, then onto to Syria.

Once you fully understand all of this then go back and fully understand the Sunni Shia clash for the last 1400 years---and then fully understand the "Green Crescent" and what it means to the current Iranian leadership especially to the Iranian Supreme Religious Leader.

When you fully understand all of that then realize that when we arrive in 2003 in Baghdad we walked into a full scale Salafist insurgency against Saddam that had been going on since mid 90s and we the US and Bush knew absolutely nothing about this insurgency. Remember IS is not the only fighting group on the ground in Iraq---it is being supported by the Sunni tribes, and the Sunni coalition that fought us from 2003 to 2010 ie the IAI, the ASA, 1920, JM and then the al Duri first with his NB and now his War Councils.

One wonders why they are militarily so good --check the number of former Sunni Army and ISS officers fighting with the Sunni coalition.

On top of all of this the IS is using their experience gained in swarm attacks used against us from 2005 onwards which if one asks the 1st Cav especially in 2007 they were highly successful at doing.

If you had read my Musings article you would have understood a little about that insurgency and who led it---we were in a full scale Mao defined Phase Two guerrilla war and never realized it---even today the Army runs from that idea and it totally contradicts their COIN victory concept.

Zarqawi arrived in Baghdad in 2002 and linked into that Salafist movement and created then his QIBR, which we renamed AQI and then it morphed into ISIS and now IS after his killing.

This is indeed a Sunni Shia clash and that is what is behind the regional hegemony infighting.

We need to stay out of this clash as far as possible--yes protect the civilian refugees that are on the move, protect the Kurdish regions but allow the Sunni and Shia to finally work this 1400 years out of their systems.

I had a great Kurdish interpreter who had fought in the Iran/Iraq war as a Iraqi Army officer, and at the same time as a Phesmerga intel officer tell me during the ethnic cleansing---Arabs must fight each other so brutally until both are on the floor and can barely move--then and only then will they sit down and work a compromise--we are not there yet in this current cycle.

See AP we started now with the bombing--guess what up to the US air strikes al Baghdadi never voiced the IS desire to strike the US--that was broken when we bombed and now they will strike us and you think AQ was a problem--the IS is AQ on steroids--is gaining massive popularity among European Muslim men and their fighters are reaching a fighting ability that rivals even US standards. AQ was never able to achieve that--by the way most of the other major AQ groups have sworn allegiance to the new Caliphate and al Baghdadi.

It would have helped to have served some time in Iraq and if you had then you would not be stating it has nothing to do with religion.

AP you really do need to fully understand the region of Iraq and Syria and it's relationship to US/Russian politics--or have you recently noticed that instead of assisting the US in seeking a solution in Syria Russia has resisted us at every turn--so again AP notice the linkage back into the Ukraine?

[Firn]

Exodus from the mountain: Yazidis flood into Iraq following U.S. airstrikes

The attacks helped at least some of the Yazidis escape, said Zaim Hassan Harmouch, 66, who said the bombings destroyed the militant positions that had blocked their route out. He led his wife, six sons and seven grandchildren down from the mountain overnight, crossing the border into a Kurdish-held region of Syria and then back into northern Iraq.

“It was because of the planes that we could leave,” he said. “They opened the way.”

The level of IS brutality and it's scale are becoming worse and Maliki is not fiddling but going one step further to conserve his power.

On the military side I think nobody thinks that air strikes alone will stop IS, but maybe they can play an important part the package. With Maliki doing again his best to destroy his country to save himself the US seems to be more open to support a regional factor like the Kurds.