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.Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Bill --they have reached that point---actually the ISF has been unable to retake Tikrit and has begun to build a defensive line along the Sunni/Shia regional divide lines and the Kurds are voicing even stronger the words "independent state" and the Turks are "non publicly" stating the same thing.
One really needs to step back and seriously relook the IS/Sunni coalition strategy---it has been massively well implemented vs the total lack of a US strategy.
I agree. If they work to simply hold what they have, I think they can win. If they choose to hold what they have and fight a defensive campaign.
What I think they might do is the GEN Lee run to the capital with an ultimatum for Maliki to agree to the partition. That could lead to a fight they are not prepared for, a Gettysburg of sorts, where they expend a lot of resources in an unnecessary fight.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
Well, as a casual observer, a few things seem logical/likely to me:
1. The Obama administration seems to have wisely determined that the artificial, temporary stability achieved in Iraq under the original plan was neither durable, nor anything we could hope to artificially sustain at reasonable costs. Besides, to what benefit?
2. Concern about the de facto shift in the Shia-Sunni line of competition; moving it from the Iraq-Iran border to the borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; it made sense to back the Saudi scheme of pushing that line back up into Iraq.
3. By providing aid to any Sunni rebel group in Syria we essentially made that aid available to every Sunni rebel group in Syria and Iraq. I imagine the leadership in KSA and DC rationalize that providing aid that helps groups like AQ and ISIS today is ok while we share common interests and objectives - and that we will be able to deal with whatever consequences come from that later once those interests and objectives once more naturally diverge. I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.
4. Lastly, while there are risks to this approach, it is way more feasible, acceptable, suitable and complete than any idea of simply roaring back into Iraq with a large American presence and forcing the old, infeasible, unacceptable, unsuitable, incomplete solution we tried before to finally work.
The bottom line is that one cannot attain any sort of natural stability within any system of governance until one can get to some reasonable degree of trust between the parties within that system. How does one get to trust in modern Iraq or Syria within the confines of those clumsy colonial borders? I don't think one can. A strong leader like Saddam could force an artificial stability (like exists within prisons...), but that is not anything we can create or facilitate. And frankly, even the Saddams, Titos, Stalins, Mubaraks, etc of the modern era find a much more difficult challenge that their preceding role models in the current strategic environment where people are so connected and informed.
I know this will be messy, but I for one, am optimistic that it might actually produce a reasonably durable result that is not overly branded with US ownership.
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)
I was listening to a programme on Indian TV on Indian hostages in ISIS area.
An Arab journalist mentioned the Caliphate Project.
I googled and came up with this:
What is the credibility of this?The Islamic State, the “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”
While the US State Department is accusing several countries of “harboring terrorists”, America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) –which operates in both Syria and Iraq– is covertly supported and financed by the US and its allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Moreover, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan, among others.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isl...rorism/5389530
US Senator McCain meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi today. Google indicates links that indicates that McCain has contacts with the AQ and Syrian rebels. This is the first time I heard of this and the Caliphate Project.
One wonders why McCain came to India.
Lots of speculation is rife out here.
Can anyone throw some light and clear the air?
Last edited by Ray; 07-03-2014 at 04:53 PM.
Here's my latest article " Insurgent Offensive Wreaks Havoc Across Central Iraq In June 2014". Comprehensive province by province breakdown of violence in Iraq in June.
Last edited by JWing; 07-03-2014 at 05:09 PM.
I am beginning to believe that it is in the long term interests of the U.S. to NOT actively fight ISIL or the creation of the “Caliphate” but, instead, to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.
It weakens Syria. It will weaken ISIL once the internal fights for actual control over the Caliphate begin (it could even destroy it). It weakens Iran’s “control” over the territory that is currently Iraq. It allows for the creation of a Kurdish state – one which I personally believe we can align with fairly easily. It creates states that will have populations who are more likely to trust each other. It corrects colonial era mistakes. Plus all those points COL Jones makes ... and if ISIL ends up in contrl of the Caliphate they are then a much easier target for a Saudi backed insurgency as well as a traditional military invasion.
Of course, as Outlaw notes, it can open the door to the idea that there is now a new International Norm, one that allow for any group to declare their independence and draw new borders, but that will probably happen anyway. We now have an opportunity to create mechanisms in the UN to allow this to happen in an orderly fashion … so … of course, that will never happen.
Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-03-2014 at 04:54 PM.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
Outlaw
Still nothing definitive about how many fighters IS has or the wider insurgency in Iraq. One number that's been thrown around is that IS has 10,000 fighters in both Syria and Iraq, another is 3,000-5,000 fighters just in Iraq. Who knows what the real figure is. Plus no one has anything on other insurgent groups just where they operate.
A credible source cited?
Cited in part:The cited source is to say the least odd. I recently came across an article regarding Africa and it was simply wrong, if not stupid. So I would disregard it.
davidbfpo
Who are the 'moderates'?
Bob's World referred in part to:TheCurmudgeon referred to:I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.The concept of moderation in Islam comes from wishful thinking within Western governments, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows what a 'moderate' Muslim is. Indeed in the UK being called a 'moderate' Muslim can reduce your credibility....to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.
Then there is the suggestion that the policy of the KSA will 'ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control'. For a very long time the KSA, both officially and privately, has sponsored one particular school of thought within Islam which is not known for making compromises. Let alone the funding of fundamental groups, which use violence to gain control, as we have seen in Syria.
davidbfpo
On the topic of KSA. As far as I am aware, the ruling class are not true believers of Wahhabism; instead they use it as a means to placate the clergy and the masses (ie giving them more religion). While actual funding of jihadist groups do not necessarily originate from the al Sauds, they are complicit. I find a parallel to be drawn with respect to Pakistan's use of the Taliban in meddling the affairs of Afghanistan. The Taliban has shown itself to be capable of defying their "masters". I'm waiting to see the same happen in KSA.
@JMA
Reversing Crimea requires a lot of pain on the EU side, not the US. Boots on the ground was and is out of question, since it was clear that Russian troops was on the ground. The Ukrainian Army can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone Russian contract troops. The only possible leverage was economic, by implementing the entire spectrum of sanctions against the Russians. The Russians will invariably retaliate by turning off the gas supply to the EU, which is the great pain that EU will not endure.
I guess I would define moderate as "a Muslim who does not feel the need to kill Westerners on sight."
I have met Muslims in both Iraq and Afghanistan who I would considerate moderate. They do not feel that Shiria law was unbending or that peaceful relations with others, even others who were not "people of the book" could be advantagous for both parties. They were pragmatists. So I believe they do exist.
We have managed to maintain relationships with KSA for quite some time, so I am fairly certain that such a relationship is possible. I can't say what would happen if the house of Saud were to fall, but I would like to think that it would spell the end of having a "moderate" government in the ME.
Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-03-2014 at 07:53 PM.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
I would believe what you say.
But the events confuse me.
You all are close to the event since you are in the US, some in contact with your think tanks and the Administration and many who have been in Iraq and aware of the ground situation.
I do not have that advantage.
What befuddles me is that
1. this article on the Caliphate.
2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?
3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.
And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS
ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/...r-john-mccain/
That said, it is worrisome when there is reports that McCain has met AQ in Syria and while we are influenced by western media, we also have to have a more non partisan views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVZ6B5HvGCo
The world is really going crazy!
Honestly what is going on?
You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.
But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.
You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.
They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.
Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.
It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.
I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.
Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!
Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.
The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!
Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.
Last edited by Ray; 07-04-2014 at 12:12 PM.
The "banner of Freedom and Democracy" is not intended to stabilize the targets of intervention, it's intended to make intervention acceptable to the American domestic audience. This is one of the stronger reasons for the US to avoid "regime change" where possible: the requirements of the domestic audience are too restrictive too allow realistic post regime change action.
I don't know that drones or anything else the US can send are going to stabilize Iraq. The construct we call "Iraq" is inherently unstable; either it's held together by force under a dictator or it falls apart.
That's only a "bombshell" if it's corroborated by reliable sources. Lot of nonsense on the internet, have to be skeptical of everything we read.
“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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks