Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[TheCurmudgeon]

AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

[Bill Moore]

TheCurmudgeon,

With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments. If you read the Management of Savagery I think you'll see that parallels their approach more closely; however, no movement follows someone's else's strategy blindly if they have half a brain, and this group certainly does. I think we risk missing reality if we attempt to view this conflict through a Maoist lens. We'll see what we want to see, and miss important differences.

To your point about governance, and ISIS collapsing under their own weight. Historically that seems to be the pattern, but assuming that will be true in the future assumes ISIS is not a learning organization. Using Fall's theory of "competitive control" (recently resurfaced in Kilcullen's new book), I think ISIS has a chance for at least short term stability and control in the areas they took over.

I think the Iraqi Army could challenge their control of these areas, but if Maliki uses Shia militia to conduct this fighting it will probably increase the strength and effectiveness of the ISIS. A lot of unknowns.

[carl]

AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

You may be right, but I am skeptical. I think they have the ruthlessness and the ideology needed to make a go of repressive police state regardless of how the locals feel about it. Remember something like this played out once before and the tribes could not overcome AQI on their own. They were too weak. They needed the support of the strongest tribe, the US military, to beat AQI. That particular tribe isn't around to support them anymore if ISIS wears out its welcome. They may just have to take it this time.

[OUTLAW 09]

Enough already!

Outlaw stated this early on:

Try - as difficult as it may be for you - to accept his use in that context... and for heavens sake move on.

JMA--totally concur---Dyauhan still does not understand that much of the Islamic insurgencies regardless where they occur is all about "symbolism" something you saw years ago in the "nationalism" wars.

[OUTLAW 09]

TheCurmudgeon,

With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments. If you read the Management of Savagery I think you'll see that parallels their approach more closely; however, no movement follows someone's else's strategy blindly if they have half a brain, and this group certainly does. I think we risk missing reality if we attempt to view this conflict through a Maoist lens. We'll see what we want to see, and miss important differences.

To your point about governance, and ISIS collapsing under their own weight. Historically that seems to be the pattern, but assuming that will be true in the future assumes ISIS is not a learning organization. Using Fall's theory of "competitive control" (recently resurfaced in Kilcullen's new book), I think ISIS has a chance for at least short term stability and control in the areas they took over.

I think the Iraqi Army could challenge their control of these areas, but if Maliki uses Shia militia to conduct this fighting it will probably increase the strength and effectiveness of the ISIS. A lot of unknowns.

Bill ---what many seem to forget when they hear the words AQ now ISIS is that in the Sunni triangle there are other players involved that are more temperate and while also religious tend towards secular in nature.

ISIS and all the Sunni groups are in fact very astute learning machines and ISIS knows what happened the last time they went totally radical-the Awakening.

The Brookings article that David linked to will be the most accurate estimate of the way forward in the coming days.

What will be more interesting is how the ISIS implements Zarqawi's 2006 strategy against a 9M Shia city with far less combat power that can be projected unless right how they are hoping through open and projected violence fear becomes a combatant which is a strategy.

Knowing the groups that I dealt with before they do have a strategy.

Note: these groups have always had strategies and campaigns---we could never get the BCTs going through the NTC to understand that--and the strategies and campaigns with the campaign goals were always made public.

[OUTLAW 09]

In US COIN doctrine, it mirrors Mao Zedong's model of insurgency with three phases: the incipient phase, the guerrilla warfare phase, and the war of movement. In the first phase, Al Qaeda struck the United States through terrorism - USS Cole, embassies in Africa, 9/11, et. al. As a consequence of the Iraq War, Al Qaeda and its affiliated forces transitioned to the second phase and waged a bloody guerrilla war against the US and the Iraqi government. Now, after the US withdrawal and the failure of the central Iraqi government to consolidate its power (and emboldened by the opportunities in Libya and Syria), the insurgency has entered the third phase, the war of movement, with the outright occupation of much of northern Iraq. If the purpose of the War on Terrorism as a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq was to prevent this process from occurring, then it has failed.

Warnings about this possibility were made before 2003 and were ignored. What did the war in Iraq accomplish?

The true failure and it was the worst failure of all times outside of us getting into Iraq was the total lack of understanding that inside Iraq after 1991 there was an underground Salafist insurgency underway against Saddam.

This insurgency was being driven by the Sunni grouping Islamic Army in Iraq which was already using RCIEDs against us four months after we arrived.

This insurgency was in a massive life or death battle with the Iraqi State Security and if a member was caught he was hanged within the next day or two---all mosche prayers were monitored and ISI officers were constantly watching the mosche members.

AND they were very well structured and funded AND this is the most important take away--within three weeks after we arrived in Baghdad they were as Mao defines it in a Phase two guerrilla war and we answered by using COIN against a guerrilla war.

The setup of the insurgency was contained in a handwritten journal by the leader of the group started three days after we entered Iraq until mid 2006--day for day RCIED circuit design to circuit design in full detail---the Abu names he mentioned throughout the journal were virtually the Who's Who of the entire Sunni insurgency---notice Sunni insurgency not AQI. telephone numbers, names, funds received, funds pass out, towns where cells were setup--Mao would have been proud.

The Army did not feel that it was a necessity to fully translate the journal---they did about 120 pages out of the 500 and it was an eye opener.

We "accidently" picked him up in a sweep near Abu G but he walked three months later---"wrong person in the wrong place thing".

I could never get the national IC to run biometrics---both we and I knew he was the IAI leader--at that point I realized the Army was only half hearted in the fight and really did not care about winning---just as the current leader of ISIS was in Bucca and walked in 2009.

I have been saying that the none recognition of a Phase two guerrilla war was the worst mistake we made since 2006 --but was constantly ignored.

I wrote about the leader of the IAI in an article for Tom Ricks and the comments that were merger as well.

[slapout9]

Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

[OUTLAW 09]

Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

slapout ---one better and if following Mao's phase three why not call it a Sunni/Shia war to settle the 1400 year old religious debate inside Islam.

That what this is in fact all about ---1400 years of unsettled religious debate.

[OUTLAW 09]

The Kurds have been helping embattled Iraqi troops and now the Iraqi Army strikes them with Hellfires and "claims" fog of war.

The Iraqi Army has been positioning itself almost face to face along the Kurdish border areas for literally the last 12 years and have come within inches of open warfare with the Kurds over the Kurdish oil questions.

Now that Iraq is receiving open Quds Force troop reinforcements especially in the Diyala region what makes the Kurds think they will not be attacked as is ISIS. Who knows we might even see a Kurdish/ISIS alliance against the Iraqi Shia, Iran, and Malaki-funnier things have happened before in Iraq.

From WaPo today:

IRBIL, Iraq — Since al-Qaeda-linked renegades swept into northern Iraq, Kurdish forces have played a behind-the-scenes role in rescuing embattled Iraqi soldiers from checkpoints and bases, staving off more losses for the troops.

But a disastrous end to one such operation Saturday is threatening to derail their military cooperation against the militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Furious Kurdish military officials accused Iraqi forces of firing mortars and Hellfire missiles at Kurdish fighters, killing six and injuring 43.

Iraqi officials said the attack was a mistake. One Iraqi official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said that the Kurdish troops had been asked to withdraw from that area. “You have to expect casualties in war,” he said.

Iraq plays a double game---the Kurds while helping the Iraqi's pushed back into the contested green line areas and the Iraqi's want them out much like in Muqdadiyah in Diyala. Yes they like help but they will still take territory for the Shia that is in another ethnic area.

ISIS has started a full scale ethnic war and it is tied to oil revenues and a 1400 year old unsettled religious debate.

[JWing]

AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

[JWing]

Here's my latest interview

Iran And Its Shiite Militias Mobilize In Iraq Interview With Phillip Smyth

[OUTLAW 09]

For anyone wanting to see how slick a jihadi website is done these days.

Just make sure your latest virus update is done before viewing and yes I am assuming the NSA monitors it.

http://www.al-qimmah.net/showthread.php?p=101567

[TheCurmudgeon]

ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

That is a relatively small area in a war zone. It is not a country sized area that ISIL has to actively defend against other states. That requires trade with other nations for commodities, an active administrative apparatus, the ability to operate an economy, a military with armor and aircraft. They have the resources based on what they have already stole, but do they have the ability to actually run a country?

Are you confident enough to wager that, assuming ISIL is smart enough to consolidate its gains rather than trying to create the Caliphate in one fell swoop, that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will still exist in the terrain they now hold twelve months from now?

I am not seeing any scenario, up to and including ISIL obtaining nuclear weapons, where they are still holding all that terrain this time next year.

[JWing]

ISIS has been able to hold its territory in Syria for quite some time fighting against all kinds of other groups. How much of the territory will they be able to hold onto in Iraq? No idea, but the fighting there is going to drag on for a long time.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The problems ISIL will have in governing deal not only with the normal logitstics of a state, but different interpretations of Salafist political thought:

The experience of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has stirred controversy within Saudi Arabia, and prompted discussion about the religious stance toward choice, shura (religious guidance), sovereignty, the concept of allegiance, the legitimacy of authority, and issues related to democracy and its connection to legislation.

The parties engaged in this Saudi debate can be divided into two categories.

The first is a critical, offensive movement believing the experience of ISIS indicates the inability of political Salafism to grasp the concept of the modern state. Advocates of this view believe political Salafism represents a tyranny that must be destroyed. They argue that political Salafism will provide at best a political regime similar to Iran's Khomeini-style system.

The second category is a critical, defensive movement that believes the ISIS experience has been tyrannical and a failure. At the same time, they say this experience has nothing to do with political Salafism. This category presents a different view of the Salafist political legacy, showing how Salafism has respected the will of the people and has focused on the necessity of people accepting their rulers as opposed to rulers being imposed on them. Nonetheless, the proposals of this category are still vague as to who has the right to elect their rulers. Does the circle include all people or is it limited to influential religious figures, known in Islamic political thought as Ahl al-Hal wal Aqad?

The second category also tries to depart from Saudi religious rhetoric by emphasizing the freedom to criticize and peacefully oppose authority, even if this freedom is strictly governed by Sharia.

Abdallah al-Maliki, an offensive critic, belongs to the Islamic Enlightenment current in Saudi Arabia. He recently sparked controversy with his May 11 article in al-Tagreer newspaper criticizing political Salafism, writing that it cannot establish a system of rule that can be held accountable, as it bans and criminalizes all forms of opposition, criticism and protest against authority. Despite the differences among Salafist movements, writes Maliki, from jihadist Salafism to Saudi government loyalists Jamia Salafism, they all refuse and criminalize opposition to authority.

[TheCurmudgeon]

ISIS has been able to hold its territory in Syria for quite some time fighting against all kinds of other groups. How much of the territory will they be able to hold onto in Iraq? No idea, but the fighting there is going to drag on for a long time.

Administering territory in a war zone is easy as long as you are the badest kid on the block. The people who live there will gladly trade their freedom for the security you provide. That is not the case when you are the antagonist creating the chaos. Now you can "rent" loyalty as long as you can keep the population in fear, but that requires constant pressure from a cohesive central power. We will see if ISIL is up to the task.

[OUTLAW 09]

There is an interesting article today in Foreign Policy under Tom Ricks which points to two items;

Taken from the article:

It wasn't ISIS alone that conquered a full third of Iraq in the past few days -- it was a full-blown Sunni insurgency consisting of ISIS, Sunni Arab Baath party elements from both Syria and Iraq, and the Iraqi and Syrian Sunni tribes that all joined to cooperate on beating back the Iranians and their proxies in Baghdad and Damascus. Many of these fighters are referring to their campaign as a "revolution."

The United States gave us assurances during the Awakening that they would stand with us if we turned our arms against al Qaeda and joined the political process. We devastated al Qaeda alongside the U.S. Army; we participated in the elections; and we won. We want our share in the New Iraq, not to be treated as second class citizens. If this does not happen, we will take up arms again, and this time we will retake Baghdad or we will burn it to the ground." Why is anyone back in Washington surprised that we have another Sunni insurgency after the genocide in Syria, after Maliki's humiliating power grabs, and after we abandoned the tribes who did indeed obliterate al Qaeda in Iraq?

Has it struck anyone in Washington that the Iraqi central government now controls less than half of its "sovereign" territory? As with Hezbollah and Syria , we're now looking at a rump, sectarian, Iranian-allied central government that is overtly supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and that has totally lost control of its Sunni Arab and Kurdish provinces, not due to terrorism alone, but to an increasingly popular insurgency that, I suspect, has at least the tacit support of the vast majority of the global Muslim community after Baghdad's complicity in helping Iran wage genocide in Syria.

We are almost certainly witnessing the start of a global holy war between Sunnis and Shiites -- the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the Great Schism in Europe, when millions of Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other for centuries, bleeding Europe of a third of its population, fracturing nations, and plunging it into the Dark Ages.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ge_of_holy_war

Now there is another point that should be directed to the current WH and Obama---how does the American government justify conversations with Iran in how to counter ISIS---exactly the same Iranian government who via JAM, the Special Groups killed and wounded a high number of US military.

How does that same government "explain" that move to the families? Especially when against Mahdi the Army was held back repeatedly held back by the Dept of State.

Third question might be if joint ops with Iran does that not in effect finally prove to the Sunni that Americans are not their "friends" thus the ISIS way forward is totally correct.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Now there is another point that should be directed to the current WH and Obama---how does the American government justify conversations with Iran in how to counter ISIS---exactly the same Iranian government who via JAM, the Special Groups killed and wounded a high number of US military.

How does that same government "explain" that move to the families? Especially when against Mahdi the Army was held back repeatedly held back by the Dept of State.

I suppose the same way we justified defending West Germany from the Soviets after thousands of U.S. Soldiers were killed by Germans. That was then, this is now.

[TheCurmudgeon]

ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

When you do the interview, could you please ask what economic system they are using for major services like electricity, gas, and water? Is it a socialist style system where the local population is dependent on the ad hoc ISIL government to pay for and provide the services or is it a free market system where those services are provided by private entrepreneurs.

Also if you could ask if the government system is clearly a theocracy or if it has fascist leanings (militaristic system with a centralized economy and a constant enemy who must be attacked)?

[OUTLAW 09]

I suppose the same way we justified defending West Germany from the Soviets after thousands of U.S. Soldiers were killed by Germans. That was then, this is now.

So we went to war for WMD which was none, we fought then AQI who evidently survived well, and we fought hard with a surge to end the ethnic cleansing which was largely driven by the Shia/Iran/Malaki, then we allowed military personnel to be killed by EFPs coming in large numbers from the Quds Force/Iranian Intelligence to now do a deal with the Shia which will be perceived by the Sunni to be American driven ethnic cleansing of Sunni that will drive more into the camp of the ISIS which will turn cause the US/global public at large more grief?

Does that all make sense to you and it has nothing to do with WW2--it has to do with 2014.

4.6KIAs and over 100K WIAs---so in the end who is responsible--civilian leadership and or military leadership and or both?

Now explain the above to the average taxpayer and the families who lost members and we wonder why the world thinks we are dysfunctional?

My concern is the perception that say talks we will be having with Iran concerning ISIS which is Sunni will promote even more violence if Hellfires start raining down fired by the US---and the sharing of ISR with a country that still declares the US Satan and wants us out of the ME and strengthens them as a regional hegemon--what do we get out of it?

The current Iranian leader might be viewed as a moderate but he still does not have control over the hard right wing conservatives in government, the military and the universities and they really do not want us in the ME.

So really in the end what do the talks get for us the US when even our key ally the KSA will go ballistic on the idea that the US is firing missiles at Sunni's regardless of political leanings--center, left, right meaning secular, Salafist and or Takfirist