Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[novelist]

Jwing---was working through some research on Shia and Sunni historical development and stumbled across the former al Baghdadi history and shifted from him into the Caliph concept historically represented in the various Islamic historical writings.

If you noticed outside of the first outbursts from leading Sunni thinkers about the Caliph being wrong---it has gone silent.

If my readings are correct--- because the historical writings and the use of the name of the former al Baghdadi seems and again Islamic historical writings are always open to interpretation---seems that the IS made a shrewd move on their part and in fact the IS might have the right interpretation of the historical writings.

In the Sunni Islamic stream of faith there are currently three Salafist groups moving at the same time and parallel to each other; 1) the purists who are not political and are fully into Islam and it's meanings, 2) the political types who are throwing out the terms down with US control of the ME/against globalization as it effects the ME etc and where a small number then drift into 3) the jihadists side.

There is an old German saying here in Berlin not all Salafists are terrorists, but all terrorists are Salafists.

If you look at al Baghdadi's statements since he has taken over and the IS actions they are in fact riding all three streams of the Salafist movement and appeal to all factions even al Duri's faction as the Sufi have been the "spreaders" of the faith for a really long time.

IMO al Baghdadi and the IS have hit the middle point of the Salafist movement that the AQ mothership failed in reaching even under UBL. The AQ mothership needs to be forewarned as al Baghdadi is not going away any time soon nor as it appears the IS is either.

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.

[Bill Moore]

novelist,

The IS has former members of Saddam's army, but probably more relevant they have former members of the Syrian Army. Additionally the different terrorist groups have members from various militaries to include Pakistan and even some western armies. Finding folks with the expertise to teach someone to use the various pieces of ground equipment, or simply looking that up online, shouldn't be too hard. Gaining expertise (practice) is another thing, and then using all that equipment together in a combined arms fashion is another thing altogether. Reports indicate they're employing a combined arms approach, so to me that indicates that some rather senior former military leaders are instrumental in this movement. Maybe not, but it looks like, and smells like that is the case.

For everyone else if you haven't seen the PBS special it worth the 90 minutes to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ampaignId=1000

Losing Iraq

Also worth reading:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ampaignId=1000

Inside the Rise of ISIS

According to the author this situation would have happened regardless of whether the uprising in Syria happened or not.

That process, as far as I’m concerned, actually began as early as mid-to-late 2009. It was at that point that the Islamic State was in some ways forced to devolve into a typical terrorist organization. At that point it relocated much of its central leadership to Mosul [Iraq], which was a relative safe zone, and it was at that point that it essentially began its period of recovery.

The “Soldier’s Harvest” campaign has been the second of two 12-month campaigns. The first one was the campaign known as “Breaking the Walls.”

One of the primary objectives of that operation was to re-establish sources of leverage against security forces. A lot of that was done through a very significant campaign of intimidation — including collecting local intelligence on the addresses and family details of local security forces across the country.

A secondary objective of that initial campaign was the breaking out of prison of not only ordinary Islamic State foot soldiers, but most importantly, senior leading commanders, who’d been in prison for the final year or so of the U.S.-led surge in Iraq.

[slapout9]

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.

That is an excellent analysis. The experts are approaching this all wrong. This is a Religious War and you must destroy the counter value targets first! Then go to counter force targets. That is part of the reason I keep pounding on some of the points I have made regardless of how controversial they may seem.

ISIS is demonstrating that their God is more powerful than our God. If you want to defeat them you must destroy "THEIR" symbols of Religious authority and legitimacy, otherwise they are continuing to demonstrate that their God is better than every one else's, which gives them a tremendous psychological and recruiting advantage.

The American military must admit that their old analysis and warfare techniques are not going to work and somehow face the fact that they must change their thinking and face the fact that this is not an Insurgency but is a Religious struggle for world domination.

[Bill Moore]

Yes, ISIS is waging a religious war, but what percent of the global Muslim population does ISIS represent? Worse case would be 10% (that is certainly high). You want to blow up religious symbols which will generate even more support for them. You accuse the President of being a secret Muslim, even if he was so what? Yet you're the one promoting a strategy that would support ISIS. Think about the 2d and 3d order effects of what you're promoting.

Destroying religious symbols is little more than an emotional approach that would accomplish nothing militarily, and only serve to set us back politically. ISIS is waging a religious war, we are NOT waging a religious war just because one of our adversaries are. We are waging a war against AQAA. The religious aspect is critical, but that doesn't mean we need to engage in religious war, we just need to understand our adversary is and what that means.

Consider reversing your proposal, if someone blew up your church would you roll over and quit? Or would you mobilize and resist harder? History indicates most will pursue the second option.

[AmericanPride]

If you're going to continue to promote genocide, hatred, and attacking religious symbols you would be better off posting somewhere else other than SWJ. I don't think our community wants to be associated with the tripe that be found on extremist websites. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, your proposals are contrary to sound strategy period.

+1

That kind of garbage should be taken elsewhere.

[davidbfpo]

A timely article from Time: 'ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians':https://time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-y...nd-christians/

Here's what the Prophet and the Quran really say about how to treat the two faith groups

(Ends with) To the ISIS or anyone who sympathizes with them, know that Islam believes in a God of mercy, a scripture of mercy, and a Prophet who sent as a mercy to all the worlds. It is time to abandon persecution and violence, murder and mayhem. The enemy you seek to fight is within you. The pursuit of power is the problem. The pursuit of peace and social justice is what God really calls us to. Put down your arms. And, raise up your hands to the sky seeking God’s forgiveness for unconscionable sins.

[KingJaja]

A timely article from Time: 'ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians':https://time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-y...nd-christians/

I don't think anyone is listening - not Boko Haram in my native Nigeria, not ISIS Iraq nor a not so insignificant number of Muslims.

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen us up to the individual Muslim.

Ustaz Mahmood Taha (Republican Brothers) advocated a return to the "Mecca verses" - he was hanged in the 1980's in Sudan. A more tolerant version of Islam (West African Sufism) is under threat by Salafism promoted by America's ally (Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of Western liberals. I'm a Nigerian Christian. I know a face of Islam that Western academics, liberals, journalists, diplomats, policy makers and analysts pretend doesn't exist.

I cannot afford to be "politically correct".

[ganulv]

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen is up to the individual Muslim.

To say that interpretation is up to individuals isn’t to say that a document doesn’t have a core meaning. Almost everyone in the United States has an opinion on and an interpretation of our Constitution. Most of them know f@#k all about it and its history. I, for one, am not willing to say that the U.S. Constitution means whatever anyone thinks it means.

[slapout9]

I don't think anyone is listening - not Boko Haram in my native Nigeria, not ISIS Iraq nor a not so insignificant number of Muslims.

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen us up to the individual Muslim.

Ustaz Mahmood Taha (Republican Brothers) advocated a return to the "Mecca verses" - he was hanged in the 1980's in Sudan. A more tolerant version of Islam (West African Sufism) is under threat by Salafism promoted by America's ally (Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of Western liberals. I'm a Nigerian Christian. I know a face of Islam that Western academics, liberals, journalists, diplomats, policy makers and analysts pretend doesn't exist.

I cannot afford to be "politically correct".

God Bless you, perhaps one day my country will have the courage that you do.

[JMA]

Slap the question is how we have reached this point in history.

It was the West's failure to act in Syria - led by current US Administration - which set the scene for the current state of affairs in Iraq where it is all happening.

Now when it is time to act and act decisively the Whitehouse dithers and places all kinds of self imposed limitations upon its response. Quite pathetic.

It is American weakness that has opened the door for radical Islam to exploit. Tony Blair warned the world of the threat of radical Islam and the smart guys - we have a number around here - laughed him and his warning off. Its time to pay the price for the dithering and cowardice of western leadership now.

It should never have got to this.

That is an excellent analysis. The experts are approaching this all wrong. This is a Religious War and you must destroy the counter value targets first! Then go to counter force targets. That is part of the reason I keep pounding on some of the points I have made regardless of how controversial they may seem.

ISIS is demonstrating that their God is more powerful than our God. If you want to defeat them you must destroy "THEIR" symbols of Religious authority and legitimacy, otherwise they are continuing to demonstrate that their God is better than every one else's, which gives them a tremendous psychological and recruiting advantage.

The American military must admit that their old analysis and warfare techniques are not going to work and somehow face the fact that they must change their thinking and face the fact that this is not an Insurgency but is a Religious struggle for world domination.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator states

The second phrase is or else.

SWC seeks to promote dialogue on 'small wars' and related subjects. We have RoE and are not a political board. Accordingly I have acted to edit out a few phrases where the language is OTT and damaging to SWC. We pride ourselves on being a place to come to, read, maybe engage and above all value.

Additional action will be taken if there is more OTT postings.

[OUTLAW 09]

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.

If one looks at the make up of the Sunni coalition ie the former IAI, ASA, 1920 and the JM many of their fighters were former officers and NCOs and were good enough from 2003 to 2010 to take on the US Army in a multitude of different ways.

Couple that with experience gained in fighting daily Assad---and the use of swarming attacks which the Sunni insurgency got good at in Iraq---why does it "surprise" us when they are on a roll?

Guess what-- they have not even committed their reserves that are even better at it---it is currently estimated that only 3-4K has been carrying the fight forward and they have even dented badly the Peshmerga myth as great fighters.

This is going to get far more interesting in the coming weeks if their drive into Erbil is not stopped.

But it goes to something I wrote recently---this is the standard whip lash tactic so well used against us from 2003 to 2010----fighting here awhile then quiet then somewhere else then quiet and on and on---it is a war of moment nothing else and to forces others to keep up with them.

The main question I have is where are the IS units that have moved into position south of Baghdad and now are on the East and West sides of Baghdad as well---totally quiet from them as they watch what is going on in the north---again an example of the war of movement.

[carl]

Boy Slap, are people mad at you. But you are on to something which people are loath to admit. This is about religion. And you and American Pride are both onto something when you guys point at Saudi Arabia. I don't advocate flattening Mecca and Medina, that would be foolish, but something has to be done about Saudi Arabia. For whatever reason they have been heavily subsidizing officially and unofficially Wahabism throughout the world for decades. Wahabi is not synonymous with peaceful tolerance and they spend billions and billions pushing it everywhere they can. Thanks to fracking maybe we can finally admit what they are up to and do something about it.

There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

[carl]

Outlaw 09:

Zenpundit mention in a recent post that the IS took Sinjar using a combination of snipers and artillery. Do know about that or have any details about it?

[ganulv]

There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

You can’t get around a layer of expenses, though. Payment is going to go towards the maintenance of a Colonial Office or to the House of Saud. It’s a trade-off.

[carl]

You can’t get around a layer of expenses, though. Payment is going to go towards the maintenance of a Colonial Office or to the House of Saud. It’s a trade-off.

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

[KingJaja]

Boko Haram warned Christians to flee Northern Nigeria in January 2012. Nobody can tell my that the similarity between this an ISIS behaviour is mere happenstance. This is a face of Islam, that many of us are too "politically correct" to confront.

(CNN) -- The militant Islamist group Boko Haram has issued an ultimatum giving Christians living in northern Nigeria three days to leave the area amid a rising tide of violence there.
A Boko Haram spokesman, Abul Qaqa, also said late Sunday that Boko Haram fighters are ready to confront soldiers sent to the area under a state of emergency declared in parts of four states by Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan on Saturday.
"We will confront them squarely to protect our brothers," Abul Qaqa said during a telephone call with local media. He also called on Muslims living in southern Nigeria to "come back to the north because we have evidence they will be attacked."
Recent weeks have seen an escalation in clashes between Boko Haram and security forces in the north-eastern states of Borno and Yobe, as well as attacks on churches and assassinations. Nearly 30 people were killed on Christmas Day at a Catholic church near the federal capital, Abuja -- a sign that Boko Haram is prepared to strike beyond its heartland.
Human rights activist Shehu Sani told CNN that the latest Boko Haram threat is credible, but many Christians born and raised in the north have nowhere else to go.
"The killings will continue," he said, and Boko Haram may respond to the state of emergency by taking its campaign of violence to areas not yet affected.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/02/wo...ons/index.html

[ganulv]

Boko Haram warned Christians to flee Northern Nigeria in January 2012. Nobody can tell my that the similarity between this an ISIS behaviour is mere happenstance. This is a face of Islam, that many of us are too "politically correct" to confront.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/02/wo...ons/index.html

It’s a face, and I have no trouble acknowledging that. But it’s not the whole. People were waking to burning crosses in front of their yards within the living memory of the part of the U.S. where I grew up. That movement was made up of Christians with a certain take on Christianity. Only a Richard Dawkins type would say it is representative of all Christians or that it is an inevitable outcome of the religion.

[ganulv]

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

Neither is sustainable. Nor completely safe, as de Gaulle discovered.

[AmericanPride]

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

I don't think the Saudis are unresponsive to U.S. diplomatic pressure. The House of Saud has close relationships many U.S. business interests and political families (most notably, the Bush family). But the Saudis are also deeply insecure about their governorship of the country, given the intense reactionary sentiment of the religious establishment. If it comes between appeasing Washington or appeasing the religious base, the Saudis will choose the religious base without fail. Of course, it doesn't help that the U.S. abandons its emphasis on democratic reform at the slightest hint of instability in the Gulf.

My point is that there are few pressures for moderation and reform within Saudi Arabia (though it does exist at a grassroots level to a small extent) - that pressure needs to come from the West, particularly the U.S. Conflict produces cycles of escalation and radicalization, and we are seeing that culminate with ISIS after 13 years of the War on Terrorism. But even militarily defeating ISIS in Iraq (assuming it's possible) doesn't remove the more fundamental structural problems at the foundation of conflict in the Middle East. And I think foremost among those is democratic revolution in Saudi Arabia.