Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[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.

[KingJaja]

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.

It is growing at an alarming rate - just like those cross burners were an issue in the 1920s & 30s - these folks are an issue today.

And they're a lot more dangerous than cross burners.

[OUTLAW 09]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the KSA.

The use of Wahhabism was the KSA attempt to control that Sunni global community and at the same time encircle the Shia global community with what they viewed a purer form of Sunni Islam.

Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

Right now there is an estimated 3K Saudi's (many former military trained types) fighting with the IS and the KSA has broken up a large IS cell recently inside the KSA.

The IS has been actually threatening the destruction of the twin holy sites in the last week as they now view the KSA as not being radical enough--actually they do not view the KSA to be Takfiri enough for them. There is some indications in informal polling that the young generation inside the KSA are now more and more identifying with the IS and their messaging. By the way Wahhabism is not the same thing as Takfirism inside Sunni Islam.

Check the IS Caliphates' map they released when they called out the Caliphate---they are taking Islam back to the golden age of the expanded influence they had in Spain, North Africa and the Arabian peninsular and that appeals to the young Muslim of today.

IS has now become a direct threat to the KSA as well as a direct threat to Iran due to their deep Salafist hate of the Shia and any other religion that is not Salafist.

This is not a Christian Islam thing ---it is a pure Sunni power politics debate for the heart and soul of the Sunni global community.

[AmericanPride]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---

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

it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the 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.

Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

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. 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.

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). 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.

King Jaja makes important points, as do other religious groups who are being targeted by the Islamists. We can ignore them and look at the world differently, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of why people are fighting. A theory is only good as long as it works, our political theories of conflict don't explain what is happening today. I disagree with Outlaw that this conflict has nothing to do with Christians, they're certainly being targeted throughout much of the Muslim world by Islamists. That leads to formally normal citizens like Slapout, embracing extremist ideas of their own and the character of the conflict evolves/changes over time. King Jaja may be able to spread light on this, but even 20 years ago various international Christian groups were smuggling arms into Nigeria to help the Christians battle/defend themselves against the Muslims. This wasn't sponsored by any state, but by religious groups. It is a multi-dimensional problem of which religion plays a significant role.

[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?

[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.