Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[davidbfpo]

SWJ has id'd a Bing West article:http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...isil-bing-west

As I posted on SWJ there is something wrong with his advocacy:

'Muslim ground forces to push the Islamists out of Iraq and Syria' and 'Muslim leaders have failed their people'.

I have read Bing's article twice and wondered whether these two passages negate his whole argument. Which Muslim armies are ready for such a campaign today or tomorrow? Not one I would contend, nor in an alliance of the willing. Then he assumes the very same failed leaders will act. There are few leaders in the local, Arabic-speaking Muslim world who answer to their people


Then there are the "two ladies speaking truth unto power", an article by two ex-USG (CIA) analysts in 'What the U.S. can realistically do in Iraq':http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/14/op...n-iraq-crisis/

The debate generally ignores a key underlying fact: The United States no longer has the ability or the will to shape the outcome in Iraq to the degree that American policy makers would like.

[davidbfpo]

Shashank Joshi, of RUSI, has another article 'Where does the Islamic State's fetish with beheading people come from?':http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/sh...eading-people/

He tries to answer this:

What, though, is the purpose of such brutality? The jihadists of the Islamic State (IS) are not, after all, nihilists. .....they are a highly professional military force, more similar to an army than insurgents, and seek a well-administered Islamic state. So why engage in beheadings and crucifixions?

First, psychological warfare is a key part of IS’s military strategy.

Second, IS understands that Western governments are, to some extent, dissuaded by the prospect of a British or American soldier meeting with a similar fate.

Third, terrorism is a form of propaganda by the deed. And the more chilling the deed, the more impactful the propaganda.

Now this is unexpected - well for me:

The first is that it can induce your enemies to fight even harder, because surrendering is such an awful option. One academic study shows that “the Wehrmacht’s policy of treating Soviet POWs brutally undercut German military effectiveness on the Eastern front”. Moreover, the Soviets’ own relative brutality to Germans meant that German soldiers fought harder in Russia than in Normandy. The lesson? IS can make its enemies flee, but it would be a foolish Iraqi unit that surrendered – and the net effect is that IS has to fight all the harder.

[Dayuhan]

Looks like Maliki is finally out:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ep-aside-abadi

Two questions:

The new guy is a designated successor from the same party; will there be any appreciable difference?

Will the US and Europe be more willing to provide help against ISIS with Maliki gone, or will they press for concrete steps toward the mantra of "inclusive" first?

Bonus hypothetical question:

If the US had jumped straight in against ISIS, would Maliki have agreed to step down?

[carl]

Shashank Joshi, of RUSI, has another article 'Where does the Islamic State's fetish with beheading people come from?':http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/sh...eading-people/

He tries to answer this:

Now this is unexpected - well for me:

Don't forget the simple. It's fun, especially for aggressive 20 somethings released from all forms of social and cultural restraint because Allah told them it is ok.

And if I remember what I've read on MahdiWatch correctly, there are parts of the Koran and various other works that set precedent.

This isn't the first time Brits, Yanks and Anzacs have run into this. The Japanese were quite fond of beheading people too.

[KingJaja]

Shashank Joshi, of RUSI, has another article 'Where does the Islamic State's fetish with beheading people come from?':http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/sh...eading-people/

He tries to answer this:

Now this is unexpected - well for me:

Don't see how it differs from accounts of King David in the Old Testament or even Cortes in Mexico.

They are following "the book to the letter" - and remember it was only after several centuries of horrible violence that Western Christianity was rid of that sort of stuff.

[Dayuhan]

They are following "the book to the letter" - and remember it was only after several centuries of horrible violence that Western Christianity was rid of that sort of stuff.

They also tend to follow only the parts of the book that support what they choose to do, often ignoring other parts of the book in the process.

Humans have the capacity for very great cruelty, especially when in the grip of absolute belief, whether religious or political. The nature of the belief is less a factor than the extent: when people believe without question, trouble follows.

[KingJaja]

They also tend to follow only the parts of the book that support what they choose to do, often ignoring other parts of the book in the process.

Humans have the capacity for very great cruelty, especially when in the grip of absolute belief, whether religious or political. The nature of the belief is less a factor than the extent: when people believe without question, trouble follows.

But if Islam, not Evangelical Christianity had taken root in Rio's favelas - Brazil would have been a lot different today.

[OUTLAW 09]

They also tend to follow only the parts of the book that support what they choose to do, often ignoring other parts of the book in the process.

Humans have the capacity for very great cruelty, especially when in the grip of absolute belief, whether religious or political. The nature of the belief is less a factor than the extent: when people believe without question, trouble follows.

Dayuhan--this is the core problem when trying to understand Salafists and or Takfirists vs say the secular Islamists or say the "pure" Islamists.

They all read the same Koran and Sunnahs etc---it is just in how they interpret it. Go to five different mosques on Friday prayers and you will get five different lectures and interpretations---all quoting the Koran, or the Sunnahs and or Hadiths.

Much like Christian fundamentalists vs say secular Christians.

It is just how one interprets the words--they all tend to read the same paragraphs ---they definitely do not pick and choose their paragraphs.

[JWing]

Dayuhan

The last two premiers were both from Dawa Maliki and Jaafari yet could not be more different in terms of leadership. Jaafari didn't consider Iraq in crisis just as the civil war was taking off. He talked people to death about philosophy. For example one time he went to Washington to meet with Bush and instead of talking about the problems going on in his country he went on and on about how much he loved Thomas Jefferson. The general consensus was that Jaafari was a horrible leader who did nothing while Iraq started to burn. Maliki was completely different. Many thought he tried to do too much and centralized too much power in his own hands and was divisive. Who knows what Abadi will be like but just because he comes from Dawa does not mean he will be like Maliki as the Jaafari example shows.

[JWing]

I cannot recommend enough the writings of Fanar Haddad to understand sectarianism in Iraq. Here's one of his new articles "Secular Sectarians"

http://www.mei.edu/content/map/secular-sectarians

Sectarianism in Iraq and the Middle East is not so much about dogma or religious orthodoxy but control of the state and involve ideas about class and regionalism.

[jcustis]

It seems to us that if the goals the president has announced in recent days are to be achieved, nothing short of a full-scale invasion of Iraq (as well as of Syria for good measure) is likely to suffice – and even then, success is by no means guaranteed. Another possibility – a remote one at this stage, but it cannot be ruled out just yet – is that the regional forces arrayed against ISIS actually get their act together for a change.

I'd be very surprised if even that sufficed. If allowed safe haven in an under-governed neighboring state (or a Syria that cannot be completely secured), I think the model that could be applied to the immediate future of ISIS is the Taliban of the '01-'04 era; dispersed but still a simmering and significant problem.

[JWing]

tomorrow's Times of London will report that US will start bombing in and around Baghdad province

[OUTLAW 09]

tomorrow's Times of London will report that US will start bombing in and around Baghdad province

Joel---so we have a lightly meaning rather low number of fighters forcing a northern front fight ---we have the Shia and Shia militia in a layered defense (actually in a circle) of Samarra/Salalladin, and nothing really much going on in Buqubah/Diyala and silence in and around Baghdad.

The dam still under their control and the IS pushing into more towns--and oil fields.

So we see the good ole whip lash strategy used against us being used against the ISF with the same effective.

So what does it tell us about the IS strategy that is not being talked about?

And that does not include the slow but steady push back of recent gains made by the Assad army.