Printable View
According to the latest news, they are now in Tikrit:
Any predictions? Could this be a further step towards an Iraq separated into different entities for Shias, Sunnis and Kurds? Will borders be redrawn now that there's open war in both Syria and Iraq? Or will there be an international military intervention?Quote:
Officials say militants are now in control of some parts of Tikrit - Saddam Hussein's hometown which lies just 150km (95 miles) north of Baghdad.
In my opinion, the two most likely conclusions are:
Option #1 A strongman will establish dictatorial rule over Iraq after a short but bloody civil war. This leader would take pains to NOT work with the Islamists and studiously avoid WMDs, thus undercutting support to oust the new ruler a la Saddam.
Option #2 Iraq will continue as it is on a macro level, but the three principal ethnic groups will end up in largely autonomous sub-states with their own armed militias. There will be a central government for UN interaction and certain civic projects, but it be left with only a token military and will function largely as a way to skim money off the top for the office holders. There will be constant "incidents" between the sectors, but nothing prolonged. Bagdad will be "neutral" territory for all and the most corrupt portion of the whole country.
Not at all sure which is more likely.
I think that ends up yielding Option #1 by a different route, but you may very well be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Bold move, after their drug smuggling and gun-running went awry. While their stock of nerve gas should be enough to keep the US on the sidelines, an offensive while their best agent is on maternity leave might not be the best course of action.
Who would this guy be? Politician? Cleric? General (or Gods forbid: a colonel)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I suppose another options that the Iraqi army launches a successful counterattack and reverse the recent gains of ISIS. Though, if I interpret things correctly, they've already held other cities in Iraq for some time; making this option seem slightly less likely (from link in OP):
Quote:
It has already taken over Ramadi and Falluja, but taking over Mosul is a far greater feat than anything the movement has achieved so far, and will send shockwaves throughout the region
From problematic Regional Power to ethnically and religiously divided cluster:quiet:
Is this what Bush meant by "Mission Accomplished"?
How would Option #1 help the ruler? It clearly didn't work out for Saddam.
Where was his WMDs?
Saddam was on the Al Qaeda hit list. The Islamicists hated him including the Saudis.
The bogus torturous reasons to go into Iraq make no sense. AQ 911 operators were majority Saudi and funded as such. But who gets attacked? The enemy of the enemy.
I wrote it in the spirit of "by loudly and believably proclaiming no islamist/wmd ties or aspirations" that such a strongman would undercut any vestiges of support that might linger to create a Gulf War 3. My purpose was NOT to act as an apologist for Gulf 2. That would be a separate thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
People learn from experience. And experience teaches us that only WMD stops Western intervention ie North Korea (China), Iran (itself), Syria (Itself/Russia) etc
Supporting hardline Islamic beliefs hasn't hindered Saudi Arabia either.
I didn’t follow closely Iraq so I was surprised by the news: fall of Mosul and now Tikrit, and the complete failure of Iraqis’ Army to even stand the ground. If BBC is to be believed, these forces just vanished…
Side remark, it is not good news for Afghanistan Forces and prospect of holding the lines there as they were trained by the same armies on the same frame and methods.
However, the “insurgents” appear to come from Syria (if news is right, they crossed Turkey’s territory where they were training against Assad with the good will of the Turkish Government).
So, they changed their goal and attacked a softer target, but, ignored the Kurdish zone where a sense of belonging (nationality) is stronger than the religious belonging.
It looks to me more like a razzia, as Bedouins used to do, than a real war of conquest. It could be just to spread chaos and disruption operation and wait to see what happened after the dust settles than a power conquest.
They will have to administrate the conquered territory, and if it is a quiet easy to push unwilling to fight armies, it is something else to provide electricity, water, and markets place to population as US and UK learned it few years ago, and that is the key to control and keep population. Failing to do this will create the same reaction experienced by the Coalition of Willing and Islamic Fighters will have to face Tribal Fighters much more motivated than Iraqis Troopers (not really difficult mind you).
Seems to be ineed their plan.
And not only according to the BBC the Iraqi army fails.
I think Option 1 is the most likely, because I can not see a basis upon which a strongman could erect his rule. The tribal militias seem to work however. Note how Al Sadr already demands the creation of sectarian militias in one of the articles. The split would probably be in between Kurdistan (which is already only loosely connected to Baghdad), Shiites and Sunnis. I dont know too much, about the Iraqi population, though. Do the Sunni and Shiite groups live in the same areas or is there a clearly Sunni and a clearly Shia part of Iraq?
This is supposed to be a CIA map from 2003:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
According to this, there is a clear divide between Sunnis in the west and northwest , Kurds in the north and Shias in the east and northeast. As one would expect, there are also sizeable mixed areas.
Why wasn't that evacuated? Or destroyed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
This requires immediate intervention, or it becomes another Syria.
There will be no intervention.
So, more war, more destroyed cities, more suffering.
:wall:
So that's Syria, Ukraine, and now Iraq, where you want intervention. What was that post where you complained about the UK paying excessive amounts to the EU's central funds? I can see the point of building up a European economy, which will in turn bolster our position as a trading bloc. What do we gain from intervening in Iraq and Syria? A sense of well being and brownie points in our next incarnation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That will make Cyril happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Is there no end to the nightmare for the ordinary Iraqi citizins. I feel sooooo stupid for being totally in favour of attacking Iraq, I was so wrong. It wasn't me who did that of course, but I would have made the exact same mistakes when in charge.
If the outcome is that is Iraq split into more sustainable entities, that could be very good news in the long run. Iraq in its current state has been a violent and bloody mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That's why we don't put people like you in charge of the worlds grandest army. Instead we put level headed professionals who... Oh who am I kidding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Jobs, and repeat orders?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Seriously, though: air strikes won't play well, at all. All it will do is reinforce the notion that you can always count on the USA to make a bad situation still worse somehow. At least, that is more or less the sentiment among Iraqi expats I know: basically, Saddam was bad but at least your extended family wasn't murdered left right and center by any random upjumped nutter with a gun and inflated ego.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard to the rescue?
What kind of intelligence assets did we have in the area that no one saw this coming? The best time to stop ISIS was before they started capturing major cities. Now, it's a mess.Quote:
Two battalions of the Quds Forces have been sent to the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al Qaeda offshoot that took control of Iraq’s second-largest city Mosul and Tikrit in recent days.
I'll play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
My guess would be: The exact same kind of intelligence assets that had proof of WMDs.
it will be more of a challenge to to take it from them next timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The USA -- reacting to a combination of war weariness, financial distress, and a veritable barrage of (often justifiable) criticism of the tenor or its actions -- has more or less quit being the de facto "world policeman." Since many (most?) cultures do not inherently respect the rule of law as something worthwhile of itself, and absent a policemen to encourage order, the result is all sorts of parties pursuing their agenda without much regard for the opinions of others. And why shouldn't they? It is logical to do so when you know that you can get away with it and that someone might change the policy back later on -- get while the getting is good.
Im loving this. I'm not even going to begin to attack the hasty withdrawal from Iraq by this admin for political reasons, because it will just go in a cycle blaming Bush and the neocons for destabilizing the nation 10 years ago through invasion.
What can be blamed is US isolationism and the overt cowardice of the Admin when faced with the humanitarian crisis in Syria. We couldn't even enforce our own prohibition on chemical weapons use as pretext to exterminate ISIL and Assad's forces while propping up the FSA and Kurdish forces. Inaction and cowardice is responsible for this. I hope that everyone who was against intervention in Syria is happy with the outcome that you have chosen.
I'm pretty sure that they were perfectly aware of the fact that the Saddam regime did not have any weapons of mass destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
On the other hand, manipulating the people in order to accept an offensive war, by making them believe that it will save them from a direct threat is an excellent way to start one gentleman's way.
Finally, a bit of "searching", to convince them that we were honestly preoccupied about the weapons, with the inevitable admittance of our "mistake".
Slopping agencies sounds much better than lying authorities.
I think now would be the perfect time for US to cooperate with Iran to get this mess sorted out. Otherwise we might soon be having an country run by extremist covering both Syria and Iraq.
What I've learned is that situations like Syria, Bosnia, Libya are ideal for us to get involved in, while countries who are irksome but not spiralling out of control should just be undermined. This is what happens when you ignore a catastrophe on the level of Syria - it spreads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
If I could go back, I still would have supported Afghanistan, but would have tried to find other ways of undermining Saddam.
Since this offensive started, I've quietly rooted for the insurgents. Not ISIS, mind you. I both think and hope that ISIS would be defeated by local militias once the national Iraqi army does not seem like a threat anymore. Reading this increases my faith in this scenario:
I am not sure what an autonmous Eastern Iraq would want to do, whether to join Syria, be independent or be one of 2-3 federal states within Iraq. Their current goal seems to be to topple Maliki's government, which I can't see much good coming out of. I wish them bad luck on that point.Quote:
The MCIR [Military Councils of Iraqi Revolutionaries] claims that overall, its fighters are the most significant element in the revolt, with tribal militants in second place, and ISIS only third despite the media attention they command.
When Sunni rebels took over the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, in January, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki asked the Kurds to send peshmerga forces to help drive them out, sources say.
But the request was turned down. The Kurdish leadership's message to the MCIR conversely was that Irbil would not be against the Sunnis taking the road of establishing their own autonomous area, following the lead of Kurdistan itself.
That would clearly not apply if ISIS emerged as the dominant force in self-administering Sunni areas. Its philosophy and practices are so extreme that it has even been disavowed by its parent leadership, the international al-Qaeda movement headed by Osama Bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri.
A future scenario where the Kurdish forces helped "moderate" elements such as the MCIR to oust ISIS is not hard to envisage.