ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

According to the latest news (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27800319), they are now in Tikrit:


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.

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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Option #3: Iraq becomes an open war between ISIS, other Sectarian militias, non-sectarian militias, and the Maliki government, which would be forced into desperate and unsavory measures reminiscent of the not-even-done-yet war in Syria. Basically, I think Iraq and Syria will be the same war shortly (if they aren't already), and Maliki will be forced to take aid from Iran in the same way that Assad has. Maliki is not Assad, but he is a strong-man who doesn't want to let go of power, and he has the potential to be an Assad. I don't think there will be anything particularly short about the situation brewing in Iraq, though I hope the West stays out of it this time. It is abundantly clear that by meddling in the middle-east, we just make things worse.

I think that ends up yielding Option #1 by a different route, but you may very well be correct.

[drone]

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.

[Viking]

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.

Who would this guy be? Politician? Cleric? General (or Gods forbid: a colonel)?

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):


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

[HopAlongBunny]

From problematic Regional Power to ethnically and religiously divided cluster:quiet:
Is this what Bush meant by "Mission Accomplished"?

[Papewaio]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.

[Brenus]

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).

[GenosseGeneral]

Seems to be ineed their plan. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iraq-isis-new-tactic-mosul.html)
And not only according to the BBC the Iraqi army fails. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iraq-ninevah-fall-reasons-reactions.html)

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?

[Viking]

This is supposed to be a CIA map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iraq.html) from 2003:

https://i.imgur.com/fDshjek.jpg

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.

[Fisherking]

Other news: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190#.U5mK5jjszSs.facebook

[CrossLOPER]

Other news: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190#.U5mK5jjszSs.facebook
Why wasn't that evacuated? Or destroyed?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This requires immediate intervention, or it becomes another Syria.

There will be no intervention.

So, more war, more destroyed cities, more suffering.

:wall:

[Pannonian]

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?

[drone]

Other news: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190#.U5mK5jjszSs.facebook

That will make Cyril happy.

[Fragony]

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.

[Viking]

This requires immediate intervention, or it becomes another Syria.

There will be no intervention.

So, more war, more destroyed cities, more suffering.

:wall:

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

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?

[Tellos Athenaios]

What really ticks me off are the reports of ISIS forces using up-armored humvees and other gear that we "sold" (gave, really) to the Iraqi Army. What's the point of giving them all that gear only so they can drop it once and run away?

Jobs, and repeat orders?

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.

[Xiahou]

Iran's Revolutionary Guard to the rescue (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/12/irans-revolutionary-guard-deploys-iraq-stop-sunni-/)?

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.

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

Iran's Revolutionary Guard to the rescue (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/12/irans-revolutionary-guard-deploys-iraq-stop-sunni-/)?


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.

I'll play.

My guess would be: The exact same kind of intelligence assets that had proof of WMDs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What really ticks me off are the reports of ISIS forces using up-armored humvees and other gear that we "sold" (gave, really) to the Iraqi Army. What's the point of giving them all that gear only so they can drop it once and run away?

it will be more of a challenge to to take it from them next time

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Crandar]

I'll play.

My guess would be: The exact same kind of intelligence assets that had proof of WMDs.
I'm pretty sure that they were perfectly aware of the fact that the Saddam regime did not have any weapons of mass destruction.
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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really? You open up with a disclaimer about how you don't want to get dragged into a discussion about 10-year-old policy, and finish with the premise that intervention and propping up more untested warlords would be a good idea? Are you trying to be a walking advertisement for refusing to learn from history?

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.

If I could go back, I still would have supported Afghanistan, but would have tried to find other ways of undermining Saddam.

[Viking]

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 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520) increases my faith in this scenario:


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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

If I could go back, I still would have supported Afghanistan, but would have tried to find other ways of undermining Saddam.

You mean stable countries should be undermined to get them to a level of instability where you think an intervention is feasible?

[Fisherking]

Meantime another SNAFU.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/200-u-s-contractors-surrounded-by-jihadists-in-iraq/#v8pe6fLuq3XwBbZW.01

Poor bastards. I hope they are good.

[Fisherking]

And what is with Iraq to the rescue? This mess does not bode well on any front.

The US is either caught flat footed on intel or involved in it. It is beyond belief or comprehension.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When will we see the picture of Iraqi refugees surrounding the last chopper out of Baghdad?

[Fisherking]

Yes Iran.

Iraq has been asking for help for quite some time so this is something we let happen for sure.

What ever is going down is for strictly political reasons on the part of the US.

I am not for troops on the ground but I can still see it as a betrayal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't be so quick to see it that way. Iraq had a chance to retain over 10,000 US troops after the pull-out, if they had only signed an agreement saying our Soldiers retained their immunity from the Iraqi court system. They absolutely refused, and so this is the bed that they made for themselves. As a nation, we made the choice to let this happen in 2010. Pretty much everyone knew it was going to happen, and said it was going to happen, and it all rested on the security agreement.

Your dignity or your security. It was their choice of course, but the options were ones we decided upon.

[Pannonian]

Balad is a big base, and if they take it then Baghdad is in fairly imminent danger. :no: Its really pretty painful watching Iraq fall apart after all we did. The US casualties from the Iraq war still dwarf the casualties from the Afghan war, in terms of dead and wounded. All those elections we provided security for, all those check-points we manned, all those meetings with angry Sheiks, all those big brief-cases full of money for placating the tribal elders, all those up-armored Humvees, MRAPs, even Abrams that we gave to the Iraqi Army. All those 18-hour days of driving around the Baghdad ghettos, doing the jobs of the police who were too busy screwing their own people over to do their jobs right... All of it wasted because the Maliki government was more interested in sectarian power-grabbing than in inclusive government. This freakin' sucks, but they have to deal with it on thier own. If we back anyone else with money (and we probably should not..), it should be the Kurds. Not giving them their own state from the start was a huge mistake.

And I maintain the same argument that I made in 2003, that Iraq was a problem that should have been left to Saddam rather than taking it on ourselves, and that the biggest problem with the whole affair wasn't that it was ethically wrong or founded on lies, but that it was so plainly stupid and unnecessary. I'm not so bothered by my country's decisionmakers being liars and cheats, but I do expect more of them than that they should be idiots who waste our money for a lack of gain that was obvious from the beginning.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's fair.

I disagree. :shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I meant your analysis. As to the situation, fair or not, it is what it is. 8 years should have been enough to get them ready to govern themselves again, but it wasn't. Should we have given more? Without that immunity, they would have spent more time prosecuting Americans for political reasons than anything else. We were right to keep that in the agreement, and they had every right to not sign it. I wouldn't call the current situation fair, but I wouldn't call it all that unfair either. Maliki was fairly elected.

My mistake for misinterpreting you. I don't think any amount of time would have had Iraq become what we imagined it to be. I am just mad that we destabilized an entire country and worked against our own efforts for literally nothing. Nothing that can be done at this point but let Iraq fragment and see if we can work with the Kurds and Shia's.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You and me both. I like to think some day I'll be able to visit Baghdad and hang out in the palm tree forests without the threat of war, but its looking like that may never be. Its a total waste.

That sums it up perfectly. What a waste. Is it any wonder why millennial's are apathetic when the US started the 21st century under the policies of Bush?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We do not have what it takes to be a Great Power.

We need to vacate the field for the real contestants: China and Russia.

Go back to the Monroe Doctrine and spend a couple of decades building real relationships with the rest of the New World.

The Old World will get along just fine without our boorish efforts.

[Fisherking]

It only gets worse.

The US arms sent to Syria that helped arm these guys and this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657231/Revealed-Obama-RELEASED-warlord-head-ISIS-extremist-army-five-years-ago.html


We are Imperialistic. It is all about the money of course and making a safe business environment for the banks and corporations funding our politicians and directing policy.

[Lemur]

Go back to the Monroe Doctrine and spend a couple of decades building real relationships with the rest of the New World.

The Old World will get along just fine without our boorish efforts.
A decent take (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/14/iraq-you-broke-it-you-bought-it/) from today:


I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A decent take (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/14/iraq-you-broke-it-you-bought-it/) from today:


I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.
Hey, you guys won 2 elections. Let's try it your way for a while, see how it goes.

[HopAlongBunny]

We can be great without being imperialistic. Pacifying another nation requires true hatred and brutality,

This. You understand how to supplant a culture/nation, you just don't have the will.
Extermination of the existing population and declaring the land open for settlement worked well in the past; selling such a policy to your citizens is much tougher.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A decent take (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/14/iraq-you-broke-it-you-bought-it/) from today:
I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.


Translation: Filthy WOGs.

Let's be clear, America, along with the UK and France, is directly responsible for every stage of this mess. The partitioning after WWI, the establishment of Israel after WWII, the toppling of the relatively progressive monarchs in favour of Tyrants during the Cold War, and then the post-Cold War invasions, along with the Soviet-Afghan War which has created not one but two generations of Jihadist fighters, and the failure to support Israel even when it tries it's best to emulate Nazi Germany.

Before you disagree with the last, remember the Israelis state was sterilising "Black Jews" to keep the race pure.

Now, let me quote the bit right before the bit you quoted:


I love this formulation: hegemony means inaction is action, so there’s no difference between the two!

Yes, that is what it means. If you have the power to act and choose not to, then you have chosen and becomes responsible. What the writer is saying is that Iraq is not worth dead Americans, implicit in this is that Americans are, as individuals, worth more than Iraqis. If he had said, "intervening will not help" then that would be one thing, but what he said was "we have already expended enough blood."

Oh, and Vietnam was winnable, had the NVA been crushed in the North.

[Viking]

Unconfirmed pictures (http://justpaste.it/fusg) appearing of ISIS massacring captured government soldiers. Link via journalist Jenan Moussa (https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/477928269082140672). Nasty stuff.

On another note, a highly accurate cartoon of what happened in Mosul; I suppose:

https://i.imgur.com/LBCPIs5.jpg

[HopAlongBunny]

Friends like these:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

[Fragony]

Unconfirmed pictures (http://justpaste.it/fusg) appearing of ISIS massacring captured government soldiers. Link via journalist Jenan Moussa (https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/477928269082140672). Nasty stuff.

On another note, a highly accurate cartoon of what happened in Mosul; I suppose:

https://i.imgur.com/LBCPIs5.jpg

Pretty much comfirmed that about 1700 executions took place, these guys aren't kidding.

[Lemur]

Let's be clear, America, along with the UK and France, is directly responsible for every stage of this mess. [...] If you have the power to act and choose not to, then you have chosen and becomes responsible.
For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.asp) indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism). Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?


What the writer is saying is that Iraq is not worth dead Americans, implicit in this is that Americans are, as individuals, worth more than Iraqis.
To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

[HoreTore]

Holy hell, that was a bloody fast advance. When did this thing start again, on Monday? And they reached the cities to the north of Baghdad? Didn't the US use a 3-week bombing campaign until they got that far?

How on earth did they manage that?

And no, Frags, 1700 is not "pretty much confirmed". Isis has reported 1700, the Iraqi government has confirmed some 50-ish people, with guesses going anywhere in between. They've obviously executed pow's, but how many is a wide open question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.asp) indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism). Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."


To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."



Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

[Husar]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

[HoreTore]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a typical misconception in your logic, PVC. Most of the Iraqi civilians killed in the war were killed by IEDs or sectarian kill squads. While collateral damage from US ordinance did happen, it was far more common for AQI or some small-time sectarian group to indiscriminately lay waste to neighborhoods and blame it on us. We had no real grassroots propaganda tools over there, no way to counter that sort of message other than by patrolling the streets. The people we were able to work with on a daily basis tended to understand our role and our limits, but there was very little we could do to control the message in areas where we weren't operating in. Our very presence gave ammo to the bad guys, and it would have taken a lot more than any one country is capable of giving to pacify it the way you describe.

No, I get that the US wasn't killing Iraqi's, and I get that you guys had a horrid time of it, I really do. However, what the Iraqi's did not see was Americans dying FOR them, and that's why you lacked the "grass roots" support you needed, and that was why it was a waste of your time.


In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

From Vietnam onwards US military actions have been characterised by a lack of genuine operational commitment, this has led to quite a few dead Americans, lots wasted money and no successes other than Desert Storm.

One can only conclude that when the world's only Super Power cannot win even a minor war that something it wrong at the strategic level.

[Pannonian]

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

Alternatively, do it the WW2 way and obliterate the enemy country in alliance with an infinitely worse partner, then occupy the obliterated enemy with you and your partner as direct comparisons of how life could be. You'll also need to wait for your enemy to invade someone first. So for PVC's plan to work, we should have bombed Iraq to the Stone Age after GW1, then occupied Iraq with Iran and Turkey having their own zones.

[Husar]

Doesn't that scenario also require that the USA wait until the other side declares war? And that the USA have no real air force to speak of.

[Furunculus]

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied.

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

[Lemur]

disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy.
I don't know that it does us much good at this late date, but you are 100% correct. Those two moves were probably the most damning things out of a large mess of bad choices—worse than the decision to invade in the first place. The importance of the army disbandment and gov't sunni purge cannot be overstated.

On the bright side, maybe this crisis will push Iran and the U.S. into being the allies/frenemies we were always meant to be (http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-preparing-to-discuss-iraqs-woes-with-iran-1402871232)?


[T]he Obama administration said it is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.

The U.S.-Iran dialogue, which is expected to begin this week, will mark the latest in a rapid move toward rapprochement between Washington and Tehran over the past year. [...]

The U.S. and Iran have publicly committed in recent days to provide military support if requested to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and help his government repel an offensive the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, has launched against Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities over the past week.

[Pannonian]

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

Legal or not, it doesn't make the Iraq war any less stupid, which is the barometer I use for judging a government's decision to go to war in this day and age. Back in 2003, I predicted that the country would fall apart due to contesting interests, and our lack of stomach for taking the measures necessary to suppress these interests. As such, I wanted us to stay out and leave it to Saddam to deal with that mess of a country. It's hard to argue that I was wrong in any way.

[HopAlongBunny]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it hard to think that the outcome is other than intended.
Militias allowed to arm, army all but disbanded
Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"
Devolving Iraq from regional power to splintered cluster:daisy:

Mission Accomplished indeed.

[Fisherking]

Guess the figured it was time to raise oil prices.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's easy to believe that Bilderberger or Illuminati is behind US foreign politics, merely because it's unfathomable to believe the US acted in their self interest, heck, even world or human interest at large.

But you know, never believe conspiracy theories, if it can be explained simply by people being absolutely retarded.

[Brenus]

“Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"” Worse than that, providing volunteers to go to fight for the Jihad…
This is the result of Assad the Bad against the nice insurgents, all democratic as err… I don’t know.
We had a French President who was ready to in war just like this, so it was ok to fight against Assad and his chemical weapons, indeed. So they went. Of course, they were supporting a totalitarian Islamic utopia, but were compare the International Brigades when they should have been seen as the Waffen-SS.
Media choose to ignore who were the “freedom” fighters and the ideology they serve, all against the tyrant (not the Dune’s one)… There you have the result. F:daisy: it...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

[Pannonian]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

Another way of doing it is to do as the British did after the Indian Mutiny, taking exceptionally harsh measures against the active perpetrators (eg. blowing ringleaders from cannon), before re-adjusting to old pre-British power structures with the British on top, and visibly on top. Imperialism, in other words.

[Beskar]

I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

I thought Japan was very traditional/honour-based which is compatible with rule-of-law, or am I mistaken?

[Kadagar_AV]

Isn't the Iraq "war" won?

My oh my, I seem to recall some half-moronic president stating so.



Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Another way of doing it is to do as the British did after the Indian Mutiny, taking exceptionally harsh measures against the active perpetrators (eg. blowing ringleaders from cannon), before re-adjusting to old pre-British power structures with the British on top, and visibly on top. Imperialism, in other words.

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't the Iraq "war" won?

My oh my, I seem to recall some half-moronic president stating so.



Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?


Why do you still fall for the media-fueled all U.S. conservatives are morons all U.S. liberals are intelligent crap? You are fully aware of morons on both sides of Sweden's political spectrum. You don't succumb to Sweden's media view that all anti-immigration reactionaries must be morons. Why do you presume a U.S. President saying things is anything OTHER than political posturing. You can excoriate EVERY U.S. President of the last half century....or more....for statements they made that were subsequently proved wrong/innacurate/short-sighted. I daresay you could do so with virtually any executive branch the world over.

Try this radical thought on for size....NONE of our world leaders are stupid. NONE of them are omniscient either. Almost all of them grandstand a bit. Put it in perspective please.

[Kadagar_AV]

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?

Invasion and conquest more or less as conducted.

Presume 1-2% of Iraqi population will go active insurgent.

a. Commit troops sufficient to generate a 7.5-1 ratio of garrison forces to insurgents so as to suppress the insurgency.
1. Efforts must be made to minimize collateral damage among civilians, but human shields cannot be allowed to deter counterstrikes.
2. Insurgents captured should be screened and categorized: low levels/redeemables to be put in reeducation camps, interrogated using interviews of a benign nature; leaders/hardliners & foreign volunteers shot.

b. Commit Army Corps of Engineers, Medical services, etc. to start hearts and minds efforts.

c. Rebuild and enhance the infrastructure of the area

d. Train all youth in schools to begin changing framework of thinking.


Steps a-d must continue for 10-40 years, with a draw-down of troops as insurgency withers.



The USA does not have enough of a dark side to do those steps very well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought Japan was very traditional/honour-based which is compatible with rule-of-law, or am I mistaken?

Pre WW2 it was a military junta wrapped around a cult of the Emperor.

Their military used beatings as normal discipline and an officer could kill a private soldier for a mistake....and risk a reprimand for leaving the regiment short a soldier til the replacement came.

Imperial Japan had the trappings of parliamentarianism, but not the substance.

[Kadagar_AV]

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

[Lemur]

I keep thinking about the western heritage, things like the Thirty Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War), which was a bloodbath of Rwandan proportions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Casualties_and_disease). We went through this. We did this to ourselves, long before cable news and cell phones. Then I stumbled across this depressing nugget of wisdom (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/living-in-a-world-that-is-but-isnt-ought/):


It took the Thirty Years war to finally purge the enthusiasm of sectarianism from the cultural DNA of Europeans (and even then, religious minorities were second class citizens for centuries). There will be no calm reasoning with Iraqis of any stripe because the march of history continues, and only sadness can convince all parties that moderation is necessary for the existence of modern nation-states. Intervention in some fashion may be inevitable in the world, but our goal should be to prevent hell, not to create heaven on earth. The former is possible, the latter is not.

Remember, the Enlightenment, which was the essential component of the birth of the USA, was a direct result of exhaustion from the Religious Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion). If Europe hadn't shredded itself like an emo self-cutting girl on meth, there would never have been modern liberalism, ecumenicalism, rationalism, all of that enlightenment stuff.

[Pannonian]

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

We could have stayed longer still, but for that at least one Indian cottoned on to the fact that they no longer had cause to fear us. The Japanese then highlighted this fact, and the Americans left us no choice whatsoever, but our empire was still based on fear of us. Once we lost our stomach for enforcing that fear, it was only a matter of time before the colonies started challenging us. It's not such a bad thing to lose that, but it's a matter of political fact. No-one fears the Americans, as everyone knows that they'll never have the political will or the desire to be a country feared by others. For the kind of nation-building envisaged by PVC, you need to have that basis of fear. For all the cotton candy nicey-nicey nation-building in Germany and Japan that the history books like to talk about, that was after you'd destroyed them as nations and left them with no identity but whatever you saw fit to impose.

[ICantSpellDawg]

When do you think Susan Rice and her panel of advisors will resign is disgrace for failing to react to the situation in Syria which has directly led to a new police action in Iraq?

[Husar]

When do you think Susan Rice and her panel of advisors will resign is disgrace for failing to react to the situation in Syria which has directly led to a new police action in Iraq?

As soon as the entire Bush admin resigns for passing the patriot act.

I don't even see how that was a failure? Why would someone resign because the country is "forced" into a police action (which it isn't) because it did not perform a police action earlier? That's like saying you're angry at her for her not having sent your soldiers to theirs deaths sooner.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As soon as the entire Bush admin resigns for passing the patriot act.

I don't even see how that was a failure? Why would someone resign because the country is "forced" into a police action (which it isn't) because it did not perform a police action earlier? That's like saying you're angry at her for her not having sent your soldiers to theirs deaths sooner.

If more soldiers and civilians die from the negligent inaction- yes you can.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We could have stayed longer still, but for that at least one Indian cottoned on to the fact that they no longer had cause to fear us. The Japanese then highlighted this fact, and the Americans left us no choice whatsoever, but our empire was still based on fear of us. Once we lost our stomach for enforcing that fear, it was only a matter of time before the colonies started challenging us. It's not such a bad thing to lose that, but it's a matter of political fact. No-one fears the Americans, as everyone knows that they'll never have the political will or the desire to be a country feared by others. For the kind of nation-building envisaged by PVC, you need to have that basis of fear. For all the cotton candy nicey-nicey nation-building in Germany and Japan that the history books like to talk about, that was after you'd destroyed them as nations and left them with no identity but whatever you saw fit to impose.

First off, the allusion in your opening sentence was "cloth of gold" in quality. Kudos.

Of course we smashed Germany and Japan. The fact is we did not do so in Iraq. The only way to nation build with a goodly chance to success involves a level of suppression of the previous culture that is intolerable to modern sensibility. We have and continue to have this capability, we lack the will to be that imperialistic.

Lacking the will to do it properly, the USA should retire from the field.

Quite a bit of my thinking leads me to suggest that we:

Fold NATO; adopt isolationism in international affairs; offer separate defensive alliances to England (likely accepted) and France (likely rejected); end the special relationship with Israel; drop our military to a size no more than half of current levels and preferably smaller -- after all, they will only be deployed at home, in the New World with the request of local authorities, and in England; repeal about 75% of the Patriot Act; Adopt a national language (I would prefer English, but Spanish might be more acceptable); legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling (regulate and tax -- prohibition fails); cut government functions by about half reverting those functions to the several states; increase NASA funding by an order of magnitude or so with objectives to match.

Ain't gonna happen -- but that's where I think we would trend best.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

It is not the downsizing of the military commitment per se which is the issue. Yes, it is expensive but if it is used effectively than it justifies its cost. My objections are to the half-***ed way it gets done. Either commit with the intent to use the requisite force to win, or don't. ALL of our allies -- including the best of the lot which is you folks in the UK -- want to commit the military to various interventions without committing them to win. I'm staunchly in favor of a lot less in the way of interventions while using an Almighty-huge malfing hammer when we DO intervene. Absent that option, isolationism kills fewer yanks.

Dragged in to something bigger later? Quite possibly, but then we might take it seriously enough to resolve it as thoroughly as we did in WW2. Efforts to curtail victory always seem to backfire even worse.

[Kadagar_AV]

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

You answer my post like if it wasn't just a random (and somewhat offensive) drunken rant... What's up with that?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bogus. What led to a new police action in Iraq is the hawks' inability to take "We should sit this one out" for an answer.

They also thought that they could sandwich Iran between two friendly-to-the-West successor states and thereby neutralize it. Strategically sound if the resources to actually do it had been made available -- but that would have required a 10+ year commitment of forces at suppression levels and was never politically viable.

So, Gelcube, did you ever meet one of the well-meaning idiots who blithely thought that Iraqis would greet you with flowers and cheers while they held spontaneous free elections the moment Sadam was toppled? Talk about your blindered thinking about the aftermath of a war that we fought at the wrong time and for a reason which turned out to be fallacious.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nobody thought that who was actually in the Army.

I have little doubt of that. I was wondering if one of the "suits" with those views took a tour of your post while you were deployed....and if they would have let one of the troops "discuss" things with them.

[HopAlongBunny]

I did run into such types here in Canada. A service club I belonged to, with connections to the military, had individuals with that viewpoint. Iraq was going to be over almost as soon as it began; the people would flock to the occupiers with joy and gratitude not seen since the liberation of the lowlands in Europe. Among this group, the point was a matter of faith and unshakable; no argument could undermine this belief; as well, it was deeply resented that Canada had decided to sit out (largely) the war in Iraq.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, what are all of you "non-hawks" suggesting our policy should be? Same think as the suggestion is Syria: "sit this one out"?

[drone]

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Kadagar_AV]

We should support the three-state partition, give money to the Kurds, promise money to the Baghdad government pending political reform, and at the very most hit ISIS leadership with drone strikes. At the very most. I'd be cool with nothing at all, though.

Your stance on the 2nd Amendment should help your understanding here, Dawg. We gave these people every opportunity to set up a western-style democracy, and now if they want it they actually have to fight for it. There's nothing more we can do. If there's a time and a place for our military support it is well after the people have demonstrated a willingness to fight for it, not before.

Shouldn't you have thought about that, like, before entering?

Just comes off as a little bit late to think about that now...

[ICantSpellDawg]

We should support the three-state partition, give money to the Kurds, promise money to the Baghdad government pending political reform, and at the very most hit ISIS leadership with drone strikes.

Fine, that is better than some.

If the NRA ever orchestrated mass killings or forced women to wear a burqua, I would advocate wiping them off the face of the map with all force necessary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is legitimacy in this history lesson; "maybe the past should have been done differently". If this is an attempt to steer discussion towards a more cautious and skeptical decision making process, then it is a good thing. If it is little more than an "I told you so", then you should start living in the present and be ashamed of yourselves.

[Kadagar_AV]

There is legitimacy in this history lesson; "maybe the past should have been done differently". If this is an attempt to steer discussion towards a more cautious and skeptical decision making process, then it is a good thing. If it is little more than an "I told you so", then you should start living in the present and be ashamed of yourselves.

Can't it be a little bit of both?

[Pannonian]

I don't think you can separate the two. People who aren't chided for their mistakes just repeat them. See the long-incumbent congressmen clamoring for more intervention for example. :shrug:

We need to know what Lemur's representative is saying on this subject.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I supported the war irrespective of WMD's in 2003 (I think that I was 19). The overarching theory was that it would overthrow a dictator and lead to a collapse of other proximate/related dictatorships (we would use it as an example and radiating center of destabilization). I was not naive enough to believe that it would be a cakewalk, and in reviewing the US casualty rate and time in occupation could have been viewed as a success in relation to many other modern invasions (up until now). I was hoping for a resolution in between Japan/Germany on the one end and Vietnam on the other. A Korea of sorts at the very least? This result would be a disaster that added insult to injury.

Leave aside that technological and economic evolution may be more responsible for the regime collapses, I personally believe in war to solve problems and that mankind is made for it, but I am not dumb enough to believe that it can't cause more terrible problems. Our rebuilding efforts have been insufficient compared with our military capability. We need to work on this in future invasions/police actions. We shouldn't doubt though, that some events require military action, even if there are some crazy people like me who believe that this is the case more often than probably appropriate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well one can only hope you've since adjusted your views a bit. I was ambivalent on the war, mostly because I was like 14 or 15 when it started. :shrug:

I think the fact that we did not go to war in Syria is a step in the right direction. It was a lot of peoples' thought (even mine, to be honest) to support the FSA early on as they were secular in nature--but its clear that if you give any of these middle-eastern groups anything at all its almost certainly going to be a bad idea. I think US policy since the 1970's could be interpreted as the world's most thorough test of that fact, quite frankly. We've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that giving money and weapons to extremists is a really bad idea. And yet people aren't even getting that.

I disagree. While in hindsight I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq, I would have still supported the invasion of Afghanistan and would have most certainly supported a relatively large scale involvement in Syria, given the USE of weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of outcome absent involvement being overwhelmingly unfavorable (evidence present in Northwestern Iraq & Syria).

I've learned lessons, but not the same ones as you it seems. Arming the most rationale actors with the biggest upside is more in our interest than allowing the least rational to run rampant and be armed by our enemies and fairweather friends.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What do you even know about these countries. You're projecting your middle-class American view of the world onto foreign policy, which is another thing we've objectively proven to be a bad idea. We need to be far more tactful and moderate in our international relations. We would never have needed to invade Afghanistan in the first place had we not used the early Taliban as a tool against the Russians during the Cold War, which is something else we've objectively proven to be a bad idea--ya, we won the Cold War and got left with the role of World Police while our former enemies still run Russia and are having a lot more fun with it than they used to!

Chickenhawks are insufferable, don't be one. Vote them out! :rtwno:

By that standard, what do I know about my own country. If I don't know about these countries, I can't imagine who does.

NATO and the EU took the moderate approach with Russia and ceded the Black Sea. Dumb and they will regret it. We all understand people everywhere better than we think.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did the Sunni/Shia split occur to you before the invasion? It is one of the most prominent features of Iraq, going back to Saddam's time and before. Yet it was not part of the political equation when they let Bush use military force. It wasn't even on anybody's radar. We aren't qualified to play World Police, because nobody is. And while we were so busy screwing around abroad, we got screwed at home. That Patriot Act isn't going anywhere any time soon, and the NSA probably isn't either. They are facts of life that aren't as easily swept away as a failed invasion to a place we no longer have to go back to. I'd say most Americans don't know enough about America, ffs.

Nonsense. Shia arabs were killed under Saddam along with Sunni Kurds. Iraq fought a war over these things with Iran. Baathist politics in Syria and Iraq were well explored and the subordinate Shiite population was one of the major lures to an American invasion due to their natural mistrust of their government. Just because you weren't aware of it when you were 14 doesn't mean our national security advisors were oblivious. Or me, for that matter. Say that I was wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking I don't know the area better than most. My FSO exam score would beat a number of mid to high level State Department employees.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How was it wrong? Arab Sunni's were our major problem aside from some short lived resistance, according to my recollection.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

If you're working from orbit, use a KEW. Cheaper and less after-effect.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...About the only thing that worked was the Surge, and that was really an all-out assault on the terrorist networks around Baghdad that secured a temporary lull in the fighting for us to do a little politics and withdraw....

And for the only time during the occupation gave us the ratio of garrison to insurgent necessary to actually suppress an insurgency. Neat gadgets and satellites do not substitute well for people on a comparatively low-tech mission. Just as our HUMINT going into Iraq was....less than ideal [other terms have and will be applied].

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because it didn't work out that way. The Shia never worked with us in a way that was conducive to government building. The de-Baathification was something a lot of highly qualified people thought was a great freaking idea, and that also really didn't work out at all. About the only thing that worked was the Surge, and that was really an all-out assault on the terrorist networks around Baghdad that secured a temporary lull in the fighting for us to do a little politics and withdraw. :shrug:

My point is that are you willing to bet American lives and plenty of non-American lives on your academic understanding of a people? You shouldn't be. Nobody should be. Its arrogant, and we should go back to being more isolationist--at least militarily.


I think that the breakdown is something like 65% Shi'a Arab, 15% Sunni Arab. Working with Shi'ites was greatly successful, although it opened Iraq up to excessive Iranian influence. It is arguable that a similarly weak-kneed "war is never the answer" mentality caused them to believe that this threat was not existential. It allowed people who realize that war is a very powerful answer to gain an upper hand.

Either way, I operate off of a basic understanding that anyone arguing over foreign policy in the Middle-East has a functional understanding of Middle-Eastern issues and history until proven otherwise by more than incorrect opinions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What are you implying? That the Iraqi people, who had an 8-year war of attrition with Iran, a ghastly one-sided war of annihilation with us in 1991, another ghastly one-sided invasion in 2003, and an 8-year Occupation where hundreds died every day from sectarian violence, from Sunnis AND Shias, don't understand war?

I'd argue Americans don't understand war. If they did, they wouldn't waste the Army's time! I hate giving Obama props, but his speechy point about the Army being the best hammer and not every problem being a nail is quite apt.

Yes, I also like this metaphor generally.

I would not argue that Americans understand war. I doubt that most soldiers understand war. I may not know combat, but I have a decent grasp of war.

[Kadagar_AV]

What are you implying? That the Iraqi people, who had an 8-year war of attrition with Iran, a ghastly one-sided war of annihilation with us in 1991, another ghastly one-sided invasion in 2003, and an 8-year Occupation where hundreds died every day from sectarian violence, from Sunnis AND Shias, don't understand war?

I'd argue Americans don't understand war. If they did, they wouldn't waste the Army's time! I hate giving Obama props, but his speechy point about the Army being the best hammer and not every problem being a nail is quite apt.

He hit the nail on the head on that one... :drummer:

:creep:

[ICantSpellDawg]

But you'll never have a better grasp of war than the generals who were let go right before the invasion for opposing it. What good is an Army, if nobody uses it right? What good are Joint Chiefs, when they're not cut out of advising and left only as implementors of bad policy?

No question there. Silencing of intelligent and helpful objection may help push an agenda though, but nearly guarantees a sh*tstorm afterward.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would not argue that Americans understand war. I doubt that most soldiers understand war. I may not know combat, but I have a decent grasp of war.

https://i.imgur.com/0DjYDEB.jpg

[ICantSpellDawg]

The point is that most soldiers, today and historically, know/knew combat, or some amount of the logistics involved in war. They know some of the effects of war on individuals in the field firsthand. They don't understand why they are at war or what the objectives are or the geographic/demographic/economic/diplomatic/etc. Most understand some elements of war better than the majority, but war is bigger than anecdotal experience, no matter how traumatising and/or heroic it may have been.

This is not a particularly controversial opinion, is it?.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The point is that most soldiers, today and historically, know combat, or some amount of logistics involved in war. They know the affects of war on individuals in the field firsthand. They don't understand why they are at war or what the objectives are or the geography/demographics/economics/diplomacy/etc. Most understand some elements of war better than the majority, but war is bigger than anecdotal experience, no matter how traumatising and/or heroic it may have been.

This is not a particularly controversial opinion, is it?.

My opinion is that it is 100% hubris to claim any more knowledge about a region than a soldier who had to survive in that region for years and dealt with the locals to minimize the amount of disgruntled people planting IED's on the roads.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My opinion is that it is 100% hubris to claim any more knowledge about a region than a soldier who had to survive in that region for years and dealt with the locals to minimize the amount of disgruntled people planting IED's on the roads.

Maybe. I would be curious to hear what current or former service members think about the level of engagement of the average soldier during their service.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hey, look at this cool video I've found.
Using Technology to Map Conflict in Syria (Carter…: http://youtu.be/9X6GqEAph2E can anybody find more like it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe.

From what you have posted, you are around 30 years old now. It's time to stop looking out the window, thinking that you can take bigger dumps on the lawn than the dog.

[Pannonian]

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how following the hawkish calls to intervene in Syria could have helped what's now going on in Iraq. The calls were to intervene in Syria against Assad. While the current lot in Iraq have links to groups in Syria, they're linked to those who are fighting against Assad. If we'd intervened as the hawks wanted us to, we'd only have weakened the main opponent of the Islamists, giving much more scope to expand in Syria as well as in Iraq. Right now, by declining to act against Assad, we've at least left a strong man in place who's opposed to those we're now being alarmed about. If we were to have intervened in Syria, we'd only have helped things currently in Iraq if we'd intervened on the side of Assad, then teamed up with the now pacified Syria and Iran for a 3 way crack down on Islamists in Iraq. But that's not what the hawks were advocating though.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how following the hawkish calls to intervene in Syria could have helped what's now going on in Iraq. The calls were to intervene in Syria against Assad. While the current lot in Iraq have links to groups in Syria, they're linked to those who are fighting against Assad. If we'd intervened as the hawks wanted us to, we'd only have weakened the main opponent of the Islamists, giving much more scope to expand in Syria as well as in Iraq. Right now, by declining to act against Assad, we've at least left a strong man in place who's opposed to those we're now being alarmed about. If we were to have intervened in Syria, we'd only have helped things currently in Iraq if we'd intervened on the side of Assad, then teamed up with the now pacified Syria and Iran for a 3 way crack down on Islamists in Iraq. But that's not what the hawks were advocating though.

My calls were not simply to intervene against Assad. Neither were the calls of those who were doing the real pushing. It was to use our involvement to shape events on the ground - those are different things.

[ICantSpellDawg]

From what you have posted, you are around 30 years old now. It's time to stop looking out the window, thinking that you can take bigger dumps on the lawn than the dog.

I take way bigger dumps than the dog. I rock dumps all over the lawn.

[Pannonian]

My calls were not simply to intervene against Assad. Neither were the calls of those who were doing the real pushing. It was to use our involvement to shape events on the ground - those are different things.

What does "(using) our involvement to shape events on the ground" mean in practice?

[Fragony]

This is something where the data is out there, for people who really want to know--for posterity's sake--what it was like to be a soldier in the war in Iraq. I've even posted at length in some other threads on some of the details, simply because I want Americans to understand what we did there*. Keeping in mind, of course, that I can only speak for 2008-2009 personally. Lots of Soldiers stayed on big FOBs, but those soldiers tended to be support troops anyway. My company was not one of those; we were dug into a section of an Iraqi Army outpost plop in the middle of northwest Bagdhad. You couldn't wake up and take a piss in the middle of the night without running into some Iraqi troops, they even ate with us.

Every single day we did patrols and engaged with the locals--sometimes it was guarding a market place, sometimes it was setting up checkpoints on the road, sometimes it was raiding somebody's house (but always with a warrant from an Iraqi judge--we even had special evidence collection procedures that fit their judicial system, which is not at all like an episode of Law and Order!), sometimes we were in trucks and sometimes we were on foot. We almost always operated as a platoon of around 20 people, leaving a very light footprint among the massive collection of US forces that were deployed there at the time (something like 200,000 troops). I was the gunner on the LT's truck, and it was my job specifically to brief the interpreters and get them roused and ready for missions (middle-eastern people have a very different approach towards being on-time!). I had terps who were old Saddam fans, I had terps who were crusty opportunists, I had terps who were young men around my age (I was 20) who just wanted to kick ass. I enjoyed all of their company, as different as they all were they echoed the same sentiments: They couldn't understand what we were up to, and they expected us to be far more forceful in establishing a new state. By 2009 most Iraqis were ready for us to leave, but also apprehensive of the future, and I wish the best for all of them now because things look bad. :shrug:

*And that's something I can't over-state. More than anything, most veterans you'll meet--especially young ones--are overwhelmed with a desire to make people understand. It probably sounds wierd, but I absolutely loathe when someone tells me "Thank you for your service" or something similar. Not because I'm not proud of my service--quite the opposite, I'm bursting with pride--but something about the off-hand way people say it just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I chose to join in a time of war, and I didn't get to vote on the war since I was a minor, and over-all I've considered my role to be minimal. But the people who voted to send us there are the people who really need to have a thorough understanding of the why's, the what's, and the how's. "Thanks for your service" feels like a rubber stamp on a form that nobody bothered to read. Its clicking the box at the end of the EULA without reading the contents. I am totally confident we will have more wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in the future, because of how fast Iraq was swept under the rug.

I don't really know what to say but that was an awesome post.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't really know what to say but that was an awesome post.


What does "(using) our involvement to shape events on the ground" mean in practice?

Using Assad to target ISIL and al-qaeda affiliates while we arm the former FSA units and Kurds so that they can undermine Assad where his forces are most vulnerable. Intel gathering, precision strikes with aircraft, as well as surgical assaults using various special forces.

We need too encourage relatively Just and effective governance in as many defensible areas as possible, even though it will be difficult. We can do it, but it takes lives, money and energy.

[Kagemusha]

Using Assad to target ISIL and al-qaeda affiliates while we arm the former FSA units and Kurds so that they can undermine Assad where his forces are most vulnerable. Intel gathering, precision strikes with aircraft, as well as surgical assaults using various special forces.

We need too encourage relatively Just and effective governance in as many defensible areas as possible, even though it will be difficult. We can do it, but it takes lives, money and energy.

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

[Pannonian]

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

Once Assad is gone, just and effective governance would automatically show up of course, just as it did after we got rid of Saddam in Iraq. One wonders why people never learn, even from very recent history in a very nearby place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You would have to up your competition with the more radical factions and double down on building State and economic structure. Rinse and repeat

[Crandar]

Unless a significant, pro-Maliki, foreign intervention occurs, Baghdad's fate will be decided by the control of the rivers' (Euphrates and Tigris, of course) dams.

ISIS has already been controlling them for several days and they can easily either flood the capital or cut out completely the water supply, forcing the inhabitants to surrender.

[Viking]

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

Syria is likely to become a messed up place, no matter how the war in Syria ends. Still, I'd much rather have the FSA come out on top than Assad or islamists.

A country that needs a dictatorship in order to stay united is no country. There will just be an endless path of bloodshed through uprisings and civil wars. By breaking the circle of dictators, the circle of bloodshed might be ended, too. I hope the circle in Iraq will be broken now, just like I hope the country itself will break: it should split.

[Lemur]

We need to know what Lemur's representative is saying on this subject.
Haven't heard anything, so I did some Googling. Paul Ryan hasn't made a big speech about Iraq and ISIS that I can find.

He did make a more general Obama-is-weak-and-a-dictator (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208984-ryan-obama-foreign-policy-weak-indecisive) speech on June 11th, which kind of addressed Iraq:


Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday slammed President Obama’s foreign policy, calling it “weak and indecisive” and damaging to U.S. credibility abroad.

“What I’ve seen is, in far too many cases, the president doesn’t back up his words with actions,” said Ryan in a wide-ranging speech at the Center for a New American Security’s annual conference in Washington.

“It’s not that he says one thing and does another. It’s that he doesn’t do enough,”said the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

“The instinct is to go for the bare minimum – just enough to show concern, but not enough to get results,” he continued. “And after five years, I think it’s worn down our credibility.”

As you can see, not a lot of substance. You can rest assured, however, that when my representative takes a position, it will be craven and counter-factual. That's how he rolls.


The de-Baathification was something a lot of highly qualified people thought was a great freaking idea, and that also really didn't work out at all.
I award you +1 internets for Epic Understatement.

[Viking]

The Kurd PM (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27881778) seems like a clever fellow. Of course, he also agrees with me. ~;)

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849). And the war, it...uh, goes on.

https://i.imgur.com/l1j93N4.jpg

[drone]

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849). And the war, it...uh, goes on.

Do you want airstrikes? Because that's how you get airstrikes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ask and ye shall receive. Also, I believe that the record will show that I was against De-Baathificatiin when it was brought up.

[HoreTore]

Ask and ye shall receive. Also, I believe that the record will show that I was against De-Baathificatiin when it was brought up.

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

[Beskar]

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

That is not hard to understand. "They are part of the evil regime, they need to all be removed"
It just starts to fall apart when they didn't actually implement an action plan on the part after, which left everything in shambles.

[Pannonian]

That is not hard to understand. "They are part of the evil regime, they need to all be removed"
It just starts to fall apart when they didn't actually implement an action plan on the part after, which left everything in shambles.

It's part of the hankering after the Greatest Generation and the Good War. Which all the victorious Allies (British, Americans, Russians) fall prey to, but the Americans are particularly affected by the combo of having the power to play out their WW2 fantasies whilst not having the stomach to repeat the atrocities. Intervene to save the world from the evil dictator, de-nazify, build a nation for freedom and democracy, etc.

[GenosseGeneral]

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

It is. "On a daily basis, rule is primarily instituted by the government's bureaucracy." Max Weber

I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.

[Brenus]

“I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.” Partially true, but the Allies didn’t fire all of them, even the SS, with their weapons. And the Allies had a plan for Germany. They even had one for France, but it failed.
And the Anti-Nazi Germans were genuine one, having paid the price in Dachau and others place like this. And even the Nazi knew they had lost the war, and 1944 attack on Hitler showed it.

[Pannonian]

In the USA we draw a stark distinction between the military and the civil service. It is hard for a lot of Americans to wrap their heads around nations where there is virtually no difference between the two... and there's a lot of nations like that--Ba'athist Iraq, North Korea, China (not so much as it used to be), lots of smaller dictatorships in the mid-east and elsewhere. Culture-blindness is our biggest problem, internationally.

AFAICS China's ruling class is comprised of engineers, whereas classical western democracies have a ruling class comprising of lawyers. Which results in China's government prizing solutions at the expense of rights, whereas western democracies prize rights at the expense of solutions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ya that's not the point. If you're in the People's Liberation Army of 1990, you're as lilkely to be a fire fighter as anything else. To a large degree that still holds true--the chinese military is heavily involved in infrastructure and civil service.

Quite correct. Any number of Chinese organizations were "wholly owned" subsidiaries of the PLA. The soldiers were "active duty" as machinists etc. and the places were run with -- quite literally -- military discipline.

[Brenus]

So, the solution would have to create artificial jobs in order to relaunch the activity in Iraq (in building new infrastructures). Yeah, but this would have benefit to the Iraqis, not to the US firms. It would have cost less as well. Employing former soldiers, keeping them out of unemployment in providing services, isn't it against the "free" market economy that is the Holly idea of the time?

[HopAlongBunny]

We tried to rebuild the civil service (that is to say, the police and the army) from scratch, on a generic model pretty much exactly like the one that was in place before. The Iraqis just didn't want it.

Given that that amounts to a social revolution (given the tribal/familial structure) of social position and technical knowledge/ability, again it is hard to imagine that the resulting disorder was not foreseen.
The transformation required a generational commitment to security and support.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, everybody assumed (by everybody I mean Bush, Cheney, and Co.) that it would be a like a Field of Dreams scenario. If you build it (or throw money at it) they will come (or stop killing you). :shrug:

Absolutely. Not saying that this wasn't negligent on the part of our leadership -- it was -- but it was assumed that the vast majority of Iraqis sought freedom as much as the Kurds -- who had lobbying commercials running -- and that the natural yearning for freedom would take care of the rest. Sadly, those who kept saying that it would fall into a shambles and we needed to be ready for that were ignored or actively told to shut up.

[HopAlongBunny]

The whole adventure was based on fabrication: WMD's, baby-killers, AlQ linkages.
The media bubble made it difficult (even here in Canada) to get factual data; if there was any victory out of the whole mess, it has to be assigned to the developers and implementers of the disinformation campaign that sold the policy.
Interesting, is the apparent trend for people to "double-down" on the propaganda when faced with facts

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/iraq-war-wmds-saddam-political-unreason

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

That Bush was Harry Truman and it was the End of World War II, I think.

[Kralizec]

It is. "On a daily basis, rule is primarily instituted by the government's bureaucracy." Max Weber

I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.

One of the most surprising things I learned in the past few years (from reading the Spiegel, in this case) was that even in the later days of Adenauer's government it was common practice among politicians and civil servants to call someone they despised a "judenhilfer".

The Soviets were far more thorough with their de-nazification efforts. But then again, political purges were a compulsive habit of theirs. And the ones they did put into power weren't particulary nice people, either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302

Russia sells Iraq jets because the US won't.

Well done guys

*Headdesk*

[Husar]

I'd like to know what model. If you compare the bbc article with this one, you'd think the BBC is a bit late: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/iran-transfers-88-russian-sukhoi-fighter-planes-iraq/

That's from the 23rd and says the planes already arrived. The picture is a MiG-21 though, not even a Sukhoi while the BBC has the Su-27, which would be a pretty decent plane for them to get.

According to the video they released they already seem to use russian helicopters (Mi-24/35s). This article states they will get some of the latest russian gunships as well, but shows some Hueys in the picture: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/iraq-army-helicopters-russia-military.html#

:dizzy2:

Getting russian equipment may have other reasons as well though, in case they still have some people in the army who are familiar with it, they can get to use it faster now that they're in a hurry. Their country used russian equipment for a long time and US equipment as complicated as airplanes and helicopters would require the crews to adapt to it most likely. Both the pilots as well as the mechanics and so on.

[Sarmatian]

I'd like to know what model. If you compare the bbc article with this one, you'd think the BBC is a bit late: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/iran-transfers-88-russian-sukhoi-fighter-planes-iraq/

That's from the 23rd and says the planes already arrived. The picture is a MiG-21 though, not even a Sukhoi while the BBC has the Su-27, which would be a pretty decent plane for them to get.

According to the video they released they already seem to use russian helicopters (Mi-24/35s). This article states they will get some of the latest russian gunships as well, but shows some Hueys in the picture: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/iraq-army-helicopters-russia-military.html#

:dizzy2:

Getting russian equipment may have other reasons as well though, in case they still have some people in the army who are familiar with it, they can get to use it faster now that they're in a hurry. Their country used russian equipment for a long time and US equipment as complicated as airplanes and helicopters would require the crews to adapt to it most likely. Both the pilots as well as the mechanics and so on.

We sold them a lot of stuff, too.

No wonder their military fell apart so quickly :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They're getting 2nd hand crap at emergency rates. Considering what happened to all the humvees and armored vehicles we left them, its probably a good thing we never gave them planes. :shrug:

I recall the controversy a few years ago about you not wanting to sell them heavy armour, artillery and aircraft - three things the US et al used to maintain their fortified bases. Equipping the Iraqi army as light infantry with a few old APC's and Hummer's isn't a replacement for the US army with it's heavy gear, and it's satellites.

[Pannonian]

I recall the controversy a few years ago about you not wanting to sell them heavy armour, artillery and aircraft - three things the US et al used to maintain their fortified bases. Equipping the Iraqi army as light infantry with a few old APC's and Hummer's isn't a replacement for the US army with it's heavy gear, and it's satellites.

It's (sic) satellites, complete with possessive apostrophe, is correct. It's what the US wants Iraq to be, and probably the main reason for the initial war. And neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any desire to be that. I'm not sure why you're so upset that Russia i giving Iraq heavy weapons. It's not like they're going to be using them on anyone that we don't want them to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I stand corrected then.

I guess you gave all the good toys to the wrong guys - the Afghans are reputedly made of sterner stuff than the Mesopotamians.

[Pannonian]

I saw a great Army Times article the other day on what sorts of airplanes we're gonna be giving the Afghans Army before we leave, but I can't find it for some reason--I'll keep digging around. The kicker was that the planes they're gonna get still have propellers! :rtwyes:

A-rabs work best with camels. Sopwith camels.

[Husar]

There are some COIN aircraft that use propellers. They are fuel efficient, slow and can usually sport a very decent loadout of rocket launchers, machine guns and small bombs. Certainly good enough to engage some dudes on the ground. Not to forget that a 200km/h propeller machine may actually be better suited for such tasks than a jet that can go Mach 2.

The Bronco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco) was such a plane and used by the US well into the 90ies.
Argentina has the Pucara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58_Pucará), the article also has a nice picture with the loadout options.
And the USA are even developing a new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon

Probably not enough to stop huge tank formations with air cover, but for hunting Taliban in the mountains they should be fine.

[Kadagar_AV]

Gunships are actually quite scary...

And as Husar say, better suited for the task in Afghanistan than any state-of-the-art jets.

Also, jets are only effective with a huge back-up, with advanced logistics and so on... Something Afghanistan lacks anyway.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah, the gunships are probably the most ruthlessly effective weapons. Unfortunately in the event that the Taliban manage to get hold of one and learn to fly an Apache, say, without crashing it...

Also why any 2A arguments in the USA about revolutions against tyranny are so ridiculous and probably why any attempt to act on those arguments would yield a swift, fiery destruction of their proponents...

[Kadagar_AV]

They're not getting gunships, they're getting propeller-driven planes that look straight outta WW2.

Yes, and those propeller driven planes is exactly what Afghanistan need.

It's the perfect deterrent to low-tech ground assaults.

It has logistic issues that can cope with, well, Afghanistan...


Those propeller-driven gunships are about ten thousand procents more effective than a F-22 Raptor in the theatre it acts in.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

Bolded part, well DOH... That's a given.

Search google images about "gunships" and you'll understand where I went wrong... In English English I believe a gunship is an aeroplane with a **** load of guns pointing outwards :)

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

UK version of gunship... (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gunship&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_myvU72XI8HNygPt3gE&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=923)

[Viking]

^ Looks vulnerable to MG fire.

The Iraqi army attempted to retake Tikrit (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28077425), but was pushed back. The longer militants hold these areas, the more they will be able to push for negotiations. If they actually are interested in that kind of thing, that is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/antiaircraft_action_summary_wwii.htm). Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.

[Husar]

Not to forget that aiming at an airplane is relatively hard when the rockets of said airplane are exploding all around you.
Jets are usually not any/much more armored, just faster, which also makes it harder for the pilots to identify and then aim at the targets on the ground. If they have Stingers or Strelas/Iglas however, the Super Tucano may actually get into some trouble unless the structure around the engine doesn't get hot enough for an IR lock compared to a jet engine.

As for the gunship thing, the AC-130 is somewhat unique (both in having the gunship tag and its role and layout as a plane) and the google result surprises me a bit since I'm also used to a gunship being a (heavily) armed attack helicopter.

[Viking]

A modern jet fighter can attack from above the cloud deck and high altitudes with supreme precision - they can easily stay out effective reach of ground-based MG fire.

I was assuming that MG(s) onboard the A-29 was its main weapon; but I see now that they can carry missiles too, in which case they can be less vulnerable, depending on the distances they can launch them from.

[Pannonian]

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/antiaircraft_action_summary_wwii.htm). Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.


Surely if you're not worried about air superiority, the German Ju 87 is as good as it gets.

[Greyblades]

Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?

[Beskar]

Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?

The downside is, if the said artillery fired, the recoil would rip the aircraft to pieces.

[Husar]

A modern jet fighter can attack from above the cloud deck and high altitudes with supreme precision - they can easily stay out effective reach of ground-based MG fire.

That's what the advertisements say.
If that also reflects the reality of COIN operations, why are the US developing new prop versions for COIN tasks?


I was assuming that MG(s) onboard the A-29 was its main weapon; but I see now that they can carry missiles too, in which case they can be less vulnerable, depending on the distances they can launch them from.

IN Vietnam the US already had Sparrows and didn't use cannons in all F-4 versions. Then the ROE demanded viasual ID of enemies and the entire range advantage went down the drain because they might have shot down a lot of friendlies otherwise. Even the F-22 has a gun now, probably because war isn't a serious of events that work out ideally in your favor. The A-10 also goes in close and employs a "machine gun", it was scheduled for retiremnt but was kept around longer because it was so very useful to have a plane that can go in close. The whole missiles from above thing works fine under certain circumstances but when your own patrol comes under fire or the enemies are well hidden, the pilots may just have to use their Mk.1 eyeballs for the engagement. Not to forget that some of those "precision" ammunitions may cost about as much as one of those little COIN aircraft per shot...

[Husar]

There are recoil systems for the recoil and the AC-130 is a big plane made of metal.

Anyway, I didn't mean the USA developed the A-29 but the A-67 that I linked earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon

The manufacturer, US Aircraft Corp., is based in the USA according to their website: http://usaircraftcorp.com/contactus.php

[Viking]

That's what the advertisements say.
If that also reflects the reality of COIN operations, why are the US developing new prop versions for COIN tasks?

I wasn't saying that modern jet fighters are the best of the best against insurgents. It's that they can stay out of the effective range of most of the common insurgent weapons.

Those jets can still provide air supremacy. Even if they are not good at taking out insurgents one by one, they may make them wary of travelling openly in columns. They thus make the insurgents less efficient and can also help inspire hopelessness among them because of the invisible and lethal enemy they are faced with.

ISIS can transport their seized equipment openly because the hostile air forces active in the area have a limited presence behind ISIS lines. Unless you have huge numbers of them (which the Afghans won't), I don't think A-29s can give more than a limited presence (compared to e.g. F16s) - which of course is a hell lot better than no air presence at all.

[Husar]

I wasn't saying that modern jet fighters are the best of the best against insurgents. It's that they can stay out of the effective range of most of the common insurgent weapons.

Those jets can still provide air supremacy. Even if they are not good at taking out insurgents one by one, they may make them wary of travelling openly in columns. They thus make the insurgents less efficient and can also help inspire hopelessness among them because of the invisible and lethal enemy they are faced with.

ISIS can transport their seized equipment openly because the hostile air forces active in the area have a limited presence behind ISIS lines. Unless you have huge numbers of them (which the Afghans won't), I don't think A-29s can give more than a limited presence (compared to e.g. F16s) - which of course is a hell lot better than no air presence at all.

I'm not sure why you are rating A-29s against the background of fighting ISIS. A-29s are sold to Afghanistan, not Iraq. AFAIK ISIS is not trying to conquer Afghanistan but Iraq.
And the whole invisible jets in the sky thing may work if your GDP is actually higher than the fuel costs of doing that as the almighty Cube already pointed out. :sweatdrop:

[Viking]

The bigger Drones do most of that stuff. If the Afghans sign any kind of security agreement at all, they'll get some drone coverage I would imagine.

For the time being, at least. Until you vote the next isolationist president into the offices of the white residence. ~;)


I'm not sure why you are rating A-29s against the background of fighting ISIS. A-29s are sold to Afghanistan, not Iraq. AFAIK ISIS is not trying to conquer Afghanistan but Iraq.
And the whole invisible jets in the sky thing may work if your GDP is actually higher than the fuel costs of doing that as the almighty Cube already pointed out. :sweatdrop:

Just saying that if I had to choose between fighter jets and A-29s for counter-insurgency operations, I'd go for the fighter jets.

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

[Pannonian]

Just saying that if I had to choose between fighter jets and A-29s for counter-insurgency operations, I'd go for the fighter jets.

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

You've missed out the other compelling argument which GC gave. Fuel and other logistical support. Without an unreasonable amount of outside aid, the Afghan state might be able to support a fleet of A-29s. It would likely not be able to support a fleet of jets. If props can do the job, an A-29 flying in the air is better than an F-22 rusting on the ground.

[Viking]

I wasn't arguing that Afghanistan should get fighter jets instead. The talk about fighter jets was a spin-off from my remark that the A-29 looked vulnerable to MG fire.

[Husar]

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

That's a sad excuse for being wrong on a tangential topic. :no:

[Viking]

That's a sad excuse for being wrong on a tangential topic. :no:

It's the happiest legit reason I've ever seen.


ISIS has declared a caliphate (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28082962), and has also shown that they suffer from hubris:


It also proclaimed the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph and "leader for Muslims everywhere".

Also, why this? Seems completely random:


Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the creation of an independent Kurdish state in response to gains made by Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

In a speech in Tel Aviv, he said the Kurds were "a nation of fighters and have proved political commitment and are worthy of independence".


The international community, including neighbouring Turkey and the US, remain opposed to the breakup of Iraq.

Doofuses.

[Viking]

That makes sense. It would probably be wrong to assume that Netanyahu has even as much as a sympathetic mitochondrion in his body.

[HopAlongBunny]

The reaction to the "caliphate" will be interesting.
It gives a material "thing" for extremist groups to use as a rallying point.
If the "caliphate" is snuffed by the US or its allies the loons will point to that as another manifestation of America's evil.

The whole thing could blow up all by itself; it is certainly not clear that anyone else is "on-board" with this will to power.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Israel likes the partition idea because Kurdistan would be a secular nation and a natural ally against the more fundamentally islamic non-Kurdish states of the region. They also can't stand the fact that Maliki is so openly backed by Iran.

*And of course in my opinion, since I don't particularly care what Turkey thinks (a luxury Washington doesn't have, I guess), I also think the Partition is the only way to go. At least one halfway decent group will benefit then, at least.

Kurdistan will be an ethnic state - like Israel -it will be good for Kurds and bad for anyone living on "Kurdish" territory.

Although, in two generations time that may have resolved itself.

[Viking]

Kurdistan will be an ethnic state - like Israel -it will be good for Kurds and bad for anyone living on "Kurdish" territory.

Do you have any observations from their current semi-automous region in Iraq or statements from powerful or influential people in the region to back that up with?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you have any observations from their current semi-automous region in Iraq or statements from powerful or influential people in the region to back that up with?

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

Can the Caliphate tolerate a Kurdish state that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the caliph?

[Viking]

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

Supposedly, the Kurds regard Kirkuk as their real capital city. Some more background information (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520) on its seizure:


Kirkuk city, which has a mixed population of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, has long been a thorny issue in Iraqi politics.

Its special status as a disputed city was recognised in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi constitution, which called for the situation in the city to be "normalised" by:


The return to the south of Arabs settled there by the deposed ruler
The restoration of expelled Kurds
A census
A referendum on whether the province should join the Kurdistan autonomous region.


But that has never happened, and Kirkuk, as well as other disputed areas along the Arab-Kurdish ethnic fault line, have been flashpoints for friction between Kurdish forces and Iraqi government troops.

Now, the latter have melted away, leaving Kirkuk to fall into the hands of the Kurds like a ripe fruit.

[Sarmatian]

Kurdistan would definitely solve a lot of problems in the area, but getting there would probably cause more.

Turkey will never go along with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can the Caliphate tolerate a Kurdish state that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the caliph?

In a word?

No - it's like asking the medieval Pope to tolerate heretics.

It's unlikely this new Caliph will last all that long, anyway.

Who is he anyway?


Supposedly, the Kurds regard Kirkuk as their real capital city. Some more background information (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520) on its seizure:

Yes, I read that article.

If Kurdistan becomes a reality there will be future wars with whatever emerges from the rest of Iraq. At current showing the Kurds are more likely to come out on top of that

[Kadagar_AV]

Does it really matter if they get a caliphate?

A few days later they would just war over who should be caliph. Once that is settled, they would war over who should replace him.

Silly middle east. :no:

[Kadagar_AV]

Getting a "like" from GC is like a participation medal...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's times like this I miss the Templars...

[Kadagar_AV]

It's times like this I miss the Templars...

They are called US army these days... At least according to Bush jr...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TRVcnX8Vsw

[a completely inoffensive name]

GC confirmed for promoting arrogance among the children of the backroom with his "everyone gets a thank" style of parenting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You mean Blackwater?

No, the actual Templars who enforced peace between Christian, Muslim and Jew - and were not discriminatory about it.

[Viking]

Some more Kurdish news, from Turkey this time:


A political party in Turkey has been allowed to use the word "Kurdistan" in its name, breaking a decades-long prohibition on the word, it's been reported.

The Supreme Court of Appeals' Prosecutor's Office in Ankara has ruled that Turkey's Kurdish Democratic Party (T-KDP) should be granted a licence to operate, allowing the word to be used in a political party's name for the first time, says Hurriyet Daily News. The move allows other parties representing Turkey's large Kurdish minority to use the word as Ankara moves towards what has been described as a "peaceful political solution to the country's Kurdish issue," according to today's Zaman newspaper.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-28106737

EDIT: and of course, the plans of an Iraqi Kurdistan referendum (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28103124) should be mentioned, while I'm at it:


The president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan Region has told the BBC he intends to hold a referendum on independence within months.

Massoud Barzani said that Iraq was already "effectively partitioned".

[Greyblades]

No, the actual Templars who enforced peace between Christian, Muslim and Jew - and were not discriminatory about it.

Early on yeah, they were quite discrimatory against the pagans in thier later years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Early on yeah, they were quite discrimatory against the pagans in thier later years.

I think you're confusing them Teutonic Knights.

[Greyblades]

It appears I have.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope this Islamic State and new Caliphate snuff out all the individual terrorist cells and centralize all that radical islam into one big territory. It saves US the trouble of trying to figure out where to send our drones to bomb.

[Papewaio]

Wasn't the whole premise of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of such states not create a super version of it?

[HopAlongBunny]

There seems to be (at least) 2 things working against the Caliphate:

1) the need for independent armed groups, who all have carved out a niche for themselves, to surrender authority to another

2) the instability of the structure; with so much invested in the Caliph there will be a free for all to snatch the crown.

I'm willing to bet that this is a "flash in the pan"; it might perhaps survive as a myth of what might have been...if only...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wasn't the whole premise of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of such states not create a super version of it?

There was a premise?

[Viking]

Some potentially bad news (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28123258):


The Islamic State's move to monopolise power in the Sunni parts of Iraq is a bonus for the government in Baghdad, since it removes Iraqi political cover from the insurgency on the ground.

"We will not take the oath of allegiance, and we will not hand over our weapons - we will hide them," said a senior Sunni rebel source.

"But we can't fight Isis, it is too strong and it would be a losing battle. We give in. But we will remain active in Baghdad, where Isis doesn't have a presence."

[HopAlongBunny]

What if you declared a caliphate and no one came:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/baghadadi-misconstrued-caliphate-20147410522330520.html

Problems abound, and is anyone listening

[Husar]

Wrong topic, that article is about ISIL and this thread is about ISIS.

(What I actually want to ask is, which is it now?)

[Viking]

IS, probably..

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I've been a bit confused at time about what stands for what and what exactly these guys are called.

Apparently, they started out as ISI (Islamic State of Iraq), then they became ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), and now they are just to be called IS (Islamic State), since they have declared their caliphate and all.

[Kadagar_AV]

I actually would love to see a caliphate.

A) I think it would show how mislead their Muslims ideas really are in a modern world.
B) It would mean some muslims from the western world would return to that war-ridden region.

Win-win.

My guess would be, that they would have to monitor the internet more than even China does, to keep the populace ignorant.

[Crandar]

Wrong topic, that article is about ISIL and this thread is about ISIS.

(What I actually want to ask is, which is it now?)
The choice between the words of "Levant" or "Syria" depends on how you translate the Arabic, geographical phrase "al-Sham", which literally means the Asiatic coast of the East Mediterrenean. I prefer the term ISIS, as the name of an Egyptian godess sounds significantly cooler than two, random syllabes.

Then, after the declaration of the Chaliphate they renamed themselves to just Islamic State. I still preferred the Ottoman Sultans, though. Much more intruiging, not to mention that Abdul Hamit has the extra advantage of being hated by the entire Balkan Penninsula.

[Beskar]

What tickles me is how the 'savour' of Iraq is Iran and the Shia Militas (the ones who fought the Allies), these who supported the regime in Syria and fought on their side. Whilst ISIS who was partially assisted by the Allies in the rebellion in Syria is the one assaulting Iraq.

Where is the link to that 'summary of the Middle East' which shows how much of a mess it is...

[Pannonian]

What tickles me is how the 'savour' of Iraq is Iran and the Shia Militas (the ones who fought the Allies), these who supported the regime in Syria and fought on their side. Whilst ISIS who was partially assisted by the Allies in the rebellion in Syria is the one assaulting Iraq.

Where is the link to that 'summary of the Middle East' which shows how much of a mess it is...

Which goes to show that "wait and see" is at least as viable a strategy in that region as the "fight for freedom". We upset the balance when we toppled Saddam, who, while not exactly a friend to us, was at least an enemy of our enemies, and who was doing an effective job of keeping them down without any involvement on our part, and thus without any reason for the loonies to resent us for keeping them down. Even though we weren't getting exactly what we wanted, it was close enough, without any expenditure of effort or resources on our part. The argument I made against war on Saddam in 2003 was just about the same as the one I made against war on Assad in 2013. In one case we went to war and are bitterly regretting it after wrecking our economy and reputation in going about it. In the other case, we didn't go to war, and I think we're bloody happy about our second thoughts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The situation will only deteriorate further if we try to interfere. Iraq was a state held together by violence (Saddam's Baath party). Did anyone really think this would have changed because we built new roads everywhere?

[Papewaio]

If they didnt have oil would they have the money to arm themselves in a meaningful manner?

Oil is generally explored for, drilled by and refined by ex-pats. True more and more locals are getting skilled enough in engineering and sciences to do it themselves which is a good thing.

But take away the wears dependency for oil and how much clout would the Middle East or Russia have in today's world?

[Tellos Athenaios]

The oil angle is overplayed by everybody. Oil is a global commodity, so at most the Bush administration hoped to drive down global prices somehow. The fact is that Iraq still hasn't caught up to pre-war oil production levels. If anything, that makes life easier for Russia, but not that much easier. China now has the biggest stake in the middle-east, and in the next decade we'll see them try and deal with this crap. The sooner we leave, the sooner they can get started.

No they won't. They have enough domestic issues as it is without pressing for reforms that their leadership is unwilling to commit to themselves, so they'll be 'happy' to let the Middle East fester and deal with whomever appears to be the dominant powers as long as the Middle East doesn't attempt to stir things up in China itself...

They have a long tradition of 'whatever floats your boat as long as you do not try to export it here' when it comes to dealing with inconvenient allies of necessity. The only thing they might press for is for US imposed trade sanctions to be lifted, because it would be convenient for China to be able to do more business with Iran (oil, large untapped market).

[Tellos Athenaios]

But its already begun. The middle-east is surrounded by Chinese economic development programs, and China is now more dependent than anyone else on middle-eastern oil. India, too, will be getting more closely involved in the middle-east. Look for them to get heavily involved in Afghanistan after we leave.

India already is, much to the chagrin of Pakistan IIRC. Point is: both countries have a fundamentally less invasive attitude towards what goes on in the Middle East. So they won't be dealing with the 'crap', if they can avoid it and they will be able to avoid it since they don't walk around with an attitude that tends to make one slip up and land in the brown stuff.

In other words: can you imagine China doing an operation Iraqi Freedom? No? Attempting to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine incurring significant loss of face over the farce that is the remnants of every accord ever signed? What, China just will quietly ignore it, and thereby avoid burning bridges, you say?

Why is that? I'll tell you: it's a particular mindset championed by Western Europeans & Americans that leads to these grand ideas to fix everything once and for all. Well intentioned though they might be, they are also risky and have a habit of backfiring spectacularly in the Middle East which is consistently more messed up than we seem to grasp.

China will simply buy the oil quietly and focus its diplomatic energies elsewhere -- nevermind how bad of a hellhole the Middle East becomes: not their problem, not theirs to fix. They have their dogma, they have their blind spots but these all concern other countries which are more credible threats to Chinese business as usual: North Korea, Japan, Russia, India, the USA.

India isn't much different: they have, if possible, even bigger social issues to sort out first, and anyway they too prefer to focus on securing their trade and supply routes over the Indian Ocean. Apart from that they have Pakistan to worry about and much of their action in Afghanistan are a direct countermeasure to perceived Pakistani influence/threats.

[Viking]

And so the intervention is about (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28699832) to begin, it seems:


US President Barack Obama says he has authorised air strikes against Islamic militants in northern Iraq but will not send US troops back to the country.

He said Islamic State (IS) fighters would be targeted to prevent the slaughter of religious minorities, or if they threaten US interests.

Strikes have not yet begun, but the US has made humanitarian air drops to Iraqis under threat from the militants.

But this is unlikely to have a decisive effect on the larger war, if I get it correctly.

[Husar]

Depends on the scope. I would say airpower can make it hard for ISIS to move around in the open but it cannot aid inner city fights as well.
Making them unable to move around gives the other powers more time to recover and build up and makes it harder for ISIS to operate.
In Libya there was most certainly an effect from bombing Gadaffi's army.

Whether it spells the total defeat of ISIS is probably less sure if that is what you mean.

[drone]

Iraq is running low on FreedomTM, time to replenish!

[Viking]

Depends on the scope. I would say airpower can make it hard for ISIS to move around in the open but it cannot aid inner city fights as well.
Making them unable to move around gives the other powers more time to recover and build up and makes it harder for ISIS to operate.
In Libya there was most certainly an effect from bombing Gadaffi's army.

Whether it spells the total defeat of ISIS is probably less sure if that is what you mean.

I mean, this intervention can prove decisive in the sense that it can establish areas where ISIS can conquer land and where they can not (although ISIS being allowed to take shia-dominated areas as well as Kurdish areas seemed to be out of the question since the beginning of this, anyway).

But the limited scope of the intervention means that it is unlikely to have a major impact on the ability of ISIS to hold most of the areas they have already conquered.

[Xiahou]

And so the intervention is about (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28699832) to begin, it seems:



But this is unlikely to have a decisive effect on the larger war, if I get it correctly.Obama announces campaign to bomb, in Iraq, the guys that we armed in Syria....

[Pannonian]

Obama announces campaign to bomb, in Iraq, the guys that we armed in Syria....

Did you actually send them any arms in the end? Just be grateful that you pulled back from intervention against Assad in Syria, as that means that you at least have a significant card to play in this.

[Husar]

Obama announces campaign to bomb, in Iraq, the guys that we armed in Syria....

Only because they use the equipment that you gave to guys in Iraq, I mean if we let anyone use anything other than the weapons designated for them, the world will end in chaos sooner or later!


Did you actually send them any arms in the end? Just be grateful that you pulled back from intervention against Assad in Syria, as that means that you at least have a significant card to play in this.

This was often mentioned indirectly somewhere in the middle of the news here. Sentences like "if xyz, then Obama will reconsider sending more weapons to Syrian rebels". I hardly heard about it directly but it was very often mentioned in the context of reporting on the crisis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How come there is never an effort to bring back the Beirut of the 1960s as a model for change.

You've got your iron-heeled dictator types willing to be the center of the universe, plenty of would be caliphs desirous of ruling by shariyah, a few zionazi seeking to make everything from Damascus to Sainai into a kibbutz writ large, and, I have no doubt, a fair number of folks scamming any and all while playing middlemen to the mayhemists and stuffing their numbered Swiss accounts absolutely full.

So why does nobody fight to become a place for commerce, or tolerance, or even as one American pol put it, "a chicken in every pot?" Why do all the current crop of power seekers want to rule a wasteland?

Have they even thought about what they want in human terms?

During the Cold War, some of our more cold-blooded analysts were aware that the USA, by pre-empting without any warning, could have "won" the war against the Soviets (too many liquid-fueled rockets, too slow a command and control reaction time because of their centralized decision practices, greater stealth ability among our boomer subs, etc.). We'd have lost millions and taken major hits to our infrastructure, but the USSR would have been decapitated, its strategic forces gone and its tactical ability smashed. Eastern Europe would have broken away and much of the USSR would have been facing civil war and breakaways from the 'stans etc.

Somebody decided that 10s of millions of dead along with who knows how many in the USSR wasn't a cost worth paying -- whatever the more bloodless analysts thought about doability.

Why aren't more in the Middle East willing to make an analogous assessment about the human costs of all this? I begin to wonder if Jordan somehow acquired all of the people who believe in sanity.

Oh well, had to vent that.

[Xiahou]

Did you actually send them any arms in the end? Just be grateful that you pulled back from intervention against Assad in Syria, as that means that you at least have a significant card to play in this.We were training/advising/arming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html) Syrian rebels. Publicly, we weren't assisting the real extremists- only the moderate extremists, but there's little doubt that weapons we provided and personnel we trained in Syria are fighting for ISIS.

It's not very realistic (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/2013920164342453621.html) to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.

[Montmorency]

but there's little doubt that weapons we provided and personnel we trained in Syria are fighting for ISIS.

As though that was unexpected, or even matters. :rolleyes:


It's not very realistic to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.

Even the divisions between rebel factions contribute to the intermixture.

[HoreTore]

How come there is never an effort to bring back the Beirut of the 1960s as a model for change.

Because it resulted in 30 years of brutal sectarian warfare?

[HoreTore]

We were training/advising/arming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html) Syrian rebels. Publicly, we weren't assisting the real extremists- only the moderate extremists, but there's little doubt that weapons we provided and personnel we trained in Syria are fighting for ISIS.

It's not very realistic (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/2013920164342453621.html) to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.

Stalin managed to arm just one faction of an alliance just fine.

[Kralizec]

It's not very realistic (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/2013920164342453621.html) to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.

It's not as simple as that. The FSA is part of a coalition that includes islamists and which fights Assad, but it does not include ISIS. From what I know ISIS has done very little combat with Assad's forces and is hostile to other islamist groups. In fact, ISIS is hostile to everybody, and most of its combat in Syria has been about conquering land from other rebel groups.

[Papewaio]

Too many in the Middle East are locked in a circle of hate and would rather rule in hell then share in heaven. That's why they can't have nice things.

[Pannonian]

Too many in the Middle East are locked in a circle of hate and would rather rule in hell then share in heaven. That's why they can't have nice things.

That attitude is why we're better off keeping the hell away from there and leaving them to their own devices than get involved. Unless there are important strategic or resource interests involved, I'd want us to keep away from anywhere south of Turkey and north of Kenya, and west of India.

[Kadagar_AV]

How come there is never an effort to bring back the Beirut of the 1960s as a model for change.

You've got your iron-heeled dictator types willing to be the center of the universe, plenty of would be caliphs desirous of ruling by shariyah, a few zionazi seeking to make everything from Damascus to Sainai into a kibbutz writ large, and, I have no doubt, a fair number of folks scamming any and all while playing middlemen to the mayhemists and stuffing their numbered Swiss accounts absolutely full.

So why does nobody fight to become a place for commerce, or tolerance, or even as one American pol put it, "a chicken in every pot?" Why do all the current crop of power seekers want to rule a wasteland?

Have they even thought about what they want in human terms?

During the Cold War, some of our more cold-blooded analysts were aware that the USA, by pre-empting without any warning, could have "won" the war against the Soviets (too many liquid-fueled rockets, too slow a command and control reaction time because of their centralized decision practices, greater stealth ability among our boomer subs, etc.). We'd have lost millions and taken major hits to our infrastructure, but the USSR would have been decapitated, its strategic forces gone and its tactical ability smashed. Eastern Europe would have broken away and much of the USSR would have been facing civil war and breakaways from the 'stans etc.

Somebody decided that 10s of millions of dead along with who knows how many in the USSR wasn't a cost worth paying -- whatever the more bloodless analysts thought about doability.

Why aren't more in the Middle East willing to make an analogous assessment about the human costs of all this? I begin to wonder if Jordan somehow acquired all of the people who believe in sanity.

Oh well, had to vent that.

Pick the answer(s) you like:

A: Cause religion.
B: Cause Arabs are not built to think like that.
C: Cause the culture there is ****** up.

I've seen claims for all of the points, personally I go for religion and the cultures built around them being just nutty.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As long as it does not involve boots on the ground, I am more than willing to have the US compromise on its interventionist policies by just bombing IS from afar. The only thing to really follow this up with is by changing our policy to promote a multiple state solution. Let the Kurds rule themselves in the north, the shia in the east with baghdad and give the crazies their caliphate in the west, contained on all sides by US supported allies (kurds, turkey, Iraqi government, jordan).

My ideal situation is for the US to use this opportunity to relax tensions with Iran by promoting cooperation with each other against the Sunni extremists that are clearly looking for nothing more than hell on earth.

[Beskar]

My ideal situation is for the US to use this opportunity to relax tensions with Iran by promoting cooperation with each other against the Sunni extremists that are clearly looking for nothing more than hell on earth.

I am just glad the events of 'Shadow of Ender' series didn't pan out. Effectively, they established a caliphate then the 'Muslim nations' all joined it enmass, creating a political unity of pan-arabian nationalism centred around islam, unheard of since the Ottoman Empire.

That really would have been a major shock to International Relations and Global Politics... and thats without the part where they invaded India.

[rvg]

Oh dear God how I want to see these animals wiped out. Down to the very last one of them. So many of my people dead. So many displaced. It's like 1914 all over again. Go Obama, bomb these monsters until there are none left. If we ever decide to do another ground offensive, I'll f@ing lie on my application if needed, but I'm going.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh dear God how I want to see these animals wiped out. Down to the very last one of them. So many of my people dead. So many displaced. It's like 1914 all over again. Go Obama, bomb these monsters until there are none left. If we ever decide to do another ground offensive, I'll f@ing lie on my application if needed, but I'm going.

NO lack of clarity there.

[HopAlongBunny]

The airstrikes might help but nothing will be gained without boots on the ground. The real question is: Can Iraq provide effective troops on the ground to push back?
Complex mix of national unity and will, complicated by the troops level of professionalism and the competence of command.
Owning the airspace does not (by default) occupy the territory.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh dear God how I want to see these animals wiped out. Down to the very last one of them. So many of my people dead. So many displaced. It's like 1914 all over again. Go Obama, bomb these monsters until there are none left. If we ever decide to do another ground offensive, I'll f@ing lie on my application if needed, but I'm going.

That's the way.

Demonize your opponents till they no longer have any human value, and then exterminate them.

Silly Jews with their holocausts :creep:

[Fragony]

Considering that rvg is Syrian I kinda understand why he doesn't like them very much.

Viewing tip https://news.vice.com/topic/isis

cute

[Sarmatian]

That attitude is why we're better off keeping the hell away from there and leaving them to their own devices than get involved. Unless there are important strategic or resource interests involved, I'd want us to keep away from anywhere south of Turkey and north of Kenya, and west of India.

And the oil goes up to 200$ a barrel, western economies enter deeper recession and Russians grow fat on the profits. Not an option.

[Pannonian]

And the oil goes up to 200$ a barrel, western economies enter deeper recession and Russians grow fat on the profits. Not an option.

Hence why I cited strategic and resource interests. We need to do business with Saudi Arabia and other oil countries. However much it stinks, we need them. We don't need to do business with the likes of Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Suez canal, Red Sea route through to the Gulf area, oil states. That's all we need from that region.

[HoreTore]

And the oil goes up to 200$ a barrel, western economies enter deeper recession and Russians grow fat on the profits. Not an option.

Hey, I like that option....

[Pannonian]

Hey, I like that option....

It will mean your government will have even more money than they know what to do with. Which may mean more state-sponsored holiday camps for you.

[HoreTore]

It will mean your government will have even more money than they know what to do with. Which may mean more state-sponsored holiday camps for you.

Wonderful, sign me up!


But nah, my government will just put the money in a fund.... No fun...

[Sarmatian]

Hence why I cited strategic and resource interests. We need to do business with Saudi Arabia and other oil countries. However much it stinks, we need them. We don't need to do business with the likes of Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Suez canal, Red Sea route through to the Gulf area, oil states. That's all we need from that region.

Iraq is a major oil country. The top 5 countries with proven oil reserves includes Iraq, Iran and Venezuela.

Problems in one country in the region can spill over, e.g. Syrian rebellion -> ISIS

[rvg]

Considering that rvg is Syrian I kinda understand why he doesn't like them very much.

Viewing tip https://news.vice.com/topic/isis

cute

Assyrian. But yeah, this is personal.

[Pannonian]

Assyrian. But yeah, this is personal.

What is your capital?

[rvg]

What is your capital?

Washington, D.C.

[Fragony]

Assyrian. But yeah, this is personal.

I once again know nothing, with Assyrian I think of the Mesopotamian periods. Didn't know people still call themselves Assyrian nowadays.

[rvg]

I once again know nothing, with Assyrian I think of the Mesopotamian periods. Didn't know people still call themselves Assyrian nowadays.

We sure do. I even speak conversational Aramaic.

[Pannonian]

Washington, D.C.

What is your favourite colour?

[Sarmatian]

Assyrian. But yeah, this is personal.

You do know that makes you the coolest person on the .org?

[rvg]

You do know that makes you the coolest person on the .org?
:laugh4:

We're not that rare, there's still a couple of million of us spread all over the globe :)

[lars573]

I once again know nothing, with Assyrian I think of the Mesopotamian periods. Didn't know people still call themselves Assyrian nowadays.
I've only ever seen it used as a blanket term for un-Arabized non-Islamic, IE Christian (I've never heard of a Zoroastrian group), populations in the levant area.

[Sarmatian]

:laugh4:

We're not that rare, there's still a couple of million of us spread all over the globe :)

Yeah, I know, but unless a Hittite registers in the next few days, you're it, deal with it.. Hittites are cooler, sorry.

You guys even have a footie club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyriska_F%C3%B6reningen) in Sweden.

[rvg]

You guys even have a footie club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyriska_F%C3%B6reningen) in Sweden.

Yup, that's us!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is your favourite colour?

I have trouble with that, but the capital of ancient Assyria is easy and countering the airspeed question isn't too difficult....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So here's a thought - the Caliph's forces are killing and driving out the Chaldean Christians. Chaldeans are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So - where, in all this, is the freaking Pope?

Seriously Papa - you have some actual skin in the game for the first time in a couple of centuries and nothing?

I'm not asking for a Crusade, but still, can we have some strongly worded condemnation of the Caliphate, please?

Which is to say - it really shows how anaemic Christianity is vs Islam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think Pope Francis would make much of a warmonger.