ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

According to the latest news, 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
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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

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

[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 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.

[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]

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.

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!

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

*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.