ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[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 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 seems like a clever fellow. Of course, he also agrees with me.

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support. And the war, it...uh, goes on.

[drone]

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support. 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).

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/...tical-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/ir...r-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/orig...military.html#



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/ir...r-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/orig...military.html#



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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No wonder their military fell apart so quickly

[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.

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!

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 was such a plane and used by the US well into the 90ies.
Argentina has the Pucara, 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.