ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[HoreTore]

Has splitting up a country ever resulted in the peace it was supposed to bring?

Take Sudan, did splitting that country up really make the north and south any more peaceful?

[HopAlongBunny]

So is he out or in?
PM does not seem likely to go quietly into that goodnight:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...414684968.html

[Pannonian]

The first thing people need to understand is that this new government won't be any less of a farce than the old one. Iraq was not deeply divided in 2003, but it is perhaps one of the most violently divided countries in the world here in 2014. No matter what happens, the majority of Sunnis will not participate or even want to participate. It will be a government composed of Shias and Kurds, in opposition to ISIS. The very best you can hope for out of a new government is that Iraq will be able to successfully conduct major ground operations against ISIS and eventually throw them back across the border to Syria. Which would be nice, but immediately following any victory the country will fall apart again unless major steps are taken to bring the Sunni areas into the fold. That won't be done with a new government in Baghdad, as it has to follow a military victory before anything can be done.

Its actually a pretty nasty trap they're in. They can't bring the Sunnis into the broader Iraqi political society without beating ISIS, but they probably can't beat ISIS without alienating the Sunnis even more. Even worse, the forces at Baghdad's disposal are so ill-disciplined and Sectarian that they probably shouldn't be trusted in Sunni areas anyway, lest they create an even bigger rift. There are perfectly functional, rich, western states that would not be able to cope with this set of circumstances, so why should we expect Iraq to be able to? This whole thing is a mess, and I suspect it will take more surprising turns before winding down.

If anyone actually wants it, and it's doubtful that they do, the way of unity is as clear as it's been throughout history where A, B and C are roughly equally powerful, but are at odds with at least one of the other two at any one time. Organise a powerful enough coalition capable of beating the third power down if it comes to a direct contest. Then, from a position of power, offer privileges to the third power to make it attractive not to fight, at cost to the ruling coalition if necessary. England convinced Scotland to thus join a United Kingdom, in an arrangement that's lasted around 300 years. It requires generosity on the part of those who hold power, and a willingness not to take it all for themselves, but to distribute a fair bit to the lesser partners as well. A First World mentality in other words. Being more familiar with Iraq than I am, perhaps you can tell me how realistic this is.

[lars573]

The problem is that England had to beat down a few William Wallace's before reconciliation was a political option. I can see no way for Iraq to fix itself without a massive war against ISIS that could be almost as bad as letting ISIS run rampant. Obviously, western power could once again sweep in and totally clear the country of out-and-out insurgents, but what then? If that's the only option that can work, and as the best option its still temporary and (what ought to be considered...) prohibitively expensive, then they're really boned. The middle-east is in a giant political quantum-state right now, and Iraq is right in the middle of it geographically and politically. Everyone is reacting but ISIS, which is why they've been able to make gains. When everyone is reacting to you, its easy to look powerful. The Nazis did the same thing, to bring Godwin into it!

That's really not a valid comparison. William Wallace and the act of Union are separated by 400 years (not to mention 100 years of Scottish kings sitting on the English throne). And the Jacobite rebellions were dynastic squabbles (the first of which predates the act of union by a little over a decade) about who occupied the Thrones of Great Britain and Ireland. Not whether the throne of Great Britain should exist. Iraq's new federal structure had zero time to work it self out after 80 years of Sunni ironfisted dominance. Which is the only reason it wasn't a sectarian mess before 2003.

I think they'll accomplish a few more things, politically and militarily, before they reach too far and get crushed by a (probably western-led) intervention. Being the actor with a plan will only get you so far, and America's specialty has always been the counter-punch. ISIS is a wholly new threat for the State department and the DoD to ponder, and its clear that the Obama administration wants to play the longest game it can before deciding to commit to a bigger action. Because of that, I think we're in a dangerous place right now where middle-eastern states might act prematurely and discordantly out of impatience with our slow response--and that would play into ISIS's hands. But really, beyond the idea that ISIS will get a little stronger before it gets weaker, there's almost nothing concrete to say. Its a nearly-unique situation on the global stage, which is why it is so damned interesting.

According to Anonymous (I know, I know) Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are backing the Islamic state. So going far out on a limb and taking that at face value, the only Middle Eastern nation likely to get involved is Iran.

[HopAlongBunny]

You realize of course, this is just the Contra's go to the Middle-East:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28745990

Sins of the past?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, saw that, saw no reason to post it.

*Shrug*

Now, I'm just sayin... this is what the Templars were for.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Aren't we simply devolving to the three-state solution so adamantly opposed by everybody....except some of the people who live there.

I thought I made a post saying the three state solution was the best choice over there. unless by everybody you meant the general public and not org members.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, saw that, saw no reason to post it.

*Shrug*

Now, I'm just sayin... this is what the Templars were for.

Nah, the Templars were made to slaughter all infidels in the holy land.

Kinda like ISIS.

[Fragony]

Nah, the Templars were made to slaughter all infidels in the holy land.

Kinda like ISIS.

Not entirily true but oh so true regardless when it comes to what actually was done

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm on the fence about it. I do agree that de-centralization is needed, and certainly the Kurds deserve more autonomy if not their own state outright (why tip-toe around Turkey when they've been feeding the ISIS bonfire more than most?), but I don't know that autonomy for the Sunni west will do anything without the government first re-asserting itself in those areas, and kicking ISIS out. If the Shia region is separated from the North and West, then what is it but an Iranian proxy? I want to like the three-state solution, but I don't think there's much chance left of it being a more peaceful solution than any other.

Once the US is gone for good out the region, how else could Iraq become anything but an Iranian proxy, unless another strongman take control.

[HoreTore]

Once the US is gone for good out the region, how else could Iraq become anything but an Iranian proxy, unless another strongman take control.

So you do not believe Iraqi national identidy and nationalism even exist...?

I think you will find that several countries contain sectarian elements who still identifies themselves by nationality first(France). Without that being enforced by a strongman. Unless you believe Iraqis to be fundamentally different from other humans, I can't see why that should not apply equally to Iraq.

[HoreTore]

They had a forced and fractured sense of national unity in 2003, and since then an entire generation has grown up in perpetual violence and lawlessness. The closest thing Iraq as a whole has to a national identity is the cosmopolitan culture of Baghdad, and that (or what's left of it) simply won't do.

That's a nice summary of the history of France, yes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, the Templars were made to slaughter all infidels in the holy land.

Kinda like ISIS.

Quite the opposite, actually, the Templars and Hospitlars were very tolerant of Jews and Muslims - you must be confusing them with the Teutonic Knights, like Greyblades did.

Mobs of mad fanatics attacking Christians and other minorities? Their stock in trade, really.

[Papewaio]

That's a nice summary of the history of France, yes.

If the Scandiavians cannot form a single country why would you expect it in Iraq?

[Pannonian]

That's a nice summary of the history of France, yes.

Oh come on. They'd got over their propensity for perpetual revolution by the Fifth Republic. Or was it Sixth? I've lost count.

[Fragony]

Quite the opposite, actually, the Templars and Hospitlars were very tolerant of Jews and Muslims

No they weren't, little bit of of a difference between what was said and what was done. The templarswere murderous psychopaths on many occasions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So you do not believe Iraqi national identidy and nationalism even exist...?

No I don't. Hence why it is splitting up into three states, with or without our consent.

I think you will find that several countries contain sectarian elements who still identifies themselves by nationality first(France). Without that being enforced by a strongman. Unless you believe Iraqis to be fundamentally different from other humans, I can't see why that should not apply equally to Iraq.

I think you will find that you are full of bologna. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No they weren't, little bit of of a difference between what was said and what was done. The templarswere murderous psychopaths on many occasions.

"Templar massacre" in google produces no coherent results other than some Islamophilic accounts that I know are miss-translating the Latin sources and the account of the Friday 13th massacre of the Templars themselves.

So I'll call bullshit on that.

Anyway - I've been nudging at it, and nobody's got the point - so I'll spell it out.

There is now a Sunni Caliph. A Caliph is the spiritual, and by extension temporal, leader of all Muslims. By declaring himself Caliph Al Baghdadi has declared himself a man of boundless ambition, and while the states of Iraq and Syria continue to be wracked by Civil War he will continue to gain ground.

The more land he takes, the more credibility he has, he'll aim for the ideologically important cities of Damascus and Baghdad, if he can take and hold both for any length of time then the Islamic State will potentially become a much more permanent feature.

Largely, this is the result of the ongoing Civil War in Syria, it created the conditions for ISIS do develop in this way and the instability of Iraq made it ripe for the picking. Western intervention in Syria might have prevented this - just as it might have prevented a man with an olive branch from, quite literally, turning to eating the hearts of his enemies.

We also have, for the first time in centuries, large-scale displacement of Christians. This isn't pressure, discrimination, or anything like this. Monks are being thrown out of their monasteries after 1,000 years of residence, whole communities are being offered conversion, the sword, or Jirza.

So - we know that young Muslims feel the need to go and help their "brothers" throw off oppression...

How far are we from Christian "volunteers" in Iraq, hmmm? Never mind Africa, America and south America are both full of well armed, gun happy, fundamentalists.

If the Western response continues to be anaemic then you run the risk not only of IS consolidating its power, but of segments of Western populations radicalising to fill the perceived vacuum.

[Hax]

A year or so ago I predicted (along with many other Arabists-to-be) that violent political Islam was on its way out, what with the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda failing politically in Egypt and Tunisia respectively.


Turns out we were really wrong. I'm going to drink.

We also have, for the first time in centuries, large-scale displacement of Christians. This isn't pressure, discrimination, or anything like this. Monks are being thrown out of their monasteries after 1,000 years of residence, whole communities are being offered conversion, the sword, or Jirza.

Jizya

If you don't know or have forgotten the Arabic term, it's totally fine to use the English (poll-tax on non-believers). Like, to avoid confusion or whatever.

[Beskar]

How far are we from Christian "volunteers" in Iraq, hmmm? Never mind Africa, America and south America are both full of well armed, gun happy, fundamentalists.

If the Western response continues to be anaemic then you run the risk not only of IS consolidating its power, but of segments of Western populations radicalising to fill the perceived vacuum.

I will be really honest and say if I would be surprised if any number of 'Christian Fundamentalists' appeared, taking up arms and forming a militia to fight in the middle-east. There might be a few wackjobs, but I cannot even imagine the possibility of a militia of hundreds of people from outside the area forming.

[Fragony]

A year or so ago I predicted (along with many other Arabists-to-be) that violent political Islam was on its out

oh did you, people who got laughed of said that a whole lot earlier, simply disregarded.Not talking about myself I was just very very reserved, I never imagined it would be this bad.

Absolutily horrifying: a movie of a guy who's head is sliced of. It's slow. It looked almost intimate. The guy cutting of the head carefully pulled up the ear before starting cutting, lots of blood. No protest, no screaming, chilled me to the bone.

[Kralizec]

We also have, for the first time in centuries, large-scale displacement of Christians. This isn't pressure, discrimination, or anything like this. Monks are being thrown out of their monasteries after 1,000 years of residence, whole communities are being offered conversion, the sword, or Jirza.

Not really the first time, is it? Iraq's christian community was already thinned out by the last 10 years of unrest.

Outside Iraq, the explusions of Armenians and other ethnicities in the late ottoman empire comes to mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jizya

If you don't know or have forgotten the Arabic term, it's totally fine to use the English (poll-tax on non-believers). Like, to avoid confusion or whatever.

Sorry, though to be fair that's the Dyslexia.

I will be really honest and say if I would be surprised if any number of 'Christian Fundamentalists' appeared, taking up arms and forming a militia to fight in the middle-east. There might be a few wackjobs, but I cannot even imagine the possibility of a militia of hundreds of people from outside the area forming.

You presumably can't understand the number of Muslim Brtains heading to Syria either - it's not like many of them are Syrian.

Put it this way - my Crusading arm is getting twitchy - and I'm not exactly an active man. Previously, including after 9/11 this impulse was indulged by national governments - consciously or otherwise. Now it isn't.

Not really the first time, is it? Iraq's christian community was already thinned out by the last 10 years of unrest.

Outside Iraq, the explusions of Armenians and other ethnicities in the late ottoman empire comes to mind.

Thinned out is one thing, as I said, now it is being actively driven out by the de facto rulers.

What about the Central African Republic? Christians have been getting displaced there for years.

Mosul was apprently emptied of Christians, that's 30,000 souls all told.

*Shrug*

Wait and see.

[Beskar]

You presumably can't understand the number of Muslim Britain's heading to Syria either - it's not like many of them are Syrian.

Put it this way - my Crusading arm is getting twitchy - and I'm not exactly an active man. Previously, including after 9/11 this impulse was indulged by national governments - consciously or otherwise. Now it isn't.

I can actually understand that because Islam is a more politically powerful force than Christianity.

If Christendom tried to reverse this by preaching from the pulpit for a Crusade, the ramifications would most likely turn very ugly politically for Christians, those arguments about how it is a "harmless, well meaning, benign fairy tale" will go out of the window. Will be cracked down upon in the same manner as other fundamentalists. If the Church of England was involved, good bye to that and you will see a truly secular Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can't find the numbers for some reason, but I read a BBC article a long while back saying that the number of Christians killed or made into refugees based on sectarian violence was in the six figures in the CAR. Either way, the whole thing in Iraq is a tragedy. Almost as tragic as the fact that you have a "Crusading" Arm.

A lot of terrible stuff is happening in Africa - like the Ebola outbreak everybody is ignoring, but it's the SPEED of what's happening in Iraq, along with the fact that these people have been there so long.

This is like the creation of Israel and the mass evictions from Jerusalem in 1948, or if you want to get really dramatic it's like the Bad Old Days when the Ottomans threw the Patriarch out of Hagia Sophia and declared it a Mosque by right of conquest.

I can actually understand that because Islam is a more politically powerful force than Christianity.

Which actually has little to do with a man from Bradford leaving his family and going and blowing himself up at an army checkpoint. It's a more primal thing than that.

If Christendom tried to reverse this by preaching from the pulpit for a Crusade, the ramifications would most likely turn very ugly politically for Christians, those arguments about how it is a "harmless, well meaning, benign fairy tale" will go out of the window. Will be cracked down upon in the same manner as other fundamentalists. If the Church of England was involved, good bye to that and you will see a truly secular Britain.

Well, there is no "Christendom" except perhaps in South America today, the West is under secular, not Christian, rule.

I'm totally in favour of anything that makes people genuinely scared of Christians, btw, because seeing us as "benign" is wishful thinking on behalf of the chattering classes.

There's no point slaughtering people over Gay marriage, it won't change anything. However, ISIS will kill you for being a Christian, or a Jew, or the wrong type of Muslim - they're evil, and evil should be fought in all ways at all times.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's Christian about armed retaliation?

I refer you to Thomas Aquinas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_wa...Thomas_Aquinas

• First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)
• Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)
• Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[14] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

ISIS qualifies.

[Fragony]

Boots on the ground, good show America. Eu, except for the Brittish, is once again absolutily useless. Good chaps. The Dutch government is beyong useless. He actually said it. Our minister of foreign affairs. Minorities are safe in Iraq because they are protected by the Iraqi-constitution. Wut?

Why he isn't in a padded cell is beyond me, there is a point where stupidity becomes lunacy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If the Western response continues to be anaemic then you run the risk not only of IS consolidating its power, but of segments of Western populations radicalising to fill the perceived vacuum.

These Christians (from my understanding) being exiled are not Catholic and they are certainly not Baptist. People won't care over here.

[HoreTore]

No I don't. Hence why it is splitting up into three states, with or without our consent.

I think you will find that you are full of bologna. :)

Modern nation state building was done in two main ways. The German way, where they had a people, but needed a state, and the French way, where they had a state, but needed a people.

Iraq has a state, but lacks a people. I don't see why Iraq shouldn't be able to create a people like the French did. The German way of nation building is not the only one proven to work. In fact, I'd say that the German type has created far more problems than the French one.

Also PVC, the Knights Templar were involved here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

These Christians (from my understanding) being exiled are not Catholic and they are certainly not Baptist. People won't care over here.

This is where a distinction comes in that not many people are aware of - many of these Iraqi Christians are members of the Roman Catholic Church, but not the Latin Church. Confusingly, you have many churches within a church. Kind of like in the UK where you have four countries within a country.

The Roman Catholic Church is made up of 23 churches. The overwhelming majority of its followers belong to the Latin Church, which is what most of us know as Catholicism - the church of Western Europe and the New World. But there are 22 much smaller churches which are mainly Eastern/Orthodox churches that have chosen to recognise the claims of Papal supremacy. In retaining their status as separate churches within the Roman Catholic Church, they are able to carry out their rituals and worship in their traditional manner (which is more in line with Eastern/Orthodox churches than the Latin Church), while still enjoying communion with the Pope in Rome.

It is to these smaller churches within the Catholic Church that many Iraqi Christians belong. Whether or not it is a majority of Iraqi Christians, I am not sure. Still, those I described above are ultimately Catholics.

What's Christian about armed retaliation?

I don't agree with PVC's concept of 'Holy War', however within the Protestant schools of thought at least, armed retaliation is fit and proper under certain circumstances, if it is carried out by the civil magistrate and not by the church.

In the sermon on the mount when Jesus told us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies, it is important to note that he is talking to us in our capacity as private persons. The scripture is equally clear in stating that it is the right - even the duty - of the civil magistrate to wield the sword against those who do evil - and ISIS certainly fit that bill. See Romans 13:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."