ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

**HoreTore** · 08-11-2014, 22:22

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** · 08-12-2014, 00:37

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** · 08-12-2014, 02:28

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 08-12-2014, 08:04

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.