PeterMP Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Islamic extremists have seized the second largest city in Iraq and are pushing forward. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Anybody think Afghanistan is going to be any different after we leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 http://arabist.net/blog/2014/6/11/malikis-most-solemn-hour For its part, Fallujah - site of two bloody battles after 2005 - has been outside of Baghdad's control for some months. Not that it was ever fully under federal or even U.S. authority during the Surge. Though ISIS is present, the city's loss is far more the result of the "Awakening's" politics being well past their sell date in the region. The Sunni Arab "Sons of Iraq" tribal movement could have been a significant moment in Iraqi state building there. But it was ultimately compromised by the inability of Maliki's government to accept the legitimacy of the movement. Prior to the Sons' formation, the incessant attacks on Sunni communities by Shia militias and terrorists meant that many Sunnis decided not to trust the new authorities: as Phil Williams wrote in 2009, "the very force that was designed to protect them [the Iraqi national police] preyed on them instead, engaging in sectarian killings, extortion, robberies, and kidnapping." In response to this, and the depredations of al Qaeda, Iraqi Sunnis began organizing themselves into self-defense leagues and soliciting U.S. assistance (mainly in the form of air support and monies that Iraqi officials either did not have or were hoarding). Eventually, these militias were turned on the nebulous "al Qaeda in Iraq" jihadists, men who were led by foreigners and had displayed again and again a complete inability to govern the Sunni areas they took over. By 2011, when the U.S. left the county, most Iraqis had turned on this bandit coalition and (with sufficient U.S. "inducement") many influential tribal leaders put their men on the barricades to repulse the terrorists, rather than ordering them to mortar checkpoints alongside them. When Sunni leaders went to Baghdad cap in hand to obtain official blessing for their militias during the Surge, the Maliki government very reluctantly granted it, and then stalled on implementing the understandings that had been reached. This was due to the Shia leaders' fears of arming groups that only weeks before had been fighting in the anti-government camp, something that the U.S. did not seem to grasp on its way out of Iraq. This federal recalcitrance, in turn, convinced some of the Sons of Iraq that they were better off keeping their arms and rejecting vague promises of official recognition and salaries. And after the contested 2010 elections that returned Maliki to power - before the U.S. even left the country, it is worth noting - Al Anbar found itself heading back to where it was before the "Awakening" began. The catalyst for the (third?) Battle of Fallujah in January 2014, though, was not spillover from Syria but a disastrous raid on a Sunni protest camp by federal forces. The two "Arab Spring-style" protest camps set up in that city and nearby Ramadi were set upon by the federal authorities; Sunni clerics began calling for open revolt against Baghdad to defend the protestors. ISIS took advantage of the chaos to organize in the city, yet the initial revolt - and the people the government and local sheiks have been trying to talk down from the barricades - was staged by fed-up local militias who had formally been the guarantors of a cold peace. Maliki's deputy PM Saleh al-Mutlaq contends that the typical heavy-handed response of Baghdad to an assassination in the province - unrelated to the demonstrations - killed the cold peace that had been maintained by the "Sons of Iraq." Sunni grievances against the government are real and legion: job discrimination, undue prosecution of activists, human rights violations by the police, welfare cuts that "punish" the Sunnis for their collaborationist role in past dictatorships. Well before this uprising, "the Sunnis [had] lost faith in the political process and the jihadists were once again able to make inroads among them." Hence the castle-building Iraqi political factions all continue to engage in, because it is one death squad or another if you try to play honestly by constitutional rules the Maliki government itself doesn't respect. "State collapse produces sectarianism - not the other way around," as James Fromson at the Middle East Institute writes. ISIS and the federal government agree on one thing implicitly: there is an Iraqi nation, but there is only a weak state grafted onto it, and representatives of different factions should seek to capture it for their own in-group. This mistrust, and not the Syrian Civil War alone, ultimately collapsed the uneasy power-sharing arrangements the "Awakening" had brokered between local (predominantly Sunni) and provincial authorities. Sunnis are also angered by Maliki's alliance with Iran, which in practical terms allows the IRGC to fly men, material, and money over the country into Lebanon or into Syria to back Assad. Iraq's Shia leadership, on the other hand, generally accepted such crackdowns on the Sunni community leaders because they saw the virulent rhetoric aimed at them by some Sunni politicians or media personalities (notably Al Jazeera's Arabic service, now banned in Iraq), rhetoric which evoked the worst promises Saddam Hussein and al-Zarqawi made to destroy them. The Shia see their association with Iran as necessary to counter Saudi and Gulf influence among Sunni insurgents. Yet Sunni politicians like the Mosul governor, says Kirk. H. Sowell of the Uticensis Risk consultancy, have been "feckless": Sowell notes that he and army command in Mosul spent more time fighting each other than ISIS or other anti-government groups such as the (pro-ISIS) General Military Council and Naqshbandi Army or (anti-ISIS) Jamaat Ansar al-Islam. Such incitement and infighting, and the ongoing car bombings and shootings carried out by antigovernment terrorists, was taken as cause enough to disregard Sunni complaints about Shia heavy-handedness. So, in Fallujah, ISIS was able to set up a sphere of influence - but one it has had to share with local groups, including many who are uninterested in grand Levantine designs, but instead want more local autonomy. In Mosul, it seems ISIS has the stage more to itself, the work of diligent base-building in the previous months. Al-Tamimi notes that in the north, ISIS dominated the military effort (its casualty figures suggest as much as well) and gained the most ground and material, unlike in Fallujah. Surely, then, ISIS will consider power-sharing arrangements in Mosul only by promising unity now and later entrenching itself at the expense of its so-called "friends," many of whom - like the Free Syrian Army - realize too late why the armory doors are now locked and guarded against them. As Ar-Raqqaqi chillingly notes of his experience with them in Syria, "ISIS found its place by dismantling the rebels there one by one." This will be their immediate aim, as it has been in Fallujah, even before they finishing mopping up what is left of the security services in the north. Good thing the Surge fixed all those structural political problems. When do Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria jump in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And we had how many injured and killed (and the "collateral damage" of civilian injuries and deaths) and spent how much money, all so oil companies could take over Iraqi oil/gas? How many Iraqi oil/gas sites are controlled by US-friendly companies? I say probably none, not one. What a waste! And the Republican war drum beaters want us to invade the rest of the Middle East? Democrats need to run hard on this issue, the rush to war and the unfathomable costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And we had how many injured and killed (and the "collateral damage" of civilian injuries and deaths) and spent how much money, all so oil companies could take over Iraqi oil/gas? How many Iraqi oil/gas sites are controlled by US-friendly companies? I say probably none, not one. What a waste! And the Republican war drum beaters what us to invade the rest of the Middle East? Democrats need to run hard on this issue, the rush to war and the unfathomable costs. That's exactly what Obama ran on!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And we had how many injured and killed (and the "collateral damage" of civilian injuries and deaths) and spent how much money, all so oil companies could take over Iraqi oil/gas? How many Iraqi oil/gas sites are controlled by US-friendly companies? I say probably none, not one. What a waste! And the Republican war drum beaters want us to invade the rest of the Middle East? Democrats need to run hard on this issue, the rush to war and the unfathomable costs. Honestly, we didn't invade Iraq so that our oil companies could take over Iraqi oil reserves. That is a leftist/progressive myth, and too simplistic. We invaded Iraq because the neo-cons in the Project for a New American Century had convinced themselves that if we overthrew Saddam and "Liberated" his people for Freedom, it would lead to an domino effect in other countries and a pro-American movement would sweep across the Middle East. When Bush was elected, every single significant foreign policy and defense position was filled by a PNAC member. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Elliot Cohen - every single one of them was a PNAC member. They didn't invade Iraq for the oil (and they didn't invade Iraq because they thought there were WMDs either). They invaded Iraq because they thought it would transform the Middle East into a pro-American and pro-Israel wonderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Looks as if a lot of our troops could have potentially died for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Honestly, we didn't invade Iraq so that our oil companies could take over Iraqi oil reserves. That is a leftist/progressive myth, and too simplistic. We invaded Iraq because the neo-cons in the Project for a New American Century had convinced themselves that if we overthrew Saddam and "Liberated" his people for Freedom, it would lead to an domino effect in other countries and a pro-American movement would sweep across the Middle East. When Bush was elected, every single significant foreign policy and defense position was filled by a PNAC member. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Elliot Cohen - every single one of them was a PNAC member. They didn't invade Iraq for the oil (and they didn't invade Iraq because they thought there were WMDs either). They invaded Iraq because they thought it would transform the Middle East into a pro-American and pro-Israel wonderland. You are correct! The oil issue was a a byproduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 You are correct! The oil issue was a a byproduct. A lot of the dumber members of my political "side" still think it was just an "oligarchy oil grab." I did make for a great t-shirt circa 2003. Maybe one with Che Guevera on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 What are Iraq's neighbor's doing to help? Do they really think that if God forbid Iraq or Afghanistan fall that their country won't be next? A lot of these groups, especially the ISIS have made it clear that they want a global extreme Islamic state. This just feels so frustrating us trying to stop this and getting so much crap for being all up in everybody's business to try and stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And the Republican war drum beaters want us to invade the rest of the Middle East? I don't think anyone wants us to invade anything anymore. But it is a convenient strawman these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Che ALWAYS goes on the front,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 What are Iraq's neighbor's doing to help? Do they really think that if God forbid Iraq or Afghanistan fall that their country won't be next? A lot of these groups, especially the ISIS have made it clear that they want a global extreme Islamic state. This just feels so frustrating us trying to stop this and getting so much crap for being all up in everybody's business to try and stop it. I think most of them are already involved in some ways, (though that isn't completely a good thing, since some of those ways helped this come about). On a similar note,there are reports now that Turkey has made air strikes in Iraq with Iraq's blessings. Not sure how credible that is though. (There are also reports that ISIS has started using the aircraft they captured at the military bases they overran, so the reports could be conflated or mixed up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (There are also reports that ISIS has started using the aircraft they captured at the military bases they overran, so the reports could be conflated or mixed up.) Certainly hope that's untrue. Being able to capture a fighter jet on the ground implies something about their capabilities. Being able to use a captured fighter, for combat missions? Says something a lot more scary about their capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think most of them are already involved in some ways, (though that isn't completely a good thing, since some of those ways helped this come about). On a similar note,there are reports now that Turkey has made air strikes in Iraq with Iraq's blessings. Not sure how credible that is though. (There are also reports that ISIS has started using the aircraft they captured at the military bases they overran, so the reports could be conflated or mixed up.) This is pretty significant. Turkey is essentially the buffer between the Middle East and the Russian Boarder Lands just North of them. That could get very significant very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think most of them are already involved in some ways, (though that isn't completely a good thing, since some of those ways helped this come about). On a similar note,there are reports now that Turkey has made air strikes in Iraq with Iraq's blessings. Not sure how credible that is though. (There are also reports that ISIS has started using the aircraft they captured at the military bases they overran, so the reports could be conflated or mixed up.) I believe that. All I ask while we're on the way out is that they don't just sit there and watch because we aren't there anymore. I know I can't be alone in this basic fear. I give a lot of credit to France for what they did in Mali, because the reality is a lot of these countries can't defend themselves against the war of attrition a lot of groups prefer to fight on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 WW1, the war to end all peace. If anyone wonders who screwed up the modern world, the actions of the British during and immediately after WW1 did and 100 years later we are still suffering the consequences. Add PNAC and Bush's invasion of Iraq, and you have a full scale disaster in that part of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 There's a WSJ article out about us considering air/drone strikes. We supposedly have permission.... http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/iraq-signals-openness-to-u-s-airstrikes-against-al-qaeda-u-s-officials-say-1402526823?mobile=y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What are Iraq's neighbor's doing to help? Do they really think that if God forbid Iraq or Afghanistan fall that their country won't be next? A lot of these groups, especially the ISIS have made it clear that they want a global extreme Islamic state. This just feels so frustrating us trying to stop this and getting so much crap for being all up in everybody's business to try and stop it. There's a WSJ article out about us considering air/drone strikes. We supposedly have permission.... http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/iraq-signals-openness-to-u-s-airstrikes-against-al-qaeda-u-s-officials-say-1402526823?mobile=y Sounds good. Light em up! The drone policy has definitely worked well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Operation Restoring Freedom, comin' up. Completely expected, of course. And it should be dealt with,, however, I'd like to see the chinese maybe step up and protect their valued trading partner for a change. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Sounds good. Light em up! The drone policy has definitely worked well. Are you mocking me? I don't find this situtaton funny at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon US officials confirm Iraq reached out about airstrikes against ISIS. Not much enthusiasm on part of Admin to make wish come true 10:09 PM WH: Current focus of discussions with Iraq is to build capacity of Iraqis to successfully confront & deal with threat posed by ISIL (ISIS) 10:11 PM I hope this doesn't mean basically handing Maliki a blank check. There needs to be some accountability and positive results. If the situation continues to worsen, we might want to consider supporting the Kurds or other anti ISIS locals as an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 How about no. How about we just let them have the country. We'll take the rest of the world's advice and stay out of other countries' affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martytheman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 what a ****ing waste. 2 years of my life and several dead comrades from my batallion (and damn good ones too) for this all to end up the way it has.. what a cluster**** our stupid assed government made out of the whole damn thing. basically wasted everyone's time and money, and in many cases, lives.. all for ****ing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 what a ****ing waste. 2 years of my life and several dead comrades from my batallion (and damn good ones too) for this all to end up the way it has.. what a cluster**** our stupid assed government made out of the whole damn thing. basically wasted everyone's time and money, and in many cases, lives.. all for ****ing nothing. No, not a waste. No one fights for their country. You fight for the guy next to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states Iraq army capitulates to Isis militants in four cities Iraq is facing its gravest test since the US-led invasion more than a decade ago, after its army capitulated to Islamist insurgents who have seized four cities and pillaged military bases and banks, in a lightning campaign which seems poised to fuel a cross-border insurgency endangering the entire region. The extent of the Iraqi army's defeat at the hands of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) became clear on Wednesday when officials in Baghdad conceded that insurgents had stripped the main army base in the northern city of Mosul of weapons, released hundreds of prisoners from the city's jails and may have seized up to $480m in banknotes from the city's banks. Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. Senior government officials in Baghdad were equally shocked, accusing the army of betrayal and claiming the sacking of the city was a strategic disaster that would imperil Iraq's borders. The developments seriously undermine US claims to have established a unified and competent military after more than a decade of training. The US invasion and occupation cost Washington close to a trillion dollars and the lives of more than 4,500 of its soldiers. It is also thought to have killed at least 100,000 Iraqis. At a speech to a Washington thinktank, Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, said the US was currently working with the Iraqi government to combat the insurgents. "The United States has been fast to provide necessary support to the people and government of Iraq under our strategic framework agreement, and we're working together to roll back aggression and counter the threat that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses to the people of the region," Rice said on Wednesday, without elaboration, to the Centre for a New American Security. Early on Thursday the Sites monitoring group in the US said it had translated an audio statement by an Isis spokesman declaring that "the battle will rage in Baghdad and Karbala ... put on your belts and get ready". The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Iraq last month secretly asked Barack Obama to consider bombing Sunni militant staging posts in Iraq. http://online.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-drama-catches-u-s-off-guard-1402529874 Iraqi Drama Catches U.S. Off Guard At a closed-door gathering of Gulf states in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in May, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his Arab counterparts all signaled agreement on one thing for the first time: Islamist forces seizing territory in Syria and Iraq had become a regionwide menace that can't be ignored. What they didn't agree on was what to do about it, U.S. officials said.The fall this week of the Iraqi cities Mosul and Tikrit to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham rebel group shows how the insurgent threat is... I think this might be an updated version of the same article from earlier. (Not sure since I can't read it.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/insurgents-in-northern-iraq-push-toward-major-oil-installations/2014/06/11/3983dd22-f162-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?hpid=z1 Insurgents in northern Iraq seize key cities, advance toward Baghdad Among those caught up in the fighting were dozens of Turkish citizens, including some diplomats, who were being detained by militants during attacks in Mosul that included a strike on the Turkish consulate there. The conflict in the city, which began Monday evening, has sent hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing, many into the safety of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Civilians fleeing from Mosul gave an insight into why ISIS has been able to gain such a strong foothold in the Sunni-majority city, where anti-government sentiment is high. Katheer Saeed, a 48-year-old truck driver, had left Mosul with his five children. He said he had been “excited” as he heard that the army had downed arms in the face of the ISIS advance. He said he was fleeing because he feared an impending government air offensive rather than ISIS. In western Iraq, the army has been accused of indiscriminate shelling and even using barrel bombs in its attempts to wrest back control of the city of Fallujah since it fell to insurgents in January. Abu Mohammed, 50, agreed, saying he had left Mosul only because his father was sick. “ISIS just want to free the country from the unfair, sectarian government,” he said. If the fighting reaches Baghdad, it is hard to see how a full-scale sectarian war can be avoided. Among the worrisome signs to emerge Wednesday was a call by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the now largely inactive Mahdi Army, to create a new security force to protect Shiite holy sites. Sadr accused the government of standing on the sidelines “shocked and silent” as the country fell between the “jaws of terrorism and extremism.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/11/iraq-veteran-this-is-not-what-my-friends-fought-and-died-for/ Iraq veteran: This is not what my friends fought and died for For a veteran of the fighting there—and proponent of the counterinsurgency strategy that provided a chance for the country to stabilize—watching the recent unraveling of Iraq has been disheartening but not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.