Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

AlekSmart · 11-06-2014 7:43pm #1

Interesting times indeed as the Iraqi "army" fails to materialize,or.......is it all just an acceptable part of the country adjusting itself after years of Saadam's evil dictatorship etc .?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86da9f32-f169-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34M7DzIpx

So...what's next for the region ?

Nodin · 11-06-2014 7:48pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting times indeed as the Iraqi "army" fails to materialize,or.......is it all just an acceptable part of the country adjusting itself after years of Saadam's evil dictatorship etc .?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86da9f32-f169-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34M7DzIpx

So...what's next for the region ?

Four cities lost to what can best be described as hard core fanatics is a lot more than the "country adjusting itself".

comongethappy · 11-06-2014 7:57pm

Small in number, but they seem very effective

If the map on this link is to go by they have become very successful.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

I can't think of any 'Archer' reference for a story about ISIS.

Euphoric · 11-06-2014 7:59pm

A banana republic that's essentially a US puppet state, why am I not surprised they aren't "mobilizing" or whatever buzzword they use? The corrupt bureaucracy will just let the country fall to the Islamic fundamentalists.

Tony EH · 11-06-2014 9:04pm

But...but WMDs!..Iraq is a democracy now and whatnot...an evil dictator is gone and everyone is better off...

wes · 11-06-2014 9:21pm

The Iraqi government alienated the Arab Sunni minority, when they basically decided to blame them as a whole for Saddam's dictatorship, which left the door open for these fanatics to make in roads.

Its easy to blame the American's for creating the whole mess in the first place, but at some point the finger has to be pointed at the Iraqi government, who are screwing things up.

Jonny7 · 11-06-2014 9:35pm

Apart from the Kurdish region, I don't even know how people have functional lives in that country

Half a million people fleeing Mosul, if Maliki doesn't rally the army to stamp out ISIS then yeah it's looking very serious

yosserhughes · 11-06-2014 9:56pm

I reckon at this point in time the people would welcome Saddam back if the yanks had not indirectly murdered him...

Jonny7 · 11-06-2014 10:02pm

yosserhughes wrote: »

I reckon at this point in time the people would welcome Saddam back if the yanks had not indirectly murdered him...

Murder was far too good for him

yosserhughes · 11-06-2014 10:16pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Murder was far too good for him

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"....How many hundred thousand have died since the yanks invaded his country?And where will it all end now.

Sand · 11-06-2014 10:41pm

wes wrote: »

Its easy to blame the American's for creating the whole mess in the first place, but at some point the finger has to be pointed at the Iraqi government, who are screwing things up.

The majority of the blame has to be at the Iraqi governments door - they had multiple chances to bring the Sunnis into the fold, but instead have ruled in a relentlessly sectarian, corrupt and opportunistic manner. They're reaping what they sowed.

Manach · 11-06-2014 10:47pm

Perhaps the US should have learnt a lesson form classical times. When invading; either make a short devastation raid to make the point of their superiority and then leave or else plan to stay there for a generation or more to ensure their cultural norms become prevalent. To leave halfway through either of these routes, has brought this crisis to bear.

Sand · 11-06-2014 11:03pm

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Its the Iraqi government that needs to learn lessons. They have the most to lose. It will afterall be the Iraqi elite (and the women, and the musicians, and the children, and people with glasses, and the people without beards, and so on) who will be strung up from cranes in the brave new world planned by the Islamic fundamentalists. The US has already left - it stopped being a US problem several years ago. The Iraqis didn't take proper advantage of US support when they were in the country, and haven't done anything since to repair issues.

Jonny7 · 11-06-2014 11:04pm

yosserhughes wrote: »

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"

I would suggest the millions of deaths on his hands from his own actions possibly had something to do with it..gassing men, women and children, Ba'ath death squads, multiple wars, suppression of uprisings, persecution of the marsh Arabs and Kurds, widespread torture, rape, disappearances, international sanctions

Lest we only have sympathy for the suffering of those after the botched invasion (of which there were hundreds of thousands) and tragically it continues

Like I said, he deserved much worse than hanging

BuilderPlumber · 11-06-2014 11:06pm

This situation in Iraq is very worrying. Things have not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown. That invasion was the most stupid move ever made and the world has been paying for it ever since with terrorism, wars and recession. 9/11 was the hook that Bush fell for and instead of weaker, al Qaeda are in fact stronger.

So, now we have a situation where a very dangerous organisation threatens oil supplies in many states. The US has to basically try and have good out in the open relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia and convince both to work together as well. Because they may be the only 2 oil countries left outside of al Qaeda's control.

Two worrying questions are (assuming the Saudi borders are defended by the US, Iran's borders are defended effectively and Israel stops them going into its territory):

1. Who will want to go into another Iraq war. The US/UK? Not something they can sell easily to their people and they have already said no to going in. Iran? Iran will certainly help the al-Maliki government in Iraq but again Iran's new moderate government cannot sell easily intervention into Iraq. Again, there's painful memories and most Iranians blame the Iran-Iraq war for a lot of Iran's political and economic problems. So, apart from limited support, Iran will mainly concentrate on making sure ISIS does not take hold in Iranian territory. Turkey? Turkey will like Iran primarily defend its own territory and give limited support. It would not want to be sucked into this 100% either. Israel will stop them anywhere near them but if they were to go after them deep in Iraqi territory, it would only strengthen them because of Arab hatred of Israel. So, Israel will not proceed this far either and will likewise just keep them away from their own backyard and at most invade 20 miles of Syria.

2. So, where can they spread? Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran are all too heavily guarded. But Jordan could suffer badly, Egypt is more or less there for the taking with a restive Islamic population miffed over the Morsi overthrow and even a non-religious population who also despise the army. Libya is a mess as is Chad, Niger, Mali and North Nigeria. Sudan is a handy link-up state run by willing fanatics. Algeria has been peaceful of late but their 'Islamic' insurgency is dorment but not gone. If they are bordered by all the other unstable places, it could spill over and into Morocco, Mauritania and others too.

So, a violent set of related states could be created across Iraq, Syria, Jordan and all of North, Northeast and Northwest Africa. A second wave could engulf Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and then Malaysia and Indonesia. With no one to stop it. This could only have a very negative affect on the rest of the world and on the world economy. The signs of what type of government this new entity would form would not be good:

-Blatant terrorist attacks deliberately targeting civilians like 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid.
-Stonings in North Nigeria.
-Kidnapping of schoolgirls threatened with death in North Nigeria.
-A woman sentenced to hang in Sudan for being Christian.
-Europeans beheaded in Iraq for being innocent but European. 2004.
-Violent 'honour killings' in Pakistan and India.
-Boys killed for watching soccer in Somalia.
-Women deprived of education in Afghanistan.
-War that threatens to destroy Syria as a political secular entity.
-Mass killings of ethnic tribes opposed to 'Islamic' Fascism in Sudan.

The above are just some examples of what we have seen and what values such governments would hold. The emergence of a united form of this in North Africa in particular would be the worst threat since Hitler. Thankfully, at present, a united 'Islamic' fascist force has not emerged although ISIS and al Qaeda both have the desire to do so.

comongethappy · 11-06-2014 11:07pm

yosserhughes wrote: »

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"...

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

He was convicted of orchestrating the killing of 148 people & torture of many others back in 1982.

Iraq needs some way of getting past its sectarianism, Malaci has done little but fester even greater hatred.

Rightwing · 11-06-2014 11:14pm

Sand wrote: »

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Its the Iraqi government that needs to learn lessons. They have the most to lose. It will afterall be the Iraqi elite (and the women, and the musicians, and the children, and people with glasses, and the people without beards, and so on) who will be strung up from cranes in the brave new world planned by the Islamic fundamentalists. The US has already left - it stopped being a US problem several years ago. The Iraqis didn't take proper advantage of US support when they were in the country, and haven't done anything since to repair issues.

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

Jonny7 · 11-06-2014 11:15pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

For some the history of suffering in Iraq started only in 2003

Sand · 11-06-2014 11:16pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This situation in Iraq is very worrying. Things have not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown. That invasion was the most stupid move ever made and the world has been paying for it ever since with terrorism, wars and recession.

I think you're overstating the consequences. Terrorism was a significant problem all through the 90s up to and including 9/11. It wasn't as if it didn't exist prior to that. Wars? Pretty much multiple wars are ongoing at all times somewhere in the world since the dawn of time. Again, no noticeable impact beyond the obvious direct one. As for recession - they was a huge global boom for 3-4 years after the invasion of Iraq. The cause of the crash had little direct relation to Iraq or US foreign policy in general.

Also stating the situation has not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown is OTT. Sunni areas are clearly worse off - As a minority, they lost a champion in Saddam and have yet been unable to secure a place in the new Iraq (hence the violence). Kurdish areas on the other hand are peaceful and relatively prosperous - it helps that they don't have a insane dictator trying to gas them I suppose.

Sand · 11-06-2014 11:18pm

Rightwing wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

Equally some might argue the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea because it led to huge social and civic problems in modern America that wouldn't otherwise exist.

BuilderPlumber · 11-06-2014 11:21pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

He was convicted of orchestrating the killing of 148 people & torture of many others back in 1982.

Iraq needs some way of getting past its sectarianism, Malaci has done little but fester even greater hatred.

Saddam was no good guy no more than any of the other current rulers of the Middle East are. In an ideal world, I'd like to see someone better than e.g. al Saud family ruling Arabia but if this was to happen, Saudi Arabia would become the Islamic Emirate of Arabia and it would be horrid.

Saddam unfortunately kept Iraq somewhat stable. While he deserved to be gone in an ideal world, Iraq just had no one to replace him. al-Maliki is weak and the sectarian hatred too strong for him or any Iraqi leader to stop.

But the meddling of superpowers and arms industry has turned the Middle East and Africa into what they are at present. It is a shame that their only viable choices is between a bad dictator and a much worse one. The guys waiting in the aisles to take over would make/have made the likes of Gadafi, Saddam, Ali Khamenei, the al Sauds and others look perfect in direct comparison.

Rightwing · 11-06-2014 11:22pm

Sand wrote: »

Equally some might argue the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea because it led to huge social and civic problems in modern America that wouldn't otherwise exist.

And others might argue about life on Mars.

But nonetheless, the Americans now have a lot to answer for. And they know it.

BuilderPlumber · 11-06-2014 11:25pm

Rightwing wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

I think the problems in Iraq and the greater Middle East will not be settled any time soon. Bush Sr's policy of containing Saddam (continued by Clinton) was perhaps the only sensible policy. The 2003 war made matters much worse. So too did the Iran-Iraq war which was a made in the West/USSR arms dealers' bonanza. The stated official aim for both West and USSR of that war was to keep both fighting as long as possible so that both are weak and lose! That pretty much says it all!

BuilderPlumber · 11-06-2014 11:28pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

For some the history of suffering in Iraq started only in 2003

Iraq never had a break in recent times. The 1950s and 1960s was about the best of a bad lot. The country suffered during WW1 and WW2 and the whole 1970s saw a set of bitter disputes with Iran that really took off when Saddam got into power and Iran's Pahlavi regime was overthrown. 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s have all been very miserable years for Iraq. Only Afghanistan and African places have had as much misery. Even North Korea was paradise compared to Iraq in 1985!

Rightwing · 11-06-2014 11:29pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think the problems in Iraq and the greater Middle East will not be settled any time soon. Bush Sr's policy of containing Saddam (continued by Clinton) was perhaps the only sensible policy. The 2003 war made matters much worse. So too did the Iran-Iraq war which was a made in the West/USSR arms dealers' bonanza. The stated official aim for both West and USSR of that war was to keep both fighting as long as possible so that both are weak and lose! That pretty much says it all!

I agree with all of that.

Nodin · 11-06-2014 11:35pm

Sand wrote: »

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Had the Americans stayed, it merely would have been a different conflict.

Sand · 11-06-2014 11:45pm

True, because the keys to the conflict are in the Iraqi government and how it relates to the various Sunni and Kurdish minorities. The Americans had low and declining influence with the Iraqi government, so if they stayed or left it would'nt change the dynamics. Commentators at the time however viewed the Americans as the problem - interpreting the violence as a anti-imperial conflict that suited their political views rather than a civil war to which they had no insight into. The analogy about hammers, problems and nails applies to these commentators too.

The Iraqis need to get down to the basics of a tolerable administration of justice, acceptable political representation without sectarian bias, basic security and services. If they can manage that, problems will decline drastically. They have failed so far, perhaps the recent events might shock them into taking the necessary reforms but its more likely they will instead regress into a security crackdown.

ninebeanrows · 12-06-2014 1:26am

Saddham kept Iraq in as good shape as was possible. We thought Saddham was bad, what we have here is 10 times worse.

This is why I am not quick to jump on the anti-Assad brigade in Syria. Sometimes it's best to stick with the devil you know.

Gringo180 · 12-06-2014 1:35am

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.
.

What about the biggest tyrant of them all the Shah of Persia? Was he not supported by the U.S? They also supported Hussein in the early days. Who sold him that gas that he used on all the Kurds? The position of your enemys enemy is your friend has came back to bite the west on the arse for decades, when will we ever learn to keep our noses out of the middle east?

Nodin · 12-06-2014 5:21am

Sand wrote: »

True, because the keys to the conflict are in the Iraqi government and how it relates to the various Sunni and Kurdish minorities. The Americans had low and declining influence with the Iraqi government, so if they stayed or left it would'nt change the dynamics. Commentators at the time however viewed the Americans as the problem - interpreting the violence as a anti-imperial conflict that suited their political views rather than a civil war to which they had no insight into. The analogy about hammers, problems and nails applies to these commentators too.
.

You think a United States presence in the middle east would not draw concerted hostility from elements on both sides of the sectarian divide?

Sand wrote: »

The Iraqis need to get down to the basics of a tolerable administration of justice, acceptable political representation without sectarian bias, basic security and services. If they can manage that, problems will decline drastically. They have failed so far, perhaps the recent events might shock them into taking the necessary reforms but its more likely they will instead regress into a security crackdown.

Given the corrupt and sectarian nature of the regime, its unlikely that they are willing or capable. There may be hope for the Kurdish areas, under a autonomous and motivated admin, but little in the near term for the rest.

comongethappy · 12-06-2014 6:38am

Gringo180 wrote: »

What about the biggest tyrant of them all the Shah of Persia

Your free to start a thread about him if you like.

In the context of this thread, expressing support for Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, considering the trauma his family inflicted on the Iraqi nation for years.

Next up: "Pol Pot, not a bad guy after all".

$480 million stolen also from captured Iraqi banks.
That's ISIS paid for for the next decade.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iraq-army-capitulates-to-isis-militants-in-four-cities-1.1828973

Reekwind · 12-06-2014 7:30am

Sand wrote: »

The Iraqis need to get down to the basics of a tolerable administration of justice, acceptable political representation without sectarian bias, basic security and services. If they can manage that, problems will decline drastically. They have failed so far, perhaps the recent events might shock them into taking the necessary reforms but its more likely they will instead regress into a security crackdown.

Which implies that the problem here is a lack of will or moral character on the part of the Iraqis. And not the fact that the forging of a competent state apparatus is the process of a long and difficult evolution, one strongly driven by socio-economic factors. It's not something that can be created from above with a few shock reforms.

BuilderPlumber · 12-06-2014 8:07am

Gringo180 wrote: »

What about the biggest tyrant of them all the Shah of Persia? Was he not supported by the U.S? They also supported Hussein in the early days. Who sold him that gas that he used on all the Kurds? The position of your enemys enemy is your friend has came back to bite the west on the arse for decades, when will we ever learn to keep our noses out of the middle east?

The Shah of Persia/Iran (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi) was indeed another dictator very like Saddam Hussein in many regards actually. But did his overthrow in 1979 really improve anything? Well, prior to 1979 people in Iran/Persia:

-Could dress as they pleased.
-Drink alcohol as they pleased.
-Did not have to put up with an 8 year war with Iraq.
-Did not have stone age bandits called the Revolutionary Guards telling them what music, films and TV they could and could not listen to/watch.

The 1979 revolution in Iran did not deliver and was hijacked by 'Islamic' fascist peasants. The revolution was about much more but the 'Islamic' fascist peasants got a lot of hidden support because of the whole anti-communist thing. Most democratic forces of the 1979 revolution were communist, socialist or suspected ones and the powers that be were not going to allow that.

Today's Iran has moderated somewhat since then and it is amazing that it is as good as it is. Fr (Ayatollah) Khamenei, a priest and ex president of Iran, is the current Shah (he prefers the title Supreme Leader) but while it is a repressive 'Islamic' fascist regime still, it is paradise compared to all the other 'Islamic' fascist regimes that were installed since 1979.

If Fr Khamenei's regime was overthrown, chaos and a much worse fascist regime would take over. Fr Mesbah Yazdi is a priest of much more fanatic ideologies and the right man to front for the most fanatic components of the Revolutionary Guards and al Quds. The best hope here is that the regime gradually mellows under moderate presidents like Hassan Rohani and that it remains peaceful and rolls back on some of the negative policies.

The West supported Saddam, the Pahlavis and (secretly) Revolutionary Guards ruled Iran. The Iran-Iraq war was all about arming both to keep both preoccupied. Revolutionary Guards Iran wanted to spread its revolution (something both US and USSR feared) and Baathist (Saddam's) Iraq always had an aim of invading and uniting (under his rule) other Arab countries and lands (inclusive of Arab parts of Iran) (again, something the West did not want).

BuilderPlumber · 12-06-2014 8:18am

comongethappy wrote: »

Your free to start a thread about him if you like.

In the context of this thread, expressing support for Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, considering the trauma his family inflicted on the Iraqi nation for years.

Next up: "Pol Pot, not a bad guy after all".

$480 million stolen also from captured Iraqi banks.
That's ISIS paid for for the next decade.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iraq-army-capitulates-to-isis-militants-in-four-cities-1.1828973

Pol Pot and al Qaeda/Taliban/ISIS are in a completely different league of brutality than Saddam, Pahlavi, Khamenei or Assad. And even Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge managed to make even the worse excesses of the Taliban's 1996-2001 rule in Afghanistan look tame. Pol Pot basically turned his entire country into a slave labour camp and starved his people and forced them to work in squalid conditions in fields for a bowl of rice a day (it did not matter what profession you were either and no it was not just for POWs or criminals but for everyone apart from Pol Pot and his regime that is). The aim was obviously only to have Pol Pot and his inner circle the only surviving inhabitants of the place and they could live on their opium deals for the rest of time.

realweirdo · 12-06-2014 10:25am

The choice for Iraqis was the tyranny of Saddam or the tyranny of something else, probably anarchy.

In an ideal world, artificial countries such as Iraq would be split up with an independent Sunni and independent Shia state. It would be complicated of course, but it has been done before such as with India, although that was an extremely bloody split.

I don't think you can blame the Americans for the latest crisis. From my understanding there were 10,000 troops facing ISIS in Mosul, and ISIS are no more than a few thousand in number. The 10,000 soldiers ran away. With cowardice on that scale, no country can survive.

The other suspicion is that ISIS have large support among the Sunni population and are a mask for a more general Sunni uprising.

At some stage sooner or later, Iraq will have to be divided up. As will Syria. And several more artificial constructs, otherwise you get civil wars lasting decades.

Unfortunately the current UN don't have the b*lls to make tough decisions like this.

Reekwind · 12-06-2014 10:54am

realweirdo wrote: »

In an ideal world, artificial countries such as Iraq would be split up with an independent Sunni and independent Shia state. It would be complicated of course, but it has been done before such as with India, although that was an extremely bloody split.

An Irish person advocating partition along religious lines as a solution. Really? Has that ever worked?

I don't think you can blame the Americans for the latest crisis. From my understanding there were 10,000 troops facing ISIS in Mosul, and ISIS are no more than a few thousand in number. The 10,000 soldiers ran away. With cowardice on that scale, no country can survive.

Which is a pretty damning indictment of US policy, given that the latter was largely based on building up a professional Iraqi military capable of surviving without a US presence in the country.

Manach · 12-06-2014 11:02am

On Iran, the journalist Ryszard Kapuściński was their before and after the Revolution. He wrote extensively on it. His picture is of a despotic regime mired in brutality and corruption, with no regard for the Iranian people. He does not excuse the excesses of the clerics, but places it in context.

WakeUp · 12-06-2014 11:04am

So someone can correct me if Im wrong but these jihadis the ISIS are the same jihadis that the Saudis and Qataris were supplying with weapons and cash and the Americans (non lethal aid) in Syria to fight Assad? and now they have robbed a bank, have US humvees and blackhawks and who knows what else and are taking over large swathes of Iraq. I wonder what the Iranians are thinking Maliki is their man he was letting them use Iraqi airspace to move Iranian forces into Syria. and the Jihadis have taken Turkish hostages and Ive just read that the Americans have refused an Iraqi request for airstrikes even for the Americans theres a severe lack of death from above thought they would be all over that. I know the Iraqi army have proven themselves to be a joke but how did no one see this coming?what a phucking disaster. dont be surprised if its the Iranians that move in to take the jihadis on.

comongethappy · 12-06-2014 11:12am

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is a pretty damning indictment of US policy, given that the latter was largely based on building up a professional Iraqi military capable of surviving without a US presence in the country.

Indeed, though I think if you asked a US trainer, they might have had a poor opinion on the effectiveness of the new reqruits

I had a look on Wiki & the Iraqi army on paper is pretty well equipped & in good numbers.

Obviously its members had little interest in resisting though.

So aswell as the cash bonanza from Mosul's & Tikrits banks, ISIS/ISIL have a big cache of new weapons, all from thousands fleeing in the face of hundreds.

comongethappy · 12-06-2014 11:18am

WakeUp wrote: »

So someone can correct me if Im wrong but these jihadis the ISIS are the same jihadis that the Saudis and Qataris were supplying with weapons and cash and the Americans (non lethal aid) in Syria to fight Assad?.

Could be, not sure though, there are so many groups it seems.

Lookin at their wiki, they are affiliated with other Jihadis in Syria, but also in conflict with other jihadi groups. Its a real hodgepodge of turfwars.

Their level of success seems remarkable relative to their numbers though.

realweirdo · 12-06-2014 11:22am

Reekwind wrote: »

An Irish person advocating partition along religious lines as a solution. Really? Has that ever worked?

Er yes it has...not religious grounds exclusively, tribal, ethnic, religious.

Had Ireland for example become a 32 county state in 1922 instead of a 26 county one, you can just imagine the decades of full scale civil war that would have followed.

Likewise Yugoslavia was an artificial construct. Also Checkoslovakia, India before partitian, Rwanda was and is, Sudan before partitian and dozens more places.

In Iraq for example, the Sunnis could only rule through brutality. Now they can't rule at all and will forever be a minority leading to the kind of permanent sectarian hatred we now see.

Equally in Syria where Assad can only rule with the help of barrel bombs against the majority Sunni.

Sierra Oscar · 12-06-2014 11:33am

WakeUp wrote: »

So someone can correct me if Im wrong but these jihadis the ISIS are the same jihadis that the Saudis and Qataris were supplying with weapons and cash and the Americans (non lethal aid) in Syria to fight Assad?

The US have not being giving any direct aid to ISIS. However they have been supplying aid to more moderate rebel groupings, such as the FSA. The problem is that ISIS are at war with the moderate rebel groups and therefore have been capturing a lot of this aid.

ISIS are fighting more so against the rebels in Syria at the moment rather than the Syrian army. The Syrian government knows all too well that they should stay out of their way for now.

Also the US are still mulling the idea of supplying moderate rebel groups in Syria with advanced weaponry. That would be such a stupid move to make, akin to arming the Taliban in the 80's only to have them turn their weapons on the US down the line. Those weapons will end up in the hands of ISIS eventually. We already have ISIS parading US military equipment captured from the Iraqi Army over the last few days, there is no point making matters worse.

Reekwind · 12-06-2014 12:13pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Indeed, though I think if you asked a US trainer, they might have had a poor opinion on the effectiveness of the new reqruits

I had a look on Wiki & the Iraqi army on paper is pretty well equipped & in good numbers.

Yeah, and obviously my comment was more snarky than constructive. It doesn't how much training or arms you give a country (and US firms have been making, literally, a killing in arms deals to Iraq), the condition of the army can only reflect that of the rest of the state. Obviously those soldiers saw absolutely no reason to die for their government, which is as big a problem as actual territorial losses.

(The alternative - a strong army insulated from a collapsing civil government - is a recipe for a coup.)

But this just shows how misguided US policy was to begin with. Trusting the Iraqi army was at best an optimistic delusion and at worst a cynical excuse to leave. Something compounded by subsequent policy failures in Syria - the biggest gift the US has provided ISIS is the space in Syria in which to develop.

realweirdo wrote:

Er yes it has...not religious grounds exclusively, tribal, ethnic, religious.

Yet in Iraq the main faultline is purely religious. There are no real ethnic, linguistic or cultural differences between Arab Iraqi Sunnis and Arab Iraqi Shia. Certainly not when compared to actual minorities like the Kurds or Assyrians. (There are of course differences between Arab Sunni and Kurdish or Turkmen Sunni. Do each get their own state?)

Had Ireland for example become a 32 county state in 1922 instead of a 26 county one, you can just imagine the decades of full scale civil war that would have followed.

You may have missed this but we did have civil war, decades of strife, an apartheid state and are still living with the consequences of all this. Not exactly the best case scenario.

Likewise Yugoslavia was an artificial construct. Also Checkoslovakia, India before partitian, Rwanda was and is, Sudan before partitian and dozens more places.

You're aware that of these five examples that you've provided, a full four involved bitter ethnic wars, open genocide or other cases of mass deaths, right? If these are success stories then I shudder to think of what happens when the policy goes wrong.

(The exception of course being Czechoslovakia which was not a partition at all, being agreed by both parties and not inflicted by outside powers.)

In Iraq for example, the Sunnis could only rule through brutality. Now they can't rule at all and will forever be a minority leading to the kind of permanent sectarian hatred we now see.

Wow. What a bleak and misanthropic view on life. 'The Sunnis' (as if they were a monolithic block) ruled brutally because they were headed by a brutal dictator. It was dictatorship that spawned the necessity to rule through violence, not the other way around. Carrying your logic through would imply that the French should never have bothered with that whole 'Republic' stuff and gone instead for a Catholic dictatorship, oppressing their rivals in faith.

Of course, the Unionist state in the North could only rule through discrimination, gerrymandering and violence. I guess that will always be the case and that the only solution is to again partition the North. right?

Equally in Syria where Assad can only rule with the help of barrel bombs against the majority Sunni.

Assad is an Alawite - something viewed with suspicion by both Sunni and mainstream Shia.

But it does raise the question - when you're chopping up countries according to faith, where do you stop? Do you carve out an Alawite state? What about one for each of the Islamic schools? I assume that the Fivers and Seveners and Twelvers get their own states? Or is it only those topmost branches of Islam that you'll grant sovereignty to?

realweirdo · 12-06-2014 12:48pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The US have not being giving any direct aid to ISIS. However they have been supplying aid to more moderate rebel groupings, such as the FSA. The problem is that ISIS are at war with the moderate rebel groups and therefore have been capturing a lot of this aid.

ISIS are fighting more so against the rebels in Syria at the moment rather than the Syrian army. The Syrian government knows all too well that they should stay out of their way for now.

Also the US are still mulling the idea of supplying moderate rebel groups in Syria with advanced weaponry. That would be such a stupid move to make, akin to arming the Taliban in the 80's only to have them turn their weapons on the US down the line. Those weapons will end up in the hands of ISIS eventually. We already have ISIS parading US military equipment captured from the Iraqi Army over the last few days, there is no point making matters worse.

Most of this is a result of disastrous policy by Obama, mainly inaction. It's been obvious for a while that ISIS are a growing force in Syria, the best equipped, motivated and trained. The moderate FSA on the otherhand have been fighting both ISIS and Assad with little more than AK-47s and taken a hammering.

As some stage the US are going to have to take sides in Syria. Inaction has not worked. That's obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the conflict. The longer it drags on the more it destabilises the region.

comongethappy · 12-06-2014 12:53pm

realweirdo wrote: »

Most of this is a result of disastrous policy by Obama, mainly inaction. It's been obvious for a while that ISIS are a growing force in Syria, the best equipped, motivated and trained. The moderate FSA on the otherhand have been fighting both ISIS and Assad with little more than AK-47s and taken a hammering.

As some stage the US are going to have to take sides in Syria. Inaction has not worked. That's obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the conflict. The longer it drags on the more it destabilises the region.

Do you mean, bring the conflict to an end asap?

If so, the side most likely to win quickly is the Assad regime.

It could be argued, that if Syrian stability is the best chance to start beating back ISIS, then siding with Assad is the quickest way to achieve that.

It can be argued that prolonging the FSA's slow defeat will help ISIS in the short term.
(Not that I personally condone the Assad regime in any way, but ISIS could be the bigger fish to fry).

realweirdo · 12-06-2014 12:54pm

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah, and obviously my comment was more snarky than constructive. It doesn't how much training or arms you give a country (and US firms have been making, literally, a killing in arms deals to Iraq), the condition of the army can only reflect that of the rest of the state. Obviously those soldiers saw absolutely no reason to die for their government, which is as big a problem as actual territorial losses.

(The alternative - a strong army insulated from a collapsing civil government - is a recipe for a coup.)

But this just shows how misguided US policy was to begin with. Trusting the Iraqi army was at best an optimistic delusion and at worst a cynical excuse to leave. Something compounded by subsequent policy failures in Syria - the biggest gift the US has provided ISIS is the space in Syria in which to develop.

Yet in Iraq the main faultline is purely religious. There are no real ethnic, linguistic or cultural differences between Arab Iraqi Sunnis and Arab Iraqi Shia. Certainly not when compared to actual minorities like the Kurds or Assyrians. (There are of course differences between Arab Sunni and Kurdish or Turkmen Sunni. Do each get their own state?)

You may have missed this but we did have civil war, decades of strife, an apartheid state and are still living with the consequences of all this. Not exactly the best case scenario.

You're aware that of these five examples that you've provided, a full four involved bitter ethnic wars, open genocide or other cases of mass deaths, right? If these are success stories then I shudder to think of what happens when the policy goes wrong.

(The exception of course being Czechoslovakia which was not a partition at all, being agreed by both parties and not inflicted by outside powers.)

Wow. What a bleak and misanthropic view on life. 'The Sunnis' (as if they were a monolithic block) ruled brutally because they were headed by a brutal dictator. It was dictatorship that spawned the necessity to rule through violence, not the other way around. Carrying your logic through would imply that the French should never have bothered with that whole 'Republic' stuff and gone instead for a Catholic dictatorship, oppressing their rivals in faith.

Of course, the Unionist state in the North could only rule through discrimination, gerrymandering and violence. I guess that will always be the case and that the only solution is to again partition the North. right?

Assad is an Alawite - something viewed with suspicion by both Sunni and mainstream Shia.

But it does raise the question - when you're chopping up countries according to faith, where do you stop? Do you carve out an Alawite state? What about one for each of the Islamic schools? I assume that the Fivers and Seveners and Twelvers get their own states? Or is it only those topmost branches of Islam that you'll grant sovereignty to?

Most of your points are simply wrong. I said we would have a full scale civil war lasting in Ireland after 1922. We didn't have that. We had low intensity conflict for most of the next 50 years and even in the 1970s it couldnt compare to the type of conflict you had in Rwanda or Lebenon.

As for your argument about it being exclusively religious in Iraq, again wrong. Iraq is mainly divided along tribal affiliation. There are Sunni tribes, the Hussains being one of them, based around Tikrit, and there are Shia tribes. Generally the Tribes chose one religion or the other. However religion does play a huge part in the differences. The main point however is that the Sunni are completely disenfranchaised at the moment and there is no prospect of that changing in the short run, other than through an uprising of the kind we are seeing now.

Finally, there are no perfect solutions to middle east issues. The best that can be achived is tinkering and slight improvements and giving people less of a reason to kill each other.

realweirdo · 12-06-2014 12:58pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Do you mean, bring the conflict to an end asap?

If so, the side most likely to win quickly is the Assad regime.

It could be argued, that if Syrian stability is the best chance to start beating back ISIS, then siding with Assad is the quickest way to achieve that.

It can be argued that prolonging the FSA's slow defeat will help ISIS in the short term.
(Not that I personally condone the Assad regime in any way, but ISIS could be the bigger fish to fry).

Not really - there is evidence that Assad has actually being helping ISIS. Releasing their prisoners, not bombing their bases, while at the same time mercilessly bombing the regular FSA.

Assad is finished in 60% of the country anyways, with ISIS just one force filling the vacuam.

The most realistic force to defeat ISIS are the Kurds and the regular FSA.

yosserhughes · 12-06-2014 2:15pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

He was convicted of orchestrating the killing of 148 people & torture of many others back in 1982.

Iraq needs some way of getting past its sectarianism, Malaci has done little but fester even greater hatred.

All I am saying is that Iraq would still be a much better place to live nowadays under Saddam...Ok maybe if you can believe the propaganda , he did kill 148,but what about the The Amiriyah shelter bombing,the lase guided US bombing that killed over 400 many of them children?and the hundred of thousands who have died since then...And if you look at all the so called tyrants that have been deposed in the middle east ,and where has it got them only into a state of anarchy and death for thousands of innocent citizens..And if we want to rid the world of tyranny why not go to China where human rights are non existent and where in Tibet a peaceful and gentle people are being eradicated slowly but surely..

comongethappy · 12-06-2014 2:19pm

yosserhughes wrote: »

All I am saying is that Iraq would still be a much better place to live nowadays under Saddam...Ok maybe if you can believe the propaganda , he did kill 148,but what about the The Amiriyah shelter bombing,the lase guided US bombing that killed over 400 many of them children?and the hundred of thousands who have died since then...And if you look at all the so called tyrants that have been deposed in the middle east ,and where has it got them only into a state of anarchy and death for thousands of innocent citizens..And if we want to rid the world of tyranny why not go to China where human rights are non existent and where in Tibet a peaceful and gentle people are being eradicated slowly but surely..

Well, there are always those who support dictators.

I think Hussein & his sons were abhorrent.

On that we'll agree to disagree.

I am pie · 12-06-2014 2:33pm

Just another example of artificially constructed post colonial/post war carve-ups falling apart. Without a dictator, military rule or theocracy these post colonial constructs do not have much of a future.

Artificially creating these clientel states with decades of proxy rule for the benefit of british, american and french interests long ago sowed the seed for insurgency.

A democracy was never going to strong enough or with sufficient appeal to hold together Kurdish nationalists, Shi'ites and Sunnis, especially not a democracry imposted via artillery shells. I see no solution other than the break up of Iraq, but there is no will in Ankara or Tehran for that to happen.

The whole region is the most likey theatre for what we might call WW3. Sectarian conflict + Oil + Russian vs US interests (proxy war) + Young post colonial states with artificially created borders.

Jonny7 · 12-06-2014 2:37pm

yosserhughes wrote: »

All I am saying is that Iraq would still be a much better place to live nowadays under Saddam

Or perhaps we could say Iraq would have been a much better place without Saddam - and the subsequent US invasion

...Ok maybe if you can believe the propaganda , he did kill 148

I wouldn't call it propaganda, it's documented by the Iraqi's, Shia, Kurds and even Sunni - thousands upon thousands of people disappeared, tortured and killed

Criticism/cynicism of the US is fine, it doesn't necessarily have to be complemented by "supporting the other side" (which is a trap many fall into) - it's possible to condemn both

Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

Comments