Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

Reekwind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pie

Here is a great article describing the Sunni-Shia conflict, it's impact on Iraq and the regional implications for heightened sectarian conflict. Saudi Sunni Wahhabism versus Iranian Shias provides the motor for a regional geopolitical conflict wrapped up in oil, sectarianism and various barely real proxy states controlled by Iranian or Saudi cash.

Naturally the American's have arbitrarily weighed in, picked a side and given everyone a common enemy (including bolstering Israeli military and economic power)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-vicious-schism-between-sunni-and-shia-has-been-poisoning-islam-for-1400-years--and-its-getting-worse-9139525.html

Reekwind

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

So hooray for partition. The Troubles were not just tolerable but welcome as the best possible solution. Never mind that you've spun an absolutely ridiculous hypothetical (as if Ireland in the 1920s was primed for genocide) because partition works, apparently.

The main point however is that the Sunni are completely disenfranchaised at the moment...

It's news to me that Sunnis aren't permitted to vote. So how exactly are Sunnis "completely disenfranchised"?

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.

Why? Why should an Arab not aspire to living standards (or lack of violence) akin to those enjoyed by Westerners? Why should Iraq be fundamentally more fractiousness than France?

This is exactly the sort of snobbish pessimism that sees people support secular dictatorships or religious Balkanisation as 'the best the region can hope for'

Jonny7

Interesting to note that ISIS are so far deliberately avoiding the north, even the town abandoned by the regular Iraqi security forces..

They are taking on Assad's heavily armed and mechanised forces, the FSA, and Maliki's Iraqi army.. but they aren't going near the Kurds

I am pie

Jonny7 wrote: »

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


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

Arguably the last time Iraq was stable, albeit not defined within it's present borders, was during the Ottoman empire. Since then (post WW1) it has been under the control of the British Empire via proxy governments until they achieved independence post WW2 when a war torn British economy could no longer maintain its grip on the colonies. Lurching from british imposed monarchy to Nazi aligned govt, to a USSR aligned socialist state and finally succumbing to some sort of socialism under the Baath party stability has only ever been achieved via repression of Shia and Kurdish separatists.

All the US did was lift the lid on pandora's box in their typically clumsy manner. Sectarian conflict and Kurish separatism has been a centuries old recurring theme.

I am pie

Reekwind wrote: »

Why? Why should an Arab not aspire to living standards (or lack of violence) akin to those enjoyed by Westerners? Why should Iraq be fundamentally more fractiousness than France?

This is exactly the sort of snobbish pessimism that sees people support secular dictatorships or religious Balkanisation as 'the best the region can hope for'

Obviously because France is an geopolitical entity which, save for a small (very small!) basque separatist movement, is accepted and respected by the overwhelming majority of it's citizens. It is centuries old and has an evolved system of government. It's self image has been fortified by various european wars where due to good fortune they have emerged victorious.


Iraq is a post colonial construct which Kurds dont recognise never mind respect. Sectarian repression has dominated it's short history. Their is no historical tribal or cultural basis for "Iraq" as a geopolitical entity. As a country they were imposed by the requirements of the British-French-US carve up of the regional oil fields post WW1. Since then they have swung from british state, Nazi aligned, USSR supported socialism, Baathism etc. Never in it's history have all citizens been afforded equal representation and it's Kurdish citizens have never wanted to be part of the state.

Comparing France to Iraq is worthless.

Jonny7

Reekwind wrote: »

It's news to me that Sunnis aren't permitted to vote. So how exactly are Sunnis "completely disenfranchised"?

They are being not-so-subtley marginalised by Maliki

Been a lot of large protests recently on this issue

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

Interesting to note that ISIS are so far deliberately avoiding the north, even the town abandoned by the regular Iraqi security forces..

They are taking on Assad's heavily armed and mechanised forces, the FSA, and Maliki's Iraqi army.. but they aren't going near the Kurds

Probably a combination of a couple of things, in that the Kurds are more than capable of defeating them imho, and also that Kurds are largely Sunni Muslims, so I take it would be a far harder sell to attack them as opposed to Shia/Alawites.

comongethappy

I seen on the Guardian it mentioned that 35,000 Iraqi army personnel fled from approx 800 ISIS jihadis.

If that is true it would go down in history as one of the most one sided battles ever.

Reekwind

I am pie wrote: »

Obviously because France is an geopolitical entity which, save for a small (very small!) basque separatist movement, is accepted and respected by the overwhelming majority of it's citizens. It is centuries old and has an evolved system of government. It's self image has been fortified by various european wars where due to good fortune they have emerged victorious.

So the answer seems to be 'time and wars'. Well Iraq has certainly had enough of the latter.

Their is no historical tribal or cultural basis for "Iraq" as a geopolitical entity

And there is for France? Fun fact: by 1870 less than a third of the population of France spoke 'French'. What did a 19th C Breton have in common with a Parisian? Or Provence with Alsace?

Far from a coherent entity emerging slowly into nationhood, the nation that we today call 'France' is the product of a deliberate nation-building campaign that welded together several disparate and only loosely connected regions. It was only in the late 19th C that efforts to 'turn peasants into Frenchmen' produced the "cultural basis" for a French nation. Until then 'France' had been first and foremost a collection of regional identities that happened to share a common dynastic/political lord, with 'French' language and culture largely limited to the elites and the traditional Valois lands around Paris.

The reality is that nation-states are artificial constructs and national identities (as opposed to regional or tribal ones) can be fostered from above. Otherwise you'd have looked at France a century ago and insisted that it be broken up into its constituent Breton, Gascon, Basque, Flemish, Alsatian, and Corsican parts.

Manach

As per above, nationalism is the usual end-result of generations of a social construction: leading work on that is Bendict Anderson "Imagined Communities"