The difference between Aleppo and Mosul?

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

There is no solution in sight for the people of Mosul unfortunately, they have been well and truly shafted. The choice is between domination by IS nutcases, or domination by a Shia govt. that hates them. And now they are going to be bombed, shelled, and starved for the next couple of months.

There are three possible forms of stable govt. in this region;
1. A Sunni fundamentalist religious state such as IS or Saudi Arabia. It can only exist in a Sunni area.

2. A Shia state such as Iran or the current rump version of what was Iraq. It can only exist in a Shia area.

3. A secular state run by an arab nationalist, which keeps the lid on religious tensions within the population. It can encompass mixed areas, including Sunni, Shia, Christian, Yazidi etc. It needs a "strongman" to lead it, maybe a dictator and typically a Baathist with a military background. Saddam Hussein, the Assad family, Nasser of Egypt are all examples.
This is best for the people, but is not acceptable to US/Israeli interests, who prefer the arabs to exist in a state of constant chaos.

That's not really a reply to my post.

What should the Iraqi government and its allies do about Mosul?

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

There's a fourth and fifth option too:

4. A non-fundamentalist Sunni dominated state - modelled on the situation in Turkey or (de-facto) Kurdistan.

5. An Islamic, but non-fundamentalist and non-sectarian democratic Iraqi constitution and governance that can bring together two fractious groups - it's not as if there haven't been instances of national reconciliation of opposed groupings elsewhere in the past. You don't always need a strong man for this to work.

A big problem with that the Kurds are sunni and the Wahhabi Sunni don't like them either. Turkey has been backing the extreme sunnis against the Kurds for decades while the Syrian gvt have had an alliance with them. The Turks are not suddenly going to turn their back are the fundamentalists they have been enlisting.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A big problem with that the Kurds are sunni and the Wahhabi Sunni don't like them either. Turkey has been backing the extreme sunnis against the Kurds for decades while the Syrian gvt have had an alliance with them. The Turks are not suddenly going to turn their back are the fundamentalists they have been enlisting.

There are sod all Wahhabist Sunnis outside the Gulf. If you mean Salafist Sunnis, then they only comprise a tiny minority in Iraq. Turkey has no input into whatever arrangement Iraq might opt for down the line.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

There are sod all Wahhabist Sunnis outside the Gulf. If you mean Salafist Sunnis, then they only comprise a tiny minority in Iraq. Turkey has no input into whatever arrangement Iraq might opt for down the line.

The Saudi's do have a contingent of forces in the country of Syria and in Iraq battling Iranian influence. The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusra, Al Sham are all names of Sunni militias i'm sure the Iranians have their own Shia militia like Al Sadr's group in any case we are witnessing a sectarian war in that region and Turkey has been cosponsoring these groups just like Syria was sponsoring the PKK.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

There's a fourth and fifth option too:

4. A non-fundamentalist Sunni dominated state - modelled on the situation in Turkey or (de-facto) Kurdistan.

5. An Islamic, but non-fundamentalist and non-sectarian democratic Iraqi constitution and governance that can bring together two fractious groups - it's not as if there haven't been instances of national reconciliation of opposed groupings elsewhere in the past. You don't always need a strong man for this to work.

Your "Option 4." there is unstable, as shown by the recent coup in Turkey supported by a large section of the army, teachers, universities, police etc..
Many of those people wanted a return to the secular strongman model pioneered by Turkish national hero Ataturk, who was moulded in a similar vein to Nasser, Assad senior, Hussein etc..
Erdogan on the other hand has been moving towards the Sunni fundamentalist state in recent years. Which is not surprising, considering he started off in an Islamist party when he was Mayor of Istanbul, and spent 10 months in prison for inciting religious hatred around that time.

"Option 5" - "Islamic non-fundamentalist" is something of an oxymoron. But lets say something along the lines of Malaysia. Its not possible in the Levant region now because of all the strife that has occurred. They would have to go through a transition phase first, being one of the 3 options I mentioned, and that would have to last a couple of decades while the wounds healed.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

That's not really a reply to my post.

What should the Iraqi government and its allies do about Mosul?

Well, I said there is no solution under the current conditions. If they want to get there, then in the somewhat unhelpful words of the guy giving directions "I wouldn't start from here".

So, what they "should" do now is expel the Iranian backed Shia militias from the country, and also the Americans, and then resign. And then some strongman must appear like a Messiah and unite both Sunnis and Shia under a secular regime against IS.

Alternatively, redraw the borders completely. The Baghdad Shia regime could amalgamate closer with Iran, and then let Turkey annex the Sunni parts of former Syria and Iraq (currently under IS rule) which the Turks are itching to do anyway.

Dohnjoe

recedite wrote: »

It shouldn't matter whether there is anyone there to report it, or who is doing the bombing.
Either a bombing campaign in a residential area is a war crime, or it is not.

That's not how the world nor reality works. If it were the case, then any attack on ISIS would be a "war crime", and they would be unstoppable, simply because they mingled with the civilian populace

Personally I'm inclined to think that if the civilians have been warned that the bombs are coming, and have a relatively safe corridor out, then its as acceptable as any aspect of war. This was actually done in both Aleppo and Mosul. At least as far as was practicable, considering some reports of city defenders killing people who were trying to leave.

Compare to say, Hiroshima or Dresden, where non-combatants were given no chance to escape.

Mosul has been invaded and held by ISIS. The forces that want to liberate it have no interest in deliberately targeting the inhabitants

Aleppo on the other hand represents a deliberate targeting of it's inhabitants by a hostile government force (barrel bombs, gas attacks)

The two aren't really comparable

Elmer Blooker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's not how the world nor reality works. If it were the case, then any attack on ISIS would be a "war crime", and they would be unstoppable, simply because they mingled with the civilian populace



Mosul has been invaded and held by ISIS. The forces that want to liberate it have no interest in deliberately targeting the inhabitants

Aleppo on the other hand represents a deliberate targeting of it's inhabitants by a hostile government force (barrel bombs, gas attacks)

The two aren't really comparable

It's worth mentioning that there are 1.3 million "inhabitants" living in government controlled Aleppo who do not consider THEIR government to be hostile.

recedite

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's not how the world nor reality works. If it were the case, then any attack on ISIS would be a "war crime", and they would be unstoppable, simply because they mingled with the civilian populace



Mosul has been invaded and held by ISIS. The forces that want to liberate it have no interest in deliberately targeting the inhabitants

Aleppo on the other hand represents a deliberate targeting of it's inhabitants by a hostile government force (barrel bombs, gas attacks)

The two aren't really comparable

What can I say... you have fallen for the US propaganda. Hook, line and sinker. Nearly everything you say is completely wrong.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Your "Option 4." there is unstable, as shown by the recent coup in Turkey supported by a large section of the army, teachers, universities, police etc..
Many of those people wanted a return to the secular strongman model pioneered by Turkish national hero Ataturk, who was moulded in a similar vein to Nasser, Assad senior, Hussein etc..
Erdogan on the other hand has been moving towards the Sunni fundamentalist state in recent years. Which is not surprising, considering he started off in an Islamist party when he was Mayor of Istanbul, and spent 10 months in prison for inciting religious hatred around that time.

The attempted coup in Turkey was an abject failure, with little public support. The government there is stable, and retains broad democratic support. Erdogan is certainly a dubious leader, but the county is far from a fundamentalist state.

recedite wrote: »

"Option 5" - "Islamic non-fundamentalist" is something of an oxymoron. But lets say something along the lines of Malaysia. Its not possible in the Levant region now because of all the strife that has occurred. They would have to go through a transition phase first, being one of the 3 options I mentioned, and that would have to last a couple of decades while the wounds healed.

Nothing contradictory about a non-fundamentalist Islamic constitution or government. Nor is it impossible to imagine a post-strife multi-sectartain state in any area - the levant included. What transitionary period did Rwanda go through?

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It's worth mentioning that there are 1.3 million "inhabitants" living in government controlled Aleppo who do not consider THEIR government to be hostile.

They don't particularly like either side, but their "government" is deliberately bombing their hospitals/aid centers and often blocking aid to the city (or as we've seen recently deliberately targeting aid convoys). Incendiaries are being dropped, barrel bombs have been used regularly for years, gas has been used - weapons designed to maim and kill indiscriminately. Men, women and children targeted by snipers for years
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25055956

Dohnjoe

recedite wrote: »

What can I say... you have fallen for the US propaganda. Hook, line and sinker. Nearly everything you say is completely wrong.

My points remain unchallenged

They are two different situations. Once Iraqi forces (and their allies) start deliberately bombing and targeting the civilians of Mosul, the hospitals, using indiscriminate weapons.. then it will become somewhat more similar to Aleppo

And even then there are marked differences - Iraq isn't embroiled in a civil war like Syria is

Manic Moran

Either a bombing campaign in a residential area is a war crime, or it is not.

This is not correct. Every incident is taken in situation as it presents itself. There is no flat prohibition on a bombing campaign in a residential area, but there are prohibitions on the nature of the strikes. For example, a hundred airstrikes on defined targets in a residential area with precision munitions may be legal whereas a single microlight dropping a single phosphorous hand grenade on a defined target in a residential area would certainly be illegal.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

The attempted coup in Turkey was an abject failure, with little public support..

It was a close run thing for a while. Afterwards, 21,000 teachers sacked... that looks like a serious attempt to manipulate the education system and re-write history so that in future there is less dissent from Erdogan's version of what Turkey is, and should become.

alastair wrote: »

Nothing contradictory about a non-fundamentalist Islamic constitution or government.

IMO there is. But lets agree to differ on that point, and move on to how you would implement such a govt. in Iraq. Would it be a Shia Islamic State or a Sunni Islamic state? How is either one going to avoid a perpetual civil war?
Iraq, as a country, can only maintain its previous borders under a united secular arab nationalist regime, such as Saddam Hussein's was.

Manic Moran wrote: »

For example, a hundred airstrikes on defined targets in a residential area with precision munitions may be legal whereas a single microlight dropping a single phosphorous hand grenade on a defined target in a residential area would certainly be illegal.

If I was living there, I know I'd choose the single hand grenade.
But in your version of what is legal and what is not, its the people doing the bombing who decide what is legal and what is not

alastair

recedite wrote: »

It was a close run thing for a while.

It really wasn't.

recedite wrote: »

Afterwards, 21,000 teachers sacked... that looks like a serious attempt to manipulate the education system and re-write history so that in future there is less dissent from Erdogan's version of what Turkey is, and should become.

How does any of that speak to the actual support for the coup attempt? It certainly speaks to Erdogan's strategy of leveraging greater advantage out of the coup attempt, but nothing more.

recedite wrote: »

IMO there is. But lets agree to differ on that point, and move on to how you would implement such a govt. in Iraq. Would it be a Shia Islamic State or a Sunni Islamic state?

Neither. Simply an Islamic state. You frame the constitution around common principles of the Koran, and ensure any sectarian distinctions are kept outside the remit of governance.

recedite wrote: »

How is either one going to avoid a perpetual civil war?

By not fighting. Same as Rwanda avoids perpetual civil war.

recedite wrote: »

Iraq, as a country, can only maintain its previous borders under a united secular arab nationalist regime, such as Saddam Hussein's was.

Or any other model of state that all Iraqis can subscribe to.

Cheerful Spring

Hilary said shes will support a no fly zone over Syria when she spoke last night. So War is highly likely with the Russians if she fails to negotiate with them and agree.

Elmer Blooker

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is not correct. Every incident is taken in situation as it presents itself. There is no flat prohibition on a bombing campaign in a residential area, but there are prohibitions on the nature of the strikes. For example, a hundred airstrikes on defined targets in a residential area with precision munitions may be legal whereas a single microlight dropping a single phosphorous hand grenade on a defined target in a residential area would certainly be illegal.

Personally I have no time for .... the good guys use precision munitions and carry out surgical strikes while the bad guys use crude "bunker busters"
No one ever asks who or what is in these "bunkers" in Aleppo.
* I'm aware you made no mention of surgical strikes.

recedite

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hilary said shes will support a no fly zone over Syria when she spoke last night. So War is highly likely with the Russians if she fails to negotiate with them and agree.

I noticed her saying that alright. Its just another example of her saying something she thinks will play well with the electorate, while knowing full well it cannot happen.
But that's why so many Americans really don't like her; they can't trust that what she says is the same as what she is actually thinking.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

Neither. Simply an Islamic state. You frame the constitution around common principles of the Koran, and ensure any sectarian distinctions are kept outside the remit of governance.

The different imams would argue over the interpretation of Sharia principles, but it might work if you reduced down to such basic principles that it was almost secular.
But then it would be an Islamic state only in the same sense that EU countries are Christian states.
The current Shia regime would still have to resign, and send Shia militias home or disband them. Even with all that done, history tells us that a western style democracy (even with an Islamic flavoured constitution) is unlikely to last long in that region, given the endemic tribal and religious tensions.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

Well, I said there is no solution under the current conditions. If they want to get there, then in the somewhat unhelpful words of the guy giving directions "I wouldn't start from here".

So, what they "should" do now is expel the Iranian backed Shia militias from the country, and also the Americans, and then resign. And then some strongman must appear like a Messiah and unite both Sunnis and Shia under a secular regime against IS.

Alternatively, redraw the borders completely. The Baghdad Shia regime could amalgamate closer with Iran, and then let Turkey annex the Sunni parts of former Syria and Iraq (currently under IS rule) which the Turks are itching to do anyway.

I believe the residents of Syria and Iraq currently under ISIS rule would want a say on that rather than foreign overseers. Unlike Turkey or Iran the Syrian and Iraqi gvt's have the responsibility to defend their citizens.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I believe the residents of Syria and Iraq currently under ISIS rule would want a say on that rather than foreign overseers.

Wow..

Syria has been under a one-party autocracy for decades. That means the people have zero say in who governs them. When they protest - they are imprisoned, tortured and killed

Likewise, people in towns and cities occupied by ISIS don't have any say. The Iraqi forces liberating their own city aren't foreign overseers either.

Manic Moran

recedite wrote: »

If I was living there, I know I'd choose the single hand grenade. But in your version of what is legal and what is not, its the people doing the bombing who decide what is legal and what is not

Within the limits of the agreed-upon laws of war, yes. However, there is no doubt that no matter what you'd prefer, according to the wording of the conventions, the dropping of that one phosphorous grenade is categorically illegal and a war crime, no ifs ands or buts, wheras the use of scores of explosives is a more subjective assessment because it is not specifically prohibited. It comes down to opinions over 'proportionality', 'relative risk' and so on.

Personally I have no time for .... the good guys use precision munitions and carry out surgical strikes while the bad guys use crude "bunker busters"
No one ever asks who or what is in these "bunkers" in Aleppo.

That's a different issue, and a political one. Anyone who believes that even surgical strikes will not have civilian casualties is deluding themselves. The question is if it is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. If it's legal, then it's an option which the politicians can place on the table.

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Personally I have no time for .... the good guys use precision munitions and carry out surgical strikes while the bad guys use crude "bunker busters"
No one ever asks who or what is in these "bunkers" in Aleppo.
* I'm aware you made no mention of surgical strikes.

Intention.

Assad's pro-government forces and militias are deliberately killing Syrian men, women and children in Aleppo, and have been doing so across the country for over 5 years now

That's a marked contrast from Iraq where Iraqi forces are trying to avoid any civilian casualties. They aren't locked in a civil war, they have no motive or intention to deliberately kill the inhabitants

Liberating a city is clearly very different from deliberately destroying it and punitively targeting its inhabitants

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow..

Syria has been under a one-party autocracy for decades. That means the people have zero say in who governs them. When they protest - they are imprisoned, tortured and killed

Likewise, people in towns and cities occupied by ISIS don't have any say. The Iraqi forces liberating their own city aren't foreign overseers either.

Your first statement is just flat out wrong. Your second statement is partially true.

Yes they have one party state as we all know their are elections held and they get to decide who is chosen. Just because outsiders don't like the result does not make it a dictatorship. North Korea describes your definition perfectly. Those people in the Syrian Baathist party are made up from a wide variety of people from society. It is not a multiparty democracy like we have in Europe but it actual works quite well in the region otherwise one segment of the community would be discriminated against.

As for those areas under ISIS control they lived lives before the Jihadists came to occupy the cities and make their lives miserably. They certainly are not going to want to trade a life under ISIS control for a life under Turkish or Iranian control.

alastair

If there was ever a moment for a face palm.

Syria isn't a single party dictatorship any more. It's now a notional multi-party dictatorship. Since the Assad's took over the place via a coup, there's been the systemic discrimination of one community in the country; the Sunni majority, enforced through mass killings if they got too uppity. Nobody gets to pick who governs them, because the government is a family business and it's not in the democracy game.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes they have one party state as we all know their are elections held and they get to decide who is chosen.

Absolutely not

The elections are not free. They are pre-determined, much like the "elections" in North Korea or Iraq under Saddam

1971 - Hafez Al Assad 99.2% of the vote, turnout 95.8%
1978 - Hafez Al Assad 99.9% of the vote, turnout 97%
1985 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.4%
1991 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 99.1%
1999 - Hafez Al Assad 100% of the vote, turnout 98.5%
2000 - Bashar Al Assad 99.7% of the vote, turnout 94.6%
2007 - Bashar Al Assad 97.62% of the vote, turnout 95.86%

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

If there was ever a moment for a face palm.

Syria isn't a single party dictatorship any more. It's now a notional multi-party dictatorship. Since the Assad's took over the place via a coup, there's been the systemic discrimination of one community in the country; the Sunni majority, enforced through mass killings if they got too uppity. Nobody gets to pick who governs them, because the government is a family business and it's not in the democracy game.

Assad came to power with the support of the military which has the backing of the population in order to pursue an independent policy of Arab Nationalism and emulate the Nasserites of Egypt. They were part of a single state until that union broke apart and Syria went its own way. President Hafez and his son Assad were much liked by the population of the country otherwise he would not enjoy the popularity he now holds. An Arab country that feels comfortable to have a member of the minority community as its leader very rare in the Islamic world.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Assad came to power with the support of the military which has the backing of the population in order to pursue an independent policy of Arab Nationalism and emulate the Nasserites of Egypt. They were part of a single state until that union broke apart and Syria went its own way. President Hafez and his son Assad were much liked by the population of the country otherwise he would not enjoy the popularity he now holds. An Arab country that feels comfortable to have a member of the minority community as its leader very rare in the Islamic world.

Lots of untested assumptions there. It was a coup that brought the Assad's to power, and not mandated by any popular franchise. Likewise, there's little to support the notion that Assad is popular with the electorate now - expressing discontent is not too clever an idea under his regime (see causes of current civil war).

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Lots of untested assumptions there. It was a coup that brought the Assad's to power, and not mandated by any popular franchise. Likewise, there's little to support the notion that Assad is popular with the electorate now - expressing discontent is not too clever an idea under his regime.

Syria has had many coups during its history. The tenure of the Assad's has actually brought improved relations with neighboring states and unlike almost every other Arab state they still support the Palestinian cause in more than just gesture politics. In the era before the Assad's the country was actually far more divided internally than it is today. The majority of Syrians back Assad and his gvt regardless of their religion.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria has had many coups during its history. The tenure of the Assad's has actually brought improved relations with neighboring states and unlike almost every other Arab state they still support the Palestinian cause in more than just gesture politics. In the era before the Assad's the country was actually far more divided internally than it is today. The majority of Syrians back Assad and his gvt regardless of their religion.

Glad we can agree that the Assad's imposed themselves on the people, and had no mandate to do so.

Supporting the Palestinian cause isn't a get out of jail free card. Lots of autocratic regimes happen to support the Palestinian cause.

The majority of Syrians don't get a choice in who they supposedly support, and when they actually expressed unhappiness with the Assad regime they were shot down in the streets. They learned their lesson and either took up arms against the regime or kept their heads down.