I won’t give you my interpretation of what’s currently happening. To do so simply puts my biases to the forefront.
Instead, I’ll ask you, as adults fully capable of ‘fact finding’ on your own, to tell everyone here what you think and why you think it. I try to be constantly learning, so I’m very interested in your evaluations.
Thank you for your time, should you decide to respond.
Liz
Heard that 30,000 army men left fearing some 800 ISIS entering their town!!
yes ,it happens.
same thing happened in afghanistan too.
Talibs bribed the war lords who were part of recognized government of aghanistan . And so on , the afghan fall.
So, i SUSPECT THAT same fashion might have been adopted here.
bribe and WAR LORDSHIP come together.
to understand how things happen there , need to understand how warlordship works.
Thanks, quantum, that’s one thing, I’m sure, but what about the sectarian aspects? Did religious beliefs cross boundaries and open the doors for jihadists from the West to join ISIS forces? If so, should the WW (the UN) try to stop ISIS?
What is it that the Western World just doesn’t understand about the Muslim world?
Liz, ISIS is Taliban 2.0. A US-created force to annoy Russia and Iran and keep the Middle East in chaos so that current UN/US policies can not be challenged. At least everything points to this; their logistic capacities, their technological skills and equipment, very notably the production value and style of their videos (that’s top of the line American craft, no other nation produces that quality even in expensive tv productions), the name naturally (The Egyptian pantheon being the subject of the dollar bill and the architecture of DC) but most importantly, the powers that suffer most from this new violence.
If ISIS weren’t created by the US, it would certainly be a fortunate coincidence. The shiites are fucked, Assad is fucked, Putin is at the very least disturbed, and the chances of muslims organizing in a somewhat rational manner is virtually nil.
The western powers understand Islam all too well, much better than muslims understand it. For starters, they understand that people with no education except Mosque-education are the easiest people in the world to manipulate. It’s the easiest thing in the world to have them fight against their own interests, or against the interests of anyone in their direct environment.
As long as people believe in Allah they deserve to be enslaved. It’s just sad for brighter humans who live nearby them.
Condensed formatting.
Liz,
I half agree and half disagree with FC on this.
He presented the western perspecpetive right but not the Islamic one.
Inlamic militants and their actual supportars are not as fools as they look.
West understood the mindset of Muslim world but underestimated it. They preassumed that the things will never change. The same mistake of Vietnam.
These is only one real cause of Islamic militancy and that is the oil and the wealth earned by it. Had there been no oil in the Gulf, there would be no Islamic Militancy in the world. That is causing all. The second cause is the US interest of oil in the gulf and third is the surge of Wahabism in the Arabic countries.
with love,
sanjay
FC, ISIS is a terrorist organization intent of forming a new Caliphate under Sunni control and Sharia; it is not, however, either al Qaeda or Taliban. It was not created by the US, nor was the Taliban, for that matter. The Taliban were trained and armed by the US to help get rid of the Russians; when Russia left Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban took over the Afghan government and ruled from 1996-2001. They were then ousted by US troops ‘searching’ for Osama bin Laden. After the US, in its zeal to spread ‘democracy,’ held elections, Hamid Karzai became President of Afghanistan.
So there are really 3 separate groups.
ISIS, the acronym, means Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (some translators say the Levant) and really has nothing to do with the Egyptian goddess, Isis.
However, the 3 groups have one goal in common–to get rid of the boundary lines agreed to in the Sykes-Picot accord, signed by Britain and France, back in 1916, when those two countries were dividing the Arab world into spheres of interest under the control of them. (for citations, start with the Sykes-Picot Accord.) Oil was a major issue even back then, because the British Navy demanded it and the British Navy ruled the sea!
Anyway, one of my questions is whether or not the Western World should embroil itself in what is a sectarian civil war? Do jihadists believe they can conquer the world for Islam–and the Sunni tribes?
And I half agree and half disagree with you, my friend. Yes, oil plays a huge part, see my response to FC, but what’s turned the Sunnis against the Shiites, if both sects practice the same religion? From what I’ve read, it comes down to who was the ‘true’ successor of Mohamed. But it’s actually much deeper than that, isn’t it?
Another of my questions is whether or not the Arab Muslim world is ready for a return of the 12th century AH (18th century CE) religious reforms? If so, there should be no strife; if not, should the Western World intervene?
I agree.
The Dollar Empire is not as hermetically sealed as previous empires, but it’s still successful.
And please don’t forget: Saudi Arabia is one of the closest allies of the US.
ISIS (turkish websites call it ISIL) in Syria expanded into Iraq to find a economic and recruitment rear outside of Syria in a location Syria wouldn’t be able to follow, deep across a international border.
They used no more than under a brigade of heavy hitters, broken up into battalions who planned in advance where they were hitting.
The Iraqi government wasn’t maintaining the bribes and “power sharing” with the local tribes, who could be bought cheaply in the northwest, but is collectively expensive. ISIS offered more, and the bribes coincided with the invasion. A further insult to injury, many troops existed only on paper collecting paychecks due to poor esprite de corps… we ended the Iraqi mission too early, the Majors were not yet experienced enough, and not enough NCOs made it up through the ranks from private into leadership to warrant Obamas pullout.
The good news is, ISIS has dramatically overextended itself, and the Kurds fortifying Kirkurk are unlikely to make another expansion until the city is dug in, and even then, minor armor raids and strikes. ISIS took alot of weapons it cant hold short of shipping back to Syria, will rapidly run short of ammo for such weapons, and the money will be spent on backpayments, debt, and general corruption.
They are currently overstretched, holding a population they may personally identify with, but is overwhelmingly complex and unlikely to uniformly support them in return.
Likewise, the mass exodus from the newly captured cities has fueled resentment and a humanitarian crisis, many will provide intel, spy, scout, and enlist in militias and the regular army. They have a better chance at winning the hearts and minds of their neighbors at home than ISIS.
You will see IRAQ stagnate for a few weeks, with minor gains,bas it prepares a multi battalion mechanized strikeforce to move south of the theater and strike north into the Anbar and Jazeera, cutting off ISIS communications with Syria. Syria will step up its assault as well, hammering a ISIS force cut in half.
Mosul will be cordoned off in 3-4 months, with admin districts taken earlier. Southwest Falluja will experience a series of skirmishes. It will fall faster, but with heavier casualties as its unsuited for mechanized warfare.
Iranian Quds will form a portion of the Mosul strikeforce. Its unlikely to be publically announced.
Obama is being held back less by his ideology than by Turkey. Turkey has muxed feelings, being Hanafi Muslims themselves, but certainly want nothing to do with this shit, and are facing a scenerio where the Kurds ironically may be their most stable and trustworthy neighbor.
Turkey will not tolerate Iran in Iraq, and will back the Sunni population, minus ISIS, if Iran gobbles up Iraq. Iraq knows this, Iran knows this. Neither want a permanent NATO army effectively annexing Northern IRAQ. Kurds are paranoid the most about this, as Turkey has been known to invade Kurdish Iraq.
The US will primarily view this from Turkeys perspective, as out military borders are NATO’s borders… in a sense the US borders Iraq via NATO in the same sense Turkey borders Mexico, or France Sweden via Norway.
The Turkish consulate in Mosul was taken hostage, as well as 50 turkish truckers, released when ransoms are paid, then recaptured by another ISIS faction.
This is extreme extortion, certain to piss the Turks off. The US has substantial personal, especially Airforce, in Turkey.
I think its a bad idea to build this much naval activity in the persian gulf. Too easy to sink it.
ISIS doesnt know how to spread its convous out, or move paralell via multiple roads. Their commanders are horrible. I doubt they thought ahead beyond the shock and awe.
The Nietzschean analysis here in this thread is worthless, has no place in reality. I suggest a rereading of Machiavelli’s works on their part, and less musings on empires and dollars.
Airstrikes could in a sense end this quick, but ISIS would still be in both countries… and the siege pf the cities would take much longer once the remnants hunker down. Iran needs to be overtly discouraged, ISIS factions have to think Iraq is doing it so they surrender faster. If its just US strikes, then they will hunker down and hold what they have knowing we wont land troops to hit them. However, a rout and mass demoralization, way too easy here.
Possibility of Turkey joining, at 25%, if they do, very rapid end to Syrian and Iraqi war, as well as Kurdistan and independent Iraqi government. Only in name for a few years will it continue. US will back Turkey before anyone else.
Congratulations to the Kurds for retaking Kirkuk. Wish they could just conquer Iraq, Syria, and Iran too.
It might be money that speaks in that area, still it takes certain political ways to convince people out there.
best example is the scenario happening right now.
America is interested in keeping both Arab dominant and Iran dominant together with in (under its) dominance.
So, that whole of middle east can be kept away from anti-American interest.
With huge space provided for arab like that, Iran is not ready to trust American offer.
At present scenario , Iranian religion sect side was part of recognized govt by america.
It is said that ,the move was made to convince Iranian.
But, Arab is surely not happy with this kind of recognition provided to Iranian side religious sect.
Will America go for air-strike, This might build tension among arabs and america.
Will air-strike build trust among Iranian side and america ???
It becomes huge responsibility for America , trying to convince both Iranian side and Arab side in this matter.
But again , It’s Arab not that much convinced by America later days wooing Iran to be on it’s side.
BY doing this, has america taken arab side for granted???
Don’t forget:
There are great power centers : American ,RUssian , UK , French(NATO).
It’s not just American and Russian .
tO SWITCH SIDE during before conflicts and after usually keeps happening.
Iran getting/Staying close to UK , as it was once might help it.
It might help it stop potray it self as Anti- american or pro russian.
This might help it to find development in certain areas , instead of being seen as suspecious by both america and russia !!
Begin with a few years of anti-government battles/protests in Syria/Turkey, potentially staged. I think the USA and/or Russia gave a shit ton of guns to Syria on potentially opposing sides. Qatari emirs probably paying off Iraqi forces in the north. Just people defending people of similar religion (sunni). Too bad Iraq is run by a shiite. Also, too bad Iran is shia - which side to we pick in this conflict? Well can’t pick sides in a sectarian conflict. Don’t we get more oil from the Sunnis (Saudis)? Can’t really support the shiite side here, even though US put it there… goes against US interests. Why? Because Iranians chant “death to Isreal”, and everyone knows US whores itself out to Isreal for domestic money
I think if the US gets involved, Syria will get rear ended from the desert… much easier than worrying about Russian boats in the mediterranean. I’m gonna call this one more posturing for a Syrian invasian by US. Not a direct conflict with Russia, but a big “fuck you” to Russia for messing with the US plans in Ukraine
There are lots of good ideas, here; I agree with some, disagree with some, and hold judgement on some. Unfortunately, it’s 3AM, here and I have to go to bed. Before I do, though, I’d like to let y’all know what I’m mulling over.
As jihadists, ISIS wants a Muslim world. It claims no country as its “own.”
It has a lot of money that comes from bank robbing, theft, kidnapping, extortion, and funding from Muslims all over the world. Some say even from our allies, although the Saudi’s deny it.
It has heavy armament that includes American made equipment. It’s thought that Syria has been a long-time arms funnel.
What are its plans for Iran, which is mostly Shia and Persian rather than Arab?
Given the ease of world-wide communication through social sites, will ISIS ever loose its communications with its friends?
Where is Israel in all this?
See you later on today.
We have George W Bush and his administration to thank for ISIS. “Mission Accomplished”!
Liz, what you’re telling me is what’s in the papers. I was just giving you my own impressions based on information I’ve gathered in the region on the ground and about intelligence services and the Brzezinski strategy, on which CN looks down but which is still the major guideline.
I definitely hope CN is right on this one. We’ll have to wait and see. I might take him up on reading some Machiavelli, if only to improve my italian.
Best of luck to all here in the coming times. Don’t trust your elders. Listen to the ground.
’
No, at least not only. It was a well calculated aggression, but a well calculated troop withdrawal as well; so we have to thank both George W. Bush and Barack Obama; and probably we will have to thank Obama’s followers as well.
To understand the present crisis of Iraq, we need to take history into account also.
Both of Iran and Iraq are Shia dominated muslim countries while it is just the opposite in the rest of the Arabic countries.
Even being doinated by Shia’s, Iraq was ruled quite long by Saddam, who was a Sunni muslim and faced troubles by Kurds and Shia’s thoughout his regime.
The invasion of US changed the rulers as Sunnis, being seen as the supporters of Saddam, were replaced by Shias. ISIS mainly consists of those Sunnis, who were supporters of Saddam and looted and accumulated the wealth of Iraq under Saddam. That is why they are not short of means.
The ISIS leadership is neither well-wisher about Islam not the Iraq itself. Its only aim to gain control the oil resources of the Iraq, which can be only fulfilled by taking control of the center.
If west do not interfere much in Iraq, eventually the Shia cummunity will take over, though in the meantime, we can witness a long period of choas.
Sunni Muslims are supposed to be more conservative and offencive than Shia’s in nature. At least, the histoy suggests so. Shia’s are known to be bit liberal and accommodative while dealing with others.
Having said that, Saddam was perhaps the most relogiously liberal leader that any Gulf country ever had. That is why, even being the Sunni, he was not liked by the rulers of other Arabic countries, especially Saudi Arabia. And, he did not like Saudi leaders either.
with love,
sanjay
ISIS is the result of the covert policy of the West to continue to keep the Middle East de-stabilised.
Were it not for the so-called democratisation of Iraq, Egypt, and Afghanistan, and the rebellion in ~Syria there would be no ISIS.
If we had left Saddam Hussein in power there would be no Isis.
interestingly standing against Isis makes us a natural ally of Iran.
Could US policy be more confused, or is all this confusion deliberate?
Both.
with love,
sanjay
You say history, but offer none.
It is probably more instructive to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire 1918, and the way the French and the British carved up the map.
Rather than being sensitive to tribal and religious division; Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Jew…
The secret Sykes-Pichot agreement and he Balfour Declaration were the models upon which the old empire was divided into British and French mandates.
Lines on the map were drawn and countries were invented; Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Israel, over the next few decades as the mandates expired.
Where is Kurdistan? Why was Kuwait created and where was Iraq in history before this time?
If a scheme to keep the region was designed to keep the people there is a constant state of war, they could not have chosen differently.
The foundation of Israel was always going to be a problem, and it was the British who, having encouraged mass immigration to Palestine, quitted without an agreement, leaving Jewish Terrorists to seize control - yes, Israel is a rogue state, massively supplied by the US to put down the local Arabs, and thrown many into detention, whilst taking their land rights.
Next. Let’s talk about Iran, which in the 1950s was about to nationalise it’s oil industries by buying out the Western powers.
So the British/ AMerican Oil interests with the help of the CIA and British intelligence, deposed the elected leader of Iran and imposed the dictator the self styled “Shah” Resa Palhavi, who ruthlessly put down the Iranian people with his terror police and kept the West happy whilst enriching himself with the Oil money.
ANyone want to know about Saudi Arabia; Egypt; Syria ad nauseum, and the Western interference; supporting and funding dictators?
There is a lot to cover here.
What aggression was well calculated? ISIS’s moves in Iraq were. By contrast, the Bush administration’s were not. And seriously, who’s distracted by this? It makes the President look bad, and he looked bad to most people anyway, so that’s no different than it was. If it was calculated, it was poorly calculated.
The point is, as Lev says, if we had left Saddam Hussein in place there would be no ISIS takeover of Iraq. Given that the Bush administration engineered the overthrow of Saddam, creating a (fully predictable) chaotic power vacuum, they are quite literally responsible for enabling the takeover of Iraq by well-armed radical religious drones, something which the Middle East seems to be drowning in, and which again, the strategists behind the Iraq invasion could have easily forseen rising to power.
As for Obama (a vocal opponent of the Iraq misadventure from the very beginning), you might blame him for exacerbating anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, but unless you believe the conspiracy theories posed here whereby ISIS is an American invention (and i think such scenarios vastly overestimate US’s control over what happens in the region), it’s kind of difficult to see how he can be blamed for ISIS.