Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 590

Thread: Islamist Militants Take Mosul

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Apparently the government in Baghdad has appealed to the Kurds to intervene. Can't imagine they will. Prefer to play defence.
    Kurdish peshmerga took control of Kirkuk from the Iraqi government this morning.

  2. #32
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    leaders behave very differently when their own powerbase becomes threatened
    this time i dont think so...

    this time me thinks that theres a scenario which aims to create a Kurdish state taken from Iraq maybe Turkey and a big part from Syria.

    i think ISID is just a puppet...
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  3. #33
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,927
    Kurdish peshmerga took control of Kirkuk from the Iraqi government this morning.
    shouldn't be the last of it, either...enormous temptation to snaffle off more now that everything's going to hell in a handbasket. Kirkuk was one of the biggest prizes they wanted, but there's a few more areas they were looking at.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,523
    The Kurds will take over places they can defend, but I doubt they will push into areas to displace ISIL.

    The Iraqi military needs US backing and air power. Only the US has the ability to help them take on the ISIL and win back territory. Iran can "intervene" but what will that give them? The same sort of "security" being enjoyed by Syria?

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,992
    I tend to agree with Big K - there will be no Turkish move, though I not an Erdogan fan.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,134
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    The Kurds will take over places they can defend, but I doubt they will push into areas to displace ISIL.
    Unless those areas are heavily Kurdish & ISIL begins to stretch itself too thin, but yes.

    The Iraqi military needs US backing and air power. Only the US has the ability to help them take on the ISIL and win back territory. Iran can "intervene" but what will that give them? The same sort of "security" being enjoyed by Syria?
    Iran is already on the shit list of Sunni groups like this for merely existing. Having a group like this take over an oil rich neighbor is something close to Tehran's worst nightmare. Fighting them in Iraq means keeping them away from your border. Backing up a friendly government with direct support not only ensures that there will be somebody else to do a fair bit of the fighting & dying for you, it also helps you look like the big regional player you want people to think you are.

    Doesn't mean they will go in, but there are plenty of compelling reasons to do so.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  7. #37
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,927
    well if Iran ever goes in, there goes plausible deniability...plus Maliki would look like a puppet.

    the homegrown Shia groups would probably be not so happy about Iranian intervention as well. what a cluster. at least South Vietnam died in the face of a massive conventional offensive, complete with armored columns. Iraq is getting savaged by a ragtag group of jihadis with IEDS, RPGs, and technicals.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Iran is already on the shit list of Sunni groups like this for merely existing. Having a group like this take over an oil rich neighbor is something close to Tehran's worst nightmare. Fighting them in Iraq means keeping them away from your border. Backing up a friendly government with direct support not only ensures that there will be somebody else to do a fair bit of the fighting & dying for you, it also helps you look like the big regional player you want people to think you are.

    Doesn't mean they will go in, but there are plenty of compelling reasons to do so.
    I'm not sure that they have the capacity with Syria going on or the ability to retake large areas from ISIL. If they did they would have demonstrated it in Syria.

    The Iranians might make a play if they can gain much greater influence in Iraq. This is exactly what the Iraqis don't want (even Maliki) and why they will not ask Iran to interfere.

    There's zero benefit that Iran can really bring.

    A: Maliki has what he needs in terms of equipment. His problem is with morale and competency of the army.
    B: ISIL is not going to hold territory in the Shia parts of Iraq
    C: Even with Iranian help the Shias will not be able to pacify Sunni territory. In fact, Iranian involvement will make the situation even worse for them because it will incense the remaining Sunnis in the government camp.

    Right now clearly the Iraqis prefer a more effective and less costly (for the Iraqis) US intervention to an Iranian intervention.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,523
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    well if Iran ever goes in, there goes plausible deniability...plus Maliki would look like a puppet.

    the homegrown Shia groups would probably be not so happy about Iranian intervention as well. what a cluster. at least South Vietnam died in the face of a massive conventional offensive, complete with armored columns. Iraq is getting savaged by a ragtag group of jihadis with IEDS, RPGs, and technicals.
    It's hubris coming home to roost. If the US Army needed Sunni tribesmen to pacify those areas, then the Iraqi Army sure as hell needed them too. Maliki got overconfident while we were still around and thoroughly antagonized all the Sunnis we worked so hard to win over. Now those guys have no choice but to collaborate with ISIL.

    Even with our help the Shia will not be able to contain the situation. Air strikes will not hold ground. The Shia needs to create and new national political settlement with the Sunni and get the tribes back on the governments' side. Probably they need to give them a large degree of autonomy like what the Kurds have now. Then with US help and the backing of the tribes they can take back ground from ISIL.

    In fact, our help needs to be conditioned on political settlement. Otherwise it's going to be very difficult even with our help.

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    It's hubris coming home to roost. If the US Army needed Sunni tribesmen to pacify those areas, then the Iraqi Army sure as hell needed them too. Maliki got overconfident while we were still around and thoroughly antagonized all the Sunnis we worked so hard to win over. Now those guys have no choice but to collaborate with ISIL.

    Even with our help the Shia will not be able to contain the situation. Air strikes will not hold ground. The Shia needs to create and new national political settlement with the Sunni and get the tribes back on the governments' side. Probably they need to give them a large degree of autonomy like what the Kurds have now. Then with US help and the backing of the tribes they can take back ground from ISIL.

    In fact, our help needs to be conditioned on political settlement. Otherwise it's going to be very difficult even with our help.
    I agree entirely, U.S. support should be contingent on political reform. Maliki and the Shia need to share power in government with the Sunni. The question is if the Shia would rather fight a civil war than share power.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,057
    Gentlemen,may I ask you how do you envision any US help?And no,airpower isn't much help.ROE's were restrictive enough when the intel picture was much clearer.
    Ground troops are a big no.

    About Iran,it depends much on how the Shia will handle the situation.In the very-very unlikely case the government and the Shia militia groups(that already exist,pending activation) will lose ground and Irak is in danger as a whole,the Iranians will have no choice but to move in.They and their Shia allies can pacify the Sunnis,and it will be very fast and very ugly.

    However,I doubt they'll be interested in any endeavour that doesn't gives them something substantial in return.Them coming to rescue only to have Arbas,Turks and Americans at their throat afterwards doesn't sounds likely.

    Syria is different.First,the Assadists are at best half the population and they were even less at the start.Forces are somehow more balanced there.In Iraq,numbers and firepower is on gov's side by a wide margin.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    Duh, it takes two to tango.
    Apologies if I read you wrong, but it looked like you were blaming Assad for the ISIS militants being battle hardened. That is like blaming the ISAF for battle-hardened taliban fighters.

    Not that I care much about Assad, but when his army (and benefactor Iran) were fighting these nutcases, the US and others were contemplating action against Assad, not the Islamist loonies, while US allies like SA and other Arab nations actually funded them. They were merely rebels then. Now that they've crossed over into Iraq, they have suddenly become terrorists.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 12 Jun 14, at 17:56.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    Now that they've crossed over into Iraq, they have suddenly become terrorists.
    Duh!
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,523
    Obama warns of U.S. action as jihadists push on Baghdad | Reuters

    First, he warned Iran!
    Then, he warned Assad!
    Now, the militants have been given notice!

    All options are on the table! - B. Obama

    I wonder where is the table that he uses to keep all these options. Is that the same one holding the "pie in the sky"? Or maybe there's been some grammatical confusion, in that being "on the table" really means "being tabled". What ever it is, I'm sure the President was unaware of it. It is not his fault!
    Last edited by citanon; 12 Jun 14, at 21:55.

  15. #45
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Obama warns of U.S. action as jihadists push on Baghdad | Reuters

    First, he warned Iran!
    Then, he warned Assad!
    Now, the militants have been given notice!

    All options are on the table! - B. Obama

    I wonder where is the table that he uses to keep all these options. Is that the same one holding the "pie in the sky"? Or maybe there's been some grammatical confusion, in that being "on the table" really means "being tabled". What ever it is, I'm sure the President was unaware of it. It's NOT his fault!
    It means he's keeping his options open but given the current state of flux in Iraq, the nature of US action has yet to be determined. It's signaling ambiguity to opposing forces and and exhibiting flexibility to friendlies. If ISIS is halted by ISF somehow before the gates of Baghdad, then US action isn't need, at least in the near term. However, if ISF just crumbles and Baghdad is on the brink of falling, US intervention of some form may materialize. What would you honestly expect from any rationale actor? To lock yourself unnecessarily into a situation/find yourself having to backtrack?

    The Syrian "red line" exhibited that even if you paint the most hazy line known to man, you are still setting a mandate that might screw you. The determination of a Syrian intervention policy was formulated over months in an environment that US decision-makers had ample time to observe and acclimate. This offensive is a relatively new phenomenon and to start calling shots before you really have to would be foolhardy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mosul
    By S2 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12 Mar 08,, 15:07
  2. Red on Red in Ramadi and Mosul
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 Aug 05,, 14:32
  3. Zarqawi being 'betrayed' in Mosul?
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18 Jun 05,, 18:46
  4. The Battle for Mosul: Dispatch II
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21 May 05,, 15:28
  5. In Mosul, A Battle 'Beyond Ruthless'
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15 Apr 05,, 01:15

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •