Islamist Militants Take Mosul

[kato]

One can note, however, that now ISIL must be overextended after such dramatic and rapid territorial gains of the last weeks.

ISIL does not really have territorial gains. They don't occupy territory per se, the only territory they actually "hold" is the city of Ar-Raqqah in Syria.

What territory is usually attributed to ISIL when you find maps is actually their area of operations - and their manpower approach to this area of operations is extremely thin. The FSA and Al-Quaeda, once working together, easily routed ISIL from Deir-ez-Zor (which, in part, prompted ISIL to reinforce efforts in Iraq). What's problematic in Iraq is the Sunni tribes and even more so some former Baathist military from Saddam's times of Sunni Arab ethnicity in the rural countryside cooperating with ISIL.

As for Mosul, there's precedence for ISIL's success there. Stanleyville 1964. Except i doubt we'll see a Dragon Rouge II.

[Doktor]

As for Mosul, there's precedence for ISIL's success there. Stanleyville 1964. Except i doubt we'll see a Dragon Rouge II.

Who are the hostages?

[kato]

Turkish consulate staff, Indian contract workers, ...

[Deltacamelately]

Around 40 Indians are feared to be taken hostage. India is exploring every possible avenue to get back the hostages.

[Doktor]

Judge who sentenced Saddam Hussein to death 'is captured and executed by ISIS'

Raouf Abdul Rahman sentenced the dictator to death by hanging in 2006

He was reportedly captured and killed by militants last week

Iraqi government is yet to confirm his death, but have not denied his capture

Judge thought to have been killed in retaliation for death of Saddam Hussein

Judge who sentenced Saddam Hussein to death 'captured and executed by ISIS' | Mail Online

[Bigfella]

Further to the alliances between ISIS & other sunni groups, clearly these are alliances of convenience which could break down for any number of reasons. My bet is that Iraqi sunnis have little interest in becoming part of some fundamentalist controlled caliphate. ISIS has a history of getting into fights with erstwhile allies. This appears to be happening already. The Caliphate may be a while off yet.

As the Sunni militants in Iraq controlled new areas, they faced their own challenges. An Iraqi security official and witnesses said a battle near Kirkuk had broken out between two powerful Sunni rebel groups fighting the Shia-dominated government. The battle pitted the offensive's leader, ISIS, against its Baathist allies and left 17 dead, the official said.

The fighting could pose a challenge to the coalition, which advanced quickly because of the combined forces. The Sunnis battling ISIS were from Men of the Army of Naqshbandi, ex-Saddam Hussein loyalists, or Baathists.

The two groups are allies but with very different ideologies; the Baathists' nationalistic, Sufi philosophy is completely at odds with ISIS's extreme Islamist beliefs. The battles took place in Hawija, which was formed by former army officers from the ousted government of Saddam Hussein.

The fighting had broken out when ISIS tried to disarm the Naqshbandia, but a witness from Hawija said they were fighting over control of gasoline and oil tanker trucks captured from a refinery at Baiji. (A report in The Independent said when the Naqshabandi Army, of which Saddam Hussein's former deputy Izzat al-Douri is titular head, put up posters of Saddam in Mosul, ISIS gave them 24 hours to take them down or face the consequences. The Naqshabandi Army did not want a confrontation and complied.

The Naqshbandi Army denied any problems. "We are in battle only with Iraq's occupiers. Government is doing this to get our army in an internal battle and take us away from our main goal."

Tension brewing between ISIS and Saddam loyalists? - The Times of India

[S2]

I see no figure within Iraq's polity that possesses unifying qualities able to capture the trust of all. Three fractured states or perpetual civil war seems the future. I cannot imagine the Kurds seeing themselves as part to any greater Iraq and will do their best to secure themselves from all comers.

America should have partnered with the Kurds. The bargain? We'll secure Kurdistan's present in exchange for Kurds rejecting out-of-hand any pan-Kurdish ambition beyond the present borders. Probably still very possible and desirous. Key is Turkey.

[Doktor]

Who else divided people in different countries? Oh, right the Brits and French.

Worked nice, right?

[S2]

"Who else divided people in different countries? Oh, right the Brits and French.

Worked nice, right?"

Snide and ignores that it's not America dividing Iraq into ethnic enclaves. Self-determination is showing its myopic side. Narrow vision and narrow interests is a decidedly mid-eastern talent.

[citanon]

I see no figure within Iraq's polity that possesses unifying qualities able to capture the trust of all. Three fractured states or perpetual civil war seems the future. I cannot imagine the Kurds seeing themselves as part to any greater Iraq and will do their best to secure themselves from all comers.

America should have partnered with the Kurds. The bargain? We'll secure Kurdistan's present in exchange for Kurds rejecting out-of-hand any pan-Kurdish ambition beyond the present borders. Probably still very possible and desirous. Key is Turkey.

There's no central figure holding them together but no intrinsic reason for them to fight either.

The problem is the current government structure gives too much central control. Make the system a looser federation of three autonomous regions and you take away the reasons for the conflict.

Instead, the Sunnis might remember that they need a share of the oil revenue from the Kurds and the Shi'ites, the Shiites need peace with the Sunnis in Baghdad and access to northern trade routes, the Kurds need the Americans and can be enticed by legitimate claims to Kirkuk, and nobody would need ISIL.

The central government would control certain things of common interest but each would have its own security force (have to at this point).

[astralis]

citanon,

Make the system a looser federation of three autonomous regions and you take away the reasons for the conflict.

not wholly. the sunni extremists talk openly about going to shi'a holy sites and blowing 'em up. in the ME, considerations of realpolitik are always influenced heavily by religion. the gravitation of nationalists towards over-centralization is precisely because a looser federation means endless political infighting, paralysis, and worst of all...compromise!

[kato]

Who else divided people in different countries? Oh, right the Brits and French.

It wasn't Britain or France that killed off the (Syrian-Egyptian) United Arab Republic or the (Iraqi-Jordanian) Arab Federation.

For that you can blame Saudi Arabia paying for small-scale insurrections, the neo-Ba'athist anti-pan-Arabs in Iraq and Syria pushing regional nationalism, and of course Nasser's politics themselves in particular in Syria.

in the ME, considerations of realpolitik are always influenced heavily by religion.

Not always. That's a modern thing. Mostly pushed by Saddam's policies of disenfranchising anyone "connected with Iran". Which meant pretty much everyone Shia too of course.

[citanon]

citanon,



not wholly. the sunni extremists talk openly about going to shi'a holy sites and blowing 'em up. in the ME, considerations of realpolitik are always influenced heavily by religion. the gravitation of nationalists towards over-centralization is precisely because a looser federation means endless political infighting, paralysis, and worst of all...compromise!

Asty, what I'm talking about doesn't apply to the extremists.

In my view, all sides except the extremists have now exhausted themselves, and all feel under threat by such. This means:

1. a perfect opportunity for compromise
2. an equally great opportunity to isolate and kill the extremists

[citanon]

ISIL does not really have territorial gains. They don't occupy territory per se, the only territory they actually "hold" is the city of Ar-Raqqah in Syria.

What territory is usually attributed to ISIL when you find maps is actually their area of operations - and their manpower approach to this area of operations is extremely thin. The FSA and Al-Quaeda, once working together, easily routed ISIL from Deir-ez-Zor (which, in part, prompted ISIL to reinforce efforts in Iraq). What's problematic in Iraq is the Sunni tribes and even more so some former Baathist military from Saddam's times of Sunni Arab ethnicity in the rural countryside cooperating with ISIL.

As for Mosul, there's precedence for ISIL's success there. Stanleyville 1964. Except i doubt we'll see a Dragon Rouge II.

Kato,

That's exactly the point. ISIL has set themselves up for a fall. Meanwhile the Baathists are now too few in number to pose a serious threat, and the tribes have very fluid loyalties. These guys will turn right back on ISIL and the Baathists once they see a palatable political settlement, especially if it means greater Sunni autonomy. Once that happens, ISIL is toast. Those guys imposing Sharia on the streets of Mosul will either be back to hiding in their parents' basements, or dead on the streets.

This is also exactly why ISIL needs to start a bloodbath in Baghdad. Because that's the surest way of stopping the settlement.

[astralis]

citanon,

Asty, what I'm talking about doesn't apply to the extremists.

In my view, all sides except the extremists have now exhausted themselves, and all feel under threat by such. This means:

1. a perfect opportunity for compromise
2. an equally great opportunity to isolate and kill the extremists

this still requires leadership, both in terms of managing the immediate crisis and then for actually getting each group to accept the inherent limitations on power that a loose federation would mean.

leadership that's been sorely lacking. and the more the extremists kill, then the harder it is to stuff the sectarian genie back in the bottle.