It’s not really possible to distinguish between the Iraqi army, Shiite militias, and simple Iranian proxy fighters, but they’re pathetic however you choose to describe them. And what’s irritating is that our government isn’t really sure whether or not them being pathetic is a good or a bad thing. Most of the political right in this country has no understanding of who these folks are, who they’re fighting, which of our allies are rooting for which sides, or why we might or might not want to lend our direct assistance to their battle for Tikrit or any future fight for Mosul.
I tend to know who they are, who they’re fighting, and who is rooting for whom, but that doesn’t mean I have any answers about the larger questions. I can’t say that the Obama administration does, either. It’s not their fault, or mine. There are no moderates in this fight. It’s sectarian and it’s among radicals. And if you think the Saudi(ish) version of Islam isn’t radical, it’s probably because you can’t find any Sunni alternatives on the battlefield. Maybe the junta in Cairo could conquer the whole peninsula? Would that be Sunni moderation?
Anyone who had any even a partially direct role in facilitating this mess really ought to shut up and stop acting like they still have the right to have an opinion.
IMO its great if Iran’s militia proxies take huge losses. They’re eager? Let rm go into the meat grinder.
So, you’re rooting for the KSA “military proxies” to inflict significant injuries and deaths on what you call the “Iran military proxies?” Still have troubling sorting out Shias from Sunnis, huh?
Actually I’m hoping they tear each other to pieces.
And no, I have never ever had trouble sorting shi’ites from Sunnis.
I’m not rooting for anybody to be killed. Also, the Badr brigade, which is the core of the Shiite militias now fighting in the Tikrit area, aren’t exactly Iranian proxies. They were originally the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which did have Iranian support but was an indigenous Iraqi movement. The Iraqi and Iranian regimes have been allied ever since the Shiites took power in Baghdad. That’s nothing new. But while they are close, Iraq is still independent and will remain so.
What’s disturbing is not the national loyalty of the Badr brigade, but the continuing failure of the Iraqi state to create a professional, non-sectarian military. Iran is not the issue, really.
Theyre both destabilizing paramilitary groups. Better they reduce each others numbers than go on to destabilize existing authorities in the future. Besides how many Iranian ‘advisers’ are there now?
As to the las, what state in the region actually has a professional non sectarian military that isn’t ethnic? Egypt maybe but that’s military rule. Does Turkey let Kurds into its military? I mean it is disturbing but I’m not sure it should be surprising.
Well, the Kurds are actually moderate sunnis, and their army, the Peshmerga, is disciplined, professional and effective. The problem is a) they aren’t Arabs, so they can’t really be responsible for what happens in Mosul or Tikrit and b) the Turks are leery of any serious attempts to build up their military forces because they have an indigenous Kurdish irrendentist movement. The Turks and the Kurds have been trying to work it out of late, which helps. All they’re likely to contribute, however, is securing their own territory and perhaps consolidating Iraqi Kurdistan with territory in what is now Syria. (The Turks are also nervous about that prospect but may have to accept a wider Kurdistan as a bugger against bigger problems. They did cooperate with the Kurds in Kobani.)
That should be “buffer,” not “bugger.” Oy.
Powell’s little rule was not only simplistic, but stupid and wrong. To be more correct, “If you break it, you’ll pay, pay, and pay and never own it.”
Where the Vietnam quagmire analogy was of limited applicability to Iraq before the invasion is that there was barely more than one side in Vietnam when we rushed troops into that country. It wasn’t bordered by rich and/or large powerful states with a major interest in whether N. Vietnam or the US prevailed. And once the US left, there was an existing government with adequate public support to pick up the pieces.
I believe the Obama administration does have a bit of a strategy for Syria-and-Iraq, encouraging forces that would be able to participate in a political solution, starting with the (Sunni) Kurds, who have proven a willingness to look out for members of other threatened groups (Christian and Yazidi). The Assad regime, for all its incredible crimes and corruption, also has a role because it’s seen as a protector by urban Syrian minorities, which is a big reason why the coalition doesn’t directly attack it. The Syrian “moderate Sunnis” beloved by Senator McCain are really moderate Jihadists, of course, and not yet to be trusted, nor is the Shi’ite Baghdad government.
A really good development which I just learned about comes from the increasingly relevant Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militias. You’ll remember them during the Bush war collaborating with Sunni Baathist fighters against the US, while he himself was off studying theology in Iran. Now they’re collaborating with the Anbar Sunnis of the old Awakening in the fight against Da’esh; this is possible because the US is now far enough off the ground that they’re not worried about being seen as pro-American.
So last month, two of his militia units were involved in the murders of some Sunnis in Baghdad, and he suspended the two militias, just like that, pulled them out and cut off their pay, because he won’t permit sectarian violence–he’s an actual Iraqi patriot. And he’s not alone: lots more on such developments in Iraq at least at Juan Cole‘s place.
In connection with my comment below, I agree that Muqtada al-Sadr is playing a positive role with traditional (non-radical) Sunnis.
The very important thing about Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya is to keep the US military or foreign policy gurus from a bigfooting presence in the region again.
There has to be time and inclination for local politics to take hold again and work things out before normal life can resume in the region.
Destroying the heavy weapons we left behind makes sense. Sending them new heavy weapons does not. And putting US troops on the ground anywhere in the region is now utter lunacy.
Most of the tribal Sunnis in Iraq are not radical, but they are genuinely worried about their survival, and they have reason to be.
I think it’s fair to say ISIS isn’t the only “bad guy” faction, but it is far worse than all the others that have appeared on the scene so far. Therefore, I think the United States has to make a concerted effort to stop them. Along the way there are bound to be setbacks and screw-ups. That’s the nature of things. I hope the Administration and the factions on the ground have what it takes to beat them back.
Should have left Saddam and the Taliban in place. Should have helped the Shah, at least a little.
Should have helped Mosaddegh but that would have required the Anglosphete letting a country go it’s own way and when could we ever manage that?
We have no obligation to these fanatics or the people that live there. I don’t see the point of involving ourselves there anymore.
Others disagree and so we bomb and assassinate and lord only knows what else. It may be true that some day one or more of these fanatics will kill someone here in america. People are murdered in America every day for less. There is no end game and no victory. There is only exhaustion. Our involvement only serves to delay that eventuality.
The Knights Templar Maps a Plan to Fight ISIS and Win
And no, I don’t want the Knights Templar back, but I think he is onto something that it will take equivalent non-state organizations to deal with ISIS. PBS Newshour Weekend had a piece about Christian US military vets going to Assyria to defend Christian civilians there.
Former U.S. soldier joins militia to defend Christian faith in Iraq