I think we're going to keep hearing bad news out of Iraq. Consider this: the market was looking to Iraq for 60% of OPEC oil growth the next 5 years. Tough to do in a civil war. That's why we can't take our eye off the ball. Instead of staggering from crisis to uncontrollable crisis, let's get to work strengthening our economy here at home -- something we can and should control.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/arti ... ting-worse
New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Of course we are going to keep hearing more bad news from Iraq. This situation was a given the day the first US soldier's boot touched Iraqi soil.
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
yes and unfortunately the usa is probably done now for sending soldiers in anywhere right when things look to be taking really bad turns all over, but as long as it goes in on tip toes; the results will always be like iraq and vietnam and you shouldn't have gone anyways. you just gotta wipeout everything in your way and leave nothing but dust left; cosequences be damned. sounds mean, but countries that basically kill, torture and starve its own got to be wiped out regardless it if hurts their own people more. the west has enabled north korea for decades and it has benefitted its people not at all while its just become more of a threat to everyone around.Chad wrote:Of course we are going to keep hearing more bad news from Iraq. This situation was a given the day the first US soldier's boot touched Iraqi soil.
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
I'm not an expert and this is extremely complicated, but here are my observations:
The entire war on terror in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and across the world is between secular governments and fundamentalist Islamic rebels.
The conflict in Iraq is currently sectarian violence between Sunni religious rebels, represented by ISIL, and the Iraqi government lead by secular Shia parties
In Islam there are 2 major factions: Sunni and Shia. Most Muslims are Sunni [~85%], and Shia are [~15%]. Shia Muslims, while a global minority, are the majority in Iraq [~65% of Iraqi population] and Iran [90% of Iranian population]. Most other Muslim nations have a Sunni majority: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, ect.
During the Cold War Saddam Hussain and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party lead Iraq. Sunni Muslims, who were a minority in Iraq, enjoyed increased political power as most politicians were Sunni. During the Cold War Iraq began to increasing align itself with the USSR and espouse the philosophy of uniting all the Arab world under socialism. However the dream of Arab unity was shattered during the Iraq-Iran War. In Iraq 400,000 soldiers died, 400,000 were wounded, and 100,000 civilians died. A few years after the war, the USSR collapsed, and Iraq lost its biggest supporter, and dream of socialism began to fade in the population’s eye. Right after the collapse, Iraqi invaded Kuwait, triggering the Gulf War. Iraq was defeated by the USA. Sensing weakness in the Iraqi government, full scale rebellion broke out in Northern Iraq. Saddam accused the CIA of backing the rebels and used chemical weapons to quell the rebellion. I personally think the CIA did back the Iraqi rebels because while the US did defeat Iraq and establish sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, the US did not overthrow Saddam. The US may have seen those rebels as a way to weaken or even overthrow Saddam without direct military action. The US miscalculated and the rebels were suppressed, and Iraq under Saddam continued to exist until the US invasion in 2003.
Iraq under Saddam was able to survive the Iran-Iraq war, the collapse of the USSR, the Gulf war defeat, and the subsequent rebellion, but at the cost of human rights violations, which the US used as a pretense to invade Iraq in 2003.
During the US invasion, the US relied on anti-Saddam sentiment from the Shia [who faced oppression under Saddam along with the Kurds]. Using Anti-Saddam rhetoric the US was able create a revolutionary attitude against Saddam right before the invasion. The US, England, and Poland were able to occupy all of Iraq within 2 months of the initial invasion in 2003 and Bush declared victory in 2003. In 2005 “free” elections were held. The reason why I don’t consider the 2005 elections free is because of low turnout from the Sunni groups. The main party National Iraqi Alliance had a political platform of promoting Shia Islam. The group however lacked a majority [~42%], because the Kurdistan Alliance, who simply promoted Kurdish nationalism and separatism controlled 22% of parliament, while the Iraqi Accord Front simply represented Sunni interested, but only controlled 13% of parliament. Sunni’s who once ran Iraq, now only had 13% representation in Iraq and began to fell disfranchised as they were generally loyal to Saddam and were the basis of resistance against the occupation of the US, England, and Poland. Under the new Shia government, many Sunni’s lost their jobs and property in an attempt to purge Iraqi politics of Saddam’s influence. The Shia’s and Kurds felt oppressed under Saddam and wanted revolutionary change in Iraq. However this revolutionary attitude lead to increased Sunni-Shia tensions which lead to full out civil war in Iraq from 2006-2007. During this civil war the established government that the US supported was largely ineffective at mediating peace between Sunni and Shia tribes, and regional militias began forming, which attacked US troops, Iraqi government troops and each other. The largest and most powerful groups were Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which found support from disenfranchised Sunnis, and the Mahdi Army which was formed by Shia tribesman who wanted to protect themselves against Sunni Al-Qaeda, which the US established government was infective at doing. During this destructive civil war the US faced its worst causalities as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Shia Mahdi Army, and the US government all fought each other. In the end, the US-Iraq government was able establish control in all of Iraq, except for western Iraq, where Al-Qaeda in Iraq maintained power and imposed Sharia law. Iraq, a secular, socialist nation for 40 years before the US invasion, was now home to the largest Al-Qaeda group in the world by 2007!
In 2010 Iraq had elections, and the dominate party, the Iraq National Movement was the largest party with 25% control of parliament. This party was secular, capitalist, and nationalistic. The US saw this party as Iraq’s best shot at a stable, modern, pro-US democracy. From 2010-2011 the main goal of the US was build a national Iraqi army that could combat Al-Qaeda in the west. As things became stable the US began to withdraw troops and by 2011 Obama declared that Iraq war was over for America!
The optimism for Iraq’s future immediately dissolved once the US withdrew in 2011. The Iraq National Movement dissolved shortly after the US left, and the Kurds became an autonomous region in northern Iraq and created their own army separate from Iraq. By 2011 Iraq was essentially 3 separate nations: Sunni fundamentalists in the west, Kurds in the north, and a US backed Shia government in the west.
During the Syrian Civil war Al-Qaeda in Iraq saw weakness an invaded Syria and imposed Sharia law in Eastern Syria. Then the Al-Qaeda group in Iraq declared themselves a independent nation in 2012, separate but similar to Al-Qaeda called the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
The ISIL group is the most militaristic Islamic group know to date and are religiously fanatical. ISIL is able to attract fundamentalist Sunni Muslims from across the Muslim world. ISIL desires to unite the Arab world under an Islamic caliphate and implement sharia law. This idea for this system was inspired by this 600 AD nation, the Umayyad Caliphate.
The interesting thing about Al-Qaeda is that they are not one group, they are simply a franchise that almost any group can claim to be a part of. Think about McDonalds as an example: all McDonalds have the same branding and foods, but each franchise is independently operated and managed. Al-Qaeda is like McDonalds, there are franchises all across the world, from Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Philippians, ect. Al-Qaeda is a truly an international movement. Here are names of the largest Al-Qaeda afflicted groups: Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, Taliban, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Al-Shabaab, Jundallah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Caucasus Emirate.
All of these groups operate in different nations, but they all share a very common ideology: The establishment of Sharia law [which is the legal code outlined in the Qur'an], the expulsion of non-Muslims, and the end of Western influence. Each group tends to share fighters depending on the group’s needs, meaning a man from Chechnya may travel to Syria to fight with another Al-Qaeda affiliated group, and vice versa.
Right now the largest and most powerful Al-Qaeda group is the ISIL, they currently control all of western Iraq and Eastern Syria, here is a map of their territory. About 1 week ago they seized several major Iraqi cities: Mosul and Tikrit, and have expressed a desire to attack the capital of Iraq: Bagdad.
If they are successful, this will be a massive US humiliation on the same level as the Fall of Saigon during the Vietnam war. If ISIL takes over Baghdad, it will signal that the government the US supported in Iraq was weak and ineffectual, thus undermining the USA’s ability to combat terrorist organization. It will bolster Al-Qaeda’s international prestige and undermine US homogony. Reflect on what the world thought when Sunni fundamentalist [Which became the Taliban] were able to repel the USSR from Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the effect that defeat had on the USSR.
If Sunni fundamentalists [embodied as ISIL] are able to repel USA from Iraq, the effects will be devastating. If Bagdad falls, USA’s entire 13 year War on Terror could be undermined, and I think we will see increased international prestige for the Islamic fundamentalist movement. We are truly living in historic time!
The entire war on terror in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and across the world is between secular governments and fundamentalist Islamic rebels.
The conflict in Iraq is currently sectarian violence between Sunni religious rebels, represented by ISIL, and the Iraqi government lead by secular Shia parties
In Islam there are 2 major factions: Sunni and Shia. Most Muslims are Sunni [~85%], and Shia are [~15%]. Shia Muslims, while a global minority, are the majority in Iraq [~65% of Iraqi population] and Iran [90% of Iranian population]. Most other Muslim nations have a Sunni majority: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, ect.
During the Cold War Saddam Hussain and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party lead Iraq. Sunni Muslims, who were a minority in Iraq, enjoyed increased political power as most politicians were Sunni. During the Cold War Iraq began to increasing align itself with the USSR and espouse the philosophy of uniting all the Arab world under socialism. However the dream of Arab unity was shattered during the Iraq-Iran War. In Iraq 400,000 soldiers died, 400,000 were wounded, and 100,000 civilians died. A few years after the war, the USSR collapsed, and Iraq lost its biggest supporter, and dream of socialism began to fade in the population’s eye. Right after the collapse, Iraqi invaded Kuwait, triggering the Gulf War. Iraq was defeated by the USA. Sensing weakness in the Iraqi government, full scale rebellion broke out in Northern Iraq. Saddam accused the CIA of backing the rebels and used chemical weapons to quell the rebellion. I personally think the CIA did back the Iraqi rebels because while the US did defeat Iraq and establish sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, the US did not overthrow Saddam. The US may have seen those rebels as a way to weaken or even overthrow Saddam without direct military action. The US miscalculated and the rebels were suppressed, and Iraq under Saddam continued to exist until the US invasion in 2003.
Iraq under Saddam was able to survive the Iran-Iraq war, the collapse of the USSR, the Gulf war defeat, and the subsequent rebellion, but at the cost of human rights violations, which the US used as a pretense to invade Iraq in 2003.
During the US invasion, the US relied on anti-Saddam sentiment from the Shia [who faced oppression under Saddam along with the Kurds]. Using Anti-Saddam rhetoric the US was able create a revolutionary attitude against Saddam right before the invasion. The US, England, and Poland were able to occupy all of Iraq within 2 months of the initial invasion in 2003 and Bush declared victory in 2003. In 2005 “free” elections were held. The reason why I don’t consider the 2005 elections free is because of low turnout from the Sunni groups. The main party National Iraqi Alliance had a political platform of promoting Shia Islam. The group however lacked a majority [~42%], because the Kurdistan Alliance, who simply promoted Kurdish nationalism and separatism controlled 22% of parliament, while the Iraqi Accord Front simply represented Sunni interested, but only controlled 13% of parliament. Sunni’s who once ran Iraq, now only had 13% representation in Iraq and began to fell disfranchised as they were generally loyal to Saddam and were the basis of resistance against the occupation of the US, England, and Poland. Under the new Shia government, many Sunni’s lost their jobs and property in an attempt to purge Iraqi politics of Saddam’s influence. The Shia’s and Kurds felt oppressed under Saddam and wanted revolutionary change in Iraq. However this revolutionary attitude lead to increased Sunni-Shia tensions which lead to full out civil war in Iraq from 2006-2007. During this civil war the established government that the US supported was largely ineffective at mediating peace between Sunni and Shia tribes, and regional militias began forming, which attacked US troops, Iraqi government troops and each other. The largest and most powerful groups were Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which found support from disenfranchised Sunnis, and the Mahdi Army which was formed by Shia tribesman who wanted to protect themselves against Sunni Al-Qaeda, which the US established government was infective at doing. During this destructive civil war the US faced its worst causalities as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Shia Mahdi Army, and the US government all fought each other. In the end, the US-Iraq government was able establish control in all of Iraq, except for western Iraq, where Al-Qaeda in Iraq maintained power and imposed Sharia law. Iraq, a secular, socialist nation for 40 years before the US invasion, was now home to the largest Al-Qaeda group in the world by 2007!
In 2010 Iraq had elections, and the dominate party, the Iraq National Movement was the largest party with 25% control of parliament. This party was secular, capitalist, and nationalistic. The US saw this party as Iraq’s best shot at a stable, modern, pro-US democracy. From 2010-2011 the main goal of the US was build a national Iraqi army that could combat Al-Qaeda in the west. As things became stable the US began to withdraw troops and by 2011 Obama declared that Iraq war was over for America!
The optimism for Iraq’s future immediately dissolved once the US withdrew in 2011. The Iraq National Movement dissolved shortly after the US left, and the Kurds became an autonomous region in northern Iraq and created their own army separate from Iraq. By 2011 Iraq was essentially 3 separate nations: Sunni fundamentalists in the west, Kurds in the north, and a US backed Shia government in the west.
During the Syrian Civil war Al-Qaeda in Iraq saw weakness an invaded Syria and imposed Sharia law in Eastern Syria. Then the Al-Qaeda group in Iraq declared themselves a independent nation in 2012, separate but similar to Al-Qaeda called the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
The ISIL group is the most militaristic Islamic group know to date and are religiously fanatical. ISIL is able to attract fundamentalist Sunni Muslims from across the Muslim world. ISIL desires to unite the Arab world under an Islamic caliphate and implement sharia law. This idea for this system was inspired by this 600 AD nation, the Umayyad Caliphate.
The interesting thing about Al-Qaeda is that they are not one group, they are simply a franchise that almost any group can claim to be a part of. Think about McDonalds as an example: all McDonalds have the same branding and foods, but each franchise is independently operated and managed. Al-Qaeda is like McDonalds, there are franchises all across the world, from Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Philippians, ect. Al-Qaeda is a truly an international movement. Here are names of the largest Al-Qaeda afflicted groups: Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, Taliban, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Al-Shabaab, Jundallah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Caucasus Emirate.
All of these groups operate in different nations, but they all share a very common ideology: The establishment of Sharia law [which is the legal code outlined in the Qur'an], the expulsion of non-Muslims, and the end of Western influence. Each group tends to share fighters depending on the group’s needs, meaning a man from Chechnya may travel to Syria to fight with another Al-Qaeda affiliated group, and vice versa.
Right now the largest and most powerful Al-Qaeda group is the ISIL, they currently control all of western Iraq and Eastern Syria, here is a map of their territory. About 1 week ago they seized several major Iraqi cities: Mosul and Tikrit, and have expressed a desire to attack the capital of Iraq: Bagdad.
If they are successful, this will be a massive US humiliation on the same level as the Fall of Saigon during the Vietnam war. If ISIL takes over Baghdad, it will signal that the government the US supported in Iraq was weak and ineffectual, thus undermining the USA’s ability to combat terrorist organization. It will bolster Al-Qaeda’s international prestige and undermine US homogony. Reflect on what the world thought when Sunni fundamentalist [Which became the Taliban] were able to repel the USSR from Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the effect that defeat had on the USSR.
If Sunni fundamentalists [embodied as ISIL] are able to repel USA from Iraq, the effects will be devastating. If Bagdad falls, USA’s entire 13 year War on Terror could be undermined, and I think we will see increased international prestige for the Islamic fundamentalist movement. We are truly living in historic time!
-
workathome
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Sorry, I just copied the headline from the article. I was actually mostly just interested in the possibility of a big jump in the price of oil.
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Oil will go up, but this will only be part of the price increase. Might not even be a significant part of it, as 60% of an increase probably isn't a huge impact, but an annoyance on price.
It will be interesting to see how this all turns out, as the majority of players in the area do not want Iraq to fall. Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordon, Israel, US, etc. would all lose if Iraq falls.
They wouldn't be repelling the US from Iraq. There are not a significant number of US personnel on the ground in Iraq to suggest the US is fighting at all. They would be defeating a US backed government, not the US. This happened numerous times during the Cold War. This doesn't mean it won't be considered a positive by a lot of groups, but it's not the equivalent of the USSR in Afghanistan.ether wrote: If Sunni fundamentalists [embodied as ISIL] are able to repel USA from Iraq, the effects will be devastating. If Bagdad falls, USA’s entire 13 year War on Terror could be undermined, and I think we will see increased international prestige for the Islamic fundamentalist movement. We are truly living in historic time!
It will be interesting to see how this all turns out, as the majority of players in the area do not want Iraq to fall. Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordon, Israel, US, etc. would all lose if Iraq falls.
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
One thing to recall is that the nation-state divisions in the Middle East are mostly 20th century inventions. In the sport of war, you have to choose a shirt color. Religious differences are often just a way to call shirt color. If you choose to follow the family line back to Abraham (Ibrahim) (rather than Ishmael or Jesus or Ali) everybody in the Middle East is on the same team. Follow the money, oil, heroin, access to lucrative temple sites, access to females...etc.etc. ...as always.
Also:
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/06/the-lon ... -a-neocon/
Also:
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/06/the-lon ... -a-neocon/
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Imagine 5000 assholes in Toyota pickup trucks invading Texas!
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
we already have that, but theyre generally in ford f150s. in houston,i call it the livestock show and rodeo.Alcibar wrote:Imagine 5000 assholes in Toyota pickup trucks invading Texas!
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Integrations seems to be the all-consuming goal. Maybe that's the problem.
Physics and Society from Cornell via Taleb
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
Physics and Society from Cornell via Taleb
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
Nice summary of different variables within Iraq.
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/13/5803712/11 ... risis-isis
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/13/5803712/11 ... risis-isis
That's interesting and definitely a factor, but I'm doubtful that's the whole story on why Switzerland is historically peaceful.Ego wrote:Integrations seems to be the all-consuming goal. Maybe that's the problem.
Physics and Society from Cornell via Taleb
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
From an Israeli perspective Iraq is just one of many Arab enemy states. The state of affairs in Iraq is not seen as an immediate threat given the fact that there is no shared border.It will be interesting to see how this all turns out, as the majority of players in the area do not want Iraq to fall. Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordon, Israel, US, etc. would all lose if Iraq falls.
In fact Israel benefits to a certain extent from the civil turmoil in the Arab world, Iraq included. It is a good thing when your enemies are preoccupied with internal problems. See the Syrian case for example. It keeps both the Syrian Armed Forces and Hizbollah busy to the point that they cannot effectively cope with an additional front.
WRT Iraq I would say Israel's greatest worry is that ISIS will reachs the Kingdom of Jordan and wreak havoc there. THAT would be a very big problem since Jordan and Israel share a border, and if there's one thing radical Sunni muslims hate more than Shiia muslims is Israel.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: New From Iraq Is Getting Worse
This is what happens when academics spend too much time listening to The Offspring. You gotta keep 'em separated. Seriously? The theory is that flatlanders will have ethnic violence until ethnically pure? What a depressing thought.Physics and Society from Cornell via Taleb http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
On the other hand, it makes a weird kind of sense. Once you have no ethnic diversity, you have no ethnic violence. Of course, you still have violence, but hey, one goofy theory can't solve all the problems, right?
I think the borders issue has more to do with history. Swiss borders go back ages, and have legitimacy derived from that longevity. Iraq's borders are newer than the family homes. Newer than the traditional contentions, and therefore less accepted. When the central power was removed, the old feuds started up again, and the old borders make no sense.
There's no fixing this from the outside. The US should step back and allow the civil war resolve this. Standing in the middle means getting hit from all sides and getting blame from everyone.