West Asia News and Discussions

[ramana]

A_Gupta, Perfect time to model West Asia using Chaos theory.

Systems Dynamics provides a way to model this.

[Singha]

^ at the end of it, every party there hates unkil overtly or covertly and this will remain so.

known bio of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ed_strip_1

he launched his stealth mode startup and rapidly gained the best engg and mkting talent from the old incumbent Al Qaeda zawahari faction.

[Singha]

usa today:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf as the U.S. weighs options for responding to the situation.

The aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush will move into the Persian Gulf by Saturday evening, where it will be accompanied by a guided-missile cruiser and destroyer, according to statement by Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.

"The order will provide the Commander-in-Chief additional flexibility should military options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests in Iraq," the statement said.

Meanwhile, Iraqi officials pledged severe punishment for deserting soldiers, whom they blame for the fall of two key provincial capitals earlier this week.

"If soldiers who have left their bases don't rejoin the nearest unit, this will be considered a crime that could merit the death penalty," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

On Saturday, insurgents seized the small town of Adeim in Diyala province 60 miles north of Baghdad after Iraqi security forces withdrew. That followed the fall of Mosul and Tikrit this week into the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

[Muppalla]

I am too late into this and still reading to catchup. What difference is there between this ISIS and Osama led Mujahids/Talibs. Initially used to fight Soviets and later fought against US interests culminating into 911. Now ISIS is created to overthrow Syrian government has become a Sunni mercenary army.

Same old redux. From US political perspective, anti-war Dems create the unflushed lavatory and then Bush style cowboy comes to flush it. But in the end all these warring factions keep ensuring oil flows on dollar denomination giving value to trillions of pure printed noted without any backing.

[Kakkaji]

^ at the end of it, every party there hates unkil overtly or covertly and this will remain so.

No.

The Iraqi Kurds are quite US-friendly, and have been so for a long time. As you mentioned earlier, they are well-armed and motivated to defend the Kurdish areas from falling in the hands of ISIS.

The Kurds will need US political support to be able to survive as an independent political entity. The US will have to assuage the fears of Turkey about Iraqi Kurds supporting rebellion by Turkish Kurds, in order for Turkey to allow Iraqi Kurds to sell their oil and obtain their supplies across the Turkish border.

US diplomatic guarantees to Turkey, plus the presence of a token US force + military advisors in Iraqi Kurdistan, will keep Turkey pacified, and allow Iraqi Kurds to stand their ground long-term.

As for the Shia south, I don't think it will be saved from the ISIS by airpower or tanks. When the ISIS forces reach Baghdad, the city can only be saved by a force of foot soldiers that is ready to engage the ISIS in a brutal fight street by street, building by building. There will be atrocities on both sides, against the combatants and civilians. This force cannot be American. The only force available that can do the job is the Iranian Revolutionary Guards alongside the Iraqi Shia militia forces and the remnants of the Iraqi army that are willing to fight. Baghdad should probably be divided between northern Sunni and southern Shia parts.

As for the Sunni middle, there is no point in engaging in any airstrikes or any other kind of fight to retake it. Let the ISIS have it. As vinaji mentioned in the Indo-US relations thread, the Sunni part of Iraq is piss poor, and has always survived by lording over and grabbing the wealth of its neighbours. Now, with the security of Kurdistan guaranteed by the US and Turkey, that of Kuwait by the US, and that of Shia southern Iraq by Iran, these guys will not have any easy pickings. They will have to survive on permanent dole from KSA and Qatar. In fact it will not be a bad outcome if the Saudis are saddled with supporting permanently a large and poor Sunni Arab population close to their borders. It will be a good use of their petrodollars.

In short, the humpty-dumpty of Iraq is permanently broken, and there is no point in putting it together again.

Now the supporters of 2003 invasion of Iraq should realize what a nasty can of worms Saddam Hussein was keeping a lid on.

[panduranghari]

Pak nukes in Saudi hands was revealed by James Rickards. He's got a lot of sources within the government.

You must read his new book. Its better than his last one.

[Philip]

Pak's Saudi nukes was revealed on BRF during the last century! When the Saudis bought Chinese Ding-Dongs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 36467.html
Robert Fisk: The old partition of the Middle East is dead. I dread to think what will follow

“Sykes-Picot is dead,” Walid Jumblatt roared at me last night – and he may well be right.

The Lebanese Druze leader – who fought in a 15-year civil war that redrew the map of Lebanon – believes that the new battles for Sunni Muslim jihadi control of northern and eastern Syria and western Iraq have finally destroyed the post-World War Anglo-French conspiracy, hatched by Mark Sykes and François Picot, which divided up the old Ottoman Middle East into Arab statelets controlled by the West.

The Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria has been fought into existence – however temporarily – by al-Qa’ida-affiliated Sunni fighters who pay no attention to the artificial borders of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan, or even mandate Palestine, created by the British and French. Their capture of the city of Mosul only emphasises the collapse of the secret partition plan which the Allies drew up in the First World War – for Mosul was sought after for its oil wealth by both Britain and France.

The entire Middle East has been haunted by the Sykes-Picot agreement, which also allowed Britain to implement Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s 1917 promise to give British support to the creation of a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine. Perhaps only today’s Arabs (and Israelis) fully understand the profound historical changes – and deep political significance – that the extraordinary battles of this past week have wrought on the old colonial map of the Middle East.

The collapsing Ottoman Empire of 1918 was to be split into two on a north-east, south-west axis which would run roughly from near Kirkuk – today under Kurdish control – across from Mosul in northern Iraq and the Syrian desert and through what is now the West Bank to Gaza. Mosul was initially given to the French – its oil surrendered by the British in return for what would become a French buffer zone between Britain and the Russian Caucasus, Baghdad and Basra being safe in British hands below the French lines. But growing British commercial desires for oil took over from imperial agreements. Mosul was configured into the British zone inside the new state of Iraq (previously Mesopotamia), its oil supplies safely in the hands of London. Iraq, Trans- jordan and Palestine were under British mandatory control, Syria and Lebanon under the French mandate.

But the new geographical map created by al-Qa’ida and its Nusra and Isis allies runs not north-east to south-west but east to west, taking in the cities of Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul, and Raqqa and large areas of eastern Syria. Jihadi tactics strongly suggest that the line was intended to run from west of Baghdad right across the Iraqi and Syrian deserts to include Homs, Hama and Aleppo in Iraq. But the Syrian government army – successfully fighting a near-identical battle to that now involving a demoralised Iraqi army – has recaptured Homs, held on to Hama and relieved the siege of Aleppo.

By chance, economist Ian Rutledge has just published an account of the battle for Mosul and oil during and after the First World War, and of the betrayal of the Sunni Muslim Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who was promised an independent Arab land by the British in return for his help in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire. Rutledge has researched Britain’s concern about Shia power in southern Iraq – where Basra’s oil lies – material with acute relevance to the crisis now tearing Iraq to pieces.

Volunteers join the Iraqi army in Baghdad Volunteers join the Iraqi army in Baghdad (AP)

For the successor power to Sharif Hussein in Arabia is the Saudi royal family, which has been channelling billions of dollars to the very same jihadi groups that have taken over eastern Syria and western Iraq and now Mosul and Tikrit. The Saudis set themselves up as the foundational Sunni power in the region, controlling Arab Gulf oil wealth – until America’s overthrow of the Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein led inexorably to a majority Shia government in Baghdad allied to Shia Iran.

Thus the new Middle Eastern map substantially increases Saudi power over the region’s oil, lowering Iraq’s exports, raising the cost of oil (including, of course, Saudi oil) and at the expense of a frightened and still sanctioned Iran, which must defend its co-religionists in the collapsing Baghdad government. Mosul’s oil is now Sunni oil. And the vast and unexplored reserves believed to lie beneath the jihadi-held deserts west of Baghdad are now also firmly in Sunni rather than in national, Shia-controlled Baghdad government hands.

Rebels parade through Mosul Rebels parade through Mosul (Reuters)

This break-up may also, of course, engender a new version of the terrifying Iran-Iraq war – a conflict that killed 1.5 million Sunni and Shia Muslims, both sides armed by outside powers while the Arab Gulf states funded the Sunni leadership of Saddam. The West was happy to see these great Muslim powers fighting each other. Israel sent weapons to Iran and watched its principal Muslim enemies destroy each other. Which is why Walid Jumblatt now also believes that the current tragedy – while it has killed off Mr Sykes and Mr Picot – will have Arthur Balfour smiling in his grave.

As my Lebanese friend told me exactly a year ago,the US and West have been trying to see the Sunnis and Shiites destroy them selves to their benefit.The Saudi monarchy and the Bush family are the closest of business partners,which explains why Saddam was ousted in the first place then executed thanks to a kangaroo court. The failure of being able to control Iraq by US forces has led to plan "B",the use of ISIS to overthrow Syria and take control of the entire region from the Levant to Iran,marginalising it and making it fit for plunder as without N-weapons,it will far more vulnerable,why the pressure to defang Iran is apace. But will Iran now dump its N-weapons plans after the effective fall of the Iraqi state? If one looks at the map,there is an interesting divide being planned.Monarchies to the south of the Persian Gulf,Islamic autocracies to the north courtesy ISIS/ISIL! Is this the Saudi bargain with its "contractors"?

[vina]

Now, with the security of Kurdistan guaranteed by the US and Turkey, that of Kuwait by the US, and that of Shia southern Iraq by Iran, these guys will not have any easy pickings

Well, there is one. The ISIS have already threatened to attack Jordan and "Butcher" king Abdullah. But dont think that the Jordanians will be a bunch of spineless flunkeys who will fold like paper like the Iraqis did. In all the Isreali-Arab wars, it is the Jordanians despite the smallest resources put up the toughest fight.

But yeah, Jordan is a basket case anyways. No oil. But then the oil everywhere is in Shia areas (except Kirkuk and Kuwait) My guess would be for ISIS to strike Kuwait, directly, avoiding the messy fight with the Iraqi Shias. Kuwait has a very small pop, cannot defend itself, that is the weak spot, and gives a direct access to the sea.

So really, we are seeing a more vicious equivalent of the Afghan Taliban being established right in the heart of the Middle East, with oil and outlet to the sea.

What a brilliant strategic victory for the US , after spending close to $5 trillion in the past decade, losing some 15,000 of it's own , more maimed and incapacitated for life, some close to 300,000 Iraqis and Afghans killed. All for this ?

[Philip]

Spot on Vina.It beggars belief why the US after defanging Saddam after GW 1,had constrained him,corralled him,collared him so to speak,destroyed Iraq by illegally invading it-after its oil and executing him after a travesty of a show trial. Had they wanted his oil,they could've squeezed him for lucrative deals at discounted prices.After all,thanks to US/Western sanctions lakhs of Iraqi children died as a result.

All the bluff and bluster from Bush and BLiar stand exposed and the trillions wasted in the desert sands have resulted in the most spectacular of foreign policy own goals since WW1. "Orenz of Arabia" must be laughing in his grave at the demise of the infamous Pykes-Sicot carving up of the Ottoman Empire,but the inheritors of Saddam's ruins have ruinous plans for the region and beyond.Jordan certainly is a most vulnerable target.That little kingdom is already full of Palestinian and Syrian refugees,and if Jordan is attacked,where will they all flee to? Lebanon,Israel?!!

That the Iranians have offered to stem the rot must be taken up seriously.It is incredible how within a few days the "Great Satan" and the autocracy of the Ayatollahs,mortal enemies,are now considering working together to defeat the hordes of the jihadis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 37866.html
Iraq crisis: West must take up Tehran's offer to block an Isis victory
World View: Extremists have a grip on the country as Sunni Muslims decide that the jihadists are preferable to persecution by the official Iraqi army

Even the fanatics of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) are astonished at the extent of their own victory in taking control over Iraq's second city, Mosul, in the past week. "Enemies and supporters alike are flabbergasted," said Isis spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani. It is difficult to think of any examples in history when security forces almost a million strong, including 14 army divisions, have crumbled so immediately after attacks from an enemy force that has been estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 strong.

It is a rout without precedent. I have written frequently in the past in this newspaper that the Iraqi security forces were a corrupt patronage machine that exploited and persecuted the local population. It was significant that for the first six months of this year, Isis secured its grip on Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, without any sustained effort by the army to dislodge them other than indiscriminate bombing and shelling of the city.

In March Isis even held a parade in Abu Ghraib, where the infamous prison had to be hastily evacuated, and which is a dozen miles from the centre of the Iraqi capital. A friend in Baghdad was shocked and half-amused to learn of Isis's presence from a pro-government television news channel that announced "a great triumph by the Iraqi security forces in defeating the terrorists east and west of Abu Ghraib".

Corruption in the army took place at every level. A general could become a divisional commander at a cost of $2m (£1.18m) and would then have to recoup his investment from kickbacks at checkpoints on the roads, charging every goods vehicle. An Iraqi businessman told me some years ago that he had stopped importing goods through Basra port as unprofitable because of the amount of money he had to spend bribing officials and soldiers at every stage as his goods were moved from the ship at the dockside to Baghdad.

A captured Iraqi military vehicle A captured Iraqi military vehicle (AFP)

Unsurprisingly, Iraqi soldiers and police were not prepared to fight and die in their posts resisting Isis last week, since their jobs were always primarily about making money for their families.

Another friend in Baghdad (I am afraid any account of Iraq will always be littered with sources who wish to remain anonymous) told me: "Soldiers under Saddam Hussein often wanted to desert – they were scarcely paid – but they knew they would be killed if they did, so it was better to die in battle. The present army has never been a national army, its soldiers were only interested in their salaries and they were no longer frightened of what would happen to them if they ran away."

Military units never took part in training exercises and most soldiers only knew how to use a Kalashnikov assault rifle. There are a few trained and well-equipped Swat teams of anti-terrorist forces that are effective but not numerous.

In Sunni areas the army and security forces behaved as an occupation force and were consequently much feared and hated. Frightening and bloodthirsty Isis fighters may be, but for many in Mosul they are preferable to government forces. Sunni men were alienated by not having a job because government funds were spent elsewhere and, on occasion, suddenly sacked without a pension for obligatory membership of the Ba'ath party decades earlier. One Sunni teacher with 30 years' experience one day got a crumpled note under his door telling him not to come to work at his school any more because he had been fired for this reason. "What am I to do? How am I going to feed my family?" he asked.

Sectarian discrimination and persecution became the common lot of Iraq's five or six million Sunni who had been the dominant community for centuries. A Sunni might be picked up by the police, tortured into a confession, sentenced to a long term in prison or even executed. Even if he was found innocent by a court, his family might have to pay $50,000 to $100,000 to get an officer in the prison to sign his release papers. An Isis fighter was recently reported as joking: "When we capture our enemies we kill them; when you capture one of us we pay money and he is released."

Anger at these abuses is relevant to what is now happening. The majority of Sunni Arabs in Mosul – attitudes will be different among Kurds and minorities – are wary of Isis but terrified of what a vengeful Iraqi army will do if it retakes the city. Past experience, based on what happened in Mosul in 2003 when insurgents briefly took the city, shows that Sunni men, regardless of their actions or sympathies, will be vulnerable to arrest, torture and execution. Isis may have seized Mosul with a small force, but if the Iraqi army tries to take it back tens of thousands of Sunni will fight to defend it.

A burning Iraqi army Humvee A burning Iraqi army Humvee (AFP)

The same is true in the rest of Sunni Iraq. Isis may have begun the assault, but many other groups have joined in. We are now looking at a general uprising of the Iraqi Sunni. Those taking over Saddam Hussain's hometown of Tikrit are not Isis, but his old adherents who are putting up posters of the late dictator.

Mosul is a traditional recruiting ground for the officer corps of the old Iraqi army. Much will depend how far Isis is capable of moderating its policies in order to accommodate more secular or Ba'athist opponents of the Baghdad government. In 2006-7 it alienated other Sunni by its brutality, enabling the US to win them over and isolate al-Qa'ida in Iraq. The present Iraqi government has got the worst of all possible worlds by persecuting the Sunni enough to enrage and unite them, but without crushing them.

The incompetence of the government in Baghdad explains many but not all the disasters of the last week. Isis were the shock troops of a much broader group of Sunni militant groups such as al-Naqshbandi army and assorted Ba'athist groups. Attacks were well coordinated and planned and were probably assisted by Sunni army officers within the regular Iraqi army sabotaging the defence.

Much attention is given in the media to what the US will now do. But Americans are not the players they once were in Iraq. More important is how Iran reacts. After the overthrow of Saddam, it struggled with the US for influence in Iraq for six or seven years and eventually emerged as the main foreign influence in the country.

There was also a degree of mostly covert cooperation between the US and Iran in opposition to Saddam pre-2003 and afterwards to install a stable Shia-Kurdish government in the face of an insurgency. Their differences stemmed from rivalry about who should be the dominant power in post-Saddam Iraq.

Iraq matters more to Iran than Syria. It is also better placed than the US to help the beleaguered Iraqi government. The Iraqi army and its commanders are wholly discredited. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is now moving into Baghdad to reorganise a new military force that would combine elements of the old military and the militias, some of which are already under Iranian control. The aim of this would be to hold Baghdad and probably a line to the north through mixed Sunni-Shia provinces such as Diyala and cities including Samarra with its Shia shrine, destruction of which in 2006 led to the most savage stage of the Sunni-Shia civil war.

US and Britain must work with Iran if they are to stop an extreme Sunni state emerging in north and west Iraq extending into eastern Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... rsian-gulf
US sends aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf as Obama considers air strikes in Iraq
• Defence secretary deploys three ships and missiles
• US weighs options as Iran bolsters Baghdad against Isis
• Analysis: air strikes aim to 'break Isis momentum'

The US is sending an aircraft carrier and two guided missile ships into the Persian Gulf, bolstering sea and airpower before a possible US strike on the jihadist army in Iraq in the coming days.

Defense secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the USS George HW Bush into the Gulf on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama indicated he would soon decide on air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), whose seizure of Sunni Iraqi cities has violently upended the region.

The 103,000-tonne warship and its air wing, which had been patrolling the North Arabian Sea and earlier this year were used in the Mediterranean following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, gives Obama airstrike options in addition to air force assets on land in bases used by the US, like Qatar's al-Udeid.

The Bush's air wing includes four squadrons flying F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, one squadron flying EA-18 Growler jammer and electronic-attack planes, and other maritime helicopters and early-warning planes.

Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Bush would be accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Truxton. The ships are expected to arrive in the Gulf this evening.

Kirby described the deployment as increasing Obama's martial flexibility "should military options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests in Iraq", rather than signalling an imminent strike.

In a briefing on Friday, Kirby had played down the possibility of the Bush moving into the Gulf, saying only that it was ready for a potential tasking. "As we speak right now, there is no aircraft carrier zorching [speeding] into the Persian Gulf," he said.

While Iran has in the past harassed US ships moving into the Gulf, its president, Hassan Rouhani, on Saturday indicated openness to working alongside his country's decades-old adversary, signalling an alignment of interests in protecting their mutual Iraqi partner.

"If we see that the United States takes action against terrorist groups in Iraq, then one can think about it," Rouhani told reporters, according to Agence France Presse.

Iraqi officials told the Guardian on Saturday that Iran had sent 2,000 advance troops across the border to help the Shiite government of Iraq defend itself after the Iraqi army ran from Isis in Mosul this week. In a move unthinkable during the Saddam Hussein era, Iran has sent the commander of its feared Qods Force, General Qassem Suleimani, to coordinate the defense of Baghdad.

US intelligence and defense officials consider Suleimani to have American blood on his hands, as the Qods Force and the Revolutionary Guards Corps to which it belongs are suspected of attacks on US troops during the Iraq war, including the placement of sophisticated and deadly bombs.

Obama's contemplation of air strikes against Isis creates the prospect of US air power bolstering Iranian ground operations, an awkward one given the animosity the militaries of the two nations, which are currently engaged in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, have long felt for each other.

The State Department did not immediately respond to queries about US and Iranian forces possibly fighting alongside one another by default in Iraq.

On Friday, Kirby urged Iran to "play a constructive role" in Iraq.

[Kakkaji]

My guess would be for ISIS to strike Kuwait, directly, avoiding the messy fight with the Iraqi Shias. Kuwait has a very small pop, cannot defend itself, that is the weak spot, and gives a direct access to the sea.

The US will not leave Kuwait undefended this time, and ISIS will not be able attack Kuwait as long as US forces are there.

Doesn't the US now have a permanent military base in Kuwait?

[Avarachan]

This is the best article I know of regarding ISIS and the situation in Iraq. It seems that the Saudis were behind it, but now the situation has spun out of control (as usually happens with terrorist groups). I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/0 ... ecies.html

[chetak]

Now, with the security of Kurdistan guaranteed by the US and Turkey, that of Kuwait by the US, and that of Shia southern Iraq by Iran, these guys will not have any easy pickings

Well, there is one. The ISIS have already threatened to attack Jordan and "Butcher" king Abdullah. But dont think that the Jordanians will be a bunch of spineless flunkeys who will fold like paper like the Iraqis did. In all the Isreali-Arab wars, it is the Jordanians despite the smallest resources put up the toughest fight.

But yeah, Jordan is a basket case anyways. No oil. But then the oil everywhere is in Shia areas (except Kirkuk and Kuwait) My guess would be for ISIS to strike Kuwait, directly, avoiding the messy fight with the Iraqi Shias. Kuwait has a very small pop, cannot defend itself, that is the weak spot, and gives a direct access to the sea.

So really, we are seeing a more vicious equivalent of the Afghan Taliban being established right in the heart of the Middle East, with oil and outlet to the sea.

What a brilliant strategic victory for the US , after spending close to $5 trillion in the past decade, losing some 15,000 of it's own , more maimed and incapacitated for life, some close to 300,000 Iraqis and Afghans killed. All for this ?

The pukis army must be shitting bricks. Their sunni sphere of influence is crumbling. Where ever they may be called in to help out, on their usual mercenary terms, brings them in direct confrontation with the US dronacharyas / Iran on their borders, leaving them bereft of their beloved strategic depth and the added fear of being squeezed from three sides -- India, Afghanistan and Iran.

[chetak]

My guess would be for ISIS to strike Kuwait, directly, avoiding the messy fight with the Iraqi Shias. Kuwait has a very small pop, cannot defend itself, that is the weak spot, and gives a direct access to the sea.

The US will not leave Kuwait undefended this time, and ISIS will not be able attack Kuwait as long as US forces are there.

Doesn't the US now have a permanent military base in Kuwait?

obama will re enter combat in a flash if kuwait is touched or threatened in any way. That's the only way to bolster their diminished global status and reassure the arab world of their commitment to the region. It would be interesting to see where Russia and china will weigh in, under these circumstances.

pukis may actually move nukes to saudi barberia.

[RoyG]

This is what I've been saying chetakji. They are using the PA strategy of cultivating jihadi groups and letting everything around them burn. They think they are safe in their little islamic paradise but the purer than pure will slowly infiltrate and consume them from within. They will get a few nukes if they can't get the US to trash the nuclear deal with iran and covertly work to destroy the Iranians and Syrians and then threaten to stop invoicing oil transactions in US dollars. The Russians and Chinese are just sitting back with the popcorn and arming both the Syrians and Iranians.

This will be the masterstroke of the century. The jihadis were able to bait the US into fighting war after war forcing the US to spend trillions and the Russians and Chinese have kept the fire going. All three have helped destroy the US economically and its will power. They are now on the retreat and they will be out of commission for the next 2 decades. This will be a golden opportunity for Asia to play catch up.

[harbans]

Situation report Iraq, gives a good overview:

[Philip]

ISIS:Baghdad or bust! ....."Irans" to the rescue. The turning point?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... uri-maliki
Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants
Tehran hints at cooperation with US to aid Nouri al-Maliki as jihadist group threatens to take Baghdad

Iran has sent 2,000 advance troops to Iraq in the past 48 hours to help tackle a jihadist insurgency, a senior Iraqi official has told the Guardian.

The confirmation comes as the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said Iran was ready to support Iraq from the mortal threat fast spreading through the country, while the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, called on citizens to take up arms in their country's defence.

Addressing the country on Saturday, Maliki said rebels from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) had given "an incentive to the army and to Iraqis to act bravely". His call to arms came after reports surfaced that hundreds of young men were flocking to volunteer centres across Baghdad to join the fight against Isis.

In Iran, Rouhani raised the prospect of Teheran cooperating with its old enemy Washington to defeat the Sunni insurgent group – which is attempting to ignite a sectarian war beyond Iraq's borders.

The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight. The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

There is growing evidence in Baghdad of Shia militias continuing to reorganise, with some heading to the central city of Samarra, 70 miles (110km) north of the capital, to defend two Shia shrines from Sunni jihadist groups surrounding them.

The volunteers signing up were responding to a call by Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, the Iranian-born grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to defend their country after Isis seized Mosul and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit in a lightning advance this week. Samarra is now the next town in the Islamists' path to Baghdad.

"Citizens who can carry weapons and fight the terrorists in defence of their country, its people and its holy sites should volunteer and join the security forces," Sheik Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalaie, Sistani's representative, said on Friday in a sermon at the holy Shia city of Kerbala.

He warned that Iraq faced great danger and that fighting the militants "is everybody's responsibility, and is not limited to one specific sect or group", Associated Press reported. Karbalaie's comments have consistently been thought to reflect Sistani's views.

Meanwhile, Iraqi troops had been ordered out of the northern city of Kirkuk by Kurdish fighters who have taken full control of the regional oil hub and surrounding areas, according to a mid-ranking army officer.

His account was corroborated by an Arab tribal sheik and a photographer who witnessed the looting of army bases after troops left and who related similar accounts of the takeover from relatives in the army, the Associated Press reported.

"They said they would defend Kirkuk from the Islamic State [Isis]," said the Arab officer, who oversaw a warehouse in the city's central military base.

He insisted the Iraqi troops had not planned to retreat before the Islamic State. "We were ready to battle to death. We were completely ready," he said at a roadside rest house just inside the semi-autonomous Kurdish region.

A spokesman for Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, said they had only moved in after Iraqi troops retreated, assuming control of the "majority of the Kurdistan region" outside the semi-autonomous Kurdish regional government.

"Peshmerga forces have helped Iraqi soldiers and military leaders when they abandoned their positions," including by helping three generals to fly back to Baghdad from the Kurdish regional capital of Erbil, said Lieutenant General Jabbar Yawar in a statement on the regional government's website.

A supporter of Maliki in the Iraqi parliament condemned the peshmerga's move, calling it a plot carried out in co-ordination with the regional government that would lead to problems.

"The Kurds have taken advantage of the current situation. They seized Kirkuk and they have other plans to swallow other areas," Mohammed Sadoun said.

A colonel from the military command responsible for Samarra said Iraqi security forces were preparing a counter-offensive against Isis on Saturday. The colonel, whom Maliki announced had been granted "unlimited powers" by the Iraqi cabinet, said reinforcements from the federal police and army arrived on Friday, according to Agence France-Presse.

The officer said the reinforcements were for a drive against areas north of the city, including Dur and Tikrit, and forces were awaiting orders to begin.

Sunni residents of west Baghdad said on Saturday Shia militias had taunted them with anti-Sunni chants. Baghdad has remained in virtual lockdown for the past three days as Isis jihadists threatened to storm the capital. However, Saturday morning saw relative normality return to deserted streets, with many residents returning to shops to stockpile supplies.

Residents offered little reaction to Barack Obama's statement late on Friday in which he appeared to condition renewed US military support on Iraqi leaders first making efforts to pull the country back from the brink. The US and Iran, foes throughout the US occupation of Iraq, share a common interest in defeating Isis, and Iran has so far expressed no opposition to US threats to send military support to Maliki.

Rouhani, asked at a televised press conference on Saturday whether Tehran could work with the US to tackle Isis, said: "We can think about it if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere. We all should practically and verbally confront terrorist groups."

Reuters reported US officials as saying there were no contacts taking place with Iran over the crisis in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, had held talks with his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, "urgently to co-ordinate approaches to the instability in Iraq and links to Syria conflict", he said on Twitter. Britain is to give £3m ($5.1m) of aid to Iraq as the first step in dealing with the humanitarian consequences of the insurgency.

The international development secretary, Justine Greening, said the initial tranche of emergency funding would allow agencies to supply water, sanitation, medicine, hygiene kits and basic household items.

And the sh*tworm Tony B.Liar who is equally responsible along with Dubya Bush for the mess "Mespot" is in today,keeps on lying with his teeth.he now says that it's all Syria;s fault!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... tml[b]Tony Blair says Syria crisis is to blame for current state of Iraq [/b]

[Shanmukh]

Situation report Iraq, gives a good overview:

The reverses for the ISIS (such as they are happening) are all happening east of the Tigris, which is hardcore Kurdish or Iran influenced territory, with the best (from ISIS perspective) being a mixed Shia Sunni population in the east. This will be impossible for ISIS to hold or defend at the moment, and I suspect they are more probing attacks to see how strongly these areas will resist. The inhabited areas west of the Euphrates, and north of the Baghdad latitude, have fallen mostly, and there is nothing more for the Iraqi army to hold there. The real battle will occur between the two rivers and north of Baghdad. This is where the true mettle of the Iraqi army will be tested. This area, is either hardcore Sunni or mixed Shia-Sunni territory. If the ISIS cannot capture Samarra and Baiji, their prognosis is poor. In the open steppes of northern Mesopotamia, they will be easy prey for the airstrikes that Unkil is threatening, and will have to retreat (sooner, rather than later) to Tikrit and Falluja-Ramadi regions. But if they can capture the two cities, they have real staying power in central Mesopotamia. For all the ISIS bluster, even Nineveh province is a mixed region, and not hardcore Sunni territory. Holding Mosul against the Kurdish peshmerga may not prove to be easy for ISIS, particularly if it is defeated in trying to take Baghdad.

[Austin]

Bradley Manning write up on Iraq

The Fog Machine of War
The U.S. Military’s Campaign Against Media Freedom

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — WHEN I chose to disclose classified information in 2010, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others. I’m now serving a sentence of 35 years in prison for these unauthorized disclosures. I understand that my actions violated the law.

However, the concerns that motivated me have not been resolved. As Iraq erupts in civil war and America again contemplates intervention, that unfinished business should give new urgency to the question of how the United States military controlled the media coverage of its long involvement there and in Afghanistan. I believe that the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance.

If you were following the news during the March 2010 elections in Iraq, you might remember that the American press was flooded with stories declaring the elections a success, complete with upbeat anecdotes and photographs of Iraqi women proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers. The subtext was that United States military operations had succeeded in creating a stable and democratic Iraq.

Those of us stationed there were acutely aware of a more complicated reality.

Military and diplomatic reports coming across my desk detailed a brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police, on behalf of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Detainees were often tortured, or even killed.

Early that year, I received orders to investigate 15 individuals whom the federal police had arrested on suspicion of printing “anti-Iraqi literature.” I learned that these individuals had absolutely no ties to terrorism; they were publishing a scholarly critique of Mr. Maliki’s administration. I forwarded this finding to the officer in command in eastern Baghdad. He responded that he didn’t need this information; instead, I should assist the federal police in locating more “anti-Iraqi” print shops.

I was shocked by our military’s complicity in the corruption of that election. Yet these deeply troubling details flew under the American media’s radar.

It was not the first (or the last) time I felt compelled to question the way we conducted our mission in Iraq. We intelligence analysts, and the officers to whom we reported, had access to a comprehensive overview of the war that few others had. How could top-level decision makers say that the American public, or even Congress, supported the conflict when they didn’t have half the story?

Among the many daily reports I received via email while working in Iraq in 2009 and 2010 was an internal public affairs briefing that listed recently published news articles about the American mission in Iraq. One of my regular tasks was to provide, for the public affairs summary read by the command in eastern Baghdad, a single-sentence description of each issue covered, complementing our analysis with local intelligence.

The more I made these daily comparisons between the news back in the States and the military and diplomatic reports available to me as an analyst, the more aware I became of the disparity. In contrast to the solid, nuanced briefings we created on the ground, the news available to the public was flooded with foggy speculation and simplifications.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

One clue to this disjunction lay in the public affairs reports. Near the top of each briefing was the number of embedded journalists attached to American military units in a combat zone. Throughout my deployment, I never saw that tally go above 12. In other words, in all of Iraq, which contained 31 million people and 117,000 United States troops, no more than a dozen American journalists were covering military operations.

The process of limiting press access to a conflict begins when a reporter applies for embed status. All reporters are carefully vetted by military public affairs officials. This system is far from unbiased. Unsurprisingly, reporters who have established relationships with the military are more likely to be granted access.

Less well known is that journalists whom military contractors rate as likely to produce “favorable” coverage, based on their past reporting, also get preference. This outsourced “favorability” rating assigned to each applicant is used to screen out those judged likely to produce critical coverage.

Reporters who succeeded in obtaining embed status in Iraq were then required to sign a media “ground rules” agreement. Army public affairs officials said this was to protect operational security, but it also allowed them to terminate a reporter’s embed without appeal.

There have been numerous cases of reporters’ having their access terminated following controversial reporting. In 2010, the late Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings had his access pulled after reporting criticism of the Obama administration by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff in Afghanistan. A Pentagon spokesman said, “Embeds are a privilege, not a right.”

If a reporter’s embed status is terminated, typically she or he is blacklisted. This program of limiting press access was challenged in court in 2013 by a freelance reporter, Wayne Anderson, who claimed to have followed his agreement but to have been terminated after publishing adverse reports about the conflict in Afghanistan. The ruling on his case upheld the military’s position that there was no constitutionally protected right to be an embedded journalist.

The embedded reporter program, which continues in Afghanistan and wherever the United States sends troops, is deeply informed by the military’s experience of how media coverage shifted public opinion during the Vietnam War. The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.

The existing program forces journalists to compete against one another for “special access” to vital matters of foreign and domestic policy. Too often, this creates reporting that flatters senior decision makers. A result is that the American public’s access to the facts is gutted, which leaves them with no way to evaluate the conduct of American officials.

Journalists have an important role to play in calling for reforms to the embedding system. The favorability of a journalist’s previous reporting should not be a factor. Transparency, guaranteed by a body not under the control of public affairs officials, should govern the credentialing process. An independent board made up of military staff members, veterans, Pentagon civilians and journalists could balance the public’s need for information with the military’s need for operational security.

Reporters should have timely access to information. The military could do far more to enable the rapid declassification of information that does not jeopardize military missions. The military’s Significant Activity Reports, for example, provide quick overviews of events like attacks and casualties. Often classified by default, these could help journalists report the facts accurately.

Opinion polls indicate that Americans’ confidence in their elected representatives is at a record low. Improving media access to this crucial aspect of our national life — where America has committed the men and women of its armed services — would be a powerful step toward re-establishing trust between voters and officials.

[Singha]

It is better isis be given the very real hope of taking baghdad with a retreat by iraqi army, so they concentrate and surge forward, before a solid trap is sprung.

[Aditya_V]

W.R>T ISIS amd other Sunni groups from Iraq, Syria and Libya.


Most of these groups method of fighting seems to be on Toyta 4by4 with anti aircraft or heavy machine guns. Thier victories have been only in areas where population is sympathetic to the Sunni cause, do these guys really get down from thier 4by4's and fight.

I think Iraqi state in sunni ruled areas has merely surrendered due to secterian areas. I think wherever there are enough Kurds or Shites these will back off, thier next vicrtory will not come near Baghdad but some other area where public is overwhemly Sunni, I suspect parts of Jordon will fall. These groups aldready control some parts of the Israel-Syria border but have hardly caused a dent to Israeli defences.

[A_Gupta]

This is worth reading: Sayyid Qutb's Fundamentalism and Abu Bakr Naji's Jihadism.
http://mepc.org/articles-commentary/com ... s-jihadism

[Singha]

just as chengis khan did with his planned atrocities and psyops, they win battles without having to fight merely by spreading word of their brutality and reprisals on those captured. they executed 100s of captured iraqi troops at the airbase and uploaded these footage to cause a collapse of morale. nobody likes to be cannon fodder while the generals stay safe in baghdad.

[A_Gupta]

This is also worth reading: Understanding Syria.
http://www.mepc.org/understanding-syria

Western stupidity is very evident here, a Pakistan-like support of jihadis who will turn around and harm Western interests.

All observers agree that the foreign-controlled and constituted insurgent groups are the most coherent, organized and effective. This is little short of astonishing, as they share no common language and come from a wide variety of cultures. In one operation, which I mention below, the cooperating groups were made up of Chechens, Turks, Tajiks, Pakistanis, French, Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians and Moroccans. Paradoxically, governments that would have imprisoned the same activists in their own countries have poured money, arms and other forms of aid into their coffers. The list is long and surprising in its make-up: Turkey, the conservative Arab states, particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the EU member states and the US.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have covertly aided the insurgents. Both have provided training, money and arms and have engaged in propaganda, espionage and various sorts of “dirty tricks.” The rebels, naturally, regarded the aid they got as insufficient, while the government regarded it as a virtual act of war. Both were right: it has not been on a scale that enabled the rebels to win, but had another country engaged in such action — seeking to overthrow the government — any American or European administration would have regarded it as an act of war in international law (See Appendix C).

[UlanBatori]

During WW2, the British Jarnail commanding Burma had this brilliant idea of forming a "BOX", enticing the Japanese forces to advance without trouble into a region which had an ambush prepared on 3 sides. Trouble is, the "bottom" of the box fell out - the Japanese just overran them - so that the ambushers on both flanks were isolated, surrounded and decimated. Maybe the grand Al Maliki strategy for the defense of Bagdad is similar: who is going to hold the line? Besides, according to this report, ISIS is about to control 3 sides of Bagdad, leaving only a southern retreat.

Terrifying execution images in Iraq; U.S. Embassy in Baghdad relocates some staff

These guys are the first I have seen who CLAIM in public that they are executing the opposition en masse. Interesting tactic. I bet most of their photos are fake. Someone should check into whether the ISIS has been raiding stores for Heinz Ul Tikriti Ketchup.

[vina]

Someone should check into whether the ISIS has been raiding stores for Heinz Ul Tikriti Ketchup

No. I am willing to take a bet that this is for real. Those idiots have a long history of approx 3000 years of such history (Islam is just the latest sticker on the underlying Arab and Central Asian barbarism).

But coming to the point, the entire region comprising approx the eastern parts of Syria, Western Iraq and large parts of Jordan are going to go over to a Taliban like savagery far worse than what even butchers like Saddam inflicted. And that is if they are able to limit it to that area.

But inevitably, there will be a massive shia sunni war with iran on the side of the shiites and the threatened gulf sheikdoms on the western side of the persian gulf bankrolling the sunnis. All this came about why , because GW wanted to complete pappy's job of busting Saddam, and then like numbskulls bankrolling the Sunnis against Bashar al Assad . This will result in massive casualties on all sides.

Lets tally up the sea of blood the US has let flow in the 20th century after WWII.

1) Vietnam ..a million
2) Laos US bombing and killing in the dirty undeclared war. Another country damaged beyond repair.
3) Combodia, bombed during the vietnam war, supported Pol Pot in coming in to power along with the Chinese. ONE THIRD of Cambodian population murdered. The worst genocide of all time
4) Iraq , Syria and Afghanistan , all will be approx a million or more when the dust finally settles.

So box total of all the US blood counting Vietnam, leaving out the sponsored insurgencies in South America, is close to 3 million or so killed. That is roughly half of the 6 million the Nazis exterminated in the death camps.

Good going Uncle Sam. And to show for all that, let us see, massive defeat in Vietnam, same large scale strategic defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is not even counting the $3T or so spent over the past decade. Brilliant indeed.

[Singha]

whether fake or real, they seem to have having the desired effect of inducing panic and desertions of vital posts.

perhaps using baghdad like a flypot and open city ready for the taking, but with a hidden defence line that will block them on periphery, with mech/airborne iranian units to trap them from behind is the only way to deal a resounding defeat to the ISIS main body.

the prospect of loot, murder, rape should attract most of the hard core to a baghdad takeover.

[Y. Kanan]

There will be no US involvement until a political price has been paid by Maliki and his Iranian backers. Obama has made it clear that this is an Iraq political problem with politization of the Iraqi security force. Until that is corrected the US is not commiting to any drone or bombing action in Iraq for it would be useless. There must be a political solution as part of the price to be paid for the US to act.

Miltariliy the ISIS may have routed the Iraqi military but keeping that territory is going to a supreme challenge when and if the US decides to start bombing. If it begins, there will be no more road blocks on highways made by the ISIS and every support activity will come under close scrutiny with a possible hellfire missile. in other words ISIS cannot hold any serious logistics or controlling structures.

The US has a surplus of reconn and attack drones on hand now and is only limited by the number of qualified personnel to operate them from afar 24x7. Plus unlike in Waziristan there will be no Packee soverign issues to worry about. No high mountains, no trees just sun baked desert to reconnoiter.

At any rate, besides Iranian offers of assistance (none needed by the US) the US is in the cat birds seat once the political price has been paid by Malaki et al.

If you still think Iran is the primary problem in the Islamic world, you're even dumber than you sound based on your posts. You're just regurgitating the same classic US state dept thinking; the same people that thought Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were America's friends even after they pulled 9/11 on you.

News flash: your Paki and Saudi allies have now directly or indirectly killed about 10,000 Americans since 2001 and still you keep backing their every play.

[Y. Kanan]

Western stupidity is very evident here, a Pakistan-like support of jihadis who will turn around and harm Western interests.

This isn't necessarily as stupid as it appears to be. If the US goal is to sow chaos and create endless wars that benefit their own military industrial complex, and their oil & gas companies... then I would have to say their foreign policy is working just fine. It doesn't really strengthen the US economy in the end, or improve the welfare of US citizens, but it does transfer vast sums of money from the US taxpayer to the owners and shareholders of companies like Raytheon, McDonnell-Douglas, Haliburton, Exxon, Devon Energy, etc. And these companies have incredible lobbying power, collectively.

US foreign policy is unique in that in rarely serves the interests of the nation as a whole. Very few countries operate this way.

[UlanBatori]

4) Iraq , Syria and Afghanistan , all will be approx a million or more when the dust finally settles.

Syria and Afghanistan are each above 1M, and Eyerak is above 3M already. Back in 2001 we started an estimation algorithm based on news reports. This showed that AT LEAST 160,000 had died by mid-2003 in A'stan.

In Eyerak, the toll must have passed 100,000 dead in the first two weeks of the 2003 war. In 1990-91, Basra was declared a "free fire zone" resulting in over 80,000 dead just there.

The Fallujah battle circa 2004/05 destroyed the entire city, and there was no great refugee escape. I think thousands must have died there. Maybe tens of thousands.

Also remember that the score in the US-supported Yayha Khan/Bhutto genocide, mostly against Hindus, in East Pakistan in 1970-71 reached over 3 million.

[abhik]

I hope the US stays away or is at least unable to help effectively, inviting a full blown overt Iranian military involvement. Will be fun to watch the Saudi reaction to Iran right at its border.

[Austin]

ISIS militants claim mass executions of Iraqi soldiers, post gruesome pictures (GRAPHIC)

[VikramS]

What I find odd is that even on BR, people call it "Western Stupidity".

On the contrary I feel that Green on Green, is, by design.

[RoyG]

What I find odd is that even on BR, people call it "Western Stupidity".

On the contrary I feel that Green on Green, is, by design.

Are you serious? White on Green, Green on Green, Blue on Green, White on Blue (Although not so much now)

[vina]

Also remember that the score in the US-supported Yayha Khan/Bhutto genocide, mostly against Hindus, in East Pakistan in 1970-71 reached over 3 million.

Oh yes. How did I forget that ?

And now, guess what, PeePeeCee says, that US is going to open direct talks with Iran on the Iraq security situation! Oh, how have the mighty fallen. Down on the knees and grovelling in front of the declared "Axis of Evil" member to pull their bacon out of the fire!

[chanakyaa]

Eeranian involvement is interesting. Does this mean Eeran is doing their dirty work? And is this the only way of dragging Eeran into the conflict, so that table can be turn on Eeran later?

[symontk]

Is it a co-incidence that Ukraine issue started out with Winter Olympics and now Iraq issue started out with Football world cup

What is the link? What is the need? Is it suppress the bad press generated or hide activities below the radar? The conversations (in net and phone) would speak about teams and contests but actually meant to be invasions and plans?

[A_Gupta]

Jihadi recruitment in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-1 ... hreat.html

[vinod]

just as chengis khan did with his planned atrocities and psyops, they win battles without having to fight merely by spreading word of their brutality and reprisals on those captured. they executed 100s of captured iraqi troops at the airbase and uploaded these footage to cause a collapse of morale. nobody likes to be cannon fodder while the generals stay safe in baghdad.

It could go counter as well. It might galvanise the opposition to stand firm and increase their numbers by projecting the brutality of what happens when they get full control.

In my opinion, this will swing back and forth for many more years until one completely takes another over. I doubt the winner from amongst this brutality would be any more friendly towards west. So, the west would attack again or create trouble and we are back to square one.

[vinod]

This is worth reading: Sayyid Qutb's Fundamentalism and Abu Bakr Naji's Jihadism.
http://mepc.org/articles-commentary/com ... s-jihadism

Good find!

[Singha]

a LPHD ship with some 300 marines and v-22 osprey has entered the persian gulf....ready to the saigon embassy roof thing if the ramparts crumble.