Winner
Diverse in Unity
This seems like a Vietnam 1975 moment for America. Will Fall of Baghdad follow?
ISIL conquers Mosul, Iraq's second largest city!
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Let's assume this is correct (ignoring for the moment the mystery of Kuwait), that is sort of what you'd expect the British to do - the simplest way of carving up a country. Keep the boundaries used by the previous empire.
Yet what reason is there to suppose that the Ottoman borders took cognizance of ethnic and religious divisions either?
And even if they did, what reason is there to suppose that the ethnic and religious divisions of the C16th were still relevant in the C20th?
Borders are notoriously porous, aren't they? And people will go where they see their best advantage; as far as they are able.
I think we're likely witnessing the partition of Iraq, and indeed the nation state as a whole may be on the way out globally. Though obviously not immediately.
Attempts to keep Iraq's borders as they are now may be a futile enterprise.
Anyway... explain to me the mysteries of Kuwait.
And while we're about it, I never did understand Lebanon.
It seems very likely that there will be an actual country called Kurdistan, and not just the autonomous/self-governed region which currently is there. And i suppose this will in effect mean more Kurdistan in the future 
But there are more to split. Independent Pontus Free Assyria New Armenian borders
I am also thinking (but least of all, of course) the new Byzantine Empire
But there are more to split. Independent Pontus
Free Assyria New Armenian borders I am also thinking (but least of all, of course) the new Byzantine Empire
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Kuwait isn't a mystery. The Ottomans didn't rule it. What is now Kuwait City was founded in 1600 as a fishing village. Over the next century and half, it grew into a major entrepôt town on the fringes of Ottoman turf. In 1891, the British established a protectorate over the place, in part, to deny it to the Turks who were supposed to be looking at annexing the place. Amusingly, the protectorate status of Kuwait didn't stop it's siding with the Turks during the First World War.
None. But you'd have to demonstrate that Iraqis cared about those things and wanted to go it alone. Kurds, excepted.
Yes, that's true. But there's another rule: colonial borders seldom move and states seldom fall apart.
ISIS doesn't stand for the Islamic State of Sunni Enclaves. It's also quite keen on pushing on into non-Sunni areas, including Baghdad and has promised to drive the Alawi into the sea. If it was just a regionalist rebellion, we'd be freaking out way way less.
Easy. In 1858, Marionite (Christian) peasants began killing their Marionite aristocratic masters around Mount Lebanon. This spread into other parts, e.g. Latakia and took on sectarian tones because the major landowners elsewhere were Druze. Meanwhile, simmering tensions in Damascus over other stuff, but nonetheless between Marionites and Druze, but also Sunni, spilled over in 1860 into a Druze led massacre of a lot of Marionites. The French who cast themselves as the protectors of all things Marionite were pissed while the British who had up until that time supported the Druze were forced to agree to a French led intervention to restore order. The French also got the Ottomans to agree to establishing a Marionite dominated enclave around Mount Lebanon. Fast-forward to 1914 and the French have by now a longstanding attachment to their fellow Catholics and vice versa. So when the war ended the French naturally were given first dibs on the territory and all of modern Syria. The French had by 1920 carved the place up into six different states, within the Mandate, with Greater Lebanon being one. France gradually gave the Marionites more political responsibility, which cumulated in the proclamation of. Lebanese Republic in 1926, I believe. In 1941, France fell, and in 1942 allied forces invaded and occupied the Mandate. In 1943, the French granted Lebanon conditional independence which the Marionites changed to unconditional independence under their own steam. And that's how got Lebanon.
Absolution
King
America, Iraq, Iran and Israel share the same interest in this conflict.
History laughs at us
History laughs at us
Paul in Saudi
Emperor
Let me see if I can noodle this out.
1. The rebel ISIS is Sunni. Like the Saudis. They are a minority in Iraq, but have long ruled. The Saudis have long support Sunni rule as most Saudis are Sunni. ISIS is opposed by Syria (and visa versa).
2. The government are mostly made up of Shia. They are a majority in Iraq, but have long been oppressed. They are supported by the US, who put them in power, and oddly Iran. American support is quite weak. Other possible allies include the new government in Cairo.
The Kurds are wild cards and will have their whey no matter what happens. The Palestinians can be counted on to support whoever loses.
1. The rebel ISIS is Sunni. Like the Saudis. They are a minority in Iraq, but have long ruled. The Saudis have long support Sunni rule as most Saudis are Sunni. ISIS is opposed by Syria (and visa versa).
2. The government are mostly made up of Shia. They are a majority in Iraq, but have long been oppressed. They are supported by the US, who put them in power, and oddly Iran. American support is quite weak. Other possible allies include the new government in Cairo.
The Kurds are wild cards and will have their whey no matter what happens. The Palestinians can be counted on to support whoever loses.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
OK. But then when they reach Baghdad the Shia majority there are going to be seriously pushing back the other way. Isn't this how borders get redefined?
Isn't it true that their success at the moment, in Iraq, has been the absence of concerted resistance?
Similarly, in Syria, they've only enjoyed success in non-Alawite areas. Is it likely they could take Damascus?
I've little sympathy for the Iraqi and Syrian regimes, nasty though the Isis forces seem to be. Neither of them seem to have made any efforts to take into account the interests of their resident minorities. Isn't the current turmoil a result of this as much as anything else?
I fail to see why the "Westerner" powers should intervene on either side.
H4run
Deity
when one stated minority one also must remember, there is an argument the increase of shia population in Iraq happen post occupation, apart from the fact there were also times in history where there were event of sunnia coversion to shia that occur in Iraq. While the terms majority also not significant as Sunni in Syria in comparison with the Alawite, the most known claim is the shia population around 60 percent while the rest is Sunni. Most of Kurdish are Sunni.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Except these lunatics are nothing like the Vietnamese communists and nationalists, who were fighting to reunite their country. They're carving out a conservative terror state so terrifying that Iranians and Iraqis are uniting to stop them, and now the Americans are considering action as well.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Obama considering action. Now there's a thought.
Borachio said:
I think its problematic to assume that ISIS merely wants to redefine the borders, that Sunnis want a separate state and that ISIS can claim to authentically represent Sunni political opinion in any way. I also think you need to look across the border to Syria see how persistent borders are both in practice and mentally. Both sides, still notably claim all of Syria, although the government hasn't managed to be physically present in some places for going on three or is it four years now?
Borachio said:
This is not the case for Syria, the government of which had always been solicitous of minority concerns. Arguably, the government is a government of the minorities for the minorities, with Alawites providing the muscle and Christians the brain-power. That's over simplifying things because Sunnis were always numerically dominant in the military and civil service, although they tended to find it harder - outside of select families and clans - to ascend to the top, which does go some way to explaining how the Alawi can be so ubiquitous. The rising against the government then and this is simplifying things involves a majority rising against a minority. It isn't that simple because Sunni opinion is strongly divided on the merits of rebelling. Iraq is a bit more complicated. But in general, I don't think the government has been that hard on Sunnis.
Cheezy The Wiz said:
I think two things are worth noting. Al-Maliki hates the Iranians and has since they "hosted" him for a while during his exile. Apparently, the Iranians liked to lecture and made it abundantly clear that they owned him. Amusingly, this is why the Americans didn't mind him that much as President because here was a dude who could get as pissed off about Iran as the Sunnis. So it's significant that a dude whose done his damnedest to keep Iran at arms length has turned around and embraced them. It also needs to be noted that the VPA was, you know, a sizeable conventional force and that it had serious trouble making ground against the ARVN up until the United States turned off the spigots. At that point, all the artillery, helicopters and planes the ARVN used a lot of to make up for their otherwise mediocre war-fighting potential ceased to be effective. Then and only then did the VPA switch over to conventional fighting and wreck the ARVN.
Edit: There's also more militiamen in a given Shiite district of Baghdad than ISIS has total dudes. And, as you might recall, those Shiite militia proved themselves to be able soldiers. Strategically, having ISIS go balls deep into Baghdad is probably a good thing because the Sadirists et. al. can replenish their ranks and have ample conventional support to draw on. ISIS has neither option. (You don't just create a religious nut job, he, more or less, has to find you. The Shiite militias on the other hand are just average Shiite dudes who have way too much time to themselves and an unlimited number of AK-47s to play with).
The Guardian reports that Iran already sent 2000 troops to fight against ISIL. A chance for the USA to help in cleaning out a mess created by themselves and to improve their relations with Iran and Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/iran-iraq-isis-fight-militants-nouri-maliki
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/iran-iraq-isis-fight-militants-nouri-maliki
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It represents a failure of the US to establish a stable country capable of taking care of its own defence after a decade of heavy US military involvement. The specific issues are of course very different, but the bitter aftertaste is kind of the same.
Has to be noted that the bit R16 claimed about the 30K Iraqi troops leaving so as not to fight 1000 ISIL AK-47 militias makes more sense (he claimed that the 30K likely left due to some info about an air bombing campaign--or something similarily powerfull, maybe Godzilla 
-- going their way; i mean it is pretty ludicrous to think 30K soldiers would just leave and create thousands of refugees in a main city so that they would not have to fight the islamic hero 1000 man brigade or something ).
Let alone that Al-Qaeda is probably made in the same studios as this guy:
-- going their way; i mean it is pretty ludicrous to think 30K soldiers would just leave and create thousands of refugees in a main city so that they would not have to fight the islamic hero 1000 man brigade or something ).Let alone that Al-Qaeda is probably made in the same studios as this guy:
More like ISIS is opposed by pretty much everyone, possibly even by the Saudis. While I wouldn't put it pass elements within the infamously feuding Saudi royal family and/or the ulema to support ISIS covertly, the Saudis - themselves supposedly puritanical Wahhabis - have long had problems with religious extremists trying to one-up them. ISIS after all is an offshoot (albeit disowned) of Al Qaeda, which is no friend of the House of Saud.
I can see how if a Sunni kid is occasionally dragged off to the Mukhabarat torture chambers on suspicion of Muslim Brotherhood activity or whatever, his family and neighbours might think it's some sort of sectarian thing to keep them in line.
H4run
Deity
Must say you know much better even than the average Muslims, even you know better than one of my friends who studied Politics, it is so painful reading from my facebook page the suppose to be scholar in middle east politics cannot even differ the difference between ISIS and Al Qaeda; while the average peoples even hard to distinguish between Al-Qaeda, Wahabbi, Salafi and ISIS.
I want to start a new thread, just thinking, not promise though. Posting the compilation of letters from Ayman Zawahiri to Abu Bakr Al Badghdadi, or from Al Adnani (ISIS spokeman) to Al Qaeda. For better understanding of this issue to increase the quality of the discussion. But all may comes after I finished my paper.
edit: there are things that bother my mind when I read the letters of Al Adnani to Al Qaeda. He stated, Al Qaeda force ISIS to cancel their operation in Iran and in the city of Haram (Makkah, Madinah, Hejaz in general). And they blame all of this is because the softness of Zawahiri. And he claim Al Qaeda protecting Iran and Saudi, which I believe this is not the case or the reason of the cancellation (not that they are protecting the regime).
There also a huge debate whether ISIS part of Al Qaeda or not. Al Qaeda insist they are, and are bound to the bay'at to the Al Qaeda which obliged them to follow Zawahiri order to pull themselves from Syria. While ISIS insist, their group are independent and never be a part of Al Qaeda. So it is ISIS who disown themselves technically if Al Qaeda is correct, if ISIS is correct, Al Qaeda false claim ISIS as part of Al Qaeda.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
This Sunni group consists predominately of the very same rebels who have been fighting in Syria with Saudi support for years, as well as Baathists who were part of Saddam Hussein's government and military. The only thing which appears to be different is that they have a new leader who is a bit more of a "jihadist" than usual. But their goal is the same thing. They want Sunnis to be in power instead of Shia, just like the Saudis do.
ISIS also appears to be only the hardcore element of this group who only have 10,000 members. There are far more people than that participating in this fighting. Characterizing the entire group this way is no different than claiming that all Iraqi insurgents were al-Qaeda.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It represents a failure of US policy. That's not objectively a bad thing.
