News Iraqi unrest, Syrian unrest, and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh

[HossamCFD]

A fascinating account of a former captive in Syria

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/m...and-released-in-syria.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[Astronuc]

A fascinating account of a former captive in Syria

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/m...kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html

Quite a story!

 

[HossamCFD]

Seems like the underlying reason ISIS came to power regards the bad blood between the Shias and Sunnis, much more than just differences in their religious views. ... I don't see either ISIS nor the Iraqi government as having clean hands at this point. They both seem to be just as guilty as the other. Is that your impression?

The bad blood between both factions explains ISIS swift success in Iraq through its alliances with some sunni tribes and the remnants of Saddam regime who suffered from the Shia control. However, it doesn't explain ISIS fighting against Bashar since, eventhough his Alawite regime is sometimes regarded as a branch of Shia, he has no connection to the actions of the Iraqi government or Iraqi Shia militias. It definitely doesn't explain ISIS battling against other Syrian rebels such as Al Nusra, who believe in exactly the same version of fundamental Islam as ISIS, and the FSA. ISIS assault against Kurdish Irbil, who are mostly sunnis, cannot also be explained by the ongoing violence between sunnis and shias in Iraq. I think the best explanation for their motive is what they claim: they see themselves as the caliphate and that is an implicit declaration of war on any muslim who does not pledge allegiance to the self appointed caliph, let alone non muslims.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . they see themselves as the caliphate and that is an implicit declaration of war on any muslim who does not pledge allegiance to the self appointed caliph, let alone non muslims.

I think that is the case. Such an exclusive ideology is troubling, to say the least.

 

[HossamCFD]

..."Democracy is for infidels". After the Arab spring I treat Muslim societies as generally not mature enough for such an idealistic system.

I understand your scepticism and I tend to agree to some extent, though I believe things aren't that black and white. Tunisia seems to be a successful Arab spring story (at least until now, it might be too early to judge) and Egypt IMO was a close miss.

Here's an (off topic) analysis of why democracy succeeded in one case but not the other
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...205adc-606a-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

 

[OmCheeto]

I understand your scepticism and I tend to agree to some extent, though I believe things aren't that black and white. Tunisia seems to be a successful Arab spring story (at least until now, it might be too early to judge) and Egypt IMO was a close miss.

Here's an (off topic) analysis of why democracy succeeded in one case but not the other
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...205adc-606a-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

It doesn't seem off topic at all.

Of course, it may be too soon to celebrate Tunisia’s success. It faces a youth unemployment rate of https://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2012/061312.htm. The government is also battling Islamist militants at home, and recent reports have suggested that the Arab world’s only democracy is also its biggest exporter of fighters to join the Islamic State. (This may be because Tunisia is relatively open and its jihadis find that their appeal is limited at home.)

Not sure if you are as big a fan of Zakaria as I am, but I am really liking his Facebook page. Not only does he have some great insight into what is going on, he also lists articles which he apparently thinks are significant:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/10/24-lister-cutting-off-isis-jabhat-al-nusra-cash-flow?rssid=LatestFromBrookings
October 24, 2014
...
According to Cohen, ISIS’ principal source of finance is still derived from its control and sale of oil, which he assessed was still bringing in $1 million a day. Additional funds come from kidnap for ransom, extortion networks, criminal activities, and donations from external individuals, the latter being of least significance in terms of scale.
...
Extortion and illicit taxation systems are also a significant source of income for ISIS, and potentially one of the most sustainable. Prior to capturing Mosul, ISIS was already earning $12 million a month in the city alone. This is now being replicated, though in a more organized manner, across ISIS-controlled territory and covertly in other areas under its partial influence.
...

Sounds like the mafia to me.

 

[fargoth]

http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/30102014

Turkey has finally (albit very partially) stopped banning access of Peshmerga to aid in Kobane, allowing 150 of them to enter, (aided by up to 200 FSA).
This seems a bit too little, too late... I hope Turkey would be pressured into allowing more troops into defend the Kurds.
Seeing as ISIS's main revenue is oil sale in Turkey, and Turkey seems only half hearted in it's attempts to halt these transactions, more international pressure might be in order in this front as well.

hmm... seems like Erdogan is backpedalling on the Peshmerga aid...
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/261020141

althought PYD say they welcome the Peshmerga... http://basnews.com/en/News/Details/PYD-Welcomes-Deployment-of-Peshmerga-Forces-to-Kobani/40210

On a different note, it seem Al Qaeda might cooperate with ISIS once again: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-qaeda-keeps-making-overtures-to-isis-analysts-say

 

[HossamCFD]

ISIS executes 50 members of a Sunni tribe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29862886

Not sure if you are as big a fan of Zakaria as I am, but I am really liking his Facebook page. Not only does he have some great insight into what is going on, he also lists articles which he apparently thinks are significant

I haven't been following him regularly, but I certainly enjoyed the few things I read.

 

[Czcibor]

I understand your scepticism and I tend to agree to some extent, though I believe things aren't that black and white. Tunisia seems to be a successful Arab spring story (at least until now, it might be too early to judge) and Egypt IMO was a close miss.

Here's an (off topic) analysis of why democracy succeeded in one case but not the other
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...205adc-606a-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

Yes, I know about Tunisia. It looks as if it's going to work.

I just have an annoying feeling, that in the West instead of judging democracy for its plus and minuses from purely utilitarian perspective, we take it for granted that's the best solution in all cases.

I would give a case from my country - we had a communism collapse and successful introduction of democracy. Of course apparatus of mass repression was disassembled. One of result was increased of number of murders - from something like 500 to something like 1000 per year (now, after serious decline we're just back to statistics comparable with last days of Polish Peoples Republic)

Precise data:
http://www.ksiegarnia.beck.pl/pdf/ksiega-fragm.pdf
(page 336, 339)
("Liczba zabójstw" -"number of murder")

Roughly counting 500 additional murdered / year. In late period communist secret service, police and the riot police in my country were murdering on average top a few dozens per year (including a hike during the martial law), including deaths that are still classified as very unfortunate accidents.

I've seen comparable stats for the South Africa after apartheid collapse (just they went from "high" to "war zone equivalent".) So after seeing such data it's not hard for me to imagine that in some countries introducing more idealistic system ends up as disaster, especially if local culture seems not specially predisposed for democracy.

And I consider the West as partially to blame for encouraging democracy too much. Yes, we're rich, peaceful and democratic. So what, if its hard to copy? Why shouldn't we instead demand from dictators a road map to Western-like society - with mass education first, moderate secularism, keeping moderate authoritarism, free market and making free election when the society is finally ready?

 

[HossamCFD]

And I consider the West as partially to blame for encouraging democracy too much. Yes, we're rich, peaceful and democratic. So what, if its hard to copy? Why shouldn't we instead demand from dictators a road map to Western-like society - with mass education first, moderate secularism, keeping moderate authoritarism, free market and making free election when the society is finally ready?

I think you might be overestimating the leverage the west has on the Arabic governments. But more importantly, if the last 40 years are anything to go by, I think supporting dictators and hoping they do the right thing is a bad idea for all parties involved. It just doesn't work. The dictators are only interested in securing their control and the western support for them creates an anti-western sentiment among the population. If you are going to blame the west for anything, it should be that they learned this lesson too slowly.

 

[HossamCFD]

More Sunni tribal executions by ISIS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29871068

Would that trigger more Sunni tribes to ally with the government against ISIS? or will ISIS succeed in their intimidation strategy?

 

[Astronuc]

Islamic State: Diary of life in Mosul
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29600573

Sunni and Shia in Iraq and across the ME need to come together and push back on ISIS.

Allowing ISIS to thrive means accepting a violent, destructive environment.Battle for Kobane: Key events
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29688108

 

[mheslep]

...And I consider the West as partially to blame for encouraging democracy too much. Yes, we're rich, peaceful and democratic. So what, if its hard to copy? Why shouldn't we instead demand from dictators a road map to Western-like society - with mass education first, moderate secularism, keeping moderate authoritarism, free market and making free election when the society is finally ready?

Me, I blame the blame-the-West crowd. New democracy may indeed be hard, but it is somehow relatively easy to receive reforms on request from tyrants? Tyrants seem to be inclined to fund terrorists, build WMD and villas in Europe for their kids; in response to calls for reforms come chants about the great satan. Tyrants seem not to be inclined to fund the plural society.

Post WWII Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later S. Korea are the successful models: after the fall of regimes a residual stabilizing force is left, for years if need be, and blather about imperialism ignored as blather. S. Korea in particular went through a series of corrupt elected politicians; today its a stable democracy and an economic powerhouse. Leaving Iraq, by contrast, was a blunder.

 

[fargoth]

Me, I blame the blame-the-West crowd. New democracy may indeed be hard, but it is somehow relatively easy to receive reforms on request from tyrants? Tyrants seem to be inclined to fund terrorists, build WMD and villas in Europe for their kids; in response to calls for reforms come chants about the great satan. Tyrants seem not to be inclined to fund the plural society.

Post WWII Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later S. Korea are the successful models: after the fall of regimes a residual stabilizing force is left, for years if need be, and blather about imperialism ignored as blather. S. Korea in particular went through a series of corrupt elected politicians; today its a stable democracy and an economic powerhouse. Leaving Iraq, by contrast, was a blunder.

Tell that to Chomsky et al.

 

[Astronuc]

The Islamic State group murdered more than 200 members, including women and children, of the Iraqi Albu Nimr tribe, which took up arms against the jihadists. The tribe is one of many in Anbar province.
http://news.yahoo.com/executed-over-200-iraq-tribesmen-recent-days-officials-104925918.html

 

[Czcibor]

Me, I blame the blame-the-West crowd. New democracy may indeed be hard, but it is somehow relatively easy to receive reforms on request from tyrants? Tyrants seem to be inclined to fund terrorists, build WMD and villas in Europe for their kids; in response to calls for reforms come chants about the great satan. Tyrants seem not to be inclined to fund the plural society.

Which "tyrants" do you exactly mean? Maybe Ataturk who built modern secular republic on ruins of Osman Empire? Guess how secular state you would get if you asked masses for consent. Or Japan from Meiji era.

Or much up to date - Mikheil Saakashvili (democratically elected, but it was far from democracy in the Western style)
I personally admire his reformist zeal, for example solving problem of corruption within traffic police... by firing whole traffic police (30 000 people) and hiring new ones. It did miracles, but I really doubt that so radical idea would be feasible in a country without authoritarian tendencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Georgia_(country)

My point: don't support democracy unconditionally. When applicable a modernist dictator is a much more better choice. Just if they are automatically condemned for not being democratic enough, you left behind many reasonable rulers, who if given a chance, just for their inflated ego and place in history could have become a great reformist.

Post WWII Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later S. Korea are the successful models: after the fall of regimes a residual stabilizing force is left, for years if need be, and blather about imperialism ignored as blather. S. Korea in particular went through a series of corrupt elected politicians; today its a stable democracy and an economic powerhouse. Leaving Iraq, by contrast, was a blunder.

I find your choice of countries somewhat not supporting your point. (I mean that those particular countries are rather poor choice, there would be ones that would fit your argument, but not the ones that you presented)

Germany, Japan:
-Countries with mass education, reasonable industrial base and working institutions - such starting points for building democracy were already present
-instead of unelectable dictator holding army and regardless of public opinion steering in hopefully reasonable direction, there was American (+British and French in case of Germany) army and occupation administration regardless of public opinion steering in hopefully reasonable direction (my point: it was not organic, but still there was someone imposing that on the society)

Korea:
-I'm a bit surprised that you count South Korea before late '80s as democracy. I always thought that in democracy the way in which politicians are replaced is a free election and not a coup d'etat. ;)
No, seriously I'd think as Asian Tigers (except of Japan with US imposed democracy) as a reasonable example for my argument - you first build a well working authoritarian state with mass education, and base on that build democracy generation or two later.

 

[mheslep]

Korea:
-I'm a bit surprised that you count South Korea before late '80s as democracy. I always thought that in democracy the way in which politicians are replaced is a free election and not a coup d'etat. ;)

Looks like you missed some of my post.

'S. Korea in particular went through a series of corrupt elected politicians; "

I'm aware of, and stated that S. Korea went through several cycles of corrupt leadership, and the US received the usual tripe that the US was to blame for it all as the US had (and has) troops on the DMZ. Fortunately, the US did not clear out and apologize to the world for its imperial intentions. S. Korea is the perfect example showing that, yes, democracy is hard but, in the end, better that everything else.

 

[mheslep]

(my point: it was not organic, but still there was someone imposing that on the society)

I agree, though "impose" is a bit off. Note that Germany and Japan quickly formed their own elected governments, wrote constitutions, while the US and allied presence made it clear that no radical directions would be tolerated, yet without any force required to make it so. Nobody handed Germany and Japan the US Constitution and said, "here, copy this".

Thus is seems to me history and wisdom called for a residual US/allied force in Iraq for some years.

 

[lisab]

I agree, though "impose" is a bit off. Note that Germany and Japan quickly formed their own elected governments, wrote constitutions, while the US and allied presence made it clear that no radical directions would be tolerated, yet without any force required to make it so. Nobody handed Germany and Japan the US Constitution and said, "here, copy this".

Perhaps that's because Japan and Germany were completely spent by that point. They were in no mood for any sort of fight.

Thus is seems to me history and wisdom called for a residual US/allied force in Iraq for some years.

US policy makers did not seem to understand the depth of the rift between Sunni and Shia. Our mistake was going there at all - what a disaster!

 

[OmCheeto]

Perhaps that's because Japan and Germany were completely spent by that point. They were in no mood for any sort of fight.
US policy makers did not seem to understand the depth of the rift between Sunni and Shia. Our mistake was going there at all - what a disaster!

I was a bit upset with Ryan Crocker's answer to PBS's question:

Losing Iraq
PBS; "… His 16-month policy that he talked about, did that worry you guys? There was some debate there."

Ryan Crocker; "Oh, yes. We argued very forcefully against setting down any timelines, as Americans who had nothing better to do with their time than listen to our 23 hours of testimony in September 2007 would have noticed. Dave Petraeus and I refused to talk about timelines.
We talked about what needed to be done and the need to maintain strategic patience and commitment until those things were done. To set an arbitrary timeline is just telling the enemy how long he has to wait, and that can be very dangerous, and that is the argument we made. …"
​

How long did he want us to stay then? 50 years?

But I didn't really know anything about this Crocker guy, so I spent about 5 hours doing research on him. I must say, that I was wrong about him.

Iraq: The Risks
Sept 9, 2014
In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell commissioned two of the State Department’s most respected diplomats to write a candid assessment of the risks if the United States invaded Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The six-page memo, entitled “The Perfect Storm,” is still classified. Parts of it eventually leaked, however. Amid the enthusiasm to go to war, its warnings challenged conventional wisdom within the Bush Administration. It predicted that, at best, Saddam’s ouster would not magically transform Iraq, as one of the memo’s authors, Ryan Crocker, subsequently wrote. At worst, the invasion might unleash a multitude of forces that the United States was not equipped to confront or contain. The memo proved prescient.

So yes, it has become a mess.

I wrote down a couple of predictions, 3 days after the start of the 2003 invasion. In one scenario, everything turned out fine. In the other, it developed into WWIII.

hmmm...

Who is doing what in the coalition battle against ISIS?
Secretary of State John Kerry has said nearly 40 nations have agreed to contribute to the fight against the militants.

World War II ...and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries.​

Well, I see that there are only about 50 million people living in Iraq and Syria. I guess it's not quite a "World War".

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps that's because Japan and Germany were completely spent by that point. They were in no mood for any sort of fight.

Yes, and that was mostly true of Iraq as well by ~2010. IS comes out of Syria, and walked into Iraqi towns with feeble opposition. Iraqi leadership went wrong not in looking for another fight, but in polarizing its armed forces, antagonizing the Kurds. As we know from the like of Sec Panetta, these are things that might well have been avoided with some US desire to remain in engaged for sake of stability, instead of avoiding the real problems of the present in favor or reliving the ill considered actions of the past:

..Our mistake was going there at all - what a disaster!

 

[Borg]

How long did he want us to stay then? 50 years?

This reminds me of one of my favorite Doonesbury comics. I think that it would have to be longer than that.

 

[HossamCFD]

The US is sending 1500 more troops to Iraq

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29961084

 

[Astronuc]

Once you're in, it's hard to leave.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...r-if-you-turn-against-isis-they-will-kill-you

"ISIS wants to kill everyone who says no," he says. "Everyone must be with them."

. . . .
But the final break came over a massacre he witnessed in Deir Ezzor. The killing spree against men of the al-Sheitat tribe was widely reported in the Arabic media. Grisly videos of the beheading of tribesmen surfaced. More than 700 Sheitat were murdered, many of them civilians. It was a message to other tribes that any challenge would be met with overwhelming force.

"We found the bodies of women, and old men, old women, children," the defector says. And any ISIS rebel that complained about the killing of women and children was also killed, he says.
. . . .

Kidnapped By ISIS, One Woman Tells How She Saved Her Sisters
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...sis-one-woman-tells-how-she-saved-her-sisters

The date of Aug. 15 is seared in her mind. That's when ISIS terrorized her village of Kocho; they massacred the men and some of the older women and kidnapped the young women to sell into forced marriages. Activists documenting the horrors say ISIS is holding more than 3,000 women and children hostage. Girls and women who are 12 and older are being sold to men in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other places.

Marine Reflects On Second Battle Of Fallujah, 10 Years Later
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/07/362351981/marine-reflects-on-second-battle-of-fallujah-10-years-later

 

[Dotini]

Once you're in, it's hard to leave.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...r-if-you-turn-against-isis-they-will-kill-you

"ISIS wants to kill everyone who says no," he says. "Everyone must be with them."
Kidnapped By ISIS, One Woman Tells How She Saved Her Sisters
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...sis-one-woman-tells-how-she-saved-her-sisters
Marine Reflects On Second Battle Of Fallujah, 10 Years Later
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/07/362351981/marine-reflects-on-second-battle-of-fallujah-10-years-later

That was a disturbing post. It illustrates both that there are monsters on Earth, and that there is a cost in going abroad to slay them.

 

[nsaspook]

Iran in Iraq:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...em-Suleimani-masterminds-Iraq-ground-war.html

When Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants retreated from the embattled town of Jurf al-Sakher last week, the Iraqi military was quick to flaunt a rare victory against the extremist group, with state television showing tanks and Humvees parading through the town and soldiers touring government buildings that had been occupied by the militants since August.

However, photos soon emerged on independent Iraqi news websites revealing a more discrete presence - the powerful Iranian general Qassem Suleimani - whose name has become synonymous with the handful of victories attributed to Iraqi ground forces. Local commanders said Lebanon's powerful Shiite Hezbollah group was also on the front lines.

He's been a go-between for Iran and the US for years where we have common goals like the destruction of the Taliban and now ISIS even while he's officially listed as a terrorist for being the leader of the Qods Force.

 

[fargoth]

He's been a go-between for Iran and the US for years where we have common goals like the destruction of the Taliban and now ISIS even while he's officially listed as a terrorist for being the leader of the Qods Force.

Well, they ARE very intermingled with terrorist organizations...
A few excerpts from wikipedia related to their Iraq involvement or U.S. "interaction":

The Quds Force reportedly fought alongside the United States and the Northern Alliance in the Battle for Herat. However, in recent years Iran is accused of helping and training the Taliban insurgents against the NATO-backed Karzai administration.[9][10] Iranian-made weapons, including powerful explosive devices are often found inside Afghanistan.[11][13][14][15]

Quds Force was involved with the plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir, and planned to bomb the Israeli and Saudi embassies located in Washington, D.C.[35][36][37]

In December 2009 evidence uncovered during an investigation by The Guardian newspaper and Guardian Films linked the Quds Force to the kidnappings of five Britons from a government ministry building in Baghdad in 2007. Three of the hostages, Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst, and Alec Maclachlan, were killed. Alan Mcmenemy's body was never found but Peter Moore was released on 30 December 2009. The investigation uncovered evidence that Moore, 37, a computer expert from Lincoln was targeted because he was installing a system for the Iraqi Government that would show how a vast amount of international aid was diverted to Iran's militia groups in Iraq. One of the alleged groups funded by the Quds force directly is the Righteous League, which emerged in 2006 and has stayed largely in the shadows as a proxy of the Quds Force. Shia cleric and leading figure of the Righteous League, Qais al-Khazali, was handed over by the U.S. military for release by the Iraqi government on 29 December 2009 as part of the deal that led to the release of Moore.[66]

in 2011 Congressional counter-terrorism advisor Michael S. Smith II of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronos_Advisory,_LLC produced a report on Iran’s ties to Al-Qaeda that was distributed to members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.[75][76][77] Titled "The al-Qa'ida-Qods Force Nexus: Scratching the Surface of a Known Unknown", a redacted version of Smith's report is available online via the blog site owned by American military geostrategist and The Pentagon's New Map author Thomas P.M. Barnett.[78]

 

[mheslep]

Does anyone understand the Constitutional argument for airstrikes without Congressional authorization? The President has said that the Iraq war is over, so it can't be that. Congress is in session.

U.S. air strikes against IS began on August 8, the day after Obama's announcement. As of this week 90 days have passed without any request for authorization from Congress as the War Powers act requires, so the military action is now illegal as I understand the law.

 

[Dotini]

U.S. air strikes against IS began on August 8, the day after Obama's announcement. As of this week 90 days have passed without any request for authorization from Congress as the War Powers act requires, so the military action is now illegal as I understand the law.

President Richard Nixon once quipped, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal".
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040677nixonnotillegal

Rand Paul has said "Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not." But he also says "For those who believe in unlimited Article II power, the argument goes that since Article II makes the president the “commander in chief” and that really Congress is only a flimsy appendage to be grudgingly consulted—but never to be bound by."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/10/obama-s-isis-war-is-illegal.html#
So it's not simply a matter of legality. Politics are involved.

My own view is that, although on the surface we are a nation of laws, underneath that we have little doubt our ends justify the means, and our might makes right. So there is a daily tension between what we say and what we do.

 

[mheslep]

President Richard Nixon once quipped, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal".
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040677nixonnotillegal

Rand Paul has said "Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not." But he also says "For those who believe in unlimited Article II power, the argument goes that since Article II makes the president the “commander in chief” and that really Congress is only a flimsy appendage to be grudgingly consulted—but never to be bound by."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/10/obama-s-isis-war-is-illegal.html#
So it's not simply a matter of legality. Politics are involved.

My own view is that, although on the surface we are a nation of laws, underneath that we have little doubt our ends justify the means, and our might makes right. So there is a daily tension between what we say and what we do.

Then you won't object to those who attempt to enforce the legally required means by calling for impeachment, whatever the politics.