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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chronos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Iraqi government is facing imminent collapse under insurgent pressure, with ISIS reportedly taking control of Mosul. The U.S. has refused military aid to Iraq, primarily to avoid appearing to support Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose Shiite leadership could be seen as backing Iran. Concerns are rising that if insurgents gain control of Baghdad, it could lead to increased conflict with Iran. The Iraqi army, despite being well-trained and outnumbering ISIS, has shown reluctance to engage, leaving military equipment behind in their retreat. The situation is evolving into a civil war, raising fears of broader regional instability and the potential resurgence of terrorism globally.
  • #91
Dotini said:
ISIS noted for smart strategy according to director of Institute for the Study of War:

Anything is smart if the other side is just dropping its weapons and running when they see the devil. Their blitzkrieg tactics are efficient and smart for the objective of sweeping villages and poorly commanded troops into submission but they are creating a massive army of unforgiving people who will want revenge for the crimes that have been committed on them. This is stupid strategically if you want to create a something more than just a battleground for slaughter. If a slaughter house is what they want then the strategy is brilliant.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Dotini said:
No, I provide a source that hundreds of French, Americans and British are directly involved in ISIS, some ISIS fighters were former FSA trained by US, French and British trainers, and I assert that CNN reports some are war college trained.

ISIS draws foreigners from many countries, as have several jihadist organizations over the years, with al Awlaki perhaps the most infamous. But there is no mention whatsoever of ISIS in that Reuters source, which was about training certain Syrian rebels.
 
  • #93
These articles makes it clear that western training and weapons were provided to rebel groups such as the FSA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/w...xpands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/04/us-usa-syria-rebels-idUSBREA331ZI20140404

These make it clear that ISIS has recruited from the FSA, al-Nusra, etc., including its commanders.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/jihadists-step-up-recruitment-drive-1403739743
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/23/231236/isiss-victories-may-win-it-recruits.html
 
  • #94
Dotini said:
These articles makes it clear that western training and weapons were provided to rebel groups such as the FSA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/w...xpands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/04/us-usa-syria-rebels-idUSBREA331ZI20140404
Granted, training directly for the FSA, not al-Nusra, not ISIS. The western backed training in Jordan occurred for FSA in light of their statements like http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/124717/syrian-opposition-call-for-no-fly-zone.html, at the beginning of the Syrian rebellion in 2011:
Turkish Weekly said:
“This is not a sectarian issue, but 90 per cent of the [Syrian goverment] army is Sunni and they are trying to make it sectarian by going in and killing Syrian civilians in Sunni areas,” said the SFA source,
The FSA fought the Assad regime without any substantial aid from the west for two years until the like of the training in Jordan began (for some 200) beginning in 2013 per the Reuters article. One could make the argument it was two year period of the west doing nothing, threatening red lines, while the FSA weakened fighting Assad's government that allowed the rise of other groups like ISIS. But this is for another thread.

The article also states the Jordanians made efforts to keep radicals out of the training program:
Reuters said:
Jordanian intelligence services are involved in the program, which aims to build around a dozen units totaling some 10,000 fighters to the exclusion of radical Islamists, Spiegel reported.
"The Jordanian intelligence services want to prevent Salafists (radical Islamists) crossing from their own country into Syria and then returning later to stir up trouble in Jordan itself," one of the organizers told the paper.

Dotini said:
These make it clear that ISIS has recruited from the FSA, al-Nusra, etc., including its commanders.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/jihadists-step-up-recruitment-drive-1403739743
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/23/231236/isiss-victories-may-win-it-recruits.html
The WSJ article from June makes one reference to FSA:
WSJ said:
...Last week, four commanders from the Western-backed Free Syrian Army joined ISIS, Syrian activists said.
The McClatchy reference you provided above states:
McClatchy said:
Since January, [ISIS has] been locked in combat not just with the U.S.-backed moderate Free Syrian Army but also with Nusra and Ahrar al Sham.
with nothing about defections from FSA. Elsewhere, there is also this about the relation between ISIS and FSA:
Arab news said:
Late last week, dozens of FSA fighters were killed in a battle against ISIS in the northwestern province of Idlib. The FSA battalion chief there was beheaded by ISIS and his brother slaughtered, said the Observatory.

Do you still assert that this fact basis warrants your original statement in this thread, that ISIS is a Frankenstein? How should one interpret that monster analogy, other than that it is creature manufactured by the actions of west?

Dotini said:
In ISIS we have a bit of a Frankenstein's monster for which we need to acknowledge a share of our own culpability - as well as the responsibility to undo the damage we have done, in my opinion.

As part of our efforts to unseat Assad, at least hundreds of what later became ISIS fighters were trained in Jordanian camps by US, British and French. ...
 
  • #95
mheslep said:
Do you still assert that this fact basis warrants your original statement in this thread, that ISIS is a Frankenstein? How should one interpret that monster analogy, other than that it is creature manufactured by the actions of west?

Yes, I reassert that ISIS is a Frankenstein's monster. However, I deny that the west is exclusively responsible, as history is exceedingly complex. I do agree with The Independent that,

"Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open."

I also make room to blame Qatar for their support of ISIS, and Nouri al-Maliki for excluding Sunni from the Iraqi army and government leadership. Loads of blame to go around to many points of the compass, east and west.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ke-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
 
  • #96
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.
 
  • #97
The sad thing is our delay in striking ISIS has allowed this Frankenstein's monster to mutate into a Godzilla sized creature with the same abnormal brain.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iraq-conflict-political-crisis-deepens-as-pm-deploys-militia-1.2732479

Asked if the U.S. airstrikes were making a difference for the Yazidis, Gee said one strike overnight at militants in Sinjar who were firing at the group were "taken out," restoring some calm.

Gee said she was with Kurdish forces about 30 kilometres from Erbill on Saturday, and she was told things were "peaceful" following the Thursday and Friday night airstrikes because heavy weaponry operated by ISIS was destroyed.
...
"Some of the victims, including women and children were buried alive in scattered mass graves in and around Sinjar," Sudani said.
 
  • #98
Vanadium 50 said:
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.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/IraqWPR.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
  • #100
Vanadium 50 said:
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.

That document was thrown in the trash years ago to main stream politicians
 
  • #101
  • #102
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
The President is Commander in Chief according to the Constitution and requires no additional authority.

Presidents sometimes ask for permission in order not to run afoul of the War Powers Act, which:

1. Includes a 60 day grace period.
2. Is likely unconstitutional.
 
  • #103
Dotini said:
In ISIS we have a bit of a Frankenstein's monster for which we need to acknowledge a share of our own culpability - as well as the responsibility to undo the damage we have done, in my opinion.

As part of our efforts to unseat Assad, at least hundreds of what later became ISIS fighters were trained in Jordanian camps by US, British and French. Our allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab League states are said to have provided financing and weapons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310
At this point, are we correct to assume that "at least hundreds" is something you made up/concluded and have no direct source for?

While I suspect it is likely that some ISIS fighters were trained by the US, I also would be surprised if it is more than dozens.
 
  • #105
russ_watters said:
At this point, are we correct to assume that "at least hundreds" is something you made up/concluded and have no direct source for?

While I suspect it is likely that some ISIS fighters were trained by the US, I also would be surprised if it is more than dozens.

I assumed the following as documentable facts as the basis of my rough estimate of hundreds.

- Training of rebels by US, British and French began in Jordan in 2011, turning out maybe 90/month. So that's a base of at least 2000 in Jordan alone, not to mention Turkey, or western training received at some other time or place.

- It did not seem too great stretch that 10% would have been subsumed into ISIS as most of the rebel factions were gathered by ISIS.

So you may be right, it could be fewer. Maybe it's only 10, but there would appear to be no definitive current count available (to me). I rest my statement on what I think is reasonable and conservative. If I have exceeded the freedom of expression allowed by the Current Events Guidelines, then I am deeply apologetic and beg your forgiveness, for such was definitely not my intent.
 
  • #107
Vanadium 50 said:
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.

Apparently the President believes he is still acting under the wide ranging power stemming from the original post 9/11 AUMF to fight terrorists, signed prior to and independent of the Iraq war.

Obama said:
...Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

Certainly there are other statements and actions by the President that directly contradict that idea. The aborted effort to ask Congress for an AUMF to hit Assad in Syria for using chemical weapons post "red line" immediately comes to mind.

Congressional support is now growing to sunset the 9/11 AUMF.
http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/SCHIFF_051_xml519140943274327.pdf

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (50 U.S.C. 1541 note; Public Law 107–5 40) is hereby repealed,”
 
Last edited:
  • #108
OmCheeto said:
Reminds me a bit of the evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon back in '75.

The NVA was a organized army with a military and political structure that had at least some strategic vision for a future and reconciliation. It reminds me more of the Cambodian Democide. Another Utopian dream of purity as an excuse to eliminate the impure by mass murder.
 
  • #110
mheslep said:
Apparently the President believes he is still acting under the wide ranging power stemming from the original post 9/11 AUMF to fight terrorists, signed prior to and independent of the Iraq war.



Certainly there are other statements and actions by the President that directly contradict that idea. The aborted effort to ask Congress for an AUMF to hit Assad in Syria for using chemical weapons post "red line" immediately comes to mind.

Congressional support is now growing to sunset the 9/11 AUMF.
http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/SCHIFF_051_xml519140943274327.pdf
Asking for authority when he already has it is a big mistake IMO (not as big as not asking when he doesn't), but it isn't a mistake if done on purpose. When he is denied permission to do something he thinks he should but doesn't want to, he can then blame the failure on others. I suspect we have a bit of both here.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
nsaspook said:
The NVA was a organized army with a military and political structure that had at least some strategic vision for a future and reconciliation. It reminds me more of the Cambodian Democide. Another Utopian dream of purity as an excuse to eliminate the impure by mass murder.

Ugh. I remember watching the movie "The Killing Fields", back in the mid 80's. I didn't know they had a unique term for that kind of thing.

wiki on Democide said:
...
The objectives of such a plan of democide include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity; and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
...

I probably should have come up with my own term, back in 2003, when I had a fight with someone:

Young naive Om said:
Them. I love it when people use that word. I call them finger pointers. Problems always arise because of 'them'. It is always 'their' fault.
Intolerance, hatred, and violence have been with us since the apple incident.

Themicide

But this Rummel looks like an interesting fellow. Too bad he just passed away this winter.

wiki on Rudolph Rummel said:
...
Rummel was one of the early researchers on democratic peace theory, after Dean Babst. He found that in the period between 1816 and 2005 there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and no wars between democracies.
...

bolding mine
 
  • #112
OmCheeto said:
But this Rummel looks like an interesting fellow. Too bad he just passed away this winter.

Yes, it's too bad but his website is a trove of information on the subject that I mainly agree with when viewing the events in Iraq and Syria.

Rudolph Rummel
On the other side are totalitarian political regimes. Rather than being a means for resolving differences in views, they try to impose a particular ideology, religion, or solution to social problems on society, regardless of the opposition. For this reason such regimes try to control all aspects of society and deal with conflict by force, coercion, and fear, that is, by power. Moreover, such power breeds political paranoia by the dictator or within a narrow ruling group. This is the fear that others are always plotting to take over rule and would execute those now in power. Finally, there is one hierarchical pyramid of power rather than a multitude of such pyramids as in a democracy, one single coercive organization. This turns all socio-political and economic issues and problems into a matter of us versus them, of those with power versus those without. We should therefore find that the less democratic a regime, the more unchecked and unbalanced power at the center, the more it should commit democide. Democide becomes a device of rule, as in eliminating possible opponents, or a means for achieving one's ideological goal, as in the purification of one's country of an alien race or the reconstruction of society.
 
  • #113
russ_watters said:
Asking for authority when he already has it is a big mistake IMO (not as big as not asking when he doesn't), ...
This discussion usually is about the balance between Congresses Article 1 authority to declare war, and what's understood as the President's Article 2 CiC authority to execute it. I assumed V50's post was a query about a lack of evident Congressional authority. Are you dismissing any need for the balance?

Federalist 69 said:
...The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature...
 
  • #114
nsaspook said:
Yes, it's too bad but his website is a trove of information on the subject that I mainly agree with when viewing the events in Iraq and Syria.

...This turns all socio-political and economic issues and problems into a matter of us versus them...

Sounds familiar. :rolleyes:
 
  • #116
US Weighs Operation to Aid Yazidis in Iraq Mountains

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-w...uate-yazidis-from-iraq-mountains/2409670.html

One, he said, is for U.N. representatives to convince Islamic State fighters to let them go or be pummeled by American airstrikes. The second is a corridor secured by peshmerga or Iraq army troops and U.S. airpower.

To establish a humanitarian corridor, the United Nations and any nations that participated would have to overcome the Islamic State group's military advantage over Kurdish security forces, the peshmerga.

“Security would have to be provided by the Iraqis, especially the Kurds, with air cover from the U.S. and possibly the British and the French,” a U.N. official said on condition of anonymity
 
  • #117
mheslep said:
This discussion usually is about the balance between Congresses Article 1 authority to declare war, and what's understood as the President's Article 2 CiC authority to execute it. I assumed V50's post was a query about a lack of evident Congressional authority. Are you dismissing any need for the balance?
I'm not sure if "need" is really the word you were looking for. The question is whether the "balance" suggested exists or not or, more specifically, what the war powers of the President and Congress, respectively, are.

Since the issue has not been challenged in the courts, we can't know for certain, but there is a lot of historical precedent on which to base a prediction.

The Federalist quote doesn't really enlighten us much because it discusses budget and structure issues as powers of Congress, which aren't in question. Indeed, there is other discussion that I think is clearer from the time:
And this distinction between the President's right to use force defensively, but requiring legislative sanction to initiate an offensive war, was evident in the debate at the Philadelphia Convention over Madison's motion to give Congress not the power "to make War," but the more narrow power "to declare War." [18] In 1928 [19] and again in 1945 [20] , the world community by treaty outlawed the aggressive use of force among nations, and in the process made the declaration of war clause a constitutional anachronism. It is no coincidence that no sovereign state has clearly issued a declaration of war in more than half a century [21].
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications...re-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism

The whole article is a good read. Regarding being too weak as a mistake:
Part of the modern confusion results from a failure to understand what really happened in Korea. As soon as President Truman returned to Washington from Missouri, following the June 25, 1950, invasion, he met with his senior advisers, asked that a resolution be drafted for Congress to consider, and announced that he wanted to make an address to a joint session of Congress. The following morning, he called Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Tom Connally-who had helped draft the UN Charter five years earlier-and asked for advice. As recounted by Connally in his autobiography:

He hadn't as yet made up his mind what to do. . . .
"Do you think I'll have to ask Congress for a declaration of war if I decide to send American forces into Korea?" the President asked?
"If a burglar breaks into your house," I said, "you can shoot at him without going down to the police station and getting permission. . . . You have the right to do it as commander-in-chief and under the UN Charter." [25]

A careful review of the now declassified top-secret records reveals that President Truman "played it by the book" in Korea. He personally consulted repeatedly with the joint leadership of Congress, asked repeatedly to address a joint session of Congress on the crisis, and even provided a draft resolution of approval for Congress to consider [26]. And at every turn, he was advised by congressional leaders of both parties to "stay away" from Congress and assured that he had adequate powers to do what he was doing in Korea under the Constitution and the UN Charter.
While I like the historical precedent, there is also the more practical matter of the wording and execution of the law itself. It provides Congress the ability to give orders to the military. How can the President be CINC if Congress can give orders?

Where the rubber meets the road, though, is that no one (Congress) has never attempted a serious challenge of the President's (any President since Nixon himeself) war authority -- unlike the handful of abuse of power cases that Obama has lost -- while no President has ever accepted the Constitutionality of the act. So for now the question is settled by virtue of being moot.
 
  • #118
mheslep said:
I assumed V50's post was a query about a lack of evident Congressional authority.

My question was even simpler - was the administration's position that this is a brand new war, or a continuation of an old war?
 
  • #119
russ_watters said:
The Federalist quote doesn't really enlighten us much because it discusses budget and structure issues as powers of Congress, which aren't in question.
The budget clause from Hamilton I agree is not in dispute, but the issue of the initiation of war via Congress very much is, and Hamilton makes it clear there which entity has that power.

Indeed, there is other discussion that I think is clearer from the time:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications...re-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism

The whole article is a good read. Regarding being too weak as a mistake:
That article highlights the problems I have with the current situation rather than resolves them.

For instance, the author cites Truman's consultation with Chairman Connally about Korea: Connally was the same party as Truman. He had an interest in party politics by supporting the President. That and other instances in the article suggest the authority to go to war then is a political one decided by the party in power. It is not. This US system is instead governance by constitutional republic. The President is not "following the book" by consulting with some chairmen in his party. He is obliged by the Constitution to obtain agreement by majority of the full Congress, at least at some point when time and circumstances allow. In requiring the consent of Congress which is inevitably populated by factions, the Constitution as written forces the country to come together in a sober manner, find some area of common ground.

Partisans in Congress will always tend to avoid this obligation if they can find away. What we have now by contrast does the opposite, and as in the example of Truman-Connally; it encourages partisan action dividing the country.

While I like the historical precedent, there is also the more practical matter of the wording and execution of the law itself.

It provides Congress the ability to give orders to the military. How can the President be CINC if Congress can give orders?

Where the rubber meets the road, though, is that no one (Congress) has never attempted a serious challenge of the President's (any President since Nixon himeself) war authority -- unlike the handful of abuse of power cases that Obama has lost -- while no President has ever accepted the Constitutionality of the act. So for now the question is settled by virtue of being moot.

"Where the rubber meets the road, though, is that no one (Congress) has never attempted a serious challenge of the President's (any President since Nixon himeself) war authority"
Never? As we can see, Presidents, being politicians, can count votes before the fact and so rarely force votes they are likely to lose, especially so on a military action vote. Thus I think the recent Syrian red-line fiasco was an example of where the President's war authority was checked, probably due to the Republican majority in the House: Obama floated the issue via proxies and then withdrew.
 
  • #120
This is the strategic vision of ISIS, "convert or be killed and your women and girls kidnapped".

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-16-18-29-11
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) -- Islamic extremists shot scores of Yazidi men to death in Iraq, lining them up in small groups and opening fire with assault rifles before abducting their wives and children, according to an eyewitness, government officials and people who live in the area.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-ISIS-impregnated-smash-blond-bloodline.html
Fears are growing for the 300 Yazidi women reportedly kidnapped by Islamic State fighters last week amid claims they would be used to bear children to break up the ancient sect's bloodline.

The minority group is originally Aryan and has retained a fairer complexion, blonde hair and blue eyes by only marrying within the community.

But in a furious bid to convert all non-Muslims, ISIS jihadists have vowed to impregnate the hostages.

Some activity at the Mosul Dam.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ_AIRSTRIKES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-16-18-16-52
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. officials say a mix of fighter planes and remotely piloted aircraft have attacked Islamic State militants near the Iraqi city of Irbil and the Mosul Dam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News US-Iraq Security Pact: Impasse over Sovereignty
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Is the US Military Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds in Iraq?
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
8K
News Is Reinstating Saddam's Officers a Step Back for Iraqi Democracy?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
News Iraqi police force infiltrated by ins s
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
News The US military & the Iraqi press
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Legitimate targets of resistance?
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
9K
News Was Anyone Surprised by US Missile Hitting Refugee Bus in 2003?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
News Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K