Let The French Take Mosul
The problem of what to do about the Islamic State is an enormously complicated one. Right now, though, there seems to be an opportunity to propose at least a partial solution that, if successful, would be a major military victory of strategic value. This plan would be to let the French military lead the effort to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State. Not only would this be an enormous blow to the soi-disant "Caliphate," but it would also be a productive way for France to fight back in retaliation for the recent slaughter in Paris.
The city of Mosul would be an ideal place for this to happen. Located in northern Iraq, the city was historically mostly Arab, bordered on the north and east by traditional Kurdish lands. As you can see on an up-to-date war map of Iraq, Mosul is one of the most strategic strongholds the Islamic State controls in Iraq. Lands to the north and east of the city are still held by Kurdish forces, who also just successfully cut off Mosul's main supply route from the west (towards Syria) with their recent capture of Sinjar. To the south of Mosul is a highway leading to Baghdad. The Iraqi army (the official government forces) have had some success pushing north on this route, taking both Tikrit and Baiji. Their progress, however, has been very slow.
Looking at the situation through the lens of military tactics, you can see that a classic "pincers" movement is -- again, very slowly -- being executed, from the north by the Kurds and from the south by the Iraqi army. This could (if successful) eventually lead to a siege of Mosul, if the two pincers ever meet and effectively surround the city. The Islamic State in Mosul would then be cut off from resupply.
The alternative to this overall military strategy would be to move as quickly as possible from the north and east, taking the battle directly to Mosul while still leaving an exit for the Islamic State fighters to flee towards (to the west, back into Syria), should they so choose. The problem with this idea is that it would take an overwhelming force to have any decent chance of success -- and that likely means tens of thousands of ground forces. I should admit that I am no military expert, so I have no idea what the ideal number of troops would be. Mosul is a city of over a million people, and it's going to require some brutal street-by-street fighting. There will be snipers, booby traps and other IEDs. Urban fights such as this are the hardest to undertake (ask any soldier, they'll tell you). But whether the number of troops needed is 10,000 or 30,000, they could be provided by France instead of the United States.
America's problem is essentially a political one, not a military one. Our armed forces could likely take Mosul any time we so desired -- but the cost might be unacceptably high. The American public is still pretty war-weary, especially in that region of the world. President Obama isn't going to send 20,000 infantry troops to take Mosul, but even most of his sharpest detractors -- the Republicans now running for president -- are also thinking twice before enthusiastically campaigning on sending tens of thousands of American soldiers to fight the Islamic State.
Bombing is politically acceptable to both sides of our domestic political debate. Bombing, as we've just seen, is also politically acceptable for the French. François Hollande has already called the Paris attack an act of war, so it's not that big a stretch of the imagination to think that the French public might right now be eager to do more than just dropping 20 bombs on the Islamic State. Taking Mosul would be an excellent opportunity for the French to hit back hard and deny the Islamic State a major region of Iraq.
There is speculation that the Islamic State may have pre-planned the Paris attack, but also that its timing might have been influenced by the fact that they just suffered a battlefield defeat. The Kurds taking Sinjar -- if they can hold both it and the crucial stretch of road next to it -- was a big military victory. Today, however, the world image of the Islamic State is not that they were weakened by the loss of this important supply route, but rather that they successfully launched an attack on Paris. The propaganda difference between those two is huge, which is why it's easy to speculate that the loss might have triggered the decision to attack Paris at this particular time.
In purely propagandistic terms, the French reacting by sending 20,000 soldiers to retake Mosul would be hard to ignore. It would, in fact, be a body blow to the Islamic State and the self-identity they present to the world. It's a lot harder to convince new recruits to your cause when you are seen as losing major ground, to state the obvious.
President Obama should offer an invitation to François Hollande, for his country to shoulder the effort to take Mosul back from the Islamic State. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have been eager to publicly call for tens of thousands of American troops to immediately be sent to Iraq, but the public feelings in France might just support such a move right now. America would be seen as magnanimously allowing an ally to wreak some vengeance for being attacked, with our full air and logistics support. The French could proudly strike back, after suffering terrorist attacks on her own soil.
I do not make such a suggestion callously. Retaking Mosul is not going to be easy, no matter who does it or how long it takes. Even if the French wholeheartedly embraced this plan, it's not going to happen overnight. And a lot of brave soldiers are going to die in the effort -- there is no getting around that. Whether this price is politically acceptable is up to the French people, really. It's for them to decide.
Even the aftermath will be messy, it also bears pointing out. The Kurds and the Iraqi government forces don't see eye-to-eye on where the borders between their successive regions should begin and end. After the city is retaken, it will need to be defended. The central Iraqi government should be the ones to do so, since historically the city has never had a Kurdish majority. France and the coalition to defeat the Islamic State should make it clear to Baghdad, however, that if they aren't willing to defend Mosul (and capable of sustaining such a defense) against future Islamic State attacks, then perhaps the Kurds should be given control of the city (and all the oil fields). That might be enough of a goad to get the central government to step up.
There is no certainty in war. Nobody's saying this fight will be an easy one. There will be a high cost to bear in soldiers' lives to wrest control of Mosul away from the Islamic State. So far, America has not been willing to bear that cost. But, right now, France might just be willing to do so.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
America's problem is essentially a political one, not a military one. Our armed forces could likely take Mosul any time we so desired -- but the cost might be unacceptably high.
POLITICALLY unacceptably high..
Let's be accurate here...
On a practical level, I see the value of what you propose..
On the visceral level you seem to be saying, "Let the French take the risks because we are too much the pussies to do it ourselves.."
While I acknowledge the reality of that, it still REALLY rubs me the wrong way...
Michale
Hey CW
This is outside your normal area of focus, but since you get exposure with your cross-postings, I would ask a simple favor.
You, in this post, and countless other reporters and pundits talk about the re-supply lines of IS.
IS isn't getting resupplied by the Shiites in Iraq, nor by the Shiites in Syria, nor by the Kurds in either country...
... so, who is resupplying them?
Could you please ask that question?
Maybe hammer it home repeatedly, and possibly point out that the options boil down to US allies or the UN (appropriated humanitarian aid)?
It's been widely reported IS captured loads of equipment, weapons and ammunition in their offences, but that can't last very long and they aren't growing their own food.
It was also just announced that the US bombed something like 180 oil tankers IS was using to transport their booty from captured oilfields.
But who was buying the oil that they were selling to fund their caliphate?
Again, the options are limited to US allies... and the UN doesn't make the list this time.
Given this new "hit the oil tankers" strategy, it would certainly seem fair to ask what took so long?
Who was benefitting from the oil sales, and why did we allow them to continue?
Iraq has complained that the US effort has seemingly been intentionally ineffective... maybe that's changing now, maybe not.
But nobody seems to be even asking if there was a decision made to tolerate IS due to the US backed regime change effort in Syria.
The US has after all, decided to airdrop ammunition to al Qaida (al Nusra) in Syria to augment the supplies they receive from our allies, while publicly offering a word-salad of qualifications, justifications and pseudo denials. And the US corporate media hasn't challenged this betrayal of the victims of 9/11 by our "leaders", who, btw, are still operating under the legal authority of the War On Terror justified by al Qaida's attack on the US.
And I can't be the only one still holding a bit of a grudge about that little incident.
As for your idea for the French... I bet they don't do it, but it's a good idea.
Micha
I think the "political" decision made about IS was to not destroy them... in order to advance the neolibcon political objective of regime change in Syria.
That is what the evidence suggests.
A
There has been speculation in the press that Hollande might invoke Article 5 of the Nato Charter (an attack on one member is an attack on all). Hollande's assertion that the Paris Attack was an act of war against France feeds into this speculation. NATO participation would certainly be a huge multiplier for the French....but probably a dicey sell to other members.
I happen to be reading a book titled The Sleepwalkers How Europe Went to War in 1914. The trigger for World War I was an act of terror amplified through a web of treaties and informal "understandings." It's enough to make you think twice about the next move, whatever that move may be. Iraq, Syria and their neighbors have lot in common with the Balkans of a century ago. As in '14, a few idiot barbarians and their handlers just did something incredibly stupid.
Retaking Mosul sounds good.
But, then what?
Taking Mosul won't accomplish much for long if the current thinking in the Iraqi government doesn't change, let alone in the governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey and many others in the region.
This is more a political problem than a military one and though a military component is obviously necessary it is nowhere near sufficient.
So far, America has not been willing to bear that cost.
Nor should it be willing to bear that cost for it is not for the US to do so.
But, right now, France might just be willing to do so.
It might. But, it will also reap the consequences for trying. Revenge is a very, very dangerous motivation.
France, the US and their friends and allies around the world would do better to demand changes in how Middle Eastern powers are responding to the problem they themselves have spawned.
altohone -6
The NYT did a nice piece on ISIS finances recently. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/19/world/middleeast/isis-finances.html?_r=0
but, it's paywall, so a summary:
Sources of income in 2014
Taxes and Extortion* $M 600
Stolen from Iraqi banks $M 500
Oil $M 100
Kidnapping and ransom $M 20
ISIS' biggest expense is salaries, but overall costs are quite low by Western standards.
* The NYT differentiates between taxes and extortion, apparently because US taxation is entirely voluntary for its well heeled staff and wealthy readership :-)
Chris,
Are we supposed to believe that this piece is a serious proposal?
France, the US and their friends and allies around the world would do better to demand changes in how Middle Eastern powers are responding to the problem they themselves have spawned.
Hmmmmmm
So, you are advocating that the US dictate to sovereign nations how to run their affairs??
Funny how the Left Wingery was TOTALLY and COMPLETELY against that when the POTUS had a '-R' after his name, eh?? :D
Michale
This is more a political problem than a military one and though a military component is obviously necessary it is nowhere near sufficient.
But the problem with the administration is that they are putting emphasis on the politics and all but ignoring the military side of the equation..
When, in reality, they should be doing the opposite.. Make the politics take a back-seat to the military operations..
Once the military problem is solved, then the politics become much easier..
Although, I am loathe to admit that in THIS particular region of the planet, logic rarely rules the day..
Michale
11 Sep notwithstanding, the two "best" times to commit a terrorist attack on US soil is during the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season and on the 4th Of July...
We have already seen ISIS inspired attacks on US soil..
It's only a matter of time before we will see a coordinated attack by ISIS Proper on US soil in the Paris-style variety...
Democrats better PRAY that such an attack occurs the winter holiday season..
Because if we see a Paris-style attack here in the US on the 4th Of July, Democrats won't be able to be elected county dog catcher...
Because ANY attack will be the result of Democrat Party ineptitude and it's total inability to recognize the enemy....
Michale
Micha
Back to the partisan games I see.
The neolibcons thank you for wearing blinders about the consistency of policies despite our elections.
Hoping for an attack on America in order to reap political gains is wingnuttery at its worst.
TS
A good portion of NATO is already bombing IS... though Canada just announced they were ending their participation...
... but the reality of NATO member Turkey has to be addressed.
They've been eagerly buying caliphate oil while shelling and bombing the Kurds... hardly a beneficial role.
The concept of mutual defense is problematic when one member state is directly aiding the enemy.
With many NATO members supporting the regime change effort in Syria, which is at a minimum indirectly aiding IS, and which has been justified by the supposed brutality of Assad defending his country against these and other terrorists (and the Syrians who welcomed them), it would seem there is some dissonance that needs to be dealt with first.
I noticed two different posts on HP calling for a unified effort against IS... including Russia, Iran and Syria... and I think that would be the only truly effective approach... but it would require that Obama, Hollande, and others admit that the regime change effort was wrong... or, possibly with some face-saving language, that a new policy would be less wrong.
As Liz mentioned, the "then what" question can only be answered in one of two ways.
Either a foreign occupying force is deployed to maintain order (and which nobody wants to volunteer for), or Assad's forces are allowed to reestablish control in their country (maybe with an autonomous or semi-autonomous Kurdish region carved out).
Liz is absolutely correct (and Micha horribly wrong as usual) that a political solution is the only course to an actual resolution.
The most realistic course involves including Assad, but getting the US, the Turks and the Saudis to accept that will be nearly impossible.
The less than subtle Israeli support and lobbying for the regime change war in Syria can't be ignored in the calculation either.
A
But the problem with the administration is that they are putting emphasis on the politics and all but ignoring the military side of the equation..When, in reality, they should be doing the opposite.. Make the politics take a back-seat to the military operations..Once the military problem is solved, then the politics become much easier..
That is, indubitably, some of the most non-serious gibberish I've read on this site. Clearly, Michale, you don't live in the real world but rather in some fantasy that prevents cogent analysis.
CW-
One of my posts is stuck in the filter....
Altohone -12
Turkey fas been at odds with indigenous Kurdish separatists for decades (if not longer) which certainly muddies the waters. The recent elections in Turkey only make this situation worse.. ISIS gets most of it's funding from extortion, taxation and theft, oil is relatively unimportant - the full version of that is in the spam filter.
Back in June of last year, there was an excellent column in CW.com about the dubious notion of trying to keep the Saddam era Iraq together as a single nation. Iraq is more naturally 3 distinct nations: a Sunni dominated west, a Shiite East, and a Kurdish north.
ISIS operates quite freely in Sunni enclaves, but makes little progress in other neighborhoods. Understanding this is vital to ultimately defeating ISIS. Joe Biden was right. Iraq needs to be broken up.
That is, indubitably, some of the most non-serious gibberish I've read on this site. Clearly, Michale, you don't live in the real world but rather in some fantasy that prevents cogent analysis.
I would disagree and have the training, experience and expertise to back it up..
It's ya'all, the ones who think diplomacy and politics can solve everything, who are living in a fantasy world...
Ya'all just don't get that terrorism is NOT a political problem.. It's only the politicians who want to MAKE it so...
That's more than two and a half decades IN THE FIELD speaking...
Michale
And I have incontrovertible PROOF that ya'all's way does not work..
The last 7 years of Democrat Party rule....
Michale
I would disagree and have the training, experience and expertise to back it up..
Well, you know what all of that amounts to. Not much. What you don't have is any sort of memory of past history, recent and otherwise nor the capability of learning any lessons from THAT experience.
Well, you know what all of that amounts to. Not much.
It amounts to a complete, thorough and RELEVANT understanding of the issue under discussion.. As opposed to ya'all's argument which is nothing but koom-bye-ya wishful thinking..
What you don't have is any sort of memory of past history, recent and otherwise nor the capability of learning any lessons from THAT experience.
You mean that past recent history of Democrat rule and mistakes and incompetence that directly lead to over 470 dead and wounded in Paris??
On the contrary... It's that EXACT memory that guides my position..
It's ya'all who are ignoring the facts and recent history..
Ya'all want to make the same mistakes over and over again in hopes that it will produce a different result...
Those who ignore the past are doomed to relive it...
Michale
It's the same idea that drives ya'alls notion that it's still perfectly acceptable to continue bringing in Syrian refugees when it has been PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that terrorists are mixing and blending in with those refugees...
HOPE..... That's all it is... An unreasonable, irrational and illogical Hope fed by a partisan political agenda...
Michale
CW
How would France actually stage ground forces to take Mosul? Thorough Turkey to attack from North and East?
Through Eastern-Shiite Iraq to attack from the North?
These seem to me the only logistically practical means of entry, given road networks and ports. The French Navy operates three assault ships which can each accommodate 900 troops (in a pinch) and 40 tanks.
From either avenue of approach, it's a long haul from France.
TS,
Russia would likely be MORE than willing to lend a hand... Soften up Mosul with a few hundred cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea....
Gods know that the US has been worse than useless in the region of late...
Michale
As Altohone noted in post 2, the US took out about 180 tanker trucks, using A10s and AC-130s, both well very well suited to the task. However, the oil interdiction is of only marginal importance to ISIS in Western Iraq (see my post if it ever gets out of the filter).
A much more effective use of air power would be to declare a no drive zone in the ISIS zone of Iraq. If it has 4 wheels and an engine, it is subject to attack without warning. The A10 and AC-130 are well suited to this role. The idea is to seriously disrupt motor powered lines of communication. This approach won't halt motor traffic, but it will slow it and make it very inefficient. Burning vehicles leave pillars of smoke visible for miles. This has a powerful morale effect.
In the last Democratic debate, Clinton said we need to destroy ISIS, not isolate it. She needs to re-think that. It's not an either or proposition. First you isolate the enemy, then you destroy it. The West does the isolation, the Kurds do the killing. There is nothing flawed about moving in steps. Fredrick the Great famously said something close to "he who defends everything defends nothing." A corollary is that "he who attacks everything attacks nothing."
In the last Democratic debate, Clinton said we need to destroy ISIS, not isolate it. She needs to re-think that.
Haven't you heard??
According to Hillary's most trusted aid, "Hillary gets confused often.."
Hillary needs to re-think a LOT... Most important.. If she is CAPABLE of being President..
Michale
M-21
"Russia would likely be MORE than willing to lend a hand... Soften up Mosul with a few hundred cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea...."
Ineffective fireworks at best, they can't be targeted effectively, they would just make rubble and rubble is one good defensive terrain. I think the Kurds would appreciate a functioning capital city, in need of repair, rather than a rubble pile.
M-21
"Hillary gets confused often.."
Churchill got confused constantly and on balance was a great wartime leader. The most important thing is to not do anything really stupid, and if you do, learn from mistakes. The Republicans seem to have learned nothing, zilch, from the Bush's war in Iraq. They just think if they roll the dice enough, a bad strategy will work.
Paris doesn’t need your hashtag ‘heroics’
Paris doesn’t need to give peace a chance. It doesn’t need to make love, not war. It doesn’t need to be more understanding or more hopeful. It needs to be better protected by all those unsentimental means that have been neglected in recent years, or overwhelmed by the growing threat of ISIS.
Paris — and more broadly, France and the West — needs more surveillance of suspected terrorists and police raids; a more restrictive immigration policy that doesn’t create large, unassimilated Muslim populations, or welcome terrorists as refugees; and a serious, multi-layered campaign to destroy ISIS and deny it the safe havens from which it recruits, trains and plots against the West.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/paris-doesnt-need-your-hashtag-heroics/
This is the point ya'all don't get...
You can politic and diplomat terrorists until you are blue in the face...
And it won't make a bit of difference...
You can emote with a bully and commiserate with a bully and love a bully...
Guess what??
They are going to continue to BE a bully until you bloody their nose...
This is the reality of life, people...
Michale
M- Ya'all want to make the same mistakes over and over again in hopes that it will produce a different result...
Those who ignore the past are doomed to relive it...
So why do you propose doing the same things that have failed in the past? Go in on the ground, kick butt, occupy, turn our "allies" into 3rd rate versions of ourselves. How many deployments can you ask a US grunt to make? The enemy has no choice, and fights because he live there.
I don't mind that you are bloody minded, just that you are bloody minded to no good purpose.
One of the tricks of terrorism is to get your adversary to do something stupid, while he is seeing red.
I don't mind that you are bloody minded, just that you are bloody minded to no good purpose.
And that's where our opinions diverge..
You feel that killing terrorists is "no good purpose"...
I know for a FACT that it serves a VERY good purpose....
The entire problem with the Democrat's way of thinking can be summed up in Obama's strategy..
Leading From Behind... AKA The Coward Of The Country..
How many deployments can you ask a US grunt to make?
I can speak from complete authority when I say that you don't have to ASK the US grunts to deploy.... As a whole, the US military is EAGER to take the fight to the enemy..
What you CAN'T do is what the Obama has done for the last 7 years.. Send them into harms way with an ROE that is so restrictive and so politically correct that they can't even FART without filling out a request in triplicate...
THAT is what is killing the military morale..
Not excessive deployments..
But excessive deployments that serve NO purpose save the Democrat's partisan agenda...
Which is why support for Democrats and Obama amongst the military, active and retired, hovers around 15%.....
Michale
TheStig (14)
"Joe Biden was right. Iraq needs to be broken up."
Yep.
I don't mind that you are bloody minded...
I prefer the term, "blood thirsty" :D
Michale
TheStig (14)
"Joe Biden was right. Iraq needs to be broken up."
Yep.
Once again, it's readily obvious that ya'all don't mind "regime change" or the US foisting and forcing it's values and ideas onto other governments..
Ya'all just don't like it when it's a REPUBLICAN who is doing it.. :D
Michale
The Republicans seem to have learned nothing, zilch, from the Bush's war in Iraq.
And Democrats haven't learned a thing from 7 years of incompetence and koom-bye-yaa Hopey Change governing..
What's your point??
They just think if they roll the dice enough, a bad strategy will work.
As opposed to sticking your heads in the sand and pretend the world is a "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME" type place..
On the whole, I prefer the GOP approach..
At least that approach acknowledges the REALITY of the here and now...
The world is a dangerous place. Ignoring that makes it all the more dangerous...
Just ask Parisians...
Michale
M-31
Iraq is already broken up along fairly clean religious/ethnic lines. ISIS easily moves into Sunni majority enclaves. It hasn't penetrate very far into Shiite or Kurdish enclaves. The only thing that held Iraq together was the police state of Saddam, of whom did not approve and decided to depose with prejudice.
The US still seems to be trying to reassemble a shattered Humpty Dumpty, but federalism doesn't take in the former Iraq.
M-32 We all know the world is a dangerous place. Paris had a very bad day. Nobody is ignoring it. You seem to be prone to panic...do something, anything, as long as it kills somebody and damn that mine field we are boldly walking into....When a little cool thinking would serve everybody better. Or, has planning gone out of fashion among the military?
Terrorism is a fact of life. The best outcome is going to be minimal terrorism. Achieving that is going to involve prevention, the rest is going to depend on making terrorism very costly to perpetrators. The latter is where I tend to get very bloody minded. Revenge is another name for implementing deterrence.
You cannot eliminate risk from life. We accept a lot of fatal risks. Paris was bad, but a jumbo jet crash is worse. Cigarettes are worse and cause far more death and morbidity than "Paris." The Battle of Borodino (largely French) was a jumbo jet crash every ten minutes. The human cost of a big battle is far worse than the toll in Paris. A war is worse than battle, and a world war is worse than a war. Let's try not to do something stupid, just this once, as we contemplate how Paris is avenged, who does the avenging, and when.
TS,
.When a little cool thinking would serve everybody better.
Really???
Obama and the Democrats have been thinking "cool" for 7 years..
And yet, Paris STILL happened...
Quit trying to make excuses for inaction and incompetence..
No one is buying it..
Michale
Achieving that is going to involve prevention, the rest is going to depend on making terrorism very costly to perpetrators. The latter is where I tend to get very bloody minded. Revenge is another name for implementing deterrence.
Which is EXACTLY what I am advocating..
But to hear everyone (including you) tell it, I am a monster for thinking that way... :D
But the difference between ya'all and myself is that I have been there and done that...
I *KNOW* what works and I *KNOW* what makes it worse.. With ya'all, it's just theory and supposition..
And sticking one's head in the sand and HOPE it goes away is one of the things that make it worse...
Michale
Let's try not to do something stupid,
The problem is that the entirety of the Left Wingery thinks that "something stupid" is actually addressing the problem and taking the fight to the enemy...
Appeasement... Surrender... Capitulation...
That's all the Left is about...
And that's why bad things continue to happen...
The Left wants to call in the lawyers and file a bunch of lawsuits...
THAT is the Left's idea of a proper response..
And THAT is why there is still a problem...
Michale
And now we see that Germany is also a target...
Yea.. It CAN'T be the refugees.. :^/
Michale
TS,
Ineffective fireworks at best, they can't be targeted effectively, they would just make rubble and rubble is one good defensive terrain.
What do you base that on??
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/476131/Russia-cruise-missiles-ISIS-targets-Syria
I dunno... Looks pretty effective to me..
The problem is, is that you are thinking US cruise missile attacks and airstrikes, which have had little effect, even though the count far exceeds what the French and Russia have done..
Basically, the US is engaged in a slap fight...
Russia and France have done more damage in the last 2 days than the US has done in the last 2 years...
But.. We musn't lash out, right?? We gots to be "cool"... Suave.... :^/ Because Cool and Suave ALWAYS wins wars... :^/
Michale
Paula,
Just to be clear, Senator Biden was not promoting the break-up of Iraq.
On the contrary, he was promoting a change to US policy that would facilitate a move to a kind of loose federalism as the only way to keep Iraq united.
What we have now in Iraq is a de facto breakup and I think it will be very difficult, if not impossible for the kind of federalism in Iraq that Biden envisioned and that 75 US Senators voted for in September 2007.
TS,
The US still seems to be trying to reassemble a shattered Humpty Dumpty, but federalism doesn't take in the former Iraq.
You say "still" ... I don't know that the US has EVER done ANYTHING in a SERIOUS way to persuade Iraq to move towards federalism.
And, now, it may very well be too late for that, in any event. Most importantly because Iraq has few leaders in the Sunni and Shi'a camps who are capable of that kind of enlightened leadership. The enlightened leadership resides in Kurdistan.
M - 35 thru 37
I could not give a reply any better than the one already posted by Liz in comment 17.
As for 38, I'm not much impressed by stock footage, none which shows a cruise launched from the Caspian Sea. The only rubble I see is the radar windscreen and other bits and pieces of the Russian Air liner.
Liz - 40. It's way to late...and I agree with you about the quality of enlightened Kurdish leadership. Their army gets a lot done with very little. The Shiite militia in eastern Iraq can hold their home turf, but the new Iraqi army, trained and equipped by the US, seems to have no cohesion and is next to worthless on offense. No amount of training seems to help.
Elizabeth (39): Thanks for the clarification. It just seems that Iraq has always been an unhappy forced marriage of three groups and if they want to separate why can't they? Do they want to separate? I know the Kurds want their own country; I don't know if the Sunnis and Shias do.
Meanwhile Michale continues to be the perfect foil for ISIS -- ISIS says "jump!" and Michale says "how high?"
Meanwhile Michale continues to be the perfect foil for ISIS -- ISIS says "jump!" and Michale says "how high?"
And yet, ISIS is FLOURISHING and EXPANDING under ya'all's messiah's "leadership"...
Funny how that is, eh??
Remember?? Obama scoffed at ISIS as the JV team??? Obama said that ISIS was "contained" less than 24 hours before ISIS brutally killed and wounded over 470 innocent men, women and children...
Obama and the Democrats own ISIS...
This is the reality, whether ya'all admit it or not..
Michale
In other domestic political news.. Remember that old thing called domestic political news that is not terrorism related right now? ... Bobby Jindal became the latest to drop out of the Presidential race on the Republican side. Not a surprise, since he never got out of single digit support in the polls.
Paula,
The problem with a break-up of Iraq into three - well one of the problems - is how do you allocate the resources (read: oil) in an equitable manner. That was one of the beauties of the Biden plan.
And, yes, the Kurds have always wanted their own country and government and, these days, it's hard to argue with them on that score. God knows, they have bended over backwards to make Iraq work.
I still think that a federal Iraq is the best option if the people of Iraq wish to live in peace and prosperity.
TS,
Liz - 40. It's way to late...and I agree with you about the quality of enlightened Kurdish leadership. Their army gets a lot done with very little.
Of course, by enlightened Kurdish leadership, I was talking more about political leadership and much less about their military prowess. In Iraq, and, indeed, throughout the wider region, the former is a more valuable asset.
TS,
the new Iraqi army, trained and equipped by the US, seems to have no cohesion and is next to worthless on offense. No amount of training seems to help.
Do you want to guess why that is? Can we say paucity of POLITICAL leadership in Baghdad?
Nicha
It would seem your mantra may need some revision as all the attackers were Europeans, not refugees.
I also fail to grasp how America, or particularly Obama is responsible for security in France, Egypt and Lebanon.
I know you wingnuts blame Obama, and only Obama, for everything reflexively, but you look more foolish than usual when events in sovereign nations are the topic.
It's the neolibcons like yourself who own IS and every other mess we've made for decades.
The endless effort at seeking partisan advantage is just proof at how foolish Dems are to tolerate the neolibcons in their party.
That is the reality you can't admit.
TS
Thanks for the reply.
I will check back occasionally and hope your comment escapes from the filter.
Or you could post sources for their revenue... reports have suggested oil was important, so you've gotten me curious.
I've spent a fair amount of time in Turkey, and know the history pretty well, but now that the domestic advantages for their election have been achieved, I think we should expect better cooperation if we (America) are getting serious about IS.
As for your "no drive zone", that certainly seems doable and useful.
A friend recently asked me if Japan was sponsoring IS... due to the footage of their huge convoys of brand new Toyota trucks. He also mentioned they are making an Isis... car or truck, I'm not sure... but it makes you wonder about their marketing team. (just lightening the mood a bit)
Going back to an earlier line of thought, trucks, spare parts, goods of all kinds are making their way into their hands, and the only way in is through ostensibly allied nations.
It would seem that cutting off those avenues should go hand in hand with destroying what they've got...
A
In other domestic political news.. Remember that old thing called domestic political news that is not terrorism related right now? ... Bobby Jindal became the latest to drop out of the Presidential race on the Republican side. Not a surprise, since he never got out of single digit support in the polls.
Jindal is too busy tracking down Syrian refugees that Obama can't keep track of..
:D
Michale
the new Iraqi army, trained and equipped by the US, seems to have no cohesion and is next to worthless on offense. No amount of training seems to help.
It wasn't always like this..
It's because Obama just up and left Iraq with absolutely NO THOUGHT to the future..
His ONLY concern was his own partisan agenda..
And that (plus his boneheaded Syrian "Red Line") directly led to the rise of ISIS...
As I said above.. Obama and the Democrats OWN ISIS...
It's that simple...
Michale
Altohone - 49
The NY Times published a breakdown of ISIS finances back in May, you can find it using Google Terms - ISIS revenue sources -, I suspect it may not be pay walled.
The breakdown in ISIS fiscal year 2014:
600 M$ Extortion and Taxes
500 M$ Stolen from Iraqi banks
100 M$ Oil
20 M$ Kidnapping Ransoms
The numbers come from the Rand Corporation.
M-
M-50
The two least surprising news items of the week:
Jindal dropped out and Charlie Sheen has AIDs.
M-51
"It wasn't always like this.." Ok, at what point in the history of modern,post colonial Iraq was their military not a piece of fetid crap?
It performed poorly against the Israeli Military in 1948.
It arrived late for the Six Day War....
It performed poorly against the Israeli Military during the Yom Kippur war (Golan Heights)...
During most of the 1980s it fought Iran to a bloody stalemate using WWI style methods and taking WWI style casualties...
It got whipped in the First Gulf War
It got whipped in the Second Gulf War
Poorly led, inefficient, poor unit cohesion. These are constant themes.
The two least surprising news items of the week:
Jindal dropped out and Charlie Sheen has AIDs.
I know, right!?? I had to GibbsSlap myself on the head.. I was reading all the teases about an "A LIST CELEBRITY" about to come out with AIDS and I wondered who it could be..
"DOOOYYYYYY"
Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH
:D
Ok, at what point in the history of modern,post colonial Iraq was their military not a piece of fetid crap?
Bush left a stable Iraq with a semi-professional (OK that's generous, but still...) military...
Once Obama took over??
Bring on the fetid crap...
Michale
I know, right!?? I had to GibbsSlap myself on the head.. I was reading all the teases about an "A LIST CELEBRITY" about to come out with AIDS and I wondered who it could be..
I guess what threw me was the "A LIST CELEBRITY" part.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"It's because Obama just up and left Iraq with absolutely NO THOUGHT to the future..
His ONLY concern was his own partisan agenda..
And that (plus his boneheaded Syrian "Red Line") directly led to the rise of ISIS...
As I said above.. Obama and the Democrats OWN ISIS...
It's that simple..."
What utter NONSENSE!!! As I recall, it was the Iraqi government which refused to sign off on a treaty giving American troops in Iraq immunity from Iraqi prosecution for any crimes they might be accused of while in their country, which led to the withdrawl of American forces, because we did not want to leave our troops there under those conditions.
Also, it was George Bush the son's idea to go for regime change in Iraq in response to 9/11, something Iraq had nothing to do with, after his father wisely decided not to pursue it during the first Gulf War, that has led us to the birth of ISIS. The Iraqi government that took over was Shite dominated, and pursued a policy of persecution against Iraq's Sunni minority which led directly to the Sunni's turning to and supporting ISIS.
Bush the Son and the Republicans broke Iraq and OWN ISIS. It's THAT SIMPLE.
Yea... It's all Bush's fault.. :^/
ISIS was a direct result of Obama's leaving Iraq too early and Obama's failure to follow his "RED LINE" threat AND Obama's failure to recognize the DANGER of ISIS soon enough.....
Sorry, JM..
These are the facts whether you admit it or not..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"ISIS was a direct result of Obama's leaving Iraq too early..."
And just HOW Michale were American forces supposed to remain after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said that they had to leave? Explain that to me. How are we supposed to stay once the sovereign host government we are supposed to be supporting tells us we have to leave??? Other than supporting a coup and over throwing a democratically elected government that is.
And just HOW Michale were American forces supposed to remain after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said that they had to leave? Explain that to me.
It would have been a simple matter to convince Maliki for American troops to stay by outlining exactly what would happen if Americans left too early...
As exactly came to pass..
The problem is, Obama didn't WANT to stay any longer because he had his agenda, the safety and security of the region and the planet be damned...
Michale
And just HOW Michale were American forces supposed to remain after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said that they had to leave?
Democrats were willing to break apart Iraq without the permission of the government..
Staying past curfew would seem to be a small minor matter by comparison, eh? :D
Funny how ya don't mind dictating to sovereign governments when it suits the agenda, eh? :D
Michale
ISIS was a direct result of Obama's leaving Iraq too early and Obama's failure to follow his "RED LINE" threat AND Obama's failure to recognize the DANGER of ISIS soon enough.....
You addressed one out of the three, JM...
Wanna take a swing at the other 2?? :D
Michale
Democrats were willing to break apart Iraq without the permission of the government..
False.
Funny how ya don't mind dictating to sovereign governments when it suits the agenda, eh? :D
Funny how you go on about things you apparently know nothing about.
In other words, false.
Funny how you go on about things you apparently know nothing about.
In other words, false.
And yet, there is a plethora of factual evidence here in Weigantia with ya'all wanting to dictate to sovereign nations what they should and shouldn't do.. :D
Michale