|
icantfindaname posted:The ethnic cleansing is going to happen period. However, nation states would at least in theory be more stable than Iraq, which is pretty much guaranteed to never be stable in its current state ever. It seems clearly better than a unitary state to me. There's really no reason to assume cutting Iraq into smaller "nation states" is going to stabilize the situation. For example Somalia's status as an ethnically, religiously homogenous nation-state hasn't really protected it from internal political problems. This debate seems kinda absurd anyway, since everybody seems to agree the Iraqi government should defeat IS militarily and then presumably occupy any areas they remain active, which would probably preclude the creation of separate Sunni-Arab and Shia-Arab states for a couple decades, at least.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Squalid posted:There's really no reason to assume cutting Iraq into smaller "nation states" is going to stabilize the situation. For example Somalia's status as an ethnically, religiously homogenous nation-state hasn't really protected it from internal political problems. I don't agree with this at all. Somalia hasn't been a nation-state since like 1990. Its smaller offshoots of Puntland and Somaliland have been relatively stable compared to the state as a whole. I don't think anyway that this applies much to Iraq, with its demographic complexity, its oil reserves, and its varied neighbours. I don't know that anyone is assuming, anymore, that the Iraqi military can defeat the IS. The Iraqi military completely collapsed around the fall of Mosul. I don't think its launched a single successful operation since then, unless you count the re-taking of Mosul dam which involved US airstrikes and Peshmerga fighters. I, personally, think only Iran effectively fight the IS, and I don't know if they can actually defeat it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
The Iraqi military is reliant on irregular militia units that like to commit massacres and torture people so they're not really the people you want reoccupying the Sunni areas unless you want this to happen again in another year or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
illrepute posted:I feel like ISIS wants that. Nothing would help their cause more in the long run than for the U.S to get involved and blow up a bunch more schools/waterboard a shitload more innocent people. The funniest part of this is that they fought the US so hard when we tried to install a democracy but when ISIS rolls up with their murderbrigade to set up a theocracy they roll over and die without a fight. Except the Kurds I guess. Maybe this is just what Iraqis really want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:The funniest part of this is that they fought the US so hard when we tried to install a democracy but when ISIS rolls up with their murderbrigade to set up a theocracy they roll over and die without a fight. Except the Kurds I guess. Maybe this is just what Iraqis really want.  You... realize the people who "fought us so hard" are probably incredibly similar to (if not the exact same) people who are in charge of the murderbrigade? It's not like what was left of the government in Iraq was going, "Man, you guys. I'd love to work with you, but I'm too busy planning these decapitations in Fallujah. Can you can call me back?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
If the US/Iranian relations do improve, I hope they do so in a corny almost Sim City-style fashion. The "Death to America!" murals slowly become changed so that the text vanishes, then the skeletal statue-of-liberty gets a normal face, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I don't agree with this at all. That Somalia has completely failed is exactly my point, that is to say ethnic and religions homogeneity is not necessarily a recipe for social harmony, and there's no reason to assume tearing Iraq to pieces is going to make the situation any better than it is now. The demographic complexity in Iraq is another reason dividing it into pieces would result in bad things, but that's something else. I would not assume either that the Iraqi government can defeat IS alone, but I can't imagine an anti-IS strategy that excludes them. Like even if there is a second Awakening movement could they really be expected to defeat IS all by their lonesome? And is any foreign government insane enough to attempt an occupation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
And if we consider partition of Iraq are we going to ignore the possibility of Kashmirs or Nagorno-Karabakhs popping up in the new borders? I think it's a little presumptuous and putting the cart before the horse to talk about the final geopolitical makeup of Iraq when the general plan of defeating ISIS and regaining Sunni allegiance has not even been formulated, since the forthcoming conflict will be the most important deciding factor in how Iraq will be structured. And how are we (by we I mean the US, Iran, and the Iraq government) going to eliminate IS in Syria? IS in Syria needs to be eliminated too unless we're going to vainly try containing them within Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There's really no reason to assume cutting Iraq into smaller "nation states" is going to stabilize the situation. For example Somalia's status as an ethnically, religiously homogenous nation-state hasn't really protected it from internal political problems. You do realize that Somalia has already Balkanized years ago into Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia proper, right? Somalia has dozens of different clans and 15% of its population is non-Somali.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:And if we consider partition of Iraq are we going to ignore the possibility of Kashmirs or Nagorno-Karabakhs popping up in the new borders? Nobody is going to eliminate IS in Syria. Hopefully IS is smart enough to change the name and cut down on the terrorist acts to make themselves easier to blend into the international community. On the subject of Iran. Iran is not going to pull up their sleeves and actually start doing their job until after the Nuclear talk is over. Obama should negotiate a sooner Nuclear talk deadline. Right now the new deadline is at the end of the year. The Persians are going to haggle like mad bazaar pedlars until the last minute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:And if we consider partition of Iraq are we going to ignore the possibility of Kashmirs or Nagorno-Karabakhs popping up in the new borders? The problem is that IS has established bases and funnels recruits from Turkey. Turkey has given them a safe haven and whenever Syria counterattacked the Islamists, Turkey would bomb Syrian regime positions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Also on the note of imagining partitioning will solve the problems, this whole conversation is in response to majority on minority violence in the mixed Provence of Diyala. How people go from that event to thinking it will be fixed with Diyala in a fully Shia state is a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
In the past century Iraq has had more years of civil war than 'not civil war' so frankly it's time we sat these guys on opposite sides of the couch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
That brings up the question of if an assault on Mosul by Kurdish troops actually makes sense at this point. At this point it has been relatively easy, Kurdish troops are taking back territory that they have a general history of controlling, but urban combat in a non-Kurdish or Yezidi majority city is a very different affair especially since at least central Mosul is mostly Sunni Arab. Also there is a big difference between using air strikes on a mountain side or around a dam and inside an large urban area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Sergg posted:You do realize that Somalia has already Balkanized years ago into Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia proper, right? Somalia has dozens of different clans and 15% of its population is non-Somali. And what kind of peace and stability has that Balkanization brought, huh? How many tribes do you think Iraq has, by-the-way, since you brought the subject up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Squalid posted:And what kind of peace and stability has that Balkanization brought, huh? Well, the issue is more a matter of tribal vs. state identity. Worse with Somalia, the lack of state is spreading to areas of Kenya. You don't read about it in English much, there's a taste of ethnic cleansing being carried out by Kenyan security forces, co-ordinated through AfriCom and achieving objectives of MI5. suboptimal posted:So what happens if a US warplane mistakes an Iranian tank column in KRG for an IS convoy? From last page, I can't miss up a chance to reply to this: "We bombed some tanks."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
New Division posted:Yeah, it sounds like a Call of Duty storyline waiting to happen. He's a cynical grizzled old Iranian soldier. She's an idealistic upbeat American intelligence agent. They fight
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:He's a cynical grizzled old Iranian soldier. She's an idealistic upbeat American intelligence agent. They fight Isn't this basically the plot of S3 homeland. Well minus the upbeat bit I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:41
|
|
Cat Army 
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Worse with Somalia, the lack of state is spreading to areas of Kenya. You don't read about it in English much, there's a taste of ethnic cleansing being carried out by Kenyan security forces, co-ordinated through AfriCom and achieving objectives of MI5. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
farraday posted:And for nothing to ever change ever so that national identities built around restrictive demands of blood or religion don't come into conflict with changing demographics. Everyone is familiar with Lebanon right? Hell, it's not even like complete stability in all three states would be a requirement for an improvement compared to the status quo, as long as the stable state(s) were strong enough to defend their borders. (Which should be easier if the border region isn't ethnically/religiously mixed.) icantfindaname posted:Well, yes pretty much. The thing is that the people living in the ME didn't actually make the current borders, and I suspect if given an actual choice they would choose new ones, western intervention or no. In that sense ISIS actually represents Middle Easterners (well, more like Sunni Arabs, but still) taking control of their own geopolitical destiny Negative Entropy posted:And if we consider partition of Iraq are we going to ignore the possibility of Kashmirs or Nagorno-Karabakhs popping up in the new borders? I'm not sure the partition of India and the results of it are a good counter example, since as far as I can tell the way it was partitioned was a hodgepodge of solutions that were rushed through to live up to a timetable, instead of a well thought out attempt to create a stable solution. Hell, maybe partition was actually a bad idea in that case, that's totally a possibility, but the way it was carried out wasn't exactly the only way to do it. Nagorno-Karabakh isn't a very good counter example either, since it's an ethnic enclave within Azerbaijan, which post-partition population transfers would specifically be there to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Nobody is going to eliminate IS in Syria. Hopefully IS is smart enough to change the name and cut down on the terrorist acts to make themselves easier to blend into the international community. Of course, the whole situation will be even more interesting if IS actually scores some points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
So the force that overthrew Sunni control in the entirety of Iraq is going to give them their own mini-state in the north and west, and the terrorist army with a history of war mongering and back stabbing is going to respect those borders because
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's why any partition would include population transfers based on plebiscites, as well a prolonged occupation/guarantee of territorial integrity to put a lid on hostilities long enough that the bad blood can dissipate to some degree. Considering how half-assed and careless western intervention has been partition would probably wind up as, if not more ugly than what happened in India. whatever7 posted:Nobody is going to eliminate IS in Syria. Hopefully IS is smart enough to change the name and cut down on the terrorist acts to make themselves easier to blend into the international community. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:But as you say yourself there isn't any government that would be willing to commit itself to what would probably be a decade or longer intervention as you describe. I don't see much value in unrealistic hypotheticals. Volkerball posted:So the force that overthrew Sunni control in the entirety of Iraq is going to give them their own mini-state in the north and west, and the terrorist army with a history of war mongering and back stabbing is going to respect those borders because
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can we really assume the Iraqi Sunnis would remain in the IS camp if they got an internationally recognized state free of Shia domination? Isn't IS support essentially predicated on them being the force best able to create a strong front against the Shia militias/government? In theory. Really though, have you heard anything from the Sunni tribes not just condemning the Maliki government, but looking for reform and trying to engage with it? I think they're supporting ISIS because ISIS gives them the best route to overthrow the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
meristem posted:It could be interesting to see if Assad's tactics of 'survive long enough until you seem sane by comparison' pays off. Thats actually a pretty succint description of his gameplan yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can we really assume the Iraqi Sunnis would remain in the IS camp if they got an internationally recognized state free of Shia domination? Isn't IS support essentially predicated on them being the force best able to create a strong front against the Shia militias/government? Why would an internationally recognized (and probably supported with tons of money for that humanitarian displacement of people) Islamic State let anyone leave the IS camp?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:In theory. Really though, have you heard anything from the Sunni tribes not just condemning the Maliki government, but looking for reform and trying to engage with it? I think they're supporting ISIS because ISIS gives them the best route to overthrow the government. cebrail posted:Why would an internationally recognized (and probably supported with tons of money for that humanitarian displacement of people) Islamic State let anyone leave the IS camp?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Isn't it a bit problematic if you like the Kurds to condemn all Sunnis when you know...Kurds are also Sunnis. Maybe it is a special mixture of Arab blood and Sunnism that turns them into "insane beasts" sort of like downing pop rocks and 7-ups. ISIS and similar movements are opposed to nationalism and the existence of borders, which automatically makes them unappealing to a lot of non-Arab peoples such as the Kurds. There are actually very few Kurds in ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I thought they did actually try to go for reform/power-sharing, but those hopes were dashed by the Maliki government, at which point armed struggle seemed like the only option left? Still, even if they do really want to overthrow the government because they believe they should be on top, not just equal, that really just strengthens the argument for partition. My point wasn't that partitioning is a bad idea. It's that partitioning is impossible. What, we draw up the borders of Sunnistan, surround it in red lines, and say don't cross this? Then somehow, peace? ISIS took pride in smashing down the Iraqi/Syrian border, and you can bet they'd do the same when they continued to fight forward into Kurd and Shia land. And yes, they did try to go for power-sharing, but the times have changed. 100,000 Sunni's, some of whom were former insurgents, fought against ISIS near the end of the Iraq War. Maliki gave them nothing in response, so the primary base of support for anti-ISIS Sunni's is pissed at the US and the Iraqi government. ISIS would have never made the gains they did in Mosul and the rest of Iraq without the support of these people. While one day ISIS might be strong enough to rule against the will of all Sunni's in the north (a day that might have already passed), right now they are clearly getting popular support. Whether it be a common goal of pushing Shia's and Kurds out, pushing out the Iraqi Army, or ethnic cleansing, ISIS has the influence to be the face of Sunni's in Iraq, and that's accepted. You can't invade and "hearts and minds" that away, or draw arbitrary borders around them and expect that to contain them. It seems the only thing that can stop Sunni aggression at this point is the overthrow of the government, and that could easily just tip the pendulum the other way and get Shia's up in arms behind the death squads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:The funniest part of this is that they fought the US so hard when we tried to install a democracy but when ISIS rolls up with their murderbrigade to set up a theocracy they roll over and die without a fight. Except the Kurds I guess. Maybe this is just what Iraqis really want. Wow, it's almost as if culture matters and these people might not have the exact same values and attitudes we do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:The funniest part of this is that they fought the US so hard when we tried to install a democracy but when ISIS rolls up with their murderbrigade to set up a theocracy they roll over and die without a fight. Except the Kurds I guess. Maybe this is just what Iraqis really want. Didn't the Iraqi army roll over pretty quickly against the US too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Wow, it's almost as if culture matters and these people might not have the exact same values and attitudes we do. The US overthrew Sunni control and replaced it with a Shia controlled "democracy." ISIS mostly murders Kurds and Shia's in the aims of establishing Sunni dominance. Self-preservation exists all around the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:there's a taste of ethnic cleansing being carried out by Kenyan security forces, co-ordinated through AfriCom and achieving objectives of MI5 I'm kind of surprised no-one's mentioned this before but beyond just a source, how does ethnic cleansing by Kenyan secutrity forces achieve the objectives of British domestic intelligence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:ISIS and similar movements are opposed to nationalism and the existence of borders, which automatically makes them unappealing to a lot of non-Arab peoples such as the Kurds. There are actually very few Kurds in ISIS. He wasn't serious, he was just trying to troll me, which is funny because he's such a bland and bad poster that I didn't even remember him. Sergs: what would you do if you were made to choose between death and civil war? From the very onset it was made very clear that Assad's own life and the regime's were one. At this point anyway barring a coup de theatre or his violent death the Syrian future involves Assad in some way. He isn't a pariah in the international scene and many right wing European parties openly support him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You're assuming the current importance attributed to blood or religion is somehow unavoidable, instead of the result of a century of tensions. By what mechanism would those tensions remain as high as in a country where whichever group is in charge instantly starts oppressing the other groups? Not saying it would be all roses immediately, but it would open up the possibility of stability by creating states which weren't predicated on the subjugation of sizable minority groups, or even majorities. I have a really hard time imagining a compromise within the current borders, since neither side really has much reason to trust the other. When you're talking about partitioning the country based on blood or religion you are, in fact, prizing those qualities and making them even more important in the future, not diminishing them. Because there are not three ethno-religious groups in Iraq meaning you'd have minority groups left and highly subject to oppression when you've created a national identity they are not part of. Nor does partition remove the ethno-religiosu tension. even now the third largest Muslim county in the world is India. Tell me do you feel the history of India since partition has evinced a lack of tension based on religion? Demographic growth of the Muslim population relative to the Hindu population means partition, making them sit on separate sides of the bench, is now more a pipe dream then at any time since partition. Nor can the obvious resource disparity be comfortably ignored as the sides of the bench to which you might separate them are not equal. finally the envisioned states do not represent natural borders of the ethno-religious groups suggested as primary nation-states. Even if you could somehow come to an agreement internal to Iraq, you are creating a situation where irredentism is not only likely it's almost a necessity. So I see no way in which the partition of Iraq reduces minority repression, inter-religious conflict, or international instability, so by which understanding does it represent "better?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
I don't know why you people are so against partitioning. Its really important that the ethnic/sectarian majority has control of the state machine. Look at Islamic minority in India and Shia minority in Pakistan. When the majority has strong and commanding control, they have the confidence to give the minorities more space and freedom. Minority ruling over majority in a modern country is time bomb waiting to explode. I will give you three classic examples, Rwanda, Syria, Iraq. The only country I can think off that went through non violent transition is South Africa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I don't know why you people are so against partitioning. Its really important that the ethnic/sectarian majority has control of the state machine. Look at Islamic minority in India and Shia minority in Pakistan. When the majority has strong and commanding control, they have the confidence to give the minorities more space and freedom. Is this sarcasm or are you unaware of the Muslim tensions in India?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That Somalia has completely failed is exactly my point, that is to say ethnic and religions homogeneity is not necessarily a recipe for social harmony, and there's no reason to assume tearing Iraq to pieces is going to make the situation any better than it is now. The demographic complexity in Iraq is another reason dividing it into pieces would result in bad things, but that's something else. In that case I agree. Drawing new borders isn't going to magically make the fighting stop, especially because the Sunnis in Iraq would be left without the oil reserves of the Kurd and Shia regions. Negative Entropy posted:Source? Some extraordinary claims there and I'm not seeing anything on google. I don't know about ethnic cleansing but it sure is messy there. Somalia's civil war spread into Kenya years ago. Whenever you hear about a bombing in Kenya, or that attack on the mall a few months ago, it is almost certainly al-Shabab or another Somali group that carried it out in retaliation for Kenya's ongoing occupation and military operations in Somalia. The border with Ethiopia is also very... porous, and Ethiopian troops (frequent enemies of Somalia) are still occupying parts of the country. Whatever useless "government" sits in Mogadishu right now backs the AU forces (and US special forces and spies), but they have limited control over the countryside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:I don't know why you people are so against partitioning. Its really important that the ethnic/sectarian majority has control of the state machine. Look at Islamic minority in India and Shia minority in Pakistan. When the majority has strong and commanding control, they have the confidence to give the minorities more space and freedom. I don't know if India is the best example for why partitioning is a good thing. Millions died during the initial partition, thousands more in later wars and as Pakistan further broke up. India and Pakistan are regularly on the brink of war and are pointing nuclear weapons at some of the most populated places on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:22
|
|