|
Beating the hell out of the Iraqi armed forces is not particularly impressive in all honesty.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
New Division posted:Beating the hell out of the Iraqi armed forces is not particularly impressive in all honesty. ETA until Maliki hires Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
New Division posted:It's hard to get good info out of Iraq now. The Iraqi government media is transparent propaganda at this point and they're not going to cover their losses with any honesty. And you can't trust the rebels to be wholly accurate either, and western journalists aren't going to risk their necks and go into places like Mosul and Ramadi. There's an interesting media surge of interest in the Kurdish state, possibly, or even probably helped along by a US desperate to find someone it can fund. In libya news you may be darkly amused to know that despite the general failure of his Operation dignity so far, General Haftar think the next six months will be crucial. quote:Haftar estimates that, with his current capabilities, the operation will take six months. "But if we receive military supplies from friendly countries the time will be less," he says, an indication that such help has perhaps not yet materialised despite talk of Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi support. "We have not asked Egypt to conduct air raids in Libya, but if we need this we will ask for it without any hesitation." In other news the Parliament plans on moving to Benghazi. Mmmhmmm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
I don't think the US wants the Kurds to leave and break Iraq up, if only because it would be the final, indisputable proof that the whole glorious Iraq project was a misconceived failure. There's still lot of people in the Beltway who still believe in it, even if Obama himself doesn't, With that said, I don't think the Kurds are going to wait for a thumbs up from us to leave anymore. They'll just do it and expect us to accept it. Which we would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
New Division posted:I don't think the US wants the Kurds to leave and break Iraq up, if only because it would be the final, indisputable proof that the whole glorious Iraq project was a misconceived failure. There's still lot of people in the Beltway who still believe in it, even if Obama himself doesn't, Yeah, basically. At this point, with even Turkey nominally onboard, there aren't going to be many legitimate voices in the international community arguing otherwise. Kurdistan is something the international community can live with, at least, and has been preparing for for years. farraday posted:In other news the Parliament plans on moving to Benghazi. Mmmhmmm. Are they officially changing the seat of government to Benghazi?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I can figure out a way to see Kurdish independence supported in DC. Just point out that right now the most ardent foe of it is Iran. Boom, mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
New Division posted:I can figure out a way to see Kurdish independence supported in DC. Just point out that right now the most ardent foe of it is Iran. Boom, mission accomplished. And point out that they *support Israel*.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
New Division posted:I can figure out a way to see Kurdish independence supported in DC. Just point out that right now the most ardent foe of it is Iran. Boom, mission accomplished. They ain't really though, the PUK have developed a pretty close relationship with Qasem Soleimani, they even sent a delegation to his mother's funeral. The KDP have worse relations with Iran but they still try to keep on their good side. There are rumours flying about that there are a bunch of US military advisors in the American consulate in Erbil and that there has been a lot of activity at the airport linked to a not-so-secret facility long suspected to be linked to the CIA, Washington may be beginning to warm to the idea of giving the Kurds some military assistance. Also, there are a couple of Twitter rumours of an F-16 flying over Erbil. Nothing confirmed yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
New Division posted:With that said, I don't think the Kurds are going to wait for a thumbs up from us to leave anymore. They'll just do it and expect us to accept it. Which we would. Yeah, even refusing to recognize or do business with Kurdistan would probably not be worth all the trouble just to save face with Iraq and make the Iraq war look like ever so slightly less of a failure. I'd imagine within 5 years of independence, the USA would recognize Kurdistan fully and drop any sort of "You guys really need to kiss and make up and form one nation again!" talk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Yeah, basically. At this point, with even Turkey nominally onboard, there aren't going to be many legitimate voices in the international community arguing otherwise. Kurdistan is something the international community can live with, at least, and has been preparing for for years. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140712/world/Libya-moving-its-Parliament-into-Benghazi.527386 Yes. Although... Yes? It's basically them earmarking money to do it saying where they'll house people, and then sort of hand waving security. I mean maybe you get away from the militias in Tripoli but... if anything I would say this underlines how little authority the Parliament has left. Maybe they can set up a roving tour and have "Will Parl for food" signs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
farraday posted:http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140712/world/Libya-moving-its-Parliament-into-Benghazi.527386 Yeah, I agree. They're definitely trying to get away from the militias in Tripoli- while also trying to compromise with/quell the instability/breakaway sentiment in the east. A few months back there was talk about eastern Libya wanting to break away from the state, not to restart borderschat. So they're doing the DC approach, with the caveat that at least this seat of government isn't going to be put into a swamp. Will this be enough to actually positively impact Libya's stability? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Libya looks like it is on the road to becoming like Yemen. A nominal government over the land with limited power over its territory, numerous armed groups pursuing local vendettas and grievances, sometimes against the government, a constant low bubbling of violence that occasionally flares but never turns into all out war, and terror groups operating in the shadows. It's not destined to remain this way forever, but they really need a leader with some sort of national vision beyond "let's kill the Muslim Brotherhood and install me as a Sisi-type figure"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
New Division posted:Libya looks like it is on the road to becoming like Yemen. A nominal government over the land with limited power over its territory, numerous armed groups pursuing local vendettas and grievances, sometimes against the government, a constant low bubbling of violence that occasionally flares but never turns into all out war, and terror groups operating in the shadows. Speaking of which Yemen Shiite Rebels Take Government, Army Buildings in Amran Amran is about 50 km north of the capital. They are now saying they will pull out of the city when government troops come back. Reminds me of some of the conflict in eastern DRC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Thinking about it- if the Libyan government moves all its offices to Benghazi, would that mean that eventually all the foreign embassies have to go there too? Because right now I'm imagining a bunch of bookish diplomats looking out from a crouched position behind an office desk like a family of meerkats while crossing themselves every time the doorbell rings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Yeah, even refusing to recognize or do business with Kurdistan would probably not be worth all the trouble just to save face with Iraq and make the Iraq war look like ever so slightly less of a failure. I'd imagine within 5 years of independence, the USA would recognize Kurdistan fully and drop any sort of "You guys really need to kiss and make up and form one nation again!" talk. That and really, at this point, the Kurds are the closest things to "secular good-guys" we have left in the Middle East. They're really the only major player left that's worth cheering for, and frankly worth dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Thinking about it- if the Libyan government moves all its offices to Benghazi, would that mean that eventually all the foreign embassies have to go there too? Because right now I'm imagining a bunch of bookish diplomats looking out from a crouched position behind an office desk like a family of meerkats while crossing themselves every time the doorbell rings. Not necessarily, although if they have consulates there already they may just beef them up a bit while keeping their Tripoli headquarters. When Burma moved its capital most diplomats didn't follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Man that picture 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:That and really, at this point, the Kurds are the closest things to "secular good-guys" we have left in the Middle East. They're really the only major player left that's worth cheering for, and frankly worth dealing with. In the end, what does that mean beyond recognizing independence though? The Kurds are more palatable to the West than other actors but they are in no way positioned to become the crusading do-gooders of the region. At best you could give them some weaponry to defend their gains but the most rationale thing for them is just to fight on what they have currently and try to hold it, since they have mostly maximized their control over Kurdish territory outside of Turkey/Iran (and neither country is going to ever give those regions any comparable autonomy). That said, I haven't heard of Kurds facing considerable discrimination in Iran and Turkey has slowly been getting better and the HDP/BDP at least give some type of political representation. I think trying to turns the Kurds into some type of Gendarmerie of the region is a very bad idea. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In the end, what does that mean beyond recognizing independence though? The Kurds are more palatable to the West than other actors but they are in no way positioned to become the crusading do-gooders of the region. At best you could give them some weaponry to defend their gains but the most rationale thing for them is just to fight on what they have currently and try to hold it, since they have mostly maximized their control over Kurdish territory outside of Turkey/Iran (and neither country is going to ever give those regions any comparable autonomy). That said, I haven't heard of Kurds facing considerable discrimination in Iran and Turkey has slowly been getting better and the HDP/BDP at least give some type of political representation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:New strategy for democratizing the Middle East: Recognize the independence of any democratic group which has proven its ability to defend its own territory. Just keep chipping away slowly at the Extremist Militant Zone until it has been replaced by a patchwork of democratic states. Um, my memory might be failing me here but have we even had any such states beyond Kurdistan recently?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Um, my memory might be failing me here but have we even had any such states beyond Kurdistan recently?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:New strategy for democratizing the Middle East: Recognize the independence of any democratic group which has proven its ability to defend its own territory. Just keep chipping away slowly at the Extremist Militant Zone until it has been replaced by a patchwork of democratic states. Yeah basically recognize the Kurds and then sit back because it is going to be a hell of a show for the next couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:That and really, at this point, the Kurds are the closest things to "secular good-guys" we have left in the Middle East. They're really the only major player left that's worth cheering for, and frankly worth dealing with. Haven't they come under fire from RSF for neutralising Iraqi journalists though? I heard something about that but didn't find any detailed information when I looked it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Haven't they come under fire from RSF for neutralising Iraqi journalists though? I heard something about that but didn't find any detailed information when I looked it up. Yeah there's been rumors. There's also the point that they are effectively starting a race based state, meaning the future of everyone living in their territory who isn't a Kurd might be in doubt. This is still "good" in comparison to every other major player there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Yeah there's been rumors. There's also the point that they are effectively starting a race based state, meaning the future of everyone living in their territory who isn't a Kurd might be in doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Oh dear, Boko Haram has apparently pledged support to the Islamic State. I remember IS fanboys on Twitter a few months ago who condemned the girls' kidnapping. Can't wait for the mental gymnastics if this is confirmed. edit: Unclear if support is full allegiance, in the form of bayah, or just some nice words. We'll wait for the video release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Yeah there's been rumors. There's also the point that they are effectively starting a race based state, meaning the future of everyone living in their territory who isn't a Kurd might be in doubt. No. It isn't. Every other major player started at the "wouldn't it be great if we just had a country of people we agree with" point and then went further because if you entertain that way of thinking it becomes self-fulfilling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Oh dear, Boko Haram has apparently pledged support to the Islamic State. I remember IS fanboys on Twitter a few months ago who condemned the girls' kidnapping. Can't wait for the mental gymnastics if this is confirmed. It's almost as if political opinions borne of emotional turmoil serve to only make the opinion holder feel better about their hatred. It's better to ignore or publicly dismiss such opinions. You can be excited for how they will reason it out but it's probably going to be disjointed and boring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:It's almost as if political opinions borne of emotional turmoil serve to only make the opinion holder feel better about their hatred. It's better to ignore or publicly dismiss such opinions. You can be excited for how they will reason it out but it's probably going to be disjointed and boring. Think they'd make up paper pamphlets and put them under windshields in parking lots like before 1995 if there wasn't an Internet? Or would they just thrash to metal and break stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
If only ISIS made some zines. Speaking of releases, though, it appears we have a new bin Laden interview that AQ has been sitting on. It's an indirect attack on IS, though, because it covers in part bin Laden's opinion on caliphates (likes them, and the pledge toward a future one is to Mullah Omar) and jihadist unity (don't jeopardize poo poo by going rogue).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
What are the big ideological differences between ISIS and Al Qaeda?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:New strategy for democratizing the Middle East: Recognize the independence of any democratic group which has proven its ability to defend its own territory. Just keep chipping away slowly at the Extremist Militant Zone until it has been replaced by a patchwork of democratic states. Democratic defined in what way? Does that include fair elections in which the majority choose a pro-Sharia candidate who hates the west?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Disconnecticus posted:Democratic defined in what way? Does that include fair elections in which the majority choose a pro-Sharia candidate who hates the west?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
I'm more partial to working with fantasy gamer-ruled nations, myself. Better magic missiles than real ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:What are the big ideological differences between ISIS and Al Qaeda? Very briefly, it undermines Baghdadi's claim to establishing a caliphate. AQ's argument is that such a move is premature, and that the focus should be on consolidating local gains while fighting the imperial powers. It's not unlike what Baghdadi has done, but AQ, by and large, wants to keep the effort concerted against the US and others while building something truly lasting. Establishing a sovereign state is not an immediate goal. AQ is also big on local franchises. In the video, bin Laden emphasizes that an attack without permission by a group could jeopardize the whole AQ (for example, if something was planned by AQAP in Yemen and someone else goes off and attacks it might interfere with AQAP's plans). Importantly, Mullah Omar of the Taliban is generally recognized as the leader of the faithful by AQ jihadists (amir al mu'minin). He could be a caliph, down the road, but the time isn't right yet in AQ's playbook. Hence, Jabhat al Nusra was intended to be AQ's Syrian franchise, focusing on Syria, while ISI was for Iraq and AQAP is geared toward Yemen -- and is also the only franchise authorized to attack abroad. When Baghdadi declared JAN a part of ISIS, he both outed JAN as al-Qaida officially and took on more responsibility than he was sanctioned. By declaring a caliphate, Baghdadi has effectively thrown AQ's master plan out the window. Bin Laden is still highly revered by IS supporters, while Zawihiri is seen as a bit weak. Having Sheikh Osama stress patience in establishing a caliphate and pledging baya to Mullah Omar directly counters everything Baghdadi is doing. Of course, the IS response will probably be something the lines of, "1. Bin Laden never had as much consolidated territory and 2. The situation is radically different," which has been their logic all along, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Very briefly, it undermines Baghdadi's claim to establishing a caliphate. AQ's argument is that such a move is premature, and that the focus should be on consolidating local gains while fighting the imperial powers. It's not unlike what Baghdadi has done, but AQ, by and large, wants to keep the effort concerted against the US and others while building something truly lasting. Establishing a sovereign state is not an immediate goal. Thank you for this post, this is really interesting. Are Al-Qaeda actively fighting against ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Thank you for this post, this is really interesting. Are Al-Qaeda actively fighting against ISIS? Jabhat al Nusra, AQ's Syrian branch has been leading the fight against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
The West should do everything they can to keep that fight going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:The West should do everything they can to Fixed that for your. What could go wrong? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Execpt, no, we shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:22
|
|