| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 22 Oct 2016 11:59 a.m. PST |
The major players involved in the campaign to kick ISIS out of their stronghold in Iraq: link Didn't know the meaning of "Peshmerga" until now. The Peshmerga salute you! |
 Legion 4   | 22 Oct 2016 3:36 p.m. PST |
Quite a "rogues gallery" … I wish them God's speed. However, once Daesh is no longer the threat that they are today. I think there may be an Iraqi Civil War with the Turks, IRGC, etc., along for the ride. If this does occur, the West needs to take their football and go home. And let them … the local moslem/arab forces, groups, bands, tribes, etc., work it out among themselves … |
| Hafen von Schlockenberg | 22 Oct 2016 6:01 p.m. PST |
Trouble is,the Iraqi Kurds have been on "our" side for a long time. Doubt we'll abandon them. Trouble with that is,they consider Mosul theirs. Trouble with that is,Saddam kicked most of them out,and gave their homes to Sunni loyalists(and some who were forcibly moved). And there are (or were) Assyrians there too. And others. And the Shiite government won't want the Kurds to have it back. It's a jigsaw puzzle. Or maybe more like a Jenga tower. |
| Rod I Robertson | 22 Oct 2016 7:28 p.m. PST |
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation (or two)! With a Jenga Tower of Babel at stake. And an angry pack of grey wolves looking on from the north. What could possibly go wrong?
Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| zoneofcontrol | 22 Oct 2016 7:57 p.m. PST |
It is a recipe for some wicked soup. If and when ISIS is defeated, it could REALLY get interesting. Especially if some of the bigger players decide to walk away again. |
| Legion 4 | 23 Oct 2016 9:28 a.m. PST |
The problem still revolves around the Sunni-Shia conundrum. Places like Mosul fell in the first place because it was populated by many Sunni. And the 60% Shia Iraqi dominated gov't and free wheeling Shia militias, etc., were persecuting, abusing, etc., the 15% Iraqi Sunnis. And yes, we know the Sunni dominated Iraqi leadership and military, etc. while Saddam & Sons were in power were doing the same to the Shia. So pay back is a muth'a ! So when the Sunni Deash, attacked Mosul, the Sunni in the populous after the Shia abuses, etc., … In some cases "agreed" with their Daesh "liberators". Or did nothing. And the only one to blame for this is the weak, corrupt, Shia Iranian supported Iraqi Shia gov't. "You sow what you reap" comes to mind. And the Kurds are Sunni too, but not Deash Sunni supporters. And the Kurds were ill treated by the Iraqi gov't forever. Because they wanted their traditional homeland to be separate from Iraq only made things worse between the Iraqi gov't. Remember the Sunni Saddam gov't gassed the Kurds … Sunni vs. Kurd Sunni … When Daesh is no longer the threat that they pose currently … There will still the Sunni-Shia sitation. And may become a multi-side civil war. As we see in Syria now. Again with Sunni-Shia conflict as a seminal underlining cause, among others there as well. Along with other problems … The US/NATO/etc., are wisely, in this case, are "leading from the rear". Because until the arab/moslem factions in the region, have to "fix" themselves on their own, at this point. It's their problem. And I we see many of these arab/moslem countries were/are more than happy to let the US and it's allies fight their battles. Seems the US has wisely seen the foolishness of such a concept. The arab/moslems in many cases have sold the US, the Infidels, a "magic" carpet that won't fly. And now both sides know it … |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 23 Oct 2016 10:15 a.m. PST |
It all started in 2003 when the United States in full 9/11 revenge mode (invading Afghanistan wasn't enough, we "had to" send a message and show the ME what would happen if they anger the big bad wolf) invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. What kept the simmering sectarianism from boiling over was a strong dictator who would brutally suppress dissent. The "regime change" created a power vacuum and instability that's only going to be resolved if there's a clear victor when all the smoke dissipates. |
| Hafen von Schlockenberg | 23 Oct 2016 11:21 a.m. PST |
"Precipitated" perhaps,"exacerbated",certainly, but to quote Gandalf,"'starting' is too great a claim for any", as the above posts show. |
| Legion 4 | 23 Oct 2016 4:00 p.m. PST |
28mm … you know my reply to your post. As you have often quoted it in the past. In short the USA had made a number of strategic errors. Starting with support of the Muj vs. the USSR. And then just kept compounding it and spreading, etc., … 'starting' is too great a claim for any", as the above posts show. Agreed …  "We didn't start the fire …" Billy Joel |
| Mako11 | 23 Oct 2016 6:09 p.m. PST |
Actually, 28mm, it all started back as far as 1979, under the Carter admin.. |
| Rod I Robertson | 23 Oct 2016 6:40 p.m. PST |
Mako 11: The Carter/Brzezinski policy began before the 1979 Soviet invasion and was designed to draw the USSR into Afghanistan by supporting radical proxies which were to overthrow the pro-USSR, socialist and brutally secular central government in Kabul. The US operation got underway in early July of 1979, five months before the Soviet invasion of December 24, 1979. It worked a charm and the whole thing has been unraveling ever since. Thank you USA. link Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| Balthazar Marduk | 24 Oct 2016 1:34 a.m. PST |
This war has been fought between the tribes of the region for a very long time. It was violent under Ottoman control. There were terrorists under Saddam, that attempted to assassinate him several times. There is absurd levels of violence now under a nominally American backed government. To say that this is entirely America's fault is culturally narcissistic. |
| Mako11 | 24 Oct 2016 2:33 a.m. PST |
But it's always our fault, according to some/many. I think it's like a law of nature, or physics, or something along those lines. |
| Legion 4 | 24 Oct 2016 8:06 a.m. PST |
This war has been fought between the tribes of the region for a very long time. It was violent under Ottoman control. There were terrorists under Saddam, that attempted to assassinate him several times. There is absurd levels of violence now under a nominally American backed government. To say that this is entirely America's fault is culturally narcissistic.
Amen … amen … |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 24 Oct 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
From a purely "cause and effect" standpoint, one can certainly argue that, had Bush Jr. been half as wise as his father was and kept Hussein in charge in Iraq, the ME would not be rife with the sectarian conflict that we're seeing today since there would have been no power vacuum for Iran to exploit. There would still be sectarianism of course, but it would be kept in check underneath the surface as it had been until the balance of power was upset. That was entirely America's fault. Many foresaw the negative ramifications of Gulf War II but were ignored. Too many politicians have regime change fever and see America as the liberators of the oppressed. The next POTUS will be no different. |
| Murvihill | 24 Oct 2016 10:40 a.m. PST |
"culturally narcissistic" Fantastic phrase. And very useful these days. |
| Rod I Robertson | 24 Oct 2016 12:31 p.m. PST |
The destabilisation of the Middle East was not a failure of policy on the part of the US-led coalition. The destabilisation was the goal of the policy which was followed by the GW Bush administration from 2002 onwards. It was really an extension of a Mid East policy formulated and deployed since the Johnson and Nixon administrations. It is an extension of the tried-and-true British Imperial doctrine of divide and conquer, which the Americans experienced firsthand (albeit long ago and in much more mild form than for example India or say Northeast Africa). This was no accidental upheaval, it was carefully premeditated, crafted and executed to turn the Middle East topsy-turvy. The deaths of a million or more Arabs either directly or indirectly from this policy was considered acceptable losses in order to achieve the goals of preventing the Middle East from developing a pan-Arab nationalism under a Ba'athist or similar banner and was also to punish Saddam's Iraq for daring to challenge the Petro-dollar system by selling Iraqi oil for Euros and other currencies. More recently the threat of a unified Islamist Grand Caliphate under ISIL control has triggered an energetic military response from the West bent on further destabilisation. The destabilisation was as premeditated as the policies of destabilisation used to unhinge parochial nationalism and socialism from Central America or the more established Bolivar/San Martin-nationalism of South America. It was also used to cut off rising nationalism mixed with socialism in Iran and Vietnam. By ham-stringing legitimate political-economic-nationalist movements in the Middle East or globally through political, economic and ultimately military dislocation and by supporting wicked and brutal military juntas, it was hoped that the Middle East and other regions would remain divided and thus could be kept fractured and controllable. But by paralysing the rising secular nationalist and socialist movements and by discrediting the potential for success of such secular movements, these policies forced open the door through which the serpent of extremist Islamist radicalism slithered and coiled ideological muscles around the neck of the Middle East. Thus it was from Algeria to Iran, from Iraq to the Congo. The example of Libya is a good one. After Gaddafi made amends with the West by abandoning WMD programmes, reducing state sponsorship of terrorism and paying compensation for past crimes, he should have been left alone. But Gaddafi made the profound mistake of promoting a pan-African Union which could act as a bulwark against the power and exploitation of the West and China. In light of the desire to exploit a huge gas and oil basin in the Western Sahara and to profit from rich deposits of mineral wealth in the region this challenge had to be stymied. This challenge was deemed unacceptable primarily by French and American interests (but with others on board) and when the events of the Arab Spring unfolded they saw the opportunity to dislodge or weaken Gaddafi. These interested parties took the initiative to ham-string the Gaddafi Regime with a No-Fly Zone and a bombing campaign and things perhaps went further than they anticipated. With secular movements discredited, the power vacuum was filled by the Benghazi oil-thugs, a moribund central government in Western Libya, Tuareg nationalists bent on creating a nomadic Tuareg non-state in Northwestern Saharan Africa and both Algerian or ISIL inspired radical jihadists. A new witches' brew was thus concocted by a policy of destabilisation to wrong-foot any powerful institution able to effectively challenge the economic and political hegemony of the West and deliberate chaos resulted. Likewise, Afghanistan was a relatively prosperous and dynamically-stable state throughout the 1950's – early-1970's. Secular state-sponsored education was widespread and available to men and women alike in all but the most traditionalist regions of the country. Women wore western style clothes, walked freely in the streets and were making slow but real headway towards economic opportunity and political participation in the Afghan body politic. Afghanistan was a net exporter of food, especially fruit, and illegal drug exports were a more marginal part of the Afghan economy than they are today. Then the US Government under the Carter Administration decided to target the new pro-Soviet Afghan government in order to give the USSR its own version of a Vietnam morass and in July of 1979 began supporting religiously zealous mujaheddin and a nascent Taliban movement to overthrow the Afghan Central Government and to draw the USSR into a costly and likely ill-fated military intervention. This led to the death of effective secularism in Afghanistan and the triumph of fundamentalist traditionalists in combination with radical Islamists. The rise of the Iranian Islamic Revolution in reaction to the abuses of the Shah's corrupt and brutal puppet-regime clearly demonstrated that reaction to US policy would trigger theocratic blow-back. Thus Afghanistan was condemned to endure the last three and half decades of downward spiral and turbo-charged internecine warfare to further the Cold War interests of the USA and the West. So, let us dispel the apologetic myth that these were errors of policy which led to these dreadful but unforeseen consequences. These were deliberate acts of destabilisation and those who planned and executed these policies fully understood the scope and depth of the disasters they were creating in the service of promoting their interests and policies. These were not blundering miscalculations, they were profoundly antisocial and premeditated acts perpetrated by sociopathic leaders and an apathetic public which has now repeatedly failed to hold their chaos-promoting leadership in check and to make it accountable for its crimes of state. Welcome to the world of 'disaster-capitalism' , the 'shock doctrine' and political destabilisation. This is the quite intentional manufacturing of chaos in the service of policy. Rod Robertson. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2016 9:18 a.m. PST |
Sorry Ron … I think you are giving the US government much more "credit" than is it due. The US government is not Vader's Evil Imperial Empire, the Klingons, Romulans, Go'uld, etc., … More like Wile E. Coyote link … Really some of that post sounds a bit like conspiracy theory …  … IMO … If the US was that cunning, etc., then why is it in a tail spin likened to ancient Rome ? Economically, socially and especially politically and more ? Is this a case of "reaping the whirlwind" ? I doubt it … |
| Rod I Robertson | 25 Oct 2016 11:00 a.m. PST |
Legion 4: I have to pop your denial-bubble as the events and descriptions presented above are all true and readily verifiable. As to the motivations behind such events and policy, that is more circumstantial, but is such a repeated theme in US/Western foreign policy that the pattern makes other conclusions less likely explanations than the one offered above. There is no aluminium foil hat haberdashery going on here and no attempt to misrepresent these policies. link link When confronted with such a harsh and seemingly unfamiliar explanation of these policies people tend to first ignore such analysis. When ignoring is no longer an option, then they mock and ridicule such explanations without consideration of the evidence presented. The third step is to angrily attack the argument and the person/institution making the argument by all means available, fair or foul. These attacks are not limited to contesting the evidence but expand to attack the motives and integrity/honesty of the ones making the alien argument. The final step is to retreat into ideological mental-redoubts, to resist the idea and to try to persuade others in a jingoistic call to arms that the analysis is suspect and is likely dangerous/treasonous, thus creating a pack mentality to bulwark the denial in the face of the evidence presented. A siege mentality then takes over preventing any meaningful discussion or meeting of minds. Where are you on that spectrum of responses and where will you move next, I wonder? Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2016 3:08 p.m. PST |
You can disagree with me … as I disagree with you … But again, I think, no mocking or ridicule intended. You very much over estimate the US leadership abilities to do such things. As I said the US leadership's had demonstrated to be more like a ["beloved"] hapless cartoon character who comes up with convoluted plans. Which inevitably fails with unseen consequences being revealed just before all goes "Booooomm". The US leadership is far from a cunning, vile, plotting, etc., evil empire. But again it has to be clear with what has been going in the US for the past few decades. The lunatics are running the asylum. Many being voted in by the electorate … Where are you on that spectrum of responses and where will you move next, I wonder? I think I just answered that. As I said on another thread when someone mentioned American Exceptionalism[in a negative light of course]. I pointed out the USA is very much "exceptional" by many of it's populous being exceptionally "stupid" … |
| Rod I Robertson | 25 Oct 2016 3:14 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2016 3:30 p.m. PST |
Well then … I have no choice to include myself as one of those exceptionally stupid Americans … |
| Rod I Robertson | 25 Oct 2016 3:41 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2016 3:49 p.m. PST |
Like ancient Roman … the USA is in a tail spin and will most likely never recover. The US only makes up about 5% of the world's population. So with 40% being either Chinese or Indian … no one should miss the USA … " Oh how the mighty have fallen …" |
| Rod I Robertson | 25 Oct 2016 4:10 p.m. PST |
Gotterdammerung or Renaissance? The choice is up to you and each of your fellow citizens. Decisions are made by the people who turn up to be counted. Not those who vacantly stare at screens and continually wish for the return of past glories that never really were. You are the Republic, you are the answer, we are the tide which raises or razes all. The choice is really that simple. Do you have the guts and strength to make such a choice? Ecce ad bella servilia! If so there is real hope for positive exceptionalism to become the hallmark of the great American experiment. If not, well cue the Wagner. Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2016 4:20 p.m. PST |
I sent in my absentee ballot in last week … that is the best I can do … If so there is real hope for positive exceptionalism to become the hallmark of the great American experiment. The experiment will be labeled a failure, but not for want of trying. By historians of the future[they will probably be Chinese or Indian]. The American Dream was never anything but that … a dream. And will be relegated to the dustbin of history like so many other good ideas that go bad. As many things do when humans get their hands on it. Like the internet, etc., …  |
| Rod I Robertson | 25 Oct 2016 4:29 p.m. PST |
Well then! Sit back and listen to others fiddle as the new Rome burns around you. youtu.be/wXh5JprKqiU Rod Robertson |
| Legion 4 | 26 Oct 2016 7:29 a.m. PST |
And I shall  … Even as the US becomes more socialistic and weakened along the way. However, regardless, the US will still be the leader of the Western World/NATO, etc., … Even in a weakened state like many of the other former world powers like the UK, France, etc. E.g. the UK only has 250 MBTs and Germany only 350 currently. And even then the US has still more CVNs and SSBNs than the combined number of the rest of the planet. Even with 1/2 of those dry docked, the US has the ability to keep itself and some allies protected. And will be able to if need be, with a little help from our friends. Be used to stop Chinese or Russian Imperialism. If the US goes that way. And will help keep militant islam spreading beyond it's borders. Militant islam will not threaten Europe as it had a number of times in the distant past. The US won't let that happen along with it's allies … Now matter what the supporters of it like the Saudis and Iran do. So even when in the not so far future, "the once late great USA " won't disappear like many other failed states of Europe or elsewhere. 43% of all new tech comes from the US. Even at 1/2 that it would still be a good number compared it many other places in the world, like the arab/moslem Mid East, Africa, and "wastelands" like A'stan, etc., … |
