Originally Posted by MontyB

While I am not sure about the quality of Iranian forces I do not see any issues with them assisting the Iraqi government if invited to do so.

As for ISIS or IS as they seem to want to be called I can see nothing that justifies their continued existence as they seem determined to spread their ideas through conquest so yeah by all means nuke the bastards and move on with life.

However if Iraq actually wants to become a thriving stable nation it only has one option and that is a genuinely inclusive secular government as the alternative is going to be a split into three unstable nations.

Well we got to remember Monty although they have been highly successful fighting a disintegrating Iraqi Army and some Syrian guerrillas. However they are still a ragtag organization

I agree the planet would be better without them.

Right now the Shiites dominated government is ridiculously paralyzed. They need to have a mixed government of Kurds, Sunni's and Shiites but they continue to squabble as the country falls further into chaos. The Kurds are happy to maintain their own autonomous region. Although I don't think ISIS is even happy with that.

Read the last post by the news manager: as per the news manager:

Iraq parliament delayed for five weeks, general killed near Baghdad

Originally Posted by JOC

Read the last post by the news manager: as per the news manager:

Iraq parliament delayed for five weeks, general killed near Baghdad

I do not see an issue with Iraq being split along sectarian lines with the 3 state governments then being used to form a federal government to oversee the whole country as that would give all groups an equal say in the process which seems to be their biggest problem at the moment.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I do not see an issue with Iraq being split along sectarian lines with the 3 state governments then being used to form a federal government to oversee the whole country as that would give all groups an equal say in the process which seems to be their biggest problem at the moment.

Me either, that would likely be a good solution.

The trouble now is the Government filled the offices with Shiites. The Sunni's began to rebel as a result, since previously they played an important part in the government "delicate balance to begin with" and weakened a the mainly Shiite lead army who officers at the time were fairly professional. So many Shiites that knew how to help run this multi religious - tribal country were out of a job and were replaced by inexperienced nitwits who have remain paralyzed ever since.
As the Shiite rebellion took place they were joined by these nuts the ISIS who were at 1st welcomed but then ended up virtually taking over the fight against the Sunnis at a time when the Sunnis are weak from the disintegration of the military due to lack of leadership. This is typical of these opportunistic terroristic groups, they come in when weakness exist. Now they desire to take Bagdad a Shite city as they strive to expand outside the Shiite only areas. This makes things very complex as Iran would be nervous if ISIS wins and the US is also against such a victory. Strange bedfellows. However the Federal government has decided in this time of crisis to take 5 weeks off for a break. Further proof of the uselessness of the present leadership - Federal government.

Let's be clear. This is a religious problem and it is not (radical) Sunni vs Shia, it is (radical) Sunni vs non-Sunni. The Iraqi Shia now cry for help forgetting that they themselves expelled or killed many Christians (and Sunnis). This was happening under Malikis watch and is happening in Arab Spring countries as well. Radical Shias (Al-Sadr) already threatened to kill Americans coming to the rescue. It is going to get ugly over there.

Why don't the Americans send troops to reinforce the Kurds? That way they'll have a lot of leverage when the Kurds declare their independence in Iraq and maybe in Syria and to calm down possible Turkish resistance. This will also send a signal to Maliki (and the Iranians) that he screwed up and they'll have a base(s) from which they could attack IS in Iraq and Syria as well.

Jordan? It seems that the Israelis will come to the rescue when things spiral out of control. They already operate drones along the Iraqi-Jordan border.

It’s religious as well as tribal. The big treat now is that unless this bloodthirsty ISIS is stopped there will be no resolution whatsoever and they are winning. And for the Government to go into a 5 week recess in the middle of a major crisis that is tearing the country apart is absolutely ridiculous. This is the same elected leadership that is responsible for letting things get this bad in the 1st place by not leaving the guys that knew how to run the country (at least nominally) in place, but instead fired them and replaced them with their nitwit cronies. This is what further alienated the Sunni’s in the 1st place and set the country up for a collapse of the military. Extremist exist on both sides. However these ISIS (or whatever they are called) need to be but out of their misery. They have killed thousands of innocents, some in horrible ways and caused ~ a million refugees in a reality short time. They are opportunist terrorist coming in (many from abroad) when the Sunni’s could use an ally to fill the vacuum then taking over. Many native Sunni’s don’t want them and talk of splitting away from them.

I think other than some possible sorties and advisors the US will try to stay out, my hunch.

If the ISIS takes Bagdad as they intend to do you could see Iranian involvement.

I think the Kurds pretty much (at least in Iraq) have established their own unofficial autonomous zone, and seemed to be holding the rebels at bay. This is probably a tricky area for the US seeing as the Kurds continued war with Turkey.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Let's be clear. This is a religious problem and it is not (radical) Sunni vs Shia, it is (radical) Sunni vs non-Sunni. The Iraqi Shia now cry for help forgetting that they themselves expelled or killed many Christians (and Sunnis). This was happening under Malikis watch and is happening in Arab Spring countries as well. Radical Shias (Al-Sadr) already threatened to kill Americans coming to the rescue. It is going to get ugly over there.

Why don't the Americans send troops to reinforce the Kurds? That way they'll have a lot of leverage when the Kurds declare their independence in Iraq and maybe in Syria and to calm down possible Turkish resistance. This will also send a signal to Maliki (and the Iranians) that he screwed up and they'll have a base(s) from which they could attack IS in Iraq and Syria as well.

Jordan? It seems that the Israelis will come to the rescue when things spiral out of control. They already operate drones along the Iraqi-Jordan border.

As much as I would like to see the Kurds succeed in this whole mess I'm not sure it will solve much within the region if we solely back them. The Kurds don't just have a significant population in Iraq, but in Turkey, Iran, and Syria as well. None of those countries want the Kurds to have independence because that would imply those same countries having to give up some of their territory to facilitate the large Kurdish population in those areas. Or if they don't and Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq itself becomes a state then the flow of Kurds moving into the area would quickly tax the balance in the fairly stable region creating a supply demand issue between the Kurds currently living there and the ones moving in.

If the US backs the Kurds then that also implies we go against a NATO "ally" in Turkey and also the very government in Iraq we spent so much to prop up for over a decade. That's not really good for anyone. Just more violence, more war profiteering, more chaos, and zero resolution.

I think it's just going to have to take the Iraqis themselves to live in the bed they are making for themselves for a while to get fed up and push out the whackos like they did in 2007 during the Sunni awakening. They CAN do it and since the ISIS ideologues will soon wear out their welcome they will eventually find themselves unwelcome in the very place they came to "liberate". They're certainly not making any friends as of today with their strict interpretation of Wahhabism (which isn't very well routed in Iraqi culture anyways) and they burnt even more bridges by declaring themselves the new Caliphate. No matter which sect of Islam one adheres to, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who is the current leader of ISIS and the new "Caliphate", doesn't fit the criteria to lead by the Sunni or Shia standard pertaining to a Caliphates leadership. It is in my estimation that this movement will bog down in bickering, power struggles, ethnic/tribal ties, etc before it can pick up any more steam as a singular movement.

Chances are, once these lines are fractured the islamists will again split into multiple different sects that will likely be fighting not only the local government, the secularist, and Shi'as, but each other as well. I think Iraq is destined to be a focal point of dissent and fighting for years to come fueled by the powers around the country simply to keep that fighting from crossing too much into their own borders.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by brinktk

As much as I would like to see the Kurds succeed in this whole mess I'm not sure it will solve much within the region if we solely back them. The Kurds don't just have a significant population in Iraq, but in Turkey, Iran, and Syria as well. None of those countries want the Kurds to have independence because that would imply those same countries having to give up some of their territory to facilitate the large Kurdish population in those areas. Or if they don't and Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq itself becomes a state then the flow of Kurds moving into the area would quickly tax the balance in the fairly stable region creating a supply demand issue between the Kurds currently living there and the ones moving in.

If the US backs the Kurds then that also implies we go against a NATO "ally" in Turkey and also the very government in Iraq we spent so much to prop up for over a decade. That's not really good for anyone. Just more violence, more war profiteering, more chaos, and zero resolution.

I think it's just going to have to take the Iraqis themselves to live in the bed they are making for themselves for a while to get fed up and push out the whackos like they did in 2007 during the Sunni awakening. They CAN do it and since the ISIS ideologues will soon wear out their welcome they will eventually find themselves unwelcome in the very place they came to "liberate". They're certainly not making any friends as of today with their strict interpretation of Wahhabism (which isn't very well routed in Iraqi culture anyways) and they burnt even more bridges by declaring themselves the new Caliphate. No matter which sect of Islam one adheres to, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who is the current leader of ISIS and the new "Caliphate", doesn't fit the criteria to lead by the Sunni or Shia standard pertaining to a Caliphates leadership. It is in my estimation that this movement will bog down in bickering, power struggles, ethnic/tribal ties, etc before it can pick up any more steam as a singular movement.

Chances are, once these lines are fractured the islamists will again split into multiple different sects that will likely be fighting not only the local government, the secularist, and Shi'as, but each other as well. I think Iraq is destined to be a focal point of dissent and fighting for years to come fueled by the powers around the country simply to keep that fighting from crossing too much into their own borders.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents.

I agree as my previous post pretty much states, although you have evaluated the situation in greater detail. The thing that concerns me "as mentioned" is the favoritism and inability of the elected government. We both noted that the Sunni's are growing weary of their "so called ally" the ISIS. Perhaps infighting will develpoe here as well. Anything to stop these murderers. That is a point Iran on one hand vs Arabia and the Gulf States would likely not want to see this spill over in fact you could likely throw in Jordon and even Turkey.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Precisely,... the insurgents were never "beaten", the coalition forces only ever "controlled" the land they were standing on, at any given time, the moment they moved elsewhere the land immediately reverted to the control by the insurgents. They would mount a mission on some little village, go in and kill a handful of insurgents then hightail it for home before dark. Within 10 minutes of their leaving the area it was back in control of the insurgents. You see, it's vastly different to the computer games you get your experience from.

It would have been no different had the coalition forces stayed there forever, That's why the coalition forces were run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs.

I have to address this statement here. I can understand this statement being the case in maybe 2005 and before. But that was certainly not the case going into 2006 until we left in 2011. There were areas throughout the duration of the war where units actually lived in the neighborhoods where they operated. Most of those areas were markedly more secure than the areas that had 16-20 hours of coverage a day. They were used as a model to coincide with the surge of troops going into the country starting in 2006. By the end of that year, most of the units that were responsible for battle space in Iraq were living IN their battle space areas. By the end of 2007 the results were convincing because violence in every category one could place dropped precipitously from their levels when compared to Jan 1 2006. Those numbers continued to drop until we left in Dec of 2011.

I can also say that I didn't have my tail between my legs when I left in Dec of 2011and neither did any of the soldiers that I served with. I was in that country for the first 2 years of the war and can honestly say it was vastly more secure when I left in 2011 than it was in 03-04-05. WE had a good feeling about the country because the insurgents were hurting so badly there and the ISF seemed to be able to operate sufficiently to deal with that threat at the time. It wasn't an ISF loss, it was an Iraqi government loss. The failure of the government to adequately establish rule of law and chain of custody on people who were suspected of terrorism meant that the same individuals would be captured and sent to jail over and over, only to be released because they didn't yet have the systems in place to make anything stick, or the corruption allowed for bribes to be taken to secure the release of a person of interest.

I understand the zeal with which the statement was made in making a point. Just understand it isn't as simple as the way you described it. Encyclopedia volumes could be written about the complexities of the successes and failures of the US, ISF(in all their stages), Iraqi government, tribalism, ethnic discourse, and sectarian lines over the decade of direct US involvement and even then it wouldn't cover everything.

Originally Posted by brinktk

I can also say that I didn't have my tail between my legs when I left in Dec of 2011and neither did any of the soldiers that I served with. I was in that country for the first 2 years of the war and can honestly say it was vastly more secure when I left in 2011 than it was in 03-04-05. WE had a good feeling about the country because the insurgents were hurting so badly there and the ISF seemed to be able to operate sufficiently to deal with that threat at the time. It wasn't an ISF loss, it was an Iraqi government loss. The failure of the government to adequately establish rule of law and chain of custody on people who were suspected of terrorism meant that the same individuals would be captured and sent to jail over and over, only to be released because they didn't yet have the systems in place to make anything stick, or the corruption allowed for bribes to be taken to secure the release of a person of interest.

But surely the idea that the insurgency had recognised that from 2010 onwards that the US withdrawal was almost complete so further sacrifice was futile as such the "hurting insurgents" were in fact just the dead enders who were determined to kill as many as they could before being killed is not unrealistic.

After all the Syrian revolution broke out around that time so perhaps the insurgents simply shifted their focus to an easier target while they waited for you to leave Iraq.