ISIS on the run under Trump

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Next step in the unending Iraq tragedy?

Post by Milo » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:37 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:52 am
And now the Kurds are on the run under Trump!

Kirkuk: Iraqi forces seize largest oilfields near city
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41649729
If Kurdish forces do not retake Kirkuk and its surrounding oilfields from the Iraqi (Shiite) forces, they will not have much of a country to claim sovereignty over.

Next step in the shifting sands of the Iraq conflict may be a tactical alliance of convenience between the Kurdish Peshmerga and ISIS against the Iraqi government. That should be interesting to watch.
Who knows why the Kurds withdrew. There are conflicting theories.

IMO, the US intervening to stop IS bungled a historic opportunity to set Muslim fanatics against each other, and away from us, in the long term.

The remains of IS will indeed run now, and set up a new movement, that's why they are surrendering. It's an Islamic story that's as old as the Assassins; as old as Mohammed.

Anyone who thinks this is a decisive, or even a notable, victory is falling for propaganda, both US and IS.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Raqqa, ISIS capital, falls to US led Coalition

Post by cassowary » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:22 am

[urlhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268155/isis-lo ... seph-klein]=ISIS LOSES ITS “CALIPHATE” CAPITAL [/url]
The loss of its capital is a huge symbolic blow to ISIS, which has been suffering a string of major defeats since President Trump took office. Just as nothing succeeds like success in attracting new recruits to ISIS’s cause, its loss of its base of operations from which it had planned and directed attacks around the world spells failure. As Jenan Moussa, a reporter Arabic Al Aan TV, tweeted: “Game over for ISIS in #Raqqa. They lost capital of their caliphate. Same guys, not long time ago, bragged about conquering Rome.”
Note: According to Islamic Scriptures, Islam's founder, Mohammed prophesized that one day Rome will fall to Islam.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: don't bag Obama over someone else's policy failure.

Post by Doc » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:14 pm
Doc wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:15 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:33 pm
Doc wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:10 am

All Obama had to do was create a power vacuum in Iraq before the Iraqi government was ready to defend itself. That is very very clear just by the number of deaths at the time Obama removed teh troops in 2011 and the large upsurge in violence in Iraq afterwards
Mate: the power vacuum was created when the imbecile George Bush administration wiped away the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein back in 2003 - thereby opening the door wide for the sectarian warfare that has ensued there ever since.

The data is exceptionally clear.
multigraph.jpg

The war was won before Bush left the White House. The violence there was way way down. It was only after Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq that ISIS came back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawa ... _from_Iraq

Are you unaware that the troop withdrawal began in 2007 during the second term of that same myopic administration? Though conceded that Congress, no doubt with an eye on coming elections in light of a shift in public opinion, had a hand in bringing about the troop withdraw debacle. Obama in 2011 was merely honoring an agreement entered into on behalf of the USA during the incumbency of his predecessor in office and sanctified by Congress.
The Generals want to leave 30k US troop in Iraq on their bases to react quickly in the Iraqi Army needed help. Obama offered the Iraqi Government far less. And thus sabotaged any political agreement in Iraq to have US troops stay because it was not enough troops to matter. .

Should Obama have disowned the agreement solemnly entered into with a foreign sovereign government and imposed US troops on that hapless country regardless of whether they wanted US troops there or not - with the same utter contempt that Bush and Co. treated Iraqi sovereignty back in 2003? :oops: I am sure that Iraq being made look like a US puppet state compliant to the whims of US politics would have gone over very well in those parts. :(
That just is not what happened.
(quote from my above post) " .......in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12] (unquote)....."
The agreement was made with the belief that another one would replace it. Obama made sure that the Iraqis would not agree to a new one because he offered them such a lousy deal

Y
ou are wrong about the war having been won before Bush left the White House. They were fighting a different enemy in those days. Sunni Muslims were in revolt from the start knowing that they had no future in an Shia run Iraq. It was subsequent actions by the (Shia) Malaki that subsequently prompted some of these these to turn to ISIS:
The numbers do not lie.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... isis-jihad

Your apparent ignorance of the internal politics of Iraq and silly belief that the outcome in Iraq always depended solely on applied American military might beggars belief.
I am very aware of what goes in in Iraq. I asked a question several years ago in the SPengler forum "How long before Baghdad falls to ISIS?"

Baghdad did not fall but it came pretty close to falling.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

User avatar
dagbay
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:27 pm

Re: ISIS on the run under Trump

Post by dagbay » Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:55 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:18 am
dagbay wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:10 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:44 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:52 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:24 am

If the Iraqi government forces are driving out ISIS that can only mean that the Shias are tightening their grip on the Sunni north. Big geostrategic gain for Iran.
Maybe or maybe not. I think Trump's assistance has restored some American influence in Iraq. It lessens their dependency on Iran. Even if what you say is true, this is still the way forward.
It's almost touching to see you fight for America, even an America led by a psychopat. But the truth is that the US is on its way out of the ME, with the exception of Israel and, for the time being, Saudi. The US has lost the ISIS bet, has lost in Syria, is going to lose in Iraq, will lose its attempt at sending Iran back into quarantine, and is going to lose the attempt at creating a Kurdistan (for which I will be sorry). Except for its nuclear force, the US cannot win any war in the ME, much less against Iran. The US may bomb, kill people and destroy infrastructures in the ME, but it cannot defeat any of its adversaries because it lacks enough troops to succeed. The US armed forces are too small to invade Iran and at the same time keep manning its bases around the world. And bringing the draft back is impossible. You may believe in American exceptionalism, but what you would need is a miracle, and they don't happen anymore... So, start thinking about your Chinese ancestry and forget the US...
So the future is bleak in your view Sertorio? With the Ayatollahs wilding nuks and dedicated to the spread of Islam by the nukes it will be ugly. But I do not believe that your posited future will come to pass. As a realist I believe that this might be a period that US influence is contracting and it has no stamina for distant wars but I also believe that the long game strategy may need to change in an era of long range drone warfare. Armies of sword wilding men may be giving way to technology. The world has seen many ups and downs before and seemingly unlikely events changed the course of history. For example take the fall of the USSR and the disintegration of the Arab world aka the Arab Spring.
Iran's fanatic islamism is temporary. I believe many Iranians are already sick of their ayatollahs, and are hoping for a secular regime in a secular Iran. For the time being there are yet too many underdeveloped Iranian peasants who are profoundly religious, but as the number of educated Iranians grow, their control on politics wil disappear. Just be patient
I hope you are right but I don't share your optimism. Perhaps Persicum would she'd light on this if he can....
I'd rather be diving or flying alas for now I am on terra firma.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: ISIS on the run under Trump

Post by Doc » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:51 pm

dagbay wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:55 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:18 am
dagbay wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:10 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:44 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:52 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:24 am

If the Iraqi government forces are driving out ISIS that can only mean that the Shias are tightening their grip on the Sunni north. Big geostrategic gain for Iran.
Maybe or maybe not. I think Trump's assistance has restored some American influence in Iraq. It lessens their dependency on Iran. Even if what you say is true, this is still the way forward.
It's almost touching to see you fight for America, even an America led by a psychopat. But the truth is that the US is on its way out of the ME, with the exception of Israel and, for the time being, Saudi. The US has lost the ISIS bet, has lost in Syria, is going to lose in Iraq, will lose its attempt at sending Iran back into quarantine, and is going to lose the attempt at creating a Kurdistan (for which I will be sorry). Except for its nuclear force, the US cannot win any war in the ME, much less against Iran. The US may bomb, kill people and destroy infrastructures in the ME, but it cannot defeat any of its adversaries because it lacks enough troops to succeed. The US armed forces are too small to invade Iran and at the same time keep manning its bases around the world. And bringing the draft back is impossible. You may believe in American exceptionalism, but what you would need is a miracle, and they don't happen anymore... So, start thinking about your Chinese ancestry and forget the US...
So the future is bleak in your view Sertorio? With the Ayatollahs wilding nuks and dedicated to the spread of Islam by the nukes it will be ugly. But I do not believe that your posited future will come to pass. As a realist I believe that this might be a period that US influence is contracting and it has no stamina for distant wars but I also believe that the long game strategy may need to change in an era of long range drone warfare. Armies of sword wilding men may be giving way to technology. The world has seen many ups and downs before and seemingly unlikely events changed the course of history. For example take the fall of the USSR and the disintegration of the Arab world aka the Arab Spring.
Iran's fanatic islamism is temporary. I believe many Iranians are already sick of their ayatollahs, and are hoping for a secular regime in a secular Iran. For the time being there are yet too many underdeveloped Iranian peasants who are profoundly religious, but as the number of educated Iranians grow, their control on politics wil disappear. Just be patient
I hope you are right but I don't share your optimism. Perhaps Persicum would she'd light on this if he can....
The Taliban just across the border doesn't think much of education.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

neverfail
Posts: 1862
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Raqqa, ISIS capital, falls to US led Coalition

Post by neverfail » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:18 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:22 am


Note: According to Islamic Scriptures, Islam's founder, Mohammed prophesized that one day Rome will fall to Islam.
...and did not Jesus Christ warn us to beware of false prophets? :)

neverfail
Posts: 1862
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: don't bag Obama over someone else's policy failure.

Post by neverfail » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:31 am

The agreement was made with the belief that another one would replace it. Obama made sure that the Iraqis would not agree to a new one because he offered them such a lousy deal
Did he? Could you quote me what that lousy deal was?

Yes, the bloodshed had simmered down over there towards the end of Bush's second term as President and you seem to draw the misleading conclusion that "Bush had won the war". Do you really believe that the state of Iraq depends exclusively on what the US does? Specifically what the incumbent President does by way of policy. As if the Iraqis themselves were an irrelevant factor in the dynamic?

No one when Bush ceded office to Obama could have foreseen the rise of Malaki and his role in turning virtually the entire Sunni population against both his government and the state of Iraq itself as reconstituted in the wake of the US invasion:
.....................................................................................................................................
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sy/373225/

(quote) Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together.

The problem was that Maliki wasn’t interested in such a government. Rather than integrate the Sunni Awakening fighters who had helped subdue al-Qaeda into Iraq’s army, Maliki arrested them. In the run-up to his 2010 reelection bid, Maliki’s Electoral Commission disqualified more than 500, mostly Sunni, candidates on charges that they had ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”
(unquote)
...................................................................................................................................
Yes, I concede that Obama was far too nonchalant about events in Iraq but then what could he have done about Malaki anyway? Send in a CIA hit squad to assassinate him? Did not you Yanks grant Iraq back its sovereign independence? Well, for a foreign country to have sovereign independence if this is to mean anything - it means among other things the freedom to have even a government whose domestic policies are repugnant to the likes of you and I. Otherwise, the term national sovereignty is itself meaningless.

America had (shortsightedly) insisted that the new Iraq was to have a one person/one vote system of electing future governments without it seems considering that this would hand power to the long disenfranchised Shias. Did Shia Iraqis want a peaceful multi confessional and multi-ethnic state? Malaki seems to have been their answer.
....................................................................................................................................

The USA was true to form in Iraq. As in Vietnam: when the going gets too hot, you cut and run.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Raqqa, ISIS capital, falls to US led Coalition

Post by cassowary » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:44 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:22 am


Note: According to Islamic Scriptures, Islam's founder, Mohammed prophesized that one day Rome will fall to Islam.
...and did not Jesus Christ warn us to beware of false prophets? :)
Exactly. Jesus must have had Prophet Mohammed in mind.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: don't bag Obama over someone else's policy failure.

Post by Doc » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:34 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:31 am

The agreement was made with the belief that another one would replace it. Obama made sure that the Iraqis would not agree to a new one because he offered them such a lousy deal
Did he? Could you quote me what that lousy deal was?[/quote[

The insistence of running it through the Iraqi parliament while at the same time greatly reducing the number of US Troops below what the Pentagon said was needed to be left in Iraq beyond 2011 to get the job done. .

Yes, the bloodshed had simmered down over there towards the end of Bush's second term as President and you seem to draw the misleading conclusion that "Bush had won the war". Do you really believe that the state of Iraq depends exclusively on what the US does? Specifically what the incumbent President does by way of policy. As if the Iraqis themselves were an irrelevant factor in the dynamic?
"Winning the war " How do you define that if it is not greatly reducing the violence with your chosen side still in power?
No one when Bush ceded office to Obama could have foreseen the rise of Malaki and his role in turning virtually the entire Sunni population against both his government and the state of Iraq itself as reconstituted in the wake of the US invasion:

Malaki was the Iraqi PM before Bush left office They used to talk every day After Obama took over Malaki was put in contact with a lower level State dept employee. After it because Clear Obama was going to bug out of IRaq Malaki really had no choice but to align with Iran which the sunni population counted as their enemy.

.....................................................................................................................................
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sy/373225/

(quote) Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together.

The problem was that Maliki wasn’t interested in such a government. Rather than integrate the Sunni Awakening fighters who had helped subdue al-Qaeda into Iraq’s army, Maliki arrested them. In the run-up to his 2010 reelection bid, Maliki’s Electoral Commission disqualified more than 500, mostly Sunni, candidates on charges that they had ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”
(unquote)
...................................................................................................................................
Yes, I concede that Obama was far too nonchalant about events in Iraq but then what could he have done about Malaki anyway? Send in a CIA hit squad to assassinate him? Did not you Yanks grant Iraq back its sovereign independence? Well, for a foreign country to have sovereign independence if this is to mean anything - it means among other things the freedom to have even a government whose domestic policies are repugnant to the likes of you and I. Otherwise, the term national sovereignty is itself meaningless.

America had (shortsightedly) insisted that the new Iraq was to have a one person/one vote system of electing future governments without it seems considering that this would hand power to the long disenfranchised Shias. Did Shia Iraqis want a peaceful multi confessional and multi-ethnic state? Malaki seems to have been their answer.
....................................................................................................................................

The USA was true to form in Iraq. As in Vietnam: when the going gets too hot, you cut and run.
AS I pointed out previously the war was over by the time GW Bush left office. Obama rekindled it.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

neverfail
Posts: 1862
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: for the USA: Iraq represents the elusive unwinnable peace.

Post by neverfail » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:04 pm

Doc wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:34 pm

"Winning the war " How do you define that if it is not greatly reducing the violence with your chosen side still in power?
That was merely the calm before the coming storm doc. Bush was merely lucky in timing to depart the White House before his chickens had time to come home to roost (as should be obvious to anyone who lacks your kind of, all too American, my team versus your team - rah, rah, rah partisan mentality. Bush, due to the timing of his departure, even escaped having to shoulder the blame for the following inadequate American response (floundering over?) the full onset of the GFC that began during the tail end of his watch. A lucky man was President Bush.

Have you seriously taken a good look at the "chosen side" that the US actually brought to power in Iraq? I do not believe so!

"Winning the peace" that followed was beyond the capability of the US and had to be done by the Iraqi's themselves. I would have thought that my quote on the rise on Malaki representing the vengeful nationalism of his (majority) Shia constituents should have been enough to open your eyes. But apparently not!

Doc wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:34 pm
AS I pointed out previously the war was over by the time GW Bush left office. Obama rekindled it.
The war rekindled under his watch but Obama did not cause it. The causes were (and continue to be) inherent in the unstable status quo left behind in Iraq.

Post Reply