Speculation: This seemingly sudden collapse convinces Turkey to swing substantively in behind the least objectionable Kurdish groups in order to find a stabilising proxy
It does seem like at some point for whatever animosity there is between the Turks & the Kurds, a neighbor you don't get on with is still better than living next to a crack house. three crack houses owned by rival gangs.
Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near as informed as most people here, so forgive me if I'm wrong but here goes...
Isn't there basically an unenfranchised Kurdish minority in almost every country in the Middle East? Turkey, Iran and Iraq are the ones that really jump to mind (that I believe are the largest) with the Kurds in Iraq having the most autonomy as a result of the no fly zone placed over their territory during the 90's and Saddam being ousted/US mostly leaving them alone over the last decade as well.
And said Kurdish territory in Iraq also happens to border Kurdish occupied territory in Turkey which is about 99% of the reason we didn't let the Kurds split into their own state outright since that would have furthered the independence movement in Turkey as well (the other 1% being that I think the resulting country would be landlocked and letting them split off would probably just spark off another war over that alone)?
What I'm getting at is that if the Turks backed the Kurds wouldn't come at the price of giving up a chunk of their own territory and some kind of preferred status so that the resulting Kurdistan(?) could have access to their ports? One small, underpowered ally that may or may not be willing to stir up shit in your enemies countries may not be worth it when the US is fine backing you as you oppress them anyway.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Speculation: This seemingly sudden collapse convinces Turkey to swing substantively in behind the least objectionable Kurdish groups in order to find a stabilising proxy
It does seem like at some point for whatever animosity there is between the Turks & the Kurds, a neighbor you don't get on with is still better than living next to a crack house. three crack houses owned by rival gangs.
The Kurds are more or less the only group in all of this whose goals aren't deplorable or pants in head insane. They're just a nation that wants a state to call their own.
The Kurss are both enfranchised and oppressed in Turkey, demonstrating the difficulty of the situation. Other countries, well, Syria is in civil war and was a dictatorship, Iran is some form of democracy where one can vote but under constraint but I'm not sure how they feel about language and culture (not positive?), Iraq, well, they have a region they largely run in semi peaceful conflict with the centre.
Turkey doesn't need to promise anything but recognition of the facts on the ground, that Kurds run the north and promise a closer relationship. If Iraq collapses, then maybe a rump sovereign Kurdish state may have a chance of forming.
Is Iran doing much to help the Shia Iraqi government against the Sunni insurgency?
Yes, though I don't know any specifics. Malaki is quite close with Iran, and they've been working together closely. Iran was heavily involved in Iraq during the US occupation, and I'm sure this cooperation has only increased since the US formally withdrew. A guess would be that this is primarily advisors and training, since Iraq is already awash in advanced US weaponry.
Speculation: This seemingly sudden collapse convinces Turkey to swing substantively in behind the least objectionable Kurdish groups in order to find a stabilising proxy
It does seem like at some point for whatever animosity there is between the Turks & the Kurds, a neighbor you don't get on with is still better than living next to a crack house. three crack houses owned by rival gangs.
Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near as informed as most people here, so forgive me if I'm wrong but here goes...
Isn't there basically an unenfranchised Kurdish minority in almost every country in the Middle East? Turkey, Iran and Iraq are the ones that really jump to mind (that I believe are the largest) with the Kurds in Iraq having the most autonomy as a result of the no fly zone placed over their territory during the 90's and Saddam being ousted/US mostly leaving them alone over the last decade as well.
And said Kurdish territory in Iraq also happens to border Kurdish occupied territory in Turkey which is about 99% of the reason we didn't let the Kurds split into their own state outright since that would have furthered the independence movement in Turkey as well (the other 1% being that I think the resulting country would be landlocked and letting them split off would probably just spark off another war over that alone)?
What I'm getting at is that if the Turks backed the Kurds wouldn't come at the price of giving up a chunk of their own territory and some kind of preferred status so that the resulting Kurdistan(?) could have access to their ports? One small, underpowered ally that may or may not be willing to stir up shit in your enemies countries may not be worth it when the US is fine backing you as you oppress them anyway.
You're mostly right. Kurdistan (yes that's the name of the region and hypothetical state) is mostly in Turkey and Iraq, with parts of it in Syria, Iran and I think Armenia a bit. The Turks will not cede territory to a Kurdish state, zero chance. In Syria they've sorta carved out enclaves. I'm not sure their status in Iran is. Iran has backed the Kurds against Saddam during the 80s, but has discouraged such breakaway elements in their own country.
I think those people thought that the Iraqi army might actually use them and not drop them and flee at the sight of opposition. Though given their illustrious history of doing exactly that it probably should have been expected.
Obama will never say otherwise since he got hit by Hillary Clinton during the 2008 debates for saying nuclear weapons were absolutely out of the question in regards to Iran. I can't believe he'd risk getting more involved with Iraq even if the corpse of Saddam rose to reclaim the country.
Yeah I think at this point he's obliged to use the "all options on the table" line but I'd be amazed if boots went on the ground. I think the UK has already ruled it out so the US would be alone if they did go.
I think those people thought that the Iraqi army might actually use them and not drop them and flee at the sight of opposition. Though given their illustrious history of doing exactly that it probably should have been expected.
Not just that, but often they're often the ones perpetrating sectarian violence (along with the police) due to their members also maintaining membership with sectarian militias. I'm not sure how much of that is case currently, though it's been extremely common for the past decade.
--
Obama will have a difficult time convincing the public that we need to stick our hand in the dike again. Constant sectarian violence regardless of US involvement doesn't really leave any compelling arguments.
Twitter reports that 2 battalions of Iranian troops have been deployed to Tikrut, more in Baghdad, Samara
This will get really interesting. I wonder if Iran has plans to annex parts of the country.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Eh. They had their chance not to blow one another up/engage in ethnic cleansing, and they ruined it. Not our problem anymore.
Ye Olde Gulf War logic applies: The problem isn't who murders who, the problem is who ends up controlling the oil.
-This message was deviously brought to you by:
+2
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I thought that America drilled most of its oil from within our borders nowadays? Although we really should be taking steps to move to nuclear/renewable power sources.
America and its allies are not islands of autarky, so what happens in the Gulf may affect you anyway, even if your oil is domestic. The international price will rise and that will affect your price
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
White House spokesman Jay Carney subsequently added that President Obama was referring to not ruling out air strikes. "We are not contemplating ground troops," he said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney subsequently added that President Obama was referring to not ruling out air strikes. "We are not contemplating ground troops," he said.
Clarification
President McCain says otherwise!
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticizes the Obama administration’s handling of military operations in Iraq and calls on the president to replace his national security team.
America and its allies are not islands of autarky, so what happens in the Gulf may affect you anyway, even if your oil is domestic. The international price will rise and that will affect your price
Eh. When oil was $35 a barrel gas prices were still higher than Haight-Ashbury on a Saturday night. Gas and food prices are still high now, and companies use every excuse to keep jacking up the cost. I have every faith that this new "unrest" and "uncertainty" will let Exxon or BP try to push prices over $4 a gallon, so it doesn't really matter whether we intervene or not.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticizes the Obama administration’s handling of military operations in Iraq and calls on the president to replace his national security team.
augh he is such a shit. You were a fucking pilot, you ass, and a shit one at that. You were never a general officer or trained in strategic planning, and despite that you'll gleefully attack the administration at every opportunity based on his "military experience". You don't see retired generals coming out of the woodwork to bitch about Obama. They seem to have a problem with people like McCain, though.
Captain Marcus on
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
McCain is a chickenshit wang. It is known, khaleesi.
I'm wondering if the Kurds have any intentions for Kirkuk beyond 'holding' it against ISIS. They don't have a great deal of bargaining chips beyond the value of their general location and their capacity to hold on to it; having a more 'legitimate' claim on the city might be a hard thing to relinquish.
The Iraqi military must have been infiltrated by militants to be this bad. I mean they have western training and equioment, they should be able to out up some kind of fight. Right now it looks like they're running at the first sign of trouble and intentionally leaving equipment for Isis to capture.
The Iraqi military must have been infiltrated by militants to be this bad. I mean they have western training and equioment, they should be able to out up some kind of fight. Right now it looks like they're running at the first sign of trouble and intentionally leaving equipment for Isis to capture.
They were trained for and have been fighting an anti-insurgency campaign for months now. They're demoralized, exhausted, and underpaid.
ISIS is battle hardened from Syria and is apparently much more competent and organized than what they were facing before, so they're pretty much beaten at this point.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
So is Iraq gonna vanish from the maps?
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
I don't think Iraq as an entity will disappear from the map entirely, but if things keep up as they are, and they probably will, then there is about to be a whole lot less of it.
Just like how Syria will probably become like Somalia with lots of warlords and areas separate from each other and Assad's area, Iraq will probably be more and more a few areas within it's borders and surrounded by groups like ISIS and the Kurds.
We may soon see US air forces working alongside Iranian forces in Iraq.
It's like the revolution didn't happen. I can almost see a Polandball of the US doing the "Oh it was all a bad dream" plot ending after an odd story arc.
3 batallions of Iranian troops are now inside Iraq according to the Wall St Journal:
At least three battalions of the Quds Forces, the elite overseas branch of the Guards, were dispatched to aid in the battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an offshoot of al Qaeda rapidly gaining territory across Iraq, they said.
One Guards unit that was already in Iraq fought alongside the Iraqi army, offering guerrilla warfare advice and tactics and helped reclaim most of the city of Tikrit on Thursday.
Two Guards' units, dispatched from Iran's western border provinces on Wednesday, were tasked with protecting Baghdad and the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf, these security sources said.
General Qasem Sulaimani, the commander of the Quds Forces and one of the region's most powerful military figures, traveled to Baghdad this week to help manage the swelling crisis, said a member of the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.
At stake for Iran in the current tumult in Iraq isn't only the survival of a Shiite political ally in Baghdad, but the safety of Karbala and Najaf, which along with Mecca and Medina are considered sacred to Shiites world-wide.
An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group's Sunni fighters to march toward the "filth-ridden" Karbala and "the city of polytheism" Najaf, where they would "settle their differences" with Mr. Maliki.
That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran's view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rivaling sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.
3 batallions of Iranian troops are now inside Iraq according to the Wall St Journal:
At least three battalions of the Quds Forces, the elite overseas branch of the Guards, were dispatched to aid in the battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an offshoot of al Qaeda rapidly gaining territory across Iraq, they said.
One Guards unit that was already in Iraq fought alongside the Iraqi army, offering guerrilla warfare advice and tactics and helped reclaim most of the city of Tikrit on Thursday.
Two Guards' units, dispatched from Iran's western border provinces on Wednesday, were tasked with protecting Baghdad and the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf, these security sources said.
General Qasem Sulaimani, the commander of the Quds Forces and one of the region's most powerful military figures, traveled to Baghdad this week to help manage the swelling crisis, said a member of the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.
At stake for Iran in the current tumult in Iraq isn't only the survival of a Shiite political ally in Baghdad, but the safety of Karbala and Najaf, which along with Mecca and Medina are considered sacred to Shiites world-wide.
An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group's Sunni fighters to march toward the "filth-ridden" Karbala and "the city of polytheism" Najaf, where they would "settle their differences" with Mr. Maliki.
That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran's view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rivaling sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Well, the Shia do. They've been cooperating with Iran a great deal for the past decade. The Sunnis would really, really hate it. Indeed, it may drive moderate Sunnis (if anyone left in Iraq is still moderate) into the hands of more radical groups.
edit: I should really say some Shia do. While the conflict has been largely fought on sectarian lines since the civil war around 05-08, it isn't quite as simple as all that. Despite what it may seem to our eyes, loyalties there are not solely determined by sect.
[Tycho?] on
+3
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Well, the Shia do. They've been cooperating with Iran a great deal for the past decade. The Sunnis would really, really hate it. Indeed, it may drive moderate Sunnis (if anyone left in Iraq is still moderate) into the hands of more radical groups.
edit: I should really say some Shia do. While the conflict has been largely fought on sectarian lines since the civil war around 05-08, it isn't quite as simple as all that. Despite what it may seem to our eyes, loyalties there are not solely determined by sect.
I'm surprised more because the specter of the Iran/Iraq war still looms over the region. Regardless of your sect, if you live in those countries you probably lost someone in your relatively recent family history to that war.
I'm surprised the Saudis haven't stepped in in a much bigger way already. They've always treated Iraq as their bulwark against the forces they don't want on the home turf, physically or influentially.
Posts
Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near as informed as most people here, so forgive me if I'm wrong but here goes...
Isn't there basically an unenfranchised Kurdish minority in almost every country in the Middle East? Turkey, Iran and Iraq are the ones that really jump to mind (that I believe are the largest) with the Kurds in Iraq having the most autonomy as a result of the no fly zone placed over their territory during the 90's and Saddam being ousted/US mostly leaving them alone over the last decade as well.
And said Kurdish territory in Iraq also happens to border Kurdish occupied territory in Turkey which is about 99% of the reason we didn't let the Kurds split into their own state outright since that would have furthered the independence movement in Turkey as well (the other 1% being that I think the resulting country would be landlocked and letting them split off would probably just spark off another war over that alone)?
What I'm getting at is that if the Turks backed the Kurds wouldn't come at the price of giving up a chunk of their own territory and some kind of preferred status so that the resulting Kurdistan(?) could have access to their ports? One small, underpowered ally that may or may not be willing to stir up shit in your enemies countries may not be worth it when the US is fine backing you as you oppress them anyway.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The Kurds are more or less the only group in all of this whose goals aren't deplorable or pants in head insane. They're just a nation that wants a state to call their own.
Turkey doesn't need to promise anything but recognition of the facts on the ground, that Kurds run the north and promise a closer relationship. If Iraq collapses, then maybe a rump sovereign Kurdish state may have a chance of forming.
Yes, though I don't know any specifics. Malaki is quite close with Iran, and they've been working together closely. Iran was heavily involved in Iraq during the US occupation, and I'm sure this cooperation has only increased since the US formally withdrew. A guess would be that this is primarily advisors and training, since Iraq is already awash in advanced US weaponry.
You're mostly right. Kurdistan (yes that's the name of the region and hypothetical state) is mostly in Turkey and Iraq, with parts of it in Syria, Iran and I think Armenia a bit. The Turks will not cede territory to a Kurdish state, zero chance. In Syria they've sorta carved out enclaves. I'm not sure their status in Iran is. Iran has backed the Kurds against Saddam during the 80s, but has discouraged such breakaway elements in their own country.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27809051
Obama will never say otherwise since he got hit by Hillary Clinton during the 2008 debates for saying nuclear weapons were absolutely out of the question in regards to Iran. I can't believe he'd risk getting more involved with Iraq even if the corpse of Saddam rose to reclaim the country.
Not just that, but often they're often the ones perpetrating sectarian violence (along with the police) due to their members also maintaining membership with sectarian militias. I'm not sure how much of that is case currently, though it's been extremely common for the past decade.
--
Obama will have a difficult time convincing the public that we need to stick our hand in the dike again. Constant sectarian violence regardless of US involvement doesn't really leave any compelling arguments.
This will get really interesting. I wonder if Iran has plans to annex parts of the country.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Would seem unlikely, given their international position and desire to pursue normalised relations. That being said, Crimea!
They could be satisfied with Iraq as run by Shia majority or rump Iraq, either wealthy or not.
Clarification
President McCain says otherwise!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Eh. When oil was $35 a barrel gas prices were still higher than Haight-Ashbury on a Saturday night. Gas and food prices are still high now, and companies use every excuse to keep jacking up the cost. I have every faith that this new "unrest" and "uncertainty" will let Exxon or BP try to push prices over $4 a gallon, so it doesn't really matter whether we intervene or not.
augh he is such a shit. You were a fucking pilot, you ass, and a shit one at that. You were never a general officer or trained in strategic planning, and despite that you'll gleefully attack the administration at every opportunity based on his "military experience". You don't see retired generals coming out of the woodwork to bitch about Obama. They seem to have a problem with people like McCain, though.
yikes
so ISIS i hear you want an Islamic Caliphate huh
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/world/middleeast/exhausted-and-bereft-iraqi-soldiers-quit-fight.html
They were trained for and have been fighting an anti-insurgency campaign for months now. They're demoralized, exhausted, and underpaid.
ISIS is battle hardened from Syria and is apparently much more competent and organized than what they were facing before, so they're pretty much beaten at this point.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I don't think Iraq as an entity will disappear from the map entirely, but if things keep up as they are, and they probably will, then there is about to be a whole lot less of it.
Just like how Syria will probably become like Somalia with lots of warlords and areas separate from each other and Assad's area, Iraq will probably be more and more a few areas within it's borders and surrounded by groups like ISIS and the Kurds.
It's like the revolution didn't happen. I can almost see a Polandball of the US doing the "Oh it was all a bad dream" plot ending after an odd story arc.
"Ok, so our black President, Barack Obama teams up with the Iranians to fight these guys that ---."
"You're shitting me"
"Nope! Also, don't buy Lehman Brothers stock. Trust me."
http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470
a link past the paywall:
http://tinyurl.com/l9s8ptq
That...that's a thing. Jeez, who'd have ever thought the Iraqis might want to see Iranian troops in their country?
edit: I should really say some Shia do. While the conflict has been largely fought on sectarian lines since the civil war around 05-08, it isn't quite as simple as all that. Despite what it may seem to our eyes, loyalties there are not solely determined by sect.
I'm surprised more because the specter of the Iran/Iraq war still looms over the region. Regardless of your sect, if you live in those countries you probably lost someone in your relatively recent family history to that war.