It seems to be pretty much cut and dried that short of invading, the US is up a creek without a paddle in terms of punishing Iran. Europe, Russia, China and others are 100% happy with them, and would probably be happy to give them a carrot or too for doing such a nice job with the deal. They certainly aren't going to back Trump. China is rubbing its hands with glee here as the US frantically drives all its old allies into closer relationships with them.
Soooo, who would have thought that the US arming and training the Kurds to fight IS when Iraqi forces proved ineffective would inevitably lead to a conflict between the Kurds and the Iraqis?
This conflict between Baghdad and Erbil is not as new as the split of IS and AQ. The Kirkuk referendum that has been talked about was initially supposed to happen in 2007 but Baghdad continually kicked that can down the road. And even before that Kirkuk has been in contention because Saddam Hussein conducted a deliberate "Arabization" campaign before, during, and after Al Anfal for the exact same reason Baghdad doesn't want the Kirkuk referendum to happen now.
Saying that this conflict exists solely because of US arms and training to fight IS is ignoring the long burning conflict.
Oh sure, but the Kurds wouldn't nearly be as well-armed and competent to take on the Iraqi national government. Which is, in turn, partially because the Americans were training and arming them first.
But I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that the referendum was supposed to happen in 2007 and Baghdad kicked the can down the road. Now the Kurds are saying, no more can-kicking, you deal with us on our terms now. Hard not to see American training/armaments playing an important role in that calculus.
They had experience and arms before the 2003 invasion. At different points in time they were fighting Baghdad, each other with one side unofficially supported by Baghdad, and they have relationships with the other Kurdish communities who also chose sides during the civil war.
The reason for the Al Anfal chemical campaign was Hussein's inability to destroy the Kurds with conventional military force.
Absent specific US interaction post 2012 it would not be unrealistic for the KRG to have support from the PYD and indirectly from the PKK in a conflict with Baghdad even if the founding of a consolidated Kurdish state is unrealistic. And even without it, and with Baghdad still purposely withholding military equipment, supplies, and money that KRG is entitled to under the constitution and agreements, I don't think the balance of military capability would shift so drastically in Baghdad's favor.
Except that the US was providing training and arms to Iraq.
The point being that, one way or another, the US is choosing winners. And somehow, they've chosen both?
Well, the Kurds are good allies but no one wants to, like, actually do much for them because it stirs up too much shit in every single volatile nation they own a corner of.
Honestly. The only thing standing in the way of a Kurdish nation these days is Turkey. Turkey hates the idea of a Kurdish nation wish a burning fury (because basically 1920-1922-ish Ataturk said "This much we cede, but one a single bit of land more. Never!" and they're holding on to that idea with a fervor that borders on insanity), and hates even the idea of a kurdish nation outside its current borders because the very idea of a Kurdistan is a threat to their current borders.
With the exception of Iran the other nations are too weak to hold on to Kurdish territory, and honestly it's lines drawn in sand anyway by French and Brittish diplomats who didn't have an idea of the magnitude of their actions (colonialism at its finest). Iran might be persuaded to yield some territory in order to secure a relatively large and relatively friendly neighbour/buffer state, since the population in the region is mostly kurdish and the land has relatively low economic value (and doesn't fill a critical strategic purpose either).
Iran isn't so friendly to a Kurdish state taking their territory (which doesn't have as strong of a Kurdish identity strongly separated from the "host nation" like Turkey, Syria, and Iraq have) and haven't been historically friendly towards the idea of Kurdish independence even historically having dealt with the Mahabad Republic.
There are other issues than just Turkey standing in the way. There are internal politics (including in just the KRG between the Barzani and Talabani families, but also extends to the KRG and the PYD which while influenced by Turkey is not entirely the fault of Turkey) to contend with. And as we see in Iraq there is Kirkuk (a historically Kurdish area but "Arabized" and now a point of conflict between Erbil and Baghdad).
Soooo, who would have thought that the US arming and training the Kurds to fight IS when Iraqi forces proved ineffective would inevitably lead to a conflict between the Kurds and the Iraqis?
This conflict between Baghdad and Erbil is not as new as the split of IS and AQ. The Kirkuk referendum that has been talked about was initially supposed to happen in 2007 but Baghdad continually kicked that can down the road. And even before that Kirkuk has been in contention because Saddam Hussein conducted a deliberate "Arabization" campaign before, during, and after Al Anfal for the exact same reason Baghdad doesn't want the Kirkuk referendum to happen now.
Saying that this conflict exists solely because of US arms and training to fight IS is ignoring the long burning conflict.
Oh sure, but the Kurds wouldn't nearly be as well-armed and competent to take on the Iraqi national government. Which is, in turn, partially because the Americans were training and arming them first.
But I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that the referendum was supposed to happen in 2007 and Baghdad kicked the can down the road. Now the Kurds are saying, no more can-kicking, you deal with us on our terms now. Hard not to see American training/armaments playing an important role in that calculus.
They had experience and arms before the 2003 invasion. At different points in time they were fighting Baghdad, each other with one side unofficially supported by Baghdad, and they have relationships with the other Kurdish communities who also chose sides during the civil war.
The reason for the Al Anfal chemical campaign was Hussein's inability to destroy the Kurds with conventional military force.
Absent specific US interaction post 2012 it would not be unrealistic for the KRG to have support from the PYD and indirectly from the PKK in a conflict with Baghdad even if the founding of a consolidated Kurdish state is unrealistic. And even without it, and with Baghdad still purposely withholding military equipment, supplies, and money that KRG is entitled to under the constitution and agreements, I don't think the balance of military capability would shift so drastically in Baghdad's favor.
Except that the US was providing training and arms to Iraq.
The point being that, one way or another, the US is choosing winners. And somehow, they've chosen both?
Because ceding the diplomatic relationship with Iraq means Iran gains even more ground in Baghdad than they already have.
Soooo, who would have thought that the US arming and training the Kurds to fight IS when Iraqi forces proved ineffective would inevitably lead to a conflict between the Kurds and the Iraqis?
This conflict between Baghdad and Erbil is not as new as the split of IS and AQ. The Kirkuk referendum that has been talked about was initially supposed to happen in 2007 but Baghdad continually kicked that can down the road. And even before that Kirkuk has been in contention because Saddam Hussein conducted a deliberate "Arabization" campaign before, during, and after Al Anfal for the exact same reason Baghdad doesn't want the Kirkuk referendum to happen now.
Saying that this conflict exists solely because of US arms and training to fight IS is ignoring the long burning conflict.
Oh sure, but the Kurds wouldn't nearly be as well-armed and competent to take on the Iraqi national government. Which is, in turn, partially because the Americans were training and arming them first.
But I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that the referendum was supposed to happen in 2007 and Baghdad kicked the can down the road. Now the Kurds are saying, no more can-kicking, you deal with us on our terms now. Hard not to see American training/armaments playing an important role in that calculus.
They had experience and arms before the 2003 invasion. At different points in time they were fighting Baghdad, each other with one side unofficially supported by Baghdad, and they have relationships with the other Kurdish communities who also chose sides during the civil war.
The reason for the Al Anfal chemical campaign was Hussein's inability to destroy the Kurds with conventional military force.
Absent specific US interaction post 2012 it would not be unrealistic for the KRG to have support from the PYD and indirectly from the PKK in a conflict with Baghdad even if the founding of a consolidated Kurdish state is unrealistic. And even without it, and with Baghdad still purposely withholding military equipment, supplies, and money that KRG is entitled to under the constitution and agreements, I don't think the balance of military capability would shift so drastically in Baghdad's favor.
Except that the US was providing training and arms to Iraq.
The point being that, one way or another, the US is choosing winners. And somehow, they've chosen both?
Well, the Kurds are good allies but no one wants to, like, actually do much for them because it stirs up too much shit in every single volatile nation they own a corner of.
Honestly. The only thing standing in the way of a Kurdish nation these days is Turkey. Turkey hates the idea of a Kurdish nation wish a burning fury (because basically 1920-1922-ish Ataturk said "This much we cede, but one a single bit of land more. Never!" and they're holding on to that idea with a fervor that borders on insanity), and hates even the idea of a kurdish nation outside its current borders because the very idea of a Kurdistan is a threat to their current borders.
With the exception of Iran the other nations are too weak to hold on to Kurdish territory, and honestly it's lines drawn in sand anyway by French and Brittish diplomats who didn't have an idea of the magnitude of their actions (colonialism at its finest). Iran might be persuaded to yield some territory in order to secure a relatively large and relatively friendly neighbour/buffer state, since the population in the region is mostly kurdish and the land has relatively low economic value (and doesn't fill a critical strategic purpose either).
Few states are willing to cede their territory; eg, the US refuses to even allow the possibility of any part leaving
Iran isn't so friendly to a Kurdish state taking their territory (which doesn't have as strong of a Kurdish identity strongly separated from the "host nation" like Turkey, Syria, and Iraq have) and haven't been historically friendly towards the idea of Kurdish independence even historically having dealt with the Mahabad Republic.
Knowing how the Middle East tends to work, I assume that the vast majority of Iran's natural resources are concentrated in the northwest?
So it seems that there’s a civil war going on. No clue what is actually going on. Iraqi state media seems to be reporting that everything in Kirkuk was taken with no resistance, almost certainly a lie, and Kurdish media is reporting that they made a tactical withdrawal to the city after destroying several vehicles, which who knows really, but since there are videos of Iraqi soldiers in Kirkuk may not be exactly the truth either.
Ed: Oh, and John McCain has released a statement:
“I am deeply concerned by media reports of military advances by Iraqi government forces against Kurdish positions near Kirkuk. I am especially concerned by media reports that Iranian and Iranian-backed forces are part of the assault. Iraqi forces must take immediate steps to de-escalate this volatile situation by ceasing their advances.
“The United States provided equipment and training to the Government of Iraq to fight ISIS and secure itself from external threats—not to attack elements of one of its own regional governments, which is a longstanding and valuable partner of the United States. Make no mistake, there will be severe consequences if we continue to see American equipment misused in this way.
“It is absolutely imperative for Prime Minister Abadi and the Kurdish Regional Government to engage in a dialogue about the Kurdish people’s desire for greater autonomy from Baghdad at an appropriate time and the need to halt hostilities immediately.”
The lack of resistance in Kirkuk appears to be true, from everything I'm seeing. If the Peshmerga had fought to hold the city there's no way it would have fallen that fast. Maybe some militias have resisted, but the Peshmerga as a whole seem to have decided to retreat rather make a real attempt to repel the Iraqi Security Forces' advance. No idea whether this was an order from the top or just Peshmerga breaking ranks against a more powerful foe.
Either way, at least casualties seem minimal so far. I'm indifferent to who controls places like Kirkuk and Sinjar; I just don't want to see Iraq jump into a new phase of warfare just as the previous one is drawing to a close. And I think the Peshmerga are significantly weaker than the ISF, so if this is to end without prolonged conflict, the KRG will probably have to relinquish the territories it gained during the ISIS war.
The lack of resistance in Kirkuk appears to be true, from everything I'm seeing. If the Peshmerga had fought to hold the city there's no way it would have fallen that fast. Maybe some militias have resisted, but the Peshmerga as a whole seem to have decided to retreat rather make a real attempt to repel the Iraqi Security Forces' advance. No idea whether this was an order from the top or just Peshmerga breaking ranks against a more powerful foe.
Either way, at least casualties seem minimal so far. I'm indifferent to who controls places like Kirkuk and Sinjar; I just don't want to see Iraq jump into a new phase of warfare just as the previous one is drawing to a close. And I think the Peshmerga are significantly weaker than the ISF, so if this is to end without prolonged conflict, the KRG will probably have to relinquish the territories it gained during the ISIS war.
It does seem now like any resistance was minimal... very odd. Parts of Kirkuk also seem to be on fire, according to pictures from on the ground.
So, the KDP appears to be blaming the PUK (rival political party) for Kirkuk.
The PGC accused some of the leaders of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of "treason", alleging that forces under the party's control had withdrawn from areas they held. The PUK has denied the accusations, according to Kurdish news portal Rudaw.
"Unfortunately, some officials from the ... PUK helped this plot against the Kurdistan nation and committed a great and historic treason against Kurdistan and the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for Kurdistan under the PUK flag," the statement said.
My impression is that the PUK has better relations with Baghdad than the KDP and that the PUK was less thrilled with the independence referendum. I'm not sure which party's Peshmerga were in charge of Kirkuk (or if both were present), but if most of the fighters there were PUK then I could see them withdrawing against Erbil's orders.
This Kurdish-Iraqi conflict could have an unfortunate side effect of exacerbating divisions within Iraqi Kurdistan.
I don’t really believe that is solely the case. It may be the PUK signaled they would not help and the peshmerga as a whole withdrew. The whole thing seems bizarre though.
Well. Considering that Somalia is politicly rather entangled with the Middle-east I'm posting this here.
On Saturday Mogadishu was hit by a terrorist attack, with a massive truckbomb demolishing one of the most trafficed neighbourhoods in the city and demolishing several buildings, including a hotel. The deathtoll is currently rising into the 300+ (and quite possibly rising higher as the bomb was powerful enough to leave no remains near the epicenter), making it one of the top 10 deadliest terrorist attacks in history.
Al_Shahbaab is the most likely culprit, a terrorist group belonging to the Al Qaeda network (and previously a member of the Islamic Courts Union).
IMHO, One more despicable deed from a faction facing defeat. Through the actions of the re-established Federal government of Somalia (and internal conflict) these guys have been bleeding members and territory since 2014-ish, so they're stepping up the brutality.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I don’t really believe that is solely the case. It may be the PUK signaled they would not help and the peshmerga as a whole withdrew. The whole thing seems bizarre though.
The PUK have frequently been enemies of Barzani's KDP, such that they fought a civil war during the 90s in which many thousands died, and fueded before and after. I think the PUK signed a deal with Saddam at one point. Kurds traditionally don't do themselves many favours when it comes to picking allies and working together.
That being said: what the fuck was Barzani thinking? This whole referendum amounted to staring into the barrel of a gun and daring the whole rest of the region to pull the trigger. The plan was what, to run away? He's betrayed Kurdish nationalists by not putting up a fight for "Kurdish" territory; he's betrayed eveyone else by stirring shit up for no reason; and he's betrayed the Kurdish state, such as it is, by failing to extract anything useful.
I'm still waiting for some master plan to unfold, but this is looking like a damn short civil war here. At this rate the PMUs and Iraqi army might just retake the whole KRG, apparently all they have to do is drive into a city to seize it.
It really depends on the strategic situation. It really depends on if they have a plan or not. Because letting the iraqis overextend and then counterattack into their flank could both secure a lot of enemy military equipment, but also reduce the amount of damage to Kirkuks infrastructure. In the long run I don't think the Kurdish government can afford to have Kirkuk reduced to rubble. The iraqi army isn't exactly strong in terms of morale, but it does have a fairly high experience in urban combat, so while grinding it down from the front is doable (but tough), something that upsets the "master plan" might trigger a rout.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It really depends on the strategic situation. It really depends on if they have a plan or not. Because letting the iraqis overextend and then counterattack into their flank could both secure a lot of enemy military equipment, but also reduce the amount of damage to Kirkuks infrastructure. In the long run I don't think the Kurdish government can afford to have Kirkuk reduced to rubble. The iraqi army isn't exactly strong in terms of morale, but it does have a fairly high experience in urban combat, so while grinding it down from the front is doable (but tough), something that upsets the "master plan" might trigger a rout.
You're reading too much into it. The region isn't at even a basic level of warfare, let alone deep shit like this. As we see, just getting troops that don't run away at the start of the battle is still a major challenge.
As far as morale, the Iraqi army now has tons of it! They took one of the most important cities in the country along with an airport and huge oil fields through intimidation alone!
Peshmerga are abandoning shit. They're leaving their US humvees on the highway. Leaving their great defensive positions, putting on civilian clothes and leaving. Kurdistan has no infrastructure with which to mount an offensive against a major urban center controlled by its enemies. They gained Kirkuk after all only through happenstance, after the Iraqi army fled in a similar manner from IS.
For the Peshmerga its an unmitigated disaster. If they have some master plan they better fucking spring it soon, because a whole lot of people inside the region are going to be wondering why they're fighting on the same side as these idiots and will be strongly considering a different allegiance. If I was Barzani I wouldn't be worried about Iraqis I'd be worried about my trusted general knifing me in my sleep.
Maybe I am. I'm just used to the mentality where you always have a plan. If they're abandoning Kirkuk and it's not a part of a plan...then I'd start looking at the bankaccount status of various PUK leaders.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I don’t really believe that is solely the case. It may be the PUK signaled they would not help and the peshmerga as a whole withdrew. The whole thing seems bizarre though.
The PUK have frequently been enemies of Barzani's KDP, such that they fought a civil war during the 90s in which many thousands died, and fueded before and after. I think the PUK signed a deal with Saddam at one point. Kurds traditionally don't do themselves many favours when it comes to picking allies and working together.
That being said: what the fuck was Barzani thinking? This whole referendum amounted to staring into the barrel of a gun and daring the whole rest of the region to pull the trigger. The plan was what, to run away? He's betrayed Kurdish nationalists by not putting up a fight for "Kurdish" territory; he's betrayed eveyone else by stirring shit up for no reason; and he's betrayed the Kurdish state, such as it is, by failing to extract anything useful.
I'm still waiting for some master plan to unfold, but this is looking like a damn short civil war here. At this rate the PMUs and Iraqi army might just retake the whole KRG, apparently all they have to do is drive into a city to seize it.
It was the KDP that was supported by Baghdad, PUK was supported by Iran. But other than that agreed this seems like it could lead towards another PUK v KDP dust up if they let Baghdad have Kirkuk by force.
Maybe I am. I'm just used to the mentality where you always have a plan. If they're abandoning Kirkuk and it's not a part of a plan...then I'd start looking at the bankaccount status of various PUK leaders.
Apparently the knives (metaphorical this time) are already out. People saying PUK units from Talabani's family (recently dead leader of PUK, long time rival to Barzani) were the first to flee, and so this debacle is their fault. This could be true. But that begs the question of why Kirkuk's defenses relied on these guys in the first place.
It is a bit odd that the plan can be so terrible as this. But imagine Barzani as an old dude (he's 71). He's a lifetime revolutionary/politician/warlord. He's cut deals with friends and enemies and back again. Imagine the sort of people he keeps close to him, the sort of advice he gets, how he make decisions, what his life is like. I imagine these things, and I remember the most powerful country in the world elected someone of this age recently, and I can picture a guy that isn't as objectively "with it" as we might like. Maybe he's focused on old rivalries, maybe he's overconfident from US support, maybe he's just too old to think that well anymore.
In any case its fascinating to watch unfold. Tomorrow will bring something new I'm sure.
SDF claims to be in full control of the city of Raqqa, or what remains of it. The battle was a months long siege with a constant barrage of airstrikes. The bombardment and ISIS's penchant for putting bombs on every available surface have left the city in ruins - a running theme with "victories" over ISIS in urban settings is that little remains after the battle. Government/SDF offensives in Deir Ez Zor province continue.
I don’t really believe that is solely the case. It may be the PUK signaled they would not help and the peshmerga as a whole withdrew. The whole thing seems bizarre though.
The PUK have frequently been enemies of Barzani's KDP, such that they fought a civil war during the 90s in which many thousands died, and fueded before and after. I think the PUK signed a deal with Saddam at one point. Kurds traditionally don't do themselves many favours when it comes to picking allies and working together.
That being said: what the fuck was Barzani thinking? This whole referendum amounted to staring into the barrel of a gun and daring the whole rest of the region to pull the trigger. The plan was what, to run away? He's betrayed Kurdish nationalists by not putting up a fight for "Kurdish" territory; he's betrayed eveyone else by stirring shit up for no reason; and he's betrayed the Kurdish state, such as it is, by failing to extract anything useful.
I'm still waiting for some master plan to unfold, but this is looking like a damn short civil war here. At this rate the PMUs and Iraqi army might just retake the whole KRG, apparently all they have to do is drive into a city to seize it.
It was the KDP that was supported by Baghdad, PUK was supported by Iran. But other than that agreed this seems like it could lead towards another PUK v KDP dust up if they let Baghdad have Kirkuk by force.
I would be worried about a Franco-Prussian war situation where an embarrassing defeat basically causes the whole mechanism of the state to fall. I can’t see Barzani making it out of this on top.
And yeah it could be some kind of defense in depth/envelopment scheme but that doesn’t look likely and they are awfully close to Erbil to be playing with trading land for... something.
SDF claims to be in full control of the city of Raqqa, or what remains of it. The battle was a months long siege with a constant barrage of airstrikes. The bombardment and ISIS's penchant for putting bombs on every available surface have left the city in ruins - a running theme with "victories" over ISIS in urban settings is that little remains after the battle. Government/SDF offensives in Deir Ez Zor province continue.
The coverage this morning almost universally spinning that as an American victory first and foremost, as though the people in a position to hear the bullets whizzing are afterthoughts, is a teensy bit frustrating to read. It probably is for them as well.
Maybe I am. I'm just used to the mentality where you always have a plan. If they're abandoning Kirkuk and it's not a part of a plan...then I'd start looking at the bankaccount status of various PUK leaders.
Apparently the knives (metaphorical this time) are already out. People saying PUK units from Talabani's family (recently dead leader of PUK, long time rival to Barzani) were the first to flee, and so this debacle is their fault. This could be true. But that begs the question of why Kirkuk's defenses relied on these guys in the first place.
It is a bit odd that the plan can be so terrible as this. But imagine Barzani as an old dude (he's 71). He's a lifetime revolutionary/politician/warlord. He's cut deals with friends and enemies and back again. Imagine the sort of people he keeps close to him, the sort of advice he gets, how he make decisions, what his life is like. I imagine these things, and I remember the most powerful country in the world elected someone of this age recently, and I can picture a guy that isn't as objectively "with it" as we might like. Maybe he's focused on old rivalries, maybe he's overconfident from US support, maybe he's just too old to think that well anymore.
In any case its fascinating to watch unfold. Tomorrow will bring something new I'm sure.
That is some Roose Bolton level thinking. Put your rival's forces on the front line in the hopes that they are either slaughtered in urban fighting or disgraced by having to flee in civilian clothing.
}
"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!".
Maybe I am. I'm just used to the mentality where you always have a plan. If they're abandoning Kirkuk and it's not a part of a plan...then I'd start looking at the bankaccount status of various PUK leaders.
Apparently the knives (metaphorical this time) are already out. People saying PUK units from Talabani's family (recently dead leader of PUK, long time rival to Barzani) were the first to flee, and so this debacle is their fault. This could be true. But that begs the question of why Kirkuk's defenses relied on these guys in the first place.
It is a bit odd that the plan can be so terrible as this. But imagine Barzani as an old dude (he's 71). He's a lifetime revolutionary/politician/warlord. He's cut deals with friends and enemies and back again. Imagine the sort of people he keeps close to him, the sort of advice he gets, how he make decisions, what his life is like. I imagine these things, and I remember the most powerful country in the world elected someone of this age recently, and I can picture a guy that isn't as objectively "with it" as we might like. Maybe he's focused on old rivalries, maybe he's overconfident from US support, maybe he's just too old to think that well anymore.
In any case its fascinating to watch unfold. Tomorrow will bring something new I'm sure.
That is some Roose Bolton level thinking. Put your rival's forces on the front line in the hopes that they are either slaughtered in urban fighting or disgraced by having to flee in civilian clothing.
Bolton. What an evil, sadistic asshole.
I could have sworn his first name was John though.
SDF claims to be in full control of the city of Raqqa, or what remains of it. The battle was a months long siege with a constant barrage of airstrikes. The bombardment and ISIS's penchant for putting bombs on every available surface have left the city in ruins - a running theme with "victories" over ISIS in urban settings is that little remains after the battle. Government/SDF offensives in Deir Ez Zor province continue.
If I had to pick a video, it would be of the tank doing donuts to a crowd of no one in the middle of an empty square and a background of destroyed buildings. For photos, this is the most representative image of the victory.
The man who killed more than 300 people with a truck bomb in the centre of Mogadishu on Saturday was a former soldier in Somalia’s army whose home town was raided by local troops and US special forces two months ago in a controversial operation in which 10 civilians were killed, officials in Somalia have said.
The death toll from the bombing now stands at more than 300, making it one of the most devastating terrorist attacks anywhere in the world for many years. On Tuesday remains of victims were still being brought out of rubble spread over hundreds of square metres.
Investigators believe the attack on Saturday may in part have been motivated by a desire for revenge for the botched US-led operation in August.
...
Details of the attack are now becoming clearer. Officials say it involved two vehicles – a Toyota Noah minivan and a much larger truck carrying around 350kg of military grade and homemade explosives.
The target for both vehicles was the heavily guarded airport compound in Mogadishu, where the United Nations, most embassies and the headquarters of the 22,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force, Amisom, are based, officials said.
The smaller device was supposed to blast open the heavily defended Medina Gate entrance to the compound to open the way for the bigger bomb, a standard militant tactic.
The minivan was stopped by at a checkpoint several hundred metres short of its target and the driver detained. This bomb later detonated, possibly set off by remote control or by security officials, without causing casualties, two officials told the Guardian.
Officials also said the driver was a veteran militant who had been involved in previous attacks in Mogadishu, including one on the Jazeera hotel in 2012 in which eight people died.
The bigger truck bomb was detonated at a busy crossroads at least a kilometre from the Medina Gate when it reached a checkpoint where security guards became suspicious. The explosion ignited a fuel truck nearby which caused a massive fireball. It has been impossible to identify the type of truck from the wreckage.
The man who killed more than 300 people with a truck bomb in the centre of Mogadishu on Saturday was a former soldier in Somalia’s army whose home town was raided by local troops and US special forces two months ago in a controversial operation in which 10 civilians were killed, officials in Somalia have said.
The death toll from the bombing now stands at more than 300, making it one of the most devastating terrorist attacks anywhere in the world for many years. On Tuesday remains of victims were still being brought out of rubble spread over hundreds of square metres.
Investigators believe the attack on Saturday may in part have been motivated by a desire for revenge for the botched US-led operation in August.
...
Details of the attack are now becoming clearer. Officials say it involved two vehicles – a Toyota Noah minivan and a much larger truck carrying around 350kg of military grade and homemade explosives.
The target for both vehicles was the heavily guarded airport compound in Mogadishu, where the United Nations, most embassies and the headquarters of the 22,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force, Amisom, are based, officials said.
The smaller device was supposed to blast open the heavily defended Medina Gate entrance to the compound to open the way for the bigger bomb, a standard militant tactic.
The minivan was stopped by at a checkpoint several hundred metres short of its target and the driver detained. This bomb later detonated, possibly set off by remote control or by security officials, without causing casualties, two officials told the Guardian.
Officials also said the driver was a veteran militant who had been involved in previous attacks in Mogadishu, including one on the Jazeera hotel in 2012 in which eight people died.
The bigger truck bomb was detonated at a busy crossroads at least a kilometre from the Medina Gate when it reached a checkpoint where security guards became suspicious. The explosion ignited a fuel truck nearby which caused a massive fireball. It has been impossible to identify the type of truck from the wreckage.
You mean "through acting on shoddy intel or doing so in a really shitty manner we 'won a victory' that merely created our next generation of enemies"?
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Kurds have apparently abandoned all positions outside of Kurdistan proper. Iraqi army is going into cities that have been held by Kurds for a decade to find checkpoints and fortifications empty.
Some reports are saying the Peshmerga knew they were severely outclassed and did not want unnecessary casualties in a war they knew they were doomed to lose anyway, but if they knew they couldn’t win and weren’t willing to fight, what exactly was the point of the last two weeks? They’d have been much better off just trading Kirkuk for recognition of their control of other territories taken post-Saddam, which the government would have almost certainly agreed to.
I can see why they'd be hesitant. They've been fighting ISIS for years, and the Iraqi army probably isn't anywhere near as bad as ISIS. Unless the Iraqis are willing to settle down for a long-term occupation, the Kurds can just move back in the moment that they leave.
It's quite possible they could fight, and potentially win, there's just no desire for it, because Christ knows it's been a rough few years.
It's possible they were hoping they'd get independence without warfare, and when they found out otherwise they retreated rather than open another war.
Alternatively this is a ploy to garner international support, because voting for independence and then backing down when the tanks roll in even though you could put up a hell of a fight makes you look like the grown adult in the room, which only helps their legitimacy.
So, this piece from WotR portrays what's going on in Kirkuk as pre-election maneuvering by Abadi. It's not the most descriptive or best-sourced article, as it's focused more on the American strategic situation in Iraq, but here: (America’s Opportunity in Iraq is Ready to Be Seized)
In the summer of 2014, the Kurds took advantage of the ISIL crisis to seize territory in the Iraqi provinces of Nineveh, Salahaddin, Kirkuk, and Diyala. The Kurds appear still to be— as of this writing — holding territory in all four of these Iraqi provinces, despite Abadi’s recent reclamation of federal assets and land from the Syrian border in the west to the Iranian frontier in the east.
Maliki, currently the principal Iranian client in Iraqi politics, had been beating nationalist drums over the issue, forcing Abadi to get tough on the Kurds in order to cover his “right flank” in the electoral build-up. Abadi’s successful moves over the last few days will likely deliver the election to this strong American ally and deserve to be welcomed in Washington.
It cites a NYT article that makes mention of this in just one paragraph, so I dunno. Might look around for a second source for this on Reddit or something....
There's been heavy fighting between Peshmerga and PMUs. Artillery, mortars, helicopters. PMUs have taken more territory. Might be getting close to Abril. Casualties, vehicles getting blown up.
All this with a grain of salt, but there's definitely heavy fighting happening now.
Wikipedia says PMU is Iraqi sponsored. Which is correct?
Or is there a distinction between the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi and the PMU described therein?
Not clear if that translates to more of a description of an organization than a proper title.
PMU and Hashd al-Shaabi are the same, just the English vs. Arabic terms. They are Iraqi militias, supported by Baghdad and in cooperation with the Iraqi Security Forces, but many of the PMU are also armed/trained/funded by Iran, and some may be more loyal to Iran than Baghdad. Whether they're citizens taking up arms to defend their country or a troublesome arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps depends on who you ask, and which of the descriptions is more accurate probably varies based on which specific militia we're talking about.
Wikipedia says PMU is Iraqi sponsored. Which is correct?
Or is there a distinction between the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi and the PMU described therein?
Not clear if that translates to more of a description of an organization than a proper title.
PMU and Hashd al-Shaabi are the same, just the English vs. Arabic terms. They are Iraqi militias, supported by Baghdad and in cooperation with the Iraqi Security Forces, but many of the PMU are also armed/trained/funded by Iran, and some may be more loyal to Iran than Baghdad. Whether they're citizens taking up arms to defend their country or a troublesome arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps depends on who you ask, and which of the descriptions is more accurate probably varies based on which specific militia we're talking about.
I think at least one openly declared loyalty to Khamenei instead of Baghdad, but I have no source on that.
There are few details in the article. 53 is a lot of guys though, be they police or military. And Egypt loses numbers like this pretty routinely, with lots of smaller attacks not making it into media here. Egypt is getting its ass kicked by these rebels. I guess all its military is good for is murdering citizens in the streets and maintaining power.
Really gotta love Israel expanding west bank settlements for the first time in oh 8-9 ish years? Weird how that corresponded to Obama's time in office, huh?
Elki already covered how this is wrong, but it's worth pointing out that the main reason the Obama/Kerry "peace process" fell apart was Israel's refusal to stop settlement construction during negotiations.
It's also within Israel's security interests to build these settlements. If we step out of the framework that they are illegal and this = wrong, from the Israeli perspective most of these settlements center around fresh water sources (there's also the religious motivation for the settlers themselves as individuals). And they aren't stupid, they see the water scarcity coming and I don't think they can afford to stave it off 100% with desalinization like the Saudis are going to try. But, like the Saudis, part of this water insecurity is their own doing. They have terrible water sanitation policy and many of their fresh water rivers run through or around landfills.
So no matter how illegal and unethical the settlements are I don't think Israel is going to let them go.
Framing that as a security issue is a bit ridiculous. It's a straight up land grab issue. They want the land, they are grabbing the spots with the water because if they control the water, they control the land and can just push the irritating non-jews they just want gone out.
Yes, it's ridiculous that a state facing very near future drinking water issues, at least partly a failure of their own water policy, that are going to be at the doorstep of every other state in the region, and Gaza in their own backyard already, would see the settlements built around fresh water sources as a water security issue.
That would be a reasonable priority, kind of* , except this narrative is rarely pushed from what I know of in the media (it's about taking territory to hurt/spite their enemies), and they have a really poor track record on multi fronts within Israel and their actions outside dealing with other nations. And this is ignoring the fact that taking that water for themselves means other nations and peoples will die instead.
They have a right to defend themselves, and their enemies aren't innocent cherubs, but there are lines which shouldn't be crossed.
It doesn't help that this was a reaction to their own failed policies conserving water, either.
* except if we agree to those standards it's tougher to criticize their enemies for being dicks to them in response
Wikipedia says PMU is Iraqi sponsored. Which is correct?
Or is there a distinction between the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi and the PMU described therein?
Not clear if that translates to more of a description of an organization than a proper title.
PMU and Hashd al-Shaabi are the same, just the English vs. Arabic terms. They are Iraqi militias, supported by Baghdad and in cooperation with the Iraqi Security Forces, but many of the PMU are also armed/trained/funded by Iran, and some may be more loyal to Iran than Baghdad. Whether they're citizens taking up arms to defend their country or a troublesome arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps depends on who you ask, and which of the descriptions is more accurate probably varies based on which specific militia we're talking about.
I think at least one openly declared loyalty to Khamenei instead of Baghdad, but I have no source on that.
On another note, Afghanistan has been pretty brutal in the last week. Three districts in the south overrun, suicide assaults on police stations in other provinces that killed Paktia province's police chief, and most recently an Afghan military base destroyed in Kandahar province.
The Afghan forces based there took nearly 100 percent casualties in the attack. Of the 60 soldiers at the base, 43 were killed, nine were wounded, and six more “are unaccounted for,” according to TOLONews.
Posts
Iran isn't so friendly to a Kurdish state taking their territory (which doesn't have as strong of a Kurdish identity strongly separated from the "host nation" like Turkey, Syria, and Iraq have) and haven't been historically friendly towards the idea of Kurdish independence even historically having dealt with the Mahabad Republic.
There are other issues than just Turkey standing in the way. There are internal politics (including in just the KRG between the Barzani and Talabani families, but also extends to the KRG and the PYD which while influenced by Turkey is not entirely the fault of Turkey) to contend with. And as we see in Iraq there is Kirkuk (a historically Kurdish area but "Arabized" and now a point of conflict between Erbil and Baghdad).
Because ceding the diplomatic relationship with Iraq means Iran gains even more ground in Baghdad than they already have.
Few states are willing to cede their territory; eg, the US refuses to even allow the possibility of any part leaving
Knowing how the Middle East tends to work, I assume that the vast majority of Iran's natural resources are concentrated in the northwest?
AP reporter
Ed: Oh, and John McCain has released a statement:
“I am deeply concerned by media reports of military advances by Iraqi government forces against Kurdish positions near Kirkuk. I am especially concerned by media reports that Iranian and Iranian-backed forces are part of the assault. Iraqi forces must take immediate steps to de-escalate this volatile situation by ceasing their advances.
“The United States provided equipment and training to the Government of Iraq to fight ISIS and secure itself from external threats—not to attack elements of one of its own regional governments, which is a longstanding and valuable partner of the United States. Make no mistake, there will be severe consequences if we continue to see American equipment misused in this way.
“It is absolutely imperative for Prime Minister Abadi and the Kurdish Regional Government to engage in a dialogue about the Kurdish people’s desire for greater autonomy from Baghdad at an appropriate time and the need to halt hostilities immediately.”
Either way, at least casualties seem minimal so far. I'm indifferent to who controls places like Kirkuk and Sinjar; I just don't want to see Iraq jump into a new phase of warfare just as the previous one is drawing to a close. And I think the Peshmerga are significantly weaker than the ISF, so if this is to end without prolonged conflict, the KRG will probably have to relinquish the territories it gained during the ISIS war.
It does seem now like any resistance was minimal... very odd. Parts of Kirkuk also seem to be on fire, according to pictures from on the ground.
Edit: Smoke/fires look pretty small scale, though
My impression is that the PUK has better relations with Baghdad than the KDP and that the PUK was less thrilled with the independence referendum. I'm not sure which party's Peshmerga were in charge of Kirkuk (or if both were present), but if most of the fighters there were PUK then I could see them withdrawing against Erbil's orders.
This Kurdish-Iraqi conflict could have an unfortunate side effect of exacerbating divisions within Iraqi Kurdistan.
On Saturday Mogadishu was hit by a terrorist attack, with a massive truckbomb demolishing one of the most trafficed neighbourhoods in the city and demolishing several buildings, including a hotel. The deathtoll is currently rising into the 300+ (and quite possibly rising higher as the bomb was powerful enough to leave no remains near the epicenter), making it one of the top 10 deadliest terrorist attacks in history.
Al_Shahbaab is the most likely culprit, a terrorist group belonging to the Al Qaeda network (and previously a member of the Islamic Courts Union).
Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalia’s worst terrorist attack
IMHO, One more despicable deed from a faction facing defeat. Through the actions of the re-established Federal government of Somalia (and internal conflict) these guys have been bleeding members and territory since 2014-ish, so they're stepping up the brutality.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
The PUK have frequently been enemies of Barzani's KDP, such that they fought a civil war during the 90s in which many thousands died, and fueded before and after. I think the PUK signed a deal with Saddam at one point. Kurds traditionally don't do themselves many favours when it comes to picking allies and working together.
That being said: what the fuck was Barzani thinking? This whole referendum amounted to staring into the barrel of a gun and daring the whole rest of the region to pull the trigger. The plan was what, to run away? He's betrayed Kurdish nationalists by not putting up a fight for "Kurdish" territory; he's betrayed eveyone else by stirring shit up for no reason; and he's betrayed the Kurdish state, such as it is, by failing to extract anything useful.
I'm still waiting for some master plan to unfold, but this is looking like a damn short civil war here. At this rate the PMUs and Iraqi army might just retake the whole KRG, apparently all they have to do is drive into a city to seize it.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
You're reading too much into it. The region isn't at even a basic level of warfare, let alone deep shit like this. As we see, just getting troops that don't run away at the start of the battle is still a major challenge.
As far as morale, the Iraqi army now has tons of it! They took one of the most important cities in the country along with an airport and huge oil fields through intimidation alone!
Peshmerga are abandoning shit. They're leaving their US humvees on the highway. Leaving their great defensive positions, putting on civilian clothes and leaving. Kurdistan has no infrastructure with which to mount an offensive against a major urban center controlled by its enemies. They gained Kirkuk after all only through happenstance, after the Iraqi army fled in a similar manner from IS.
For the Peshmerga its an unmitigated disaster. If they have some master plan they better fucking spring it soon, because a whole lot of people inside the region are going to be wondering why they're fighting on the same side as these idiots and will be strongly considering a different allegiance. If I was Barzani I wouldn't be worried about Iraqis I'd be worried about my trusted general knifing me in my sleep.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It was the KDP that was supported by Baghdad, PUK was supported by Iran. But other than that agreed this seems like it could lead towards another PUK v KDP dust up if they let Baghdad have Kirkuk by force.
Apparently the knives (metaphorical this time) are already out. People saying PUK units from Talabani's family (recently dead leader of PUK, long time rival to Barzani) were the first to flee, and so this debacle is their fault. This could be true. But that begs the question of why Kirkuk's defenses relied on these guys in the first place.
It is a bit odd that the plan can be so terrible as this. But imagine Barzani as an old dude (he's 71). He's a lifetime revolutionary/politician/warlord. He's cut deals with friends and enemies and back again. Imagine the sort of people he keeps close to him, the sort of advice he gets, how he make decisions, what his life is like. I imagine these things, and I remember the most powerful country in the world elected someone of this age recently, and I can picture a guy that isn't as objectively "with it" as we might like. Maybe he's focused on old rivalries, maybe he's overconfident from US support, maybe he's just too old to think that well anymore.
In any case its fascinating to watch unfold. Tomorrow will bring something new I'm sure.
I would be worried about a Franco-Prussian war situation where an embarrassing defeat basically causes the whole mechanism of the state to fall. I can’t see Barzani making it out of this on top.
And yeah it could be some kind of defense in depth/envelopment scheme but that doesn’t look likely and they are awfully close to Erbil to be playing with trading land for... something.
The coverage this morning almost universally spinning that as an American victory first and foremost, as though the people in a position to hear the bullets whizzing are afterthoughts, is a teensy bit frustrating to read. It probably is for them as well.
That is some Roose Bolton level thinking. Put your rival's forces on the front line in the hopes that they are either slaughtered in urban fighting or disgraced by having to flee in civilian clothing.
"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!".
Bolton. What an evil, sadistic asshole.
I could have sworn his first name was John though.
If I had to pick a video, it would be of the tank doing donuts to a crowd of no one in the middle of an empty square and a background of destroyed buildings. For photos, this is the most representative image of the victory.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/17/somalia-bomber-was-ex-solider-whose-town-was-raided-by-us-forces
And from that and other stories it looks like the size of the explosion means it's been virtually impossible to identify the bodies.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Kurds have apparently abandoned all positions outside of Kurdistan proper. Iraqi army is going into cities that have been held by Kurds for a decade to find checkpoints and fortifications empty.
Some reports are saying the Peshmerga knew they were severely outclassed and did not want unnecessary casualties in a war they knew they were doomed to lose anyway, but if they knew they couldn’t win and weren’t willing to fight, what exactly was the point of the last two weeks? They’d have been much better off just trading Kirkuk for recognition of their control of other territories taken post-Saddam, which the government would have almost certainly agreed to.
*shrug*
It's possible they were hoping they'd get independence without warfare, and when they found out otherwise they retreated rather than open another war.
Alternatively this is a ploy to garner international support, because voting for independence and then backing down when the tanks roll in even though you could put up a hell of a fight makes you look like the grown adult in the room, which only helps their legitimacy.
It cites a NYT article that makes mention of this in just one paragraph, so I dunno. Might look around for a second source for this on Reddit or something....
All this with a grain of salt, but there's definitely heavy fighting happening now.
Or is there a distinction between the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi and the PMU described therein?
Not clear if that translates to more of a description of an organization than a proper title.
I think at least one openly declared loyalty to Khamenei instead of Baghdad, but I have no source on that.
There are few details in the article. 53 is a lot of guys though, be they police or military. And Egypt loses numbers like this pretty routinely, with lots of smaller attacks not making it into media here. Egypt is getting its ass kicked by these rebels. I guess all its military is good for is murdering citizens in the streets and maintaining power.
That would be a reasonable priority, kind of* , except this narrative is rarely pushed from what I know of in the media (it's about taking territory to hurt/spite their enemies), and they have a really poor track record on multi fronts within Israel and their actions outside dealing with other nations. And this is ignoring the fact that taking that water for themselves means other nations and peoples will die instead.
They have a right to defend themselves, and their enemies aren't innocent cherubs, but there are lines which shouldn't be crossed.
It doesn't help that this was a reaction to their own failed policies conserving water, either.
* except if we agree to those standards it's tougher to criticize their enemies for being dicks to them in response
On another note, Afghanistan has been pretty brutal in the last week. Three districts in the south overrun, suicide assaults on police stations in other provinces that killed Paktia province's police chief, and most recently an Afghan military base destroyed in Kandahar province.
I expect further US troop increases.