I can't imagine the West or the Saudis' would want ISIS to succeed. The Saudis have been fighting Al Qaeeda for years, and these lot are worse if reports are to be believed.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis were channeling funds - they, along with the Qataris were essentially bankrolling Al Qaeda in Syria so it wouldn't surprise me if they were looking for similar means to destabilise Maliki.
Let's not forget that Saddam's daughter Raghad, who's in Jordan has been known to be behind elements of the Iraqi Sunni insurgency. Wouldn't be surprised if she has a hand in this too.
Let's not forget that Saddam's daughter Raghad, who's in Jordan has been known to be behind elements of the Iraqi Sunni insurgency. Wouldn't be surprised if she has a hand in this too.
The Saudis above all see Iran and Shia Islam as regional enemy number one. You've seen the leaked emails between them and US officials where they practically begged them to attack Iran. They were most vociferous in their calls to fund and arm Jihadists in Syria to marginalise Iran's ally Assad, and hence I wouldn't be surprised if they're covertly doing the same with ISIS as a means of antagonising Iran-friendly Maliki.
There are reports in The Telegraph that 20-30k Iraqi Shia militia fighting for Assad will have to head to Iraq to fight ISIS now, which will probably weaken Assad's ability to defend territory
The BBC has been poor in their coverage of the conflict imo. They half-heartedly changed the title now, but it definitely looks to me like they're running more propaganda than actual reporting (of both sides of the conflict).
I think CNN has been the best Western media to cover the conflict.
Baghdad has formally called on the United States to launch air strikes against jihadist militants.
BBC Breaking News
BBC Breaking News
CNN is one of the best outlets in the world. Has been for about 35 years now. I know several of their top journalists, who have put their lives on the line to some fantastic reporting out of the likes of Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.
This is a really, really stupid maneuver.
How do you tackle these insurgents? Re-introduce the factor which had radicalised them in the first place
Its a bit tricky to do airstrikes on people who have no uniform and are distributed among normal citizens. If anything, Maliki may think the mere threat of air strikes will send them into hiding, which will allow Iraqi security forces to get more leverage in their counteroffensive.
There's also growing evidence ISIS have used a makeshift alliance with former Baathists to organize their offensive, which despite their ideological differences, makes sense in terms of their opposition to Shi'a governance.
There's also growing evidence ISIS have used a makeshift alliance with former Baathists to organize their offensive, which despite their ideological differences, makes sense in terms of their opposition to Shi'a governance.
I agree. I have followed CNN is many conflicts in the past, and they seem to always try to stay as neutral as they can, significantly more than most of the other media.
Paranoid much?
Surely a more likely explanation is that Sunni commanders chose not to risk their lives fighting for a Shia government they held in contempt?
This is a really, really stupid maneuver.
How do you tackle these insurgents? Re-introduce the factor which had radicalised them in the first place
When their military is too cowardly and those stepping up to fight them are, largely, radicalized militias, it makes sense to request overwhelming force rather than letting the Shia/Sunni conflict reignite. If the Iraqi government can end the attacks before it becomes a full on war between factions, it would be preferable.
It's better than Iran intervening.
This is a really, really stupid maneuver.
Not to worry RK, the Supreme Leader said its ok. In fact he promised to resume Doogh shipments to the USA if we fly a few sorties this week.
Do they have a flight route over Iraq agreed or would they need to secure agreement from Turkey / Syria / Saudi / Iran... Because im not sure about Turkey but I cant imagine Iran or Syria want bombers overhead and im not sure how saudi feels about Isis?
They have aircraft carriers in the Gulf either already there or very close. They would just fly over Iraqi airspace.
Presumably not big bombers then more f18 type aircraft?
No they can't keep them on the ships. Just fighters.
Do they not typically work better in co-ordination with ground forces though?... Do the Iraqis have people left to fight rather than just defend Bagdad?
Regardless of the hardware it will be a Pr nightmare when inevitably civilians get blown up given that Isis hold some populated areas
I don't think the idea is very realistic. There are too many civilians on the ground and its impossible to identify the fighters. Unless the Iraqi military or intelligence provide a specific location where let's say an entire convoy of ISIS pick trucks are heading towards Baghdad, its pretty much mission impossible without actual boots on the ground to mop up.
Agreed with your point about their reporters/journalists. Some of their on the ground reporting is second too none from what I've seen, though I don't watch a substantial amount of 24 news. My problem with them, and perhaps this is a problem with news stations in general, is that their in-studio personalties are, at times, surprisingly clueless. Bit harsh maybe, and in that context you have to be a sort of jack of all trades instead of knowledgeable about one conflict zone, but some of their in-studio anchors are dreadful.
Also, isn't their "neutrality" kind of the reason why their ratings suffer?
CNN are second behind Fox I think (or possibly 3rd behind Fox and MSNBC). CNN International seem to have a completely different audience and compete with the likes of BBC World and Al-Jazeera English. And yeah, being somewhat neutral is the kiss of death in the US market. You have to be either left or right to have a core audience these days.
US intervention will only radicalise moderate Sunni Muslims. The ISIS will then have plenty of ammunition to convince those on the fence that the Iraqi government/Shias are in bed with the US - the nation who essentially pillaged Iraq. If anything, that'll exacerbate the sectarian divide.
Iran intervening isn't ideal but it makes sense considering they're actually a neighbouing country who would be affected the overflow of terrorism in the region. The US on the other hand were responsible for kick-starting this mess, the less they get involved the better.
Yes and no. The US was heavily involved with the Sahwa movement in 2006/07 and retains good ties with tribal leaders in Anbar and elsewhere, so it wouldn't be a quick bombing on behalf of Maliki and a flight back home. There would need to be some coordination with Sunni groups as well.
Just me that can't wait for the next series of Archer if this is what's gonna happen?
Thats pretty much how I see it as well
dammed if they do (because of the inevitable casualties)
dammed if they dont (for being seen to not care)
As unlikely as it might seem, is it feasible for the USA to give covert support to Iran and let them do the donkey work?
I don't see how we can literally do nothing when they're executing people en masse, and it's most likely a direct result of our actions.
I don't see how we can literally do nothing when they're executing people en masse, and it's most likely a direct result of our actions.
who exactly are they killing? Soldiers as well as civilians or just soldiers?
Stay out of it altogether I say, they can't have learnt their lessons at all if they proceed with air strikes.
This is confusing. Wasn't it only a short while ago that US wanted to go and bomb Syria to help the lot they now want to go and bomb in Iraq?
Totally agree.
I can't believe he asked for that. I don't think he's "sectarian" at all, but he's so incompetent.
You have been a PM for 8 years. You should deal with it. Work with what you have, suck it up, and do the dirty work. Airstrikes are next to pointless in a situation like this, especially when you're asking another country to do it for you, which means the airstrikes won't be at your disposal all the time, whenever you want it, wherever you want it.
I really hope the US decline the request.
Don't even make us start on that. The situation is so bizarre right now, we can hardly process all the developments. Having said that, it wasn't too difficult to see it was coming.
I can only say, imagine if Bush was still in charge.
Iran intervening would be seen as another push by the Ayatollahs to expand Shia influence throughout the region, as ISIS are trying to do for their on wacky brand of Sunniism. Iran trained and supplied the Shia militias and have people in various militias throughout Iraq already. By formally getting involved, Iran would be a greater threat to the Sunnis and Iraqi sovereignty than US airstrikes. It would also set a precedent for Iran intervening in Iraq and it becoming dependent on Iran, upsetting the balance of power within the Middle East. For Sunnis in Iraq and the broader region, that would be hugely problematic.
I'm not saying that US intervention is a good idea for either party. The Iraqi government faces a prolonged guerilla campaign if it can't eradicate the ISIS threat quickly. The Iraqi military's combination of cowardice and incompetence appears to make that highly unlikely without significant assistance.
Last edited:
In short, Maliki made a massive blunder by asking the US to leave in 2011 when both sides were negotiating a long term bilateral security agreement that would've allowed a small number of US troops to stay there for training and (if asked) military support during insurgent operations. Maliki, in order to stay on as PM after the last elections, needed the support of Sadrists to keep his "block" in power. The Sadrists were influenced by Iran, in so much as they made their support for Maliki contingent on him not signing the security agreement with the US. Leaving aside the 2003 invasion, this is why we are in this predicament today. Had he kept US troops around, the Iraqi military would be more ready and the bombing that Maliki is suddenly requesting from the US wouldn't be necessary, as ISIS would never been in as advanced a position as they are now.
I don't think this was the case. In Tal Afar the security forces were no more than a few hundreds, and they managed to prevent ISIS from taking over a City inhabited by hundreds of thousands of people, until they got reinforcements (which was no more than 1300 soldiers by the way). And if you look at the location of that town on the map, you see how tough it is to defend that town.
I would say betrayals (mainly) and incompetence.
The original reports included mentions of many soldiers and officers abandoning their posts and uniforms to desert. That was the cowardice I meant. It may not be as bad in subsequent engagements or battles but conceding the city so easily would have been a massive coup for ISIS in terms of recruiting and morale. Sure all the crazies talk about wanting to be martyrs but if they can survive there are far more who are willing to participate.
No, the only reason the US didn't get involved in Syria was worries over weapons getting into the wrong hands (ie ISIS). There are at least 3 different 'sides' in Syria and each side is divided into several smaller groups, some more fragmented than others. It's immensely complex and it's really not obvious where to begin with the whole mess. Well actually that's not true - the place to begin would have been for the US to stick their dirty noses out in 2003, but it's a bit late for that.
I can only say, imagine if Bush was still in charge.
The Isle of Wight would be under US control weeks or months at the outside.
Still don't understand how ISIS are managing to hold large areas with such small numbers. Shouldn't the army be able to simply cut off their supply lines and encircle them within those areas. Situation is really weird, and then again, I guess you can't really tell the fighters apart from the civilian population.
Americans have also been blatantly destabilising the region on purpose, unfortunately it seems dictators like Sadam are needed to keep countries like Iraq and Egypt falling apart, really, really feel for the civilians and especially children caught up in this mess. Just makes me realise how grateful I should be to have grown up without suffering Civil wars, massacres and constant violence every day.
Americans have also been blatantly destabilising the region on purpose, unfortunately it seems dictators like Sadam are needed to keep countries like Iraq and Egypt falling apart, really, really feel for the civilians and especially children caught up in this mess. Just makes me realise how grateful I should be to have grown up without suffering Civil wars, massacres and constant violence every day.
ISIS are getting a lot of support from various locals who are also anti-Government.
Jeb bush is 12/1 to be the next president...I can only say, imagine if Bush was still in charge.