[quote=“Tempo Gain”]Now they’ve pissed off Joe Biden. Endgame.
politico.com/story/2014/09/j … 10558.html[/quote]
So bellicose rhetoric is cool now? Or is it just for crazy old cranks that nobody listens to anymore?
If he were my father, I’d put him in a home.
Okay, so they’ve got a strategy or something. I get the impression they just threw something together. Details are kind of vague…
Probably the only solution:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28978941
[quote]Stifled by the Islamic State (IS) militants in their own areas, Iraqi Sunni rebels who took up arms against the Shia-dominated government of Nouri Maliki are signalling for the first time that they are ready to turn against IS if Sunni rights are enshrined in a reformed political order in Baghdad.
The rebels, including tribal militants and former army personnel organised in military councils throughout the Sunni areas, see American and international guarantees as crucial to any such deal.
“We don’t want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the US should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone,” said Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, referring to the Iraqi political leaders who took over after the US-led occupation in 2003.
“The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we’ll guarantee to get rid of IS,” said Mr al-Zubaai, a tribal leader from Anbar province speaking on behalf of the rebels, using a nom de guerre.
The tribal and military rebels, who had been fighting government forces since January, played a role in the spectacular advances scored after IS - in its previous guise as Isis - erupted into Iraq from Syria in June and captured the second city, Mosul, among other mainly Sunni areas.
But since then, the Sunni groups have been suppressed, with IS ordering them to join its own ranks or disarm.
“Living with IS is like holding burning coals in your hand,” said Mr al-Zubaai. “They do not tolerate any other flag to be raised. They control all Sunni areas now.”
He said tribal militants from the military councils clashed with IS at Garma, near Falluja recently, killing 16 of the Islamic radicals.
“We had to choose between a comprehensive confrontation with IS, or ceding control of that area and keeping a low profile,” he said.
“We decided to stand down, because we are not ready to fight IS in the current circumstances - who would we be fighting for?”
‘Nothing to lose’
Events of the past three weeks have heightened the dilemma of the Sunni rebels.
The lightning IS strikes on Iraqi Kurdistan have drawn the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters into the fray in many areas, imposing economic blockades on Sunni townships because of the IS presence there.
With the Americans and other powers becoming involved, the rebels fear they will simply be tarred as IS terrorists and the Sunni areas reduced to rubble.
“The Sunnis feel that everybody is ganging up on them, that they are targeted by everybody,” said Mr al-Zubaai.
"The worst thing is to realise that you have nothing to lose any more. The situation is very bad and getting worse. It’s enough to make you blow yourself up. This is where the political process has taken us.
“Our biggest concern now is a political solution. A security solution will achieve nothing. The bombing has to stop.”
Sense of betrayal
Under Nouri Maliki, who remains as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in a caretaker capacity until the new government is formed, towns like Falluja and many other Sunni areas have been bombed daily, with heavy casualties among civilians.
Caught between two fires, the position of the Sunni rebels has changed sharply since the IS operation began in June.
In the early phases, they hoped a joint effort would carry the Sunni insurgency into the heart of Baghdad, ousting Prime Minister Maliki and overturning the current constitution and political order.
At that stage, they said, they would have turned on the IS militants and driven them out, as they did with al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007.
But they feel bitterly deceived by that earlier process, and betrayed by Mr Maliki, who failed to carry out commitments given to the Sunnis and gradually drove them into a position of outright revolt after the bloody suppression of peaceful protest demonstrations from 2012.
That is why they are seeking international guarantees for a new power-sharing deal. They do not trust the Shia, and fear that under Mr Maliki’s nominated successor Haidar al-Abadi, who comes from the same party, things may not change.
“Appointing someone from the same Dawa party to succeed Maliki is like appointing a Baathist to replace Saddam Hussein,” said Mr al-Zubaai.
Fear of isolation
The tribal and military rebels are proposing a national reconciliation conference under international auspices, with all factions invited except for IS and also the Shia militias, which they regard as equally bad as, or worse than, IS.
A similar high-level “national accord” conference was held in Cairo in 2005, but the outcome was never followed up.
They dismiss as unrepresentative the Sunni politicians who are currently involved in intense negotiations in Baghdad over the formation of a new government under Mr al-Abadi, who has until 10 September to present his cabinet.
“These people have been involved in the political process since 2003, and they achieved nothing,” said Mr al-Zubaai.
But as well as pressing for a good allocation of portfolios in the cabinet, the Sunni leaders in Baghdad have been demanding changes to the way power is shared.
If they help hammer out a deal that many Sunnis regard as fair, the rebels may find themselves with no choice but to sign up, or risk finding themselves politically isolated and physically under threat from both IS and a US-backed coalition on the ground.
Growing urgency
But the Sunni rebels, who say they can mobilise 90% of the tribes, believe that only they can tackle IS, with outside help.
The Iraqi army has shown little capability or cohesion in the field, and to defend Baghdad, Mr Maliki had to rely heavily on mobilising Shia militias and volunteers.
If such forces are thrown into battle against IS-held Sunni areas with US air support under a new al-Abadi government, the Americans might find themselves doing what they have been trying to avoid - backing one side in a sectarian civil war involving horrendous carnage and destruction.
But if the tribal and military rebels were on board, it would, by their own account at least, be an entirely different affair.
They say they have written to the Americans, but received no substantive response.
Mr al-Zubaai warned against allowing the situation to drift.
“If things stay the same, a new generation will emerge, beyond the control of the US or Iran or Syria - hundreds of thousands of young men will join up with IS,” he said.
“This is a danger the West should be aware of - they have millions of [Muslim] youths, free to embrace the ideology of IS, to wave its flag in the streets.”[/quote]
[quote=“cake”]Probably the only solution:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28978941
[quote]Stifled by the Islamic State (IS) militants in their own areas, Iraqi Sunni rebels who took up arms against the Shia-dominated government of Nouri Maliki are signalling for the first time that they are ready to turn against IS if Sunni rights are enshrined in a reformed political order in Baghdad.
The rebels, including tribal militants and former army personnel organised in military councils throughout the Sunni areas, see American and international guarantees as crucial to any such deal.
“We don’t want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the US should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone,” said Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, referring to the Iraqi political leaders who took over after the US-led occupation in 2003.
“The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we’ll guarantee to get rid of IS,” said Mr al-Zubaai, a tribal leader from Anbar province speaking on behalf of the rebels, using a nom de guerre.
[/quote][/quote]
For a moment there, it seemed as if they were growing up and taking responsibility.
Well, as the Marillion song says, daddy took a rain check. He’ll phone it in, but he won’t solve all your problems. What these guys want done is the exact opposite of what community organizers do.
“Everybody out of the water, the snark is back!”
Yeah, it’s so much better publicize the strategy in crystal clear detail so the enemy knows what you’re up to…
As the post from cake makes clear, the main motive for Sunnis supporting ISIS was the heavy-handed Shiite-supremacist oppression coming from the Maliki government. The Obama administration started to push for Maliki’s resignation after the collapse of the Iraqi Army units in the face of ISIS attacks. Any attempt to get Maliki to resign prior to that would have been shrugged off; it was only that total fiasco that managed to gin up enough pressure to push him out, with even the Iranians realizing he had to be replaced by someone more conciliatory.
Maliki resigned on August 14, after looking like he might have been tempted to use force to stay in power. Any earlier American intervention, like the warhawks have (retroactively) critcized Obama for not doing, would have
propped up Maliki, kept him in power, and ensured that the Sunnis kept supporting ISIS.
“Don’t Do Anything Stupid” , while it may be emotionally unsatisfying, is a better slogan than “Let’s Do Something, Anything-as long as it involves bombing somebody, anybody-Even If It Is Really Stupid”.
[quote=“MikeN”]
“Don’t Do Anything Stupid” , while it may be emotionally unsatisfying, is a better slogan than “Let’s Do Something, Anything-as long as it involves bombing somebody, anybody-Even If It Is Really Stupid”.[/quote]
Yes, the snark is in the water.
Maliki wasn’t great, but ISIS is worse.
And US boots on the ground prop up the US more than anyone else. Especially if they’re there against Maliki’s wishes. Which they would have been, but that ship has sailed.
He’s lost the Daily Beast.
thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … ident.html
[quote]The “I’m not good at theater” is a calculated, if awkward, attempt to dismiss criticism as superficial and worthy of, well, theater critics, not serious thinkers. It’s fundamentally condescending, but like a lot of ill-considered defenses, it only reinforces the heart of the criticism. The charge is being disconnected and out of touch, and to dismiss it with a retort that even supporters will find inadequate seems….disconnected and out of touch.
Democratic supporters of the president are worried about both the perception and reality of the president’s leadership. “Too passive,” says Senator Diane Feinstein. In the Meet The Press interview he again disputed that he was talking specifically about ISIS when he now famously said in a January 2014 New Yorker interview, “I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” As Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler points out, that denial simply isn’t credible as “the context of Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS.” [/quote]
At least he’s still got Chuck Todd.
Is ISIS better than a seventy-seven-year-old Saddam Hussein?
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”]
And US boots on the ground prop up the US more than anyone else. Especially if they’re there against Maliki’s wishes. Which they would have been, but that ship has sailed.[/quote][/quote]
So you would have kept US troops in Iraq against the wishes of the democratically-elected Iraqi Parliament?
That wouldn’t have gone over well with the Shias- the majority- not to mention most of the Sunnis.
[Comment removed by author for being gratuitously offensive]
Is ISIS better than a seventy-seven-year-old Saddam Hussein?[/quote]
Well, Uday would have been fifty, and Qusay forty-eight.
Moving on from denial, now inthe bargaining phase, the New York Times is in the next stage of gfrief for its own illusions regarding the Omessiah:
nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/po … t-him.html
It wasn’t just WH officials. When the paper of broken record has the guts to say the above using the first person instead of the third person, and without the lame attempt at excuse making and changing the subject, then it will have completed its journey.
In the meantime, the people who try to beat you up will continue to do so.
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”]
And US boots on the ground prop up the US more than anyone else. Especially if they’re there against Maliki’s wishes. Which they would have been, but that ship has sailed.[/quote][/quote]
So you would have kept US troops in Iraq against the wishes of the democratically-elected Iraqi Parliament?
[/quote]
You know who else was democratically elected?
Is ISIS better than a seventy-seven-year-old Saddam Hussein?[/quote]
no
Is ISIS better than a seventy-seven-year-old Saddam Hussein?[/quote]
no[/quote]
Come to think of it, Saddam Hussein was going out sooner or later, his life style wasn’t exactly keeping him fit. If he was left alone and dies due to his own poor health, Iraq would pretty much be what it is now… Sunni factions battling each other for succession rights (his sons are crazier than Saddam), sectarian violence between Shia, Sunni and Kurds with minorities sandwiched in the middle, and extremists seeking to gain a foothold.
[quote=“rowland”]Moving on from denial, now inthe bargaining phase, the New York Times is in the next stage of gfrief for its own illusions regarding the Omessiah:
nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/po … t-him.html
Wow. Did the NYT really print that? I shouldn’t be surprised. Its an oft repeated lie here posted by many lefties.
For the record, the Mission Accomplished banner was not Bush’s idea, and it did not signal an end to major combat in Iraq. It merely signalled an end to the specific mission of the crew and ship on which Bush gave that particular speech.
But, the lefties all know that, already.
Is ISIS better than a seventy-seven-year-old Saddam Hussein?[/quote]
no[/quote]
Come to think of it, Saddam Hussein was going out sooner or later, his life style wasn’t exactly keeping him fit. If he was left alone and dies due to his own poor health, Iraq would pretty much be what it is now… Sunni factions battling each other for succession rights (his sons are crazier than Saddam), sectarian violence between Shia, Sunni and Kurds with minorities sandwiched in the middle, and extremists seeking to gain a foothold.[/quote]
Minus thirty thousand dead and seriously wounded Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead and seriously wounded Iraqis, a popular rallying cry for terrorists, a trillion plus dollars in additional U.S. national debt, tattered U.S. moral credibility and a decimated Iraqi army and national police force which might have been able to withstand the tide of Islamic fundamentalism sweeping over Iraq now. Not to mention an effective secular counterweight to Iranian influence in the region.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“rowland”]Moving on from denial, now inthe bargaining phase, the New York Times is in the next stage of gfrief for its own illusions regarding the Omessiah:
nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/po … t-him.html
Wow. Did the NYT really print that? I shouldn’t be surprised. Its an oft repeated lie here posted by many lefties.
For the record, the Mission Accomplished banner was not Bush’s idea, and it did not signal an end to major combat in Iraq. It merely signalled an end to the specific mission of the crew and ship on which Bush gave that particular speech.
But, the lefties all know that, already.[/quote]
No, lefties know righties lie about that- along with much else about WMDs etc.
Horse shit.