As a Yazidi myself, this eases the pain a little bit. Hope that this development will continue.
NYTimes: American Forces Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq
- Thread starter Mii
- Start date
- Status
As a Yazidi myself, this eases the pain a little bit. Hope that this development will continue.
Nicktendo86
Member
Indeed. Really hope a lit of lives are saved here, Isis need to be dealt with.
Winterfang
Banned
Thank God someone is helping, makes me proud that is my country the one doing so. Hopefully is not just a P.R stuff and they actually find a way to get this people out of there safe.
That's what I can hardly understand. How they seem to be virtually non-existent. Surely they should have an army of a few thousand reasonably equipped men. We've even spent several years training them.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's complicated. Iraq isn't a coherent nation-state in the sense that say, America or France is. It's split between roughly three regions: al-Sawad - the south-eastern alluvial plains of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, al-Jazira (not to be confused with the news network) - the western arid and semi-arid deserts and plains, and Iraqi Kurdistan, amongst the mountains to the north. These geographical regions coincide quite strongly with the ethnic and religious make-up of Iraq: Shia Arabs in al-Sawad, Sunni Arabs in al-Jazira, and Kurds (mostly Shia) to the north. Now, the Iraqi army took in Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs and trained them both, but Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, distrusted the Sunni Arabs, largely because they resented the fact a Shia was leading the country and also he was fairly nepotistic in favour of other Shias. This meant he stationed all the Sunni Arab soldiers in Sunni areas and all the Shia Arab soldiers in Shia areas.
This is problematic because the Islamic State plays strongly on the narrative of "Sunni-vs.-Shia", and draws young men who it radicalises from the various Sunni towns and cities. That means the Sunni soldiers stationed in al-Jazira have to fight people of the same religion and ethnicity of them, with a cause that they may at least partially sympathize with, and often as a result of local postings against people they actually know and are familiar with. The result is that a small number have defected entirely, a very large number deserted entirely, and the remainder were no match with their poor numbers and low morale against totally fanatical and dedicated militants.
The Shia element of the Iraqi army is still intact, and is still largely competent, which is why IS hasn't made much progress into Baghdad, despite having cut off most of the major supply lines from al-Jazira into Baghdad. However, they're stretched thin and have no incentive to try and retake areas of al-Jazira, because Baghdad is a hugely important city but also effectively cut off from much of the rest of the Shia area, meaning immense effort is required to keep it from falling into the hands of the IS. This means that IS and the Iraqi administration are basically at a stalemate. The trouble is, IS is growing all the time because it doesn't just operate in Iraq, but is drawing in recruits from radicalized Sunni Arabs from the rest of al-Mashrid (the Levant), but also the rest of the world.
It's a similar situations with the Kurds. The Kurds actually one of the most effective militaries of the whole Levant area, only out-matched by Israel. However, they lack the ability to organize effectively because they don't have a state, and NATO can't really interact with them effectively because Turkey would throw a massive diplomatic tantrum. That said, the Kurds have done a remarkably good job at helping even non-Kurdish areas - the tiny territories where Yazidi, Christian, Druzi and other such minorities actually form a local majority almost all border Kurdistan, and the Kurds have gone out of their way to help these people, which is beyond admirable. Unfortunately, they can't win every time and the current crisis is an example of where they've been unable to do so.
Frankly, the situation is not going to be resolved without the intervention of a major power. If the United States doesn't act soon, then Iran probably will - it has a large interest in ensuring that a Shia-led Iraq remains a stable neighbour.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The Yazidis literally worship what the Muslims call Satan, so you can expect IS to use that as a big rallying cry for fighting with the Kurds. I expect the Kurds to play an increasingly important role, but Turkey will have to make concessions and accept an actual Kurdistan.
But like I said before, IS is a house of cards. They are a "state", which means they can be fought against conventionally. They are not going to be fighting a civil war if they solidify their presence to the extent of running a state of some sort. Any important infrastructure will be easy to take down without putting one boot on the ground. Dams, power plants, oil fields, airstrips, roads, bridges. A turkey shoot. And they could not find any state ally. A state can't operate on its own, in seclusion from everyone else, especially not that state. North Korea can only because of nukes.
Unless the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia were to support IS as a proxy against Iran, no one will help them, everyone will blockade them. But SA would be taking one heck of a gamble if they didn't push to suppress IS soon, because the more popular IS is, the more people in SA will want to topple the royals. So you basically got both SA and Iran who would want IS dealt with. SA is probably crazy enough to take the risk to let IS be a buffer and destabilizing force for Iran though.
I expect it to end badly if the later happens, because it means you can expect unrest in SA like never seen before. Imagine the royal family falling to IS. But this is why I expect IS to continue to exist even if it makes no sense: they'll know that as long as they don't attack SA and Israel, they will be allowed to exist, moreso if they concentrate on Iran, but then Iran invades Iraq.
But like I said before, IS is a house of cards. They are a "state", which means they can be fought against conventionally. They are not going to be fighting a civil war if they solidify their presence to the extent of running a state of some sort. Any important infrastructure will be easy to take down without putting one boot on the ground. Dams, power plants, oil fields, airstrips, roads, bridges. A turkey shoot. And they could not find any state ally. A state can't operate on its own, in seclusion from everyone else, especially not that state. North Korea can only because of nukes.
Unless the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia were to support IS as a proxy against Iran, no one will help them, everyone will blockade them. But SA would be taking one heck of a gamble if they didn't push to suppress IS soon, because the more popular IS is, the more people in SA will want to topple the royals. So you basically got both SA and Iran who would want IS dealt with. SA is probably crazy enough to take the risk to let IS be a buffer and destabilizing force for Iran though.
I expect it to end badly if the later happens, because it means you can expect unrest in SA like never seen before. Imagine the royal family falling to IS. But this is why I expect IS to continue to exist even if it makes no sense: they'll know that as long as they don't attack SA and Israel, they will be allowed to exist, moreso if they concentrate on Iran, but then Iran invades Iraq.
Thank you Enron (I'm appreciating the irony of your nick and the situation btw
)You help me believe there is some hope left in the world and not everyone is just blinded to what the media (especially Fox) says about events.
cooljeanius
Member
Russia is actually against ISIS, too.
- Status