All their resources are in Kurdish areas such as Kirkuk for Iraq. 60% of Syria's oil is also in Kurdish areas. They're scared of a strong Kurdish nation.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Mission Accomplished!
Nah, things are blown out of proportion in the media. ISIL is nowhere near strong enough to keep all those areas under their control. They actually didn't even force their way into them. There was a case of major betrayal inside the Iraqi army as it suddenly withdrew from those areas, and the government is now re-organizing the army forces and its distribution.
This is not like in Falluja where a small number of ISIL fighters can consolidate in a small city with the help of the people there (even though they also have the support of many people in Mosul), with the government allowing them time to try and solve it peacefully not to escalate the situation. This is a different case in Mosul. The government will not tolerate this situation and will not accept peaceful solutions. They will just regain control over the territory militarily using all means available, and they have enough strength to do so. They just need to mobilize the necessary forces to do it.
That's what I think at least.
There is no real hate towards them, but governments don't want them to create their own land fearing unrest in the Kurdish parts of their countries because they will eventually want to join the Kurdish state.
I for one think the Kurds do have the right to create their own country. But I don't think they're ready to do it in Iraq right now, for the following reasons:
1- Kirkuk is still not a part of Kurdistan, and the three current provinces that form Kurdistan won't be able to survive economically on its own right now.
2- Nearly every single country in the world is against them declaring independence, and if they're going to do it then they definitely need the help of some countries, at least in the beginning.
3- The security challenges are just too big for them at the moment. Turkey and Syria are right there and even Iran (which hasn't been that vocal about it) won't welcome the formation of a Kurdish state. They will try to add the Kurdish areas in Syria too to it and the whole thing will be a mess with the current situation in Syria.
They're just not ready right now, but if they keep building their provinces, and if they hit the jackpot in Kirkuk, then may be, they have a better chance.
Not necessarily.
Kirkuk is an absolute goldmine for oil as in many parts of Northern Iraq, but the most abundant reserves are found in the South and in the so-called 'Sadr territory'. If the Kurds hang on to Kirkuk on a permanent basis it would be huge for them though.
Update from Reuters. Covers what's been posted so far and gives some good, basic context.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0EN0RV20140612?irpc=932
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0EN0RV20140612?irpc=932
They won't get anywhere near Baghdad thankfully.
If they do then the Iraqi military should cease to exist out of principle. Bremner really fecked up by dismantling the Iraqi military setup.
That's a common misconception imo. I think that was probably the best thing the US did in Iraq.
Most of the main betrayals that happened in Mosul were by ex-army generals from the Saddam era, who were returned to duty after the Sunnis in the parliament insisted on returning some of the ex-Baathists.
If the whole army was kept in place you'd be looking at a coup and return to Saddam-like rule in a couple of months after the US left. Look at Egypt for example.
In fact the biggest problem right now is the fact that some of the high ranked members of Saddam's army has been returned to duty in sensitive positions. Many of those can't be trusted in terms of loyalty. And that's where the problem lie at the moment.
Despite having disbanded the Army, which imo wasn't a good idea, the Iraqi MOD continued to be well represented by former Baathists during the mid to late 2000s, especially when Abdul Qader was minister.
If anything, involving them in the 'rebuilding' process would cultivate a more realistic prospect of sectarian unity. Exiling them and forbidding them from getting involved in the political process will only radicalise them and their supporters into throwing their weight behind the Al Qaeda extremists. Maliki has done an appalling job of easing sectarian fears, if anything he's exacerbated it with his increasingly sectarian sentiments.
You also have to look at it from a pragmatic perspective. The most trained and decorated Iraqi military personnel served under Saddam. Getting rid of all of them and replacing them with a rag-tag group of recruits was never going to end well, as is proving to be the case now.
Last edited:
Jaime Redknapp is predicting a Shia equalizer in the second half.Peshmerga have taken full control of Kirkuk
I disagree strongly on both accounts. Here is one of the Sunni candidates in the main Sunni party in the last elections (the first woman on the list) talking about Al-Maliki.
I can translate it for you if you don't speak Arabic. This whole sectarian isolation is no more than propaganda to justify what they wanted to do all along, ever since Saddam was overthrown. There is a deep sectarian division and mistrust in the country, the Sunnis will not accept a Shia PM and the Shia will not accept a Sunni PM. Al-Maliki has done many things to ensure all sects are treated equally. He even agreed to return most of the Baathists to their original positions to reassure them, which was a very big concession (kind of like the Nazis being returned to the German government in 1950). However, as I said, the sectarian division in the country is just too deep.
And by the way, Al-Jaafari, the Shia PM before Maliki, was also rejected by the Sunnis and they accused him too of all kind of things, and they eventually (practically) vetoed the idea of him running again for PM, which is why he was then replaced by Al-Maliki. So it's not really about Al-Maliki.
On the other hand, you're mis-interpreting what happened in Mosul. There was pretty much no fight in Mosul. The army generals withdrew before they even fought ISIL. It was pre-planned, and it wasn't the "young generals" who did it, it was the old "good" Baathist generals who did it. The problem the Iraqi army is facing now is not "experience". It's loyalty. And that's the reason why it was a mistake to return those "trained military personnel" from the Saddam era to sensitive positions imo.
Oh and by the way, those high ranked Baathist military personnel weren't dying of hunger. They were receiving pension. They were just kept away from the sensitive positions in the security forces because of their history, but they were returned later under pressure to their positions, and this is the result.
As for the military capabilities of the new army, I just want to remind you that the same army (minus most of those Baathist generals who were returned afterwards) fought Al-Mahdi militia in Basra in 2008 and they were highly effective and restored calm to the city in one week.. So they know how to fight.
There is such depth to these problems. These ISIL territorial gains could be reversed relatively quickly, but underlying problems enabled the movement to morph into a bonafide rebellion. The sectarian factions in Iraq are so far away from being able to work together that I don't see where the change would come from.
If they don't get it together we may well see Iraq devolve into something like the Lebanon model.
In the more immediate term, the Iraqi army may well be able to fight like @Danny1982 suggests, but it remains to be seen if they can do it outside of the Shi'a strongholds. I'm very curious to see what kind of counterattack will be mustered, where it will occur, and how effectual it will be.
If they don't get it together we may well see Iraq devolve into something like the Lebanon model.
In the more immediate term, the Iraqi army may well be able to fight like @Danny1982 suggests, but it remains to be seen if they can do it outside of the Shi'a strongholds. I'm very curious to see what kind of counterattack will be mustered, where it will occur, and how effectual it will be.
No reason to be wedded to the existing states in the region. It's just a recipe for rule by dictator.
The Yugoslavian model is suggestive. in the long term, it may be better to bow to the inevitable, and stop trying to obstruct the birth of new political units, which are more ethnically, religiously and tribally homogeneous.
That's an interesting suggestion there. Did Yugoslavia have anything like the pooled Iraqi oil? If not, this may be a tougher case of splitting the ox cart.
I wonder how much autonomy could do to satisfy the factions. Devolution may work before having to get to dissolution.
But, they've got a wolf closer to the door at the moment in ISIL.
They say they want to capture Baghdad so that they can start a caliphate.
actions around baghdad.
This could escalate quickly to a full sectarian war again, just like in 2006.
I actually think this might be the only way to solve the situation in the middle East (and deflate the sectarian conflict in the region a bit). Look at Lebanon, after years of civil war, they kept the country together, but it's always one explosion away from another civil war, not to mention the political standstill they always seem to be running into, which largely hinders any chances of development for the country.
The problem though, if things continue the way it's going now in Iraq, there is a good chance that there will be an ISIL state instead of a moderate Sunni state in the North West, which would be very problematic for the whole region in the future.
Now senior Shia clergymen are urging Iraqi Shias to take up arms against these ISIL fighters.
To further add complication, its believed that Iran's military commander Qasem Soleimani is directing the retaliation.
Feck me, 2006 is back
To further add complication, its believed that Iran's military commander Qasem Soleimani is directing the retaliation.
Feck me, 2006 is back
They killed 1700 shias as revenge for when the shias killed sunnis.
They are not after every Shia, they are after the Rawafidh.Now senior Shia clergymen are urging Iraqi Shias to take up arms against these ISIL fighters.
To further add complication, its believed that Iran's military commander Qasem Soleimani is directing the retaliation.
Feck me, 2006 is back
In the last hour, Peshmerga have advanced towards the town of Jalula and killed between 20-80 ISIS. Anti-terror forces are advancing at a very quick rate and clearing the area of any terrorists.
It's only been a few hours since the Isis moved in and they're already on the retreat 
Peshmerga moving further south at the moment, securing the areas near KRG and ensuring safety.
Peshmerga moving further south at the moment, securing the areas near KRG and ensuring safety.
When was that?
"The Rawafidh" is another name for "Shia". It's the exact same thing practically.
There will be a big battle in Samara soon. If they manage to control it things could spiral very quickly out of control (in the direction of a sectarian war).It's only been a few hours since the Isis moved in and they're already on the retreat
Peshmerga moving further south at the moment, securing the areas near KRG and ensuring safety.
You think the Kurds will get involved?
No, the Kurds will just hold their positions (the areas where they think should belong to Kurdistan).
No, it isn't the same thing. There are sects within the shia community too and they differ in a lot of beliefs. For example the zaydi shias have similar beliefs to hanafis but the raafidah are really misguided. The make false claims about a number of sahabi and their imams.
Even the literal meaning of the word refers to the vast majority of the Shia (Al-Ithna Ashariya which represent about 90% of the Shia worldwide, and even more than that in Iraq). However most people use that term to refer to all Shia.
Al Qaeda in Iraq under Zahrawi decided that every Shia was a legitimate target. Considering that even Al Qaeda consider ISIS to be too extreme for them, its safe to assume the latter will indiscriminately target every Shia...and probably Christians and secular Sunnis for that matter too.
They don't target sunnis afaik but they are very strict in their ruling. Very strict. There's no leniency at all.
They are doing this just to involve Iran, aren't they?
How much land does the ISIS actually control?
They said they want to remove the borders of Iran, but in the future.
No doubt about it. Although the priority right now may be to gain territory, should they do so - they will target anyone who is different from them.
Anything more than below is ISIS propaganda. They're a weak army that couldn't even defeat a few hundred SAA men before, whenever they meet a strong army they flee.
what twitter accounts are you getting your info from? i have some isis ones but theyre all randomAnything more than below is ISIS propaganda. They're a weak army that couldn't even defeat a few hundred SAA men before, whenever they meet a strong army they flee.