1) An official says that three-quarters of the largest refinery in Iraq, in Baiji, has fallen to ISIS. Maliki claims otherwise. I’ll believe Maliki when there’s independent confirmation.
2) The Kurds have moved some troops into ISIS’s way. How committed they are to defending Baghdad remains to be seen. It’s unclear if they will. The talk I constantly hear from Iraqi Shia is how they want to gt revenge against the Kurds for cooperating with the Americans. So—do they help in hopes of ratcheting down the enmity, or do they say “not our problem, given we know you hate us?” Personally, if were them I’d have a chat with Al-Sistani, along the lines of “if we do, we will you use your influence to make sure we do get credit?”
3) Iran has said that they will intervene to stop destruction of Shia holy sites.
4) Saudi Arabia has warned that “outside powers” (aka, Iran) should not intervene. After all, ISIS are their proxies.
The problem here, to my mind, is that the status quo has to end even if ISIS is defeated (and I don’t expect it to be allowed to take Baghdad.) By which I mean, Maliki has to go. He couldn’t create an army which would fight, and that disqualifies him from his job even leaving aside his other failures. Perhaps Iraq should just be split up into three areas. Perhaps a new unit government should be created. I don’t, frankly, know. I don’t know enough about Iraq’s internal politics. What I do know, though, is that the current government is a failure.
(Edit: 5) It seems the US official policy is now that they won’t help unless Maliki steps down. I am amused.)
NotTimothyGeithner
The basic problem is up to 2006 with the first election, the old Ottoman arrangement was still functioning, the British replaced the Sultan for a time followed by the U.S. Cold War arrangement. The Kurds were semi-autonomous but controlled enough to not start a state, and the Sunnis had to be reasonable to avoid facing the overseers from afar from siding with the Shia. The Ottomans may not have inspired nationalist fervor, but they were a fair arbiter with an interest in a relative peace. The arbiters are gone or too identified with one of the sects to be fair. The only path to a stable Iraq was giving the Bush cabal the same treat mentioned as Hussein and at least establishing Obama as someone concerned about Iraqis. With his appearance, he could have helped legitimize and gain credibility with Maliki and Iraqis, but Obama wouldn’t even tolerate U.S. soldiers having to abide by local laws when they were off our amusement parks.
As a practical matter, we aren’t even 10 years away from the final collapse of a 500 year old arrangement in the Iraq region. Maliki could have walked on water, and he couldn’t have pulled it off because he would have had to offer a better alternative than neoliberalism. I suppose the Kurds hold the cards. They can unite with the Shiites to control Sunni Arabs or remain autonomous, but the Kurds have to consider Turkish reactions.
different clue
So, the Shia want revenge on Kurds for “siding” “with” America? And are the Shia flatlanders prepared to fight mountain-trained Pesh Mergas in their own mountains? And fight better than they fought against ISIS?
Colonel Pat Lang has been blogging about this lately at Sic Semper Tyrannis which I note is blogrolled on this very blog.
VietnamVet
The partition of Iraq is done.
The Shiite government cannot retake Anbar Province without outside help, either from Iran or the USA. Israel supports the Kurds. Turkey and Saudi Arabia support ISIS. The USA supports “moderate” Jihadists in Syria. The USA is trying to avoid having thousands of its citizens killed in Iraq but by all its actions and rhetoric wants a regime change in Baghdad with Nouri al-Maliki getting the boot.
In all revolts the most dedicated radicals survive and only the overwhelming strength of the regular army can defeat the insurgency and bring peace. Missouri and Kansas in the 1860s in America’s Civil War is an example. If Iran sends in its army by itself, the Sunni Shiite Jihad will engulf the Persian Gulf threatening an oil cutoff and crashing the Global Economy.
The US government has been seized by the War Profiteers and Israel Supporters. If America’s goal was peace, instead of supporting Jihadi movements, it and its allies would join with Iran and Syria and establish an Islamic Peacekeeping Force to subdue ISIS. But Israel does not believe it will survive a unified Islam and there is the big money to be made building Drones and Hellfire missiles to blow up Toyota pickups filled with jihadis. So, more war is the policy rather than ending the Jihad even as it threatens to kill thousands more Americans.
Celsius 233
(Edit: 5) It seems the US official policy is now that they won’t help unless Maliki steps down. I am amused.) Ian
Clearly, the U.S. wants what it wants; the problem is; it’s incompetent and ignorant. Stuck in a mobius loop…
Glenn Condell
‘ Perhaps Iraq should just be split up into three areas’
It’s all going according to plan, one written in the early 80’s by Israeli defence analyst Oded Yinon. Divide and rule.
‘Israel does not believe it will survive a unified Islam’
If Sunni and Shia break bread (only possible if Saud falls?) all bets are off.
Hey, if the Ruskies and Chinese can manage it…
sufferin' succotash
@NTG: “The Ottomans may not have inspired nationalist fervor, but they were a fair arbiter with an interest in a relative peace.”
Their administration of the region–the three vilayets of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul–was also a more sensible reflection of the region’s ethnic and religious differences than the post-WW1 pastiche called “Iraq”. ISIS is touching a sensitive nerve by attempting to undo the Anglo-French partition of the Middle East which drew “national” boundaries where none had previously existed.
thepanzer
Three items:
1. Obama is claiming the old AUMF is still in effect and gives him carte blanche to act in Iraq without congressional pre-approval. Pelosi (D) and McConnell (R) agree with him. It reminds me of the end of the republic in Rome, where the senate still had ceremonial power but was effectively just there for show. I know the congress and senate can still roadblock the imperial presidency today but we’re definitely at the Rubicon domestically, if not already beyond it.
2. Western leaders really aren’t even bothering to pretend to hold to democratic ideals in public anymore. The chorus call from the west to “remove” Maliki from power shows absolute contempt for the concept of sovereign nations exercising the democratic process. I know that’s always been the case with the U.S. but the level of overtness of it nowadays is depressing.
3. Antiwar had a link to US polling for boots on the ground in Iraq. Public opposition to putting troops back in Iraq was in 75% territory. They didn’t cover airstrikes though so I’m curious to see if it has similar numbers or if it would be more palatable to the public. I’d suspect opposition would be similar to bombing in Syria but it’s a coin toss if our “sunk costs” in Iraq make the public more open to bombing or more averse.
Ian Welsh
Funnily enough, Chelsea Manning’s Op-Ed touched on how legitimate Maliki’s election was: not very. Of course, that was what the US wanted and abetted, so it’s not like the US can complain about it…
Bill H
@thepanzer: The interesting thing was that Obama even called a special meeting with “Congressional leaders” to tell them in person that he did not need to consult with Congress on anything he did with respect to military action in Iraq.
thepanzer
Bill, that’s a great and sadly hilarious point.
“I’ve called you all here today to tell you I have no need to call you here today.”
markfromireland
@Ian.
Disagree about Iraki election’s legitimacy. The results were pretty much proportionate to the respective support bases. Or to put it another way they were “demographically correct”. Where there abuses and manipulation attempts? Yes of course there were. But not I would think to the extent of having much effect, certainly not to the extent of affecting the results.
I loath the man and his politics and policies he’s proved repeatedly by his actions starting in the 1970s that he’s viciously sectarian. He’s certainly as bad as Abdel Aziz al-Hakim was and quite probably worse. That doesn’t alter the fact that he’s the democratically elected head of government. Nor will he go easily – he’s not Ibrahim al-Jaafari he has a spine and he’s eminently capable of bringing the entire edifice crashing down around him if wants to.
As to Chelsea Manning:
Chelsea Manning on the U.S. Military and Media Freedom – NYTimes.com:
Sorry but this is nonsense. Specifically it’s self-serving nonsense combined with self-agrandising nonsense. Manning went from PFC to Specialist. There is no way in hell that somebody at that grade and with that specialism and without knowledge of the language of the OPFOR would have anything remotely resembling a “comprehensive overview of the war”. Far from having a “comprehensive overview of the war” the problem that Manning and Manning’s comrades and immediate superiors had was that they were swamped in a flood of detail that wrecked their ability to discern patterns.
That’s not a criticism of them, their circumstances were such that it was impossible for them to have a “comprehensive overview of the war”. That this should be so isn’t even slightly surprising if you think about it. It’s analogous to coming under fire during a battle. A soldier who takes part in a battle particularly if they come under fire will have a very small but very intense awareness of what’s going on in his immediate sector. The further removed you are from that direct participation the better your ability to see what’s going on overall.
mfi
JustPlainDave
This purports to be images documenting the destruction of various shrines in Nineveh:
http://justpaste.it/atrah
No idea as to the date, but the page creation is within the past 24 hours. Appears to be a mixture of Sufi shrines and Shia hussayniya.