Posted on 10/18/2014 6:36:21 AM PDT by dangus
[Dangus: I have no knowledge that this isn't utter B.S., but it's an interesting alternate take on things.]
The pundits have it wrong—the terrorists’ move toward Baghdad is a sign of desperation.
“Sign of desperation”
Isn’t that what the pinkos at Politico say when Conservatives take action?
Its wrong to think of ISIS as a unified organization. The jihadists in Syria are not the same fighters active in Iraq. ISIS in Iraq are disgruntled Sunnis, ex Republican guards and old Saddam regime officials who are providing the administrative infrastructure. They are attempting to reestablish a Sunni dominant state, wrest control from and again dominate the Shi’ites. Iran will be forced to intervene or a very hostile Sunni state will be reestablished on its border and many Shi’ites will be massacred. This current fight in Iraq is best viewed in the context of the ancient Sunni/Shi’ite conflict. Best if the US does not get involved. The locals will have to reach their own consensus. Also this is not 1974. There will never again be an oil embargo. Oil producers are desperate to sell to anyone with hard currency or they will wither.
I dunno. I do know that Kabani was supposed to fall within days a couple weeks ago, and that Drudge ran giant headlines about how our bombing was “backfiring,” so I’m curious to see if there are ideas which run counter to the common wisdom. I also have expected that the Islamic State would be straetgically sound to consolidate its control over the Sunni territories — and this seemed like their strategy — that attacking Shiite territory is inconsistent with that, except as the article supposes, to rally sectarian fighting.
I hope it’s true, BUT....it sounds like a sales job, intended to help cover Obunga’s boney arss until November 5th!
That strikes me as a very sound analysis. IN fact, ISIS was formed by the merger of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Obama’s beloved “freedom fighters” in Syria. But I would note that although they come from two origins, ISIS as a STATE relies on being Iraqi AND Syrian.
So Hitler’s drive on Moscow in 1941 was an act of desperation too? And also the North Vietnamese attack on Saigon in 1975?
The writer pretty much has it right. The primary war is over and the partitioning of Iraq is accomplished.
The current skirmishing and battles are about tidying up the borders, determining who will prevail in the mixed denomination border towns.
Ditto Syria
Taking ground, especially with the big black footprint that IS produced on a regional map, isn’t as easy as showing up with a bunch of Toyota trucks and beheading a bunch of people.
Now they have to hold the ground and act like a government. They could have learned a whole bunch if they had taken notes from the muslim brohood’s clumsy takeover in Egypt.
Let no one get into their comfort zone. Anyone who is against ISIS (Daesh) should note there is still long way to go to dismantle & eradicate ISIS (Daesh).
ISIS (Daesh) must be also fought on their ideological ground, everywhere.
The author, as is the wont of essentially all pundits except those who regularly post on “counter-jihad” sites like jihadwatch or Gates of Vienna, ignores Islamic history. Oh, he’s noticed the Sunni/Shia divide, but he doesn’t see the significance of Baghdad or the degree to which the DAISH* thinks not in terms of strategic categories the post-Clausewitz, post-Liddell-Hart West understands, but in terms of classical Islamic history and mythology.
Baghdad was the seat of the Ummayyad Caliphate, which to the extent there is any historical basis for the notion of an “Islamic Golden Age” provides that basis. Its capture would legitimize al-Baghdadi’s claim to the Caliphate in the eyes not just of already-jihadist Sunnis, but of Sunnis generally. Suddenly the “Caliphate” would control vast swaths of territory as all but the most Westernized Sunnis united behind it.
Big gains are worth big risks in war. The attempt to seize Baghdad says nothing about whether the DAISH is winning or losing — it is supported by the strategic calculus I just described, and they will attempt it when they think their chances are optimal whether they are winning or losing on other fronts.
*I prefer the transliterated Arabic acronym to either ISIS or ISIL. (I’m not sure why Muslim terrorist groups get their names translated then made into acronyms in American media and State Department usage, while Communist and nationalist terrorist groups don’t, but I think it’s silly — if it’s the FARC, ETA, and the PKK, not the RAFC, BHF and the KWP, it’s the DAISH, not ISIS or ISIL.)
The author also omits to remember that Saddam, a secularist operating through a Sunni powerbase/mafia managed to control Iraq including Shi’a dominated Baghdad. Iraq’s civil government has an existential problem. If it allows strong leadership to emerge in the military, it risks a coup and return to Saddam-style dictatorship. But military weakness makes ISIS viable and discredits the government. ISIS is flourishing precisely where the pre-existing states are internally divided. The Great Islamic Conquest that ISIS would like to emulate involved some bold military action, but a lot more capitulation and movement into a political vacuum. Traditionally US foreign policy would have been to close off the contemporary vacuum. Between Bush and Obama, we have helped create it.
Saddam although tried to institute A 'secular' approach, he was a Sunni, Arab and was a genocidal maniac.
To run a country, which Iraq never was, per Saddam, was a hard task. Again, he was a Sunni, Arab and just before he died, IIRC, he said: "Palestine will always be Arab".
Per definition of "Secularist", Saddam was never one. Secularism (separation of religion and state) also means pluralism. Saddam, was an Arab, Sunni, with Stalinist bent political ideology. "Secularism" for him was very much secondary, and in the context of being Arab and Sunni.
Politico is the DNC’s news blog.
To do that you’d need critical scholarship on the Koran, its origins and its veracity as currently translated in the Salafist and Wahhabist traditions.
I'm sure Saudi Arabia as the center of universe for the muslims, and as a staunch ally of the USA, has both the critical scholarship and the means to do so. - and if they stopped funding the mentioned brand of Islam around the globe as they have done, it'd be a start, at least. :)
typo: as they have Not done.. so far.
ISIS is absolutely getting its a## kicked in Syria and Iraq. They’re also suffering from a lack of experienced troops due to attrition, infighting and desertions particularly from the Chechnyans.
IMO they will not take Kobani. They will likely attempt a spectacular attack(s) possibly on Baghdad to regain notoriety. But they’re effectively finished due in most part to the Kurds and coalition air power. The Iraqi Sunnis aren’t fully backing them and don’t believe in their caliphate. They know they’re lowlife criminals and hypocrites.
Right now ISIS is like the neighborhood tomcat whose picked too many fights that everyone’s turned on, taking pieces out of him at every opportunity.
Baghdad has been Sunni dominated for over 100 years. Even today they are by far the majority in Baghdad.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.