Why did the Iraqi army laughably disintegrate in June 14? and why did the Gov. in Baghdad wait 9 months before mounting a credible counter offensive against Daesh? 9 months and counting of destruction, rape and murder from both sides of the front. Back in 2005 It took Maliki 8 days to retake Basra from the Mahdi Army! Now if all goes well, we will be left with even more division along ethnic sectarian lines and more proxy wars funded and soldiered by regional countries.
1
Let's assume that Iran solves our ISIS problem. Then what? The Russians (which is apt) have an old saying, which seems to apply to Iran as well: Only a crab walks backward.
I hope W and the Neocons are reading this and have just a shred of remorse for their folly in invading Iraq and a particle of shame for their lies justifying the invasion.
1
@ Ed Blau - What lies were told to remove Muammar Gaddafi and create a "better" Libya? What lies were told to remove Honsi Mubarak and create a "much better" Egypt? Is there any remorse and shame for that folly?
3
As reported by US media, the offensive against ISIS is being led by a combat hard Iranian general. Strange days in the Middle East for American policy makers.
Iran is helping to defeat a clear and present danger to US national security posed by a bunch of crazy muslim fighters. Meanwhile, Netanyahu goes to DC to stop normalization of relations between Washington and Tehran. Iran is turning into an asset while Israel is turning into a liability. Strange foreign policy brew for Foggy Bottom wonks to dissect and digest.
Iran is helping to defeat a clear and present danger to US national security posed by a bunch of crazy muslim fighters. Meanwhile, Netanyahu goes to DC to stop normalization of relations between Washington and Tehran. Iran is turning into an asset while Israel is turning into a liability. Strange foreign policy brew for Foggy Bottom wonks to dissect and digest.
9
The best part about this are no American casualties. Iraqis need to fight their own battles.
8
I wouldn't put much stock into this report. The reason local armies are able to take back territory is not because they are suddenly defeating Daesh-ISIS, but because that terror group is being moved to lawless Libya where "the creators" of Daesh believe they can protect from Egypt's air force through UN resolutions condemning Egypt. If so they have miscalculated.
1
I think we should send in US troops. The people there would welcome us as liberators.
6
And the revenue generated from the restoration of Iraqi oil sales will fund the reconstruction of Iraq. As a grand finale, we can proudly display a banner which proclaims MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
5
Do we long for a stable Libya and Egypt yet?
If Iraq's government wanted to create rapport with the Sunni, there are probably many other areas that should be rescued from ISIS first... Mosul, for example. Or other areas where minorities have lived and are being ethnically cleansed. It is questionable that taking Tikirt back represents true military goals, versus symbolism, and even if the intention in re-taking Tikrit back is not geared towards subjugating the Sunni, versus defeating ISIS, it is difficult to avoid it being painted this way.
Shia militias and Iran are our best defense against ISIS, obviously. This certainly throws everything out of whack in that region. We saw this slowly emerging for years. BibiNot is in DC to stop the American government from realigning its security interests, in its own interests.
1
Is there a long term plan to establish a stable future for Iraq, assuming Tikrit is recaptured and subsequent battles retake other ISIS strongholds?
It seems so. The new iraqi leader is being pressured to have a more inclusive government, and the military is being rebuilt and corruption minimized.
We don't need daily or weekly updates on this modern-day Hundred Years' War. Do us a favor and run your next article in 2025. You'll probably be able to cut and paste 90% from whatever you said today.
9
Money well spent. I look forward to another mission accomplished. Any shortcomings would only suggest we have not put our hearts into the last ten years of training. If it's a question of esprit maybe we should just send all the men of fighting age to community college.
"In a speech Monday to Parliament, Mr. Abadi echoed the words of President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, saying that the residents of Tikrit were either with Iraq or with the Islamic State."
This is going to go very bad. Almost immediately their will be retribution killings by the Shia militias. It will be like Malmedy only worse because how do you survive a group like ISIS if you are Sunni; by playing along and hoping not to be called to do something horrendous. Once the killing starts it is will split the country very fast. The Kurds w/o question will be gone and the US will have to pick sides.
This is going to go very bad. Almost immediately their will be retribution killings by the Shia militias. It will be like Malmedy only worse because how do you survive a group like ISIS if you are Sunni; by playing along and hoping not to be called to do something horrendous. Once the killing starts it is will split the country very fast. The Kurds w/o question will be gone and the US will have to pick sides.
3
The problems with Obama’s ISIS policies are about to surface now.
The proper way to stop ISIS after they started the ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi Christians and Yazidis wasn’t to bomb the ISIS troops but to solve the theoretical problems behind a Sunni-Shiite-millennium-long schism.
The smart politicians never start a fight they cannot win. If they lose a fight, they weren’t smart at all.
The Obama Administration has managed to militarily defeat ISIS. The real problems will start exactly because of such a success. Now after the Baghdad-controlled Shiite troops defeat and expel the ISIS from Tikrit, a birth place of Saddam Hussein and all important officials of his-era Iraq, you bet that there will be more than cruel and vicious crimes against the Sunni residents of Tikrit.
However, this time our previous military activities will be construed as instrumental in the ethnic cleansing of the residents of Tikrit and a lot of human sufferings happening in front of the cameras will anger the Sunnis across the Arab world.
Thus a real target of Obama’s White House should have been the Sunni-Shiite schism if they really wanted to pacify the Middle East. Otherwise, we have gotten us involved into endless tit-for-tat quagmire.
Do we need a lot of military might to end Sunni-Shiite bloodsheds?
Not really, just the Koran.
In their Holy Book there are no Sunnis and the Shiites, so anybody involved in the endless middle eastern atrocities shouldn’t be construed as a believer.
The proper way to stop ISIS after they started the ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi Christians and Yazidis wasn’t to bomb the ISIS troops but to solve the theoretical problems behind a Sunni-Shiite-millennium-long schism.
The smart politicians never start a fight they cannot win. If they lose a fight, they weren’t smart at all.
The Obama Administration has managed to militarily defeat ISIS. The real problems will start exactly because of such a success. Now after the Baghdad-controlled Shiite troops defeat and expel the ISIS from Tikrit, a birth place of Saddam Hussein and all important officials of his-era Iraq, you bet that there will be more than cruel and vicious crimes against the Sunni residents of Tikrit.
However, this time our previous military activities will be construed as instrumental in the ethnic cleansing of the residents of Tikrit and a lot of human sufferings happening in front of the cameras will anger the Sunnis across the Arab world.
Thus a real target of Obama’s White House should have been the Sunni-Shiite schism if they really wanted to pacify the Middle East. Otherwise, we have gotten us involved into endless tit-for-tat quagmire.
Do we need a lot of military might to end Sunni-Shiite bloodsheds?
Not really, just the Koran.
In their Holy Book there are no Sunnis and the Shiites, so anybody involved in the endless middle eastern atrocities shouldn’t be construed as a believer.
4
If it was easy to just invoke the Koran, why has this schism existed for hundred's of years? The US should never have been there in the first place- and yet I don't see a mention of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield? Why is that?
9
"The United States, in returning to a military role in Iraq, has pushed for reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiite-led government and the country’s Sunni minority, but there has been little apparent progress. The United States has also insisted that Iraq establish Sunni fighting units to retake and hold Sunni areas, and it warned against using Shiite forces to invade those areas."
it's time to start discussing the possibility of a separate sunni state--led by moderates. if the kurds get their own state, then the so should the sunnis. and the best people to counteract sunni zealots are sunni moderates who are interested in secular power instead of religious rules and pontification. that is about all of the "reconciliation" outsiders and insiders can expect.
perhaps also this new sunni state could help moderate rebels in former syria.
it's time to start discussing the possibility of a separate sunni state--led by moderates. if the kurds get their own state, then the so should the sunnis. and the best people to counteract sunni zealots are sunni moderates who are interested in secular power instead of religious rules and pontification. that is about all of the "reconciliation" outsiders and insiders can expect.
perhaps also this new sunni state could help moderate rebels in former syria.
3
Dear Thomas Bishop,
Well this is a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough. There's only one way to have a somewhat sustainable peace in the region currently known as Iraq and Syria. The entire warzone needs to be split up into many small, powerless countries, each owned and populated by all the little splinter sects in the area. So the Kurds would get their homeland, for the first time ever, also there would be a Sunni section, and Shiite, Yedizi (or whatnot), Christian (if there are any left alive), Druze (this might be Christian, who can tell anymore), Pantaloons, and all the other sharply defined groups that want to kill eachother. This division would have to be done by force, making examples out of any groups that resisted. And then, when they're all tiny and powerless states, kept separate from eachother, the killing would finally cease, just as happened in Yugoslavia.
Since nobody's going to do that though, the killing will keep going until the water runs out. Thankfully that will happen this century, after which we'll all be able to put the Mideast and its religious horrors behind us forever.
Well this is a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough. There's only one way to have a somewhat sustainable peace in the region currently known as Iraq and Syria. The entire warzone needs to be split up into many small, powerless countries, each owned and populated by all the little splinter sects in the area. So the Kurds would get their homeland, for the first time ever, also there would be a Sunni section, and Shiite, Yedizi (or whatnot), Christian (if there are any left alive), Druze (this might be Christian, who can tell anymore), Pantaloons, and all the other sharply defined groups that want to kill eachother. This division would have to be done by force, making examples out of any groups that resisted. And then, when they're all tiny and powerless states, kept separate from eachother, the killing would finally cease, just as happened in Yugoslavia.
Since nobody's going to do that though, the killing will keep going until the water runs out. Thankfully that will happen this century, after which we'll all be able to put the Mideast and its religious horrors behind us forever.
2
"it's time to start discussing the possibility of a separate sunni state--led by moderates. if the kurds get their own state, then the so should the sunnis. "
There are no moderates. And there will never be a Kurdish state without some kind of war with Turkey.
There are no moderates. And there will never be a Kurdish state without some kind of war with Turkey.
You are missing a vital element in your analysis. Who gets the oil. Money makes the world go round, you know?
Tribes have been fighting here for centuries. I honestly don't think there is a true win scenario from the American perspective. I wonder if Iraq will ever be a stable country. Generally that region has one tribe that controls the given territory. Shia seems to be it. We will see if they treat the other tribes decently enough for peace to last.
As for our role in it....we could just as easily be seen as supporting the Shiite militias as we could being neutral parties who just want ISIS out. If that narrative doesn't play out just right all of our efforts will be for nothing.
As for our role in it....we could just as easily be seen as supporting the Shiite militias as we could being neutral parties who just want ISIS out. If that narrative doesn't play out just right all of our efforts will be for nothing.
It is time for the US and other outsiders to butt out of Iraq and their politics. The Kurds have fought for and earned autonomy for their region of Iraq. Sunni and Shia are unlikely to reconcile for some time given the distrust over decades and abuses each exercised over the other during their turn in power. Resolving this is primarily a regional challenge, not a US one. The US can assist in brokering deals to support what regional factions suggest is an effective courses of action. If they want civil war, they will choose civil war with our without our input. My hope is our next President keep US troops out of a ground war in the region.
Has the US learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam?
Has the US learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam?
12
The last time we butt out of Afghanistan a couple of guys flew planes into our skyscrapers. Butting out is no longer an option. Strategic involvement is the only way.
The Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria are like an immune-compromised patient: the ISIS disease is made terrible by the inability of the body to mount a defense. ISIS could be militarily defeated by any determined, modern armed force, but the problem is what happens afterwards. As things stand now, it would be an eternal, unwanted occupation. The goal must be not to just drive ISIS out, but to build, or to encourage the development of, competent and consensual government that can defend itself afterwards, and those are developments that can only take place there. Sending in soldiers would do nothing to hasten the process, in fact would probably retard it. Perhaps the threat of ISIS will finally motivate the Iraqis to get it together. I think Obama sees this, where Senators McLain and Graham do not.
2
There will be no US air strike according to Pentagon "Iraqi government never requested support for this operation". Nobody would ever know what happen there. But, there is no "IF" this stages is set for the greatest bloodbath.
Iraq Army sends Shea-only units to take part in in this operation. There are also several Shea militias detachments.
On anther side we have die-hard Sunni who obliged to defense Caliphate till the last breath and expect no mercy from Shea...
ISIS fighters will "defense" town - meaning taking positions on a middle of populated areas.
Iraqi army will "liberate" town by pounding ISIS position from heavy weapons.
At some point Shea militias will move in to "mop up". The duty to tell apart fighters from civilian will be left to G-d.
Iraq Army sends Shea-only units to take part in in this operation. There are also several Shea militias detachments.
On anther side we have die-hard Sunni who obliged to defense Caliphate till the last breath and expect no mercy from Shea...
ISIS fighters will "defense" town - meaning taking positions on a middle of populated areas.
Iraqi army will "liberate" town by pounding ISIS position from heavy weapons.
At some point Shea militias will move in to "mop up". The duty to tell apart fighters from civilian will be left to G-d.
This will not end well. Though the new Iraqi PM is less an avowed Shia sectarian then was Maliki, the anti-ISIS effort has been hijacked by the Shia militias. Their de facto leader is Iran's ruthless al-Quds force commander, Suleimani, who was personally responsible for the killings of hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq. The Shia militias view all Sunnis as the enemy and kill them indiscriminately. It is a lose/lose proposition. Either Suleimani's forces prevail in Tikrit, resulting in a massacre of its Sunni residents and further alienating Iraq's Sunnis and their supporters in other Arab states. Or the al-Quds-backed Shia militias will be defeated by ISIS, demoralizing the less capable and already routed Iraqi regular forces on the eve of what is being celebrated as their victorious March on Mosul. It's a mess. And we're increasingly and improbably stuck in the middle of it.
3
How are we stuck in the middle of it?
1
My only real quibble is with the idea that all of this is improbable. While our invasion of Iraq was not a necessary condition for such a mess, it was certainly sufficient.
2
I came recently from ME just couple weeks ago. All Obama talk about "good secular rebels" vs. "bad ISIS " are taken either as joke or as betrayal. For them Assad was always Alawit with support from Shia Iran and Rebels always were Sunni before ISIS united them.
Rebels may complain about ISIS as we complain about bad government, but they accept ISIS. I went mute when my Palestinian friend asked me - why US suddenly bombs the same people after providing them support for 2 years.
Rebels may complain about ISIS as we complain about bad government, but they accept ISIS. I went mute when my Palestinian friend asked me - why US suddenly bombs the same people after providing them support for 2 years.
5
We need to let other countries decide how they themselves want to handle conflict in "their" countries. Our intentions might be good but it is "their" country, not ours.
2
30,000 troops comprise roughly 3 divisions. Would the Times please tell readers the Order of Battle and identify the various infantry, artillery, and air support units --- and identify the military leaders of the assault? Is it possible to get reporters embedded with the assault forces? Thanks.
2
62 years ago Eisenhower set Iran on the path to radicalization.
30 years ago Reagan set Afghanistan on the path to radicalization.
12 years ago Torture Bush set Iraq on the path to radicalization.
62 years, trillions of dollars, for what?
30 years ago Reagan set Afghanistan on the path to radicalization.
12 years ago Torture Bush set Iraq on the path to radicalization.
62 years, trillions of dollars, for what?
23
I would have to say I disagree Mr. Geary, both parties are culpable in regards to Iran, and history records it that way too.
3
I wonder if the Islamist understand the irony that they only exist because of their sworn enemies?
At any rate, at this point it hardly matters. What we need to do is encourage as many of their brethren as possible to enter into the Kesselschlacht for final liquidiation
At any rate, at this point it hardly matters. What we need to do is encourage as many of their brethren as possible to enter into the Kesselschlacht for final liquidiation
for profits of a few US corporations? Halliburton and the like?
3
The last commentor hit the nail on the head. This is never going to end. Well certainly not in our lifetimes. Too much tribal hatred in that Region. So let hatred burn itself out over the next few decades, if then. I would hope the US provides no more lives to the conflict, only materials to the side that is likely to seek peaceful coexistance, if there is one. If there isn't, play the field until there is.
6
Of the "nearly 30,000 fighters involved in the Tikrit operation" there were only "700 to 1,000 Sunni tribal fighters". This is not enough to convince those, who support ISIS and see the terrorists as their liberators!
It's imperative that the Shia-led government under al-Abadi reach out to Saddam Hussein's former generals and Baathists. They didn't want to lose power but they were dismissed by Nuri al-Maliki. So they sided with ISIS. Without their help Mosul wouldn't have been taken by the terrorists.
It's imperative that the Shia-led government under al-Abadi reach out to Saddam Hussein's former generals and Baathists. They didn't want to lose power but they were dismissed by Nuri al-Maliki. So they sided with ISIS. Without their help Mosul wouldn't have been taken by the terrorists.
3
I agree somewhat, but I think the Shiite militias don't see it that way. They want more revenge for the 25 years of oppression under Saddam. Also, Al-Abadi was Maliki's sidekick in exile. Even if he's more flexible than Maliki he knows the price of sharing power while Sunni's are still standing.
2
The word quagmire was created with the concept of Mid East Asian conflicts in mind. That and America's Vietnam War. I am old enough to remember our desperate attempts, that included a CIA backed coup, to prop up the weak and corrupt South Vietnamese government. The parallels between that regime and the Shia dominated Iraqi government are disturbing and depressing.
It's easy to identify the bad guys here. No one will dispute that they are ISIS and any affiliate of Al Qaeda. The harder question is who are the good guys in this region that we can rely on in this fight? This is not a rhetorical question. I would like to hear who they are and an explanation why from people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the others who are so eager to put the U.S. military back on Iraqi ground.
We can not succeed in this war without a reliable ally that has the genuine support of the majority of the people who live in this conflict zone.
It's easy to identify the bad guys here. No one will dispute that they are ISIS and any affiliate of Al Qaeda. The harder question is who are the good guys in this region that we can rely on in this fight? This is not a rhetorical question. I would like to hear who they are and an explanation why from people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the others who are so eager to put the U.S. military back on Iraqi ground.
We can not succeed in this war without a reliable ally that has the genuine support of the majority of the people who live in this conflict zone.
21
As someone that has been there and done that, I would have to agree David. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the biggest meddlesome and antagonist party was and still is Iran! I'm astonished to learn from those that have recently been to Iraq, that currently the Iranian forces are driving around in U.S. military equipment, such as the M1-Abrams tank.
1
Good guys = Kurds.
2
The Kurds are our good guys up until their ultimate full blown confrontation with our other Mid East ally, Turkey begins. Iraqi Kurds would prefer to have the territory they predominate in northern Iraq become part of an independent greater Kurdistan, which would also include the region in eastern Turkey where they are a sizable minority . And how would this all have jibed with the Bush II administration's avowal not to allow the dismemberment of Iraq?
George W. Bush promised us before his re-election in 2004 that Iraq would have an army 160,000 strong with sufficient raining and equipment to defend Iraq by December, 2004. What happened?
10
Well you said it right there, "George W. Bush promised us...". That has been demonstrated to mean, it can't be true.
3
I remember watching the Vietnam war on t.v. as a child and sort of knowing the numbers were not adding up. Back then it was casulties in this piece it's the number of Iraqi "fighters" which is claimed to be 30,000. It's an interesting number since the U.S. now probably overgenerously puts the Iraqi army at "effective" 20,000. So what am I to make of this article. Has the Iraqi govt. committed it's entire army as well as 10,000 soccer hooligans and religious nutters to do battle with an opposing force which had no problem in one year processing the same number of recurits as the entire Iraqi army. So think of it. Isis has twenty thousand new privates and what they lack in training they seem to make up for in e'lan. On top of this lets review the box scores. In recent contests they have tied Iran, lost twice to US, once to the kurds and at least once to Isreal. It could be they may fight one day but that assumes they will show up.
All I can say is I hope they get better support than Egypt, Nigeria and Syria all of whom we have either cut off or ignored. lest you think their is a rhyme to our reasoning one Nigerian general claims he were told point blank his country would get nothing until they addressed the "homosexual issue". Their is tragic, sad and finally farse. The amazing thing is the man responsible for this mess now wants to make Iran a nuclear power. It wouldn't make the Bremen avant gard neo nihlistic surreal film festival were it on celluloid.
All I can say is I hope they get better support than Egypt, Nigeria and Syria all of whom we have either cut off or ignored. lest you think their is a rhyme to our reasoning one Nigerian general claims he were told point blank his country would get nothing until they addressed the "homosexual issue". Their is tragic, sad and finally farse. The amazing thing is the man responsible for this mess now wants to make Iran a nuclear power. It wouldn't make the Bremen avant gard neo nihlistic surreal film festival were it on celluloid.
2
It's about time for the Iraqi's and other Arab nations take the fight to ISIS instead of American boots on the ground.
10
Another fight for Tikret? Endless battles for Fallujah and on and on in the endless Shia, Sunni ,US, oil wars. These resource battles drain our finances and drain our souls. Time to pull up stakes and stop trying to control the world.
10
Unfortunately the last time we did that we had 9/11. Like what Powell once said, you break it, you fix it.
1
To me this is very important reporting because it makes clear that the Iraqi government has learned nothing from past mistakes. The controlling Shia in the capitol and the south would rather lose territory and the lives of their citizens than accept U. S. counsel and help. Specifically, they would rather have Mosul remain under ISIS control than accept a U. S. plan for liberation as early as April.
The right likes to blame President Obama for "failing" to make a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq. What the right ignores is that an agreement requires two sides to agree. The Shia Iraq government does not want U. S. involvement, except for money and weapons. That government sabotaged the status-of-forces agreement by insisting on judicial control of U. S. soldiers in currupt and anti-American courts. Now they are sabotaging our efforts to eliminate ISIS.
We should treat the Baghdad government like we treat Assad in Syria. Both promote death squads focused on innocent civilians, and both engage in indiscirimate bombardment. We all are fighting ISIS, but we are not allies. Our only real allies are the Kurds, and we should do everything we can to help them gain richly deserved independence. The old boundaries of Iraq no longer apply. Iraq is no more.
The right likes to blame President Obama for "failing" to make a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq. What the right ignores is that an agreement requires two sides to agree. The Shia Iraq government does not want U. S. involvement, except for money and weapons. That government sabotaged the status-of-forces agreement by insisting on judicial control of U. S. soldiers in currupt and anti-American courts. Now they are sabotaging our efforts to eliminate ISIS.
We should treat the Baghdad government like we treat Assad in Syria. Both promote death squads focused on innocent civilians, and both engage in indiscirimate bombardment. We all are fighting ISIS, but we are not allies. Our only real allies are the Kurds, and we should do everything we can to help them gain richly deserved independence. The old boundaries of Iraq no longer apply. Iraq is no more.
5
A Sunni town and province being liberated by a Shia dominated military backed by Shia militias which have a reputation for murdering Sunnis.
I'm afraid Shia militia won't defect to ISIS.
I'm afraid Shia militia won't defect to ISIS.
3
They are more likely to be killed by ISIS if they fall in its hands. Throughout history Sunnis have killed more Shia than the other way around.
1
Because there are much more Sunnis than Shia in the world, dear! But the government was stable and if not the US invasion of 2003, the world would never know what ISIS is.
Don't get your hopes up, everybody. The Iraqi army is undertrained, has zero morale, and tends to flee at the sight of the Daesh. Iraq is also completely divided in a sectarian way, with constant bombings and bloodshed over religious divisions. They can't get their act together because their squabbling culture won't allow it.
Luckily for them, the Daesh are a batch of barbarians with no air force, not much heavy weaponry, no navy, and no major command and control centers. So just as long as they kill as many as possible, some good might come of this.
When the time comes that the world gets serious about wiping out the Daesh though, there's a pretty straightforward way to do it. Start at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, on the Turkish border, and with a joint U.N. force press south. Slay every armed human within sight of the rivers who doesn't surrender. Reach the Persian Gulf and we're done, the Daesh can only survive with the rivers, nothing survives the desert for long.
But I don't expect the world to be so realistic or determined, so this vicious infighting will continue for a long time. Take Tikrit then lose it again, it doesn't really matter.
Luckily for them, the Daesh are a batch of barbarians with no air force, not much heavy weaponry, no navy, and no major command and control centers. So just as long as they kill as many as possible, some good might come of this.
When the time comes that the world gets serious about wiping out the Daesh though, there's a pretty straightforward way to do it. Start at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, on the Turkish border, and with a joint U.N. force press south. Slay every armed human within sight of the rivers who doesn't surrender. Reach the Persian Gulf and we're done, the Daesh can only survive with the rivers, nothing survives the desert for long.
But I don't expect the world to be so realistic or determined, so this vicious infighting will continue for a long time. Take Tikrit then lose it again, it doesn't really matter.
5
The world has no will. The US has no will. The slaughter will continue indefinitely, as it should. We should withdraw totally. We are ineffectual and have been deeply humiliated.
1
That is pretty shallow thinking. The problem is not about how to defeat ISIS, our military could have done that last year. The real problem is how to fill the power vacuum afterwards. Our US military cannot be an occupying force. That is why we are doing this in a deliberate manner, rebuilding the iraqi army and minimize the rampant corruption and lack of leaders that caused it to disintegrate in the first place. The easiest thing to do was to go in like cowboys and blow everything up but that did not end well for us last time.
Dear Tullymd,
Well I don't feel humiliated, these people are clearly hopelessly wrapped up in religious war, it's not our fault. Killing Saddam Hussein just took the cork out of the bottle of religious hatred, but it would have happened anyway upon his natural death.
Dear Ken Potus,
I'm aware of that too, just there's not enough room to go into all the particulars here. But there's an error in your reasoning too: Iraq does not exist, and is thus impossible to stabilize. There is Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, and all sorts of smaller nations within it, but none of them feel like Iraqis. So the key to peace, I think, would be wiping out the Daesh and then splitting up the country, into as small sections as possible, and relocating everyone by sect. But it's all moot anyway as the region is fast running out of water, for which there is no real solution.
Well I don't feel humiliated, these people are clearly hopelessly wrapped up in religious war, it's not our fault. Killing Saddam Hussein just took the cork out of the bottle of religious hatred, but it would have happened anyway upon his natural death.
Dear Ken Potus,
I'm aware of that too, just there's not enough room to go into all the particulars here. But there's an error in your reasoning too: Iraq does not exist, and is thus impossible to stabilize. There is Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, and all sorts of smaller nations within it, but none of them feel like Iraqis. So the key to peace, I think, would be wiping out the Daesh and then splitting up the country, into as small sections as possible, and relocating everyone by sect. But it's all moot anyway as the region is fast running out of water, for which there is no real solution.
1
U.S. Administration leading in Iraq from behind the largely controlled by Iran militants, the same in Syria and Yemen , the outcome of this miss play in the hands of Iran to rise as a regional power with low costs, the Iraqis, Syrians and the Yemenis (The Arabs) are dying, at the same time U.S. Administration weakness the two regional powers with modern and integrated armies, Egypt and Jordan by forcing the Muslims Brotherhood on them to create democracies?
um... what?
There was no Al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq until the US destroyed it for the petrodollar, oil, and Greater Israel.
There was no Al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq until the US destroyed it for the petrodollar, oil, and Greater Israel.
6
This rabble that they call the Iraqi Army, does not inspire much confidence. In Kobane, the so called Pesh Merga "won" the fight against IS, and inherited a wasteland created by US bombing. One wonders if Tikrit is soon to become another glorious coalition wasteland - sorry, victory.
It is also quite amazing that US trained forces require several years of training and billions of dollars of equipping, and they invariably get whipped by some guys in pajamas trained for two weeks and equipped with chinese Kalashnikovs!
It is also quite amazing that US trained forces require several years of training and billions of dollars of equipping, and they invariably get whipped by some guys in pajamas trained for two weeks and equipped with chinese Kalashnikovs!
2
Kobane is in Syria.
6
Indeed, pajamas - or coolie hats! Our foreign policy experts and commanders-in-chiefs do not read history books that they did not [re]write. If one equates ISIS with Sunni, Sunni with Saddam Hussain's rule, then, listening to our government's experts, I conclude that ISIS must be great guys since we backed Saddam to beat up Shiites.
This leaves me utterly confused - why are we now fighting ISIS, a group that our top-of-the-line Ivy league-educated experts told us were good guys? Oops - I was reading the 5th edition, not the 6th, of "The World according to the US Government". Darn! My bad.
My dusty 3rd edition tells me that the freedom fighter Osama bin Laden deserves the US support, arms, and a safe place to train his folks too. What wonderfully acute experts our top institutions produce! People that smart, well-educated, well-heeled, and well-fed just *have* to be right every time!
This leaves me utterly confused - why are we now fighting ISIS, a group that our top-of-the-line Ivy league-educated experts told us were good guys? Oops - I was reading the 5th edition, not the 6th, of "The World according to the US Government". Darn! My bad.
My dusty 3rd edition tells me that the freedom fighter Osama bin Laden deserves the US support, arms, and a safe place to train his folks too. What wonderfully acute experts our top institutions produce! People that smart, well-educated, well-heeled, and well-fed just *have* to be right every time!
3
You are oversimplifying things. The majority of ISIS are former Bath party military leaders and soldiers who joined ISIS because they did not see any future under the Shiite Iraqi controlled government. This is were their expertise came from. In addition there were rampant corruption in the Iraqi army to the point where most of the units were lacking food and ammunition, most likely stolen by their "generals". Hopefully this time we can minimize the dysfunction while building up the military rather than rubber stamping the soldiers like what the Bush admin did and flushing $25bn down the toilet.
3
Unless the Sunni tribal leaders join up with Iraq's army this is doomed. The Shia government has shown contempt for them up until now, so ISIS seems like a better deal for the Sunnis. The Shia militias will start to execute Sunni leaders and males, which will hardly help the divide.
It was the tribal Sunni Muslim Arab tribal "awakening" instead of the American surge of troops that briefly and temporarily turned the tide in Iraq.
ISIS/ISIL is an Arab Sunni Muslim organization in the midst of Sunni Muslim Arab Iraqis. Faced with an incompetent Iraqi military along with Shiite Muslim Arab militias and Sunni Muslim Kurdish peshmerga fighters whose side will they join and support?
With 60% of Iraqis being Shiite Arabs the 15% of Iraqi Sunni Muslim Arabs and the 15% of Sunni Muslim Kurds are either a protected and respected relevant Iraqi nation state minority or they are not. Iraq was fashioned by the French and British Empires out of three provinces of the former Ottoman Turk Empire. Before the American invasion and occupation of Iraq based upon lies and/or incompetence there was no justice but there was peace.
ISIS/ISIL is an Arab Sunni Muslim organization in the midst of Sunni Muslim Arab Iraqis. Faced with an incompetent Iraqi military along with Shiite Muslim Arab militias and Sunni Muslim Kurdish peshmerga fighters whose side will they join and support?
With 60% of Iraqis being Shiite Arabs the 15% of Iraqi Sunni Muslim Arabs and the 15% of Sunni Muslim Kurds are either a protected and respected relevant Iraqi nation state minority or they are not. Iraq was fashioned by the French and British Empires out of three provinces of the former Ottoman Turk Empire. Before the American invasion and occupation of Iraq based upon lies and/or incompetence there was no justice but there was peace.
3
This ought to be good for a few laughs.
1
In the Iraq, Iran War, The Iranians with more than two times the population of
Iraq, could not defeat the Iraqi's This was basically a war between Sunnis & Shiites.The Fiasco in Mosel was another example of the Sunni fighting resolve against the Shiites.Unless the American army stands behind the Iraqi's the same results will occur.When are we going to stop wasting billions of tax payer money on a useless cause.The Iraqi sunnis would rather fight the Shiites than fight the Sunni ISIL.It's time to cut our loses & call it a day.
Iraq, could not defeat the Iraqi's This was basically a war between Sunnis & Shiites.The Fiasco in Mosel was another example of the Sunni fighting resolve against the Shiites.Unless the American army stands behind the Iraqi's the same results will occur.When are we going to stop wasting billions of tax payer money on a useless cause.The Iraqi sunnis would rather fight the Shiites than fight the Sunni ISIL.It's time to cut our loses & call it a day.
5
Key points:
"The United States, in returning to a military role in Iraq, has pushed for reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiite-led government and the minority Sunnis, but there has been little progress."
"The United States has also insisted that Iraq establish Sunni fighting units to retake and hold Sunni areas, and it warned against Shiite forces invading those areas."
"Among the nearly 30,000 fighters involved in the Tikrit operation were an estimated 700 to 1,000 Sunni tribal fighters, according to Iraqi officials."
Little or no progress on crucial issues of reconciliation and yet the American role and presence continues without any apparent redress regarding Iraqi unwillingness to affect critical political change.
Expect a blood bath in Tikrit!
"The United States, in returning to a military role in Iraq, has pushed for reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiite-led government and the minority Sunnis, but there has been little progress."
"The United States has also insisted that Iraq establish Sunni fighting units to retake and hold Sunni areas, and it warned against Shiite forces invading those areas."
"Among the nearly 30,000 fighters involved in the Tikrit operation were an estimated 700 to 1,000 Sunni tribal fighters, according to Iraqi officials."
Little or no progress on crucial issues of reconciliation and yet the American role and presence continues without any apparent redress regarding Iraqi unwillingness to affect critical political change.
Expect a blood bath in Tikrit!
1
"the American role and presence continues without any apparent redress regarding Iraqi unwillingness to affect critical political change. "
Actually one of the main reasons why the obama admin went for the full withdrawal of American forces for Iraq was because of maliki's refusal to include sunnis in the running of iraq. In a way, isis coming to power might be the catalyst to force iraq to finally be inclusive to the kurds and sunnis. The kurds definitely came out ahead; they will definitely not give up the added autonomy they achieved over the last year.
Actually one of the main reasons why the obama admin went for the full withdrawal of American forces for Iraq was because of maliki's refusal to include sunnis in the running of iraq. In a way, isis coming to power might be the catalyst to force iraq to finally be inclusive to the kurds and sunnis. The kurds definitely came out ahead; they will definitely not give up the added autonomy they achieved over the last year.
1
The realities in Iraq, seem to be that "at least some" are trying to unify under the Iraqi nation, regardless of Sunni, Shiite, Christians, Kurds, yazidies...etc.....
whether this will be successful or how much traction it will get, remains to be seen of course.
whether this will be successful or how much traction it will get, remains to be seen of course.
1
Obama makes GW look smarter everyday.
Watch for every Dem Presidential Hopeful to expose Obama and do everything they can to distance themselves from his failed Presidency's.
Watch for every Dem Presidential Hopeful to expose Obama and do everything they can to distance themselves from his failed Presidency's.
2
I guess you would consider being at war right now a success? America needs another war in the MIddle East to bankrupt us even more?
5
This story has nothing to do with Obama; stay on message..
8
Yeah, except his Presidency has been a notable success, particularly compared to the disaster of G.W. Bush's. I note that you don't seem to comprehend that Pres. Obama is not the president of Iraq, and we are being forced to leave Iraq because of an agreement Bush signed. We're also only in Iraq because Cheney wanted their oil. The Daesh only exist, in fact, because the Bush regime totally destabilized Iraq and the wider region.
So since you don't actually point to any facts whatsoever, I'd have to say your comment must be written off as the usual Republican fact-free partisan nonsense. Which is pretty much the only thing Republicans are capable of producing these days.
So since you don't actually point to any facts whatsoever, I'd have to say your comment must be written off as the usual Republican fact-free partisan nonsense. Which is pretty much the only thing Republicans are capable of producing these days.
19
Can someone explain to me why there are headlines telling ISIS what they are going to do? I can only assume it is because they think it will cause ISIS to ull out, rather than prepare.
"Allies to land at 5 beaches in Normandy on June 6, 1944."
"Allies to land at 5 beaches in Normandy on June 6, 1944."
6
How do you know the timeline they advertise will be the timeline they use? Might they be trying to confuse the enemy?
2
Actually ISIS wants to fight so it's a strategy to have them send in more troops to be killed. In Khobani ISIS poured in troops to defend a nothing town, and lost 1,000 or so. To die in battle against Takfiri is a sacred honor.
By the time Obama vacates our whitehouse, ISIS will be in full control of Iraq and the Taliban of Afghanistan. Two terrorist swamps that were drained by Bush.
9
When did Bush "win the war"? Did he find his WMD mega-cache in Iraq? Did he remove the strongest support in the region for Al Qaeda (Pakistan's government)?
31
Surely you meant created by Bush and the neocons.
33
isis started in 2003 under bush as al Qaeda in Iraq /try again blaming obama
16
As one can see on the accompanying photograph this is more a Shia convoy than an " Iraqi" security convoy. Note the nearest and the largest vehicle on the left displays the name of Hazrt Hussain and his picture in addition to the Iraqi flag. It would be almost like an American military convoy displaying the US flag and a flag with a cross and Jesus. This is a pure religious war between the Shias and Sunnis. And the American forces will be in the middle of this internecine Islamic conflict, thanks to the Bush family!
54
Apparently Sunni and Shia are words that are too long for State Department experts to remember. "Oil" is shorter, easier to remember, and it's English.
13
"Note the nearest and the largest vehicle on the left displays the name of Hazrt Hussain and his picture in addition to the Iraqi flag."
Thanks for pointing that out. The Times should have explained the flags and insignias in the caption.
"... this internecine Islamic conflict, thanks to the Bush family!"
If you are going to blame anyone, it should be Saddam Hussein ...
Thanks for pointing that out. The Times should have explained the flags and insignias in the caption.
"... this internecine Islamic conflict, thanks to the Bush family!"
If you are going to blame anyone, it should be Saddam Hussein ...
1
The Iraqi military is leading its own large scale offensive against ISIS, and we have the gall to complain? The US military leadership needs to keep its mouth shut and provide as much support as possible on this.
14
"The Iraqi military is leading its own large scale offensive against ISIS"
More precisely, that would be "the Iraqi military, alongside thousands of Shiite militia fighters".
As the article points out, therein lies the problem. Why haven't members of these militias signed on with the Iraqi military?
This is a civil war between Shiite and Sunni and ISIS are always going to be welcome in Sunni territories as long as the alternative is Shitte militias.
More precisely, that would be "the Iraqi military, alongside thousands of Shiite militia fighters".
As the article points out, therein lies the problem. Why haven't members of these militias signed on with the Iraqi military?
This is a civil war between Shiite and Sunni and ISIS are always going to be welcome in Sunni territories as long as the alternative is Shitte militias.
In a guerrilla war taking territory is a stupid move.
In doing so you loose too many people in house to house fighting and gain a burnt out shell of a city.
The correct move is to TRAP the ISIS forces in Tikrit.
With no food or water they will have to surrender.
What's that you say the Tigris runs through Tikrit? Well dam it.
This is a centuries old technique. You dam the river and then release all the water behind it and the enemy surrenders or drowns.
In doing so you loose too many people in house to house fighting and gain a burnt out shell of a city.
The correct move is to TRAP the ISIS forces in Tikrit.
With no food or water they will have to surrender.
What's that you say the Tigris runs through Tikrit? Well dam it.
This is a centuries old technique. You dam the river and then release all the water behind it and the enemy surrenders or drowns.
6
On the face of it you're right but the problem here is that ISIL's territory stretches a lot farther than Tikrit. So you try to destroy rebel forces in this one city; it won't stem the tide. ISIL will just fall back to another stronghold for a time. They will surge right back. This group intends to win at all costs and, while it is prepared to lose in increments, it intends to win over time. They will be around for years trying to establish their caliphate.
It isn't Obama's fault that ISIL is gaining strength. There's a vacuum. Bush et al deposed Saddam, Assad is squelching his people, Turkey knows it's a sitting target and isn't doing much to police the border with Syria, the countries around ISIL territory are too scared to do much to fight, it's a mess and this highly sophisticated psychopathic terrorist group is taking advantage. Frankly, Iraq and Iran used to be one country maybe it should be again.
It isn't Obama's fault that ISIL is gaining strength. There's a vacuum. Bush et al deposed Saddam, Assad is squelching his people, Turkey knows it's a sitting target and isn't doing much to police the border with Syria, the countries around ISIL territory are too scared to do much to fight, it's a mess and this highly sophisticated psychopathic terrorist group is taking advantage. Frankly, Iraq and Iran used to be one country maybe it should be again.
4
In this article, the author does not mention how many ISIS fighters there are in Tikrit, but let's say there are one to two thousand. If the Iraqii force, estimated to be 25000 troops, cannot liberate Tikrit with an approximately twelve to one ratio of troops, then I am not optimistic that the Iraqiis can retake Mosul, where, according to a recent NY Times article, there are one to two thousand ISIS troops.
So, if the Iraqis fail in Tikrit what are the options?
I would like to suggest that the U.S. bring the matter of ISIS to the UN Security Council, obtain a strongly worded Security Council resolution, and then put together a multi-national force to rid the world of the ISIS threat. After all, the ISIS ideology combined with it's horrific actions are actually a threat to all civilized nations, so it's difficult to see any "civilized" nation actually opposing an attempt to defeat ISIS.
So, if the Iraqis fail in Tikrit what are the options?
I would like to suggest that the U.S. bring the matter of ISIS to the UN Security Council, obtain a strongly worded Security Council resolution, and then put together a multi-national force to rid the world of the ISIS threat. After all, the ISIS ideology combined with it's horrific actions are actually a threat to all civilized nations, so it's difficult to see any "civilized" nation actually opposing an attempt to defeat ISIS.
8
My prayers are for a successful recapture with minimal bloodshed.
2
This is a Civil war that the US created by the 'bad Intel' oily war in 2003. ISIS is made up of those Sunni military guys from Saddam's regime. Now the Shiites brutalized before, now are doing the same to the Sunnis. US should stay out but they won't because of those 2 foolish reporters?.
19
"Iraqi forces battling near Tikrit also apparently have the help of Iranian Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, the commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, who arrived there two days ago, the Iranian semi-official Fars news agency reported."
This announcement means that the operation has essential military control by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, with the assent of the present Iraqi government. Artillery and air strikes are said to be occurring all around the city, with an apparent attempt to drive the Daesh garrison to the east, into the lines of the Kurdish peshmurga. With continued bombardment, Tikrit should be reduced in about 4 to 5 days. There is no mention of American involvement whatsoever.
This announcement means that the operation has essential military control by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, with the assent of the present Iraqi government. Artillery and air strikes are said to be occurring all around the city, with an apparent attempt to drive the Daesh garrison to the east, into the lines of the Kurdish peshmurga. With continued bombardment, Tikrit should be reduced in about 4 to 5 days. There is no mention of American involvement whatsoever.
8
This is a lose-lose situation. If the Iraqi army and Shiite militias win, then it strengthens Iran's foothold in Iraq through the Shiite militias and expands the Shiite-Sunni rift there. This will just be a precursor to more Shiite-Sunni violence. The Iraqi government has done little to keep its promise and to integrate Sunni elements into the government and army.
If the Iraqi army loses, then ISIS is strengthened and the repercussions of that are clear.
If the Iraqi army loses, then ISIS is strengthened and the repercussions of that are clear.
17
Aren't these the same guys who ran and gave ISIS all their weapons? More training is not an answer.
12
Yes they are. What does that tell you? Please don't say they found their courage. ISIS is being driven out of Iraq and Syria for now and moved to Libya where they can try to inflict some pain in North Africa, including making it difficult for the Egyptians to respond with Air Strikes. We've seen that in the last couple of weeks following the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians. Egypt got the cold shoulder from Obama and the U.N. under a flimsy claim that "DIPLOMACY" is now the only way to fix Libya.
1
Good.
Time for the Iraqis to fight for their own land.
Time for the Iraqis to fight for their own land.
24
. . . yes, just like they did when the US-led coalition invaded in 2003 and occupied Iraq until 2011 (estimated 250k military and civilian Iraqis dead). Good to know that the Iraqi peoples' (and there really is no unity there) decades-long struggle for sovereignty and stability has such strong support in small-town North Carolina!
3
"... their own land."
Is Tikrit Shiite or Sunni "land"?
Is Tikrit Shiite or Sunni "land"?
We spent an enormous fortune since 2003 to equip and train the Iraqi forces, this after dissolving a reasonably trained Iraqi forces. Now we have not given them the equipment required to effectively defend their country from the ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorists. Without an effective air force Iraqis would not be able to re-capture toe areas lost due to our Congress sitting on the permission to sell these weapon systems to Iraqis on objections from the Saudis, Qataris, Israelis, and UAE.
On one hand we want their boots on the ground, which is absolutely correct, then why are we not willing to provide them offensive weapons in order to re capture the territories controlled by ISIL?
provide them the weapons (an overwhelming force) to dislodge and destroy ISIL.
On one hand we want their boots on the ground, which is absolutely correct, then why are we not willing to provide them offensive weapons in order to re capture the territories controlled by ISIL?
provide them the weapons (an overwhelming force) to dislodge and destroy ISIL.
6
Isn't US air support "an effective air force?"
4
Because they drop them and run at the mere site of the enemy?
7
We left them high and dry when the ISIS invaded Takri, Anbar Province, and Mosul, Our Air force did not had the permission to support the ground forces of Iraq.
After the fact it becomes difficult to dislodge the enemy as the case was in Kobani also.
After the fact it becomes difficult to dislodge the enemy as the case was in Kobani also.
1
British disbanded rifle regiment.
10 000 Ghourka should suffice.
To keep costs down medical care can be contracted in Indian health facilities.
The Gourka koukari blades will outcarve the Isis knives with a vengence.
Putting the Gourkas on the Isis front should place the Iranians in a secondary
lead position and reduce their overall influence in the area.