"Iraq parliament fails to reach quorum for emergency session."
So if you can't rely on the Iraqi Army, which is abandoning its posts and uniforms, and you can't rely on the parliament, on whom do you rely? The answer for the Kurds is the Peshmerga, whom they've deployed to secure Erbil and halt the ISIS. What's the obvious answer for Maliki? The US has already turned him down for airstrikes, though our government may be reconsidering. But he may make another, rather obvious choice.
You guys in the Interagency who were 'caught off guard' but are now trying to plan a response: what are the consequences of that choice? What can you do -- will you do -- to stop it from being made? What will you do if he makes it?
24 comments:
Libya gets air strikes, SF trainers, and stingers to shoot down Qaddafi's air force.
But Iraq gets...
But people still think Hussein is some wonder boy and that he has a morality.
Dunno about Maliki, but probably the Shiite militias are taking stuff out of mothballs now. I wonder how much they trusted him and the government--I'd guess not much but I've no contacts whatever there.
I always wanted to see Kirkuk in the hands of the Kurds. Sounds like they've happily taken possession now that the regular Iraqi forces have abandoned it. I hope their corner of the world will remain standing even if the rest of the region goes right down the tubes.
I suppose the State Dept. won't make the mistake of letting the embassy get overrun this time, or at least not before they fully evacuate it, leaving any Iraqi personnel to fend for themselves.
But, but--al Qaeda is on the run. The Gitmo Five aren't threats to the US. The war is over.
Baghdad Bob is napping in the White House.
Alternatively, "I ain’t got nothing against the Cong." At least Ali knew what he was about, though.
Eric Hines
Richard Fernandez paints a nice little picture of the absurd, imagining US airpower combined with Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the ground.
In truth, the news is bizarre and escalating. Sometimes I feel like I am reading the Onion or Mad Magazine.
I'd say you're very likely to see Iranian militia in Baghdad soon. They're the only truly reliable forces Maliki has to keep himself from following in the footsteps of Saddam.
You know, the footsteps that lead to a trap door and a noose.
So the Qods force that killed Americans and the commanders which were captured by US forces and then released, are now back in Iraq, fighting somebody or other.
Should have killed those commanders before they got released. Can't release corpses, after all, they aren't very useful later on except as zombies.
And the people that helped put Hussein power want to be called patriots, right. They're patriots, right. They won't be touched in US Civil War II, right.
This is very painful to watch unfold.
Any thoughts on why the Iraqi army is abandoning their posts? The little I've read suggest that ISIS is pretty small comparatively.
A segment of the IA is sympathetic to the ISIS. A segment is made of Shiites far from their home regions, who don't want to die horribly to defend the Sunni parts of Iraq. A segment is just afraid of the consequences of being caught.
And the rest, aware of all of that, lacks confidence that their brothers in arms will be reliable. The more units desert, the more are going to desert, because they can't be confident that they'll receive reinforcements or support or even supplies.
Saddam's army used to defect too, recall. It's not unusual.
When people lose confidence in the rule of law and the administration of justice, they are usually unwilling to die to defend it.
We saw this in Anbar, and we saw it turn around when the US under the Eeeeeeeeeevil Bu$Hitler made it clear we were going to "stay the course".
I pause now for the obligatory derision that phrase generally elicits.
They have no such assurance now. At best, the Obama administration will strike back with a withering fusillade of finger wagging and subordinate clauses... unleashing Heck.
Thanks for the explanation, as depressing as it is.
I'd say you're very likely to see Iranian militia in Baghdad soon.
"Soon" is today, with 150 Qod militia present, and two battalions on offer. NR, quoting WSJ, says they've already been deployed. (Aside: A peeve of mine re the NLMSM, and "respectable outlets like NR and WSJ: these aren't militants. They're terrorists. Full stop.
Meanwhile, Obama now is doing his best Handle it, handle it impression, instructing al Maliki to fix his problem.
Eric Hines
James Carafano, of the Heritage Foundation, has an interesting, if shallow, analysis of the ISIS threat from Iraq. Oddly, though, he omits to mention the threat presented to Israel.
Eric Hines
My sources point to ISI in Fallujah as of January of this year, when the Shia feds decided to siege the city because they were not willing to risk it with CQB using the best Iraqi units loyal to the gov.
This ended up killing a bunch of Sunni Al Anbar tribesmen, did not defeat ISI, and then ISI took over Fallujah.
That was the breaking point for the Sunni part of the Iraqi Army. Normally, they would not fight for the government's strategy any more, because each side thinks the other betrayed it. Kurds vs Sunni vs Shia again.
This time, with American weapons supplied from Syria and American training from Libya to upset the pot.
Not to minimize the threat to Israel, but Israelis won't throw down their weapons and run away.
Hussein intentionally set up the SOFA treaty to fail in 2011.
Hussein intentionally redistributed troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and Afghanistan to Iraq, to look like he was reinforcing both places at the same time. When in fact he was ensuring that both places got the wrong units, the ones the generals didn't ask for.
Engineered collapse vs American naivety.
"Soon" is today, with 150 Qod militia present, and two battalions on offer. NR, quoting WSJ, says they've already been deployed.
They aren't in Baghdad. Allies helping you rebuff militants in Tikrit is one thing. When the defense of Baghdad is handed over to Iranian militia, Iraq will have ceased to exist as an independent nation.
I would also suggest that the ISIS isn't the chief threat here. The real thing to worry about is Iran, and the possibility that it will kick off a massive regional war in its quest to control a land route through to the Med.
ISIS can be dealt with far more easily than a powerful Iranian state, with greater wealth and a renewed capacity to avoid sanctions via control of the regional pipelines.
If I were President, the way I'd respond would be by inserting paratroopers and SF into the Kurdish regions. Let ISIS get committed to the attack on Baghdad, so its lines are extended and its reserves are engaged, then push in coordination with the Peshmerga on Mosul. Get the Kurds in control of the oil producing regions of Iraq, set up a working alliance with them, and let ISIS and Iranian-backed Shiites slug it out.
I like the way you think.
Not to minimize the threat to Israel, but Israelis won't throw down their weapons and run away.
Absolutely not, but as they discovered (among other things) in the '73 war and the Chinese demonstrated in the Korean War, numbers have a quality all their own.
I would also suggest that the ISIS isn't the chief threat here.
Not in the longer frame, but they're the proximate threat, and they're the door-opener for Iran (and yes, Iran is that devious).
The problem with dropping our guys into Iraqi-ish Kurds territory is that they'd have the enemy at their backs as well as their front. The Kurds already face that, it's why they're so cautious about the cities they're (re)occupying as ISIS moves on. I might arm up the Kurds and supply air cover, intel, and SF.
The ISIS are fighting small unit fights; the stuff I'm seeing is that units of 500-700 are flushing divisions of Iraqi "army" units. SF and Kurds are good at that; find 'em, fix 'em, and kill 'em. That middle step is optional.
Eric Hines
If I were President
Not to second guess, or anything, but I suspect that if any of those present in the Hall were President, the present situation wouldn't be the situation.
Eric Hines
They aren't in Baghdad.
Not yet.
But like many world leaders accuse the US of, creating puppet governments using pretexts, the world is actually a lot more used to that kind of prop than the US is.
Once they get a toehold, suddenly Baghdad's security may need some "extra" security forces, as the Iranians nudge em, using the existence of a security threat to motivate the MPs.
I get the sense that the Shia death squads, formerly under Sadr, were creating some problems in Mosul and or Fallujah, intentionally to get this kind of response. And the Sunnis reciprocated using their tribal backed militias when Maliki failed to get rid of the ISI.
Get the Kurds in control of the oil producing regions of Iraq, set up a working alliance with them, and let ISIS and Iranian-backed Shiites slug it out.
That's kind of like the initial plan for Iraq 2002, before the US Army got involved with State Dep. Light and fast force, but a longer war, to prevent long occupation times, using local forces more.
Fuck sending any US troops back. Let the Iranians send more troops. Then we get to watch Muslims slaughtering each other.
I kinda wonder if this wasn't the intent in the first place.
Post a Comment