The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

They seem to not even consider the possibility of an alliance between the shitheads and the dickheads.

[Norgy]

Getting rid of Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do.  The problem was with the plans for reconstruction, to the extent that there were any.  We should have planned on keeping Iraq under US military rule for at least 20 years.

Getting rid of dictators haven't been the strong suit of Western democracies the past 100 years; we prop up the ones supportive of us and turn a blind eye and topple those who don't like us. Saddam was useful in the 1980s. While the right thing to do is to is to remove such people, the basis of democratic rule was never in place in a country as fragmented as Iraq. We reap what we sow.

[grumbler]

Getting rid of dictators haven't been the strong suit of Western democracies the past 100 years; we prop up the ones supportive of us and turn a blind eye and topple those who don't like us. Saddam was useful in the 1980s. While the right thing to do is to is to remove such people, the basis of democratic rule was never in place in a country as fragmented as Iraq. We reap what we sow.

I don't think Saddam was as useful to you in the 1980s as you think.  Getting rid of him in 2003 was good; doing it in 91 would have been even better.

[KRonn]

While the Shiite militias are much better than the Iraqi army, they're still not that good. They outnumbered ISIS ten to one in the second battle of Tikrit yet they lost as many men as ISIS did in the fighting.

I wasn't debating the quality of the fighters- I was saying that it's really disingenuous to line people up to infer that ISIS is fixating on the Sunnis; it's not going to burn itself out when it runs out of Sunnis to kill.

ISIS is a Sunni Arab movement. The local factions backing it do so because they believe it's their best shot at some minimum level of security - very much the reason why the Taliban was able to control large parts of Afghanistan until 2001.

People rightly point out that ISIS are dreadfully brutal. But this is more indicative of the fact that the alternative to ISIS - Shia or Alawite domination, or complete anarchy - is even worse.

From what I've seen reported is that in Iraq the government, especially under al-Maliki, heavily favored the Shias which alienated the Sunnis. That includes the effect it had on the military with political appointments and lousy morale under poor commanders. The Iraqi Sunnis, most of them, don't want ISIS and fear them but are stuck with the Shia militias being the main fighting force and those militias can also be pretty brutal. I think a lot of that is the Iraqi government's fault for allowing things to become so divisive prior to ISIS, which fed the already existing divisions between Shia and Sunni.

It's too bad too because Iraq may have had a chance at repelling ISIS because the Sunnis would have fought back and I think some tribes did, but they needed the army to help but as we know the army units just folded and ran. As I said, I think that was mainly the fault of the government policies with the military leadership. I would think those units would have fought if they had been well led and their commanders could be trusted. So just because ISIS is Sunni doesn't mean they'll gain allies from most Sunni tribes and populations, but the state of political affairs in Iraq made such a mess of things that there hasn't been enough cohesion in Iraq to fight back properly.

Many of these same Sunni tribes fought against al-Qaeda when they'd had enough of the AQ brutality, after first allying with them against the US/coalition. They formed the Awakening, the Sunni militia which then fought to expel and defeat AQ from their areas during the US surge in Anbar province. Before that Anbar had been somewhat of a no go area for the US and coalition.

[Tonitrus]

Getting rid of dictators haven't been the strong suit of Western democracies the past 100 years; we prop up the ones supportive of us and turn a blind eye and topple those who don't like us. Saddam was useful in the 1980s. While the right thing to do is to is to remove such people, the basis of democratic rule was never in place in a country as fragmented as Iraq. We reap what we sow.

I don't think Saddam was as useful to you in the 1980s as you think.  Getting rid of him in 2003 was good; doing it in 91 would have been even better.

I dunno...wouldn't a lot of the same occupation problems have occurred in '91 as ended up happening in '03?  Though granted, Bush Sr. would undoubtedly have handled things with more finesse than W...certainly perhaps with a broader base of international support (unless a bunch of nations decide to dump the coalition over regime change). 

And then Clinton would be in Obama's current situation. 

[grumbler]

Getting rid of dictators haven't been the strong suit of Western democracies the past 100 years; we prop up the ones supportive of us and turn a blind eye and topple those who don't like us. Saddam was useful in the 1980s. While the right thing to do is to is to remove such people, the basis of democratic rule was never in place in a country as fragmented as Iraq. We reap what we sow.

I don't think Saddam was as useful to you in the 1980s as you think.  Getting rid of him in 2003 was good; doing it in 91 would have been even better.

I dunno...wouldn't a lot of the same occupation problems have occurred in '91 as ended up happening in '03?  Though granted, Bush Sr. would undoubtedly have handled things with more finesse than W...certainly perhaps with a broader base of international support (unless a bunch of nations decide to dump the coalition over regime change). 

And then Clinton would be in Obama's current situation. 

The Dick, Cheney was SecDef under Bush Sr, so the author of the problems in 2003 would likely have been authoring them in '91, but at least there would be an adult in the room.

Iran was in a worse position to poison things in '91.  There would have been occupation problems, but the US administration wouldn't have been so eager to dump armed and trained men out on the street to be employed by the resistance.

[Eddie Teach]

I dunno...wouldn't a lot of the same occupation problems have occurred in '91 as ended up happening in '03?  Though granted, Bush Sr. would undoubtedly have handled things with more finesse than W...certainly perhaps with a broader base of international support (unless a bunch of nations decide to dump the coalition over regime change). 

And then Clinton would be in Obama's current situation. 

Clinton wouldn't have won in '92 because Bush wouldn't have been seen as such a big weenie. If he'd have won the primary in '96, who knows.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I dunno...wouldn't a lot of the same occupation problems have occurred in '91 as ended up happening in '03?  Though granted, Bush Sr. would undoubtedly have handled things with more finesse than W...certainly perhaps with a broader base of international support (unless a bunch of nations decide to dump the coalition over regime change). 

And then Clinton would be in Obama's current situation. 

Clinton wouldn't have won in '92 because Bush wouldn't have been seen as such a big weenie. If he'd have won the primary in '96, who knows.

needs a map!

[Tonitrus]

I dunno...wouldn't a lot of the same occupation problems have occurred in '91 as ended up happening in '03?  Though granted, Bush Sr. would undoubtedly have handled things with more finesse than W...certainly perhaps with a broader base of international support (unless a bunch of nations decide to dump the coalition over regime change). 

And then Clinton would be in Obama's current situation. 

Clinton wouldn't have won in '92 because Bush wouldn't have been seen as such a big weenie. If he'd have won the primary in '96, who knows.

If a flash-in-the-pan politico like Clinton doesn't make it all the way the first time, the party doesn't usually give them another shot.

But then, to be fair, with an occupation/war in Iraq in '92, Ross Perot probably stays out.  And Clinton probably has a harder time in the primaries.

[Eddie Teach]

If a flash-in-the-pan politico like Clinton doesn't make it all the way the first time, the party doesn't usually give them another shot.

That's true. Clinton didn't announce til October '91 though, so a longer war might have changed his mind.

[jimmy olsen]

ISIS affiliates ambush and kill an Egyptian soldier on the Sinai Peninsula

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/05/23/Egyptian-soldier-killed-in-Sinai-attack-claimed-by-ISIS-affiliate.html

27 killed in clashes between ISIS and the Taliban. Who am I even supposed to root for here? Guess I'll just have to pull for mutual annihilation. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Taliban-ISIS-clashes-leave-27-dead-in-Afghanistan/articleshow/47419134.cms

[Valmy]

Taliban > ISIS. The Taliban are pretty bad if you live in Pashtun dominated neighborhoods, ISIS has a bit larger of a scope.

[jimmy olsen]

Saw this on another forum. If this map is accurate than ISIS is in position to cut of the last supply route to Allepo, which would then probably fall to the Rebel Alliance.

[jimmy olsen]

StG 44s? Damn, I'm impressed.

Videos can be found here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/05/21/new-video-shows-syrian-rebels-using-a-wwii-era-nazi-howitzer/

New video shows Syrian rebels using a WWII-era Nazi howitzer

By Adam Taylor May 21    


A new video appears to the show Syrian rebels showing off a rather unusual bit of weaponry: A World War II-era German howitzer.

In the video, which was released by Shaam News Network, members of the Islamic Front are shown loading and firing what appears to be a 10.5 cm leFH 18, a 105 mm light howitzer that entered service with Nazi Germany's armed forces in 1935.

According to German newspaper BILD, the video is the first evidence that the leFH 18 is in use in Syria, and it's unclear how the rebels have acquired it. Some experts weren't surprised, however. "The Syrian Army was known to operate limited numbers of the 10,5 cm leFH 18M howitzer, as well as the 7,5cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. It is likely that the howitzer shown was captured from a Syrian Army base or museum," N.R. Jenzen-Jones, the Director of Armament Research Services (ARES), explains.

This isn't the first time World War II-era weapons have been used in Syria's conflict, which began in 2011. In August 2012, rebel group Al-Tawhid Brigade released a video that appeared to show a large number of StG 44s in their possession. These guns were produced by Nazi Germany during World War II and are considered the first modern assault rifle.

A number of other weapons from the World War II period have been put to use in Syria, and rebel groups have been found to use improvised weapons like pipe bombs and catapults.

"In times of internal civil conflict, it is not uncommon to document legacy arms and munitions in the hands of combatants, especially combatants with limited access to more modern systems," Jones said.

The Islamic Front, not to be confused with the rival group the Islamic State, are one of a number of groups battling for control in Syria. More than 200,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict so far.

[Valmy]

Any non-Nazis WWII weapons in use?

Are any rebels rolling around in KV-1s?