The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[derspiess]

Kurds are still the good guys, though-- right?

[Sheilbh]

Kurds are still the good guys, though-- right?

Compared to everyone else in Iraq and Syria? Yes.

Edit: Of course the other worry is the collapse of US-trained forces. Doesn't bode well for Afghanistan.

[DGuller]

Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Well that's shocking.  Very few of the guys who allied with us in Iraq had any determination or desire to fight for the cause.  While our enemies were willing to sacrifice everything.  The people are more willing to fight and die for murderous theologies than anything else.  With that calculus the victory of the extremists is inevitable.

WEll, I think Iraq shows that that is not actually true - you can kill them fast enough that they eventually decide to go somewhere else.

The problem in Iraq was not that we couldn't kill radicals effectively enough to dissuade them, it is that even when we did Iraq did not, does not, and has not had a strong enough national identity to actually function even if we gave them the space to do so had there been the fundamental structure there to begin with.

So other radical groups just show up to take advantage.

But I very much disagree with the basic premise that you cannot beat radicals. You can, and we have. It just doesn't help to smash radical group A if radical group B is just going to show up later because the government itself cannot maintain sovereignty over the state.

I'd go even farther than that.  Beating the radicals militarily is irrelevant.  Radicals are a symptom, not a problem.  Radicals only prosper in absence of strong and legitimate government.  And, if you don't have a strong and legitimate government, then radicals will keep prospering no matter how many times you whack them.

[Valmy]

And, if you don't have a strong and legitimate government, then radicals will keep prospering no matter how many times you whack them.

Exactly.  You need to have people willing to fight for this and make it work.  The only people with any conviction seem to be the radicals.

[Berkut]

I don't think my views are "rosy" at all - they are just based on very pragmatic realities.

The fact is that there is only so much that the allies could have done in Iraq - at best, we go in, provide them the space and opportunity to form a cohesive state, and see if they can pull it off. We can't do it for them, we can only provide them the opportunity.

Did we do so in the best way possible? Of course not. But that doesn't invalidate what was done. If we had "done it right", does that mean that the outcome would be assured to have been a stable Iraq? Nope, not at all.

It is a crap shoot. We can tweak the odds by doing a better or worse job, but we can't change the fundamentals. That is the lesson of Iraq.

In gaming terms, I look at your complaints shelf and it amounts to me to "Man, we could have totally had a +2 DRM on the 'Can Iraq establish a national identity' die roll, and we fucked it up, so we only got a +1 DRM".

Now, it could certainly be the case that that was the marginal difference between success and failure. But doing nothing means you don't get the die roll at all, or they roll the dice when Saddam dies with a -15 DRM. Who knows - maybe that would have worked out better. Impossible to say with certainty, all you can do is try to take your best shot.

And I certinaly don't look at the collapse of US trained forces in Iraq as some kind of indicator of how we can expect US trained forced in Afghanistan to work out. If Iraqi troops fall apart, it won't be because they were not trained well enough, it will be for the same reasons Iraq itself is falling apart. Because the country is a mess, and is more a collection of tribes than an actual nation, and they lack the leadership to change that.

Now, THAT is a better reason to worry about Afghan forces...because they have some of the same problems. But again, it isn't about how well the US trains them or not, I don't think.

There are lessons to be learned from Iraq. Personally, the lesson I take away is that intervention, at best, is a crap shoot. It is incredibly difficult to predict, and hence we should probably be a lot more reluctant to intervene except in cases where the odds are very much either stacked in favor of a good outcome (which means it is likely we don't need to intervene anyway) or the situation is horrible enough that almost *anything* would be an improvement (and of course it is actually in our interests as I define them to effect a change to begin with).

[Berkut]

Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Well that's shocking.  Very few of the guys who allied with us in Iraq had any determination or desire to fight for the cause.  While our enemies were willing to sacrifice everything.  The people are more willing to fight and die for murderous theologies than anything else.  With that calculus the victory of the extremists is inevitable.

WEll, I think Iraq shows that that is not actually true - you can kill them fast enough that they eventually decide to go somewhere else.

The problem in Iraq was not that we couldn't kill radicals effectively enough to dissuade them, it is that even when we did Iraq did not, does not, and has not had a strong enough national identity to actually function even if we gave them the space to do so had there been the fundamental structure there to begin with.

So other radical groups just show up to take advantage.

But I very much disagree with the basic premise that you cannot beat radicals. You can, and we have. It just doesn't help to smash radical group A if radical group B is just going to show up later because the government itself cannot maintain sovereignty over the state.

I'd go even farther than that.  Beating the radicals militarily is irrelevant.  Radicals are a symptom, not a problem.  Radicals only prosper in absence of strong and legitimate government.  And, if you don't have a strong and legitimate government, then radicals will keep prospering no matter how many times you whack them.

I agree with your basic premise, but very much disagree with the idea that beating the radicals is irrelevant. It is very much relevant.

Radicals do prosper absent strong and legitimate governments, but they also prevent the establishment of strong and legitimate governments. So crushing them is in fact necessary to give legitimate government a chance. Sometimes this is done very slowly, as a "homegrown" government slowls expands it radius of legitimacy, but that is a very painful, bloody process that can take decades, and sometimes results in the government being just as nasty as the radicals - that has often been the case in the middle east.

Once the radicals are estblished, they will in fact HAVE TO BE crushed more often than not (sometimes they can be co-opted).

But I don't disagree with the premise that the existence of the radicals is, to some degree in the greater scope of things, irrelevant to the basic problem. They are really more of a sympton of the disease, rather than the cause. But just like a symptom of a disease, sometimes you have to treat that symptom to have any chance of beating the disease itself.

[Sheilbh]

The fact is that there is only so much that the allies could have done in Iraq - at best, we go in, provide them the space and opportunity to form a cohesive state, and see if they can pull it off. We can't do it for them, we can only provide them the opportunity.

Fine. But we didn't do that until 2006 when things got bad and Bush lost the mid-terms and (finally) got rid of Rumsfeld. There was three years when we failed to provide that opportunity and I'd argue those three were the most crucial. I think it is easier to stop a civil conflict from beginning than to stop it and make the two sides reconcile. As the occupying forces we failed to do that despite reports before the war about the risk and despite complaints that we weren't committing enough troops from the start.

The other problem with Iraq was that we ended up making similar problems in Afghanistan. We didn't start upping troop levels to provide better security until the Taliban were already back in some areas.

In gaming terms, I look at your complaints shelf and it amounts to me to "Man, we could have totally had a +2 DRM on the 'Can Iraq establish a national identity' die roll, and we fucked it up, so we only got a +1 DRM".

I don't know what the gaming terms means.

My view is that we can't know what was possible. But the US and the UK failed to do the minimum for those first three years (what happened in the UK sector in Basra was an absolute disgrace - we were beaten in that war) and it took a long time for the political leadership to realise that and change the policies they were implementing.

I think the cost of that was significant because by that point you'd already set in motion the dynamics of a sectarian civil war: ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods and cities; bombings of each sides' holy sites and religious celebrations; and the state overly dependent on armed sectarian militias to provide security for 'their' people.

There are lessons to be learned from Iraq. Personally, the lesson I take away is that intervention, at best, is a crap shoot.

Fine. But we loaded the dice against ourselves from the start.

[Sheilbh]

Kurdish TV reporting ISIS looted around $400 million from banks in Mosul

Edit: And they're posing with the heavy weaponry they've captured

Ironic given that the US didn't arm rebels in Syria for fear it'd end up in the hands of jihadist groups

[mongers]

Good reporting Shelf, keep up the good work.   

So this is the 2nd major city ISIL have 'liberated' in Iraq, they or their allies having already taken and held Fallujah these last few months.

[Queequeg]

 

Can we just skip to having an Arab Peace of Westphalia? 

[Sheilbh]

Good reporting Shelf, keep up the good work.   

I just copy Twitter. I've got three cat pictures and a doge lined up

So this is the 2nd major city ISIL have 'liberated' in Iraq, they or their allies having already taken and held Fallujah these last few months.

Yeah. It is interesting/striking that they seem to have more success in seizing cities in Iraq than in Syria

[Queequeg]

Not really, though, is it?  In Syria they are up against 30% of the population that is fighting for their existence and now has years of experience.  In Iraq they are fighting a few thousand American cronies. 

[Sheilbh]

True though I do think American training and equipment should count for something. But the Iraqi government had intelligence and had recently reinforced these cities and other recent targets. Despite that they've managed to lose two and a half cities in about six weeks.

[Valmy]

Not really, though, is it?  In Syria they are up against 30% of the population that is fighting for their existence and now has years of experience.  In Iraq they are fighting a few thousand American cronies. 

Exactly.  Our dudes are corrupt cronies.  The guys for the other side are heroic self sacrificing experienced fighters.  How exactly are the militants not going to eventually win?  There is no will to fight on the other side.  Well ok the Alawites are fighting though I am not sure they are really 'our side'.

[Sheilbh]

The Syrian opposition are also fighting the government and ISIS. Who are probably the only group ever to have united the US, the Syrian government, the Syrian opposition, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Kurds and Syriac Christians in anything