The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[The Brain]

Mission accomplished.

[CountDeMoney]

Meh. While there is no doubt that the US intervention in Iraq was a fuckup of epic proportions, it's not like NOT intervening would have resulted in anything better.

I courteously disagree.  Saddam Hussein was in power since 1979;  his regime had survived a devastating 8 year war, forced eviction from Kuwait, international sanctions and a stunning loss of oil revenue.  His internal security was top-notch, and his grip on power was absolute, without the slightest chance of losing centralized control.   He was the established model on how to maintain the preservation of a regime through sheer brutal tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds. 

And even in the off-chance he was deposed, another Tikriti strongman would have taken his place--which, incidentally enough, would still have been in our geopolitical interests.  But no, we had to gift-wrap it all for Tehran and leave the countryside to Al-Qaeda franchises.  Don't Mess With Texas, etc.

[CountDeMoney]

And all you wanna-be revisionist isolationtards can suck my Star Spangled dick.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

in the worst case scenario we Always could opt for unilateral nuclear disarmament over the region...

[Warspite]

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.

I suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

But surely the success of the surge and awakening shows that with the right policies and strategy in place you could cause a decline in the level of violence to the point where politics can work. At that point it's up to the Iraqis, with US and coalition support, to take the political opportunity.

The trouble with the occupation was that that didn't happen for three years, and until Bush suffered a bloody nose at home. So you remove a tyrant and start working on a political settlement in the context of increasing violence and escalating sectarian outrages. By the time the approach changed to reduce the conflict the politics are different. It's not the politics of forming a cohesive state, but of reconciling a civil war, which I'd argue is even more difficult.

[Warspite]

I suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

But surely the success of the surge and awakening shows that with the right policies and strategy in place you could cause a decline in the level of violence to the point where politics can work. At that point it's up to the Iraqis, with US and coalition support, to take the political opportunity.

The trouble with the occupation was that that didn't happen for three years, and until Bush suffered a bloody nose at home. So you remove a tyrant and start working on a political settlement in the context of increasing violence and escalating sectarian outrages. By the time the approach changed to reduce the conflict the politics are different. It's not the politics of forming a cohesive state, but of reconciling a civil war, which I'd argue is even more difficult.

Well remember that in 2003 the politics are not necessarily in favour of a long-lasting settlement either. You've just sold a war as liberating the Shia and Kurds from Sunni tyranny, and then you start arming and working with the Sunni tribes? Political disaster. Whatever strategy you have in 2003, you're still working in what is essentially a security vacuum, unless you take the very bold step of retaining the Iraqi military and bureaucracy in some form. (Which is what I would have advocated in any occupation plan: keep the air conditioners running and order on the streets.) But this is not without risks; it's not hard to imagine the Shia rejecting peace in this counterfactual.

What Iraq really shows is how difficult, if not practically impossible, it is to reconstruct a functioning state after a 'kick the door down' regime change that had no national political settlement either preceding or in parallel to it. Something we've learnt yet again in Libya, so this is very much a mistake the Brits and French make too, I'll say in the interest of being impartial.

I think it's very hard as Westerners from comfortable societies to really understand the fear that grips people and communities in these sorts of situations, and how identity politics - no matter how irrational we perceive them to be - can really subvert what to the outsider seems the rational solution.

[Tamas]

I suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

But surely the success of the surge and awakening shows that with the right policies and strategy in place you could cause a decline in the level of violence to the point where politics can work. At that point it's up to the Iraqis, with US and coalition support, to take the political opportunity.

The trouble with the occupation was that that didn't happen for three years, and until Bush suffered a bloody nose at home. So you remove a tyrant and start working on a political settlement in the context of increasing violence and escalating sectarian outrages. By the time the approach changed to reduce the conflict the politics are different. It's not the politics of forming a cohesive state, but of reconciling a civil war, which I'd argue is even more difficult.

Well the problem is that politics have not worked in Iraq, that is quite clear.

[Sheilbh]

They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages

[jimmy olsen]

Wouldn't Turkish intervention be a plus?

Neo-Ottoman empire under Edrogan seems like a significantly less terrible option than ISIL or Iran taking over Iraq.

[Tamas]

They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages

[mongers]

Maybe the US should get Hezbollah to take on ISIS/ISIL in Mosul.   

[Viking]

Maybe the US should get Hezbollah to take on ISIS/ISIL in Mosul.   

"It's a pity they both can't lose." - Kissinger.

[Duque de Bragança]

They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages

Will Erdogan put the blame on Israel/Sabeans Jews/Zionists, the West, the French (driven by the Armenian lobby)?

[Ed Anger]

They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages

Oh Ron Paul animated gif, how I missed you.