EPTReally good article on current matters:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.609915
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 207
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
Really good article on current matters: http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.609915 | ||
|
sc2isnotdying
United States200 Posts
I understand that Kurdish independence isn't on the table at the moment, but it all seems pretty volatile to me and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that changes. The US has supported rebels before and will again. Yes Turkey would be an obstacle to an independent Kurdish territory but maybe an obstacle that can be handled diplomaticly. Basically, I was saying that its silly to rule out an independent Kurdish territory. What makes you so certain you know how things are going to play out? | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On August 11 2014 16:07 sc2isnotdying wrote: You are misreading my point, I'm not your strawman. Its my fault. I wasn't clear. The hypothetical that the Kurds gained their independence is something I would speculate could only happen with US support after some unforseen diasaster forces a policy change. Maybe Iran does something unexpected? I don't think the threat of sectarian violence would prevent US support because that sort of thing is always a risk. Civil War/genocide isn't uncommon. I understand that Kurdish independence isn't on the table at the moment, but it all seems pretty volatile to me and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that changes. The US has supported rebels before and will again. Yes Turkey would be an obstacle to an independent Kurdish territory but maybe an obstacle that can be handled diplomaticly. Basically, I was saying that its silly to rule out an independent Kurdish territory. What makes you so certain you know how things are going to play out? Mate, let's say the US has a hierarchy of interests. The long-standing alliance with Turkey and the close relations with Iraq are the USA's #1 interests here. The Kurds are pretty marginal as far as US interests go, except for shit-flinging to make deposed regimes look bad or to protect the US consulate in Irbil. The Turks have been fighting them for 30 years, and we're happy about that. The US supports insurgents, even Islamic terrorists, that go for its interests. Betraying Turkey and Iraq to support a significantly less important tribal faction is not in our interest nor anyone's interest. Currently, even the US is opposing Iraqi Kurds to do things like selling oil on their own. The US isn't just neutral with them, it's even against them. Everything we're doing with the Kurds is through the Iraqi government. We pretty much see the KRG as an integral part of Iraq, nothing separate. Iran has done everything "unexpected" (or more precisely, against American interests and dominance), and we still have done nothing in regards with Iranian Kurds. Like, our interest just isn't there. I'm seeing what you mean, but I just don't see how that scenario is plausible. Civil war/genocide isn't uncommon, but the Kurds would be the biggest losers there. Guys like PKK and Barzani are already pissing off people enough with their wild rhetoric, and no-bullshit states like Turkey, Iran, and Iraq (rip Syria it's really in the shitter) aren't taking it lightly. I don't know how things are going to play out. I just know that considering the over-reliance on their host nations, their disorganization and general lack of progressiveness, and their underdeveloped, violent, and heavily tribalized society will pretty much make for a very terrible state, not to mention making instant enemies with all 4 of their neighbors who they will fight with over land/resource disputes. Going back to your point about civil war, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened between contesting tribes. Right now the only thing keep things cool are the Kurdish nationalism that is entirely founded on the independence dream and the realization that they're still technically under another authority. It's like a barrel of gunpowder. Fine when stowed away, but be careful not to light any fuses. This makes another few good points: http://theconversation.com/independent-kurds-need-baghdad-more-than-theyd-like-29534 Interesting article about why the US wouldn't want it, in addition to the US's significant preference for Turkey, Iraq, etc. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/politics/2012/05/us-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-in.html# More interesting stuff: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-kurd-secession-bid-faces-major-obstacles-experts-003333557.html I could go on for hours, but the point is, it's a significantly more complex and difficult issue than some people seem to think, and it would probably benefit the Kurds more to keep with the status quo, and that's not even considering a tribalist explosion and civil war. Basically, I'm considering "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" and I think it's not a very rosy scenario mate. | ||
zatic
Zurich15342 Posts
On August 11 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote: Maybe I'm just a sour sally, but like I said, I don't like it, but I see the world heading toward genocidal levels regardless, unless somehow the most radical of radicals have nuclear weapons and other advance weaponry and suddenly lose their 'win at any cost' mentality. Because eventually the AK's are going to become more and more advanced weaponry (consider all the equipment the US just dropped off in the middle east) the plots will eventually become more terrifying (Not hard to come up with), etc... At that point and after the violence there wont be much of a world left to be mad about the nukes and no one will ever agree about who started it anyway. Can you explain your reasoning here, especially the part "the world is heading toward genocidal levels"? All evidence points to the contrary. Even the atrocities of IS right now and all the sectarian violence in the Middle East are negligible in terms of death toll compared to just the wars of the 1980s, to not even speak about earlier. We haven't seen anything close to genocide in a fortunately long time and I don't see any indication this will change soon. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On August 11 2014 17:14 zatic wrote: Can you explain your reasoning here, especially the part "the world is heading toward genocidal levels"? All evidence points to the contrary. Even the atrocities of IS right now and all the sectarian violence in the Middle East are negligible in terms of death toll compared to just the wars of the 1980s, to not even speak about earlier. We haven't seen anything close to genocide in a fortunately long time and I don't see any indication this will change soon. I'm not entirely sure that's true. I just think they're not as publicized. The war in the Congo was a genocidal shitstorm approaching world war scales of death and destruction, but we just don't hear about it as much cause it's Africa and nobody gives a fuck :/ | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10731 Posts
On August 11 2014 20:04 BallinWitStalin wrote: I'm not entirely sure that's true. I just think they're not as publicized. The war in the Congo was a genocidal shitstorm approaching world war scales of death and destruction, but we just don't hear about it as much cause it's Africa and nobody gives a fuck :/ Iirc the 10 year "anniversary" of this just happened. Media/TV was filled with reports for over a week. At least in Switzerland. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15342 Posts
On August 11 2014 20:04 BallinWitStalin wrote: I'm not entirely sure that's true. I just think they're not as publicized. The war in the Congo was a genocidal shitstorm approaching world war scales of death and destruction, but we just don't hear about it as much cause it's Africa and nobody gives a fuck :/ The Second Congo war? Obviously it has been publicized, or we wouldn't talk about it. Or are you saying there are more wars of that level no body knows about? If not, well: Sure, it was terrible business (although not NEARLY on world war scales). But to be blunt, how does one jungle massacre in over a decade suggest "the world is heading toward genocidal levels"? | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On August 12 2014 00:19 zatic wrote: The Second Congo war? Obviously it has been publicized, or we wouldn't talk about it. Or are you saying there are more wars of that level no body knows about? If not, well: Sure, it was terrible business (although not NEARLY on world war scales). But to be blunt, how does one jungle massacre in over a decade suggest "the world is heading toward genocidal levels"? Oh I don't disagree with that component, the world doesn't seem likely to devolve into mass genocide any time soon (i.e. Green Horizons' point is wrong). I am just unsure about whether genocide is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing. Violence in general over the century has been on the decline, but I just don't know whether the recent levels are similar to, or less than, the 70s/80s. Genocide just seems like it's at a relatively low level, with variable fluctuations depending on periodic political instability in the third world. I would just be cautious about saying it's decreasing (I genuinely don't know). Edit: Fine, 1/6th of the casualties of WW1 isn't totally the same level, but it's not out of the same ballpark. 5th deadliest conflict in the last century, and deadliest in recent memory isn't just "a jungle massacre". Anyhow....... | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21717 Posts
On August 12 2014 01:19 Maenander wrote: Why can't Maliki just give up? What is it with these paternalistic rulers in the middle east who just don't know when to quit? Same shit as any other ruler anywhere? We have strong systems in place in the West to stop this from happening but the middle east just does not have any backbone to the system we tried to force on them. Its something that develops over time and you cant just force it to work in a mere few years. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On August 12 2014 01:19 Maenander wrote: Why can't Maliki just give up? What is it with these paternalistic rulers in the middle east who just don't know when to quit? they are afraid of what happens when they do give up. Maliki made too many enemies, so if he quits he no longer has military loyal personally to him covering his ass and he doesnt have Iraqi oil revenue to steal and distribute to his loyalists either. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 12 2014 02:11 Sub40APM wrote: they are afraid of what happens when they do give up. Maliki made too many enemies, so if he quits he no longer has military loyal personally to him covering his ass and he doesnt have Iraqi oil revenue to steal and distribute to his loyalists either. It makes you thankful for how functional the rest of our governments are. We get political infighting, but not while an army on our doorstep. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On August 12 2014 01:53 zlefin wrote: You can get it to work in a few years; but you have to design the mechanisms properly; with good balance of power setups, and it's still difficult. Their constitution wasn't designed all that well either. I think culture is one of the most important parts of getting a system up and running. Different culture, different system. To somehow stabilize the country and make gradual changes over 20-30 years to change the culture is the way around it. Culture and tradition will usually stay relatively unchanged after a change of ruler, making getting the right reforms through at the right times quite difficult. I doubt a few years are enough to design the right mechanisms for the specific culture. Say you have a people ruled by clan leaders: The system cannot work without them being involved at some level at making the solutions. It should be relatively doable to set up such a system, but it is difficult to ensure democracy locally if the leaders have to make solutions unanimously. Say you have a very corrupt system: The system cannot work without the corruption being made easy to spot/hard to do for the people to trust them. It is easier said than done and different kinds of corruption takes different measures. Say you have a country with several militias stronger than the official military roaming around. The system cannot work without them accepting the system or them getting exterminated. In this situation it is extremely difficult to get things under more permanent control before a militia ends up dominating enough to impose their rule. And such militias are usually not too fond of sharing their power unnecessarily through a stupid system like "democracy". Etc. Different cultures different mechanisms needed. Change will take time and stability. Changing rulers often or having a civil war during the time of rebuilding will basically make the design almost impossible to implement. And the people thinking things can get to work well in a few years seems to be exactly why things do not end up working. It gets rushed or the red thread in the reforms gets lost in changing governments and instability caused by differing opinions on how the specific mechanisms should work. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On August 12 2014 02:11 Sub40APM wrote: they are afraid of what happens when they do give up. Maliki made too many enemies, so if he quits he no longer has military loyal personally to him covering his ass and he doesnt have Iraqi oil revenue to steal and distribute to his loyalists either. Agreed, there is a long history of being killed or having to seek asylum elsewhere once you give up power in third-world countries. The whole reason Maliki turned so sectarian was he needed to consolidate power so that he wouldn't be killed in a coup once the US Army was no longer there to support him. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On August 12 2014 04:49 Livelovedie wrote: Agreed, there is a long history of being killed or having to seek asylum elsewhere once you give up power in third-world countries. The whole reason Maliki turned so sectarian was he needed to consolidate power so that he wouldn't be killed in a coup once the US Army was no longer there to support him. Maliki was already in Iran and Syria for 20 years. He can go back into exile. No one liked him before, and no one likes him now. Maliki was always stoking sectarianism. Since he was put into power he was replacing any relevant govt./military positions with his cronies to make sure he's set. But that's not even that bad compared to his habit of insulting and marginalizing anyone that isn't a Shiite and a supporter of the government. That pissed off tons of people. EDIT: God RT is so stupid. http://rt.com/op-edge/179456-iraq-maliki-coup-detat/ "Let's back the guy that literally no one in or outside Iraq likes just because USA is against Maliki." In an era where Russia is re-establishing close relations with Iraq like in the Soviet times, things like this are just counter-productive lol. Russian media is sometimes so anti-American that it also turns out to be anti-Russian. IMPORTANT: A new Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi, has been appointed. Now we just need to wait until Al-Maliki rides a camel to Tehran and everyone can forget about him. Hopefully the new guy isn't another shitty dictator with nothing good that can be attributed to him. The US is waiting, Iraqi politicians and the people are waiting. A new consolidated administration is needed, so the country can focus on sending ISIS back to their BFF's in Riyadh in body bags. A big "Fuck you" to Islamic terrorism like this is necessary. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On August 12 2014 12:24 Sub40APM wrote: Arent Maliki's goons still in Baghdad? It is comical if you think about the fact that on paper the Iraqi Army has 350k of pure soldiers and then more in the police/interior ministry and ISIS with like 15k total fighters is completely impossible to dislodge. Talk about incompetence. It's not necessarily due directly to military incompetence per se. It's that 1) Maliki replaced the military leadership with his own fanatics, rather than the skilled and hardy officers in place beforehand and quite honestly that's making 100% of the difference and 2) the government has been involved in this stupid business trying to get rid of Maliki since at least last year, which has caused a lot of government stagnation. A military can't even run properly when it's led by traitors for generals and a disarrayed government. Otherwise, the Iraqi military is a battle-hardened force. Just wait for the political transition (which is already in the works) and things should hopefully be significantly smoother. But, unless ISIS's numbers are being replenished, they are diminishing. I read several days ago, the Iraqis allegedly killed ~240 in a single day of fighting. Also, don't forget Peshmerga alone outnumbers IS by magnitudes as well, and are still being routed, even without the leadership and government issues that plague the Iraqi Army. Here's some decent news: But his State of Law coalition has crumbled, with 38 of its 96 parliamentarians signing a letter to the president declaring their support for Abadi. They were among 127 Shiite politicians who supported Abadi’s bid in the 328-seat parliament. Abadi will probably be able to form a majority with support from Kurdish and Sunni factions, analysts said. Indeed, a late-night show of force Sunday — when Maliki announced that he would sue the president rather than acquiesce to the naming of a new prime minister and deployed security forces to strategic points in the capital — appeared to have galvanized efforts to oust him. “It has backfired and was unwise,” said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd who served as foreign minister in the Maliki government. “We have passed the stage of military coups and taking power by force.” The army indicated Monday that its loyalties do not lie with Maliki. Read more here | ||
| ||
