On December 06 2014 01:09 pls no ty wrote: Its not Kurdish hatred. Fuck this.
You know what, this is my last post. Kick me or not, if you think this is a kurdish hatred, you are just another fool.
You guys had 0 knowledge about Turkey and Pkk months ago, and now every of you is an expert about kurdish issue related Turkey while im racist. Bullshit.
There 15 millions of kurds living peacefully in Turkey while there are only 30.000 terrorist and half of it is not from TURKEY.
Your minds will always ignore this fact. I dont care how much you are willing to lick terrorist ass but i wont. If you fucking care what a terrorist say to newspapers while your ALLY and its still your NATO ARMY TURKISH ARMY* denies this claim, you picked your side already. But beware, PKK is still in the terrorist orgs list, and their existence based on anti turkish propaganda and KURDISH RACISM. There are people here who can confirm that after my ban. HAMMURABI knows a lot about this for example. How he knows these stuff? Because these terrorists also do the same thing to iraqis since saddam and before.
No matter how many kurdish you please by giving a better life as a citizen, this fucktard terrorism remains, like ISIS. Because its not related to kurdish race, but some other things. LEARN ABOUT ROOTS OF PKK. AM I calling you arab haters when you call isis members rats ? AM I posting shit like lets kick usa out of nato because iranian news claim USA is funding ISIS. Or am i saying kick germany out of nato because it is arming our enemies? So how the hell you can easily say these and TRY TO BLOCK ME WHEN I TRY TO CORRECT false accuse.
Fuck your double standarts, and fuck your turkish hatred. Im out.
There is actually a lot of truth to this post. There are some very notable and justified criticisms of Turkey that are well-deserved, but if you do not have terrorists based in your home country, it is hard to understand the actions of a state that does.
As for "Kurds said," I have found such a declaration to be a very common tool for the media and/or interested parties to make claims without having to independently confirm. Frankly, pls no ty's frustration with this thread is justified - why is it that "Kurds said X" should be taken as fact?
If someone disagrees with a given piece of reporting, the appropriate response is to cite competing evidence and suggest that the previous reports conclusions are accordingly suspect. The answer is not to assume a hyper-defensive, ultra-nationalist, "we can do no wrong" attitude, which is what pls no ty has done for pages upon pages now.
national apologism is the tl-general soup de jour. aplogism, propaganda, and disinfo according with the homo-fascist neo-atheist agenda of the tl armchair legion is always kosher.
it's usually reposted in paralell with demands that the other side of the coin scientifically proves its existence.
now that orc clans from middle-east are clubbing themselves to bits, most of us restrict ourself to the latter. plsnoty, a troll sitting pretty atop the gates of mordor, is understandably a bit more invested.
we shouldn't alienate the creatures controling the gates.
source: #Kobane doctor told me this, so no complaints from my fellow armchair admirals allowed.
Israeli fighter jets have targeted two sites west of the capital Damascus, according to Syrian state media.
State owned Al Ikhbariya news channel reported no casualties in Sunday's air strikes which hit the al-Dimas suburb and near the Damascus international airport.
"The Israeli enemy committed a heinous attack by targeting two peaceful areas in the Damascus countryside," it said.
Israeli military officials and the prime minister's office refused to comment.
Syrian anti-government activists say the airport is currently being used as a weapons warehouse.
Report: Israeli planes strike targets in Syria near Damascus
Syrian state television said on Sunday that Israeli jets had bombed areas near Damascus international airport and in the town of Dimas, near the border with Lebanon.
"The Israeli enemy committed aggression against Syria by targeting two safe areas in Damascus province, in all of Dimas and near the Damascus International Airport," state television said, adding that there were no casualties.
Residents in Damascus said they heard loud explosions.The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the conflict, said that 10 explosions were heard near Dimas.
According to foreign reports the attack targeted a warehouse of advanced S-300 missiles, which were en route from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
Dude lol you quoted a post from a month ago.
I'm a white American Christian who really didn't know what Iraq (or the Mideast overall was) until I was 15 or 16, and in a way involved in the wrecking of Iraq, as a result of which led me to become significantly knowledgeable. What about yourself?
I see what you bolded, and it's hardly misinformed or misled. It's very bold to say someone's misinformed, but not say why.
The first thing: Before 2003, there wasn't really sectarian violence like we saw post-2003. The society was decently cohesive, as put forward in the wall of text you quoted. The main source of violence was military forces fighting against insurgents and dissidents at various points since the 1930s-present. But you didn't have anything like whole branches of armed civilians/militants killing each other on a sectarian basis. There were no purges in Baghdad, or anything close. The never happened before the Iraq War.
The second thing you bolded is not wrong either. Before the US left, Maliki was a pretty corrupt and authoritarian and sectarianist guy, and he didn't go without condemnation for it. After the US left, he took that to a whole other level. One of his many actions after the US left was replacing military commanders with his own loyalists, because apparently he feared a coup, as he was incredibly unpopular and incompetent. The irony is he attempted a coup himself in August lol... anyways, what happened is because of all his goons who were not at all fit to serve in their positions and had no loyalty to the military or country (just to Maliki), they quite literally deserted their men at Mosul and scrammed. That is in brief the primary reason of what happened. There's other reasons, another prominent one is the people in the whole Mosul area (along with tons of other people) hated Maliki to death because he was an absolutely master at pissing off and demeaning anyone who wasn't a Shia Arab Iraqi, including brutal crackdowns on protests regarding said discrimination. He was pretty good at the sectarianism thing since he became PM in 2006, and this is (among many other things) one of his biggest condemnation. He was almost as shitty as Paul Bremer.
Fortunately, Abadi is so far proving to be a highly intelligent and tactful guy, so that's great.
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
I am? I lived like 25 miles away from a huge Chaldean community I was quite familiar with, but that was that.
I've been following the news regarding the Christians and even about some local militias, but fortunately the Iraqi military got its shit together in August/September, and is getting it back together more-and-more. Diyala and Babil are pretty much ISIS-free at this point. In Saladin, Baiji was of course liberated along with the Hamrin mountains, and pushes into Tikrit. The military is also pushing on Hit in Anbar, and is fighting on fronts in the Kirkuk and Nineveh provinces, along with the Kurdish (peshmerga) and Arab (various groups and tribes) militia fighters. So, I am happy.
I've been pretty much dead from TL for like 3-5 weeks, but I've been following the conflicts in Iraq and Syria closely.
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
MEMRI often has a bit of an anti-Arab slant to it, but wow, they managed to find a really nutty guy. Half the stuff this guy is saying is bollocks, especially about Jurf al-Sakher and this "IRGC taking over Iraq". Maybe he should ask himself why Sunni tribes in Anbar are calling upon Shia militias for help, like Albu Nimr, or maybe why lots of Sunni tribes are on the side of the government, including the Dulaim tribe, the largest in Iraq, and many in the traditionally anti-govt. Anbar province, or the tens of thousands of Sunnis who fled to Najaf and Karbala to take refuge in Husseinias and other places. This guy's a sectarianist IMHO.
On December 09 2014 10:36 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 09 2014 06:58 AssyrianKing wrote:
On December 08 2014 15:41 Snakehips. wrote:
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
When I registered on TL after lurking since 2006/2007, I was drunk and wanted something Protoss-y. I tried Judicator but that was taken. So I thought in all the ancient history I know, and thought, who is a good "judicator"? So I went with Hammurabi, whose administration's code of law from 3500 years ago is famous to this day.
This username is unique to TL. I have nothing like it anywhere else.
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
Dude lol you quoted a post from a month ago.
I'm a white American Christian who really didn't know what Iraq (or the Mideast overall was) until I was 15 or 16, and in a way involved in the wrecking of Iraq, as a result of which led me to become significantly knowledgeable. What about yourself?
I see what you bolded, and it's hardly misinformed or misled. It's very bold to say someone's misinformed, but not say why.
The first thing: Before 2003, there wasn't really sectarian violence like we saw post-2003. The society was decently cohesive, as put forward in the wall of text you quoted. The main source of violence was military forces fighting against insurgents and dissidents at various points since the 1930s-present. But you didn't have anything like whole branches of armed civilians/militants killing each other on a sectarian basis. There were no purges in Baghdad, or anything close. The never happened before the Iraq War.
The second thing you bolded is not wrong either. Before the US left, Maliki was a pretty corrupt and authoritarian and sectarianist guy, and he didn't go without condemnation for it. After the US left, he took that to a whole other level. One of his many actions after the US left was replacing military commanders with his own loyalists, because apparently he feared a coup, as he was incredibly unpopular and incompetent. The irony is he attempted a coup himself in August lol... anyways, what happened is because of all his goons who were not at all fit to serve in their positions and had no loyalty to the military or country (just to Maliki), they quite literally deserted their men at Mosul and scrammed. That is in brief the primary reason of what happened. There's other reasons, another prominent one is the people in the whole Mosul area (along with tons of other people) hated Maliki to death because he was an absolutely master at pissing off and demeaning anyone who wasn't a Shia Arab Iraqi, including brutal crackdowns on protests regarding said discrimination. He was pretty good at the sectarianism thing since he became PM in 2006, and this is (among many other things) one of his biggest condemnation. He was almost as shitty as Paul Bremer.
Fortunately, Abadi is so far proving to be a highly intelligent and tactful guy, so that's great.
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
I am? I lived like 25 miles away from a huge Chaldean community I was quite familiar with, but that was that.
I've been following the news regarding the Christians and even about some local militias, but fortunately the Iraqi military got its shit together in August/September, and is getting it back together more-and-more. Diyala and Babil are pretty much ISIS-free at this point. In Saladin, Baiji was of course liberated along with the Hamrin mountains, and pushes into Tikrit. The military is also pushing on Hit in Anbar, and is fighting on fronts in the Kirkuk and Nineveh provinces, along with the Kurdish (peshmerga) and Arab (various groups and tribes) militia fighters. So, I am happy.
I've been pretty much dead from TL for like 3-5 weeks, but I've been following the conflicts in Iraq and Syria closely.
I c. I've never posted on the TL forums before so i'm just quoting in the hopes of maybe you'll get a message notifying you that I replied. I don't know how the notification system works or how to organize quotes, so sorry if my formatting will be shit. I didn't reply to anything, so whoever bolded the comments and so on wasn't me. I think i might've just quoted someone that did reply to you.
I find it interesting that you're not related to the region yet are very impassioned which i guess is very very good!
As far as my affiliation. I'm an Iraqi Muslim born in America. My parents (and my absolutely hugeeeeee extended family) grew up in Iraq, and during the first gulf war were able to immigrate to America after spending two years living in a refugee camp in Rafha, Saudi Arabia. Currently me and my family work as a half way home for coming immigrants from Iraq and the Syrian Civil War. I've visited the middle east multiple times, I've lived in Iraq for a short period of time (I plan on spending maybe a year after graduation) and i have family members that work in politics there both for the Iraqi government and the State Department (i'll cite them later in my reply). I'm also a IR and Poli Sci double major and i've always kept up on politics to an obsessive level. You seem relatively well researched but a lot of your information is rooted in missunderstading in the history of the region (especially the cause of sectarianism in Iraq & the Middle East).
I'll try and reply after finals later this week. I'm not sure if you'll read this and my follow up, but i hope you will!
On December 09 2014 10:36 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On December 08 2014 15:41 Snakehips. wrote:
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
Dude lol you quoted a post from a month ago.
I'm a white American Christian who really didn't know what Iraq (or the Mideast overall was) until I was 15 or 16, and in a way involved in the wrecking of Iraq, as a result of which led me to become significantly knowledgeable. What about yourself?
I see what you bolded, and it's hardly misinformed or misled. It's very bold to say someone's misinformed, but not say why.
The first thing: Before 2003, there wasn't really sectarian violence like we saw post-2003. The society was decently cohesive, as put forward in the wall of text you quoted. The main source of violence was military forces fighting against insurgents and dissidents at various points since the 1930s-present. But you didn't have anything like whole branches of armed civilians/militants killing each other on a sectarian basis. There were no purges in Baghdad, or anything close. The never happened before the Iraq War.
The second thing you bolded is not wrong either. Before the US left, Maliki was a pretty corrupt and authoritarian and sectarianist guy, and he didn't go without condemnation for it. After the US left, he took that to a whole other level. One of his many actions after the US left was replacing military commanders with his own loyalists, because apparently he feared a coup, as he was incredibly unpopular and incompetent. The irony is he attempted a coup himself in August lol... anyways, what happened is because of all his goons who were not at all fit to serve in their positions and had no loyalty to the military or country (just to Maliki), they quite literally deserted their men at Mosul and scrammed. That is in brief the primary reason of what happened. There's other reasons, another prominent one is the people in the whole Mosul area (along with tons of other people) hated Maliki to death because he was an absolutely master at pissing off and demeaning anyone who wasn't a Shia Arab Iraqi, including brutal crackdowns on protests regarding said discrimination. He was pretty good at the sectarianism thing since he became PM in 2006, and this is (among many other things) one of his biggest condemnation. He was almost as shitty as Paul Bremer.
Fortunately, Abadi is so far proving to be a highly intelligent and tactful guy, so that's great.
On December 09 2014 06:58 AssyrianKing wrote:
On December 08 2014 15:41 Snakehips. wrote:
On November 11 2014 12:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 11 2014 03:35 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 13:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 12:55 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 09 2014 10:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On November 09 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote: US has been training the Iraqi army for the last 10 years now. What are these extra trainers going to accomplish "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101?
With all due respect, are you joking mate? Let me give you a brief history of the last few years in case you're out of the loop.
While the Iraqi military in 2011 was far less organized, equipped, and effective than the old Baath military, it was still in decent shape. However, Maliki removed many of the commanders, especially if they were Sunni, and put in his own loyalists who, to put it bluntly, weren't exactly officers and certainly were not competent by any means.
Do you even know what happened in June? ISIS came in, and Maliki's goons left and told all the soldiers under their command to leave as well. That's what happened.
However, the second ISIS hit a division not run by Maliki's deserting goon "officers", they were stopped.
Do you know what happened since late August? Lots of military reforms. Abadi purges the military of Maliki's buddies, including the Iraqi equivalent of the US Chief of Staff of the Army. He pushed reforms, brought back officers removed by Maliki, even brought back old Baath guys who were banned since 2003. Obeidi was appointed Defense Minister and carried on with the same actions. Having been a senior air force officer, he's the least happiest guy about the northern divisions in June.
The Iraqi military in October/November has practically liberated two major provinces, and is currently in a huge offensive in Saladin that has liberated Baiji and parts of Tikrit. There is no "running from a couple of jeeps." Just 1,000s of dead terrorists. Even US generals are commending them, like John Kirby and Lloyd Austin.
In all of this, the Iraqi Golden Division (special forces) has been exhibiting some of the best COIN we've seen.
So no, there's no need for " "When you see a couple of jeeps full of jihadists, dont drop your weapons and run away" 101. " The Iraqi military already took care of that themselves.
Nothing in your post disproves my point. The Americans have wasted billions training and arming the Iraqi army, then in comes in a generic representative of an Arab politician, guts 8 years of American work and voila, useless rabble, only capable of offensive operations after the return of active combat elements of a functioning Army -- whether Iranians or the Americans, you can pick. So once again, America is going to pour down the same black hole some more money, some more equipment and in another year or two when the Shiites are no longer terrified theyll once again purge the Sunnis and back to square one. A patronage distribution system masquerading itself as an army will always depend on foreigners in the face of a dedicated foe, even if the foe in military terms is suicidal and retarded.
Actually, everything in my post disproved your point. Maliki is gone. He's not calling any shots anymore. His actions that made the military what it was in June have already been dealt with and reversed, with lots more reforms to come as well. Maliki was truly one of a kind. This isn't a "gonna happen again in 1-2 years".
Right. A sectarian dictator in a region famous for sectarian dictators is a one off affair on and from now on everything will work well. Shiites will not once again go forward and try to enforce Shiite authoritarianism once the total threat of ISIS fades away.
Actually, you are making a comment that's extremely contrary to Iraqi history. If you only know Iraqi history since 2003, only then will you think sectarianism was always an issue (which it wasn't). It was eons more cohesive between Sunni/Shia. As in, the intermarriage rate was about a third which is a lot more than Protestants and Catholics in the US, which is significantly less religious than Iraq. Baghdad was a pretty peaceful city and the neighborhoods used to be really intertwined. It wasn't even a thing to talk about one's sect. If you want to go argue with Iraqis about that, be my guest. Even the Christians who aren't a part of Sunni/Shia stuff say the same, and before 2003, the Christians had no trouble living in Iraq. Obviously, since 2003, we've seen an exodus of over a million of them, but that's for another story.
Maliki was particularly sectarian. And you see the problem is Sunni Arabs and Kurds aren't 10% of the population, like in Iran for example. They're 40+%. He specifically stigmatized and marginalized anyone who wasn't a Shiite and pro-Iran loyalist of his.
Most Mideast/N. African leaders were pretty terrible. Iraqi ones were actually pretty decent. Even when the leaders weren't good, their governments at least were.
Even after the terribly costly 8-year Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was among the top in the developing world in terms of HDI and other indicators, meaning, if you were in the developing world in 1990, it was a relatively-speaking good place to live. Obviously, it came within no comparison of developed countries, because that's just how that works.
Let's compare Iraqi leaders: > King Faisal: Pretty good at keeping Iraq united and calm, but he wasn't well-liked and was a total sellout to UK and US interests. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Abdul Kareem Qassim: Extremely popular leader. The man's been dead for 50 years but even to this day Iraqis speak well of him. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Arif&Arif bros.: Dumbass pro-Nasserists put into power by the CIA-led coup against Qassim. Sectarianism not a problem in Iraq.
> Al-Bakr: Not a terrible guy. Seriously kicked off Iraq's growth in the 70s. Reluctantly saved Hafez Assad's ass in Egypt's and Syria's last war against Israel. Sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq.
> Saddam: Fucking dumbass village idiot from near Tikrit. He was practically the top-guy in Iraqi politics long before he even officially became President. Still, he was good at keeping things cool with smart interior diplomacy with some touches of brutality. When Khomeini called on Iraqi Shia to overthrow Iraq and replace it with a jihadist Islamic theocracy like Khomeini's, they instead picked up arms and fought against Khomeini. Made many enemies, but sectarianism was not a problem in Iraq. Society was still pretty cohesive, 1/3 of marriages between Sunni and Shia, very peaceful mixed cities/neighborhoods, etc. even during the 12 year full embargo.
>Maliki: Sectarianism becomes a HUGE problem in Iraq with terribly bloody sectarian violence. Maliki stokes the flames as much as he can and refuses every single demand made by Sunni communities. How did Maliki respond? Violence and massacres.
Now here's an important contrast. When Khomeini called on Shia to overthrow Saddam, they instead served in the military against Khomeini. However, when ISIS entered Iraq, the Sunni were so oppressed and fed up with Maliki, that they didn't fight against ISIS at first.
Now you know a brief history of sectarianism in Iraq. It's actually a pretty new phenomenon.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out the obvious that Arab society is organized around patronage networks, that its inevitable that once the Shiites no longer fear being overrun by ISIS they will once again return to the old pattern of patronage and corruption and once again undermine Sunni local elites.
I think if Iraq before the US invasion and Maliki could have a peaceful society for 70 years, minus the sporadic Kurdish insurgency across the decades which is something pls no ty and myself have pointed out, the CIA-led 1963 coup, and the 1959 Mosul uprising that happened for the stupid reason that Qassim didn't want to join the United Arab Republic (ya know, the one that collapsed in no time), then I think the new regime can continue that.
The new regime is led by the most Westernized politician in the Mideast. He spent over 20 years as a proper British citizen, with a PhD in engineering. He's a technocrat, and that's honestly as good as you're going to get. Do you know what Maliki's history was? 20+ years learning how to be an Islamic fanatic in Iran and pro-Iran groups in Syria.
You're seriously underestimating how much effort Maliki went through to make Iraq by far the most sectarian it's ever been. The man practically moved mountains.
Honestly, there is ZERO comparison between Abadi and Maliki. Also don't forget, all the Baath guys he's bringing back into the military and government is a big counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shiite radicals. Even the Defense Minister Obeidi was a prominent Baath air force officer. He and Abadi have purged the military of Maliki's sectarianist stooges and patronage.
Contrary to your claim, Abadi has actually been getting rid of the patronage, the corruption, the pro-Maliki/Iran goons, and the sectarianism, even with the Iranian pressure to do the opposite. Overall, I see absolutely no basis to your hypothetical scenario.
Why should I trust you? America has a history of training armies of their dependent regimes poorly. With a small elite unit trained up to near Western level used by the locals mostly to oppress other locals while a much larger, lethargic army acts as an employment scheme and a black hole for American funds.
You're right, I only observed things and didn't get to see all the data and reports and surveys. One doesn't see the whole picture on administrative things like that unless they're a top-notch officer
However, if you're not going to trust me, then you should trust been lots of statements you can even find in the news and military press with statements from tons of generals that say the Iraqi military was an effective force in 2011, and it was. However, Maliki then purged its officers and made it terrible.
The fact you're denying that Maliki literally eviscerated the military structure is damning. To claim that the Iraqi military was in the same shape (and not significantly worse) as it was in 2011 is well.. not correct.
If ISIS attacked in 2011, they would have been destroyed the instant they tried to enter Iraq. Why? Iraq's military structure hadn't been destroyed by Maliki yet.
Moreso, the fact you're implying that this was ever a problem in the Iraqi military before Maliki is even more damning. The old Iraqi army was a highly organized and effective fighting force.
Don't blame the US military for the faults of a terrible dictator AFTER we left.
Regardless, you do have a point. The Iraqi military that the Iraqis built up themselves over the decades before 2003 was still infinitely better than the one the Americans made. It's pretty sad when you think about it.
They are spectacularly retarded. They ride around in huge, soft skin truck conveys during the day time. They take territory and put flags on top of it. They capture and then hold onto heavy equipment that they cant defend from an airborne foe. They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart. But you are right, they are the tallest midget of Sunni insurgent groups.
Not always. They're usually pretty lowkey, however, you have to go out in the open for logistical purposes, and US and Iraqi intelligence is pretty damn good, so ISIS gets caught a lot more than they'd like. ISIS fights entirely in typical insurgency style. Suicide bombings, sleeper cells, surprise attacks. They're basically Al Qaeda on massive amounts of steroids.
They genuinely bought into the idea that they are a state and are giving the American airforce the perfect target to take apart.
Yeah, and the US and Iraq can hardly get targets. Why? ISIS is actually pretty good at hiding, even with the tons of intel going on. Everyone knows that they "hold territory" in Mosul or Tikrit, but airstrikes are fairly limited and do limited damage because it's impossible to know where they are 99% of the time. They often wear civilian clothes and blend in. Most ISIS assaults are supplemented by "sleeper cells" in the attacked district who just come out of nowhere and join the fight, taking everyone by surprise.
But yeah, ISIS is a lot more powerful and good at what they do compared to past insurgencies during the Iraq War or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Hamas or the Sinai terrorists and all the others. Those guys lacked the effectiveness, tactics, and strength ISIS has by a huge margin. They're by far the strongest Islamic radical group we've seen to date. I wouldn't call them "midget militant groups" either. They sure as hell gave us a lot of headache.
Yo what's your affiliation with the region? You seem very impassioned for someone somewhat mislead and misinformed. I'd like to respond but I'd like to know first.
In accordance with government's plan of creating a national guard or maybe some other scheme, looks like they are going to arm us Assyrians and other minorities as well
I am? I lived like 25 miles away from a huge Chaldean community I was quite familiar with, but that was that.
I've been following the news regarding the Christians and even about some local militias, but fortunately the Iraqi military got its shit together in August/September, and is getting it back together more-and-more. Diyala and Babil are pretty much ISIS-free at this point. In Saladin, Baiji was of course liberated along with the Hamrin mountains, and pushes into Tikrit. The military is also pushing on Hit in Anbar, and is fighting on fronts in the Kirkuk and Nineveh provinces, along with the Kurdish (peshmerga) and Arab (various groups and tribes) militia fighters. So, I am happy.
I've been pretty much dead from TL for like 3-5 weeks, but I've been following the conflicts in Iraq and Syria closely.
I c. I've never posted on the TL forums before so i'm just quoting in the hopes of maybe you'll get a message notifying you that I replied. I don't know how the notification system works or how to organize quotes, so sorry if my formatting will be shit. I didn't reply to anything, so whoever bolded the comments and so on wasn't me. I think i might've just quoted someone that did reply to you.
I find it interesting that you're not related to the region yet are very impassioned which i guess is very very good!
As far as my affiliation. I'm an Iraqi Muslim born in America. My parents (and my absolutely hugeeeeee extended family) grew up in Iraq, and during the first gulf war were able to immigrate to America after spending two years living in a refugee camp in Rafha, Saudi Arabia. Currently me and my family work as a half way home for coming immigrants from Iraq and the Syrian Civil War. I've visited the middle east multiple times, I've lived in Iraq for a short period of time (I plan on spending maybe a year after graduation) and i have family members that work in politics there both for the Iraqi government and the State Department (i'll cite them later in my reply). I'm also a IR and Poli Sci double major and i've always kept up on politics to an obsessive level. You seem relatively well researched but a lot of your information is rooted in missunderstading in the history of the region (especially the cause of sectarianism in Iraq & the Middle East).
I'll try and reply after finals later this week. I'm not sure if you'll read this and my follow up, but i hope you will!
I sent you a PM.
PS: StealthBlue, thanks for updating this thread consistently. It's great!
Before reading my post i'd recommend listening to this really old 5 part podcast by NPR. They explain some of the reasons for sectarian fighting in Iraq. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7309835 (The five parts are small audio podcasts in the article.) Although they do leave a lot of stuff out it's a good starting point.
My family is from everywhere, under Saddam and during the Iraq/Iran War they were forced to move around a lot. They were origingally from fao, then later moved to basra, and again to hilla, afterwards some settled in Najaf (my moms side mainly) some returned to fao (my moms side) and my fathers side mainly moved to hilla, I have some family still in basra on my fathers side and a few more family members on my mothers side in Fao (it's on the Iran Iraq border). I mainly stayed in hilla, and Najaf. Although i did travel to Karbala and Kufa. And i was in Basra around the time Muqtada and Maliki butted heads and the city was taken over by the Mahdi Army. (Similar to the same situation with ISIS nowadays). I mean that loosely as the Mahdi/maliki dispute was largely political and they largely left the population alone.
The main issue and huge hole in your perception of Iraq is rooted under how the baath party and Saddam treated their minorities. The cause of nearly all sectarian grief is rooted under that banner. It has little to do with Uncle Sam and the Embargoes (which were stupid and ineffective) but it had to do with the complete annihilation of all human rights for shia and kurds under Saddam's rule. And i mean that literally.
Sure there were plenty of shia in the government and military. But it didn't mean anything. Almost all were either in compromised positions and were in no way able to effect any policy.
I'm sure you've heard of the death squads run by Daash where they herd people like cattle and summarily execute them on the basis if they're shia or whatever. Those were the exact same things done under Saddam. My fathers entire male side of the family was drafted into the military and reluctantly served in the Iraq/Iran war. And even after the Iran/Iraq wars, people expected to gain some form vindication but random kidnappings and killings continued. Every single male on my fathers side with the exception of my father and one uncle were kidnapped and tortured as part of random terrorism by the state.
One of my uncles on my mothers side was kidnapped by secret police when he was 17/18 (there was a practice where shia would lie on birth certificates to delay drafts until the military, so nobody knows their exact age)and he was thrown into abu ghraib for 10 years because he voiced his dissent. In fact one of the leading political causes they he fought for after 2003, was for compensation for what is called the "sujanet" which is exactly what i explained, the mass jailing, torture, and murder of shia by the state. I think it's currently 800 dollars a month for victims and there's at least 500 thousand receiving benefits.
Another story would be in the late 80's, where one of my uncles neighbors was a woman who was part of the secret police. She was a Sunni and he was shia. She had him murdered for his property. Now mind you he lived right near my grandparents and the rest of my family. Yet they could do nothing even though they knew she was the one that had him killed, she fucking took his property. Imagine the mindfuck that would be to know your brothers killer and not have any power? If you want look up Chemical Ali. A senior Baath party member who was executed in 2010 for the gassing of Kurds and Shia. Don't you remember the trials in front of the congress in the 90's where Saddam ordered his troops to kill Kuwaiti babies? Are you really that ignorant to think that Al-Maliki was the cause of sectarianism? Even though Sectarian conflict broke out a year before he was elected let alone in 2012 after the Americans left. My family has recently helped two twin boys and their mother who fled Baghdad and lived in a refugee camp in Jordan. I talked with the two brothers and they described life in Iraq as the Sunni being killers and the Shia being thieves. Even a poll in 2010 by pew found that 1/10 Sunni think Shia are not Muslims. Yet only 1% of Shia think that Sunni aren't Muslims.
Before the Cu de ta in Iraq, education for college students was entirely free. There was no Tuition, you received a small salary every month, compensation for your books, and free room and board. Yet during the 1980's wars with Iran all education funding was cut. My parents were told to purposely fail classes to not attract too much attention to themselves in the fear they'd be harassed or killed.
It was decades of this oppression and subsequent terrorist attacks by Sunni extremists that forced this sectarian tension and fighting. Are the Shia blameless? No. A large Shia Cleric by Muqtada Al-Sadr was one of the first to begin attacking Sunni civilians and he only exacerbated the problem and killed a lot of innocent people along the way. He's just a leech that pulls off his father and older brothers' names for legitimacy. But as far as the Sunni clerics at least in terms of numbers when it comes to extremism there are way more of them. How else do you think ISIS was able to prance in? Why else do you think Al-qaeda was able to be harbored in Iraq for so long? It was because of those Sunni clerics. The grand Mufti of Iraq even saw ISIS entering Iraq as a "positive development". The Governor of Mosul's election was funded almost entirely out of Saudi Arabia and was openly an extremist Sunni and was still voted governor. Yet when the Iraqi army crumbled and the clergy stepped in to save the government on none of the Shia clerics declared Jihad.
The whole sectarian grief goes purely back to Saddam and the Baath Party. Their policies and their brutal dictatorship did this to Iraq not an ineffective PM that barely could get re-elected and abused the power he had. Anyways that's only the first lair. The second layer of the sectarianism, is religious extremism. I'd just recommend watching this vid as a laymans explanation on the religious side of the conflict,
Anyways i don't know where i'm going with this anymore. Sorry for the rant but i'm too lazy to organize it and read it before I post it. Sorry if it makes little sense. I'm going to go back to studying for finals again.
EPT
