Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[Michael]

I'll try to break this down in simple terms.

US, Saudi and Israel are in a struggle to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Saudi hates Assad in Syria, and the US sees him as the problem, so they both support the 'good' Muslim rebels against Assad.

Israel thinks IS is a minor nuisance, but Iran is a major threat.

Saudi (Sunni) is in a religious and regional struggle for supremacy with Iran (Shiite).

Iran sees IS as a serious threat, because IS is Sunni and hates all Shiites, and because IS is one of the major aggressors against Assad in Syria (whom Iran supports and who is a Shiite sect).

All Sunni capitals see IS as a threat because they seek to topple these old regimes and set up a broad caliphate in the Middle East.

Turkey has always been afraid of the Kurds. The Kurds are under attack from IS in Iraq (where they are better equipped to defend themselves) and in Syria (where they are at present being destroyed). Turkey has just closed its Syrian boarder to stop Turkish Kurds from crossing over to fight against IS there.

The US sees assistance from Iran as critical to defeating IS. Iran has told them to get stuffed. Iran wants the US to get the same approval from Assad in Syria as they are obtaining from Baghdad - to legitimise their friend Assad. The US won't do that, but also is worried about getting involved in Syria at all.

Saudi and Israel are very worried the US will go easy, and compromise with its long-standing pressure, on Iran.

Saudi is concerned destroying IS will help Assad in Syria.

Some experts think IS is the greatest threat to world peace since the dark ages. Others think it is a passing issue.

IS has just released a command for all Muslims to kill the Unbelievers, soldiers or civilians, in the UK, US, France, Canada and Australia. Not to ask for advice from local leaders, but just do it.

France has sent in fighter jets and bombed IS in Iraq. Australia has sent Special Forces and logistic support to Iraq, and to the Kurds.

Some Saudis want the US to leave IS alone in the hope they will topple Assad, then deal with them (I think that one is fantasy).

The US wants to act, and is likely to, despite truculence from Iran, and pressure from Saudi and Israel.

[Michael]

Close to 400 destroyed tanks and armoured vehicles.
Some 4,000 killed Ukrainian and Russian soldiers.
Several hundred thousand refugees.
Ceasefire that is violated very single day.

What do you make of the anti-conflict demonstration in Moscow Juhani?

[erik]

What do you make of the anti-conflict demonstration in Moscow Juhani?

It was an example of "managed democracy" Putin's way. It was allowed to happen as it presented no challenge for the regime. Moreover, it was useful for the regime to show that it is not a complete basket case - it created an illusion that Putin might come to his senses and reign in his ultrantionalist cohorts. In combination with a wavering ceasefire in Ukraine the demonstration makes a case for lifting sanctions against Russia.

[Michael]

So the battle has begun against IS. What will be the consequence this time?

At least the Obama administration is moving with more caution than George Bush and Co. They have enlisted the Sunni capitals in the deployment. But who is going to provide ground troops, aside from Iraq and the Kurds? Why do I get the picture of Pandora's Box?

[erik]

So the battle has begun against IS. What will be the consequence this time?

At least the Obama administration is moving with more caution than George Bush and Co. They have enlisted the Sunni capitals in the deployment. But who is going to provide ground troops, aside from Iraq and the Kurds? Why do I get the picture of Pandora's Box?

Well, the first thought that came to my mind was about yet another of the most sincere wishes of al-Qaeda/IS coming true. Now jihadis can challenge what they call 'rotten monarchies of the Middle East' directly on the battlefield and work their way into Saudi Arabia and other states to launch insurgencies.

I'd say these Sunni states of the region are quite brittle and if I were IS I would challenge them from inside. Now they've given all the excuses jihadis could dream about.

[Michael]

I'd say these Sunni states of the region are quite brittle and if I were IS I would challenge them from inside. Now they've given all the excuses jihadis could dream about.

Yes, but something about this is curious. I understand these states wanting the US and other Western countries to do the fighting and bombing, because there will be an inevitable backlash against anyone challenging IS. IS is establishing itself as the Islamic legitimacy. If USA fights them instead of local Sunni states (including Turkey), then those states are able to deflect any backlash to the West, thereby minimising internal upheavals.

By joining in, as many have done, they are identified as the enemy of 'real' Islam and the real caliphate. This is actually too close to the truth for comfort for them. I can only assume they realise the gloves are off now, and they are fighting for their own survival in a serious way.

BTW, Kurds also, in that area, are Sunni.

I think the US and these states are blowing away all the worried concerns, and choosing to believe they can isolate and destroy IS, without destabilising all those background patterns of power. We will see.

[erik]

I think the US and these states are blowing away all the worried concerns, and choosing to believe they can isolate and destroy IS, without destabilising all those background patterns of power. We will see.

Attack from the air...?

It is utterly frightening how Obama does and says mostly right and sensible things, but gets the timing unbelievably wrong. The outcome is a disaster beyond belief. Reactive strategy in the hope that world can be thoroughly rationalised is a folly.

* Obama's refusal to take a proactive stance with regard to Syrian upheaval in 2011-2012-2013 led to a collapse of the secular Free Syrian Army and dominance of Islamist forces in the rebel camp. Who exactly is the US going to train and arm now - in 2014???
* US departure from Iraq ASAP in 2011 allowed Iran to set up al-Maliki's utterly authoritarian Shia regime brought about the unholy union of former Saddam top military, ISIS and Sunni tribes. The outcome is IS.
* Yet another air campaign against Islamists who will use civilians as a shield and resort to all the tricks they've learned in Afghanistan and Iraq is a highly questionable proposition that has considerbale potential to play into the hands of jihadis.

IS is nothing but the most sincere dream of bin Laden come true. IS top dog, Caliph Ibrahim, also known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has never sworn allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, but only to bin Laden who tasked al-Baghdadi to set up the core of Caliphate in Levant (Syria-Iraq).

In essence, IS is now taking over from al-Qaeda. Their pitch is as follows: al-Qaeda (that means a "base" or "foundation") was a first step towards a Caliphate. It was Caliphate's foundation. IS is the Caliphate materialised. It is difficult to imagine the outburst of joy and celebration on jihadi forums in the Internet that followed the establishment of Caliphate.

Moreover, al-Qaeda has been changing its strategy over 2013 as well. Al-Zawahiri issued a guidance that the international jihadi movement was to embark on the path of insurgency and to start building a Caliphate. The idea was that they could gradually take over one Muslim state after another and link them up into a massive state stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan. Hence, even the old al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda central) has been turning away from its tefforist practices and focusing on deposing governments.

Last November I met with some former al-Qaeda guys, former European and Asian jihadis. What they saw then, was staggering. al-Qaeda ideology is spreading in the Middle East and Africa like a bush fire. New movements - although physically disconnected from al-Qaeda central - are popping up like mushrooms. Jihadism is more and more popular. IS is serving as a massive catalyst for that movement and ideology, and many jihadis from Africa and elsewhere are already moving to Caliphate and bringing over their families.

Now, what could all-so-familiar-recipe-of-air-campaign accomplish in such an environment?

As you see, I am not overly optimistic regarding  yet another belated step of Obama.

[Michael]

New movements - although physically disconnected from al-Qaeda central - are popping up like mushrooms. Jihadism is more and more popular. IS is serving as a massive catalyst for that movement and ideology, and many jihadis from Africa and elsewhere are already moving to Caliphate and bringing over their families.

Now, what could all-so-familiar-recipe-of-air-campaign accomplish in such an environment?

As you see, I am not overly optimistic regarding  yet another belated step of Obama.

That is my understanding also, that Jihadism has diversified right down to individuals who take their own action. We just had one here in Australia, where a jihadi-inspired young man walked into a police station and knifed some officers before he was shot dead. He was acting alone.

But I also understand Obama. He is not a military dictator - he is constrained by his nation's popular mood. Americans had had enough of wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. He was not in favour of the Iraq war to begin with, and had struggled to get the US out of there. He is a recipient of the stupidity of his predecessor. Unfortunately, this approach was not a good military strategy.

But there remains a question of what direct impact the US would suffer from doing nothing. Of course there will be plenty of indirect impacts, but that will affect the whole world, including Russia and China.

[erik]

But there remains a question of what direct impact the US would suffer from doing nothing. Of course there will be plenty of indirect impacts, but that will affect the whole world, including Russia and China.

Indeed, it is the Mother of All Questions. A couple of years ago there was a real opportunity to deal with al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq through concerted action of US (and other Western), Israeli, Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intel services. It was a real possibility and it was missed because US/Obama refused to take the lead.

I would guess that the air campaign is going to push IS back a little bit, but in the long run it might make the Caliphate even stronger through mobilisation of Muslims into jihadi camp. Hence, you're damned if you don't do and you could  be even more damned if you do.

Given how stuffed the current Sunni regimes are, it might have been more useful to let the Caliphate be and let the Persian Gulf states fight it out by themselves.

[Michael]

I can't help being fascinated by the convolutions of this new field in the Middle East. Here are a few more.

You would think Iran is concerned about Islamic State. Well, yes, in a small way, but actually Iran has been fostering the rise of IS. For a long time, IS didn't attack Shias or Dr Assad, or anyone else that is a big power. They fought other tefforist groups, in order to grow within the Sunni rebel world. Then it attacked Shia Muslims. The reason Iran looked favourably upon IS, is that it caused a rising fear in Shia communities, and to whom will they turn for protection? Iran. It was powerfully focusing Shias within the Middle East on the importance of Iran, and thus increased the influence of Iran.

But also it helped Iran's friend, Assad, as he was able to tell the West, "look who is fighting against me: pan-Islamic tefforists. if you don't support me, look who will be on Israel's doorstep." Again setting up Iran as the beneficiary power in the region.

Meanwhile, Sunni governments are more vulnerable than for a very long time - they are concerned about public opinion in a way they have not experienced before. The public in these countries feel highly cynical about the motives of the US in attacking IS. Why didn't they form a coalition against Iraq recently when it was killing Sunnis? Why didn't they form a coalition against Assad when he was killing Sunnis? Why didn't they object when Israel was attacking Gaza? Why are they bothered now about IS? If the Sunni powers align with the US, they are in danger of being lumped in with the popular antagonism against the US - they are not sure that is a wise move for their survival.

[Michael]

But what game is Turkey playing? the Kurds believe Turkey is actually arming IS in Syria, as well as stopping Turkish Kurds from crossing into Syria to help fight IS. Turkey maintains it isn't arming IS, but why is it closing the boarder? The Kurds say it is because Turkey would like to see IS wipe out the Kurds in 'Kurdistan' in Syria. Thus they are happy to see IS advance up to the Turkish boarder. Sounds like a dangerous game if true.

[Michael]

Kobane looks like a test case for the effectiveness of Western aerial bombing. If they succeed in stopping the fall of Kobane, then there may be more positive outcomes from this approach than many have thought. Unfortunately, I would be surprised if they do succeed, without in some way bolstering the Kurdish forces. There appears to be a massacre pending in that city.

[erik]

I can't help being fascinated by the convolutions of this new field in the Middle East. Here are a few more.

You would think Iran is concerned about Islamic State. Well, yes, in a small way, but actually Iran has been fostering the rise of IS. For a long time, IS didn't attack Shias or Dr Assad, or anyone else that is a big power. They fought other tefforist groups, in order to grow within the Sunni rebel world. Then it attacked Shia Muslims. The reason Iran looked favourably upon IS, is that it caused a rising fear in Shia communities, and to whom will they turn for protection? Iran. It was powerfully focusing Shias within the Middle East on the importance of Iran, and thus increased the influence of Iran.

But also it helped Iran's friend, Assad, as he was able to tell the West, "look who is fighting against me: pan-Islamic tefforists. if you don't support me, look who will be on Israel's doorstep." Again setting up Iran as the beneficiary power in the region.

Meanwhile, Sunni governments are more vulnerable than for a very long time - they are concerned about public opinion in a way they have not experienced before. The public in these countries feel highly cynical about the motives of the US in attacking IS. Why didn't they form a coalition against Iraq recently when it was killing Sunnis? Why didn't they form a coalition against Assad when he was killing Sunnis? Why didn't they object when Israel was attacking Gaza? Why are they bothered now about IS? If the Sunni powers align with the US, they are in danger of being lumped in with the popular antagonism against the US - they are not sure that is a wise move for their survival.

I would agree with every statement except that ISIS aka IS aka (initially) Jabhat al Nusra (JaN) did not attack Shias or al-Assad. ISIS created Jabhat al-Nusra in at the end of 2011-beginning 2012 and from day one JaN has been fighting fiercely against al-Assad forces and done some ugly stuff to Shias. JaN is more like old al-Qaeda grown smart - they try not to go to extremes in killing civilians. ISIS on the other hand has been chopping limbs and cutting throats all the time.

ISIS tried to merge with JaN in April 2013 to create the core of Caliphate, but JaN refused and was supported by the old al-Qaeda. Both ISIS and JaN continued to fight in Syria against al-Assad and Shias. Mind you that ISIS aka IS does not even consider Shias to be Muslims. They are heretics to be fought with and to be wiped out. JaN has somewhat milder attitude and does not consider Shias to be heretics.

In December 2013, a full war broke out between ISIS, other rebels and Kurds in Syria when ISIS decided to create the Caliphate on its own.

I would guess that Iran underestimated the strength and ability of IS to adapt and fight and overesitmated Iraq's (Nouri al-Maliki's) ability to fight back. Iraq under the authoritarian regime of Shia PM Nouri al-Maliki was as brittle as some Sunni states.

Regarding Iran, I would guess that its main objective was to show that it is almost the only civilised regime in the Middle East willing and capable to fight against Sunni lunactis/IS. Hence, there would be an opportunity to lift sanctions, agree on nuclear programme and get some semblance of acceptance for al-Assad.

[erik]

Kobane looks like a test case for the effectiveness of Western aerial bombing. If they succeed in stopping the fall of Kobane, then there may be more positive outcomes from this approach than many have thought. Unfortunately, I would be surprised if they do succeed, without in some way bolstering the Kurdish forces. There appears to be a massacre pending in that city.

I am also quite sceptical about the US ability to hit moving forces with sufficient lethality. For that, they would need spotters and target designators in the ranks of Kurdish front line. Moreover, IS anticipated the US attack and they have adopted measures that have clearly reduced casualties and disruption. USAF is good at hitting buildings and big identfiable columns on the ground. Now many buildings seem empty and IS has dispersed its forces. The rumour is that IS is assissted by highly qualified Iraqi Sunni officers.

[Michael]

I would agree with every statement except that ISIS aka IS aka (initially) Jabhat al Nusra (JaN) did not attack Shias or al-Assad.

Yes, from what I can gather the Nusra Front took up a different approach to AQI, and certainly gained a lot of respect for their Syrian dedication to defeating Assad. But meanwhile, back in Iraq, aside from the occasional high profile attacks on Iraqi government personnel and Shias, there was considerable infighting between the various Sunni extremist groups (and tribal leaders), who seem to sprout factions all over the place like virus mutations. Whoever was on whatever side in all this, it appears IS achieved domination finally, just before the attack on Mosul.

I can only assume this fragmentation in Iraq was the reason they were not taken that seriously for some time after the US degraded them. Some analysts appeared to believe they were not a threat worth bothering with. Israel still thinks they are not worth bothering with.

Syria is definitely a different matter. I can't get my head around all the players in that war. Why Turkey thinks it can sit on it's hands is beyond me, when IS has such a strong support within the Turkish population already - I'd be scared shitless if I were them.