Wednesday, June 18, 2014
ISIS is a sectarian Sunni militia — that’s all. A big one, as militias go, with something like 10,000 fighters. Most of them are Iraqi, a few are Syrian, and a few hundred are those famous “European jihadis” who draw press attention out of all relation to their negligible combat value. The real strength of ISIS comes from its Chechen fighters, up to a thousand of them. A thousand Chechens is a serious force, and a terrifying one if they’re bearing down on your neighborhood. Chechens are the scariest fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.Yes, it makes sense, though this is not a part of the world that I can easily understand. I keep remembering Robert X. Cringley's description of his experience in Teheran in 1986 when he saw just one horrific battle in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War. He wrote this in 2004, just after Bush was reelected:
But we’re still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That’s a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala. It won’t be able to dent the Kurds’ territory to the north, either. All it can do—all it has been doing, by moving into Sunni cities like Mosul and Tikrit—is to complete the partition of Iraq begun by our dear ex-president Bush in 2003.
I...decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.So Tony Blair and Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol are again trying to tell everybody how America should pacify Iraq? Ain't gonna happen.
It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.
Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind.
Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers | 3 comments
Peter Galbraith, former US Senate Foreign Relations staffer and son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, outlined the dissolution of Iraq in his 2006 book, "The End of Iraq, How American Incompetence Created a War Without End."
During the post-Desert Storm years, while Saddam's forces were kept out of the Kurdish north by US air cover, Galbraith was sent to the Kurds to help them draft a Kurdish constitution, in effect a declaration of independence.
After Saddam was toppled, the Kurds defied Washington and held out until their 'constitution' was incorporated into the Iraqi constitution - a 'poison pill' if there ever was one.
The Kurds, with Galbraith's help, foresaw that the Shiites and Sunnis would eventually settle each other's hash at which point the Kurds would gather up everything from Kirkuk north and prepare to defend their new national border. After that the bad boys of the south would split and forge their own states allied to compatible, sectarian neighbours.
al Maliki is driving the final nail in the coffin with his rejection of federalism and his refusal to accommodate the Sunni faction. Brecher's analysis is right - Iraq will fracture more or less into its natural constituencies. There seems to be growing acceptance, even support, for the idea building in Washington.
Thanks for this information -- that's basically the way the War Nerd sees it as well.
A complicating factor may be the neighbours -- Syria, Turkey, Iran -- and how Iraq events destabilize these countries.
Back in the early 1900s, the west, i.e Britain and the oil companies wanted countries in the middle east. They divided the area up, in a manner which benefited the west and its oil companies. Fast Forward a 100 yrs and Houston, we have a problem.
When the West decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they made a big mistake. He was a tyrant and a mean one at that, but that is usually what it takes to keep a country together, that doesn't want to be kept together. The West sat on their hands while Saddam Hussien gassed the Kurds. To this day I remember the picture on the cover of National Geographics, of the father, dead, on the ground with his young son. The suddenly some years later the West decides Sadam Hussain has to go. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction. There might have been when the Kurds were being gassed to death, but not when Bush decided to invade. There must have been something they and their corporate friends wanted. A lot of young people died and now the west will never have control in the area again.
Perhaps it is best Iraq divides into 3 countries. Who knows there might be peace at some future date. We in the west need to learn to mind our own business. We created the problems to begin with because western corporations wanted to make a lot of money. What happened is those corporations made a lot of money and then there were a lot of corpses of young men.
By 12:02 a.m., at