Trouble in Mosul

[Centurion40]

The best option may be to let them split-up into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states.  However, the Turks would never allow a Kurdish state.  The Iranians would probably gobble-up a Shia state, and a Sunni state would probably become fundamentalist in short order.  Lovely.  Makes me pine for the days of the Ottomans, when all of this shit was their problem.  Even makes Saddam seem a bit less odious.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I still like the wall them off idea. Out of sight out of mind.

[eyebiter]

.

[Centurion40]

Wonder how many Iranian special forces are fighting  as 'Iraqi insurgents' this time?

I can't imagine there would be that many.  Lots are tied-up in Syria, and the ISIS folks are Sunni; radical Sunni.  They'd be hatin' the Shia Iranians.  If there are Iranians, they'd be in the south-east, with the Shias- waiting for ISIS to come their way.

[skeptical.platypus]

This may not be popular to say, but we could only fail at nation-building in this situation.

Had we actually been what people accused us of, colonial imperialists, but colonials dedicated to making actual states of the union out of our territories (where large and populated enough to apply), we might have succeeded, because we would have been seriously invested in making the region safe and workable in the long run.

But that would have transgressed against the United Nations commitment to national sovereignty at any cost. I understand that commitment, and I even understand the 'at any cost' part because if exceptions are allowed then how should the UN determine grounds to approve the exceptions? The UN was barely okay with neutralizing Saddam's military (and that only after he violated national sovereignty); they were never okay with removing Saddam and creating a new government there.

Still, trying to respect national sovereignty insofar as possible (if not quite at all costs) is a big reason why we left. Which makes our talk about acting to foster and preserve human rights in the area sound like rubbish: we must have gone in and then left again for our own expediency, right? We've only proven (on this calculus) that we weren't seriously committed to helping the Iraqi people as people.

I agree, with the exception of pretending that we've been wronged by inaccurate accusations of our intent. Pretending that is like giving credence to 911 False Flag theorists.

A bigger problem than the above is unquestionably of commitment. One of the problems is that "we" -- as a nation -- were never seriously committed to helping the iraqi people. We were ostensibly seriously committed to protecting ourselves from WMDs. When that manufactured consent fell apart, "help the iraqi people by getting rid of a tyrant!" became the new manufactured consent. An important one -- a volunteer army needs to believe and see they are actually helping (which they did). But a conceit nonetheless.

To make atters worse, the "commitment" of the american people was the commitment of a people who, at the personal/individual level, many many many have reduced their belief in the responsibility of democracy and citizenship to only that which benefits them individually. Finally, we do not currently have a political structure that rewards or incentivizes long term planning or commitment, especially if that means short term pain. That's no way to build our own nation, let alone militarily force nation building on another.

There is no way we could have ever succeeded in Iraq. And we should have known that the closest thing to success for us in Iraq was GWI. 

It was a failed attempt even before we complicated it with aspirations of maintaining national sovereignty. Of course, it might have been a wildly different story if our first act post invasion wasn't to ensure that the best armed and possibly most qualified iraqis to establish national sovereignty were outlawed from participation.

[skeptical.platypus]

NM.

[Centurion40]

So which existing nation will be the first to recognize the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?  China?  Pakistan?  North Korea?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[skeptical.platypus]

So which existing nation will be the first to recognize the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?  China?  Pakistan?  North Korea?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

oooooo, good question! I gotta go with NK, but that's mostly on the assumption the Kims have little to live for but hating America. Although ex girlfriend pop star assassination does appear to be trending up. How is that we managed to send the worm but not the belieber over there, again?

[mirth]

ISIS - all I can think of is Archer.

[skeptical.platypus]

If anyone questions the ruthlessness of ISIS, just read the article Centurion posted. Those bastards called al-Maliki a underwear salesman!

[JasonPratt]

Still, trying to respect national sovereignty insofar as possible (if not quite at all costs) is a big reason why we left. Which makes our talk about acting to foster and preserve human rights in the area sound like rubbish: we must have gone in and then left again for our own expediency, right? We've only proven (on this calculus) that we weren't seriously committed to helping the Iraqi people as people.

I agree, with the exception of pretending that we've been wronged by inaccurate accusations of our intent. Pretending that is like giving credence to 911 False Flag theorists.

I only meant that whatever questions might be about our intentions, what we finally did can only lend weight to the answer(s) that our motives had nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

Naturally had we stayed, there would still be challenges about our intentions -- there always would be given the area and the situation -- but at least we could point to a ongoing track record of dedication in trying to do something to improve their lives. Even if someone said we only did it for their oil or to line the pockets of industrialists back home, we could answer yes but they're a state of our nation with all the rights (and responsibilities) of being a state, representation in our Congress, etc. Texans might think the rest of the US (or a cabal of particular states) is only exploiting Texas for oil and resources, but that former republic has long had opportunities to contribute to and benefit from a fraternal cooperation.

It was a failed attempt even before we complicated it with aspirations of maintaining national sovereignty. Of course, it might have been a wildly different story if our first act post invasion wasn't to ensure that the best armed and possibly most qualified iraqis to establish national sovereignty were outlawed from participation.

Generally agreed with the rest, but I can see why this also happened from a perspective of setting up a puppet state. Those people weren't going to be our puppet, and under our overall post-war strategic plan they would have had no incentive to cooperate with us in ways any different than Saddam had 'cooperated' with us.

Assuming 'puppet' was the (or a major) goal, that choice makes sense. But then the problem was "'puppet' being the (or a major) goal".

[JasonPratt]

So which existing nation will be the first to recognize the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?  China?  Pakistan?  North Korea?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I vote China. Wait, how in bed are they with Iran? Maybe I vote Pakistan.

[Centurion40]

So which existing nation will be the first to recognize the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?  China?  Pakistan?  North Korea?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I vote China. Wait, how in bed are they with Iran? Maybe I vote Pakistan.

I left Iran off of the list, as I can see no upside to them recognizing ISIS.  I guess that we could put Somalia, Aden, Sudan, or Libya (or any north African country for that matter) on the list.

[JasonPratt]

Actually I meant I can't see China doing it (despite their very interesting stealth-colonialism policies lately) depending on how invested they are politically with Iran right now. But I honestly can't remember how much that is.

[Gusington]

CNN reporting that three Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are now fighting in Iraq.

My bet is on Burkina Faso recognizing ISIS first.