The Fall Of Fallujah And Civil War

[Ranger2]

2014 has not been looking good for Iraq. Hardly two years after the United States and United Kingdom withdrew their last troops, the less-than-stable country has endured continued insurgency by Al-Qaeda and its allies.

About one week ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the city of Fallujah and declared it and most of Anbar province independent from Iraq. Anbar province has been a hotbed of extremism, partially since many Sunnis living there do not trust Maliki's government, which they claim has marginalized them.

So I wonder, what does this mean for Iraq's role in the Middle East and abroad? Both the United States and Iran have offered help in terms of weapons and advice, but both US Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Commander of Iran's military both promised that they would not send troops. Besides money, weapons, and words, it seems that this fight is Iraq's alone.

Or is it Iraq's alone? It seems that part of the fighting is spillover from the raging Syrian Civil War. Iraq and Syria's hardly enforced broad border is in the middle of the desert. Much like the US/Mexico border, it exists mostly on paper and is difficult to control. Syria's war is increasingly becoming Iraq's war.

The United States finds itself in a strange situation. Public opinion is mostly anti-Assad and sympathetic to the rebels, although the United States has not taken much action to help the rebels besides small amounts of aid. However, the US is also aiding the Iraqi government in attempts to stop in some ways the same rebels they are aiding in Syria. I know that's a huge overgeneralization, as the US is trying to make sure the rebels it aids are not radical Islamists. But still, in an area as chaotic as Syria, any aid to rebels will sometimes fall into the wrong hands.

This is painfully reminiscent of the Fall of Saigon. Except, more complicated.

[Camarohusky]

I think it's about time The Arab League put their money where their mouth is and deal with it themselves.

I'm tired of being blamed for everyone else's problems. (Though I can definitely see how we would be, partly, for this mess)

[lapis]

ISIS is taking a beating at the moment at the hands of a range of opposing rebel groups, of which the Saudi-backed Islamic Front is probably the most prominent. I think it will be hard for them to consolidate their position in Anbar when they're losing so much ground in Syria.

At 1/11/14 01:17 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The United States finds itself in a strange situation. Public opinion is mostly anti-Assad and sympathetic to the rebels,

Funny; is that really true? In Europe I have the impression that, even though there's little love for Assad, people are highly sceptical of the rebels. Even in the comment sections of websites like theguardian.com you get more likes for a comment praising Assad than for one praising the rebels and the Arab Spring (example). You'd think that, due to 9/11, people in the US would be even more negative about a rebel movement that has not one but two powerful al-Qaeda factions within its ranks (al-Nusra seems to be waiting patiently while the other rebels are cracking down on ISIS). Then again, there are probably a lot of more European than American Muslims fighting with the jihadists, so there may be a bigger risk of a spill-over effect in Europe.

[orangebomb]

At 1/11/14 01:17 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The United States finds itself in a strange situation. Public opinion is mostly anti-Assad and sympathetic to the rebels, although the United States has not taken much action to help the rebels besides small amounts of aid.

The only reason why that the rebels are sympathetic in America is because we were quick to demonize Al-Assad, which is pretty much justified considering that he has used chemical weapons against his own people, and before then was a staunch supporter of Iran and despised Israel. That said, however there is also a huge amount of trepidation on all our parts due to the fact the rebels aren't really that much better, and the presence of militant terrorists like Al-Qaeda reported with the rebel army would make anyone leery to give them anything more than guns and bandages.

However, the US is also aiding the Iraqi government in attempts to stop in some ways the same rebels they are aiding in Syria. I know that's a huge overgeneralization, as the US is trying to make sure the rebels it aids are not radical Islamists. But still, in an area as chaotic as Syria, any aid to rebels will sometimes fall into the wrong hands.

Well, it is the Middle East, loyalties can change at the drop of a hat, and almost always violently. You would think that the Arab League would pull their weight around and do something about this, instead of relying on us to play babysitter to a bunch of perpetual children with a violent temper. Iraq may have been our problem, but we can't be taking the blame for this conflict, especially since that no one wants to step up to the plate and do something about it.

This is painfully reminiscent of the Fall of Saigon. Except, more complicated.

Compared to Vietnam, where South Vietnam simply folded like a cheap tent and screwed us over, there are a lot of moving parts within the Middle East that are either directly responsible for the conflict (Al-Assad, Al-Qaeda) or they simply sit on their asses and do nothing about it, despite the fact that it's their problem too. (Arab League) One would make that kind of comparison, and at least on the surface, draw some sort of parallels between The Vietnam conflict and the Middle East.

[Ranger2]

At 1/11/14 03:10 PM, orangebomb wrote: The only reason why that the rebels are sympathetic in America is because we were quick to demonize Al-Assad, which is pretty much justified considering...

True, and I think another reason why we tend to see the rebels in a more positive light is because our country was founded by revolution. That doesn't naturally make us all revolutionaries but the word "revolution" has a more positive connotation in the US than probably in other countries. We see revolutionaries in the world and even if they are not, we tend to think "Oh, a revolutionary, like Washington!"

But also there is the dominant belief in the world (not just the US, but Europe and by many in the Arab World) that in order to have a stable, fair and prosperous country you need democracy and free elections. I could go on and on about how wrong that idea is, but my point is that the rebels are all fighting against authoritarian states, and that as long as they shout "we want democracy, we want equality!" (even if they really don't) people will tend to view them in a better light than the authoritarian they are opposing.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/11/14 05:03 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

"we want democracy, we want equality!" (even if they really don't) people will tend to view them in a better light than the authoritarian they are opposing.

Democracy LOL that's propaganda shit talk if you thin America is a Democracy LOL. America is an authoritarian dictatorship ultimately run by the Banks. It's no accident that the political party with the most monetary backing always get's into power.

[Ranger2]

At 1/11/14 05:13 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Democracy LOL that's propaganda shit talk if you thin America is a Democracy LOL. America is an authoritarian dictatorship ultimately run by the Banks. It's no accident that the political party with the most monetary backing always get's into power.

I would love to see where you get these ideas. How about some actual research from a credible source? Be careful, though - reality is not on your side.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/11/14 08:42 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 1/11/14 05:13 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Democracy LOL that's propaganda shit talk if you thin America is a Democracy LOL. America is an authoritarian dictatorship ultimately run by the Banks. It's no accident that the political party with the most monetary backing always get's into power.

I would love to see where you get these ideas. How about some actual research from a credible source? Be careful, though - reality is not on your side.

Ok so you haven't heard of Lobbing in Politics. Perhaps it is you that need some education LOL.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

[orangebomb]

At 1/11/14 08:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ok so you haven't heard of Lobbing in Politics. Perhaps it is you that need some education LOL.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Protip: random quotes doesn't make an argument, not that you ever had much to stand on anyway. Also try not to use Wikipedia as a source.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/11/14 09:30 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 1/11/14 08:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ok so you haven't heard of Lobbing in Politics. Perhaps it is you that need some education LOL.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Protip: random quotes doesn't make an argument, not that you ever had much to stand on anyway. Also try not to use Wikipedia as a source.

Why would I use Wiki to prove lobbying in politics. This is more than common knowledge that Lobbing exist in Politics and i would hope that instead of trolling you guy's would just accepts the facts of reality about lobbying in politics. If you don't know about the Rothschilds dynasty then go do some research as agin like Lobbying is common knowlage in the worls on monetary economics and Politics's. Again as a regular of these forums this is knowledge you should already know very well.

[AJ]

Shut up leanlifter. Not every thread is about the banks and the federal reserve. He wasn't even referring to the US. He was talking about Syrian rebels calling for democracy.

At 1/11/14 07:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I think it's about time The Arab League put their money where their mouth is and deal with it themselves.

I'm tired of being blamed for everyone else's problems. (Though I can definitely see how we would be, partly, for this mess)

What money? Saudi and Qatar have been pumping all the influence they can into the region. It's not enough. The bottom line is the US are the only ones who can do anything about it. The people in Syria recognize it as well, although they aren't happy about it. You fully deserve blame if you push for the US to allow a dictator who has used chemical weapons on his own people, and tortured and murdered tens of thousands to remain in power because you don't like taxes or w/e.

At 1/11/14 07:53 AM, lapis wrote: ISIS is taking a beating at the moment at the hands of a range of opposing rebel groups, of which the Saudi-backed Islamic Front is probably the most prominent. I think it will be hard for them to consolidate their position in Anbar when they're losing so much ground in Syria.

They're not going to disappear though. Most were given the choice to either put down their weapons, leave the country, or join JaN, and a lot picked options that didn't end with them fighting to the death, although there have been a lot of car bombs as ISIS lost ground.

Funny; is that really true? In Europe I have the impression that, even though there's little love for Assad, people are highly sceptical of the rebels. Even in the comment sections of websites like theguardian.com you get more likes for a comment praising Assad than for one praising the rebels and the Arab Spring (example). You'd think that, due to 9/11, people in the US would be even more negative about a rebel movement that has not one but two powerful al-Qaeda factions within its ranks (al-Nusra seems to be waiting patiently while the other rebels are cracking down on ISIS). Then again, there are probably a lot of more European than American Muslims fighting with the jihadists, so there may be a bigger risk of a spill-over effect in Europe.

This is a subject that really bothers me. After the chemical attack, Obama punted the decision to intervene in Syria to Congress, and then made a speech to try and sell the attack to the American people. Talked about the chemical attack, the genocidal massacres by the shabiha, the constant bombardment of refugee villages in north Syria, etc, and the American people told him to get fucked. They made up conspiracy theories about the rebels committing the chemical attack, and cited RT, which is owned by the Russian government, who are the primary backers of the Assad regime. The same thing happened in the UK where Cameron argued the case of intervention. It would've been the least popular intervention in 20 years. We really fucked this up, and showed the world that our foreign policy standpoint is still "Fuck you, got mine." It's basically devolving into Rwanda levels of fucked, but dragged out over a much longer period of time. It's sad because it's a failure to recognize the links between tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East, and this stupid security-only stance isn't going to change anything. It's really hard for Westerners in a post-Iraq world to understand that, because Western imperialism is the biggest enemy of liberals these days when it comes to foreign policy. So when they hear "War, Middle East, Terrorism," they flip out because they don't take the issues on the ground in those countries into context, rather looking at the region as a geopolitical chessboard that is controlled entirely by larger countries. It's why you'll see people reference the Shah in Iran as a huge part of Iran's national identity because he was installed by the US, when that has almost no effect at all on Iranian politics.

In short, people are so focused on fighting imperialism that they gloss over the tyranny of the regime, making Assad a hero of opposition against the West.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/12/14 01:05 AM, AJ wrote: Shut up leanlifter.

Oh so your mind can't comprehend that Lobbying in Politics is the reality here. You need ad hominem attacks to try and stifle anyone that goes against The Fascist States of North America. Come back when you have something real.

[AJ]

At 1/12/14 01:29 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/12/14 01:05 AM, AJ wrote: Shut up leanlifter.

Oh so your mind can't comprehend that Lobbying in Politics is the reality here. You need ad hominem attacks to try and stifle anyone that goes against The Fascist States of North America. Come back when you have something real.

No, lobbying in politics is absolutely a thing. I'm more than happy to talk to you about it in threads that are actually about the US.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/12/14 01:45 AM, AJ wrote:

At 1/12/14 01:29 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/12/14 01:05 AM, AJ wrote: Shut up leanlifter.

Oh so your mind can't comprehend that Lobbying in Politics is the reality here. You need ad hominem attacks to try and stifle anyone that goes against The Fascist States of North America. Come back when you have something real.

No, lobbying in politics is absolutely a thing. I'm more than happy to talk to you about it in threads that are actually about the US.

This thread is about the US. You can't tell me that the War on Iraq was not to profit the Banks that financed the whole shot. Just like you can't tell me that Politics/War is not about making money for the Banks.

[Feoric]

What's even more concerning is the fact that there are residents doubting whoever took control of the city is ISIL:

"Iraqis fleeing from Falluja question whether the masked gunmen who overran their city 10 days ago are really al Qaeda-linked militants as the government says, but fear their presence will draw a ferocious response from the army regardless.

At a motel in Iraq's Kurdish north, Falluja residents said they were stunned by the speed of the takeover of the city in Sunni-dominated Anbar province, predicting a tough fight if the Shi'ite-led government orders troops to retake it.

Al Qaeda-linked militants, who are also fighting in neighboring Syria, have been regaining ground over the past year in Anbar, which they seized in 2006-07 before being forced out by local tribal militia and occupying U.S. troops.

Some witnesses say some of the gunmen initially raised black al Qaeda flags over police stations they captured in Falluja and appealed to local citizens for support over mosque loudspeakers during Friday prayers a week ago.

But those flags have now gone and residents said they did not believe the gunmen, who guard the streets at night and told them they had nothing to fear, were members of the al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

"We didn't see a strong armed presence representing ISIL, only masked gunmen carrying weapons," said Monzher Hazallah, an engineer who has spent several days at the motel with his family of nine. "We don't know who they are. They are masked.""

This should raise immediate concerns because if that really is the case then this suggests that the situation in Iraq follows the traditional sectarian Sunni-Shia divide, which doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this can quickly spell another civil war.

[Ranger2]

At 1/12/14 02:55 PM, Feoric wrote: This should raise immediate concerns because if that really is the case then this suggests that the situation in Iraq follows the traditional sectarian Sunni-Shia divide, which doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this can quickly spell another civil war.

It's very easy to say that sectarianism is the cause of all fights but I don't know if that's completely true in this case. What motivates people more than belief is power, and local tribesmen and sheikhs have had power in that area for awhile. I don't think they'd want to give up their power to Al-Qaeda like that so that they could be rewarded by Allah. Many Anbar tribes fought alongside US, British, and Iraqi troops in Fallujah against Al-Qaeda in 2004, and they've been trying to fill the power vacuum left by Maliki's Shia-led government.

I guess the question is, is Al-Qaeda taking over Anbar because it is more powerful than the sheikhs, or because Sunni sheikhs want an ally to fight against the Shia?

[Feoric]

At 1/12/14 07:11 PM, Ranger2 wrote: It's very easy to say that sectarianism is the cause of all fights but I don't know if that's completely true in this case. What motivates people more than belief is power, and local tribesmen and sheikhs have had power in that area for awhile. I don't think they'd want to give up their power to Al-Qaeda like that so that they could be rewarded by Allah. Many Anbar tribes fought alongside US, British, and Iraqi troops in Fallujah against Al-Qaeda in 2004, and they've been trying to fill the power vacuum left by Maliki's Shia-led government.

I guess the question is, is Al-Qaeda taking over Anbar because it is more powerful than the sheikhs, or because Sunni sheikhs want an ally to fight against the Shia?

Well, let's assume that it was indeed ISIL who captured Fallujah. Before I even attempt to address this let me start off by saying that I wouldn't use ISIL and Al-Qaeda interchangeably. AQ, believe it or not, looks like a liberal Islamist group compared to them. A good starting point for answering your question is by asking another question: after all the months and years of conflict in Syria, why did it suddenly spill over now in such a big way? It's important to keep in mind that the push rebel groups have been making against ISIS is definitely related to their capture of Fallujah. My theory is that ISIL saw an opportunity to take the city (which was a loyalist Ba'athist stronghold under the Sadam regime). Once they did that, the Free Syrian Army leaded a campaign to take back territory ISIS held in Syria once they were deemed to be overextended. ISIS (which is the Syrian-centric branch of ISIL). Just as a primer for those who don't know, they tortured and murdered one of the primary commanders of Ahrar ash-Sham, which is one of the largest Islamist groups in the world on top of being one of the largest opposition groups active in Syria. They've also beheaded one of ash-Sham's commanders in November as well, so this was not an isolated incident by any means. It seems to me that ISIL is a group with their heads so far up their own asses they thought they would be seen as liberators in Iraq, but instead overreached and made a terrible mistake. The truth is probably much more complicated than that, but I'm just a layman, not an analyst. I don't think anyone really has any idea what is really going on and what the motives of all the actors involved are with 100% certainty.

[lapis]

At 1/12/14 11:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Once they did that, the Free Syrian Army leaded a campaign to take back territory ISIS held in Syria

Are you sure about that? I heard it was the Islamic Front, of which Ahrar ash-Sham is the most powerful member. I'm sure the FSA joined in, but I actually doubt that they're as strong as Ahrar ash-Sham at the moment, let alone the entire Islamic Front.

[Ranger2]

At 1/12/14 11:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Well, let's assume that it was indeed ISIL who captured Fallujah. Before I even attempt to address this let me start off by saying that I wouldn't use ISIL and Al-Qaeda interchangeably. AQ, believe it or not, looks like a liberal Islamist group compared to them.

That's something I haven't thought of. How is AQ more "liberal" than ISIS? I figured that their visions were mostly the same, the only difference being that they each want power.
And if ISIS is not Al-Qaeda, does that say anything about their role in the Middle East? There's been conflicting reports on their strength; some say they've been mortally wounded for awhile, others say they're on the rebound.

I think what a lot of people (not you, Feoric, but others who may read this) like saying that it's Islamists vs Democracy, or Sunni vs Shia. It's a simple answer that seems believable at first. I hear a lot of cynicism from people saying that ideology is the main cause of the fighting, when really that's just a rhetoric. I think it's different competing groups trying to fill the power vacuum left by the Maliki government.

One thing that helps make some sense is the fact that the borders for the Arab states are European creations. They're not formed by culture lines or even natural boundaries. ISIS's actions are a reflection of the rejection of the age-old Sykes-Picot lines. And I'm not saying this to bash European colonialism or blame them for this, but we should remember that a lot of the radical groups focus on ideas like the Caliphate, or a pan-Muslim state. We are not seeing terrorists operate only within a defined country's borders, because to them Syrians and Iraqis are really the same group of people. Or at least certain groups within those groups. You're absolutely right that nobody here knows 100% about what's going on.

[AJ]

1,500 ISIS soldiers regained control of Raqqa, and executed 100 JaN fighters. So that's not good.

At 1/12/14 11:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Well, let's assume that it was indeed ISIL who captured Fallujah. Before I even attempt to address this let me start off by saying that I wouldn't use ISIL and Al-Qaeda interchangeably. AQ, believe it or not, looks like a liberal Islamist group compared to them. A good starting point for answering your question is by asking another question: after all the months and years of conflict in Syria, why did it suddenly spill over now in such a big way? It's important to keep in mind that the push rebel groups have been making against ISIS is definitely related to their capture of Fallujah. My theory is that ISIL saw an opportunity to take the city (which was a loyalist Ba'athist stronghold under the Sadam regime). Once they did that, the Free Syrian Army leaded a campaign to take back territory ISIS held in Syria once they were deemed to be overextended. ISIS (which is the Syrian-centric branch of ISIL). Just as a primer for those who don't know, they tortured and murdered one of the primary commanders of Ahrar ash-Sham, which is one of the largest Islamist groups in the world on top of being one of the largest opposition groups active in Syria. They've also beheaded one of ash-Sham's commanders in November as well, so this was not an isolated incident by any means. It seems to me that ISIL is a group with their heads so far up their own asses they thought they would be seen as liberators in Iraq, but instead overreached and made a terrible mistake. The truth is probably much more complicated than that, but I'm just a layman, not an analyst. I don't think anyone really has any idea what is really going on and what the motives of all the actors involved are with 100% certainty.

Not too far off. The top commanders in ISI, al-Baghdadi II and co, are all ex-Ba'ath Saddam era guys. They are the true "al-Qaeda" force in the region. The more liberal jihadist groups like JaN have made enemies with al-Qaeda over this whole ISIS purge in Syria, but it's been a long time coming. Near the beginning of the revolution, ISI was the primary representative of jihadist thought in the region, and they wanted nothing to do with Syria. JaN eventually showed up and started to assert itself, but this was very sketchy territory because stepping on ISI's toes is a good way to get your head cut off. So JaN's leader, al-Joulani, made a bunch of concessions to try and portray himself as creating a wing of ISI, rather than a separate militia, but of course, that's not something you can really hide. He wouldn't cede control of JaN to ISI, and that's what they wanted. Around this time, JaN was declared a terrorist group by the US, and al-Joulani used that as an excuse to go into hiding. ISI went into Syria under the name ISIS to assimilate JaN into their chain of command, but obviously, that was a non-starter. They pillaged and looted from anyone and everyone, burning bridges by blatant conquest in Syria. Finally, all the Islamist and moderate forces in the country came together and said "Fuck ISIS," and began a campaign to push ISIS out together. ISI felt betrayed, especially by JaN, and now wants to watch all of Syria burn. That's where we're at now.

[Camarohusky]

A civil war in the region may be good for the mIddle East as a whole. The region, for whatever reason, seems to do best under a very strong single power. The region was at its height under large empires such as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, The Caliphs, The Persians, and the Ottomans.

Perhaps if we let this conflict fester, it will overflow into other countries, allowing for a large power to rise and conquer the region bringing it under one rule. Hopefully this will create the stability needed to wrench the region out of the politicial and economic doldrums it has been stuck in since the turn of the 20th Century.

Then again, it could just turn into one giant clusterfuck.

[AJ]

None of those empires had to deal with car bombs.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/13/14 05:08 PM, AJ wrote: None of those empires had to deal with car bombs.

No current regime has ever had to deal with the possibility of its cities being sieaged, sacked, razed, and have every male killed, with every female raped and forced into slavery.

Just because certain aspects of war have changed, doesn't change the fact that a strong dose of stability would seriously help that part of the world.

[AJ]

At 1/13/14 05:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/13/14 05:08 PM, AJ wrote: None of those empires had to deal with car bombs.

No current regime has ever had to deal with the possibility of its cities being sieaged, sacked, razed, and have every male killed, with every female raped and forced into slavery.

Just because certain aspects of war have changed, doesn't change the fact that a strong dose of stability would seriously help that part of the world.

Syria has all those but the last one, and that's just because anyone captured is imprisoned and tortured. A strong does of stability would surely help the region, but it's not going to come from Syria.

[Ranger2]

At 1/13/14 05:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: A civil war in the region may be good for the mIddle East as a whole. The region, for whatever reason, seems to do best under a very strong single power. The region was at its height under large empires such as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, The Caliphs, The Persians, and the Ottomans.

Perhaps if we let this conflict fester, it will overflow into other countries, allowing for a large power to rise and conquer the region bringing it under one rule. Hopefully this will create the stability needed to wrench the region out of the politicial and economic doldrums it has been stuck in since the turn of the 20th Century.

There are some issues with that idea.

-The examples you bring are all giant empires or powers absorbing the land into one gigantic mass. There is no such power at this point that would interfere and annex the land. And for an example of a superpower trying to control the land, what about the US and the coalition forces? It wasn't exactly stable then.

-The Middle East is not some gigantic amorphous blob that can be taken over. Granted, the Sykes-Picot lines were arbitrary but there were still some borders. Syrian Arabic is different from Libyan Arabic is different from Iraqi Arabic, etc. Also, some countries in there do have their own nationalism outside of pan-Arab. Egypt, for example, has a collective identity extending back thousands of years.

-As for a large power rising out of the land to take over, that very well could be Al-Qaeda. I wouldn't want them to be in control of the land, no matter how stable it is.

-Tribal control is still strong and has if anything strengthened as more and more centralized governments lose control. Allowing civil war to lead to a great power rising up won't likely happen.

[Ranger2]

At 1/13/14 05:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No current regime has ever had to deal with the possibility of its cities being sieaged, sacked, razed, and have every male killed, with every female raped and forced into slavery.

But keep in mind, with the rising tide of Islamism, there's no guarantee that whoever takes over the land would be a natural actor. Hitler and the Taliban both brought stability to their respective countries, and their actions resulted in gigantic wars.

[Ranger2]

Note: I meant rational actor, not natural actor.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

When I see "civil war", I can't help but think of Wriggle lol

[Ranger2]

At 1/14/14 06:52 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: When I see "civil war", I can't help but think of Wriggle lol

This is meant to be a debate and discussion with people who know the topic. If you want to comment by all means do but say something meaningful.

[Feoric]

At 1/13/14 04:35 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Are you sure about that? I heard it was the Islamic Front, of which Ahrar ash-Sham is the most powerful member. I'm sure the FSA joined in, but I actually doubt that they're as strong as Ahrar ash-Sham at the moment, let alone the entire Islamic Front.

Yes on a broader scale you are correct. I don't know how much coordination there is between the Islamic Front and the FSA; these two umbrella groups have clashed before and have stark ideological differences. If I'm not mistaken they currently have a tepid alliance, or at the very least a truce (which is likely only temporary). It's important to remember that the FSA isn't really a rigid organization in the traditional sense, it's more of a mixed rebel group comprised mainly of local neighborhood militias and defected soldiers. From what I understand ISIS has moved into territory that the FSA had captured; I had assumed that this current round of rebel infighting originated from ISIS vs FSA spats, which then dragged in the Islamists (JaN et al) because they have their own freuds independent of what's going on with the FSA.

That's something I haven't thought of. How is AQ more "liberal" than ISIS? I figured that their visions were mostly the same, the only difference being that they each want power.

I wasn't referencing their views, I was talking more about their barbarism which apparently knows no bounds. Even though ISIS is linked to AQ they openly call al-Nusra (who are also AQ affiliated) traitors and killed their emir. ISIS has a sordid history of gruesomely killing everyone from fellow jihadists to journalists. I wouldn't consider AQ sane but in comparison to ISIS they are somehow made out to be less evil and insane, which is a remarkable feat.

And if ISIS is not Al-Qaeda, does that say anything about their role in the Middle East? There's been conflicting reports on their strength; some say they've been mortally wounded for awhile, others say they're on the rebound.

Here's a pretty good write up on the subject:

"ISIS is more of an idea or approach rather than an organization, and it has been labeled several names throughout history. Islamist activists, who have been in contact with it, have known it as “moukaffaratiah” and this is what I heard Sheikh Abdullah Azzam call it. Other Arab activists, who preceded ISIS in Afghanistan and Peshawar, also called the group as such. Egyptians in al-Jamaa al-Islamiya and Arabs from various nationalities, who were spurred on by prison torture and anger, are the nucleus of this repugnant ideology; their faith was based on the seeking the atonement of regimes and rulers. I remember that the first clash that happened between them and the Arab volunteers was when some of them took over trucks carrying food from the Saudi Islamic Relief Organization inside Afghanistan, killing several guards. This incident was denounced in Peshawar at the time, but today, many similar incidents have happened in Syria, along with other abuses, that have led militant groups in Syria to declare war on ISIS.

This trend existed long before al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden; we can even say that bin Laden subscribed to this approach after being a jihadist like his disciple Abu Mohammed al-Joulani, who was trying to be liberated from the same approach based on seeking atonement.

...

ISIS’s ideology is frightening and it is worth being analyzed and understood because there are still people who have sympathy for it. It is obvious because, despite its cruelty and the people’s rejection that was demonstrated in Syria over the past few days, there are still some people who are willing to secretly fund this organization. There are still young men volunteering to commit suicide in car bomb attacks. It is the extremism of extremism."

A very heavy subject, obviously, but ISIS didn't just suddenly appear out of the blue one day, so it is difficult to answer this question without the proper context. Another important piece of information it that Zawahiri himself 'disbanded' the Syrian branch of ISIL and made al-Nusra the designated Syrian-AQ division:

"In April of this year, Abu Bakr Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, announced the formation of ISIS and said that the Nusra Front had merged with his group. Golani denied the news the following day, while maintaining that his group remained loyal to al-Qaeda.

Zawahiri blamed the leaders of both groups for acting without the knowledge of the central al-Qaeda leadership.

"Abu Bakr Baghdadi erred by announcing the formation of ISIS without consulting or informing us... Jolani erred by rejecting ISIS ... without consulting or informing us," Zawahiri says in the first two points.

In the next four points, Zawhiri orders the abolishment of ISIS and says it should continue as the earlier Islamic State of Iraq, while the Nusra Front should continue as an "independent branch" of al-Qaeda. Zawahiri then specifies the "wilaya makaniyya," or area of political activity, for each group: the Islamic State of Iraq should confine itself to Iraq, with the Nusra Front given sole authority for Syria."

As for ISIL/ISIS's strength, I don't know what it's at right now, but you can mark my words when I say that their strength will only grow as the situation in Iraq deteriorates even further. 7,818 Iraqi civilians were killed in 2013. We have not seen these numbers since 2008. I feel comfortable in saying that the situation will only rapidly deteriorate. I worry greatly that the Syrian Civil War will become a full blown regional war that drags down the whole region with it. My concern has only been growing as time goes on.

I think what a lot of people (not you, Feoric, but others who may read this) like saying that it's Islamists vs Democracy, or Sunni vs Shia. It's a simple answer that seems believable at first. I hear a lot of cynicism from people saying that ideology is the main cause of the fighting, when really that's just a rhetoric. I think it's different competing groups trying to fill the power vacuum left by the Maliki government.

I largely agree but it really depends on what your scope is. Obviously these problems have been going on much longer than post-Saddam Iraq. Certainly a US-made power vacuum did not help create stability but at the same time it's very hard to say what would be happening if the Iraq War never happened. How would the Middle East/Northern Africa look today? It's impossible to say.

One thing that helps make some sense is the fact that the borders for the Arab states are European creations. They're not formed by culture lines or even natural boundaries. ISIS's actions are a reflection of the rejection of the age-old Sykes-Picot lines. And I'm not saying this to bash European colonialism or blame them for this, but we should remember that a lot of the radical groups focus on ideas like the Caliphate, or a pan-Muslim state. We are not seeing terrorists operate only within a defined country's borders, because to them Syrians and Iraqis are really the same group of people. Or at least certain groups within those groups. You're absolutely right that nobody here knows 100% about what's going on.

Sadly this is a point many never realize. It is absolutely true that Western powers completely fucked up the Middle East in the 20th century. One wonders what the world would be like today if the Ottomans were still around or if land borders weren't arbitrarily drawn up by frankly ignorant Europeans with complete disregard for the people living in the region.