Mosul falls to Islamist

[cosmicalstorm]

Extremists control the major rivers in Iraq now.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ivers.html

[Darth Tanner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27828595

The Kurds have 'seized' or at least taken over Kirkuk after the government troops fled... I doubt they will hand it back if this ever settles down as they have wanted control since Saddam fell.

Also 2 regiments of the Revolutionary Guard are being mobilised in Iran to defend their Shia brothers... I think it would end up highly amusing if terribly sad that the end result of American intervention in Iraq is an extremists Islamic state in the North west, an independent Kurdish state in the NE to destabilise Turkey and Iran inheriting the South.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Can you just imagine if Kurdish troops simply "retake" all the land and cities that these militants have taken over?
Imagine if this keeps up and The kurds eventually end up "Owning" Iraq

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Can you just imagine if Kurdish troops simply "retake" all the land and cities that these militants have taken over?
Imagine if this keeps up and The kurds eventually end up "Owning" Iraq :P

They don't want all of Iraq. Just all the northern bits bordering Turkey and Iran. It's most of the reason why Turkey would want NATO to step in, because if Iraq's central government falls apart, there's little reason for the Kurds to not pack up and create the southern half of Kurdistan. Nobody in the region really wants this to happen, as the territory the Kurds traditionally consider to be Kurdistan sprawls across Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran; however the bulk of this area lies within Turkey, and the Turks have enough trouble with Kurdish separatists as it is.

Also, this whole Iraqi splintering thing has been brewing for a long time. The local Sunni populations have been quite happy to see the central Iraqi forces go, since they're all Shia and Iraq's current central government is Shia-run and regularly goes out of its way to abuse, neglect, and otherwise put a thumb in the eye of the Sunnis.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know all the talk of splintering has me thinking...
Nations splinter ALL THE TIME.
Big nations will split and split again , often into regional and ethnic conclaves...

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

[Purple]

You know all the talk of splintering has me thinking...
Nations splinter ALL THE TIME.
Big nations will split and split again , often into regional and ethnic conclaves...

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

Well IIRC the Soviet Union technically counts. As it was founded by merging several independent republics at the beginning. You also have IIRC Belgium and Switserland to draw upon. But yea, it's rare.

[Gandalf]

As one might anticipate, assorted opinion columns and blogs are already comparing this to the fall of Saigon.

Apparently, if only Obama hadn't pulled people out of Iraq, we would have won by now. He's also being weak by not bombing anyone right now. It's a dolchstoss myth for the 21st century.

[Borgholio]

Yep, Obama is at fault for starting the Iraq conflict, for ending it, and for not ending it. Can't that commie bastard do anything right?

[madd0ct0r]

You know all the talk of splintering has me thinking...
Nations splinter ALL THE TIME.
Big nations will split and split again , often into regional and ethnic conclaves...

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

One theory I've come across is that stable regions are defined more by population then area. Since population keeps growing, if there are not outlets for it like federalisation the state can start to fragment. possibly pure bollocks. though.

Scotland merged with England a few hundred years ago. The various American States merged a bit later. most African countries are the product of imperialism. India was remerged by the british after the moguls fell. North Vietnam and South Vietnam reunified (possibly the most recent, although I don't know if you'd count it as conquering or not)

I think the most recent is 1998 December 24 — The Republic of Bougainville is taken over by Papua New Guinea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_map_changes

with hong knong merging back into china the year before

[CJvR]

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

Open a history book for five minutes. Unification was very popular during the age of nationalism - just staying in one country...
Germany - North German Confederation
Germany - German Empire
Germany - Anschluss with Austria
Germany - FDR & DDR

[Wicked Pilot]

I wonder how anyone who's been injured or lost loved ones or gave up the best years of their lives serving (or just having the misfortune of living in) in Iraq in the course of the past decade must feel over this whole debacle.

Part of me is kinda glad this is happening. Iraq is nothing more than a line drawn on a map by the British, this whole mess is just borders returning to ethnic and religious equilibrium.

[Prannon]

I found this gem on the BBC. It doesn't say much about the Kurds that isn't already known, but it does illustrate that the situation on the ground is a great deal more complex than the mainstream media has acknowledged so far. In particular, it talks about how there are a lot of other Sunni factions involved beyond ISIS.

Enjoy

Could Iraq conflict boost Kurdish dreams of independence?
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Irbil

As Iraq descends deeper into chaos and the fires burn closer to Baghdad, the Kurds in the north have quietly taken advantage of the tumult to expand and tighten their control in the oil-rich Kirkuk province, long the object of their dreams and aspirations.

The move was both defensive and ambitious, carrying strong elements of both opportunity and risk.

"Part of the motivation was to avert a humanitarian disaster," said a senior source in Irbil.

"Had we not filled the vacuum left by the Iraqi army's departure, everybody would have flooded into the Kurdistan region. We had half a million people banging on our doors.

"It's a lot simpler to send 100 peshmergas (Kurdish military forces) to hold the fort and keep security, so that people could stay put. Once our units went in, the displaced started going back."

But there's clearly more to it than that. The Kurdish media have been hailing the step as a historic reunification of Kurdish lands.


Jewel in their crown

Kirkuk city, which has a mixed population of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, has long been a thorny issue in Iraqi politics.

Its special status as a disputed city was recognised in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi constitution, which called for the situation in the city to be "normalised" by:

-The return to the south of Arabs settled there by the deposed ruler
-The restoration of expelled Kurds
-A census

A referendum on whether the province should join the Kurdistan autonomous region.

But that has never happened, and Kirkuk, as well as other disputed areas along the Arab-Kurdish ethnic fault line, have been flashpoints for friction between Kurdish forces and Iraqi government troops.

Now, the latter have melted away, leaving Kirkuk to fall into the hands of the Kurds like a ripe fruit.

With the rest of Iraq apparently disintegrating along sectarian lines, and the central government in Baghdad in disarray, it will clearly be a long time before an Iraqi authority can challenge the Kurds' absorption of what they have long seen as the rightful jewel in their crown.

The Kurdistan region has already angered Baghdad by going its own way and selling its oil and gas directly to and through its northern neighbour Turkey, with which the regional government (KRG) has developed a close partnership despite historic Turkish suspicions of Kurdish nationalism.

Now it seems likely that the acquisition of Kirkuk, both the city and the province with its rich oilfields, will boost the trend towards outright independence for the Kurdistan region.


Dominant forces

"Absolutely, it brings independence a step closer," said a well-placed source.

"We have lost hope in the sanity of the people governing Iraq. We don't want to be part of the failure of something for which we're not responsible. Nobody gave more than us in the effort to keep Iraq together, but now we're giving up, there's no hope."
But the move is not without risks.

It brings Kurdish forces into direct proximity with the militants who have taken over in Mosul and other adjacent areas.

In recent years, Kirkuk has already seen many suicide and other bomb attacks attributed to Sunni radicals, which are very rare inside the KRG autonomous area itself.

If instability spreads, it could affect the current boom in investment and economic activity in Kurdistan, which has flourished while the rest of Iraq has largely stagnated and been mired in turmoil.

If the Sunni areas are starting to go their own way, much will depend on the composition of the dominant forces taking part in that process.


Other strands

So far, the public face that has resonated around the world has been that of the ultra-radical al-Qaeda offshoot known as ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

But as with the anti-US insurgency from 2004 on, there are clearly other strands to the revolt, which explains the resonance it is having, and the speed of its movement through the mainly Sunni areas on which it is concentrating.

The Kurds have no sympathy for the ISIS radicals, but they are in touch with other elements, including tribal leaders and commanders of the Military Councils of Iraqi Revolutionaries (MCIR), which includes many experienced former Iraqi army officers.

The Kurds have been given assurances from the latter that they will not encroach on the borders of the KRG autonomous region, according to an MCIR spokesman.

The MCIR claims that overall, its fighters are the most significant element in the revolt, with tribal militants in second place, and ISIS only third despite the media attention they command.

When Sunni rebels took over the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, in January, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki asked the Kurds to send peshmerga forces to help drive them out, sources say.

But the request was turned down. The Kurdish leadership's message to the MCIR conversely was that Irbil would not be against the Sunnis taking the road of establishing their own autonomous area, following the lead of Kurdistan itself.

That would clearly not apply if ISIS emerged as the dominant force in self-administering Sunni areas. Its philosophy and practices are so extreme that it has even been disavowed by its parent leadership, the international al-Qaeda movement headed by Osama Bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri.

A future scenario where the Kurdish forces helped "moderate" elements such as the MCIR to oust ISIS is not hard to envisage.

Already there are signs of a potential conflict between strands of the rebel movement, although they are cooperating for the time being.

"There is no friction or clashes between us at the moment, but we plan to avoid them until we are settled and operations are finished, then we will kick them out of Mosul," said an MCIR source.

"We are warning their leaders that if they perpetrate any violations, they will become our first enemy, so they are behaving so far."


Stir hostility

Politically, the clerical body which is the spiritual point of reference for mainstream militant Sunni groups, the Association of Muslim Clerics (AMC), has put out a statement which clearly takes issue with the radical declaration put out by the ISIS spokesman, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the day before.

He called for revenge and score-settling in Baghdad, and for the militants to march on the holy Shia city of Karbala to the south of the capital.

That would clearly be a recipe for sectarian carnage and civil war between Sunnis and Shias, something the AMC said is absolutely not on the agenda.

"Calls for the revolutionaries to head for Karbala, Najaf and elsewhere are rejected, unacceptable and irresponsible on the part of those issuing them," the AMC statement said.

"It would stir hostility to the revolution and make it fail, diverting its goal from helping the oppressed to stirring up sectarian conflict between the sons of our one people, quite apart from the fact that everybody knows that most of the Iraqi people in the south reject Maliki and his gang, and suffer his oppression like the rest of us."

The AMC insisted that forgiveness and tolerance should be the keynote in administering the "liberated" areas, and that nothing should be done to prejudice people's livelihoods or impose dress codes on them, even if they were not in line with strict Islamic precepts.

In another clear reference to ISIS, it said that no group should claim to represent the entire revolt and take strategic decisions without consultation.

It also called for the immediate release of the 49 Turkish nationals seized by ISIS from the consulate in Mosul, saying this risked alienating a powerful neighbour and provoking intervention.

But even the AMC embraced the goal of reaching Baghdad, "because the ruling regime is there, the source of oppression and crimes against the people, so there is no other way of lifting the yoke as long as the regime fails to look after others."


Room for compromise

So the seeds of an incipient struggle within the rebel movement are clearly there, though the AMC stressed the need to avoid the kind of chaos and in-fighting afflicting opposition groups in the anti-government uprising in Syria.

Clearly, the current Sunni revolt has much more to it than the intrusion of foreign jihadist "terrorists", as Prime Minister Maliki has claimed.

The Americans and others are aware that the turmoil reflects Mr Maliki's failure to draw major Sunni political forces into the political process and give them a stake, one of several factors inhibiting them from producing a forceful and determined response to his appeals for help.

Despite their visible differences, the various elements in the Sunni revolt are agreed on the need to push towards Baghdad, a campaign that is likely to see movement from the western side - Anbar province - as well as from the north.

But as with the Kurds in the north, the course of events will depend a great deal on which strand predominates within the rebel movement.
If ISIS prevails, open-ended sectarian strife can be expected. But if the more moderate groups assert themselves, there may be room for compromise and accommodation.

[xthetenth]

You know all the talk of splintering has me thinking...
Nations splinter ALL THE TIME.
Big nations will split and split again , often into regional and ethnic conclaves...

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

Even if it wasn't the most recent, the United Arab Republic is really important in the region. Its death was one of the real death blows to Arab nationalism, and to Egypt's regional leadership.

[Broomstick]

Two questions:

1) Is it ISIS or ISIL?

2) When they say "worse than Al Qaeda" or "more extreme" or "more radical" what do they mean by that?

[Purple]

1) Is it ISIS or ISIL?

From what I understand the two are used interchangeably.

[Spoonist]

Two questions:

1) Is it ISIS or ISIL?

2) When they say "worse than Al Qaeda" or "more extreme" or "more radical" what do they mean by that?

1-both, depends on if you want it to be S for Syria or the more general L for Levant, the group itself isn't exactly clear and have used both interchangeably the arabic meaning is unclear.
2-western media hype, but usually this refers to them being more extreme vs other muslim sects and their disregard for muslim lives. Why western media puts them as more extreme would rather be due to all the beheading videos and repeated targetting of civilians.
However that doesn't make them more extreme than AQ, it only makes them more influential right now so they can pull of stuff that AQ no longer can.

[Sidewinder]

ISIS's actions seems to be an invitation for Iranian military intervention, which will then be an invitation for Saudi military intervention, which will then be an invitation for God knows what else. The direct consequence of this will be a bloodbath not seen since the US invasion and occupation. I understand some religious fanatics adopt the ideas "Kill them all, let God sort them out," but I wonder if ISIS's members have the INTELLIGENCE to realize "them all" is likely to include not only their martyrdom-seeking selves, but also their parents, aunts and uncles, siblings and cousins, husbands and wives, sons and daughters and nieces and nephews...

[Prannon]

The US is now sending warships to the gulf. This is the first news I've heard of concrete US military movements as a result of this.

Iraq conflict: US sends warship to the Gulf

The US says it is sending a warship into the Gulf to provide President Obama with military options should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further.

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the USS George HW Bush, which carries dozens of fighter jets, to be moved from the North Arabian Sea.

Meanwhile, Iran says it could be prepared to work with the US to fight Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

The insurgents have seized several cities and are closing in on Baghdad.

Fighting under the banner of The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), they regard Iraq's Shia majority as "infidels".

Iraqi security forces, bolstered by an increasing number of Shia and Kurdish militiamen, are trying to take a stand in Salahaddin and Diyala provinces, to the north of the capital.

US President Barack Obama has said he will take several days to decide what action to take over Iraq, but insisted that no US troops will be deployed.

The aircraft carrier will be accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Truxtun. They were due to arrive in the Gulf late on Saturday.

A Pentagon official said they were being deployed to provide President Obama with flexibility, should military options be required to protect American lives and interests in Iraq.

Analysis: Richard Galpin, BBC News

A long line of pick-up trucks and cars sped through the streets of central Baghdad on Saturday filled with heavily armed men; a cacophony of blaring horns, sirens and pumping music heralding their arrival.

It was evidence that the call to arms made on Friday by the most senior Shia religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was being heeded in the capital as in other cities, particularly in the Shiite-dominated south.

The convoy was manned by members of a Shiite militia called the Mahdi Army, which has sprung back to life in recent days, after lying low following its notorious role in the sectarian conflict with the minority Sunni community, which came to an end about six years ago.

One cleric, sitting with a driver and bodyguard in an expensive four-by-four vehicle, said they were prepared to fight to the death and "splash their blood" to rid Iraq of the ISIS "terrorists".

Other members of the militia said they would help defend Baghdad and head further north to bolster the regular army on the frontlines in Diyala and Salahaddin provinces.

Earlier, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed troops in the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, insisting: "This is the beginning of the end of them [ISIS]."

Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has issued a call to arms to fellow Shias.

There are reports that thousands have already joined Shia militias, which could play a crucial role in the defence of Baghdad, says the BBC's Richard Galpin who is in the city.

Iran presence

Fears of ISIS sparking a wider Sunni uprising have increased with reports that other groups have joined the insurgents' advance.

The BBC's Jim Muir in northern Iraq spoke to former General Muzhir al Qaisi, a spokesman for the General Military Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries, a Sunni group that entered Mosul alongside ISIS fighters.

General al Qaisi described ISIS as enemies of his militia, but said they did not want clashes with them to slow their march towards Baghdad to oust the government.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said he had offered direct assistance to Baghdad but denied that he had sent troops to fight in Iraq.

However, the BBC's Kasra Naji in Iraq has been told that more than 130 of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have arrived to provide training and advice. An Iranian general is also reported to be in the capital.

General Qassem Suleimani, the top commander of Iran's Quds Force, is said to be organising Iraqi Shia militia groups that are loyal to Iran.

President Rouhani did not rule out co-operating with the US in combating ISIS, saying: "We can think about it if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere."

What's notable to me is that the Mahdi army is joining the fight against ISIS, along with various other militias. I can only see that this will increase their influence with the government in Baghdad - since they're basically going to help save their butts - and that even moreso than a few years ago the country will be fighting a sectarian civil war.

[xerex]

ISIS's actions seems to be an invitation for Iranian military intervention, which will then be an invitation for Saudi military intervention, which will then be an invitation for God knows what else. The direct consequence of this will be a bloodbath not seen since the US invasion and occupation. I understand some religious fanatics adopt the ideas "Kill them all, let God sort them out," but I wonder if ISIS's members have the INTELLIGENCE to realize "them all" is likely to include not only their martyrdom-seeking selves, but also their parents, aunts and uncles, siblings and cousins, husbands and wives, sons and daughters and nieces and nephews...

well their plan is to win. So they're arent thinking about that

[Phil Skayhan]

As far as how to address the Sunni group, it may not matter.

ISIL (Levant)
ISIS (al-Sham, which means Levant)

But I think it is simplest to refer to them by as "D'aish", which is the Arabic acronym for ISIL(S) they use for themselves. After all, we don't say "The Base", we say "Al Qaeda".

[White Haven]

That's because 'The Base/Foundation' has no real meaning, it's purely an organizational name and a terribly generic one to boot in English. Conversely, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is both a distinct name and a succinct summary of a purpose. And...seriously, man? Are you really trying to make the argument that D'aish is a simpler thing for English-speaking audiences to call an organization than ISIS? Sure, you can make arguments for it if you like, but simpler? Not only is it not an acronym that carries meaning for the relevant audience, but to be blunt, most of that audience isn't even familiar with how to pronounce it.

[Siege]

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and always good for a laugh, weighs in on Tony Blair's insistence that the '03 invasion was not at the root of the current problems:

Boris Johnson has launched a stinging attack on Tony Blair by claiming he has "finally gone mad" after insisting the current crisis in Iraq was caused by a failure to deal with the Syria conflict - not the 2003 US-led invasion.

Writing in his Daily Telegraph column, the Mayor of London said Mr Blair and then-US president George W Bush had shown "unbelievable arrogance" to believe toppling Saddam Hussein would not result in instability.

He went as far as accusing the ex-Labour leader of having sent British forces into the bloody conflict in part to gain personal "grandeur".

He suggested there were "specific and targeted" actions that could be taken by the US and its allies to deal with latest threat - as President Barack Obama considers a range of military options short of ground troops.

But he said that by refusing to accept that the 2003 war was "a tragic mistake", Mr Blair was "now undermining the very cause he advocates: the possibility of serious and effective intervention".

"Somebody needs to get on to Tony Blair and tell him to put a sock in it, or at least to accept the reality of the disaster he helped to engender. Then he might be worth hearing," Mr Johnson said.

"I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help."

[Phil Skayhan]

That's because 'The Base/Foundation' has no real meaning, it's purely an organizational name and a terribly generic one to boot in English. Conversely, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is both a distinct name and a succinct summary of a purpose. And...seriously, man? Are you really trying to make the argument that D'aish is a simpler thing for English-speaking audiences to call an organization than ISIS? Sure, you can make arguments for it if you like, but simpler? Not only is it not an acronym that carries meaning for the relevant audience, but to be blunt, most of that audience isn't even familiar with how to pronounce it.

D'aish is pronounced da-ish; the "a" is somewhat slurred.

As I said, it doesn't really matter, I was merely making a suggestion. Call them toe-jam if you like. But when people continue to refer to the final S in ISIS as meaning Syria, that is simply wrong.

I had found using Da'ish useful as a search term because these bastards have been posting their propaganda, most commonly under that name, for about the past two years. Subsequent reposters have translated the name to ISIS or ISI, but to get to the original source or find it before waiting for the reposts, "D'aish" had worked best. Now, as the situation has blown up, it has become less so.

[Block]

Except it's not really wrong, because they don't actually operate in Jordan, Israel and Lebanon the rest of the Belad al Sham, so Iraq and Syria works fine. Belad al Sham directly translates to Nations of the Sun anyways, they use that and the Levant interchangeably but they're distinct words so saying ISIL is technically just as wrong.

[Phil Skayhan]

But, as White Haven was absolutely correct in saying, the name also states their goal. And they have begun establishing a presence in Jordan.

Look, this can easily be seen as a semantic argument and a distraction to the greater discussion. So, whichever designation the board goes with I will use.

On that note, the US Embassy looks like it is getting ready to bug out, but it's main exit route, Baghdad International, has reportedly been under attack, shelling and rockets, since the early morning. And to add an extra layer of worry to any evacuation, what are the odds that among the arms ISIS captured were advanced US-made ant-aircraft weapons?

http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=490064