Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
      3. The Armadillo Inn
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

acmilano

Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

Recommended Posts

G's Ah's

To be honest, it's not that difficult to blow up a Humvee or an M113.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

Well Iraq has officially requested US airpower to attack ISIS. Well, someone's gotta do it. May as well be the most powerful navy and air force in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twilight Sky

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with it but didn't Bush invade Iraq because of what Saddam said about supporting Osamas' actions with 9/11? Seems like it gave him a reason to do so.

Edited by Twilight Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

NATO countries need to think about their contribution, the best method would be to provide both medical, security, logistical, geospatial and intelligence support. Whether it be logistical. Iraq is going to counterattack eventually and anyone who's been deployed with the Iraqi Army or ANA know they are not renounced for planning their offensives tactically and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. By providing both intelligence and data NATO can ensure these forces are definitely attacking ISIS militants rather than civilians. We've already had reports of Iraqi Army helicopters shooting at their own troops after mistakenly identifying them as ISIS.

 

As far as I know from briefings on the situation in Iraq is that the US started deploying troops on the 15th of June. There are approximately 170 US military personnel with boots on the ground in Baghdad already with another 105 or so being cleared for deployment shortly. As far as I know from the US Marine's I speak to on base these troops are not Special Forces and are essentially there to help government and diplomatic staff with evacuation. But there are rumours around base that the US military is considering deploying Special Forces troops if the situation in the capital escalates but it would only be an authorised as an AT mission not an actual combat op.

 

Right now as it stands from an Australian perspective my regiment and the SASR are both currently on standby alert for a deployment to Iraq to help evacuate any Australian embassy staff or government officials should the fighting reach Baghdad. Although putting troops on the ground would only be a worst case scenario. Side note we are also on standby for a deployment to Nigeria.

If I'm allowed to know and you don't mind answering, what unit are you in? If you, along with SASR, are on standby, you must be pretty important haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FranklinDeRoosevelt

 

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with it but didn't Bush invade Iraq because of what Saddam said about supporting Osamas' actions with 9/11? Seems like it gave him a reason to do so.

 

Actually, the main motive for invading Iraq was for the oil, they used the excuses of "weapons of mass destruction" to make people believe that it was a legit invasion, but it's ironic because that makes him a terrorist himself. He's a f*cking c*nt. Tony Blair was no better. As for Saddam, he did deserve to die because he killed a lot of his own f*cking people, whether Muslims or not, which Bush used to his advantage. This was another excuse to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Americans and worldwide.

 

Similar situation with Afghanistan. America have been trying to invade them for over 10 years and cannot do jack sh*t. Same with Iraq, it took years. America is not powerful as people think, they just have a big number of bases, soldiers and weapons and do not know how to use them.

Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

 

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with it but didn't Bush invade Iraq because of what Saddam said about supporting Osamas' actions with 9/11? Seems like it gave him a reason to do so.

 

Actually, the main motive for invading Iraq was for the oil, they used the excuses of "weapons of mass destruction" to make people believe that it was a legit invasion, but it's ironic because that makes him a terrorist himself.

 

No. That's wrong. Seriously. Don't talk about it if you don't know what you're saying. It's been addressed multiple times in this thread.

 

 

Below is a list of exports, as well as a list showing the future development of some Iraqi oil fields.

 

crude_oil_exports.png

 

d1a5b2c748d451cab1193e69457d83cd.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

seriously this guy doesn't deserve to use the moniker FranklinDeRoosevelt.

his foreign policy analysis would cause the real FDR to spin over in his grave... if not for the unfortunate restriction of polio having rendered him immobile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

I got a small bit of information on the situation inside insurgent-controlled Mosul. Not sure of the accuracy and reliability of this, as I got it several days ago from my father, who got it from his friend, who got it from his family or relatives inside Mosul.

Public services are being organised quite well, in fact perhaps better than under the government. Petrol is being provided for free to local electricity companies, in retrurn for them providing power 24 hours a day (power stations are highly unreliable, if at all operable, in Iraq, so people rely on power from petrol-powered generators, domestically operated or part of small businesses that provide power to several houses or neighbourhoods). There is also a 50-lashes punishment for broadcasting the highly popular football world-cup in cafes and other public gathering places.

 

Regarding the recent formal and public request for help from the Maliki government for US air support, it certainly puts the US on the spot, and I believe is an escalation of pressure on the US to help. They have previously privately requested US air support, which the US refused to immediately provide, until Maliki provides assurances that he will tackle the issues in his regime which empowered, and continue to empower, the once highly unpopular ISIS, whose predecessor was run out of Iraq by the tribes. Obama's calls have gone largely unanswered by Baghdad; quite the opposite - we got a Fatwa from Iraq's most senior Shia leader (Ali al-Sistani), the formation of openly sectarian Shia militias, and the ISF taking an even more sectarian tone. And with all of that, Maliki now raises the pressure for Obama to act. I really won't be surprised if Obama ignores or again denies these calls. Remember also that the US really doesn't want to help out a regime which once betrayed it for Iran, and is now under its influence - Iran is using Iraq to transport weapons to Assad, Hizbollah and various other proxies, and Iranian-controlled Iraqi militias constitute some of the pro-Assad forces in Syria. So helping out Maliki also comes with disadvantages for the US, NATO and the West.

 

reports, allegations, video clips, still photographs.

we're not going to figure this out on GTAForums. none of us are experts on any of this and it's about as ancient and complex as historical conflicts get.

I'm not sure if this was aimed at me, or generally at the thread. I do agree that we definately won't solve everything, but threads like this do help raise awareness in this forum of the situation in Iraq. Pooling our resources together and discussing the situation will also help further everyone's understanding of things, though obviously won't achieve 100% understanding, reliability and accuracy.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

it definitely wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

it's just the point @ which I decided I had read enough hearsay and wanted to put in my 2cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Misbegotten cad

The Iraqi flying cavalry consists of howling zealots on flying carpets!

-or so we hear.

 

Now the pentagon think tank is trying to figure how many bullet holes it takes for a flying carpet to lose it's lift, and come crashing down on the dunes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Well Iraq has officially requested US airpower to attack ISIS. Well, someone's gotta do it. May as well be the most powerful navy and air force in the world.

 

When your air force only has between six and eight helicopter gunships and one F-16 conversion trainer, it's pretty obvious that you need a bit more help from friends in high places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Petrol is being provided for free to local electricity companies, in return for them providing power 24 hours a day...

Ok, now they are definitely going to bomb them to oblivion. :D

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad

 

 

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with it but didn't Bush invade Iraq because of what Saddam said about supporting Osamas' actions with 9/11? Seems like it gave him a reason to do so.

 

Actually, the main motive for invading Iraq was for the oil, they used the excuses of "weapons of mass destruction" to make people believe that it was a legit invasion, but it's ironic because that makes him a terrorist himself. He's a f*cking c*nt. Tony Blair was no better. As for Saddam, he did deserve to die because he killed a lot of his own f*cking people, whether Muslims or not, which Bush used to his advantage. This was another excuse to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Americans and worldwide.

 

Similar situation with Afghanistan. America have been trying to invade them for over 10 years and cannot do jack sh*t. Same with Iraq, it took years. America is not powerful as people think, they just have a big number of bases, soldiers and weapons and do not know how to use them.

 

 

Firstly, oil was not the main motive for invading Iraq. Secondly, if the foundation of your argument relies on the strategic motivations for Iraq were similar to Afghanistan then it is very difficult to take anything you say with an ounce of credibility.

Edited by Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Quite.

 

People who use the oil-for-war argument, fundamentally flawed as it is, and bundle Iraq with Afghanistan do nothing more than undermine themselves and, truth be told, make themselves look rather silly. An infant could distinguish between the two in motivation and the absence of any real mineral wealth in Afghanistan rather undermines both the idea that it and Iraq are similar, and if so that Iraq was a resource war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twilight Sky

 

 

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with it but didn't Bush invade Iraq because of what Saddam said about supporting Osamas' actions with 9/11? Seems like it gave him a reason to do so.

 

Actually, the main motive for invading Iraq was for the oil, they used the excuses of "weapons of mass destruction" to make people believe that it was a legit invasion, but it's ironic because that makes him a terrorist himself. He's a f*cking c*nt. Tony Blair was no better. As for Saddam, he did deserve to die because he killed a lot of his own f*cking people, whether Muslims or not, which Bush used to his advantage. This was another excuse to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Americans and worldwide.

 

Similar situation with Afghanistan. America have been trying to invade them for over 10 years and cannot do jack sh*t. Same with Iraq, it took years. America is not powerful as people think, they just have a big number of bases, soldiers and weapons and do not know how to use them.

 

I'm not really sure. Otherwise, Oil prices would have dropped, not skyrocketed. Even so, I think Bush doing what he did.. looking back at it now, was very necessary. Showing others not to f*ck with our homeland. I see all the angry people calling us this and that and yet we don't mess with anybody, but we always have to go save another country from it self. I personally don't like it, and feel other countries need to stand up to insurgency, and just generally taking care of their own problems, but I understand why we have to fight for them. I don't think we're strong as titanium, but strong enough to feel safe here.

 

I'm just not sold on the whole "for oil" thing. I believe Obama would have done the same thing if it happened while he was in office. Or any President for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You're not sold on the "for oil" thing because it's utter bilge almost solely spouted by conspiracy theorists and people who have absolutely no understanding of international relations or strategic theory.

 

Your pessimism is well placed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Yeah, no one is claiming that the West hasn't had a vested interest in various sectors in post-Saddam Iraq. The material gains for stakeholders in the West as a net result of the conflict, when you take into account the logistics of the actual invasion, of providing security for staff operating there, from the huge financial investments made in Iraqi infrastructure, are nil at best and significantly negative at worse. It was, when everything is taken into account, basically a negative-sum game for the Western world as a whole.

 

That's why the war-for-oil argument is largely bunk- because there's no individual stakeholder or group of stakeholders in the West who have actually profited from the conflict. Big oil? Not really. Military-industrial? When the strategic crux of the conflict was "expensive technology doesn't win counterinsurgency conflicts" and defence budgets have been adjusted to suit that mantra, I don't think so.

 

Of course, there's some merit to the argument that attempts by the West to install a friendly regime in Iraq for the purposes of opening up the market for the benefit of the West. It logically does make some sense, but still isn't reflected in the military conduct of the conflict. Had there been enough foresight amongst policy makers to actually think about what to do after the initial invasion, they probably wouldn't have ignored all the academics and strategic theorists telling them that they needed to instigate a strong, tribally based and decentralised regional administrative approach rather than trying to run everything from Baghdad. They would have started investing in infrastructure and local security from the off rather than three years down the line. The behaviour of the decision makers pretty much contradicts the idea that there was any post-invasion plan to speak of, much less one with defined economic objectives.

So are you saying that everyone basically messed up like a noob in the biggest military operation of the 21st century?

Correct me if I'm wrong but according to your post the big oil companies, the infrastructures ones, the financial ones, the military-industrial ones did or are all losing money by having made or making no profits from the post Saddam Iraq.

Apparently Russians and Chinese are getting the best out of it.

I guess we can agree that politically and strategically the only result obtained seems that of a Saddam free Iraq run by friendly to Iran Shias now on the verge of other internal conflicts with various other Sunni or radical factions.

If all of the above is true then we are facing the most incompetent bunch of politicians, strategists, big companies CEOs, military and analysts the West ever employed in a conflict.

A total and complete disaster on all fronts.

We might as well invite Russia and China to take over if that's the result of the only superpower and its allies policy in a relatively small regional conflict.

 

I don't think that's the case but if you say so. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

For the most part, yes that's what I am saying.

 

However I'm referring to the post-invasion operations. The "largest military operation of the 21st century"- the initial invasion- was borderline breathtaking in its precision and effectiveness. Never in modern military history has a fighting force been so overwhelming in their complete annihilation of the military capability of another nation as in Iraq. From an operational perspective, it was a brilliant success.

 

However the fact it was a strategic disaster isn't exactly a secret. The total absence of any kind of post-invasion afterthought rather precludes there from being a grand strategic objective for any vested interest aside from "depose Saddam". If, as you seem to insinuate, the overall objective for the vested industrial interests was to get the pumps going and the crude flowing, why has Iraqi annual production still not surpassed the pre-invasion peak? If the US companies were substantial benefactors, why of the 23 major operational oil fields in Iraq do US companies control just two?

 

Defence companies certainly profited in the short term by the attrition on US military materiel, but the net result of the conflict has been the realisation that expensive technology doesn't really provide any real benefit in counterinsurgency conflicts. We're seeing fairly dramatic change in the way militaries in Western nations are being run; a transition from large standing professional armies to volunteer specialist reservists, from big airpower to smaller individual-driven special forces units. None of these are really big money-spinners for defence companies.

 

You could argue that infrastructure companies benefitted, but the scale of their benefit and whether or not they were pre-existing stakeholders is open to debate. They'd have benefitted more if it hadn't taken about 4 years to actually begin proper infrastructure redevelopment post-invasion.

 

I suppose you could also include the PMCs but their public image was so damaged by their behaviour in Iraq that some of them can't get contracts outside of the US anymore. It basically tarnished the entire industry.

 

I also think it's a mistake to claim that stakeholder companies- where the argument actually exists that they were pre-existing stakeholders before the invasion, which is questionable in itself- had a direct stake in the direction of the military conflict. It certainly doesn't look like it given that the first four years were basically spent with the various foreign militaries operating in Iraq doing about as little as is humanly possible to create a functional working environment for private companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

So skimming through this thread, I'm now more confused than before to what our reason behind the war was in the first place?

 

9/11 occurred so the official reason was for retaliation against the attackers. But then Bush had 'undeniable proof' that Saddam had WMD (which was an absolute farce)

 

So we attacked a country that had nothing to actually do with 9/11 then they repeatedly lied on television until everyone believed it to gain support to attack Saddam over a farce. So after deceiving the entire country and using 9/11 as an excuse, what in the world is their explanation now to the wars still going on ten years later? What is our justification for murdering thousands and thousands of innocent people and why do people continue to support it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

So skimming through this thread, I'm now more confused than before to what our reason behind the war was in the first place?

 

9/11 occurred so the official reason was for retaliation against the attackers. But then Bush had 'undeniable proof' that Saddam had WMD (which was an absolute farce)

 

So we attacked a country that had nothing to actually do with 9/11 then they repeatedly lied on television until everyone believed it to gain support to attack Saddam over a farce. So after deceiving the entire country and using 9/11 as an excuse, what in the world is their explanation now to the wars still going on ten years later? What is our justification for murdering thousands and thousands of innocent people and why do people continue to support it?

 

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

 

9/11 was the reason we went into Afghanistan. WMDs were the reason we went into Iraq.

 

And no, it wasn't an absolute farce. You probably didn't read the thread thoroughly enough.

Edited by Vlynor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

Guys, can this not fall into the 2003-2011 Iraq War fighting thread? This should be about the current war. In related news, US special forces "military advisors" have been deployed to Iraq, about 300 of them. So there are now 550 American boots on the ground in Iraq, a war we left only 2 and a half years ago... Hope this doesn't turn into Persian Gulf War, Part 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

As many pointed out the current conflict is focused on other issues.

But let's be honest and not so naive, the West obviously had substantial economical interests when it got involved in the Iraq war a decade ago and so far had substantial gains for being part of it.

Natually. You can't separate war from economic interests. But if it was the sole objective, the second Iraq war would never have happened. It was extremely convenient for the administration as an excuse to walk over several pages of constitution, as well as pass a bunch of new laws and expand a lot of the state machine's burocracy. Something that current administration makes a lot of use of as well. The war is over, but these changes stayed. And the fact that anyone skeptical of good intentions in Iraq would immediately call foul on oil interests is only an extra benefit. It turns attention away from the more sinister political motivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTFThisIsntWii

 

NATO countries need to think about their contribution, the best method would be to provide both medical, security, logistical, geospatial and intelligence support. Whether it be logistical. Iraq is going to counterattack eventually and anyone who's been deployed with the Iraqi Army or ANA know they are not renounced for planning their offensives tactically and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. By providing both intelligence and data NATO can ensure these forces are definitely attacking ISIS militants rather than civilians. We've already had reports of Iraqi Army helicopters shooting at their own troops after mistakenly identifying them as ISIS.

 

As far as I know from briefings on the situation in Iraq is that the US started deploying troops on the 15th of June. There are approximately 170 US military personnel with boots on the ground in Baghdad already with another 105 or so being cleared for deployment shortly. As far as I know from the US Marine's I speak to on base these troops are not Special Forces and are essentially there to help government and diplomatic staff with evacuation. But there are rumours around base that the US military is considering deploying Special Forces troops if the situation in the capital escalates but it would only be an authorised as an AT mission not an actual combat op.

 

Right now as it stands from an Australian perspective my regiment and the SASR are both currently on standby alert for a deployment to Iraq to help evacuate any Australian embassy staff or government officials should the fighting reach Baghdad. Although putting troops on the ground would only be a worst case scenario. Side note we are also on standby for a deployment to Nigeria.

If I'm allowed to know and you don't mind answering, what unit are you in? If you, along with SASR, are on standby, you must be pretty important haha.

 

 

I'm from 2nd Cdo Regt, because we are also considered to be a special forces unit we therefore fall under the same command (SOCOMD). We do a lot of our training with the SASR and I've actually done a few patrols alongside them during deployments. Essentially there are only three special forces units in the Army which are 1st Cdo Regt, 2nd Cdo Regt and SASR. Although most people view the SASR as the elite and best of the best it isn't like that at all. Whilst they view the commando's as a stepping stone to the SASR it's completely wrong. The SASR specialise in covert, stealthy, quick in and out missions. If the SASR perform their duties correctly the enemy won't even know they were there. Whilst the commando's have a completely different scope of skills although their is certain overlap specifically in counterterrorism and hostage negotiation. However commando's essentially operate in slightly bigger teams and are used for more direct, in your face, big and nasty type missions. The SASR are kind of like a knife, quick, clean, silent while the commando's are more like a sledgehammer, we go in loud, fast and generally face more direct combat than the SASR. We also only do the cover your face sh*t up to a point we are much more public than the SASR. However both the commandos and SASR have highly selective entry courses and generally people choose to go commandos or SASR they don't do both as why would you put yourself through two horrible selection courses.

 

So they've placed 2nd Cdo Regt (1st Cdo Regt is an Army reserve unit so they will not be put on standby as they're weekend warriors with far less training) and the SASR on standby for a deployment to Iraq and which one of us gets deployed will depend highly on the situation. They may even send both of us in. Although we've also been on standby for Nigeria for a few weeks and as far as I know the SASR haven't been put on standby for that.

Edited by WTFThisIsntWii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

Sorry to resurrect this very old and buried topic, but I found a very good, daily updated, source for the situation on the ground in the ongoing war in Iraq:

Institute for the Study of War.

 

They also released a very informative video on the war, though it is quite old now:

 

 

At around 21:00 in the video, in General Dubik's presentation, he identifies what he believes are the West's key objectives in the situation. I completely agree that perhaps the West's biggest objective seems to be the prevention of Iraq breaking up. However, I don't really see that as a feasible long-, or even medium-term objective.

The region has been arbitrarily carved up by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which took no account ot ethnic, religious, or tribal affiliations. IMO the current situation is at least partly due to the instability and oppression in modern Arab states that was created from throwing such vastly disunited and different peoples together, giving some dominion over others.

We are already seeing the Kurds taking up every opportunity to break away from Iraq, and ISIS is only gaining popularity because of their promise to destroy these borders (most prominently so far between Iraq and Syria). The way I see it is that such fictionally-created states with disparate and disunited people are doomed to failure and break-up sooner or later, despite the best efforts of current leaders to promote historically inaccurate nationalism.

On the flip side, however, if these Sykes-Picot borders start falling in one place, there is a high likelihood it could cause a domino effect across the Middle-East,with a chain-reaction of states breaking up and joining together. If this happens, not only will it create horrendous instability and bloodshed, but will involve all reagionalpowers with a stake in the region. There will be no guarantee that Western allies like the Saudi Family or the Hashemite Monarchy in Jordan remaining intact. And we are already seeing the lengths Iran and Russia are willing to go to protect their allies Assad in Syria and Maliki in Iraq.

 

I geniuney don't know what would be best for the people there and the world as a whole. So, for anyone here interested, I'd like to pose the question; should we allow the break-up of modern states in the region, or continue trying to keep them intact?

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

I geniuney don't know what would be best for the people there and the world as a whole. So, for anyone here interested, I'd like to pose the question; should we allow the break-up of modern states in the region, or continue trying to keep them intact?

 

It depends on who's "we" and on why "we" should be allowed to interfere in there since foreign intervention is pretty much one of the historical problems of the region, being such foreign intervention Western, Iranian, Russian or else.

I think that at this point, for the people of Iraq, a division in 3 states could mean peace (or not if the foreign intervention is as usual very intrusive).

Funnily enough I think this was the objective before the last war. Whose objective? Possibly of all the above mentioned powers.

 

The domino effect is possible but it depends on many aspects.

Personally I would love to see an Arab spring that finally overthrows also all the non democratic regimes of the peninsula plus Jordan.

It's about time for such anachronistic powers to be binned.

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alhalish

 

 

I geniuney don't know what would be best for the people there and the world as a whole. So, for anyone here interested, I'd like to pose the question; should we allow the break-up of modern states in the region, or continue trying to keep them intact?

It depends on who's "we" and on why "we" should be allowed to interfere in there since foreign intervention is pretty much one of the historical problems of the region, being such foreign intervention Western, Iranian, Russian or else.

I think that at this point, for the people of Iraq, a division in 3 states could mean peace (or not if the foreign intervention is as usual very intrusive).

Funnily enough I think this was the objective before the last war. Whose objective? Possibly of all the above mentioned powers.

 

The domino effect is possible but it depends on many aspects.

Personally I would love to see an Arab spring that finally overthrows also all the non democratic regimes of the peninsula plus Jordan.

It's about time for such anachronistic powers to be binned.

Yeah, wouldn't that be great... However, as long as the "Great Powers" have uses for those despotic Middle Eastern regimes, like the al-Saud, the al-Khalifa, etc. You won't see any "peaceful protests requesting for a more democratic government" like the ones you saw in Syria and Libya (this one's an African country, I know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

I geniuney don't know what would be best for the people there and the world as a whole. So, for anyone here interested, I'd like to pose the question; should we allow the break-up of modern states in the region, or continue trying to keep them intact?

 

It depends on who's "we" and on why "we" should be allowed to interfere in there since foreign intervention is pretty much one of the historical problems of the region, being such foreign intervention Western, Iranian, Russian or else.

Sorry, I was referring to the West in general. I completely agree that foreign intervention definately has a hand to play in the current instability in the region. Most of the instability is fuelled by people's desires to overthrow the undemocratic and oppressive foreign-backed regimes. Though ironically, the factions exploiting this desire and leading the rebellions are themselves mostly foreign-backed and/or unrepresentative of the people.

Another issue is that sadly it is impossible to guarrantee no foreign intervention and no unrepresentative regimes in the region. You have the West, Iran, Russia, the Arab Gulf states, International non-state actors (ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc...), and perhaps even China protecting their interests there. I really can't see the West stoppng their influence solving anything.

 

I think that at this point, for the people of Iraq, a division in 3 states could mean peace (or not if the foreign intervention is as usual very intrusive).

Funnily enough I think this was the objective before the last war. Whose objective? Possibly of all the above mentioned powers.

I do remember some discussion of splitting the country up in some Western media. I think even Hillary Clinton herself once championed the idea before, as the Sunni Arab middle and Kurdish north would likely be under Western influence, with only the southern Shia regon going to Iran.

Now, the Sunni Arab middle is a wild card - maybe it will fall into the hands of ISIS or be the site of prolonged conflict between pro-Western and anti-Western factions. And the Kurdish part is heavily influenced by Turkey now, who have a monopoly on foreign development and exports to Iraqi Kurdistan. So the West wouldn't be gaining anything.

 

The domino effect is possible but it depends on many aspects.

Personally I would love to see an Arab spring that finally overthrows also all the non democratic regimes of the peninsula plus Jordan.

It's about time for such anachronistic powers to be binned.

The Saudis, and to some extent other Arab monarchies, use the imposition of hard-line versions of Sharia law as a way to gain legitimacy against domestic dissent due to lack of democracy and serving Western interests. When a potential state one-ups them with Islamism and democracy (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), or Islamism and not serving Western interests (IS' Caliphate), they rightfully start fearing for their continued existance.

 

Ideally democracy will reign everywhere, especially in such a long-troubled region. But IMO influencial regional powers agreeing to potentially have their allies and/or puppets overthrown, and perhaps even replaced by openly hostile regimes, all for the sakes of the people getting democratic representation, is just a pipe-dream.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

So for those of us who are TL;DR whats going on in Iraq? It's fallen out of the news recently. Is ISIS still gaining ground or are they retreating or are they just staying still for now? Has the American intervention helped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

So for those of us who are TL;DR whats going on in Iraq? It's fallen out of the news recently. Is ISIS still gaining ground or are they retreating or are they just staying still for now? Has the American intervention helped?

ISIS and their allied militants (Ba'athists, Sunni Islamists and Tribal) have definately slowed down, and they're no longer Blitzkrieging through the country like at the beginning. However, it seems they are still slowly gaining more ground. They are also managing to put up strong opposition against ISF and their allies (Iranian Special Forces and Shia militias) to the south, and KRG Peshmarga forces to the north.

I think it is near a stalemate now, with ISF using planes to bomb targets they think are associated with the Sunni insurgency, with mostly civilian casualties, and Shia death squads abducting, torturing and murdering random Sunnis. The Sunni insurgency is fighting back with car bombs, again with mostly civilian casualties.

Though worryingly, the female analyst in the video I posted believes ISIS has a lot of fighters in reserve, waiting for an all-out assault on Baghdad.

 

Regarding the change of pace, I am not sure if it's because of the American intervention (AFAIK no combat roles, only advisory and intel assistance), Iranian special forces, ISF being more motivated to defend Baghdad, Shia militias, or ISIS just pulling back and buying some time before another major assault (as the lady in the video believes).

 

Hope that's not too long of a read mate. :^:

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

Well at least sh*t hasn't hit the fan... yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.