Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, this is all about energy--Syria, Iraq, IS, and the President's Speech. [View all]Laelth
(32,017 posts)42. Cross-post.
I'm cross-posting this message from another thread, HERE, just to keep my thoughts on this subject on the same page.
I launched a thread yesterday, HERE, in which I defended the President's limited escalation of the use of military force against IS, so I am one of the people to whom this thread is directed. I note that the OP demonstrates a solid knowledge of the "facts on the ground" in the Middle East, and that makes it much easier for me to respond as we start off this discussion with a similar understanding of the reality of the situation.
Let me caveat my response by saying that I know nothing about what the President, his advisers, the Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff really think about these matters. My response is purely speculative and is based solely upon my own, admittedly-limited observations. So, here goes.
First - Mosul and Tikrit. The OP rightly notes that Mosul and Tikrit can not be "conquered" by any military force currently available in the area. These cities were Sunni Baathist strongholds in the old Iraq, and they remain Sunni strongholds today. Neither the Iraqi military nor the Kurdish Peshmerga have the power to capture and control these cities today. These cities were centers of money and power under Saddam's rule. When we forced Iraq to adopt democracy, the majority Shiites in the South took power, and those same monied interests from the North were left with nowhere to go. They lost all political representation, and, as a result, they joined up with IS. IS filled the vacuum that we created when we turned Iraq into a democracy. Iraq's Sunnis now control IS. Many of them, it appears, have no love for Islamic fundamentalism, but, because IS was the only game in town, they played along.
The problem is that IS has failed. It had a chance to become the caliphate its leaders hoped for, but that chance has evaporated. Once Saudi Arabia withdrew its support for IS, and once the other gulf states in Saudi Arabia's orbit abandoned IS, the movement to create a Pan-Islamic state collapsed. Now, IS is little more than a Sunni Iraqi faction with little funding and little hope of accomplishing its broader goals.
They still control Mosul and Tikrit, however. I don't think we have any desire, nor any need, to dislodge them from these cities. I think the purpose of the President's plan is pure containment--cripple IS and prevent IS from encroaching upon Kurdish oil and natural gas fields that have the possibility of breaking the Russian near-monopoly on the sale of energy to Western Europe. That's all I think we're shooting for, and that's all that I think limited airstrikes can achieve.
Wiping out IS is not the real goal, as far as I can tell. Containing IS and protecting the Kurds will be plenty. Whether Iraq's Sunnis can ever be reunited with Iraq's Shiites is another question--one that does not appear to concern us very much. As it stands, Shiite Iraq is a failure. It's little more than an Iranian satellite state at present. Their military stinks--in part because we disastrously disbanded the Iraqi military shortly after we conquered them. All their military's institutional knowledge was lost. Their officer corps was decimated. Many of Iraq's competent military leaders are now working for IS. That makes sense because they were Baathists and supporters of Saddam Hussein. They were stripped of power in Shiite Iraq, and now they are working for their own, Sunni people as leaders of IS. Shiite Iraq's military is so bad, in fact, that an Iranian had to be brought in to lead Iraq's brand-new military. There's no way that the Iraqi military could defeat IS at the moment, but this may change as IS becomes depleted of arms, war machines, and ammunition now that their major backers have abandoned them. Either way, it appears to me that the President's plan has nothing to do with conquering either Mosul or Tikrit. Ultimately, we don't need to conquer either of those cities in order to achieve our goals.
Second - Syria. I don't think we care much about what happens in Syria. Assad has proven himself fully capable of defending his regime, and it's clear that none of the Syrian rebels has enough power to topple his regime. IS will be even less capable of overthrowing Assad after the punishment the US is likely to visit upon them. Frankly, from a human rights perspective, we're better off with Assad in charge. It appears that in this area of the world, at least, a minority population can rule over a majority population and more-or-less do an adequate job of protecting the rights of the subjugated majority. That was the case when Saddam Hussein (a minority Sunni) ruled Iraq (which has a Shiite majority). Saddam was no saint, but he kept the peace and liberalized Iraq. The same applies to Syria where a minority Alawite (Assad) rules over a majority Sunni population. As American history shows, it takes a long time for minority rights to be respected and protected when said country is ruled by its majority. How long did it take majority American whites to grant full citizenship and rights to minority Blacks? Hundreds of years? And we might not have even achieved that goal yet? How we ever expected the majority Shiites in Iraq to respect the rights of the minority Sunnis is beyond me. History shows that the tyranny of the majority in a democracy will seriously harm minority rights. Syria and Iraq, on the other hand, show that a minority population in control of government can adequately (if not perfectly) protect the rights of an out-of-power majority. As such, I don't think we care what happens in Syria--not much, in any event. It appears that Assad will hold on to the reins of power, and we're probably fine with that.
Third - We have the support of Arab allies for our campaign against IS. The Saudis have abandoned IS, as have Saudi Arabia's gulf state satellites, so I don't see the problem here.
Fourth - We're not going it alone. France will probably help. SA will help. Besides which, I think you mistake our goals. While it's true that the rhetoric coming out of the President and the Vice President calls for the utter destruction and elimination of IS, I don't think that's what we're really shooting for. What we want to do is relieve the Russian near-monopoly on energy sales to Western Europe. Kurdistan now has a working pipeline (through Turkey) to do just that. All we need to do is contain IS and protect the Kurds. That's it, and I think the President's plan to use limited military force against IS can achieve that goal.
-Laelth
Let me caveat my response by saying that I know nothing about what the President, his advisers, the Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff really think about these matters. My response is purely speculative and is based solely upon my own, admittedly-limited observations. So, here goes.
First - Mosul and Tikrit. The OP rightly notes that Mosul and Tikrit can not be "conquered" by any military force currently available in the area. These cities were Sunni Baathist strongholds in the old Iraq, and they remain Sunni strongholds today. Neither the Iraqi military nor the Kurdish Peshmerga have the power to capture and control these cities today. These cities were centers of money and power under Saddam's rule. When we forced Iraq to adopt democracy, the majority Shiites in the South took power, and those same monied interests from the North were left with nowhere to go. They lost all political representation, and, as a result, they joined up with IS. IS filled the vacuum that we created when we turned Iraq into a democracy. Iraq's Sunnis now control IS. Many of them, it appears, have no love for Islamic fundamentalism, but, because IS was the only game in town, they played along.
The problem is that IS has failed. It had a chance to become the caliphate its leaders hoped for, but that chance has evaporated. Once Saudi Arabia withdrew its support for IS, and once the other gulf states in Saudi Arabia's orbit abandoned IS, the movement to create a Pan-Islamic state collapsed. Now, IS is little more than a Sunni Iraqi faction with little funding and little hope of accomplishing its broader goals.
They still control Mosul and Tikrit, however. I don't think we have any desire, nor any need, to dislodge them from these cities. I think the purpose of the President's plan is pure containment--cripple IS and prevent IS from encroaching upon Kurdish oil and natural gas fields that have the possibility of breaking the Russian near-monopoly on the sale of energy to Western Europe. That's all I think we're shooting for, and that's all that I think limited airstrikes can achieve.
Wiping out IS is not the real goal, as far as I can tell. Containing IS and protecting the Kurds will be plenty. Whether Iraq's Sunnis can ever be reunited with Iraq's Shiites is another question--one that does not appear to concern us very much. As it stands, Shiite Iraq is a failure. It's little more than an Iranian satellite state at present. Their military stinks--in part because we disastrously disbanded the Iraqi military shortly after we conquered them. All their military's institutional knowledge was lost. Their officer corps was decimated. Many of Iraq's competent military leaders are now working for IS. That makes sense because they were Baathists and supporters of Saddam Hussein. They were stripped of power in Shiite Iraq, and now they are working for their own, Sunni people as leaders of IS. Shiite Iraq's military is so bad, in fact, that an Iranian had to be brought in to lead Iraq's brand-new military. There's no way that the Iraqi military could defeat IS at the moment, but this may change as IS becomes depleted of arms, war machines, and ammunition now that their major backers have abandoned them. Either way, it appears to me that the President's plan has nothing to do with conquering either Mosul or Tikrit. Ultimately, we don't need to conquer either of those cities in order to achieve our goals.
Second - Syria. I don't think we care much about what happens in Syria. Assad has proven himself fully capable of defending his regime, and it's clear that none of the Syrian rebels has enough power to topple his regime. IS will be even less capable of overthrowing Assad after the punishment the US is likely to visit upon them. Frankly, from a human rights perspective, we're better off with Assad in charge. It appears that in this area of the world, at least, a minority population can rule over a majority population and more-or-less do an adequate job of protecting the rights of the subjugated majority. That was the case when Saddam Hussein (a minority Sunni) ruled Iraq (which has a Shiite majority). Saddam was no saint, but he kept the peace and liberalized Iraq. The same applies to Syria where a minority Alawite (Assad) rules over a majority Sunni population. As American history shows, it takes a long time for minority rights to be respected and protected when said country is ruled by its majority. How long did it take majority American whites to grant full citizenship and rights to minority Blacks? Hundreds of years? And we might not have even achieved that goal yet? How we ever expected the majority Shiites in Iraq to respect the rights of the minority Sunnis is beyond me. History shows that the tyranny of the majority in a democracy will seriously harm minority rights. Syria and Iraq, on the other hand, show that a minority population in control of government can adequately (if not perfectly) protect the rights of an out-of-power majority. As such, I don't think we care what happens in Syria--not much, in any event. It appears that Assad will hold on to the reins of power, and we're probably fine with that.
Third - We have the support of Arab allies for our campaign against IS. The Saudis have abandoned IS, as have Saudi Arabia's gulf state satellites, so I don't see the problem here.
Fourth - We're not going it alone. France will probably help. SA will help. Besides which, I think you mistake our goals. While it's true that the rhetoric coming out of the President and the Vice President calls for the utter destruction and elimination of IS, I don't think that's what we're really shooting for. What we want to do is relieve the Russian near-monopoly on energy sales to Western Europe. Kurdistan now has a working pipeline (through Turkey) to do just that. All we need to do is contain IS and protect the Kurds. That's it, and I think the President's plan to use limited military force against IS can achieve that goal.
-Laelth
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, this is all about energy--Syria, Iraq, IS, and the President's Speech. [View all]
Laelth
Sep 2014
OP
I certainly expect politicians to advance the interests of the people in a republic.
Laelth
Sep 2014
#56
Humans have been killing each other over resources since the beginning of time. Doesn't make it
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2014
#17
This starts out looking informative and ends up saying absolutely nothing of consequence
Maven
Sep 2014
#19
You did not provide any links for the gas going from the Kurds to Europe.
former9thward
Sep 2014
#31
The fuck? For a fraction of the cost of war(s), we could be up and running on renewable energy.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2014
#38
The problem for oil would be if ISIS threatened the oil production areas in southern Iraq,
amandabeech
Sep 2014
#40