Talk:Iraq-ISIS Conflict of 2014

Start Notes
The Iraq situation is moving fast enough we'll probably never master it in a timely manner, but there should at least be a master page to start some collation, analysis, discussion/rants, something maybe useful. Clearly more than Ukraine even, this deteriorating and confusing situation connects to our core mandate re: Syria. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I already created ISIS liberates Mosul, but maybe we can have both. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea I had was before that one gets too established, it could be for the Mosul stuff, and this to gether everything (not that there'll be much, necessarily) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Air Force
(snipped commentary from the front page)
 * Defnse News, June 27 A Gannet News Service:
 * The Pentagon pushed back Friday on comments made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki that the US is slow-rolling a sale of Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters to Baghdad.
 * “There’s been no slow-rolling,” Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters at a press briefing on Friday. ... Kirby said the first two F-16s are scheduled for delivery in the fall as has been planned for months. “I don’t know how one can make the case that we’re slow-rolling it when they weren’t even supposed to be delivered for another few months,” Kirby said.
 * Did someone say the "slow-rolling" was decided on recently? Like, in coordination with whoever was setting up the recent ISIS takeover? Because no one said that. He just said it was slow, and apparently had been even when that slow timetable was set. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “We’re still committed to the program. We’re still committed to the sale. And the process continues to churn, even given the unrest in Iraq.''”
 * That last suggests that the ISIS invasion from destabilized Syria (he calls it "unrest in Iraq") perhaps should slow, or even stop the process. I mean, should one provide air power to a government whose fault the ISIS takeover is? Those jets could be sent to Erdogan instead, or given to the "vetted" Syrian rebels. :| --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kirby's comments make me wonder how much of the Pentagon's master strategy this press secretary's been hipped to. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why Regime Change Now?
Reports now say president Obama is prepared to assist Iraq militarily, at their request. But first, he demands either reforms or even for PM Maliki to step down. WTF? I understand there's been a lot of talk, probably not all untrue, that he provoked all this with sectarian maneuvers, making Sunnis feel second-class, etc. The same kind of allegations Syria started with in 2011. But as I understand ISIS, they can only be placated, "reached out to," by implementing their demands peacefully. Give them an Islamist state (somehow, in Iraq, Syria, and Lebaanon somehow) or they'll do what they can to take it. It seems the problem was an insufficient military, US-trained and supplied - poorly, it seems. Now the too-extreme-for-al-CIAda-ISIS is putting one pincer on Maliki - within a span of weeks creating two democratically elected leader in the ISIS three-state area that the US and ISIS agree must be overthrown when there were zero before the Syria election and Iraq catastrophe. Interesting, that. Anyway, the other pincer, in Washington/London/et al, is apparently being placed with all the foreign-policy wonk agreement that the ISIS problem is Maliki's making (and maybe Syria's and Iran's, not not our own, Turkey's, KSA's, etc...) And if he doesn't step down, in favor of (?does it matter? It's a way of saying "no") we will leave Iraq to its chaotic transition to the Islamist menace that will finally drag down Syria and take on Iran. Or so it seems to be coming out, by design or not. They leave Iraq weak while enabling a Sunni extremist uprising next door? Then use the predictable outcome to demand regime change in Iraq all over again. I suspect it's not because he's a poor leader. Not enough people are asking what's the real reason.

What's the real reason? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All very difficult to see through, indeed. One thing is for sure: Without internal help you cannot overrun a city guarded by tens of thousands of soldiers with a band of a couple of hundred fighters with ratmobiles. There has been treason in high places of the army. Apparently Saddam's cronies. More difficult to say is how independent ISIS really is - do we buy the story that they showed Al-CIAwahiri the middle finger? In any case, for the Empire it's an opportunity to undo Iraq "falling to Iran". --CE (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/why-iraq-is-more-stable-than-you-think-108708.html#.U78Yt0Zo098
 * 2. Maliki will be leaving soon.
 * This is possible, but far from certain. First, barring his early demise, Maliki will only leave through the legitimate process of forming a new government, or so he insists. It is not clear exactly what those who are urging Maliki to leave mean. Under what constitutional mechanism would he “go,” and how would his successor be selected? Nor is it clear what is meant by a “national unity” government—simply ignore the results of the earlier election? One does wish that some of Maliki’s critics read the Iraqi constitution.


 * Massoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan, statement to Maliki: "You must apologise to the Iraqi people and step down. You have destroyed the country and someone who has destroyed the country cannot save the country from crises." (source)
 * Sadr Adds To Pressure On Maliki To Step Down
 * Anbar Tribal Leader: Maliki Is ‘More Dangerous’ Than ISIS