by Village Idiot 24 Replies latest social current
This is what happens when British and French diplomats set arbitrary lines down after the Ottoman Empire collapses and attempt to place Hashemite monarchies in their place - a poor attempt to take human agency away from the peoples of the Middle East.
Yes, Empire was a factor, somewhere at the bottom of the list. Sunni and Shiah have been terrorizing each other on and off for centuries.
@LoveUniHateExams:
"I can see one major problem: I'm not sure if the Sunnis would be that enthusiastic about wiping out ISIS."
LUHE, the Sunnis turned on Al-Qaeda during the Bush war. They referred to it as the Great Awakening. They realized that it was not in their best interest to be under their dominion. ISIS is worse than Al-Qaeda.
If Sunnis are offered their nation they will jettison whatever remnant of ISIS were to remain.
the Sunnis turned on Al-Qaeda during the Bush war - I remember vaguely reading about that. Wasn't it the strategy of the USA to make local Sunni turn against Al Qaeda?
You're right, ISIS are much worse that A-Q. They are also much more organized, can sustain themselves financially, have more weaponry/hardware, and have more support from extremists across the globe. It's my view that ISIS will be much, much more difficult to dislodge than A-Q were.
@LUHE:
"Wasn't it the strategy of the USA to make local Sunni turn against Al Qaeda?"
It was actually their decision based on their experience of an oppressive group. It took a while to simmer but it eventually happened. The US would never have succeeded with the Sunnis on their own.
As for their sustenance, it is mostly based on oil wells that can be protected by "boots on the ground". They're estimated to be making 1 to 3 million a day from those oil fields.
Cutting of their access to those oil fields would choke off their means of continuing a war.
It's funny how declaring that the British were stupid and mistaken is such an easy and obvious thing to claim.
Perhaps they were not so stupid. Maybe things were carefully designed to keep things rather imbalanced as that was the only way to stop things from descending into a bloodbath.
There has been conflict in the region for decades but it seems to have gotten much worse since there has been less control and a power vacuum.
the other three groups would take care of ISIS if they had the resources,
The problem is what else they would take care of with those resources. Remember we armed Saddam ... our friend ... to fight Iran ... not our friend because of propping up some other friend before that ...
@Simon:
"The problem is what else they would take care of with those resources."
I acknowledge the difficulties. I'm sure the Kurds will keep to themselves. The Sunnis might be deterred from avenging themselves because they're outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Shias.
The problem I foresee is what would happen in mixed neighborhoods where Shias and Sunnis live in proximity to each other. Flight is the response that's been happening at the present moment. Baghdad used to be a mixed city but currently Shias are leaving it to get away from the Sunnis.
Nothing is going to be 100% effective but I'm reminded of the saying: "...insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". Something new has to be tried. If it fails we did our best. That is how history would judge us.
@LUHE:
"I don't think we should be the main players in this."
We could be the facilitators. They really need boots on the ground to cut off ISIS access to oil fields and to give the Kurds backup support such as surrounding towns to keep ISIS from getting weapons. The Kurds simply don't have the man power to do everything by themselves.
