Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

Indeed. They've come much closer than this on multiple occasions, and their efforts inevitably collapse. No one really likes them or their governance, other militant radicals included. They are bothersome to enough actual authorities and a strong enough irritant to locals that they inevitably lose sway. The concern is not that they can "win" so much as that, by continually destabilizing an area, they can make sure that everyone loses.

 

They most they can hope for is to destabilize the central government of Iraq and effectively turn the land into anarchy and chaos. They don't exactly have the ability, the means, or a mandate to create a replacement state.

 

So that's what happened to Atlantis.

 

Eh, I've probably been reading too much ancient history where violent hordes carving up their own states was common.

Hopefully they'll implode and the status quo will return.

 

http://www.lisagraas.com/2014/06/10/urgent-prayer-request-for-fr-najeeb-and-christians-of-iraq/

 

Ancient History

 

This much is true. Although making sure everyone loses is a real possibility. Right now, the group has basically cut both Syria and Iraq in two. More importantly, the group controls the oil fields in Eastern Syria, as well as Iraq's largest operating oil refinery and power plant. Ironically in Syria, the group is rumored to have been holding electricity hostage, which the Assad government has paid ransom for. I agree with you that the situation isn't permanent, but it obviously has the effect of complicating the overall situations in both Syria and Iraq.

But I'd say it's also possible that a Balkanization of the region could take place, which would force the international community to craft an artificial solution. Because it's also kind of funny, in a sad way, that Kurdish rebels took control of Kirkuk in the aftermath of an attack when the Iraqi government forces simply abandoned the city. Right now, the ISIS is ignoring the Kurds while focusing on the push to Baghdad, but if past behavior is any indication, you could have some seriously entrenched regional powers.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean they'd withhold recognition. Just because new states have been formalized diplomatically does not mean they weren't created violently. For example, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Or Sudan and South Sudan.

Not saying that ISIL will be successful in creating an internationally recognized state, however.

 

Well, isn't this collapse something of a disorderly, chaotic version of the Biden partition plan circa 2007?

 

This.

 

East Pakistan and Bangladesh....
Yemen, twice.
The entire Yugoslavian area from which the term Balkanization is derived from.
Pretty much all of mainland China

And I'm sure some others as well..

 

ITS the Middle East everyone always loses in that part of the world sooner or later.
Im glad the Brits and French pulled out take away Soviet/Russian/US/FR/English weapons and they would be fighting with spears bows and arrows.

 

what

 

Glad to see our local libertarian/racist segment is still kicking.

 

Jello, what I'm saying is that each situation is different. The international community has already said that the Assad regime is not the legitimate one in Syria, so it's put itself in a corner if a sufficiently powerful enough group asserts those rights. Syria is closer to Serbia in this regard than you're giving credit to. I don't think this is the group to undertake this, but it could certainly destabilize the process enough so there is no clear alternative. But if it did, then the international community would 1)have to recognize it as the new authority, or 2)remove the group by force to return it to whoever is viewed to be legitimate. There are plenty of historic examples of both options.

And I mentioned East Pakistan/Bangladesh, not the armed conflict that created Pakistan from the former colony. If you remember, Pakistan was awarded East and West, which was one country. Internal uprising created Bangladesh in the East. Yemen went through a violent uprising that created North and South Yemen for a while, and then those sections went through a revolt which rejoined the country.

 

libertaryan

 

I just read that Americans are being evacuated from Balad, north of Bagdad. Oh, how I miss Balad Air Base, aka Camp Anaconda, aka Mortaritaville. So glad I don't have to go back there!

 

If only we never sent you there in the first place.

 

Yeah I'm sorry to be captain harsh-trousers (if that's not a think, I'm making it one) but Saddam's brand of iron-fisted autocracy, might like that of Ceaușescu, was an astonishingly effective bonding agent for disparate groups to work together. Yes, the fear of death or torture was a motivating factor in ensuring compliance with said regime however, the cluster**** that emerged as a result makes me think it wasn't worth removing him.

 

Erm, Ender, I'm really not sure how that's true. There wasn't a lot of "cooperation" in Hussein's regime. Important posts were pretty exclusive to Sunnis in general and Baathists in particular. There was even an unusual preponderance of people from Tikrit. You can't hold that up as an alternative, since it was, by the harshest outlooks, what Maliki was trying to accomplish in reverse.

 

Oh, it was brutal, wretched, and diabolical. No doubt of that. But the reason I mention Ceaușescu in the same breath is that both men were able to effectively impose their will on these groups and prevent exactly what is happening.

Though I suppose that a death by natural causes would've had much the same effect and more in terms of destabilising the region.

Thanks, Obama.