Informative as always. Nevertheless, one has to be fair to Shia militia. In order to defend against Sunni Daesh, you need a force equally fanatic as them and the militia is just that. They are motivated by revenge partially; remember what Saddam did to Shias, and after 2003, how many Shiite police and pilgrims to Karbala were blown off by suicide bombers. And these bombers were Alqaeda members but were initially sheltered by Sunnis before Awakening movement turned against them. I am not condoning revenge taking and human rights abuses, but let's no forget the history of the last decade.
I think it is better that we focus on the question Juan is asking and not go into tangential topics. Yes, we know US has spent billions of dollars, but that is not the question at hand. What we want to know is why Iraqi government forces flee in the face of ISIS assault.
As I suggested above, there must be a total breakdown in Iraqi society when its men are not willing to fight. What motivation is greater than your home being invaded, women raped or sold into slavery, and you are summarily executed if you are defeated? We need to look at the social psychology of the Iraqi society. I don't have an answer.
A professional soldier knows that he may die for his country. These Iraqi soldiers are an enigma to me. The leader of their country is begging them not to flee. In military desertion is punished by death. News reports are coming that the troops abandoned their wounded comrades. This is amazing. If you don't believe in the cause of your country, then still you don't abandon your comrades. How can the people who fled Mosul crying and the men who are fleeing go back to their families with their heads raised? It baffles me because of the concept of honor is very strong in these societies.
I believe Vatican can do more. Zionists (both Christian and Jewish brands) have used Bible to justify creation of Israel. If Vatican can clarify the doctrine in this case, as it did with antisemitic passages in Bible, it would go a long way in repairing damage done to Palestinians. I am not an expert in religous issues and thus would like to be educated by anyone including Professor Cole who knows more about this subject. Thanks.
I am very sorry for the people of Iran. They lost the only deterrent they have. Regardless of who rules Iran people of Iran the have a right to defend themselves. To the East lies nuclear armed Pakistan which tacitly approves genocide against its own Shia minority; to the East there is Israel that threatens to bomb Iran; to the South there is 5th fleet and Saudi Arabia which has the world's largest military budget. And then there is ISIL which wants to kill Iranian infidels en mass and dismember it. War mongers in Washington are heartened now that they see Iran's surrender. This deal will make aggression against Iran more likely. Sorry for an ancient civilization that won't be around for much longer.
Excellent commentary professor. For years I have been arguing that the problem of refugees is more fundamental than the problem of occupation. Unfortunately no one has listened to it since I don't think refugee community has an adequate representation. If my thesis is valid, return of refugees should have been the main demand of the movement. In the light of that it was logical to ask Israel, why is that "you are not accepting" Syrian refugees in particualr Plaestinians? Why should refugees go only to Jordan and Turkey? As Akiva Eldar wrote in Al Monitor, these are folks who lived in Akka (Norhtern Israel) for many hundred years. They should retrun home. It is a mistake to condition return of refugees to end of occupation and formation of Palestinian state. These are two different problems and hardly overlap.
Professor, I know that Assad was and is a dictator and it is too much to ask for a dictator to be an advocate of democracy and if there is a retreat it is temporary (look at the Bonapartist coup in Egypt) I don't think it is right to call Syrian catasrophe a revoultion unless we want to throw around this word emotionally. A revolution should be supported by an overwhelming majority. This was not true in Syria. Right from start, Alawite, minorities and even many Sunnis sat out and sometimes actively supported Assad. You think that loosening up by Assad a little bit could have prevented the civil war? I am not so sure. Opposition was there from the beginning, MB and other groups were dormant and had not forgotten Homs and other history.
Perhaps regime thought they would be taking a great risk by loosening up. Opposition was not unified and right behind urban intellengtsia the extremists were lurking. They were ready for armed hostilities. Right from the start Syrian army had great number of casualties. How did the opposition get the arms so fast? They and their Gulf patrons were ready. Assad would have taken great risk otherwise.
You know the history of Syria better than anyone. So, I stand to be corrected. You must have anlayzed the situation elsewhere, but I don't recall it. In brief, I don't think the use of word Revolution is accurate.
Hunter Watson, US is involved anyway. Saudi's airforce, its planes are American. In fact, I don't think knowing them i doubt if they could have accomplished these raids without active support of Pentagon. US has been droning this country and actively destabilizing it. Remember that it was last year when someone from Yemen spoke to Congress and said don't bomb my village to Congressmen's applause?
Iran is there by default, that is because Yemen had been a failed state for a while. I don't think that Iran had to do anything. In fact, there is no proof of major military support from Iran to Houti's. It is difficult to ship arms under watchful eyes of US Navy. Besides, Houthis got over $400 million of modern US equipmetn according to Pentagon. Who needs those old Klashnikovs from Iran? As it has been written here, Yemen's problem is poverty, it is a country that is thirsty. To oversimplify the problem and say it is a sectarion fight is not accurate.
Nation state is an arcahic concept. Why should some countries in the region be so poor and others so rich? And these others were all created artifically by coloinial powers (I think it is ridiculous to call these tiny countries in Persian Gulf states. And remember Lawrence of Arabia?) This idea has been challenged in ME but unfortunatley by murdreres like Saddam (invasion of Kuwait) and Daesh/IS.
Finally, what worries me is this idea of bunch of countries forming a coalition and attacking another country and no body in the world rasing their voice! What happened to international law, to security council, structure of the world order after 2nd world wa? I fear the future.
I think that Daesh elements and those who helped them should be punished. Part of trouble in Iraq is that Sunni minority has not accepted the rule of majority. Reconciliation cannot happen if Sunnis do not accept that their old hegemony and bossing over Shiites is over.
Informative as always. Nevertheless, one has to be fair to Shia militia. In order to defend against Sunni Daesh, you need a force equally fanatic as them and the militia is just that. They are motivated by revenge partially; remember what Saddam did to Shias, and after 2003, how many Shiite police and pilgrims to Karbala were blown off by suicide bombers. And these bombers were Alqaeda members but were initially sheltered by Sunnis before Awakening movement turned against them. I am not condoning revenge taking and human rights abuses, but let's no forget the history of the last decade.
I think it is better that we focus on the question Juan is asking and not go into tangential topics. Yes, we know US has spent billions of dollars, but that is not the question at hand. What we want to know is why Iraqi government forces flee in the face of ISIS assault.
As I suggested above, there must be a total breakdown in Iraqi society when its men are not willing to fight. What motivation is greater than your home being invaded, women raped or sold into slavery, and you are summarily executed if you are defeated? We need to look at the social psychology of the Iraqi society. I don't have an answer.
A professional soldier knows that he may die for his country. These Iraqi soldiers are an enigma to me. The leader of their country is begging them not to flee. In military desertion is punished by death. News reports are coming that the troops abandoned their wounded comrades. This is amazing. If you don't believe in the cause of your country, then still you don't abandon your comrades. How can the people who fled Mosul crying and the men who are fleeing go back to their families with their heads raised? It baffles me because of the concept of honor is very strong in these societies.
I believe Vatican can do more. Zionists (both Christian and Jewish brands) have used Bible to justify creation of Israel. If Vatican can clarify the doctrine in this case, as it did with antisemitic passages in Bible, it would go a long way in repairing damage done to Palestinians. I am not an expert in religous issues and thus would like to be educated by anyone including Professor Cole who knows more about this subject. Thanks.
I am very sorry for the people of Iran. They lost the only deterrent they have. Regardless of who rules Iran people of Iran the have a right to defend themselves. To the East lies nuclear armed Pakistan which tacitly approves genocide against its own Shia minority; to the East there is Israel that threatens to bomb Iran; to the South there is 5th fleet and Saudi Arabia which has the world's largest military budget. And then there is ISIL which wants to kill Iranian infidels en mass and dismember it. War mongers in Washington are heartened now that they see Iran's surrender. This deal will make aggression against Iran more likely. Sorry for an ancient civilization that won't be around for much longer.
Excellent commentary professor. For years I have been arguing that the problem of refugees is more fundamental than the problem of occupation. Unfortunately no one has listened to it since I don't think refugee community has an adequate representation. If my thesis is valid, return of refugees should have been the main demand of the movement. In the light of that it was logical to ask Israel, why is that "you are not accepting" Syrian refugees in particualr Plaestinians? Why should refugees go only to Jordan and Turkey? As Akiva Eldar wrote in Al Monitor, these are folks who lived in Akka (Norhtern Israel) for many hundred years. They should retrun home. It is a mistake to condition return of refugees to end of occupation and formation of Palestinian state. These are two different problems and hardly overlap.
Professor, I know that Assad was and is a dictator and it is too much to ask for a dictator to be an advocate of democracy and if there is a retreat it is temporary (look at the Bonapartist coup in Egypt) I don't think it is right to call Syrian catasrophe a revoultion unless we want to throw around this word emotionally. A revolution should be supported by an overwhelming majority. This was not true in Syria. Right from start, Alawite, minorities and even many Sunnis sat out and sometimes actively supported Assad. You think that loosening up by Assad a little bit could have prevented the civil war? I am not so sure. Opposition was there from the beginning, MB and other groups were dormant and had not forgotten Homs and other history.
Perhaps regime thought they would be taking a great risk by loosening up. Opposition was not unified and right behind urban intellengtsia the extremists were lurking. They were ready for armed hostilities. Right from the start Syrian army had great number of casualties. How did the opposition get the arms so fast? They and their Gulf patrons were ready. Assad would have taken great risk otherwise.
You know the history of Syria better than anyone. So, I stand to be corrected. You must have anlayzed the situation elsewhere, but I don't recall it. In brief, I don't think the use of word Revolution is accurate.
Hunter Watson, US is involved anyway. Saudi's airforce, its planes are American. In fact, I don't think knowing them i doubt if they could have accomplished these raids without active support of Pentagon. US has been droning this country and actively destabilizing it. Remember that it was last year when someone from Yemen spoke to Congress and said don't bomb my village to Congressmen's applause?
Iran is there by default, that is because Yemen had been a failed state for a while. I don't think that Iran had to do anything. In fact, there is no proof of major military support from Iran to Houti's. It is difficult to ship arms under watchful eyes of US Navy. Besides, Houthis got over $400 million of modern US equipmetn according to Pentagon. Who needs those old Klashnikovs from Iran? As it has been written here, Yemen's problem is poverty, it is a country that is thirsty. To oversimplify the problem and say it is a sectarion fight is not accurate.
Nation state is an arcahic concept. Why should some countries in the region be so poor and others so rich? And these others were all created artifically by coloinial powers (I think it is ridiculous to call these tiny countries in Persian Gulf states. And remember Lawrence of Arabia?) This idea has been challenged in ME but unfortunatley by murdreres like Saddam (invasion of Kuwait) and Daesh/IS.
Finally, what worries me is this idea of bunch of countries forming a coalition and attacking another country and no body in the world rasing their voice! What happened to international law, to security council, structure of the world order after 2nd world wa? I fear the future.
I think that Daesh elements and those who helped them should be punished. Part of trouble in Iraq is that Sunni minority has not accepted the rule of majority. Reconciliation cannot happen if Sunnis do not accept that their old hegemony and bossing over Shiites is over.