Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I really wonder what is driving so many girls and women to join ISIS....

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really wonder what is driving so many girls and women to join ISIS....

Warped interpretations of Islam mainly, Wahhabism and the like.

[Bundabunda]

I really wonder what is driving so many girls and women to join ISIS....

A really extensive social network m8. Seriously it's super extensive and you can pick out a catalog of which jihadi you want to marry.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really wonder what is driving so many girls and women to join ISIS....

A really extensive social network m8. Seriously it's super extensive and you can pick out a catalog of which jihadi you want to marry.

And that ^ Daesh is all over the net.

[Filimons]

A really extensive social network m8. Seriously it's super extensive and you can pick out a catalog of which jihadi you want to marry.

And that ^ Daesh is all over the net.

I've read several pieces detailing Daesh's use of the dark web.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And that ^ Daesh is all over the net.

I've read several pieces detailing Daesh's use of the dark web.

Yeah they have a lot of sites on the deep, I've seen one that I'm pretty damn certain was run by them. It just had lots of propaganda bs, all their videos and whatnot.

[Filimons]

I've read several pieces detailing Daesh's use of the dark web.

Yeah they have a lot of sites on the deep, I've seen one that I'm pretty damn certain was run by them. It just had lots of propaganda bs, all their videos and whatnot.

The sheer size of their digital recruitment and propaganda network is astounding.

[Filimons]

‘He wasn't wearing a British uniform but he died for British values’, says British YPG volunteer commenting on a fallen colleague and compatriot. It's an interesting, short video courtesy of The Guardian and Macer Gifford. Thoughts?

It's not just that though. There are problems within wider Iraqi society that isn't exclusive to one of the three. Corruption within Kurdistan has always been high, not to mention that the political feud between the PUK and KPD stretching back to the 50s. It's not just "muh ethnic minorities" but there's a lot of other factors at play too. What about the fact that it was the Iraqi Air Force and not any Kurdish affiliated groups who rescued Yazidis from Mount Sinjar? There's nothing in that? There's nothing for both sides to agree over after all three sides have shed blood fighting ISIS? Disagreements can run deep, but Iraq's shown that they can unite against a common force.

I believe I've mentioned it before but perhaps Iraq's key to developing a stronger national identity is to appeal to its pre-Islamic history; declaring the country the ‘cradle of civilisation’ could do wonders for Iraqi patriotism whilst also attracting the country's non-Muslim minorities. We mustn't forget the Shia-Sunni divide (for example) isn't limited to the religious aspect; these bonds and identities are often communitarian as described in a source I posted her not very long ago. In order to re-build the Iraqi national identity (I write ‘re-build’ instead of ‘build’ because I do believe there was once a collective Iraqi national identity), we – no, the Iraqis – must stress their unifying qualities, so to speak. The ‘new Iraq’ (a post-Daesh Iraq, that is) must allow for a strong, pluralistic nation-state or else it will collapse under its own weight. I say this as a former supporter of Iraq's partition.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

Why do people assume that this is the answer to peace in Iraq?

I didn't assume partition was the answer but answer number 5, in my 6-point plan, remember?

What lessons are each of the three states going to take away if they get their way and don't learn to negotiate like adults?

The lesson the Sunnis have taken from not being a state is that Baghdad, the central Iraqi government had no need to negotiate with Sunnis but could treat them like children or actually much worse than that because civilised countries don't generally put children in prison but Baghdad could order any Sunni imprisoned they liked, even the Iraqi vice-president.

Seriously this is one of the things that pisses me off about Iraq, the idea that ethnic partition is magically going to erase all past memories.

The Sunni / Shia are Islamic sects, not ethnic groups.

Did partition stop India and Pakistan from escalating their arms race? What's an example of partition ever working?

Every country of the world is a geographical and political partition of the world therefore any working country is an example of partition working.

Iraqi politicians are damn corrupt and have to answer to their people tbh. Splitting them up doesn't necessarily create better circumstances for all parties involved, it just creates a host of neighbors with their own armies that don't like each other. What a dumb idea to have tbh.

People tend to like a neighbouring army much more if it keeps its soldiers and police out of their own country.
Having an army or police kick your door down any time they feel like it is something people really dislike.

To get an insight into why Sunnis could not and did not resist the ISIS offensive in Sunni areas of Iraq, I recommend this quote.

Wikipedia - Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Reactions - Sunni

Fugitive Iraq Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni who described the fall of Mosul as a "Revolution of the oppressed, downtrodden and marginalized people in Mosul", denied ISIL played a leading role amongst the government's opponents and alleged the militancy against the central government was led by Sunni tribes and disenfranchised Sunnis.

Another prominent Sunni, Ali Hatem al-Suleiman (emir of the large Dulaim tribe), claimed "It is the tribal rebels who are in control of the situation in Mosul. It is not reasonable to say that a group like ISIL, which has a small number of men and vehicles, could be in control of a large city like Mosul. Therefore, it is clear that this is a tribal revolution, but the government is trying to force us all to wear the robe of the terrorists and ISIS."

A member of insurgent held Mosul's governing council, a former colonel in the Ba'ath era military alleged that the opposition to the government was composed of multiple Sunni Arab factions, most of which are led by officers from the disbanded military. The former officer claimed that the various opposition factions were working to minimize ISIL influence and appoint officials capable of restoring services in insurgent held areas.

There is too much bad blood between the Sunnis and Shia to take anything in trust. The Shia government will take the guns from Sunnis only from their cold dead hands. Partition gives Sunnis the constitutional guarantees that they will never again be left disarmed and defenceless at the hands of a sectarian Shia state.

Partition is the only route to peace in Iraq in my opinion but it is not sufficient - there are 6 points to my plan and we need them all.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

Why? Their main gripe with each other is lack of representation in their government/one side screwing over another for power in said government. Give them their own nations and governments and that goes away. I see absolutely no reason for them to war with each other after that.

I don't think it'd be that easy. The whole lack of representation thing runs deep in the region's history, since it's tied to the whole Sunni/Shia thing.

Plus, we all know Iran and the Saudis will be meddling somehow, and that won't help matters either.

We stop Iran and the Saudis from meddling in Iraq with points 1, 2, 3 & 4 from my 6-point plan.

STRATEGY TO DEFEAT Islamic State / ISIL / ISIS / Daesh

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region.

3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits.

4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not a spike within 48 hours.

So applying these points in the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran, gives us -

1) Regime-change Saudi Arabia and Iran
2) Seize control over Saudi & Iran satellites, take Saudi-state and Iranian-state TV broadcasters off satellite TV, replace with our allied Arabian and Iranian democratic opposition TV
3) Seize oil tankers exporting from Saudi Arabia and Iran
4) The specific military actions could be strikes on Saudi military intelligence HQ or royal palaces, or for Iran strikes on Republican Guard HQ or Supreme leader residences.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

What I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the idea that division will solve everything. An earlier poster mentioned Pakistan and India, and look at how that turned out.

Also, it's not something to "fear," but merely something that will no doubt inflame tensions and cause some problems, which leads into my first point.

India and Pakistan was a mess for a whole lot of reasons, not just for merely being a division. In Iraq's case the division would be much simpler as the areas of Sunni/Shia majority are largely contiguous.

And who's to sy that Iran and the Saudis won't attempt to enflame tensions between ethnic groups within a united Iraq?

Iran and the Saudis (and other states) have been doing precisely that ever since we brought down Saddam Hussein. That's really the primary reason Iraq is in such a mess today.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

I worry that separate states would mistreat Christians and other minorities within their borders.

That's why we need point 6 of my plan.

STRATEGY TO DEFEAT Islamic State / ISIL / ISIS / Daesh
...

6) Establish Western military bases in Iraq for training up the local armies. Better if we can supply them by sea or air rather than by long land routes which can have supply routes attacked by road side bombs and ambushes.

We support democratic-minded politicians and military in each of the 3 states, help them defend the constitutional guarantees of the citizens to freedom of religion.

Just look at the treatment of minorities in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I did. It's not perfect in Kurdistan and neither is it perfect in the United States, but even Kurdistan's critics admit

"the situation for minorities in Iraqi Kurdistan is much better than that in other regions of Iraq — as well as in some other countries of the region"

If we establish a base in Kurdistan as per point 6 of my plan, we can help those Kurds who wish to defend the constitutional guarantees of minorities there too.

The Kurds are our best hope in Iraq. We must escalate our policy to arm the Kurds with enough heavy weapons to be able to defeat ISIS.

[Ganos Lao]

What I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the idea that division will solve everything. An earlier poster mentioned Pakistan and India, and look at how that turned out.

Also, it's not something to "fear," but merely something that will no doubt inflame tensions and cause some problems, which leads into my first point.

India and Pakistan was a mess for a whole lot of reasons, not just for merely being a division. In Iraq's case the division would be much simpler as the areas of Sunni/Shia majority are largely contiguous.

And who's to sy that Iran and the Saudis won't attempt to enflame tensions between ethnic groups within a united Iraq?

I don't think you get it.

Why did Pakistan and India separate?

Because Muslims and Hindus couldn't get along.

Has that changed anything?

No. A lot of people in both countries still hate each other. A lot of tensions between Muslims and Hindus still exist. Why are they a mess? Because it all stems from that. The Muslim will not cavort with the idol worshipper and the Hindu rejects friendship with the son of the invader.

You're saying "divide Iraq guiz, and nothing bad will happen!"

And that's why I brought up India/Pakistan. Because I don't see partition the same way you do. I'm not necessarily saying I'm against it. I'm just skeptical that it'd work as well as you think it would. I mean, I could've brought up the Irish, Israel/Palestine, Armenia/Azeribaijan, Cyprus, China/Xinjiang and Tibet, and other situations where division has only led to "us against them" rather than "it's just us now, so let's work together," as you think Iraq's successor states would believe.

who's to sy that Iran and the Saudis won't attempt to enflame tensions between ethnic groups within a united Iraq?

They'll do it either way, of course.

The Iranians still see themselves as the sons of the revolution Khomeini hijacked in the seventies. The Saudis still see themselves as the purest form of Muslim. Both have long exploited tensions in the region for decades, it's nothing new. In fact, if anything, it's one of the reasons why the region has ended up the way it has.

I've said it before on this thread that once ISIS has been defeated, the Kurds will say we can haz Kurdistan nao? And the Arab militias will tell them you're on Iraqi soil. And we all know the US will try to keep Iraq united (because the US has to do something to escape the fallout from "lol I guess we picked the wrong guy, huh?"), so that'll just encourage some Kurdish hardliners to start getting uppity. Our sons and daughters fought and died for nothing, they'll say.

Then you'll hear of some skirmishes. That's when, once again, we hear of civil strife.

Truth be told, though, all this would've happened decades prior were it not for some upstart Party member from Tikrit.

[Ganos Lao]

India and Pakistan was a mess for a whole lot of reasons, not just for merely being a division. In Iraq's case the division would be much simpler as the areas of Sunni/Shia majority are largely contiguous.

(Image)

And who's to sy that Iran and the Saudis won't attempt to enflame tensions between ethnic groups within a united Iraq?

Iran and the Saudis (and other states) have been doing precisely that ever since we brought down Saddam Hussein. That's really the primary reason Iraq is in such a mess today.

They've done that prior to the toppling of Saddam, however.

It's why Saddam adopted Persophobia as a main aspect of propaganda during his war with Iran, appealing to the Arab Muslim defeat of the Sassanid Persians, saying "we can do it again!"

Anti-Persian rhetoric was in Iraq for decades, especially when Saddam's uncle published the work, "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies," which was written all the way back in 1940. The work would later influence Saddam's foreign policy, since he spent decades in a rivalry with the Persians (back when they were under the Shah, with whom he was a rival) and the Israelis, who Arab statesmen looking for cheap ways to boost ailing popularity have appealed to (Palestinians are treated as mere filthy peasants in most Arab states today, after all, no matter what rhetoric the governments use).

[Bundabunda]

I believe I've mentioned it before but perhaps Iraq's key to developing a stronger national identity is to appeal to its pre-Islamic history; declaring the country the ‘cradle of civilisation’ could do wonders for Iraqi patriotism whilst also attracting the country's non-Muslim minorities. We mustn't forget the Shia-Sunni divide (for example) isn't limited to the religious aspect; these bonds and identities are often communitarian as described in a source I posted her not very long ago. In order to re-build the Iraqi national identity (I write ‘re-build’ instead of ‘build’ because I do believe there was once a collective Iraqi national identity), we – no, the Iraqis – must stress their unifying qualities, so to speak. The ‘new Iraq’ (a post-Daesh Iraq, that is) must allow for a strong, pluralistic nation-state or else it will collapse under its own weight. I say this as a former supporter of Iraq's partition.

I don't know if that's the way to go. Saddam rebuilt a lot of ancient Babylon, but under the premise that Zygon was more of an antisemite hero for Iraqis rather than a productive ruler.

I genuinely think that in the long run, we'll have to recognize that Islam is an institution that runs deep withing not just Iraqi, but Arab society in general. It's sort of like what Christianity used to be in the West, a cultural force to define and distinguish yourself from the other guy. Outside of Iraq, Ahar-Al Sham's (big Islamist faction in Syria) wrote an article in the Washington Post about how an "Islamist" label deters Washington away from funding groups who have genuinely good intentions. Ahar Al Sham said that they would even be open to a democratic Syria after Assad goes, sort of like what Hezbollah is in Lebanon minus the Iranian money. I don't see what would be wrong in allowing groups (parties in the future maybe?) to participate. The US's failure to support pro-democratic Islamist rebels has been a huge policy failure and why the FSA has stalled in growth for so long until this year.

[Novus America]

I believe I've mentioned it before but perhaps Iraq's key to developing a stronger national identity is to appeal to its pre-Islamic history; declaring the country the ‘cradle of civilisation’ could do wonders for Iraqi patriotism whilst also attracting the country's non-Muslim minorities. We mustn't forget the Shia-Sunni divide (for example) isn't limited to the religious aspect; these bonds and identities are often communitarian as described in a source I posted her not very long ago. In order to re-build the Iraqi national identity (I write ‘re-build’ instead of ‘build’ because I do believe there was once a collective Iraqi national identity), we – no, the Iraqis – must stress their unifying qualities, so to speak. The ‘new Iraq’ (a post-Daesh Iraq, that is) must allow for a strong, pluralistic nation-state or else it will collapse under its own weight. I say this as a former supporter of Iraq's partition.

I don't know if that's the way to go. Saddam rebuilt a lot of ancient Babylon, but under the premise that Zygon was more of an antisemite hero for Iraqis rather than a productive ruler.

I genuinely think that in the long run, we'll have to recognize that Islam is an institution that runs deep withing not just Iraqi, but Arab society in general. It's sort of like what Christianity used to be in the West, a cultural force to define and distinguish yourself from the other guy. Outside of Iraq, Ahar-Al Sham's (big Islamist faction in Syria) wrote an article in the Washington Post about how an "Islamist" label deters Washington away from funding groups who have genuinely good intentions. Ahar Al Sham said that they would even be open to a democratic Syria after Assad goes, sort of like what Hezbollah is in Lebanon minus the Iranian money. I don't see what would be wrong in allowing groups (parties in the future maybe?) to participate. The US's failure to support pro-democratic Islamist rebels has been a huge policy failure and why the FSA has stalled in growth for so long until this year.

Yes because the Islamist rebels in Libya were so totally into democracy. It is not like they started a civil war when they lost an election...

Islamism says the will of God is all, and the will of the people subordinate. Islamism and democracy are mutually exclusive. Islamists only support democracy when they win, as soon as popular support turns they inevitably resort to violence and oppression.

[Bundabunda]

Then how do you explain Hezbollah?

Forgot a link to the article from my last post.

For the record the divisions in Libya are more tribalized than in Iraq or Syria. It's why most of the fighting happens in the east and the north and not the west and the south, over control of oil fields and profits, and so on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Seriously, just read the article because it's so good but here's the gist of it:

We believe that Syria needs a national unifying project that cannot be controlled or delivered by a single party or group and should not be bound to a single ideology. We believe in striking a balance that respects the legitimate aspirations of the majority as well as protects minority communities and enables them to play a real and positive role in Syria’s future....the facts of war have made it clear that he [Assad] is finished. The only remaining question is who will deliver the coup de grace: the Islamic State or the Syrian opposition. That question should prompt Washington to admit that the Islamic State’s extremist ideology can be defeated only through a homegrown Sunni alternative — with the term “moderate” defined not by CIA handlers but by Syrians themselves.

They've worked with the FSA and the YPG have even taken on their help before. Just because you don't understand Syria doesn't mean that Islamism has to have such a narrow application to policy.

[Novus America]

Then how do you explain Hezbollah?

Forgot a link to the article from my last post.

For the record the divisions in Libya are more tribalized than in Iraq or Syria. It's why most of the fighting happens in the east and the north and not the west and the south, over control of oil fields and profits, and so on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Oh yeah, Hezbollah has such a great record on Democracy. And do not run a state within a state with their own independent army and parallel government...

Again Islamism is all about the will of God. The will of the people is irrelevant if it conflicts the will of God.
Obviously Libya has tribal issues too, but you cannot argue the Islamists turned against democracy.

[Bundabunda]

Oh yeah, Hezbollah has such a great record on Democracy. And do not run a state within a state with their own independent army and parallel government...

Again Islamism is all about the will of God. The will of the people is irrelevant if it conflicts the will of God.
Obviously Libya has tribal issues too, but you cannot argue the Islamists turned against democracy.

So what if they do? They're not undermining the Lebanese state's power are they? Hezbollah is probably a better welfare alternative in south Lebanon than an always-fragile Lebanese government trying to keep up with a huge influx of refugees.

Just read the article dude. It's so obvious that your world view is limited to Al Qaeda and ISIS with zero understanding about what Syrian society looks like.

And tribalism has always been a huge thing in Libya too. Here's something on it.

In Libya, sectarian differences are less important than the tribal differences that exist between the three historical regions of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan... Opposition groups within Libya overthrew the Gaddafi government in 2011. These groups were mostly centered in Cyrenaica, while forces loyal to Gaddafi were centered in Tripolitania...The National Liberation Army in some capacity
employed tribal loyalties to fight against Gaddafi’s armed forces. Following the 2011 revolution, the National Transitional Council represented mostly the interests of rebel forces based in Cyrenaica. The General National Council elected in July, 2012 may allow for the successful democratization of Libya but so far has still demonstrated injustice toward certain tribes, especially those that had supported Gaddafi and has no
been able to quell violence. Libya’s largest tribe, the Warfalla, has faced a siege in the region of Bani Walid as a response of the General National Congress to the killing of Omran Shaaban, who is thought to have assassinated Gaddafi (Amnesty).

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cg ... lobaltides

Tribalism is an indispensable part of the Libyan conflict, while it's only recently that fundamentalist elements have been imported in from elsewhere.

[Novus America]

Oh yeah, Hezbollah has such a great record on Democracy. And do not run a state within a state with their own independent army and parallel government...

Again Islamism is all about the will of God. The will of the people is irrelevant if it conflicts the will of God.
Obviously Libya has tribal issues too, but you cannot argue the Islamists turned against democracy.

So what if they do? They're not undermining the Lebanese state's power are they? Hezbollah is probably a better welfare alternative in south Lebanon than an always-fragile Lebanese government trying to keep up with a huge influx of refugees.

Just read the article dude. It's so obvious that your world view is limited to Al Qaeda and ISIS with zero understanding about what Syrian society looks like.

Hezobollah is inherently undermining state power by having a party military and parallel government. Even if you think it works better. That is simply NOT acceptable in a democracy. Do you know how democracy works?

I know the problems with Syria go deeper, but Islamism is inherently mutually exclusive with democracy. Democracy is the rule of people. Islamism is the rule of God, the views of the people irrelevant.
Do you know what Islamism is? And why is Syria an American problem anyway? Why should we get involved in that mess?

[Bundabunda]

Hezobollah is inherently undermining state power by having a party military and parallel government. Even if you think it works better. That is simply NOT acceptable in a democracy. Do you know how democracy works?

I know the problems with Syria go deeper, but Islamism is inherently mutually exclusive with democracy. Democracy is the rule of people. Islamism is the rule of God, the views of the people irrelevant.
Do you know what Islamism is? And why is Syria an American problem anyway? Why should we get involved in that mess?

When did I say that Syria is an American problem? It isn't. Pretty fucking rich that you're the one saying that and yet denying the fact that groups like Ahrar Al Sham have traction with civilian populations.

And yeah man I know what Islamism is. Just like Al Qaeda is Islamist, so are the governments of Pakistan and Indonesia and we wouldn't say they're trying to establish a Caliphate are they? It's a broad spectrum with lots of views. They're democratic albeit corrupt governments. Pretty sure you'll try to nitpick that too.

Fuck it, this isn't going anywhere because you're basing your assumptions on the notion that Islamism in the world functions exclusively outside of participatory spheres and exists in its own bubble. Flawed interpretation period.

[Novus America]

Hezobollah is inherently undermining state power by having a party military and parallel government. Even if you think it works better. That is simply NOT acceptable in a democracy. Do you know how democracy works?

I know the problems with Syria go deeper, but Islamism is inherently mutually exclusive with democracy. Democracy is the rule of people. Islamism is the rule of God, the views of the people irrelevant.
Do you know what Islamism is? And why is Syria an American problem anyway? Why should we get involved in that mess?

When did I say that Syria is an American problem? It isn't. Pretty fucking rich that you're the one saying that and yet denying the fact that groups like Ahrar Al Sham have traction with civilian populations.

And yeah man I know what Islamism is. Just like Al Qaeda is Islamist, so are the governments of Pakistan and Indonesia and we wouldn't say they're trying to establish a Caliphate are they? It's a broad spectrum with lots of views. They're democratic albeit corrupt governments. Pretty sure you'll try to nitpick that too.

Fuck it, this isn't going anywhere because you're basing your assumptions on the notion that Islamism in the world functions exclusively outside of participatory spheres and exists in its own bubble. Flawed interpretation period.

I would say this is not going anywhere because you let your idealist interpretation of Islamism override the ugly reality of what it is. And you cite Pakistan which is a terribly oppressive country with a deeply flawed democracy. The majority of people there are willing vote for a lack of civil rights. Again Islamist like democracy just like th Nazis liked democracy. Only when it serves there purpose.

[Salus Maior]

It's not just that though. There are problems within wider Iraqi society that isn't exclusive to one of the three. Corruption within Kurdistan has always been high, not to mention that the political feud between the PUK and KPD stretching back to the 50s. It's not just "muh ethnic minorities" but there's a lot of other factors at play too. What about the fact that it was the Iraqi Air Force and not any Kurdish affiliated groups who rescued Yazidis from Mount Sinjar? There's nothing in that? There's nothing for both sides to agree over after all three sides have shed blood fighting ISIS? Disagreements can run deep, but Iraq's shown that they can unite against a common force.

Uniting against a common force because said force has sworn to destroy all of them. There's nothing guaranteeing that once ISIS is destroyed they'll somehow get along after years of sectarian conflict. Hell, even NOW, there are some Shia militias supposedly allied with the Iraqi government that raid and abuse neutral Sunnis.

What is the Iraqi state in any sense? I don't subscribe to the idea that this Iraq is the same one that was declared free and democratic under Bush. Maliki ran the country into the ground with the approval of the US and kept a tight leash on descent, including Shia'a parties that were more anti-Iran than the Dawa Party. Iraq's only a failed state because we set it up for failure ten years ago. I agree that the current Iraqi government doesn't represent the people, but I don't agree that exclusively Shia'a, Sunni and Kurdish areas allow for fair representation either.

If I can use the Pakistan-India example again, Pakistan especially shows favoritism to more populated regions. Balochistan didn't get fully functioning electricity until 2004. Who's to say that Kurds won't dedicate all their resources to areas near oil fields and not to rebuild infrastrucutre all over their place?

Iraq has ALWAYS abused it's various ethnic groups regardless of American involvement. You know that Saddam gassed entire Kurdish communities, right? How can you expect to keep together a nation of peoples (one artificially made by a Colonial Power no less) that hold so little respect for each other? The only way to prevent further abuse is to separate them and give them their own sovereignty.

And who's to say that the Kurds will do such a thing? Anyhow, as I've said before they've already announced their intentions towards independence and have established themselves as such, so, as a pro-united-Iraq-er, would you deny what they've fought for just to maintain an artificial state?

I've really got to say, the idea reeks of Orientalist attitude too. It's a glaring example of believing that multiculutralism is not for "those" people because "those" people are savages who can only identify with one group. Dividing the map up has or never will be a solution until Iraqis can learn to rebuild together.

So you would rather force multiculturalism on them? Sounds like a rather Western Imperialist attitude to me.

And I suppose that the Croats, Bosnians, and Serbs (among others) should have just put all those horrible deaths and conflicts behind them just so Yugoslavia could continue to exist?

[Filimons]

Time for a news briefing.
Civilians banned from Mosul hospitals as Daesh takes heavy losses.
Daesh spreading ‘positive propaganda’.
Mosul residents fleeing to Kurdistan.
‘A few dozen Americans’ in Daesh ranks.

I don't know if that's the way to go. Saddam rebuilt a lot of ancient Babylon, but under the premise that Zygon was more of an antisemite hero for Iraqis rather than a productive ruler.

I genuinely think that in the long run, we'll have to recognize that Islam is an institution that runs deep withing not just Iraqi, but Arab society in general. It's sort of like what Christianity used to be in the West, a cultural force to define and distinguish yourself from the other guy. Outside of Iraq, Ahar-Al Sham's (big Islamist faction in Syria) wrote an article in the Washington Post about how an "Islamist" label deters Washington away from funding groups who have genuinely good intentions. Ahar Al Sham said that they would even be open to a democratic Syria after Assad goes, sort of like what Hezbollah is in Lebanon minus the Iranian money. I don't see what would be wrong in allowing groups (parties in the future maybe?) to participate. The US's failure to support pro-democratic Islamist rebels has been a huge policy failure and why the FSA has stalled in growth for so long until this year.

My stance is based chiefly on the desire for a pluralistic nation-state in a time where its Balkanisation is entirely possible and thought of by many as preferable to the present arrangement. It simply recommends using other elements of Iraqi history to re-build it's heavily damaged national identity and national consciousness; it doesn't completely disregard Islam.

Regarding the The Washington Post article, I'm sceptical to say the least.

[United Marxist Nations]

Time for a news briefing.
Civilians banned from Mosul hospitals as Daesh takes heavy losses.
Daesh spreading ‘positive propaganda’.
Mosul residents fleeing to Kurdistan.
‘A few dozen Americans’ in Daesh ranks.

I don't know if that's the way to go. Saddam rebuilt a lot of ancient Babylon, but under the premise that Zygon was more of an antisemite hero for Iraqis rather than a productive ruler.

I genuinely think that in the long run, we'll have to recognize that Islam is an institution that runs deep withing not just Iraqi, but Arab society in general. It's sort of like what Christianity used to be in the West, a cultural force to define and distinguish yourself from the other guy. Outside of Iraq, Ahar-Al Sham's (big Islamist faction in Syria) wrote an article in the Washington Post about how an "Islamist" label deters Washington away from funding groups who have genuinely good intentions. Ahar Al Sham said that they would even be open to a democratic Syria after Assad goes, sort of like what Hezbollah is in Lebanon minus the Iranian money. I don't see what would be wrong in allowing groups (parties in the future maybe?) to participate. The US's failure to support pro-democratic Islamist rebels has been a huge policy failure and why the FSA has stalled in growth for so long until this year.

My stance is based chiefly on the desire for a pluralistic nation-state in a time where its Balkanisation is entirely possible and thought of by many as preferable to the present arrangement. It simply recommends using other elements of Iraqi history to re-build it's heavily damaged national identity and national consciousness; it doesn't completely disregard Islam.

Regarding the The Washington Post article, I'm sceptical to say the least.

The problem with that is that there wasn't really an Iraqi national identity to begin with; Iraq was a cobbled-together mess of colonial territory with more than one nation living within it.