Iraq Crisis 2014

[Jubal]

Not sure why this thread hasn't happened yet.

A brief run-down of the situation:

Iraq has three major population groups - Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and Kurds (who are also Sunnis, but their identification is more ethnic) - and several minor ones including Nazarene Christians, Turkmens, Yazidis, and more.

Saddam Hussein, Iraqi dictator, was a Sunni, and repressed both the Shia majority and Kurd minority. He was thus opposed by Iran, which is a Shia state.

Since the 2003 invasion, Shia political blocs have dominated politics, with most anti-government fighters being Sunni. The Kurds have had the presidency in their control, and have otherwise pretty much ignored domestic politics in facour of moving towards a semi-autonomous state in the north, based around their oil reserves and their capital city at Irbil.

Fast forward to 2014. The Kurds have been refusing to accept the "strongman" Nouri Maliki as Prime Minister for yet another term, leading to total political deadlock for months. Then the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) starts spilling over into Sunni areas from its base in northeast Syria that it created in the civil war there. The Iraqi army, with poor morale and training, collapsed, giving the IS new weapons and kit. IS militants have been moving fast across the Sunni areas (North and West Iraq), and pushing towards the Kurds in the Northeast and the capital in Baghdad. They've also been committing huge atrocities on the plain of Nineveh, which is where most of the smaller minorities are.

Finally, their advance on Irbil (a major centre of US investment) and the plight of the Yazidis forced a rather reluctant American intervention. The Kurds, fighting almost wholly without central help, increasingly are pushing to become a separate state. Meanwhile the government in Baghdad has finally started to sort itself out and find a compromise candidate before they all get slaughtered, though Maliki has been reluctant to give up.

And as of today, Nouri Maliki has finally resigned:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28798033

And that's the situation, still militants running around over much of Iraq and holding the major city of Mosul, though the tide may now be turning given US airstrikes etc.

What are people's thoughts on it all?

[comrade_general]

Allahu Akbar!

No thought really, so just spamming.

[Jubal]

Do you support the US intervention, CG? 

[comrade_general]

What? We're intervening again? Naturally I'm not surprised, but no, I do not support.

[Jubal]

Yeah, you're kinda bombing a bunch of guys. No ground troops though.

To be honest I'm much more OK with this than previous US interventions in the Middle East, seems like there's a good goal to stop a bunch of people being slaughtered and they're not getting bogged down with too much regime change shenanigans.

[comrade_general]

It goes against the Prime Directive.

[Gen_Glory]

If the 2003 invasion hadn't of happened would an intervention be required now?

Also the UK is also providing support, supposedly AID only but I'm not sure why 3 tornado's have been sent...

[Gen_Glory]

OK turns out the tornado's are there for military surveillance

Next year is an election, so a chance to bomb some bad guys is probably looking mightily tempting for Cameron

[Jubal]

The tornadoes are for "spotting", so probably actually military intelligence more than aid.

I was very much against the 2003 invasion, and think it was a mistake; if it hadn't happened we probably wouldn't need an intervention now. The fact is though that I think we DO need one now, to make the best of a bad job. I mean, some regions have prospered since 2003, mostly Kurdistan, but the plight of western Iraq is awful to more than counterbalance that.

Domestically, I'm not sure if a military intervention would do much for Cameron, polling on it shows that those in favour versus against are pretty evenly split.

[comrade_general]

I still say let them draw their own lines.

[Jubal]

Given both sides are mostly using US guns, you guys kinda screwed up on that one already.

[comrade_general]

Hey, we can sell the guns, it's not our fault what they do with them.

[TTG4]

If the 2003 invasion hadn't of happened would an intervention be required now

This is an argument I see aired a lot. It's possible, though we have to remember Sadam had been dropping chlorine gas on Kurdish settlements in an attempt to wipe them out, in a similar way to what IS are trying to do.

As to whether IS would have arisen, we've got to consider that the Arab spring seemed to be independent of Western intervention, and the chaos in Syria has come about because of the Arab spring.

I think that if we'd backed the 'moderate' Syrian opposition then there could have been a credible opposition in Syria and might have avoided the chaos that IS thrive on even if it hadn't stopped the war in Syria.

Though that's all academic now really, the problem is here now so we need to deal with it. Both the Iraqi government and the Kurds have plenty of people willing to fight, what they need is equipment and organisation. If we can provide that then I think we should, since arguably we've contributed to the current chaos.

[Gen_Glory]

Wasn't trying to argue anything with that statement, just posing a question

[Clockwork]

I'm cool for letting the SAS go in and do their thing like we plan to/ may have started already. Blast a bunch of ISIS guys into red paste, jobs done for the next 6 months until more Arabs decide they want an Islamic state and we have to do the same to them. In my opinion, the cycle will be endless, an Arab government just won't work it's been proven time and again.