ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

[coma]

Going from bad to worse as Maliki does some in-house cleaning.

Militants have launched an assault on Iraq's main oil refinery as they press an offensive that has seen them capture swathes of territory, an official and a refinery employee say.
Read more at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/06/18/04/21/fighting-nears-baghdad-un-warns-of-danger#lDsYZY8ZoSzCboK2.99

[coma]

Any talk of using a "drone war" in this situation is just ridiculous. Drone strikes are useless in stemming an assault of this magnitude. Their primary task is surveillance and reconnaissance. And their secondary task is to be used as a surgical weapons platform, to take out specific point targets. Generally high value targets and assassinations.

Any air assault from the West would be conventional in nature. Most probably from F18 Super Hornets aboard the USS George H.W Bush in the gulf and the B52'S and B-2's recently deployed to RAF Fairford in the Uk.

[thailiketoo]

How long did the, "Mother of all Battles" take? A couple of hours.

[folium]

Depends what you mean by "Saudi's".

Is it:

(I) Members of the Al Saud family who run the country.

(II) Wahabi/Sunni Saudis.

(III) Shi'a Saudis.

Just about everyone involved in running the nation-state of Saudi Arabia is related to the Al Saud clan. The Al Saud clan is inextricably linked to the Wahabi/Salafist movement. The Al Saud clan was backed up by the followers of Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab and that enabled that clan to become the dominant clan supported by other lesser clans. In exchange for the local political backing, the Al Saud's allowed Wahabism to be the accepted and state sponsored form of Sunni Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Imagine oil being found underneath the Appalachian Mountains and the small snake handling church congregations of Appalachia becoming by far the wealthiest Christian church on the planet. That is approximately what happened to the world of Sunni Islam with the assistance of western oil interests.

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

The western powers coveted the oil in the oil rich region where the Saud clan was dominant and that tipped the balance of power in the Peninsula and as compensation, the western powers gave the other major clan, the Hashems. rule over the newly created nation-states of Transjordan and Iraq. It worked in Jordan, a region very close to the Hashem home region, but it did not work too well in Syria and Iraq which were far from the Hashems home region.

Make no mistake, the Saudi Wahabis, mostly members of the Al Saud clan, are the primary financiers behind the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Just look around Southeast Asia to see the change in behavior of the Muslim population, easily noticeable by those like myself who have been visiting for decades. That change was caused by Wahabi financed madrasas, Islamic schools that teach a far more fundamentalist form of Islam than was previously practiced in Southeast Asia. It was the Wahabists who led the creation of the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was no coincidence that the Al Saud's western sycophants amongst the US oil interests in Houston were the real backers of "Charlie Wilson's War". The Mujahadin morphed into Al Quaida which has now morphed into ISIS, but is still financed by the Wahabis who get their funds from the sale of oil and their political freedom in the west from their unholy alliance with Houston based oil companies, including their deep financial relationship with the Bush family, part of that being through the Carlyle Group. Those snake handlers in Houston let us all get bitten.

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

I doubt if the Shia majority in Bahrain would agree with you, the same country the Saudis sent their troops into to protect the minority Sunni ruling family.

As for Saudi itself,

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/05/26/saudi-arabias-escalating-campaign-shia-muslims/

is just one of many links on the subject.

Map showing distribution of Shias in Arabian Peninsula:

[chuckd]

Shiites are all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

Worked in the midst of them for 15 years, plus another five in Iran.

[folium]

Any talk of using a "drone war" in this situation is just ridiculous. Drone strikes are useless in stemming an assault of this magnitude. Their primary task is surveillance and reconnaissance. And their secondary task is to be used as a surgical weapons platform, to take out specific point targets. Generally high value targets and assassinations.

Any air assault from the West would be conventional in nature. Most probably from F18 Super Hornets aboard the USS George H.W Bush in the gulf and the B52'S and B-2's recently deployed to RAF Fairford in the Uk.

The B2s and B52s have moved on from Fairford, presumably to bases closer to Iraq in order to shorten the response time. There is also a huge international Air Show due to be held there 11-13 July and there are no B52s or B2s on the programme!

The drones with their superior loiter time will presumably be used to hit targets of opportunity as they arise. Conventional air assets will probably use the existing air bases in the Gulf, Saudi, Turkey and Cyprus. Submarine and ship launched Cruise missiles wll probably be used as in 1998, 2003 etc

ISIS training camps in Syria are the likely hard targets they will go after, and there might also be strikes against ISIS-held oil production areas to hit their cashflow.

But such strikes will be little more than symbolic unless they are sustained and followed up by ground troops to recapture lost territory. Baghdad needs to re-establish control over the country or accept fragmentation. Air strikes can only assist the process and cannot be the only approach.

Colonial style policing from the air is nothing new having been trialed by the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s (see link). However systematic destruction of villages, extensive civilian casualties and using mustard gas might not fly too well in today's social media world...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

[coma]

Any talk of using a "drone war" in this situation is just ridiculous. Drone strikes are useless in stemming an assault of this magnitude. Their primary task is surveillance and reconnaissance. And their secondary task is to be used as a surgical weapons platform, to take out specific point targets. Generally high value targets and assassinations.

Any air assault from the West would be conventional in nature. Most probably from F18 Super Hornets aboard the USS George H.W Bush in the gulf and the B52'S and B-2's recently deployed to RAF Fairford in the Uk.

The B2s and B52s have moved on from Fairford, presumably to bases closer to Iraq in order to shorten the response time. There is also a huge international Air Show due to be held there 11-13 July and there are no B52s or B2s on the programme!

The drones with their superior loiter time will presumably be used to hit targets of opportunity as they arise. Conventional air assets will probably use the existing air bases in the Gulf, Saudi, Turkey and Cyprus. Submarine and ship launched Cruise missiles wll probably be used as in 1998, 2003 etc

ISIS training camps in Syria are the likely hard targets they will go after, and there might also be strikes against ISIS-held oil production areas to hit their cashflow.

But such strikes will be little more than symbolic unless they are sustained and followed up by ground troops to recapture lost territory. Baghdad needs to re-establish control over the country or accept fragmentation. Air strikes can only assist the process and cannot be the only approach.

Colonial style policing from the air is nothing new having been trialed by the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s (see link). However systematic destruction of villages, extensive civilian casualties and using mustard gas might not fly too well in today's social media world...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

Absolutely. Conventional air strikes are useless unless the ground is cleared and held by ground forces. And this would have to be Iraqi ground forces. Do they have the intestinal fortitude for it ? I doubt it. At the very least they will need Western SF on the ground in a 'crack the whip' role and to direct close air support, if they are to get the job done properly. Regardless of Obama's no troops on the ground statement.

Said airshow may be moved to the skies above northern Iraq if/when Maliki gets his house in order.

[Johpa]

Shiites are all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

My apolgies for understimating the Shia minority populations in the Peninsula with an extra apology to Bahrain for my ignorance that Bahrain has a Shia majority. I stand corrected.

[folium]

Shiites are all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

My apolgies for understimating the Shia minority populations in the Peninsula with an extra apology to Bahrain for my ignorance that Bahrain has a Shia majority. I stand corrected.

We all make mistakes, but those who are capable of admitting to such human failings are a superior breed....

[capcc76]

Obama is a dumb arssse. Why telegraph your moves. A smart commander in chief would act like he is going to do nothing, let them come out and carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities. Stupid leaders talk and tell others what they are thinking. Smart leaders silently take action that is necessary.

Obama . . . What a disgrace. Holder is right there with him.

Edited June 18, 2014 by capcc76

[Chicog]

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

Since others have responded to you, I'll just suggest you watch this documentary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0465p7j

[NeverSure]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

[simple1]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

[NeverSure]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

From your link:

"Iraq produces about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day, about 4 percent of the world’s total supply, and its crude production capacity growth was expected to rise by 40 percent, by 1.3 million barrels a day."

[Mosha]

Reading on msn, Iraq has asked US to bomb the sunni militants.

[simple1]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

From your link:

"Iraq produces about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day, about 4 percent of the world’s total supply, and its crude production capacity growth was expected to rise by 40 percent, by 1.3 million barrels a day."

Cherry picking?

Energy industry watchdogs had expected Iraq to expand its oil production considerably in the next decade, which would help keep global oil prices stable and meet rising demand, particularly in China

IEA’s report forecast that 60 percent of expected growth in OPEC's crude production capacity in 2019 would come from Iraq.

[boomerangutang]

Obama is a dumb arssse. Why telegraph your moves. A smart commander in chief would act like he is going to do nothing, let them come out and carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities. Stupid leaders talk and tell others what they are thinking. Smart leaders silently take action that is necessary.

Obama . . . What a disgrace. Holder is right there with him.

It's called giving a warning. It could also be telegraphing a move, with the intention of doing a different tact. Obama doesn't make decisions in a vacuum. He's got advisers, however flawed they may be. Your attack is a cheap shot.

There are no good options in the M.East, only less odious ones. Obama could pull out all US assistance with a phone call. Would things be any better? You tell me.

[rijb]

Response to Dick Cheney's criticism on Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/jay-carney-dick-cheney_n_5508390.html

[NeverSure]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

From your link:

"Iraq produces about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day, about 4 percent of the world’s total supply, and its crude production capacity growth was expected to rise by 40 percent, by 1.3 million barrels a day."

Cherry picking?

Energy industry watchdogs had expected Iraq to expand its oil production considerably in the next decade, which would help keep global oil prices stable and meet rising demand, particularly in China

IEA’s report forecast that 60 percent of expected growth in OPEC's crude production capacity in 2019 would come from Iraq.

Not cherry picking. It just isn't that significant considering that the article doesn't mention projected production increases in the Americas and elsewhere.

"We". as in Canada, The USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc. don't need ME oil.

"We" as in the USA are the ones being looked to, to possibly attack Iraq. "We" don't need the oil and "We" don't need another war in Iraq.

Sorry if I wasn't specific enough.

Edit: Oh, and "We" the USA need to stop being the "world's police." I think I have agreement on that from most of my European brethren.

I'm in favor of stopping yesterday.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NeverSure

[rijb]

If China needs ME oil, then it's their turn to go in there and screw it up. They can try out all their new military equipment.

[shirtless]

I surprised it has taken this long, the west will never understand the way the middle east works,

[shadmo63]

Obama is a dumb arssse. Why telegraph your moves. A smart commander in chief would act like he is going to do nothing, let them come out and carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities. Stupid leaders talk and tell others what they are thinking. Smart leaders silently take action that is necessary.

Obama . . . What a disgrace. Holder is right there with him.

Can you please give some examples of a 'smart leader'?

[boomerangutang]

I surprised it has taken this long, the west will never understand the way the middle east works,

Somewhat true. First rule of being a Middle East leader: don't tell the truth. Second rule: shift alliances at a whim, whenever you see any advantage to be gained. Third: distrust and hate your neighbor if he's at all different.

If China needs ME oil, then it's their turn to go in there and screw it up. They can try out all their new military equipment.

China is playing it smart from a businessman perspective: Let the tribal factions blow themselves up - when the smoke clears, go in there with smiles and contracts for raw materials, ready to be signed. Actually, it's raw materials going to China, and cheap copies and plastic stuff going the other way.

[boomerangutang]

Obama is a dumb arssse. Why telegraph your moves. A smart commander in chief would act like he is going to do nothing, let them come out and carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities. Stupid leaders talk and tell others what they are thinking. Smart leaders silently take action that is necessary.

Obama . . . What a disgrace. Holder is right there with him.

Can you please give some examples of a 'smart leader'?

He gave one: "carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities."

[shadmo63]

Obama is a dumb arssse. Why telegraph your moves. A smart commander in chief would act like he is going to do nothing, let them come out and carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities. Stupid leaders talk and tell others what they are thinking. Smart leaders silently take action that is necessary.

Obama . . . What a disgrace. Holder is right there with him.

Can you please give some examples of a 'smart leader'?

He gave one: "carpet bomb their arsssees when the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and head toward Baghdad or while they are in between cities."

Oh, I meant examples o real people not actions.

Sounds like the strategy of say Bashir al Assad. Speak nicely and then bomb the f%#^ out of them

[capcc76]

Interesting video. Haha, throw PC in the garbage can she says. She has a point about the radicals are the ones that matter. Good illustration for what is going in here and why this are will never change.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/06/18/video-panelist-answers-muslim-student-with-non-pc-answer-to-cheers-roaring-applause-126170

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[Morch]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

[impulse]

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Why would they? They've been getting all the benefits with none of the cost (and a great whipping boy, to boot) with the USA at the helm. They'll sit back, acting like they're actually contemplating doing something until it gets bad enough for the US to take action, then they'll enjoy their cheap oil, piddly military budgets, and secure borders while they gripe about the way the US wants to control the world.

Edited June 19, 2014 by impulse

[simple1]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Right now appears to be so. However, with increasing demand for oil by China (others) it is forecast at times a barrel of oil will peak at US$200; if M.E. is not stabilised. Various timings by analysts that US will not be self-sufficient for all its oil requirements until roughly 2030, some say earlier. Just saying there is a possibility that M.E. internal conflicts, increased demands, contributing to potentially large increases in the cost of oil and the flow on effect impacting Western domestic politics, policy attitudes could rapidly change