Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Mike Sheehy]

ok, but, realistically, how much would you say American "influence" plays into the daily lives of Egyptians ? Would you say it is 10%...20%...90 % ?

American influence is targeted at the Egyptian military, not the general population with 3/4 of the annual $2billion of aid going to the military directly or as military hardware from US contractors.

I'd suggest the Egyptian generals know what side their bread is buttered on and act accordingly.

You dodged the question. Based on your response the Egyptians are an 80 million strong mass of people that have been cowered into submission by the "Generals". A people with no will of their own. A million strong army that does not have any Father,Mother, Brother, sister connections to sustain it. That does not seem correct.

These things are complicated. To me it seems like there was democratic election which the Muslim brotherhood won. This is to be applauded. Yet many thousands (millions?)  demonstrated in Tahrir square against the elected govt. Is their protest any more or less legitimate than the original "Arab spring" protest against the previous govt ?Is the result any more or less legitimate i.e the Muslim brotherhood deposed ?

Are the people protesting against the Muslim brotherhood right wing, military backed reactionaries and/or tools of Israel/US  as the likes of  Seafoid and Give her Dixie would have you believe or are they, for example, gay rights activists who don't want to live in a Muslim brotherhood inspired theocracy ? I don't know..I treat each country/people the same. I always assume that they are as fucked up/ enlightened as we are and have the same problems.

I  suggest you do the same. It may cure you of your xenophobic attitude toward Americans.

[thejuice]

So how's that old nation building project going in Iraq?

Sounds like a nation is being built alright, just not the one intended by Washington but at least they tried, isn't that right.

[Hereiam]

The thought they could go in to another country and bomb the shit out of it, try and set up a new government with its own police force and then leave.
Well it doesn't just work like that.

[seafoid]

So how's that old nation building project going in Iraq?

Sounds like a nation is being built alright, just not the one intended by Washington but at least they tried, isn't that right.

ISIS went to Mosul the other day and cleared it of Kurds, raided the banks and took the weapons off the soldiers based there. They are going to use the loot in Syria.
That American nation building has been marvellous. 

[seafoid]

Iraq's collapse has been driven by three things, according to the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html


" 1. The war in Syria. The border between the two countries—three hundred miles long, most of it an empty stretch of desert—has been effectively erased, with Isis and Nusra working both sides. As the moderates in Syria have been pushed aside, so too have their comrades in Iraq.
2.The policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki is a militant sectarian to the core, and he had been fighting on behalf of Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority for years before the Americans arrived, in 2003 ... In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.

3.The US left before they replaced the state they crushed. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, who would act largely to train Iraq's Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (They would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki's sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be co-operating with you, and they would become your partners." President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn't particularly want them to stay."


Obviously it's only cut and paste
God bless America

[Mike Sheehy]

Iraq's collapse has been driven by three things, according to the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html


" 1. The war in Syria. The border between the two countries—three hundred miles long, most of it an empty stretch of desert—has been effectively erased, with Isis and Nusra working both sides. As the moderates in Syria have been pushed aside, so too have their comrades in Iraq.
2.The policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki is a militant sectarian to the core, and he had been fighting on behalf of Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority for years before the Americans arrived, in 2003 ... In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.

3.The US left before they replaced the state they crushed. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, who would act largely to train Iraq's Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (They would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki's sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be co-operating with you, and they would become your partners." President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn't particularly want them to stay."


Obviously it's only cut and paste
God bless America

So, for this American intervention that you are advocating Seafoid, how many troops would be needed to provide this "crucial stabilizing factor" ? How long should they stay for ?

[macdanger2]

ok, but, realistically, how much would you say American "influence" plays into the daily lives of Egyptians ? Would you say it is 10%...20%...90 % ?

American influence is targeted at the Egyptian military, not the general population with 3/4 of the annual $2billion of aid going to the military directly or as military hardware from US contractors.

I'd suggest the Egyptian generals know what side their bread is buttered on and act accordingly.

These things are complicated. To me it seems like there was democratic election which the Muslim brotherhood won. This is to be applauded. Yet many thousands (millions?)  demonstrated in Tahrir square against the elected govt. Is their protest any more or less legitimate than the original "Arab spring" protest against the previous govt ?Is the result any more or less legitimate i.e the Muslim brotherhood deposed ?

TBF, the muslim brotherhood was democratically elected so protesting and overthrowing them was effectively a coup whereas the "arab spring" protests were against unelected governments. That distinction makes the result (i.e the Muslim brotherhood deposed) much less legitimate / completely illegitimate

[seafoid]

Iraq's collapse has been driven by three things, according to the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html


" 1. The war in Syria. The border between the two countries—three hundred miles long, most of it an empty stretch of desert—has been effectively erased, with Isis and Nusra working both sides. As the moderates in Syria have been pushed aside, so too have their comrades in Iraq.
2.The policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki is a militant sectarian to the core, and he had been fighting on behalf of Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority for years before the Americans arrived, in 2003 ... In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.

3.The US left before they replaced the state they crushed. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, who would act largely to train Iraq's Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (They would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki's sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be co-operating with you, and they would become your partners." President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn't particularly want them to stay."


Obviously it's only cut and paste
God bless America

So, for this American intervention that you are advocating Seafoid, how many troops would be needed to provide this "crucial stabilizing factor" ? How long should they stay for ?

I'm not advocating an American intervention. It's too late. Americans have no idea about the Middle East.
Even when the first Marines got to Baghdad in 03 Shia militias were killing Sunnis.
Israel wanted the  Iraq war. So did big oil and what a clusterfuck  it still is.

[Mike Sheehy]

Iraq's collapse has been driven by three things, according to the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html


" 1. The war in Syria. The border between the two countries—three hundred miles long, most of it an empty stretch of desert—has been effectively erased, with Isis and Nusra working both sides. As the moderates in Syria have been pushed aside, so too have their comrades in Iraq.
2.The policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki is a militant sectarian to the core, and he had been fighting on behalf of Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority for years before the Americans arrived, in 2003 ... In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.

3.The US left before they replaced the state they crushed. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, who would act largely to train Iraq's Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (They would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki's sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be co-operating with you, and they would become your partners." President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn't particularly want them to stay."


Obviously it's only cut and paste
God bless America

So, for this American intervention that you are advocating Seafoid, how many troops would be needed to provide this "crucial stabilizing factor" ? How long should they stay for ?

I'm not advocating an American intervention. It's too late. Americans have no idea about the Middle East.
Even when the first Marines got to Baghdad in 03 Shia militias were killing Sunnis.
Israel wanted the  Iraq war. So did big oil and what a clusterfuck  it still is.

Oh, so now you are backing away from what you posted.
Why don't you go through the post above and explain which parts reflect your opinion and which parts you disagree with...or do we have to guess everytime ?

[seafoid]

Iraq's collapse has been driven by three things, according to the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/iraq-extremists-mosul-american-invasion-legacy.html


" 1. The war in Syria. The border between the two countries—three hundred miles long, most of it an empty stretch of desert—has been effectively erased, with Isis and Nusra working both sides. As the moderates in Syria have been pushed aside, so too have their comrades in Iraq.
2.The policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki is a militant sectarian to the core, and he had been fighting on behalf of Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority for years before the Americans arrived, in 2003 ... In the two and a half years since the Americans' departure, Maliki has centralized power within his own circle, cut the Sunnis out of political power, and unleashed a wave of arrests and repression. Maliki's march to authoritarian rule has fueled the re-emergence of the Sunni insurgency directly. With nowhere else to go, Iraq's Sunnis are turning, once again, to the extremists to protect them.

3.The US left before they replaced the state they crushed. For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, who would act largely to train Iraq's Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (They would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki's sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be co-operating with you, and they would become your partners." President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn't particularly want them to stay."


Obviously it's only cut and paste
God bless America

So, for this American intervention that you are advocating Seafoid, how many troops would be needed to provide this "crucial stabilizing factor" ? How long should they stay for ?

I'm not advocating an American intervention. It's too late. Americans have no idea about the Middle East.
Even when the first Marines got to Baghdad in 03 Shia militias were killing Sunnis.
Israel wanted the  Iraq war. So did big oil and what a clusterfuck  it still is.

Oh, so now you are backing away from what you posted.
Why don't you go through the post above and explain which parts reflect your opinion and which parts you disagree with...or do we have to guess everytime ?

I honestly do think it's too late. They'd need to send say half a million grunts and they don't have the public support for that.
The Yanks set off a powder keg.
The Iraqi army ran away in Mosul because they didn't have the support of the people.

But do tell us your opinion. And don't cut and paste.

[Mike Sheehy]

I honestly do think it's too late. They'd need to send say half a million grunts and they don't have the public support for that.
The Yanks set off a powder keg.
The Iraqi army ran away in Mosul because they didn't have the support of the people.

But do tell us your opinion. And don't cut and paste.

My opinion ? It is consistent with my view on Syria. Ideally, on humanitarian grounds, I think an intervention is warranted but the question is who would do it ? it is impossible for the US to do it. It would have to be someone else i.e. UN, Russia, China. However we all know that is not going to happen. In any event, the US should not get involved.

Ultimately, this is a sectarian driven conflict with Kurdish national aspirations thrown into the mix. The Sunni-Shia conflict long pre-dates US involement (in fact it long pre-dates the existance of the US) ....but you go ahead with your simplistic narrative that the US (and Israel) is solely to blame for what every jumped up religious fanatic does in the middle east.

Now, back to the article. How would you rank Maliki's sectarian policies ,in order of importance, compared to the other reasons that you mentioned ? would you say they are a larger contributing factor or a lesser contributing factor than the Syrian conflict spillover or the timing of the American withdrawal ?

[seafoid]

I honestly do think it's too late. They'd need to send say half a million grunts and they don't have the public support for that.
The Yanks set off a powder keg.
The Iraqi army ran away in Mosul because they didn't have the support of the people.

But do tell us your opinion. And don't cut and paste.

My opinion ? It is consistent with my view on Syria. Ideally, on humanitarian grounds, I think an intervention is warranted but the question is who would do it ? it is impossible for the US to do it. It would have to be someone else i.e. UN, Russia, China. However we all know that is not going to happen. In any event, the US should not get involved.

Ultimately, this is a sectarian driven conflict with Kurdish national aspirations thrown into the mix. The Sunni-Shia conflict long pre-dates US involement (in fact it long pre-dates the existance of the US) ....but you go ahead with your simplistic narrative that the US (and Israel) is solely to blame for what every jumped up religious fanatic does in the middle east.

Now, back to the article. How would you rank Maliki's sectarian policies ,in order of importance, compared to the other reasons that you mentioned ? would you say they are a larger contributing factor or a lesser contributing factor than the Syrian conflict spillover or the timing of the American withdrawal ?

I think there'll have to be a redrawing of borders. Maliki's sectarianism didn't work.
The Sunnis will have to get a state between Iraq and Syria.

[thejuice]

ROBERT FISK


"Sykes-Picot is dead," Walid Jumblatt roared at me last night – and he may well be right.
The Lebanese Druze leader – who fought in a 15-year civil war that redrew the map of Lebanon – believes that the new battles for Sunni Muslim jihadi control of northern and eastern Syria and western Iraq have finally destroyed the post-World War Anglo-French conspiracy, hatched by Mark Sykes and François Picot, which divided up the old Ottoman Middle East into Arab statelets controlled by the West.


The Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria has been fought into existence – however temporarily – by al-Qa'ida-affiliated Sunni fighters who pay no attention to the artificial borders of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan, or even mandate Palestine, created by the British and French. Their capture of the city of Mosul only emphasises the collapse of the secret partition plan which the Allies drew up in the First World War – for Mosul was sought after for its oil wealth by both Britain and France.


The entire Middle East has been haunted by the Sykes-Picot agreement, which also allowed Britain to implement Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour's 1917 promise to give British support to the creation of a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine. Perhaps only today's Arabs (and Israelis) fully understand the profound historical changes – and deep political significance – that the extraordinary battles of this past week have wrought on the old colonial map of the Middle East.


The collapsing Ottoman Empire of 1918 was to be split into two on a north-east, south-west axis which would run roughly from near Kirkuk – today under Kurdish control – across from Mosul in northern Iraq and the Syrian desert and through what is now the West Bank to Gaza. Mosul was initially given to the French – its oil surrendered by the British in return for what would become a French buffer zone between Britain and the Russian Caucasus, Baghdad and Basra being safe in British hands below the French lines. But growing British commercial desires for oil took over from imperial agreements. Mosul was configured into the British zone inside the new state of Iraq (previously Mesopotamia), its oil supplies safely in the hands of London. Iraq, Trans- jordan and Palestine were under British mandatory control, Syria and Lebanon under the French mandate.


But the new geographical map created by al-Qa'ida and its Nusra and Isis allies runs not north-east to south-west but east to west, taking in the cities of Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul, and Raqqa and large areas of eastern Syria. Jihadi tactics strongly suggest that the line was intended to run from west of Baghdad right across the Iraqi and Syrian deserts to include Homs, Hama and Aleppo in Iraq. But the Syrian government army – successfully fighting a near-identical battle to that now involving a demoralised Iraqi army – has recaptured Homs, held on to Hama and relieved the siege of Aleppo.
By chance, economist Ian Rutledge has just published an account of the battle for Mosul and oil during and after the First World War, and of the betrayal of the Sunni Muslim Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who was promised an independent Arab land by the British in return for his help in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire. Rutledge has researched Britain's concern about Shia power in southern Iraq – where Basra's oil lies – material with acute relevance to the crisis now tearing Iraq to pieces.


For the successor power to Sharif Hussein in Arabia is the Saudi royal family, which has been channelling billions of dollars to the very same jihadi groups that have taken over eastern Syria and western Iraq and now Mosul and Tikrit. The Saudis set themselves up as the foundational Sunni power in the region, controlling Arab Gulf oil wealth – until America's overthrow of the Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein led inexorably to a majority Shia government in Baghdad allied to Shia Iran.
Thus the new Middle Eastern map substantially increases Saudi power over the region's oil, lowering Iraq's exports, raising the cost of oil (including, of course, Saudi oil) and at the expense of a frightened and still sanctioned Iran, which must defend its co-religionists in the collapsing Baghdad government. Mosul's oil is now Sunni oil. And the vast and unexplored reserves believed to lie beneath the jihadi-held deserts west of Baghdad are now also firmly in Sunni rather than in national, Shia-controlled Baghdad government hands.


This break-up may also, of course, engender a new version of the terrifying Iran-Iraq war – a conflict that killed 1.5 million Sunni and Shia Muslims, both sides armed by outside powers while the Arab Gulf states funded the Sunni leadership of Saddam. The West was happy to see these great Muslim powers fighting each other. Israel sent weapons to Iran and watched its principal Muslim enemies destroy each other. Which is why Walid Jumblatt now also believes that the current tragedy – while it has killed off Mr Sykes and Mr Picot – will have Arthur Balfour smiling in his grave.

Of course this goes beyond 2003. You get the sense that there might be consequences for "the West" before the dust is settled.

[Mike Sheehy]

I honestly do think it's too late. They'd need to send say half a million grunts and they don't have the public support for that.
The Yanks set off a powder keg.
The Iraqi army ran away in Mosul because they didn't have the support of the people.

But do tell us your opinion. And don't cut and paste.

My opinion ? It is consistent with my view on Syria. Ideally, on humanitarian grounds, I think an intervention is warranted but the question is who would do it ? it is impossible for the US to do it. It would have to be someone else i.e. UN, Russia, China. However we all know that is not going to happen. In any event, the US should not get involved.

Ultimately, this is a sectarian driven conflict with Kurdish national aspirations thrown into the mix. The Sunni-Shia conflict long pre-dates US involement (in fact it long pre-dates the existance of the US) ....but you go ahead with your simplistic narrative that the US (and Israel) is solely to blame for what every jumped up religious fanatic does in the middle east.

Now, back to the article. How would you rank Maliki's sectarian policies ,in order of importance, compared to the other reasons that you mentioned ? would you say they are a larger contributing factor or a lesser contributing factor than the Syrian conflict spillover or the timing of the American withdrawal ?

I think there'll have to be a redrawing of borders. Maliki's sectarianism didn't work.
The Sunnis will have to get a state between Iraq and Syria.

How about answering the question properly. Apart from "Malikis sectarianism didn't work" do you have anything to offer besides sarcasm.

[LeoMc]

Have their been any serious proposals regarding re-drawing of the old Anglo-French lines in the sand to carve out new territories along Sunni & Shia lines?