Skip to comments.Baath in Iraq declares war on ISIS
Posted on 07/23/2014 3:23:01 AM PDT by Trapper6012
Outlawed Baath party in Iraq announced, the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ISIS organization because of the last displacement of Christians
from Mosul city, the second largest city in Iraq, which is controlled by ISIS since 10th of last June.
Observers had expected the occurrence of differences between groups allied to ISIS organization in cities and areas they control after the 10th of last June due to the views of ISIS which adopts the "Islamic Caliphate", and refuses anyone who dont pay allegiance as well as what is known of the organization of fighting groups and militant factions to, Bashar al-Assad regime and the Syrian army.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.shafaaq.com ...
well well well
that “sunni” alliance didn’t last long
this will be like watching a scorpion fight
.... predicting the strategist who know how to fight against the Iraqi army are the old Baathists - not the psycho Bin Laden-wannabes
Now - if only the US will stay OUT OF IT
In some way, I suppose, I’m not entirely surprised; the Ba’athist ideology is more-or-less a secular ideology - it’s primary concern is power and how to wield it.
These ISIS loonies may well have met their match. In a showdown between the two....me, I’d be rooting for the Ba’athists. I don’t like them one iota, but they’re infinitely preferable to ISIS fanatic wackadoodles.
What’s most interesting is that from the article you linked to (which really could use the services of a proofreader, but, oh well) it was the persecution and expulsion of the Christians of Mosul that was the final straw for the Ba’athists.
“The statement added that ‘ISIS crimes began to widen and worsen, the last was displacing the Christian Brothers from Mosul city in a matter of regret that we reject completely. Christians will remain an integral part of this beloved homeland.’”
Apparently for the Ba’athists, that was a bridge too far.
BS.... The event with the Christians was merely cover to come out of the closet where they have been seething at the fall of Saddam and the impending fall of Bashir Assad.
What could it hurt? /s
Why not? We already sent plenty of arms to ISIS/ISIL, aka “Syrian rebels.”
I favor the Redenbacher Doctrine these days.
Hard to tell, but do recall that the Ba’ath Party was founded by a Syrian Christian by the name of Michael Aflaq back in 1947, and there were Christians in both the Iraqi and Syrian Ba’ath Parties.
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi FM, immediately comes to mind. His real name is Mikhail Yuhanna.
But I have no qualms with watching ISIS get its fanny kicked by its former allies. :D
This signals greater US advisor outreach to the Sunnis. The Sunnis political leadership is saying they reject ISIS. So now Baghdad and US advisors may integrate Sunni representatives into battle plans against ISIS and coordinate attacks with them.
This occurred faster than I expected. ISIS must be a bunch of real d-bags.
Baath Party goes back 50 years as a secular party in Iraq, Syria and maybe some other places. If they can re-organize they can give ISIS a run for the money.
The world could care less when Muslims kill each other. Only Jews killing Muslims like Gaza riles up the European left-socialist-Muslims. Of course Jews are dying too in Gaza
Will we arm Saddam’’s old party? What irony!
Do you pronounce Ba’athists like a sheep call?
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem. Isaiah Chapter 27:13
Pray for the Christians in harms way,
Unless my history is a little rusty, the Baathists (Saddam included) left Iraq’s Christians alone.
All things considered, I’d rather have the Ba’ath Party running Iraq again.
Same news source reported the recent arrival of 7,000 US troops in Iraq, attributing it to unnamed sources.
They are a mixed bag. Like many Middle East news sources, they have some unique perspective close to the action, but are liberally sprinkled with misinformation to advance partisan agendas.
I hope it is true that the Baathists have formerly turned on ISIS - the sooner the better. Tribal leaders are finding out that ISIS is no partner for them either
So the Ba’athists are protecting the Christians from the thugs we armed, trained and financed to topple Assad who protects the Christians in Syria? Got it.
Yes, they did. And so does Assad. But not out of the goodness of their heart. They needed the Christians to stiffen the backbone of minority rule.
Saddam (Sunni) and Assad (Alawite Shia) both had their 20% dominate the majority religious populations of their respective countries.
You just can’t effectively govern and oppress with 20% without some major concessions made to the other minority groups to work with them.
Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam’s right hand men, was Christian.
I agree, it is important to weigh the validity of the information. I hope the Sunni tribes who have saddled up with these people do turn on them. A well connected Sunni friend told me a couple weeks back that was the eventual plan. Use the ISIS to ride the wave, then turn on them and kill them. The ISIS mentality is sure not the typical mentality or belief I encountered in 2005-2006, 2010-2011.
As far as 7000 troops deploying.. Not possible to hide that from a lot of news sources. However, I will caveat that with a US friend in Amman, who told me he was preparing a response for a RFQ for the Army on a Life support contract in Iraq. Does not mean the Mil will actually do anything, just means ducks are being aligned. We have prepositioned Armor in some locations in the Kurdish region since the withdrawal. Not a very good secret in the Kurdish region by the way, but the Kurds, despite Obama and company still generally like us. Personally, I think the Iraq politicians need to sort out their differences. If Maliki does not step away, the Sunni tribes are not going to back down. If they nominate and select a relative non-secular (shia by constitution) prime minister which is workable to equality, then the Sunni tribes will one by one come back to the government. The government needs to do this before we even contemplate involvement of ANY LIMITED sort. At the moment Iraq is more of a 3 ring circus than ever..
Saddam left Christians alone (unless they challenged his regime- in which case, off to the rape rooms and acid baths)
Assad leaves Christians alone (unless they challenge his regimee in which case off to the firing squads)
and Mubarak left Christians alone (unless they challenged his regime in which case off to prison)
obamas policy is and was to align with muslim radicals to overthrow these leaders
BTW Obama leaves Christians alone unless they challenge his regime, in which case off to the courts, IRS auditors and mandatory “diversity” education
I agree with your analysis. I imagine that the Baathists, like the tribal leaders, planned on using the jihadis and then discarding them. So I have been looking for signs of Sunni infighting.
As you point out, ISIS is different from Zarqawi’s folks with their mass executions and nation-state support, so casting them aside may not go according to plan.
If Maliki was to step aside, I doubt that Iran would tolerate any replacement not firmly in their camp (therefor unlikely to be acceptable to the Sunnis), so I am not bullish on political reconciliation, until some factions are forced to capitulate.
My most likely scenario is for continued bloodshed, until someone is significantly defeated.
So far, I’ve seen no stomach by the Iraqi military to do any thing much but defend.
The further blood shed depends on Baghdad. Does the ISIL want it and is it willing to lose lots of troops in the battle.
I believe the desired territory is pretty much captured and there will be little further offense southward.
The partition of former Iraq is pretty much complete
You may well be right that the situation has roughly stabilized into partition, and the rest will be small ball over the final borders.
I think that the Kurds have the best chance of maintaining their separate integrity, but that the situation is still pretty fluid though in the Sunni/Shia struggle.
Here are some considerations:
The Turks and the Qataris are backing the Sunnis, the Iranians are pretty much running the Shia effort. Any of them could start escalating.
The Iraqi Army collapsed when Kurds and Sunnis walked out en masse to go home. According to the Long War Journal’s analysis most, if not nearly all major units were reduced to combat ineffectiveness. Many high skill specialties, like pilots, have long been Sunni dominated. Eventually, they will reconstitute. For now, it is mostly light infantry against light infantry.
With the Kurds gone, the Shias numerical advantage is significantly higher over the domestic Sunni population.
Sunni infighting is likely to develop at some point. Neither the tribal leaders nor the Baathists want to be ruled by ISIS in the long run.
If the Shia regime is screwed up enough, ISIS might well be able to execute their “belts” strategy of encircling Baghdad and escalating their guerrila/terrorist attacks to bring down the regime, or drive them from Baghdad. They are still moving (although slowly) in that strategy, and are conducting attacks in Baghdad.
The Baathists may have their own plan for a sudden coup assault, which is more their style. They also may be able to launch some chemical weapon attacks.
The Russians have made overtures to increase their influence, such as rushing to provide some aviation assets to the Shia. They could provide significant weaponry.
I don’t see any of these guys negotiating away their advantages easily - I expect that some groups will have to be militarily defeated to resolve things. Therefor: more blood to flow.
You have outlined with facts much of what I have guessed.
You have not considered the larger picture where ISIS is ISIL
That is, the areas that were formerly Syria are in play. I look at a map and see a large swath of the Fertile Crescent, the upper Tigris Euphrates valley,that has been captured and removed from former Iraq and Syria. Historically it was a more or less united region. It is again or at least seems trying to be.
To my thinking, the region that was formerly Syria and Iraq is resolving toward the historical norm geographically. There is formidable synergy developing that will make problems for the remaining governments of Syria and Iraq. That statement applies to the Kurdish region as well.
The question arises over the long term if the wackos will prevail over the more moderate Sunnis. We simply don’t know. There is currently some back pressure that with the backing of the Gulf Arabs will soften the radical gains. The general population might actually prefer the 21st century to the 7 th.
The factor of time is important. what i today might be partially true but not all true in 5 years. The new division will remain but the wackos will not be in power. The dreamed of Caliphate will be watered down to a struggling national entity seeking to hold together economically.
Then there is Egypt. The radicals were ousted.
Under dictators, being left alone always has a catch.
My understanding is that the Kurds want to protect the Christians and will allow them refuge in the areas they control. Is this correct?