« End of Vacation | Main | The Democratic Party in 2017 »

21 November 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

different clue

Lemur,

Yes, thank you. It is interesting and heartening. It was also featured over at the Naked Capitalism site yesterday.

I read a few weeks ago that the Podesta emails revealed some of the leading Clintocrats discussing how Gabbard should receive zero DemParty assistance in her upcoming Congressional Election as payback for having supported Sanders early in the primary process. But she got elected anyway, no thanks to the Clintobamacrat leadership of the DemParty. She may play a role in the slow and steady purging and berning of the Clintobamacrats from out of the Party.

Stumpy

Ultimately Aleppo will not be deMistura's real estate to bequeath to the "colonists".

One wonders to what extent the grinding is throttled, both in Aleppo and Mosul. To me it almost looks less like a quest for military victory but more of a herding of tribes into a shrinking cauldron, that they might cook each other out of existence, with the major actors hoping to grab the spoils during the chaos.

Video footage from the region has become the equivalent of "stock photography".

Babak Makkinejad

Doesn't "Frank" mean that they were basically screaming at each other?

A.I.Schmelzer

There is a reason why I believe that Aleppo will be over before Mosul.

If you look at where what happened in the beginning of the Syrian civil war, what comes to mind is that both Aleppo and Damascus were mostly pro regime.

The "East Aleppo" thing happened when rural militias infiltrated Aleppo and tried to seize all of it, but only suceeded to do so in the east of the city.

Since then, their entire operation is effectively a "spoiler". As long as they hold East Aleppo, west aleppo operates at a very diminished capacity. Manpower from west aleppo cannot be moved elsewhere, economic life is strangulated etc. While Stockholm syndrome likely resulted in some pro Jihadi feelings in East Aleppo (I dont fault the civilians for that), even East Aleppo is still loyalist turf.

Mosul meanwhile actually seems to be a place where Jihadis enjoy actual support. They also actually run it, as opposed to using it as a spoiling operation.

different clue

A.I.Schmelzer,

As long as Iran supports Shia-Iraq in suppressing and oppressing the Sunni Arab Iraqis, just enough Sunni Arab Iraqis will always support ISIS or its successor groups just hard enough to keep them strong enough to keep the Sunni Arab zones rebellious and un-rulable. And Iran will keep supporting Shia-Iraq in its assertion of Shia Supremacism against Sunni Iraq for just as long as Iran wants to keep Iran helpless and divided and unable to re-emerge as a rival regional power.

Iran has the ultimate agency here. Iran wants to keep Iraq helpless and divided and keep Sunni terrorist groups in viable existence for the same basic reason that I have read that Japan and China both quietly agree that Korea must be kept divided to prevent Korea from re-emerging as a genuinely rival regional power.

So Iran will keep making sure that its Shia Iraqi client keeps oppressing Arab Sunnistan in order to keep Mosul ( and other places) supporting ISIS or other ISISes which may emerge.

A.I.Schmelzer

What Shia suprematism?

As it stands, the only fully Shia country is Iran. Shias are perceived to be ascendant in Iraq only because they were artificially repressed before. Shia politicians could potentially rule Iraq, but that does not by any means mean that their interests would be the same as those of their Iranian coreligionists.

In Syria, the Alawites one can make some pretty good cases that Alawites are not even Shia, which would conclusive rule out that they are Shia suprematists. They also rely on a pretty extensive coalition of moderate Sunnis and non Kurdish minorities (the Kurds think that they are large enough to be their own faction, and create rather then join coalitions. I think it is to early to tell if they are right).
Hezbollah is actually theologically Shia, but, as in Syria, relies on a fairly diverse (Lebanese politics are Game of thrones with less dragons in real life) mix of coalitions.

What is actually happening is that the window of Sunni supremacy, which mostly appeared after the end of Nasserism and Baathism as appealing ideologies go, is closing. Overall, it is less of a Shia upswing, and more of a Sunni downswing (resulting in a relative upswing for everyone else). To an extent, Saudi Arabia is to blame because their rampant support for Salafism, and their aggresive attempts to effectively turn Sunnism into Salafism light, made Sunnism toxic in the eyes of many.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

March 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad