War Against ISIS

STURM

Well-Known Member
Perhaps let the people of the region determine where the boundaries of states in that region will be. Ethnic divisions would suggest four states out of Iraq and Syria. A kurdish state, a sunni state (western iraq and eastern syria), a shia state and an Alawite state (western syria) would give best chance of peace and stability in the long run.
The locals would have probably drawn their own borders in the aftermath of WW1 had it not been for France and Great Britain which created new borders for their own interests.

Re-drawing the map today would lead to a dangerous precedent and create numerous complications - the Kurds in Turkey would want their own state; the Sunnis, Shias, Druze and other groups in Lebanon might want the same; the Shias in Bahrain might ask for some form of autonomy, the Palestinians in Jordan might get similar ideas, etc. On top of that we have the mess in Yemen; where like in Iraq and Syria various countries are involved and are rivals.

We've been told that the Iraqi army and allies are making good progress and will eventually liberate Tikrit. The significance of a fairly large Iranian contingent, fighting alongside a Shia Iraqi army has got unnoticed by many and no doubt is not going down well with the Sunni Gulf states who, just as much as they want to see IS defeated, want to see Iran weakened. The irony is that the U S. In the past tried its best to keep Iran out of Iraq and in the 1980's Saddam often claimed (and received support for it, including from the same countries who later toppled him) that he was keeping the Arab world safe from the Iranian Shia "heretics" who wanted to spread the revolution westwards.

In theory, the Iraqi government with the help of regional and non-regional allies will roll back IS and liberate all of Iraq and the Sunnis and Shia will put aside their differences and live in peace. After Iraq is liberated, attention will then shift to Syria where the "moderates" it is hoped will defeat the "extremists" and after that will defeat Assad. Lets see how things turn out.
 

bdique

Member
re: the Iranian-led Shia militias...guess that is pragmatism at its finest. I was under the impression that the militias are, at the end of the day, Iraqis, so there is no direct, overt Iranian involvement.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
re: the Iranian-led Shia militias...guess that is pragmatism at its finest. I was under the impression that the militias are, at the end of the day, Iraqis, so there is no direct, overt Iranian involvement.
There are Iraqi Shia militias but there is also a large Iranian presence fighting alongside the Iraqis - neither Iran, Iraq or the U.S denies this. The Iranians were there at a very early stage and their presence there worries countries like Saudi Arabia. It is a sign of the times that the U.S. (in private) welcomes the Iranian presence, which at the end of the day is hardly surprising as both countries share common interests; off course this dis-pleases Israel and the Gulf States.
 

bdique

Member
There are Iraqi Shia militias but there is also a large Iranian presence fighting alongside the Iraqis - neither Iran, Iraq or the U.S denies this. The Iranians were there at a very early stage and their presence there worries countries like Saudi Arabia. It is a sign of the times that the U.S. (in private) welcomes the Iranian presence, which at the end of the day is hardly surprising as both countries share common interests; off course this dis-pleases Israel and the Gulf States.
Well I hope the composition of combatants involved can be made available in public domain, or at least the ORBAT, that might shed some light on the actual extent of Iranian involvement in this conflict.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Both countries recently signed an MOU on defence cooperation, in which Iran will provide the Iraqis with military training. Certain countries will not be pleased but Shia dominated Iraq is in Iran's backyard and it is to be expected that Iran will do all it can to assist it's Shia brethren and maintain its influence in the country.

We can hazard a guess that the Iranians mostly comprise Pasdaran, including Quds elements (no doubt some may have previously served in Syria and the Lebanon). The ideal solution would be for a Sunni Arab contingent in Iraq (to use a well known cliche - "boots on the ground") to assist the Iraqi government but this is unlikely to happen even if Iraq allowed or requested it. From what we can make out from published reports, the Iranians have been at the forefront in the effort to stem IS and have been used to bolster Iraqi units.

A major problem, as IS territory is liberated, is how a largely Sunni population will feel being liberated by an Iraqi and non-Iraqi Shia dominated force and whether there will be any friction when this force come closer to Kurdish controlled territory.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Iraq has gotten Mi-28NE helos with the radar mast. This makes them the first operator of the type. Russian Mi-28UB and NM variants with the mast have yet to enter service. It's interesting because their first Havoc didn't have radars, but the later ones do, and their total batch size is only 15 helos.

I wonder what this will mean for actual combat effectiveness. It's interesting that originally they wanted just Havocs, iirc 28 of them, but later cut the order of Havocs to 15, and instead got more Mi-35Ms (Super Hinds). I wonder how the two compare, in terms of performance, in this conflict.

bmpd - ИракÑкий Ми-28ÐЭ Ñ Ð½Ð°Ð´Ð²Ñ‚ÑƒÐ»Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ РЛС вблизи
Юрий ЛÑмин - ИракºÐ¸Ðµ Ми-28ÐЭ Ñ Ð½Ð°Ð´Ð²Ñ‚ÑƒÐ»Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ РЛС
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Iraq has gotten Mi-28NE helos with the radar mast. This makes them the first operator of the type. Russian Mi-28UB and NM variants with the mast have yet to enter service. It's interesting because their first Havoc didn't have radars, but the later ones do, and their total batch size is only 15 helos.

I wonder what this will mean for actual combat effectiveness. It's interesting that originally they wanted just Havocs, iirc 28 of them, but later cut the order of Havocs to 15, and instead got more Mi-35Ms (Super Hinds). I wonder how the two compare, in terms of performance, in this conflict.

bmpd - ИракÑкий Ми-28ÐЭ Ñ Ð½Ð°Ð´Ð²Ñ‚ÑƒÐ»Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ РЛС вблизи
Юрий ЛÑмин - ИракºÐ¸Ðµ Ми-28ÐЭ Ñ Ð½Ð°Ð´Ð²Ñ‚ÑƒÐ»Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ РЛС
 
In Iraq it seems the best fighting force is Iranian backed Shiite militias. The funny thing was about ten years ago I was watching a Noam Chomsky video (very far left wing), and he was saying that if the US wanted Saddam gone, they could get the Iranians to do it for them. Would save several thousand american lives. Now the Iranian backed militias seem more powerful than the army itself. Its almost as though now Iraq is a client state if Iran (I am sure they are not,,, but does seem to be moving that way)

Noam Chomsky is was too far left even for me, but its a free country and he has the right to have a view that others may not agree with.

There are some good videos of the Shiite militias fighting on vicenews (youtube). They seem well trained and motivated, they appear a quite impressive fighting force, they have radios, body armour, some light armoured vehicles, mortars etc

Aside, there seems to be a consensus that the american military strategy in Vietnam was flawed, especially under Westmoreland, are we now at the point of saying the same things about Iraq? Or is the blame more on the politicians as opposed to those that had to implement their aims.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I have always found it interesting that many Western left wingers seem to be pro Revolutionary Iran (as well as pro Arab) on the basis they are anti America, yet these nations have more in common with Fascist states (or absolute monarchies) than the socialist utopias they dream of.

Your enemies enemy is not necessarily your friend.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
In Iraq it seems the best fighting force is Iranian backed Shiite militias. The funny thing was about ten years ago I was watching a Noam Chomsky video (very far left wing), and he was saying that if the US wanted Saddam gone, they could get the Iranians to do it for them. Would save several thousand american lives. Now the Iranian backed militias seem more powerful than the army itself.
I think it would be more accurate to say that there're more organised and better motivated than the average Iraqi unit. What's ironic is that some of the Iranians now fighting in Iraq had previously seen service in Syria; also against IS but alongside Assad's forces. Had Iran been capable of doing away with Saddam (it wasn't) and had the U.S. given the green light (Iran was part of the Axis of Evil) tens of thousands of Iraqis might not have died.

Reports of atrocities conducted on Sunnis in areas recaptured are not good. Although many Sunnis no doubt are happy they are no longer living under IS, the prospects of being seen as IS collaborators or supporters must be terrifying.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Something just occurred to me. Would it be reasonable to assume that the Americans would have extracted some kind of guarantee or assurance from the Iraqis that certain kit be placed as far away as possible from the Iranians? Granted, the Iraqi army's M-1s don't have all the bits and bobs that U.S. ones do but it wouldn't be amusing (for the U.S.) if a "damaged" or "destroyed" M-1 or even stuff like U.S. supplied comms were brought back to Iran and were made available for inspection to the Russians. I recall reading somewhere that an Iranian Tomcat and stuff like TOW were sent to the Soviet Union during the 1980s in exchange for certain assistance provided by the Soviets.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Abrams sold to the middle east (not only) are most likely already compromised since some time now as is the case with US Abrams which got left behind for some time during OIF.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
All were eventually retrieved but some lay there for some time before that happened. An example was "Cojone eh" (spelling?), an Abrams which got disabled due to an engine hit during the first thunder run. They threw a thermite grenade into him and gave him a sabot to eat when they left him behind. In the following days the Air Force followed up with a couple of mavericks and a LGB but he remained largely intact.

While I think that lots of the interior equipment got shredded and burned I wouldn't be surprised if some "interested people" crawled all over it to at least examine the armor arrays.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
There is also the Apache that landed virtually intact in 2003. The one the Iraqis claimed was shot down by the old farmer and his rifle.

Back to the M-1s. It is known that several Iraqi ones were destroyed but I'm unsure if any were ever actually captured intact by IS.
 
Top