The seizure of Mosul and continuing ISIS advance has now captured the attention in the United States that it deserves.
I still think that the U.S. should do nothing, with the possible exception of some limited air support. ISIS does not have the power to take Baghdad. Shia soldiers and militia will fight to defend “their” territory, and the Iraqi army is becoming increasingly sectarian anyway. Air support might help contain bloodshed by stopping an ISIS advance, but it is not clear to me that abetting an Iraqi counteroffensive is a good thing. The only reason to allow for an Iraqi counteroffensive is if we believe both that Maliki can extirpate ISIS and that the resulting deaths would be necessary for American security. I tend to doubt either proposition.
I am, however, open to counterarguments. My inner isolationist can be overwhelmed by my inner imperialist, given enough evidence.
ADDITION (three minutes later): The reason I do not believe that Maliki can extirpate ISIS is simply that he has proven remarkably uninterested in making the political accomodations necessary to gain Sunni acquiescence. He might be able to lead a genocidal campaign, but I doubt his army’s ability to carry that out ... and it is certainly not something that the United States wants to support.
One factor that just does not get enough airing is that lots of (upper class) Sunnis have absolutely no interest in treating Shi'ites or other non-Arab Sunnis on an equal basis. Al Maliki may have been quite truculent in abiding by any agreements that he made with Sunni leaders, and he certainly never gave the average Sunni any inkling that the state might work for them, but it's important to understand that there wasn't always empowered potential partners to make deals with. If Al Maliki falls, what makes you think that any resulting Sunni control would behave any better than Al Sissi and his government? None of the players in Iraq are anything but violent majoritarians susceptible to genocidal tendencies.
Posted by: shah8 | June 14, 2014 at 02:51 PM
Could the Peshmerga take Mosul?
Posted by: Richard Gadsden | June 14, 2014 at 05:01 PM
Yes, absolutely, and the eventually will. Consolidation in Kirkuk is a priority, and probably firming up the lines around Irbil so that ISIS doesn't doorstep them again while they're doing other things.
Probably also negotiating with Turkey and Iran right now.
Posted by: McDevite | June 15, 2014 at 05:03 PM
Negotiating on what? The mechanics of a KRG declaration of independence?
Posted by: Randy McDonald | June 18, 2014 at 01:24 AM
Rather than arguing about tactics in advance of goals, I'd ask what the goal should be.
My answer is that we'd like a reasonably stable, nonauthoritarian, tolerant government that cooperates in developing oil fields. And a pony. In the short term, maybe the best we can hope for is slowing down the civil wars.
A win for Maliki will probably put us closer to that goal than the alternative.
So the question becomes how do we help Maliki win, unless someone thinks that a relatively peaceful partition can be pulled out of a magician's hat. Or else we start a crash nuclear power plant building program.
Posted by: David Allen | June 19, 2014 at 01:28 PM