Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.
So the Syrian government (which the US is working to overthrow) is now cooperating with the Iraqi government (which the US installed) to fight the Jihadist terrorists/"rebels" (which the US opposes in Iraq but supports in Syria)???Meanwhile, Iran (which the US opposes) has offered to help Iraq (its former arch-enemy) AND the US (its current enemy) and Syria (its ally) in suppressing the the Jihadists (which the US opposes in Iraq but supports in Syria)???And where does Israel, (who hates Iran, hates Syria, hates Iraq and hates Jihadists) stand in all of this???Define clusterf***
[:D] Someone needs to make a scenario out of this. Will the game engine support being simultaneously friendly, unfriendly, and hostile among all of the same parties? Someone write an event trigger for that!
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
The "country" of Iraq is, and always was, an artificial artifact of post-WWI Balfour agreements. Internally, the allegiance of people is far more sectarian than we realize. People identify by clan, city and religion. The idea that a Shia soldier from the Bassra region would feel allegiance to, and be willing to sacrifice for, the people of Mosul is Western fiction writ large.
Proof being that about 800 ISIS personnel routed two divisions of the "Iraq" army.
That same ISIS force will, in my opinion, get stalled around Baghdad where local Shia militia -- who will likely actually fight -- are forming to protect home and hearth.
The "country" of Iraq is, and always was, an artificial artifact of post-WWI Balfour agreements. Internally, the allegiance of people is far more sectarian than we realize. People identify by clan, city and religion. The idea that a Shia soldier from the Bassra region would feel allegiance to, and be willing to sacrifice for, the people of Mosul is Western fiction writ large.
Proof being that about 800 ISIS personnel routed two divisions of the "Iraq" army.
That same ISIS force will, in my opinion, get stalled around Baghdad where local Shia militia -- who will likely actually fight -- are forming to protect home and hearth.
Regards,
Feltan
"It is right to learn, even from the enemy."
- Ovid
I think the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" will hold, at least temporarily. Similar to why the Western allies cooperated with Stalin in WWII, despite his recent invasions of Poland and Finland.
While initially appearing as a militia fighting Assad's government in Syria, It's now clear that ISIS is trying to carve out a state for itself spanning Syria nand Iraq. In doing so it has put as much effort into fighting other anti-Assad groups, such as the secular Free Syrian Army and Kurdish militias, and even against other Jihadi groups who themselves regard ISIS as extremists! Hence in Syria it's at least a three-way civil war, if not moreso.
The Maliki government in Baghdad has two external allies it's calling on - Iran and the USA. Not the best of friends over the last few decades, but the current Tehran government is more moderate and willing to cooperate internationally than its predecessor. As such, this crisis could be the trigger for better cooperation and improving relations. The UK has already agreed to reopen its embassy in Tehran; while unlikely to provide military assets to Iraq due to drastic defence cuts, its diplomatic efforts may still be useful especially if it can smooth things a bit between the USA and Iran, enabling some level of military cooperation.
Iran has a small but effective section of its military that could be useful to Baghdad, and the USA has the ability to provide drone surveillance and airstrikes. The Iraqi Kurdistan army is also quite effective, though they seem unkeen to get heavily involved in a war with ISIS as they risk losing everything if it goes badly for them. The newly-formed Shia militias in Baghdad will be useful if the fighting reaches the city, but far less so for meaningful military advances as they lack training and experience. The key to the conflict will hinge on how the regular Iraqi army can regroup and advance; the support of US airstrikes and Iranian ground 'advisors' could make a big difference there.
The political aspect will be the biggest hurdle to achieve that. Within Iraq, Maliki is regarded with distrust by most Sunnis, who see him as governing for the benefit of Shias. That's why so many have either joined ISIS or are at least prepared to work with them. While Iran would be happy to support Shia domination, the US will want Maliki to become genuinely more inclusive of Sunnis; they're right when they say the longer-term solution to this crisis is more political than military. It's far too soon to say whether Iraq can remain as a single state or will split up, as a post-crisis Iraq could be a very different place.
Nevertheless the short term situation needs effective military action to reverse ISIS' advance, and delaying that may make the situation worse and less recoverable. For the outside world ISIS winning would be the worst possible outcome, so erstwhile enemies are likely to cooperate to prevent that. Sooner rather than later.
