2014 in Iraq

Shit. First quote was Shari Vari estimated IS's numbers at 15,000 or so. Which is the believable statistic? Could they actually gain permanent control of that region?

Here we go:

High estimates for the strength of ISIS are approx 15,000. Low estimates are about 7,000. This contrasts with an Iraqi army of at least 280,000. The Peshmerga could probably get 200,000 together pretty easily. -sharivari, 3 wks ago

It's possible ISIS is starting to benefit from a bandwagon effect, aided on one hand by their military success and on the other by the ferocity with which they massacre all known opponents.

The 15,000 high estimate was being quoted in an number of different places last month. Whether it was correct at the time or remains correct now is a mystery, though. Idk how anyone would know for sure. The fear would be that they could combine with other rebel groups to boost numbers rapidly.

Lots of the Iraqi army fled and abandoned military vehicles earlier when faced with IS

Such a fucked up situation for the people of Iraq and Syria. Part of me still can't believe that this is what's come of Bush's war.

Literally the worst possible outcome.

At the Nato summit, Barack Obama will ask the UK and other members to join its campaign of air strikes against Isis in Iraq.

British planes have already been involved in helping during the Yazidi humanitarian effort. Security experts are divided about how effective air strikes can be, particularly in the absence of ground forces positioned to capitalise on an adversary's displacement. The US has taken encouragement by the ability of Kurdish and Iraqi forces, aided by US airstrikes, to take the critical Mosul Dam away from Isis, which is said to continue to aim at retaking it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/nato-summit-britain-military-options-islamic-state

Part of me still can't believe that this is what's come of Bush's war.

dude people predicted this from the outset

not ISIS specifically but the massive sectarian conflict

They did not predict half the country would be controlled by an al qaeda-esque Salafist "caliphate"

They did!

As a "worst case scenario." I don't think it was Obama's expectation this would happen when he planned to withdraw.

They did not predict half the country would be controlled by an al qaeda-esque Salafist "caliphate"

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stupidly believed that the US was so militarily and economically powerful that whatever they imagined or desired would be realized, thus you may recall their gobsmacking derision of the "reality-based community" that leaked out of the White House in 2004. They were idiots. It was enraging.

One of al-Q's major strategic aims has always been to undermine and destabilize the regimes of the region, especially the pro-Western ones, but they aren't all that picky. You can't revive the caliphate without sweeping aside all of these regimes. I for one was well aware during the buildup to the Iraq War that Bush was playing patsy to al-Q's strategy by removing Saddam Hussein and I said so. I could probably dig up some relevant quotes from ilx if I rummaged around a bit.

Lots of the Iraqi army fled and abandoned military vehicles earlier when faced with IS

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:32 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've read speculation that if IS gets to Baghdad and overthrows Maliki, half their new recruits will turn around and start fragging their IS 'officers' as thanks for the assist in overthrowing the government people throughout the country seemed to loathe.

I've also read this speculation mocked.

true to form, zizek comes through with one of the pointless and stupid comments on ISIS:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/isis-is-a-disgrace-to-true-fundamentalism/

i'm so excited to read that. i have it saved in a browser tab ready for later.

eh, don't give him the clicks

i think his argument is right -- ISIS is a reactionary movement through and through, it defines itself in opposition to the West and its ideology has no real susbtance on its own that would appeal to people. the only issue one could have with it is that zizek is very provocative with his terms. but that's the point of him in 2014:dialectical inversions of the guiding assumptions in liberal discourse + jokes. my god

i still like him though

Jay Michaelson on vengeance, Torah, humanitarian aid, and cold, calculating rage

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/205072/how-do-we-avenge-steven-sotloffs-death/

Isn't a fundamentalist group reactionary by definition?

Also, it seems a bit odd to pretend that when people talk about Christian Fundamentalism they mean the Amish. I mean, sure, they were fundamentalist 300 years ago, now they're just living fossils.

i guess what he is saying is that real fundamentalists wouldn't try to advance their views through politics. which actually doesn't make sense.

also it contradicts his idea that the left should tap into the "radical emancipatory core" of the christian tradition, which he locates in the "fundamental" texts, the gospels. cf

At the very core of Christianity, there is a vastly different project: that of a destructive negativity, which does not end in a chaotic void but reverts (and organises itself) into a new order, imposing it on to reality.

why would amish "indifference" be fundamental christianity then?

also tibetan buddhism does not involve a "the deep indifference towards the nonbelievers’ way of life." there are strands of buddhism that are like that, but most tibetans adhere to the mahayanan school where the point is to help others find enlightenment. maybe zizek just doesn't know what he's talking about

The problem fundamentalists face is that while trying to return to the pure, true faith they can only do so in the context of an ideological opposition. Fundamentalists are more trapped by the modern than reformers.

And that fundamentalism is not expressed by indifference to the unbeliever but obsession with them.

yeah. z is saying that "real" fundamentalism wouldn't be obsessed with the unbeliever but what he really means is that this is all fundamentalism is, which is why it is bankrupt. it's weird he references this idea of "true fundamentalism" when he could just say that ISIS' ideology is self-contradictory and this suggests it will implode

you guys are treating zizek like he has any idea what he's talking about!

also you could argue that being self-contradictory is a means for an ideology to sustain itself, not implode

but we're talking at such a level of abstraction--floating far above the realities of politics and war--that we may as well be counting angels dancing on the heads of pins

rumor is that al-Baghdadi is dead? all i'm seeing in the news is an article that one of his aides (Abu Hajar Al-Sufi) was killed in a US airstrike?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/aide-isis-leader-al-baghdadi-among-3-killed-u-s-n195601

The strike on the ISIS stronghold of Mosul killed Abu Hajar Al-Sufi, an aide to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as well as an explosives operative and the military leader of the nearby town of Tel Afar, the source said on condition of anonymity.

Just aides and others

what no wedding parties/children? US is slippin

rumor is that al-Baghdadi is dead?

gamesmanship. such rumors can be useful for prodding a leader to come into the open briefly to prove it is wrong, thereby giving his enemies another shot at him, or conversely disheartening his followers if he is too cautious to uncontestably reassert his survival.

still no word of deif weeks later - so i'm assuming that guy bit it

Upon a closer look, the apparent heroic readiness of ISIS to risk everything also appears more ambiguous. Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilization was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security: “A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. ‘We have discovered happiness,’ say the Last Men, and they blink.”

It may appear that the split between the permissive First World and the fundamentalist reaction to it runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth and dedicating one’s life to some transcendent cause. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called “passive” and “active” nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.

thought this was the best bit in the piece ^

idk that's kind of facile, that split is eternal in human society afaict - the split between those who benefit/are fine w the status quo and those who hate it and have found an alternative to rally around. you can point to this split in pretty much any culture at any point in time.

militant fundamentalists categorized with "active nihilists" doesn't ring true either

what varies is how far the fundamentalists are willing to go (most are usually cool w a little genocide) and how successful they are

xp

the reductionism is strong in this one (=zizek)

also fuck the whole "it may appear..." coyness

seriously it's disappointing that any of you take to this garbage

I don't really get the cult of zizek (seriously a philosopher who gets a documentary made about him? wtf) he mostly just seems like a troll

OK so should I read Zizek on ISIS

no but you should see Zizek On Ice

that's what his Mao essay is

it's not great. nor was the recent rotherham piece. i hate to disparage an iconic hero such as zizek but he'd probably be the first person to admit he is mailing it in. (i remember he said a few years ago that all his work now was mailed in except some hegel thing he was working on, but still sometimes he's legit funny + transgressive - not this piece tho)

hopefully his mailbox is right outside his brownstone

IIRC there are several philosophers with films about them! derrida has two! and there's that movie "the ister," which has a lot about heidegger.

though zizek isn't really doing anything i would recognize as philosophy these days.

also does "being there" count? :)