• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iraq in Crisis- Merged Superthread

Wouldn't some of America's allies in the region, namely Turkey as well as Iraq's Maliki government, be wary of the US becoming closer to the Kurds, who covet their homeland which carves out parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Turkey?

Military.com

US Sends Green Berets to Northern Iraq

Special Forces advisors have set up an operations center in northern Iraq as part of the expanding U.S. political and military effort to keep Iraq from splintering against attacks by Islamic extremists, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

In recent days, a small team of advisors opened up a Joint Operations Center (JOC) in Irbil, capital of the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government, Hagel said at a Pentagon briefing with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Irbil mission will complement the JOC already in operation in Baghdad in assessing the capability and will of the Iraqi national security forces to combat militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant who have swept across large swaths of western and northern Iraq against little opposition.

(...EDITED)
 
And the theatre continues to expand. It won't take much to finally trigger Saudi Arabia, Jordan or any other State threatened within or without by Salafist radicals to enter the conflict. The big question is how long before they finally decide to hit the hornet's nest (Iran) rather than just swat at the hornets?

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/07/03/another-road-to-war-in-the-middle-east/

THE WORLD IGNITES
Another Road to War in the Middle East

The Iraqi Army withdrew from the border with Saudi Arabia in the heavily Sunni Anbar Province yesterday, leaving the road open for ISIS to attack the Kingdom. In response, the Saudis sent 30,000 troops to fill the gap. The Financial Times reports:

Saudi Arabia has deployed 30,000 troops to its border with Iraq, the pan-Arab television station Al Arabiya said on Thursday, after tribal leaders within the war-torn country reported Iraqi government forces abandoning their posts on the frontier.

Iraqi government officials have not yet commented on any withdrawal, nor is it clear how many soldiers were told to leave. But Abdul Razzaq al-Shammari, a tribal sheikh from the restive Anbar province, said troops had been ordered to leave the Saudi border near Anbar, one of the areas where Sunni insurgents and militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis) have been seizing territory.

The withdrawal represents another stage in the full scale collapse of the Iraqi government as anything but the rule of a Shi’a rump of the country. Meanwhile, this creates a huge danger for Saudi Arabia. Will ISIS turn south?

This is yet another scenario that could well drag the U.S. into war. The costs of the American failure to contain the Syrian War continue to grow.

Published on July 3, 2014 11:38 am

I'm not sure that America will be dragged into the war in any direct fashion, however. The current Administration is doing everything possible to distance themselves from taking any action or responsibility for what is happening in the ME, and a future administration may conclude that aside from carrier battle groups steaming offshore and the occasional dollop of aid to one side or the other, it will be better to let all the various parties fight it out amongst themselves  to focus their attention inwards and exhaust their resources (much like the Iran-Iraq war back in the 1980's). Having Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States locked in combat with Iran and her allies and proxies may be the least worst solution, from Washington's point of view.

America stands to benefit by selling its own oil and natural gas on the open market (energy wealth to repair the economy), and parties who are keen on getting Middle Eastern oil will also be turning their attention to that part of the world, rather than outward. US Maritime strategy will allow contestants to shuttle forces in and out of the Middle East (if it is in America's interest), and provide convoy protection for whatever energy is being exported from the region.
 
A new rogue state rises out of Sunni-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria with ISIS in control, calling themselves a new "caliphate" :

From Agence-France-Presse via Yahoo News

IS, the jihadist group claiming world leadership
By: Agence France-Presse
July 6, 2014 2:10 AM

BAGHDAD -- The Islamic State (IS) jihadist group which spearheaded a sweeping militant assault that overran swathes of Iraq is now claiming leadership of the world's Muslims.
Known for its ruthless tactics and suicide bombers, IS has carried out frequent bombings and shootings in Iraq, and is also arguably the most capable force fighting President Bashar al-Assad inside Syria.

But it truly gained international attention last month, when its fighters and those from other militant groups swept through the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, then overran swathes of five provinces north and west of Baghdad.

The group led by "caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and backed by thousands of fighters in Syria and Iraq, some of them Westerners, appears to be surpassing Al-Qaeda as the world's most dangerous and influential jihadist group.

In a sign of IS confidence, the hitherto secretive Baghdadi made an unprecedented public appearance in the militant-held north Iraq city of Mosul, ordering Muslims to obey him, according to a video distributed online on Saturday.

(...EDITED)

308884-4f3a4986-0494-11e4-88d9-2a69c7a318fc.jpg


Jihadist caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi demands obedience of Muslims

July 06, 2014

SELF-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has made an unprecedented appearance in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which his forces helped capture last month, and ordered Muslims to obey him, according to a video post. ...

The video showed a portly man clad in a long black robe and a black turban with a long greying beard addressing worshippers at weekly prayers at Al-Nur mosque in central Mosul.

“I am the wali (leader) who presides over you, though I am not the best of you. So if you see that I am right, assist me,” said the man, purportedly Baghdadi.

“If you see that I am wrong, advise me and put me on the right track, and obey me as long as I obey God.”

Text superimposed on the video identified the man as “Caliph Ibrahim”, the name Baghdadi took when the group on June 29 declared a “caliphate”, a pan-Islamic state last seen in Ottoman times, in which the leader is both political and religious.

The video is the first ever official appearance by Baghdadi, says Aymenn al-Tamimi, an expert on Islamist movements, though the jihadist leader may have appeared in a 2008 video under a different name.

The Australian

 
Have The Islamist Militants Overreached In Iraq And Syria?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/07/05/328145985/have-the-islamist-militants-overreached-in-iraq-and-syria

The Islamist radicals who have declared an Islamic caliphate on land they control straddling Iraq and Syria are waging an audacious publicity stunt, according to some analysts.

While it may bring them even greater attention, it's also likely to be an overreach that will open riffs with its current partners, the Sunni Muslims in Iraq who welcomed the militant group in early June. They all share the goal of overthrowing Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his sectarian rule, but the more secular parts of the Sunni coalition didn't sign up for an Islamic state.

"By announcing the caliphate, they are picking a fight with everybody," says David Kilcullen, a guerrilla warfare expert and former chief counter-terrorism strategist for the U.S. State Department.

The militants were known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. But in announcing a caliphate, which is a single, unified Islamic state, they are now simply calling themselves the Islamic State.

The group has been taking territory since last year, first in Syria and now in Iraq. They grabbed international attention last month when they seized the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, one of the largest and most important population centers in Iraq.

But so far, at least, the Islamic State has not tried to make the city the centerpiece of the declared caliphate.

"No, no, there is nothing like that in Mosul," insists a former Iraqi military officer when reached by phone. He dismisses the caliphate with a snort, because, he says, "the other groups object."

The former officer says he fears retribution from the Maliki government and didn't want his name published. He says he is part of the Sunni alliance in Mosul that originally welcomed the Islamic State. Now, he has some doubts.

"We will soon name one of our people to be the boss in Mosul," he says. "There is no caliphate here."

A Sunni Alliance Of Convenience

The Islamic State declared the caliphate on June 30, three weeks after a successful sweep across northern and western Iraq in a land grab that includes strategic border posts.

A small group of IS fighters served as the "tip of the spear" in this Sunni alliance of convenience. In the first thrust of the spear, IS was supported by tribal chiefs, village elders, Islamist groups, former military officers from an army disbanded by the U.S. in 2003, and former members of the outlawed Baathist party that governed Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

But now IS is in classic overreach mode, says Kilcullen. Other analysts agree that IS's ambitions will create divisions.

"It will help and hurt" the Islamic State, says Ramzy Mardini, a non-resident fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. Declaring a caliphate "creates uncertainty for the Sunnis that backed" the group, he says. Mardini points out that IS arrived in Mosul in early June with a limited force of around 2,000 fighters. They were prepared to spring prisoners from the jails. They didn't expect the Iraqi army to collapse so quickly.

"They weren't prepared to take over a city of 2 million people," he says.

The caliphate, with deep religious symbolism that harkens back to the early days of Islam, is a recruiting bid to a wider audience, says Mardini.

The brash quest to redraw the map of the Middle East was trumpeted on IS's social media outlets in a video titled "Breaking Borders" and translated into English, Russian, French, German and Albanian.

IS is now calling on Muslims to immigrate, specifically "religious scholars, particularly judges, those with military, administrative and service experience, doctors and engineers."

The self-declared caliphate had immediate detractors. Rival groups fighting in Syria were the first to speak against the caliphate. IS has already hijacked the Syrian revolt, turning a citizen's rebellion into a terrorist war.

Religious scholars across the region called the caliphate "nonsense." Arabic-language Facebook pages popped up to satirize the elusive IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and imaged his rejection of a "friend" request from the al-Qaida boss, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Even al-Qaida considers IS too extreme.

But the reaction of Iraq's Sunni community is a key to the future power of IS.

"In Iraq, 99 percent of the Sunni Arabs don't want to live under a caliphate," says Ali Khedery, who served as a political adviser to U.S. ambassadors and top military commanders in Iraq and the Middle East from 2003 to 2010. He resigned in protest when the U.S. supported Maliki's second term as prime minister.

"Iraqis like to drink, dance, and smoke. They don't want to be ruled by Chechens and Afghans and live under 7th-century standards," Khedery says.

In some IS-controlled neighborhoods in Mosul, masked fighters enforce a radical Islamist code of behavior announced in some mosques and on social media. But other neighborhoods are controlled by local Sunnis who ignore IS edicts.

After an initial exodus of the Christian community, some are returning to Mosul, including the head of Chaldean Church, Archbishop Emil Nona. Many IS fighters have moved on to the front lines, so their presence in limited in Mosul and in the Christian villages in the suburbs of the city.

"I can't say if there is future or not, because we don't know which future we have," says the wary archbishop.

However, IS is "filling a vacuum as the Iraqi state collapses," according to Khedery, the former U.S. adviser.

'They've Booby-Trapped The Whole City'

So far, the Sunni coalition has not publicly split with IS. There is no incentive, says Ramzy Mardini, as long as Maliki is still a contender for a third term in office. Iraq's Sunnis are not yet willing to "take their foot off the accelerator," he says.

The Sunnis believe undercutting IS now would lift the pressure on Baghdad.

But the longer IS remains unchallenged, the stronger is is likely to become, says Mardini.

Take the example of Tikrit. The city was captured in a matter of hours by IS militants on June 11. Soon after, IS posted photographs of the spoils of war after capturing a prison and executing scores of Iraqi soldiers.

"When they first came to Tikrit, it was a bunch of guys in pickup trucks," says Zaid Al-Ali, the author of The Struggle for Iraq's Future and someone who has close family ties in Tikrit.

"Now, they've booby-trapped the whole city," he says. IS brought compressors to dig up the streets and plant bombs on strategic roadways, according to relatives who witnessed the takeover.

IS is growing in strength, says Al-Ali, "The longer Maliki stays in office, the more entrenched they become."

For Militants, Founding Of Caliphate Is Win In Rhetoric, Not Reality

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/03/328209560/for-militants-founding-of-caliphate-is-win-in-rhetoric-not-reality

On the first night of Ramadan, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria announced it would change its name to, simply, the Islamic State, declaring that the land it had captured in Syria and Iraq constituted a new caliphate. The group's leader is trying to use this new narrative to wrest control of the global jihad from al-Qaida.

Copyright © 2014 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Robert Siegel.

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

And I'm Melissa Block. The head of a terrorist group controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq has declared himself the leader of a new caliphate, or Muslim state. But does saying it make it so? Counterterrorism officials say they haven't seen much happening on the ground that suggests major political changes. They say the decision to establish a caliphate is more about rhetoric than reality, that it's part of a strategy to help the group seize the mantle of terrorism from al-Qaida. NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports now on whether that plan might work.

DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's decision to try to reestablish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq is not about setting up an Islamic government. It's really about politics - jihadi politics.

MATTHEW LEVITT: There was no groundwork laid for this. I think he really saw this as a way to present himself as an organized challenge to al-Qaida.

TEMPLE-RASTON: That's Matthew Levitt, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And by groundwork, he means al-Baghdadi apparently did not alert other jihadi groups or important religious leaders that he intended to name himself caliph, the leader of a Muslim state. He just waited until the first day of Ramadan, and he did it.

LEVITT: I think that al-Baghdadi has bitten off more than he can chew here. The idea of a caliphate is all Sunnis are supposed to have a obligation to this caliph. Now, if - if they don't follow suit, then it's empty words, and he demonstrates that he is not as powerful as he thought he would be.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Counterterrorism officials are watching key players outside Syria and Iraq - leaders in the jihadi community, to see whether they accept al-Bagdhadi as their leader, or they don't. And right now, it looks like they don't.

PATRICK JOHNSTON: None of the - the existing militant groups are really biting, except for some small-bit players.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Patrick Johnston, of the Rand Corporation, has been tracking who is lining up for al-Bagdhadi.

JOHNSTON: Not the stronger groups that ideally ISIS would peel away from supporting al-Qaida.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Al-Bagdhadi's list of supporters include locals in Raqqa, Syria, where he has training camps. They tweeted congratulations to him and called on others to pledge allegiance to him. A commander of Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, with the Twitter handle @BlackFlagNews, said he'd support al-Bagdhadi as the new caliph. And minor clerics, like a firebrand in the U.K., offered some measured support, which could help boost recruitment for al-Bagdhadi in Britain. But Rand's Patrick Johnston says the big jihadi names have been quiet.

JOHNSTON: I think they're waiting to see whether this will take, and someone has to make a first move.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute agrees.

LEVITT: The big prize for Bagdhadi would be to get actual al-Qaida affiliates to begin siding with him. AQIM, AQAP, the Shabaab - etc. And so far, we haven't seen this.

TEMPLE-RASTON: AQIM is al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. AQAP is the group's arm in Yemen. And Shabaab is al-Qaida's affiliate in Somalia. And they have all been noticeably quiet. The Nusra Front, al-Qaida's arm in Syria, greeted al-Bagdhadi's announcement with sarcasm. They said he had succeeded in creating, in the group's words, a Twitter caliphate. The Rand Corporation's Johnston says al-Bagdhadi's definition of a caliphate is in keeping with his tendency to overreach.

JOHNSTON: And it ends up being counterproductive.

TEMPLE-RASTON: And what have we heard from one of the most important players in the struggle for jihadi hearts and minds, al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri? Absolutely nothing. Dina Temple-Raston, NPR News.
 
S.M.A. said:
Wouldn't some of America's allies in the region, namely Turkey as well as Iraq's Maliki government, be wary of the US becoming closer to the Kurds, who covet their homeland which carves out parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Turkey?

Military.com

The current government of Turkey is slightly more open to the Kurds and with the current set of events the Kurds while having conflicting priorities with the Turks would also be sen as one of the few rational and reliable actors in the region.
 
The Turkish Government may have an ulterior motive for wanting to support the Kurds. It does a couple of things, keeps the Kurdish movements in Turkey occupied looking south rather internally. And if they do succeed in getting an independent and separate state from a break up of Iraq, it gives the Turks a place to displace their own Kurdish population if they choose to go that route.
 
You are missing the glaring fact that the Turkish Kurds want their territory annexed into the new Kurdish country. They are not looking to move.

Can't see a problem with that......the Turks are nice guys...no?
 
GAP said:
You are missing the glaring fact that the Turkish Kurds want their territory annexed into the new Kurdish country. They are not looking to move.

Can't see a problem with that......the Turks are nice guys...no?

Haven't missed the fact.

I understand that the Turkish Kurds want their territory to be part of a larger Kurdistan.

My point was that having an independent Kurdish state in the remnants of Iraq, The Turks could now have a place to force them out to their Turkish territory should the Kurds decide to become more forceful in their claim than they already are.

And I'm not saying it would be the smart thing to to for the Turks, as the outcry from the rest of the world would be politically untenable. But there is historic precedent for ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Turks in the not to distant past.
 
Plus the Kurds know they need Turkey to make a go of it and will likely work with what they have rather than just what they want. that's not to say all of the PPK will agree. The Kurds are clearly playing the long game and making the moves they think they can win. There is a painful but slowly succeeding peace deal with Turkey and a recent oil deal as well. I think both Turkey and the Kurds are putting off dealing with a "Greater Kurdistan" to deal with today's and tomorrow's problem and not the one years down the road.

As the ISIS make Assad look sane and if Assad can continue to win in Syria, Turkey may have backed the wrong horses and will be struggling to to be relevant in the region. Propping up the Kurds with quiet promises not to look at Turkish soil for the time being might be the only game in town for them with any economic and political brightness.
 
ISIS has captured a WMD site north of Bagdahd. While it is to be hoped that the chemical munitions have deteriorated and degraded over the years, nothing should be taken at face value (and even the degraded chemicals are likely to be quite toxic). Of course there is something which the article carefully fails to mention: the constantly repeated claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq during OIF. 

The other issue is if this site was known since the 1980's, why was it not dealt with in a timely manner after Saddam's overthrow? Even something as simple as burning the munitions in place with thermite would have consumed the chemicals for good and destroyed the machinery beyond any hope of repair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

Isis storms Saddam-era chemical weapons complex in Iraq
Facility containing disused stores of sarin and mustard gas overrun by jihadist group

By Damien McElroy7:58PM BST 19 Jun 2014Comments163 Comments

The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin.

Isis invaded the al-Muthanna mega-facility 60 miles north of Baghdad in a rapid takeover that the US government said was a matter of concern.

The facility was notorious in the 1980s and 1990s as the locus of Saddam’s industrial scale efforts to develop a chemical weapons development programme.

Isis has shown ambitions to seize and use chemical weapons in Syria leading experts to warn last night that the group could turn to improvised weapons to carry out a deadly attack in Iraq.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment, said that al-Muthanna has large stores of weaponized and bulk mustard gas and sarin, most of which has been put beyond ready use in concrete stores.

Related Articles

Iraq crisis: sectarian tensions mount in Baghdad as Shia militias prowl Sunni areas 18 Jun 2014

On the frontline of the battle against Isis 18 Jun 2014

Iraq crisis: Saddam's men return to power in city once held by US 17 Jun 2014

“It is doubtful that Isis have the expertise to use a fully functioning chemical munition but there are materials on site that could be used in an improvised explosive device,” he told the Telegraph. “We have seen that Isis has used chemicals in explosions in Iraq before and has carried out experiments in Syria.”

US officials revealed that the group had occupied the sprawling site which has two bunkers encased in a concrete seal. Much of the sarin is believed to be redundant.

“We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the [Isis],” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”
During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, Iraq produced bunkers full of chemical munitions.

A CIA report on the facility said that 150 tons of mustard were produced each year at the peak from 1983 and pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984.

Its most recent description of al-Muthanna in 2007 paints a disturbing picture of chemicals strewn throughout the area.
“Two wars, sanctions and UN oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,” it said.
“Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment and other hazardous industrial chemicals.”

Britain has previously acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran – Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

One US official told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Isis fighters could be contaminated by the chemicals at the site.

“The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them,” the military officer said.
 
George Wallace said:
We are not dealing with a "Western" society and any hopes of winning hearts and minds along with "Reconstruction" as seen at the end of WW II is a fantasy.  WW II ended with "civilized" nations arriving at a peaceful end to world conflict with mutual understandings.  We can not hope to achieve the same results dealing with "barbaric" cultures who are still stuck in near pre-historic times.  We can not achieve anything by trying to impose our will and power over these states.  Even aiding them is not achieving positive results.  Let God (or Darwin) sort them out.

The Darwin Awards have already been awarded to some failed classes of suicide bombers.  Let us award more.

One of the FEW times I will agree with you GW. Back Everything out of there, EVERYTHING. If your not from the area, or dont want to be in the middle of a warzone by this date, GTFO. Come home, let them fight it out themselves. Why would we enter the situation again, and have two sides fighting, and in turn have them both turn on our Western Ideals. Last time I checked, we arent killing eachother over being Atheist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim in the western world. Set up a barrier around them however far out. If women and children wish to leave let them. Send drones over and keep an eye on stuff to make sure they arent building giant nukes. Use planes and bombing runs to finish it off and to make sure neither side gets too far ahead of the other. They need to start policing themselves.

 
Not to be sexist or cold hearted, but I wouldn't even let the women and children out.  They often hold the exact same beliefs as the male population; sometimes even more extreme.
 
George Wallace said:
Not to be sexist or cold hearted, but I wouldn't even let the women and children out.  They often hold the exact same beliefs as the male population; sometimes even more extreme.

But is that a truly held belief, or what has been beaten into them (either literally or figuratively) by their male relatives and overlords.
 
We could ask the Khadir sisters.

We could ask, if they were still alive, the Muslim women who have become suicide bombers. 

Problem is, how do you know their true allegiances?
 
upandatom said:
One of the FEW times I will agree with you GW. Back Everything out of there, EVERYTHING. If your not from the area, or dont want to be in the middle of a warzone by this date, GTFO. Come home, let them fight it out themselves. Why would we enter the situation again, and have two sides fighting, and in turn have them both turn on our Western Ideals. Last time I checked, we arent killing eachother over being Atheist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim in the western world. Set up a barrier around them however far out. If women and children wish to leave let them. Send drones over and keep an eye on stuff to make sure they arent building giant nukes. Use planes and bombing runs to finish it off and to make sure neither side gets too far ahead of the other. They need to start policing themselves.

These maniacs would love to kill all the Catholics by heaping them on their bonfires tonight, and vice versa. Situation normal there since the 16th C or so... and this is in a 'civilized' nation.

http://rt.com/news/171856-giant-bonfires-ireland-twelfth/
 
Thucydides said:
ISIS has captured a WMD site north of Bagdahd. While it is to be hoped that the chemical munitions have deteriorated and degraded over the years, nothing should be taken at face value (and even the degraded chemicals are likely to be quite toxic). Of course there is something which the article carefully fails to mention: the constantly repeated claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq during OIF. 

The other issue is if this site was known since the 1980's, why was it not dealt with in a timely manner after Saddam's overthrow? Even something as simple as burning the munitions in place with thermite would have consumed the chemicals for good and destroyed the machinery beyond any hope of repair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

Wait a minute, all the anti Bush types said there was no WMD in Iraq. Are we back pedaling on the anti Bush propaganda sentiment here?

I love the way Obama has condemned the invasion because here was no credible evidence.

Guess what. Bush was right, suck it up buttercup. You were wrong. Not that anyone with the slightest clue ever doubted the real evidence.

Now they want to blame it on Bush for not following up ::)
 
Pointing a finger at Bush or Obama isn't really helpful, especially in regards to "who was right and who was wrong."

My question is...

Regardless of whether there were WMD before the invasion or not....wtf are they doing there now??  And IF said chemicals weapons are in fact present, why are they not locked away in a heavily, heavily secured facility?


*tin foil hat time*  Whole thing sounds fishy, regardless of what angle it's looked at. 
 
According the the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html), this site was a CW production site prior to the first Gulf War.  It was bombed and subjected to UN inspections after the war and was where Iraqi WMD's were incinerated by the UN.  From a quick read of the document a number of storage buildings were damaged by the bombings and were sealed in concrete by the UN because it was too hazardous to remove the leaking containers. 

Long story short, it was a WMD site prior to Gulf War I.  It was subject to UN inspections and most of the chemical weapons there were incinerated by the UN teams.  Some buildings were damaged and unsafe to clear out so they were sealed in concrete.  It would appear that these are the buildings referred to as being captured by ISIS in the OP's article.  While I imagine these chemicals are quite dangerous (why would the UN seal them in place rather than remove them if they were not?), my very limited understanding of chemical weapons is that their significant military effectiveness degrades relatively quickly over time (http://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/production.html).  These have been sitting there for 23 years. 

No doubt ISIS could likely find some way to use these with dramatic media effect ("ISIS terrorists strike with Saddam's secret WMDs!") but it might be easier/safer for them to kill people with more easily usable household or industrial chemicals.
 
GR66 said:
No doubt ISIS could likely find some way to use these with dramatic media effect....
Did you mean to say "No doubt the media could likely find some way to dramatize this"? 
 
Journeyman said:
Did you mean to say "No doubt the media could likely find some way to dramatize this"?

How right you are.  I stand corrected!
 
Back
Top