Kurds seize Iraq/Syria border post; Sunni tribe joins fight against Islamic State

www.reuters.com...

(Reuters) - Iraqi Kurdish troops drove Islamic State fighters from a strategic border crossing with Syria on Tuesday and won the support of members of a major Sunni tribe, in one of the biggest successes since U.S. forces began bombing the Islamists.

The victory, which could make it harder for militants to operate on both sides of the frontier, was also achieved with help from Kurds from the Syrian side of the frontier, a new sign of cooperation across the border.

Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters took control of the Rabia border crossing in a battle that began before dawn, an Iraqi Kurdish political source said.

"It's the most important strategic point for crossing," the source said.

The participation of Sunni tribal fighters in the battle against Islamic State could prove as important a development as the advance itself.

More Sunni tribes fighting against the Islamic state. This is what people want to see and is a welcome ally.

Taking a border post away from them is a great advancement!

Not bad if it's actually true.

But something tells me we aren't getting the real story.

I remain skeptical.

a reply to: xuenchen

Great news!!! Finally!! Perhaps this is the beginning of a new twist! Will also check out Xuen!

IT TOOK LONG EOUGH!

a reply to: xuenchen

About what? You don't believe Sunni tribes are taking arms up against the Islamic state? This isn't the first report of Islamic tribes fighting against them.

Iraq Sunni tribes take up arms against jihadists

a reply to: Swills

I think they might be.

But with all the BeeEss coming out of official reports, I remain skeptical.

In all this mess the Kurds are the only ones truly kicking some ass and taking names, and a border post apparently.




Baghdad may fall soon though

a reply to: xuenchen

They are, there is no might be.

Skeptical is one thing, ignoring facts is another. Unless you don't believe the Kurds and Sunni tribes took the border post?

a reply to: SLAYER69

They sure are! With US arms to supply them they are able to combat the Islamic state who also have US arms.

a reply to: Swills

It seems some Iraqi troops are dropping their weapons and retreating faster than ISIS can advance while in some other areas some Iraqi troops are fighting.

It's a mixed bag with plenty of scuttlebutt thrown about

GREAT NEWS! if they start working together, they'll be strong enough to stop ISIS. maybe this can help the world learn that working together is best. No fighting that way. Rise up against a common enemy and when it's done, STAY UNITED. Dont grin at each other because the threat is gone - and then turn on each other.

Uniting is the best. Maybe this will be the ultimate road to peace?

a reply to: SLAYER69

Borders Crumble, Army Gone - Iraq Spirals Out Of Control

Here's a great report on the Iraq army tucking tail and running for ze hillz!

a reply to: Swills

The Kurds are freakin' awesome. Seriously. Their history of badassery goes way back and they're often the only thing fighting the evils around them.

If the Kurds had a recruitment campaign like ISIS, I think they'd get quite a few people from all over into their ranks.

This goes to show that not all Sunnis support ISIS, although this is likely due to ISIS brutal policies more than anything else. Although it is hard to say what the people themselves are thinking, I would imagine they have some common sense and decency to oppose ISIS, even though they subscribe to the same religious sect. But people should not assume this means that this temporary alliance automatically means peace or stability. History shows us that it is common for groups sharing the same enemy to form such a temporary alliance, and then when the enemy is defeated anything can happen. Not saying that is what is going to occur, as the Kurds are not people who go around starting stuff by any means. The problems might or might not arise if the Kurds ever try to form Kurdistan or a smaller Kurdish state.

Anyway, the strategic implications for this fight are enormous. It appears that this is one of the few developed crossings on the Syrian-Iraq border, and this serves to isolate ISIS units in Syria from those in Iraq. This also makes it more difficult for messengers, supplies, etc. to move back and forth between the area. Now I think it would make much sense, militarily speaking, for ISIS to launch their own assault to take back the crossing. Their movements are too restricted to not make this move. If this is the crossing I am thinking of, it is towards the northern part of Syria, and since there are only about 3 major border crossings, the next major crossing would be too far away to simply transfer all operations to another crossing. So it seems to me ISIS has to try to take it back.

We know ISIS has a lot of funding, and because of this one would expect them to be able to supply their forces adequately, but cutting off the supply routes is a sure-fire way to negate those financial advantages. Now it seems to me that much of the supplies are coming in from either the north of Syria or the south of Iraq, or both. It depends on whether they're travelling through the desert or on established, paved roads. They definitely had a presence or even the control of areas necessary to bring materiel from both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I think one of the flaws ISIS is making is that their presence is too spread out. Granted that you do not want to concentrate the bulk of your forces because it is too dangerous when you don't have air cover, but you cannot accomplish the taking of objectives or cannot hold them sufficiently when your resources are so spread out.

What they should be doing, and they might be for all I know, is they should behave like a guerilla force is supposed to. It is similar to something Napoleon said, although he said it for different reasons: separate to live, unite to fight. ISIS should quickly concentrate forces, and I mean as quickly as possible, take an objective with their massed resources, and then disperse. But what they seem to be doing is attacking sporadically with spread out forces, and they are not getting anywhere. And to make matters worse for them, these small forces cannot stand up to a counter-attack, like in this border crossing incident. And that is my point. Their strategy has basically allowed a portion of their forces in Iraq to be separated from those in Syria. This could easily open up more fronts than they were dealing with before.

It has been an insurgent strategy to simply harass rather than take objectives, but ISIS' objectives are those of a standing or conventional army, or even a state, thus their guerilla tactics are only going to take them so far. It is not like they are fighting the US army, who could not stay indefinitely, and whom they could simply try to wear down, causing as many casualties as possible. They are fighting the Kurds though, who are not going anywhere, and who will be more than happy to oblige ISIS if they wish to drag this thing out in that way. Thus ISIS is not correct to adopt such a strategy. I would imagine they are trying to recruit like mad at this point, because they can likely feel their gains slipping from their fingers. All the funding in the world will not help you if you don't have fighters, and I think that they are hoping for a large influx to replace their losses, as well as to allow them to launch offensives in areas where the issue is either not going in their favor or is still undecided.

ca reply to: Cuervo

IS gained popularity, and still does, because they've been so victorious in Syrian and Iraq. Their territory has to be taken back from them.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

IS is Sunni but more importantly Wahhabi

Wahhabism (Arabic: وهابية‎, Wahhābiyyah) or Wahhabi mission[1] (Arabic: ألدعوة ألوهابية‎, al-Da'wa al-Wahhābiyyah ) is a religious movement or sect or form[2] of Sunni Islam[3][4][5] variously described as "orthodox", "ultraconservative",[6] "austere",[2] "fundamentalist",[7] "puritanical"[8] (or "puritan"),[9] an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship",[10] or an "extremist pseudo-Sunni movement".[11] Adherents often object to the term Wahhabi or Wahhabism as derogatory, and prefer to be called Salafi or muwahhid.[12][13][14]....

....Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[26][27] and for causing disunity in the Muslim community by labeling non-Wahhabi Muslims as apostates[28] (takfir) thus paving the way for their bloodshed.[29][30][31] It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.[32][33][34] The "boundaries" of what make up Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[35] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are often used interchangeably, and considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[36][37] [38] But Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism",[4] or an ultra-conservative, Saudi brand of Salafism.[39][40]

Calling them Sunni's is like saying the Westboro church represents all Christians.

ISIS’ Harsh Brand of Islam Is Rooted in Austere Saudi Creed

BAGHDAD — Caliph Ibrahim, the leader of the Islamic State, appeared to come out of nowhere when he matter-of-factly proclaimed himself the ruler of all Muslims in the middle of an otherwise typical Ramadan sermon. Muslim scholars from the most moderate to the most militant all denounced him as a grandiose pretender, and the world gaped at his growing following and its vicious killings.

His ruthless creed, though, has clear roots in the 18th-century Arabian Peninsula. It was there that the Saud clan formed an alliance with the puritanical scholar Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab. And as they conquered the warring tribes of the desert, his austere interpretation of Islam became the foundation of the Saudi state.

Much to Saudi Arabia’s embarrassment, the same thought has now been revived by the caliph, better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as the foundation of the Islamic State.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

In a speech before the United Nations on Wednesday, President Obama asked the world to join the fight against the Islamic State.In U.N. Speech, Obama Vows to Fight ISIS ‘Network of Death’SEPT. 24, 2014
Kurdish refugees from Syria waiting Wednesday at the Turkish border, where people try with equal urgency to enter and to exit.Amid a Maze of Alliances, Syrian Kurds Find a Thorny Refuge at the Border SEPT. 24, 2014
Leaders’ Speeches at U.N. Show Delicacy of Mission Against ISIS MilitantsSEPT. 24, 2014
“It is a kind of untamed Wahhabism,” said Bernard Haykel, a scholar at Princeton. “Wahhabism is the closest religious cognate.”

When this is all through and IS has been eliminated Iraq as we know it could devolve into three separate states, one for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.

originally posted by: Swills
Taking a border post away from them is a great advancement!

Not really, they did this before, not long ago, in June and were beaten back a while later (just google it).

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Swills

The Kurds are freakin' awesome. Seriously. Their history of badassery goes way back and they're often the only thing fighting the evils around them.
If the Kurds had a recruitment campaign like ISIS, I think they'd get quite a few people from all over into their ranks.

The Kurds _are_ doing a recruitment campaign, namely in Turkey.

However, the Kurds are generally another side of the same coin. Kurds are living basivally in 3 countries, Turkey, Iraq and Syria - but each group has their agenda, their own political parties, their own militia. Now, in Iraq, the US forced the new regime to grant them limited autonomy, while in Turkey, the Kuridsh militia battled, until a few years ago, against the Turkish state and the miltia, called PKK, is considered a terrorist organization by many (Turkey, Europe, USA, UN, ...). The Syrian Kurds seem to have an understanding with Syrian leader Assad that they can "take over" the north of the country, as long as it is not falling into the hands of groups fighting against the regime (IS, Nusra, SFA and many others).
The Kurds themselves are mainly muslims, most of the sunnis, but you also have shiite muslims (in the border region of Iran/Iraq), there are some alawits, yezids and even christians.

So, you have one name, but a mixture of interests and there is not the slightest doubt that, once the IS is out of the way, they will turn against other targets, mainly to get an own state.

Now, Turkey, remember, they struggle against the Kurds for many years, had an idea here. They thought that they can support the IS, and let them eradicate the Kurds south of their borders. Since this is not much appreciated by world policy, they got a new cunning plan.
Probably within the next days (just wait and see...), they will send their army into north Syria, fight back the IS and proclaim a "safety zone" there. The thing is ... they come in, but they will never leave and the safety zone is, in the end, turkish occupied territory where they (and not the Kurds) make the rules. This plan will yield the applause of the world ("they send in troups, fight against IS and protect the refugees") and will solve the problem of a kurdish region south of their borders.
The funny thing here is - Turkey is part of the NATO, and the NATO protested harshly when Russia sent troops into the Crimean, but now the NATO will do the same in Syria (which is supported by Russia). You guess ... there will be a price for that for the Russians to accept it (or is the price already being paid considering how quiet it became with the border conflict Russia-Ukraine?).

Anyway - from this short closer look into the conflict you might start to see the problems in this region - and I did not yet elaborate on the interests of Iran, Iraq, Jordania, Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Palestine. Everthing is intermingled, everything will have effects, like a stack of pieces in a Mikado game - you move one and all the others will shake or move their position. And on top comes now the US (which, btw, protected FIRST exclusively the vital business interests they had in Erbil, re-read the press a few weeks back), some European countries, some Gulf countries, and Russia. And what they do is to poke with sticks around in this Mikado stack, with consequences that cannot be forseen or foretold, because coalitions switch daily down there and each and everyone is looking just for their advantages (you know what happened when the US attacked the ghost groud "Chorasan", at once, some other groups joined the IS and declared war on "moderate" groups which are supported and trained by the US in Jordania in the hope that those get boots on the ground).

What effectively happens there is that everyone taking part in the struggle is bleeding and will be bleeding for years to come, and the result will be something that nobody thought of as today - in other words: a lot of blood and huge amounts of money will be spent for nothing else but the good of the producers of military goods.

I am not a peaceful person, I do not thik that all conflicts can be solved by setting up a round table - but there is no point in fueling a struggle, in spending massive amounts of money and lives when there is nothing to be earned (not money-wise, but also in terms of peace and order).

originally posted by: Swills
When this is all through and IS has been eliminated Iraq as we know it could devolve into three separate states, one for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.

Yes, it might - and lay new grounds for further military conflicts, because...

1) the Kurds are not only livingin Iraq, and want a state also in parts of Syria and Turkey
2) the ideologies cannot be eliminated - the whole region is a spawning place, for hundreds of years, for all sorts of variations of religion, there are plenty of groups that want to drive out other groups, and the winning groups want to become the main player. And the region is surrounded by supporters of all those groups, who hope to gain more influence. In this sense, no matter whether you eliminate one group, there will always be another who follows up - it is the perfect battleground that will never fall dry (and far away from all major western and eastern countries, so they can take part without any bigger risk for themselves...).

a reply to: carport

Yes it is a great thing. Taking a major border post is a big deal, that's what's happening right now, not a few months ago. The Kurds at this point are not at all alone. Between Sunnis, Shiites, everyone else, the USAF and UKAF, IS not be getting that post back is probably a reality.