The Saudi war in Iraq and lessons for Pakistan

[Contrarian]

@Arabian Legend | Intervention or no intervention, when you sneeze we catch the cold. In a pan Middle east Shia Sunni war if Pakistan takes a side (any side), we are doomed. ISIS is most likely funded by the American Military Industrial Complex which also has trained it through mercenary organizations secretly in Jordanian camps. Their goal is to drag the US and all regional countries into a sectarian war while they sell weapons to all sides.

If your people are this idiotic that they let what happens in a third country like US, Iraq or Saudi Arabia affect them, then maybe you lot deserve to get into the imbroglio.

 

[Zhukov]

With Nawaz Sharif a brain slave of the House of Saud at the helm, good luck with that Pakistan.

If we do not keep our noses out of this, we are going to burn like Iraq and Syria. This is a racist war Pakistan must not be a part of. We are not Arabs nor Persians.

Let them kill each other.They learned nothing from the Iraq Iran war leading to a million deaths. They'll perhaps kill another million.

For Pakistan, its stay out or die! - We must bolster our internal security, look away and wait till Arabs and Persians have gotten tired of butchering each other to prove 'who's the superior race'.

But sir i believe if we dont stop this madness it will reach our home in no time. Pakistan Turkey and Iran are the only three countries that are capable and willing to act against terrorism. If they are allowed to spread outside Iraq and Syria they will burn down whole islamic world

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Many people do recognize the root of the problem, but due to fossil fuels, my country gives the Saudis a pass.

It is currently the most puzzling foreign relationship that I can think of for the US. The Saudi government has no more love for the US than the Iranian's. I think that the post-Soviet proliferation of radical Wahhabism in Afghanistan, funded by the Kingdom, may only be a taste of what is to come as far as the US-SA alliance backfiring for America.

American policies vis-a-vis the ME (with all the upswings and downswings with the regional players), notably Iran and KSA over the decades has simply been confounding, to the point of absurdity. We (and you Americans) are destined to see even more of this in times ahead.
That sometimes leaves me wondering: are Americans (in successive Govts) simply unable to see beyond the tips of their noses?

But sir i believe if we dont stop this madness it will reach our home in no time. Pakistan Turkey and Iran are the only three countries that are capable and willing to act against terrorism. If they are allowed to spread outside Iraq and Syria they will burn down whole islamic world

Very "telling points" there.........

 

[OCguy]

American policies vis-a-vis the ME (with all the upswings and downswings with the regional players), notably Iran and KSA over the decades has simply been confounding, to the point of absurdity. We (and you Americans) are destined to see even more of this in times ahead.
That sometimes leaves me wondering: are Americans (in successive Govts) simply unable to see beyond the tips of their noses?

Iran is a fairly different situation, but I see the point you are making. I think it is has been very hard for US-born Americans to truly grasp and understand the mindset and hatred towards their country by people they view as having been "friends" or "helped" by the US. This leads to miscalculations and unpredicted side effects.

Nobody would question the reasoning for a Vietnamese group determined to destroy Washington. Or a Laotian. Or even a Fallujah Father and his sons who have a baby sister suffering from the effects of DU. But Osama's stated motive for his hate and violence towards America was the basing of their military on Saudi soil, mostly to help defend them from Iraq's imperialism in the early 1990s. That is/was a foreign mindset to Americans, and I fear there is still some more rebound that we have not felt yet.

On topic, I think that Pakistan already knows what lessons are to be learned form the Saudi war in Iraq, and that is to stop it from entering their borders before it even starts.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Iran is a fairly different situation, but I see the point you are making. (1) I think it is has been very hard for US-born Americans to truly grasp and understand the mindset and hatred towards their country by people they view as having been "friends" or "helped" by the US. This leads to miscalculations and unpredicted side effects.

Nobody would question the reasoning for a Vietnamese group determined to destroy Washington. Or a Laotian. Or even a Fallujah Father and his sons who have a baby sister suffering from the effects of DU. (2) But Osama's stated motive for his hate and violence towards America was the basing of their military on Saudi soil, mostly to help defend them from Iraq's imperialism in the early 1990s. That is/was a foreign mindset to Americans, and I fear there is still some more rebound that we have not felt yet.

(3)On topic, I think that Pakistan already knows what lessons are to be learned form the Saudi war in Iraq, and that is to stop it from entering their borders before it even starts.

Let me try to give my responses to the underlined parts. For ease of exposition: I have numbered them:
(1) By now, the view in all those countries (and largely justified ones) is that the USA extended "help" and "assistance" solely in pursuance of American interests. There were little (if any) notions of Equity involved. Then there were absolutely "cynical seesaws" in American Policies towards ME countries like Iran and Iraq under successive US Govts. They have not forgotten that, nor are they likely to forgive or overlook that. What you consider to be "friendship" they simply consider to be "blatant exploitation".

(2) is largely an extension of the thinking that I explained above. But there is another reason/cause in that aspect: which is the resurgence of "Political Islam" which is a revivalist philosophy of the days of the Caliphate. This is what OBL exploited (never mind his stated reasons) to the fullest. Never mind that OBL is now dead: his ideas have 'gathered steam' and will remain a continuing problem for the Western World at large, there will be no escape from that.

(3) Pakistan should understand that by now; since it can well become an "existential threat" to its own self. Otherwise, the consequences will be too horrible to imagine.

 

[MastanKhan]

i partly disagree with the title. Its Saudi Arabia which should learn some lesson from pakistan. When you fund the extremist forces, they'll come back to haunt you one day. Will Saudi regime want ISIS in their own homeland? if not then they shouldnt be wishing the same for some other country - what to talk about funding them.

Hi,

The lesson learnt is that you can utilize these forces to your advantage---but when the time comes to get rid of them---do it @ a lightening speed---no holds barred.

Iran is a fairly different situation, but I see the point you are making. I think it is has been very hard for US-born Americans to truly grasp and understand the mindset and hatred towards their country by people they view as having been "friends" or "helped" by the US. This leads to miscalculations and unpredicted side effects.

Nobody would question the reasoning for a Vietnamese group determined to destroy Washington. Or a Laotian. Or even a Fallujah Father and his sons who have a baby sister suffering from the effects of DU. But Osama's stated motive for his hate and violence towards America was the basing of their military on Saudi soil, mostly to help defend them from Iraq's imperialism in the early 1990 .

Sir,

OBL hated the U S due to its support to the zionists in israel.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

What Islamic Caliphate Means for Pakistan

DAWN

Among many factors, the Pakistani state's protracted apathy and inaction on the issue of security has provided non-state actors the spaces to grow and expand their influence. They used these spaces not only to propagate their ideologies and narratives but also to establish a 'state within the state' in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Even as counteraction is now underway, the sudden rise of ISIS has threatened to make matters worse for us.

The militants are jubilant over the success of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), which has established a 'caliphate', or 'Islamic state' in parts of Syria and Iraq. This is not the first time militants have captured some territory and established their so-called Islamic writ.

Afghanistan, Pakistani tribal areas, Northern Mali and Somalia have experienced similar ventures by militants in the past, though on varying levels.

Rise of ISIS ≠ Fall of al Qaeda
Many experts see the decline of al Qaeda in the rise of ISIS, while analysing the recent developments happening in Iraq and Syria. That is a mistake.

A realistic review of militants’ strategies suggests that they first challenge the very foundation of the state by providing alternative socio-cultural and political narratives and then march onto its physical territory.

They may have differences over strategies, as ISIS and al Qaeda had, but ultimately they overcome their differences. Al Qaeda might feel stunned over the ‘victories’ of ISIS but now, instead of arguing with ISIS over strategies, will prefer to develop a consensus over a model of caliphate.

In some cases, militants develop alliances with nationalist groups.

That's what happened in Northern Mali, where the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) had developed coordination with Islamist groups. But when they captured a territory, Islamist groups started imposing Shariah. The alliance was weakened due to ensuing infightings and eventually broke up after a military offensive was launched by the French forces.

A dangerous inspiration
Apart from group dynamics, inspiration plays an important role in militants’ efforts to replicate one success in other parts of the world.

The rise and success of ISIS could play a very dangerous, inspirational role in Pakistan, where more than 200 religious organisations are operating on the national and regional level.

These organisations pursue multiple agendas such as transformation of society according to their ideologies, the enforcement of Shariah law, establishment of Khilafah (caliphate) system, fulfilment of their sectarian objectives and achievement of Pakistan’s strategic and ideological objectives through militancy.

Such organisations could be influenced by the success of ISIS in various ways. A few would limit themselves to providing just moral support, but others might actively provide donations and financial assistance on ISIS' call.

Common purpose: Establish the state of Khurasan
Still others — mainly religious extremist and militant organisations — could find inspiration in ISIS' strategies and tactics.

This is possible since even groups operating in two different regions can find common ground in the salafi inspiredTakfiri ideologies they believe in, and in the organisational links they share with each other.

The map released by ISIS shows countries for expansion marked in black across North Africa, into mainland Spain, across the Middle East and into Muslim countries of Central and South Asian region. It depicts exactly the states, which are or once remained under Muslim control.

According to this notion, the territory which has come under Muslim rule even once becomes a permanent part of Islamic caliphate. These territories, if later invaded by non-Muslims, will be considered as unjustly occupied territories and it will be obligatory for a Muslim to struggle to regain them.

Interestingly, the ISIS map shows both Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the Islamic caliphate state's Khurasan province. Al Qaeda and its affiliates believe that the movement for the establishment of the Islamic state of Khurasan will emerge from the region comprising of the Kunar and Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan and Malakand region of Pakistan.

A map purportedly showing the areas ISIS plans to have under its control within five years has been widely shared online. As well as the Middle East, North Africa and large areas of Asia, it also reveals ISIS' ambition to extend into Europe. Spain, which was Muslim-ruled until the late 15th Century, would form part of the caliphate, as would the Balkan states and eastern Europe, up to and including Austria.
They consider Khurasan as the base camp of international salafi jihad, from where they will expand the Islamic state boundaries into other non-Muslim lands. Mullah Fazlullah of Swat was inspired by the notion and considered himself the founder of the Khurasan movement.

Many other groups and commanders in Pakistan and Afghanistan subscribe to the same idea, but only a few groups have dedicated themselves to the cause of establishment of the Islamic state of Khurasan.

The current TTP leadership — mainly Fazlullah and his deputy Qayum Haqqani, and Khalid Khurasani group in Mohmand and Bajaur agencies of Fata — are leading this movement, not only on the militant, but on the ideological front as well.

The concentration of al Qaeda and TTP hardliner groups in Kunar and Nuristan are of the same mind; they intend to use the territory as a base camp for the establishment of the state of Khurasan. Though they are not strong enough to trigger a massive militant campaign like the one going on in Iraq, they will remain a critical security irritant and keep inspiring radical minds in the region.

Though the North Waziristan military offensive is an attempt to damage militants’ operational baseline, at the same time it has forced the militants to assemble in Khost, Nuristan and Kunar regions, which are all places that seem more conducive for beginning a militant struggle toward the eventual establishment of their fantasised "Islamic" state.​

 

[TalibanSwatter]

How Saudis helped ISIS take over North of Iraq

The Independent UK

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa'ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan Dearlove's explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6's view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the ISIS-led Sunni rebellion, has attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove's speech focused instead on his main theme that the threat from Isis to the West is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden's al-Qa'ida, it is absorbed in a new conflict that "is essentially Muslim on Muslim". Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa'ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. "The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq," said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published. Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence of Wahhabism over mainstream Sunni Islam, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge. But, drawing on past experience, he sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there "can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam's holiest shrines". But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be "deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom".

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private salafi/wahabist donors who funded the operation.

The difference between al-Qa'ida and ISIS can be overstated: when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death.

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa'ida type Salafi jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar's approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence "literally shouting at me across his office: '9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.'" In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, Lashkar e Jhangvi, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year. But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in Egypt.

The problem for the Saudis is that their attempts since Bandar lost his job to create an anti-Maliki and anti-Assad Sunni constituency which is simultaneously against al-Qa'ida and its clones have failed.

By seeking to weaken Maliki and Assad in the interest of a more moderate Sunni faction, Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of ISIS which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, as happened previously in its Syrian capital Raqqa, potential critics and opponents are disarmed, forced to swear allegiance to the new caliphate and killed if they resist.

The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia , which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.

An alibi used by the US and Britain is that the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is pursuing dialogue and reform. But this excuse looked thin last week as Bahrain expelled a top US diplomat, the assistant secretary of state for human rights Tom Malinowksi, for meeting leaders of the main Shia opposition party al-Wifaq. Mr Malinowski tweeted that the Bahrain government's action was "not about me but about undermining dialogue".

Iraqi leader al-Maliki Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq. Publicly and privately, they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni, partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community's protector against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki's failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. "I guess they just didn't believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad," said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.

The chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds in the north and the official al-Qa'ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra, are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil wells that it did not already control.

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from the Turkish intelligence service.

As for Saudi Arabia, it may come to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target. It is the unnamed head of Saudi General Intelligence quoted by Dearlove after 9/11 who is turning out to have analysed the potential threat to Saudi Arabia correctly and not Prince Bandar, which may explain why the latter was sacked earlier this year.

Nor is this the only point on which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge.

"God help the Shia," said Prince Bandar, but, partly thanks to him, the shattered Sunni communities of Iraq and Syria may need divine help even more than the Shia.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Ahle-hadith/wahabi madrassas is recieving funds from saudi (deoband used to recieve it from saudi in 80s but are replaced by ahle-hadith). One of most important pak army agent, hero of pakistan, nightmare of india , heart throb of zahid hamid is hafiz saeed , a wahabi/ahle-hadith who recieves heavy funds from saudi. If you people hate saudis and wahabis, then ask your pak army to stop using LET (who by the way fought against TTP in kunar). If you disagree with me and love ahle-hadith agents of saudi, then dont criticize saudi funding of such organizations.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Saudi Arabia bankrolling ISIS in Iraq

Robert Fisk

So after the grotesquerie of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide killers of 9/11, meet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.

From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the Salafi jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Salafis/Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles.

Apart from Saudi Arabia’s role in this catastrophe, what other stories are to be hidden from us in the coming days and weeks?

The story of Iraq and the story of Syria are the same – politically, militarily and journalistically: two leaders, one Shia, the other Alawite, fighting for the existence of their regimes against the power of a growing Sunni Muslim international army.

While the Americans support the wretched Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his elected Shia government in Iraq, the same Americans still demand the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his regime, even though both leaders are now brothers-in-arms against the victors of Mosul and Tikrit.

The Croesus-like wealth of Qatar may soon be redirected away from the Muslim rebels of Syria and Iraq to the Assad regime, out of fear and deep hatred for its Sunni brothers in Saudi Arabia (which may invade Qatar if it becomes very angry).

We all know of the “deep concern” of Washington and London at the territorial victories of the Islamists – and the utter destruction of all that America and Britain bled and died for in Iraq. No one, however, will feel as much of this “deep concern” as Shia Iran and Assad of Syria and Maliki of Iraq, who must regard the news from Mosul and Tikrit as a political and military disaster. Just when Syrian military forces were winning the war for Assad, tens of thousands of Iraqi-based militants may now turn on the Damascus government, before or after they choose to advance on Baghdad.

Now we'll march on Baghdad, vow Iraqi insurgents

No one will care now how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered since 2003 because of the fantasies of Bush and Blair. These two men destroyed Saddam’s regime to make the world safe and declared that Iraq was part of a titanic battle against “Islamofascism”. Well, they lost.

Remember that the Americans captured and recaptured Mosul to crush the power of Islamist fighters. They fought for Fallujah twice. And both cities have now been lost again to the Islamists. The armies of Bush and Blair have long gone home, declaring victory.

Under Obama, Saudi Arabia will continue to be treated as a friendly “moderate” in the Arab world, even though its royal family is founded upon the Wahhabist/Salafist convictions of the jihadis in Syria and Iraq – and even though millions of its dollars are arming those same fighters.

Thus does Saudi power both feed the monster in the deserts of Syria and Iraq and cosy up to the Western powers that protect it.

We should also remember that Maliki’s military attempts to retake Mosul are likely to be ferocious and bloody, just as Assad’s battles to retake cities have proved to be.

The refugees fleeing Mosul are more frightened of Shia government revenge than they are of the Salafi jihadists who have captured their city.

We will all be told to regard the new armed “caliphate” as a “terror nation”. Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, the ISIS spokesman, is intelligent, warning against arrogance, talking of an advance on Baghdad when he may be thinking of Damascus. ISIS is largely leaving the civilians of Mosul unharmed.

Finally, we will be invited to regard the future as a sectarian war. when it will be a war between Muslim sectarians and Muslim non-sectarians.

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

will we see a new militant organisation named Islamic state of Afghanistan and Pakistan largely based on taliban ideology...

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

It is currently the most puzzling foreign relationship that I can think of for the US. The Saudi government has no more love for the US than the Iranian's. I think that the post-Soviet proliferation of radical Wahhabism in Afghanistan, funded by the Kingdom, may only be a taste of what is to come as far as the US-SA alliance backfiring for America.

OCguy you deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, seriously, take Obama's.

On topic, I think that Pakistan already knows what lessons are to be learned form the Saudi war in Iraq, and that is to stop it from entering their borders before it even starts.

It's puzzling that it took Pakistan the Saudi involvement in Syria and Iraq to figure this out. The Taliban, the "Pakistani Taliban", Jihadi groups in western Pakistan didn't open their eyes. Even after the thousands of troops and tens of thousands of civilian lives lost.

Lets assume so for the sake of argument, should you and Mr Hamdani ask the Saudis not to do so or act firmly against any form of intervention?

How about quit the stupid Shia-Sunni rivalry? Just by kicking out Assd, and bringing some non-shia pro-saudi leader isn't going to mean anything. That new guy will have to deal with all the things the new Libyan regime is getting.

ISIS can prclaim themselves as a Caliphate however loudly they want, but it doesnt mean shit. It has ZERO-capability to build a country, there is already active rebellion in Mosul, and other cities in Iraq under it's control.

Its funny that the author either as I said ignorance or deliberately neglecting that fact that the ISIS has been listed as a terrorist organization by the Saudis long ago.

Hasn't stopped Gulf Arabs from sending $$$ to them.

Its even funnier the baseless claim of Mr Hamdani that Saudi Arabia is meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs given that fact that both Pakistan's government and military establishment share same political views of that of the KSA.

Funding Madrassas that are Jihadi recruiting grounds, funding terrorist, TTP that's just coincidence? Just because the Saudis and other Gulf Arab states outlawed funding terrorist groups doesnt mean the people aren't doing it anymore.

You are one confused person. If Saudi Arabia funds what you have mentioned it would have done wonders already. The ISIS in Syria are in clash with the FSA whom the Saudi have been supporting for the past three years.

If America gave $5 Trillion to Pakistan, it would have brought democracy to the entire Muslim world. You can throw as much $$$$$$$$$ you want at a problem, group, ideology, or idea but its doesn't mean that the side you're throwing money at will win.

 

[Mani2020]

Saudia has always meddled in pakistan's internal affairs. The saudi sponsored funding to terrorist groups in pakistan is a big concern for pakistanis---.

You are only highlighting terrorist funded by KSA my friend but you have skipped another equally concerning and dangerous group for the health of Pakistan funded by KSA ....thats the political party in power currently ....taliban will influence externally but the later will influence internally ...both equally dangerous

 

[Mani2020]

will we see a new militant organisation named Islamic state of Afghanistan and Pakistan largely based on taliban ideology...

mate it may be sounding exciting to you ,that is the feel of crippled and chaotic Pakistan but believe me if that happens it wouldn't be in favor of india either ....GOD forbid if any such organization takes control you guys will see lots of infiltration and consequences that will not favor your stability either ....

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

mate it may be sounding exciting to you ,that is the feel of crippled and chaotic Pakistan but believe me if that happens it wouldn't be in favor of india either ....GOD forbid if any such organization takes control you guys will see lots of infiltration and consequences that will not favor your stability either ....

Definitely not exciting... in fact its quite fearsome to have some jihadi organisation controlling your neighboring countries...