What would YOU say to a news organization who flat out says "We feel that Hillary should not be president so we're going to game the news to protect and elect Donald Trump."

You would lose yer frakin' mind....

Which simply proves what I have always said..

In the dictionary, under HYPOCRISY, there is a picture of the WPG...

Michale

News Organizations report the news.. NOT their opinion of the news...

At least, that's the way it USED to be... That's the way it SHOULD be...

Of course, you don't agree because the MSM is in the bag for your candidate, so you like the MSM just the way it is..

Michale

Just so you know, the articles I listed for Balthy do not include all of the ones I wanted to share with you.

Google proved to be decidedly unhelpful in tracking down some articles from a Lebanese journalist who documented the infiltration of foreign militants to initiate the conflict in Syria.

I know they wouldn't be in your "reliable" category, but I was hoping to find them just in case you felt like going slumming.

A

Glad to help... hopefully I won't hold a grudge over that "far from the truth" line for too long.

A

Michale [53]: are you talking about pointing out inaccuracies, as in: "I'm sorry, you're mistaken, sir - most Mexican immigrants don't have calves the size of cantalopes"? or "I'm sorry, but Donald Trump is not an Oomploompa"?

You've already said that even you don't believe some of the stuff that Trump says. News organizations can't be expected to simply pipeline complete horseshit to their audiences.

Sykes–Picot Agreement, WWI secret agreement that carved defeated Turkish Empire

CW - my post before this one seems to be caught in the filter.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg&w=1484

I think this map is a useful supplement to Balthasar's posts 27, 29.

A general rule of thumb about Middle East Politics:
Scratch the surface and you hit tribalism.

Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Government:Alawites

JAF and JFS: Sunni, Turks

SDF/QSD: The rest of the ethnic groups.

The war is fought enclave against enclave.

Heh

Now THAT was funny.. :D

Michale

Imagine that Fox News announced that for them, it is so important to this country that Hillary be defeated in this election, that the Fox News journalists are going to throw away all pretext of fairness and objectivity and journalistic ethics.... They are going to just chuck all that out the window and actively work against Hillary to ensure she is defeated..

What would ya'all's reaction be??

Ya'all would collectively lose yer frakin' minds....

Ya'all would like Sheldon when Colonel Williams mocked Raj and Howard about the "Death Star from Star Trek".... Except a thousand times worse...

And yet, when the Leftist MSM stood and proclaimed THAT EXACT SENTIMENT....

It didn't garner even a mention...

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have not thought it possible...

Michale

Re: #49

The funny thing is, Big Al is making the EXACT same kinds of arguments y'all have made against Bush and the Republicans.. :D

How does it feel to be on the receiving end?? :D

Michale

The hit to my investments alone will make me cry..

And add to that seeing me every other day with a constant reminder...

Touche'... You got me on that one.. :D

Michale

Michale

Like I said, I don't do links.

Google search- NYT- "CIA Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Rebels"
Jun 21 2012

Google search- LAT- "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"
May 27 2016

Google search- Haaretz- "UN reveals Israeli links with Syrian rebels"
Dec 7 2014

- Haaretz- "Israel halts medical treatment for members of Syria's Nusra Front" (aka al Qaida)
Jul 20 2015

Now, if you are willing to learn about the original CIA weapons shipments to the Sunni Wahhabi "rebels" from sources that Liz doesn't deem trustworthy (sorry Liz, I hold grudges like a champ)

Google- Oriental Review- "Syrian rebels get arms from Kosovo, Bosnia"
Feb 23 2013

If you want to learn about how the violence actually started-

Google- RT.com- "Syria, the hidden massacre"
May 7 2014
- reports on early attacks on Syrian military forces, mentions earlier attacks on police and security forces

Google- consortium news-"Hidden origins of Syria's civil war"
Jul 20 2015
- a balanced report on the origins that debunks that the protests were peaceful

For more background info on the origins-

Google- global research- "the march to war against Syria"
Feb 5 2012

A

Hillary can't even navigate stairs without help.. :^/

Jeezus...

Michale

Don'tcha think that having to live through the other fellows' candidate's administration will be punishment enough?

The hit to my investments alone will make me cry..

Right now, like most Americans, I am seriously UN-informed, but I'm doing my best to catch up. Think of my post [27] as a 'who's who' for those who haven't been paying attention (like myself). For me, assigning blame and assessing ulterior motives will have to come later, when I know more about it.

I don't post links, but if you have any trouble finding the stories in the NYT or LAT, I am willing to assist. I hate for people to be uninformed about what our country is doing to Syria.

I am always happy to become better informed. Throw those links my way anytime, but try to avoid anything that attempts to assign ulterior motives for now. Thanks.

Wanna bet??? :D

Michale

You seem like you're upset, or trying to say something.
Care to share?

A

Sorry, Balthasar but, it sounded as if a bit of attribution might have been in order there [29] ...

Of course, I understand. Alas, Wikipedia is the answer. I hope that I don't end up eating crow for using such non-primary sources (a modern professor might certainly flunk me for that), but since all of the links were provided on the map that I was describing, I'm going with the endorsement of the map makers for veracity, at least until I can find better sources for myself.

And if I do end up eating crow on any of that information, perhaps I can pass on a good recipe to Michale, who will need it come November. Heh.

The Kurds (and the smaller minority groups in the areas they control) are the only ones in the conflict who deserve our support, but if you think they are the only ones we are supporting, you are seriously misinformed.

The efforts you are referring to are a Pentagon program that includes weapons, training and US special ops boots on the ground. The covert actions by the CIA began two years earlier and operate out of southern and eastern Syria with training bases in Jordan, and in NW Syria from a base in Turkey.

Our support for the Kurds doesn't (as you falsely claim) disprove our support for the Wahhabi Sunni militants dominated by foreign (non-Syrian) fighters.

The NYT ran a little story about the CIA effort about a year after it began and the LA Times had a story about how our CIA backed Sunni militants were attacking our Pentagon funded groups in NE Syria. The effort isn't exactly covert any longer as Obama publicly admitted that we were air dropping ammunition to these "good rebels" about two years ago if I remember correctly, but it is still being run by the CIA and few details beyond the $1,000,000,000 annual budget are available as journalists are not safe or welcome in the areas the "rebels" control.

It is true that the Saudis, Qataris, and Jordanians are ALSO supplying these Wahhabi Sunni "rebels" (with Israel providing "non-lethal" supplies and medical care to the wounded in Jordan). The efforts by our "allies" include supplying al Qaida (I won't endorse their rebranding effort)... but it should be noted that they are doing it with US weapons we sell them and with our knowledge.

And since the "good" Wahhabi Sunni militants who want to create a theocracy in Syria are ideologically identical to al Qaida, and collaborate with them in battle, pretending the entities are separate is just PR.
And Hillary is fully aware and supportive of our regime change war, and has publicly stated we should be intervening even more by imposing a no-fly zone... which, you may recall, was the excuse she and Obama used for our bombing campaign regime change war in Libya that blatantly violated the UN authorization.

In case you missed it, Obama and the Pentagon recently issued an ultimatum to the Kurdish militias to withdraw from areas along the Turkish border west of the Euphrates (basically stabbing our only allies and best anti-IS fighters in the back) in order to placate Turkish concerns.

As for the claims about Assad using chemical weapons, the original claims coming from militant Sunni "rebels" were deemed false by a UN investigation.
They were trumped up just like the WMD claims in Iraq that Hillary went on TV to help sell.
The "rebels" used Sarin on innocent Syrian civilians in a thankfully failed effort to get the US to intervene militarily against Assad.

Obama was absolutely correct not to buy into that bullspit, but the neoliberals and their breathless supporters keep trotting out the false claims.
You claim to support Obama, but you are stabbing him in the back by repeating them.

A recent chlorine gas attack in a little town NW of Aleppo was attributed by the UN to Assad about two months ago, but the area is controlled by al Qaida and no independent credible investigation could take place.

An even more recent chemical weapons attack by IS against Iraqi and American forces was reported, but that only confirms that the Wahhabi Sunni militants are willing and capable of such things.

I don't post links, but if you have any trouble finding the stories in the NYT or LAT, I am willing to assist. I hate for people to be uninformed about what our country is doing to Syria.

A

"So, a POTUS can launch a nuclear strike totally and completely on his own, but your Odumbo cannot tackle a pissant tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood without Congress carrying the water..

Do you realize how utterly contradictory ya'all are?? :^D"

NOT IN THE LEAST MICHALE. You do realize that the POTUS already has all the authority and capability to launch nuclear weapons without any further input from Congress?? While on the other hand, in order to wage war on the ground or in the air in Syria against a dictator like Assad, the POTUS BOTH requires and needs further authorization and funding beyond a certain point from Congress??

Looks like Clinton's Big Blue Wall is crumbling... :D

Who could have predicted this!???

Oh.... wait..... :D

Michale...

Liz, don't be silly..

*I* am the only one who MUST have links for every utterance..

The WPG can spout off any BS they want, totally free of ANY substantiation whatsoever...

"Don't you know!?"
-Edith Keeler

:D

Michale

Do you realize how utterly contradictory ya'all are?? :^D

Michale

You can't tie someone up and then complain that he can't do jumping jacks. Ask Mitch McConnell why Assad isn't gone; he's as responsible as anyone for it.

So, it's the Republicans fault..

Odumbo is blameless...

WOW.. I NEVER would have thought you would say that... :^/

That was ALSO sarcasm, in case you missed it..

I wish you could step back and objectively see how much your nose is up Odumbo's ass....

It would be an eye-opening experience for you...

Michale

You know that those aren't mutually exclusive?

You do remember that (nearly) every Republican lawmaker voted to prevent him from doing anything militarily about that, don't you?

[Obama] said that Assad using chemical weapons is a "red line".. Assad is STILL using chemical weapons.

You do remember that (nearly) every Republican lawmaker voted to prevent him from doing anything militarily about that either, don't you?

You can't tie someone up and then complain that he can't do jumping jacks. Ask Mitch McConnell why Assad isn't gone; he's as responsible as anyone for it.

I came across a CIA-published map Kurdish-controlled areas in the Middle East in 1992:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29_box_inset_removed.jpg

If you compare it to the Syrian and Iraqi Insurgency map that CW links to in [5], notice how the areas that the Kurds (and SDF) currently occupy in Iraq and Syria are mostly the same areas they occupied then, and not much further.

The CIA map also illustrates why everyone in the vicinity is wary of the Kurds: if they ever got their dream of a Greater Kurdistan, it would consume sizeable portions of every one of its new neighbors.

Good thing they're libertarian-socialist democrats!

They same reason you are so anxious to blame Bush for everything... :D

That war became about 'regime change' about five minutes after Assad reacted brutally to protesters who wanted to bring the Arab Spring to Syria. Assad's use of chemical weapons was what caught the world's (and Obama's) attention. Obama wanted to pressure Assad into not gassing his own people.

And, as usual, Odumbo did a bang-up job... That was sarcasm, in case you missed it..

Odumbo said that Assad has to go.. Assad is still there..

Odumbo said that Assad using chemical weapons is a "red line".. Assad is STILL using chemical weapons...

Odumbo is an incompetent boob...

Michale

Why are you the only one with all of the answers?

Ahem.... :D

Okay, so, you're not the ONLY one ... :)

Better.. :D

Michale

I actually learned all that just by clicking on the links on the Syrian and Iraqi war Insurgency map (links to that provided in post [5] by CW) and letting them take me where they went.

See? If I hadn't done that research tonight, I'd have never known just how far from the truth that statement actually is. Why are you so anxious to blame Obama/Hillary for all this? Efforts to fund 'friendly rebel groups' in Syria have been discussed since that conflict started, mostly pushed by war hawks like John McCain, but the idea has been fairly popular in the mainstream.

That war became about 'regime change' about five minutes after Assad reacted brutally to protesters who wanted to bring the Arab Spring to Syria. Assad's use of chemical weapons was what caught the world's (and Obama's) attention. Obama wanted to pressure Assad into not gassing his own people. Do you oppose that goal?

ISIS arose from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who were poised to try to take advantage of the American withdrawal, but mightily aided in that effort by the Shiite-led Iraqi government, who refused to renew the Status of Forces (SOFA) agreement, which would have allowed us to keep a residual force in Iraq even after the Bush administration-negotiated withdrawal, then shamelessly oppressed the Sunnis, who fled into the waiting arms of ISIS.

Could Obama or Hillary have prevented all that? Don't forget that most of the US public wanted us to leave Iraq on the quickest possible time schedule. Further, attempts by the Obama administration to renegotiate that withdrawal were rebuffed by Iraqi officials at that time.

I'd been unaware of some major political developments on the battlefield that have affected the war just in the last year or so. For anyone interested, here's a rundown:

There was, in the last year, the creation of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a.k.a., the SDF or QSD (the yellow dots on the insurgency map), a coalition of Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkmen and Circassian militias which now control most of the area along the southern Turkish border. These were all oppressed minorities in northern Syria called Rojava that were a part of a larger "Rojava Revolution". The SDF formed following the seige of Kobani in October 2015, and now gets a lot of US support, which probably annoys the Turks to no end. Hey, remember when there were no rebel groups that we could openly back in Syria? This group has established a secular society within the areas it controls which includes free elections and equal rights for all, based on the libertarian-socialist (imagine that!) ideas of Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan.

There is also now the "Army of Conquest", a.k.a., Jaish al-Fatah, or JaF, (the green dots on the map) a coalition of Islamist Syrian Rebel Factions, formed in March 2015 under the supervision and coordination of Saudi cleric Dr Abdullah al-Muhaysini and currently backed by Sunni interests, including Turkey and the Saudis, who openly support it.

The JaF controversially includes the "Front for the Conquest of the Levant", a.k.a., Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or JFS (the blue dots on the map) a successor to the Al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front, which reorganized and renamed itself just this last July 28,2016, with a new mission to work with all the other rebel groups in order to "protect the Syrian revolution", to the extent of renouncing 'international associations', including Al-Qaeda, whose leader said (in effect) that he was down with that, issuing a statement that said, "Your unity and unification is more important to us than any organizational link." Still, top Al-Qaeda leaders were at the announcement, so it might just be a re-branding effort. They're important, though because the JFS are considered the "shock troops" of the Islamist rebels, and their presence on the battlefield "have become to the opposition what Russian and Syrian jets are to the regime".

So it seems that in Syria, the news for folks like me is that the anti-regime opposition on every side has been consolidating even as Assad gained increased support from the Russians. This last September 8, a number of Army of Conquest commanders were killed in an airstrike just outside of Aleppo, including the top JFS military commander. The group initially blamed the US for the strike, which was denied by the Pentagon; Russia eventually admitted that it was their jets that conducted that strike.

Why are you the only one with all of the answers?

You don't understand the oil market if you think only OPEC oil will cost more. Prices jumped 5% immediately and will go higher.

As for your list, it includes all the Dems except Bernie and Kaine who were busy campaigning for your progressive warmonger.

18
"It's always good to remember that Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq, breaking 200 years of US tradition against invading a country that hadn't attacked us"

I'm not defending Bush or his collaborator Hillary, because our invasion of Iraq was stoooopid and illegal, but your statement is nowhere near factually accurate unless you are defining "invading" narrowly or "attacked" broadly in such a way that they no longer match the dictionary definition.

"And they want to blame Obama for this mess? He inherited it."

Iraq yes, Syria no.
Obama initiated the covert effort to fund and arm foreign militant Wahhabi Sunnis who collaborate with al Qaida as proxies in our (US/Saudi/Qatari/Turkish) regime change war in Syria which allowed IS to spread.
Your claim is nonsense.
Obama is hip deep in it, and Hillary was clamoring for him to go in up to his neck... just like all the neocons.

A

Amazing. You support him BECAUSE you don't believe him, and don't support Hillary because you don't believe her (but DO believe her enough to disagree), but call HER the liar because she doesn't agree with you (and would be lying if she said she did).

That's just nonsense masquerading as politics.

I just heard someone say that unfortunately for Republicans, any gas price hike before the election will be minimal, as we're using much less gas from the OPEC sources than we used to.

Shame on the Democrats who voted to override Obama's veto! In an election year! I'm making a list..

On the other hand, the arrogant Saudis haven't been making any friends on these shores lately. Money can only buy so much good will.

Yea, that's your claim....

But even if Trump HAD said that, he is just TALK...

Hillary has actually DONE it....

But, of course, you don't care about that.. All you look at is the '-D' after Hillary's name... :^/

Michale

You mean the trigger that Hillary and the Democrats VOTED and SUPPORTED being pulled???

THAT trigger??

ISIS is still the JV militarily, by the way,

And if Odumbo had made that distinction, you would have a point..

But he didn't, so you don't...

Michale

Have YOU listened to Trump? Several flattened cities and dead innocent civilians is pretty much his plan, to the extent that he has one.

Wrong country, but close enough for horseshoes.

It's always good to remember that Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq, breaking 200 years of US tradition against invading a country that hadn't attacked us, i.e., dropped the pot at the pottery barn. He then failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement so that we could keep a sizeable residual force behind to prevent a back-slide.

The Shiite Iraquis, all too happy to get us meddling Americans out of the way while they consolidated power in Baghdad, only invited us back and signed a SOFA when ISIS started seizing cities, and by then it was too late to contain them.

ISIS is still the JV militarily, by the way, long on fanaticism and bloody-mindedness, short on air power and long-range firepower. They've been lucky so far in the faults of their adversaries: the Iranians have sent some support to the Iraqi Shiites, but still prefer that the Iraqis do the fighting, and, as CW points out, that has its drawbacks. We're unofficial allies of the Iranians on this one, but we prefer to push Sunni Iraqis out front, at least most of the time. The Kurds are superb fighters, however, unburdened by the religious zealotry that handicaps everyone else in the Theater. Trouble is, the Turks hate them, and we're allied with them too. Oh, and we just sent a big FU to our other allies, the Saudis, who are sworn enemies of the Iranians and Syrians, but might be secretly funding ISIS, and are also at war in Yemen, facing enemies who are backed by Iran and Al-Quaeda (who also hate each other).

And they want to blame Obama for this mess? He inherited it. Biden might have had the clearest answer back when all this started: divide Iraq into three parts. Experts in the Bush administration dismissed the idea out of hand, and the Iraqis, who covet the oil fields in Kurdish-dominated areas, were outright hostile to that potentially peaceful resolution of this convoluted conflict. Ah, humans.

Have you MET Hillary Clinton??

That's her claim to competence... A flattened city and dead innocent civilians...

Michale

I'm not sure a flattened city and dead civilians from an offensive that's been in the works for a year can be sold as a positive or a surprise.

As far as Syria goes, our arming of "good rebels" who are ideologically identical to al Qaida and who collaborate with them in their effort to turn Syria into a Wahhabi Sunni theocracy... all using the "legal" justification of the AUMF triggered by 9/11 and billions out of our pockets... would certainly be surprising if the truth were reported by our media.

OPEC agreeing to oil production cuts a few hours after the veto override of the bill that allows lawsuits against the Saudis was an early surprise.
The Saudis exempting Iran (among others) from cuts in order to reach agreement was the most surprising part.
Congress being so mean to the Saudis that they make nice with Iran seems like a potential path towards peace in the Middle East.

Of course, we're all going to be paying more at the pump... and if memory serves, voters don't like that. Surprise!

A

http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2016/08/24/20160819edstc-a_s878x668.jpg?6dcee348a67b0e1f1ea5f625afab1e9708d014e5

THAT is what the vast majority of Americans see...

Michale

I was thinking more than a seat at the table. Essentially, the only other seat at the table besides us might be the Kurds.

Also, I guess it would really be an imperialist re-carving since the borders were all constructed by western governments, primarily after WWI, though there were some major changes later (e.g. Israel).

That does go a long way to explaining many of the instabilities over the years.

Getting back to maps, I like the high quality Graphical User Interface (GIS) maps that the Institute For the Study of War puts out. Sadly, they aren't updating the Iraq map very often, I think the latest is April of this year. The Institute is focusing more on Syria these days and those maps are more current.

The big unknown (known unknown? heh, heh) in Iraq as far as I'm concerned is how the US is conducting aerial battlefield management over Iraq. If there is always a big aerial radar platform (E2, E3, E8) loitering in the right place, the air campaign can be devastatingly efficient. Basing, and aerial tanker commitment are also big questions impacting the ability to maintain continuous aerial surveillance/battle management. If NATO member Turkey is allowing use of it's airbases and airspace, that a big plus, but I'm unable to determine if that's actually happening.

You really can't use tactical air and hunter killer drones to anything near full potential without continuous aerial battlefield surveillance/management. Anything else is trying to fight with a bucket over your head with two tiny peep holes. If we are mostly using local ground intelligence assets to target ISIS, I fear we are playing a very dicey game of "family feud" that is killing a lot of innocent people to very little purpose.

Does anybody else remember when we had professional war correspondents? Very rare breed these days.

Obama is going to do whatever Putin tells Obama to do....

Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that he does not have the testicular fortitude to make good on ANY ultimatums...

Michale

And in other news, Putin and the Russian hierarchy were heard laughing their asses off for almost an hour..

No word if these two events are related...

Threats and ultamatums from the Obama Administration has absolutely NO CREDIBILTIY on the world stage....

Michale

Probably because Obama is a little gun shy, since he was made to look like a completely incompetent fool after claiming that the Daesch is "the JV" and is "contained".....

Michale

Michale

good point about syria. over a hundred years after the powder keg that started WW1, serbian nationalism is STILL a problem. ask any albanian.

JL

On the plus side, the ISIS franchises are downgraded to failed states that cannot maintain viable economies or services, (failed oil, failed water, failed institutions) just endless insurrection and terror. The brand ought to be re-acronymed FISIS.

On the downside, Iraqi Security Forces are overstretched, unreliable and poorly equipped. A lot of the overstretch problem is just geography, everything of importance is strung out like beads on string - and subject to small unit infiltration and ambush. The British provided the model back in WWI (think T.E. Lawrence). I still think the only viable long term future for Iraq is to break it into thirds. One third , the Sunni one, is probably going to have to be isolated and contained like a desert N. Korea.

Syria is even worse, and a unique worry because it lies within the intersection of so many competing spheres of interest. Regional players such as Iran, Turkey and Israel, plus outsiders like Russia, the US and the rest of NATO distinct from Turkey. So many opportunities for a dumb mistake to get of control. If you know anything about WWI, you have to be at least a bit nervous about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map

shows current state of affairs, with different colors for different groups. Map changes week to week, so keep it as a bookmark and refresh occasionally to see.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-islamic-state-caliphate-is-in-danger-of-losing-a-lifeline/2015/02/19/127d2cb2-b84d-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_graphic.html

This is a snapshot from Feb 2015, or a low point. Use as a benchmark to see how much ground has been regained since. Most notable: the areas around Baghdad.

I can't believe this is such a non-story. ISIS is getting beaten, and badly. Progress has been painfully slow, but has happened with the Iraqis on the front lines in full control of ground troops (we've aided enormously from the air).

Of course, the news isn't so good from Syria, but even so ISIS expansion has been stopped. Beginning to be turned back, but not as much as in Iraq.

-CW

At some point, Turkey needs to be confronted, from a (hopefully) diplomatic standpoint.

Not only do they have a whack-job in the present (Erdogan) and genocide in their past (that they deny and apply every ounce of political pressure to prevent anyone else from acknowledging), but they have also attacked the Kurds, who we've repeatedly pledged to protect because they are our most loyal and effective ally in that region, with military might on several occasions somewhat recently.

An AUMF that empowers POTUS to also protect the Kurds would effectively enable us to "carve out" a Kurdish state consisting of the SSE portion of Turkey, the NW part of Iraq, and maybe a tiny portion of Iran (the last being probably not).

Yes, that is an imperialist act. It is also probably the best thing that could happen for the future, even if it means some small military actions with Turkey while protecting the newly formed borders.

In the spirit of the esteemed CW, a map

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iraq_Ethnic_lg.png

The ancient town is majority Sunni (the obligatory foothold for ISIS colonization) and Assyrians, Turkmens, Shabaks, Yazidis and Armenians are present in appreciable numbers. Before ISIS, Mosul was progressive, well run and cosmopolitan.

The Kurdish military are the most effective regional forces in Iraq, but not the best equipped. Turkey is fearful of an independent Kurdish region, which is a pity.