Iraqi forces enter Kirkuk as Kurds flee

[Afgun]

Iraqi government forces have entered central Kirkuk after taking key installations outside the disputed city from Kurdish fighters.
Thousands of people fled the city ahead of the Iraqi advance.
The Iraqi military moved into Kirkuk three weeks after the Kurdistan Region held a controversial independence referendum.
They are aiming to retake areas under Kurdish control since Islamic State militants swept through the region.
Residents of Kurdish-controlled areas, including Kirkuk, overwhelmingly backed secession from Iraq in a 25 September vote.
While Kirkuk is outside Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish voters in the city were allowed to take part.

• Iraqi Kurds decisively back independence
• Independence: What is at stake?

Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, had denounced the vote as unconstitutional. But the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) insisted it was legitimate.
US officials said they were "engaged with all parties in Iraq to de-escalate tension".
Skip Twitter post by @RudawEnglish Report

End of Twitter post by @RudawEnglish




Mr Abadi said in a statement on Monday that the operation in Kirkuk was necessary to "protect the unity of the country, which was in danger of partition" because of the referendum.
"We call upon all citizens to co-operate with our heroic armed forces, which are committed to our strict directives to protect civilians in the first place, and to impose security and order, and to protect state installations and institutions," he added.
On Monday, the Iraqi military said its units had taken control of the K1 military base, the Baba Gurgur oil and gas field, and a state-owned oil company's offices.

[ذو الفقار]

Sunni Arabs should also demand partition of Iraq and the creation of a Sunni state or at the very least autonomous region.

[Firdousi]

Sunni Arabs should also demand partition of Iraq and the creation of a Sunni state or at the very least autonomous region.

Sunni Arabs have been defeated by a coalition of several regional and international forces. The loser can not demand anything.

Sunni Arabs suck at politics but they are a force to be reckoned with. Kurds lost Kirkuk in less than 12 hours. Thousand of Shia militias and Iraqi soldiers in Mosul run away from 400 ISIS terrorists in 2014. Without superior Western and Russian air support they would have won this war easily. But they are s tupid and irrational, so the whole world defeated them. I honestly speaking dont care, Sunnis dont deserve to win this war. They would screw the region in case of victory.

[ذو الفقار]

Sunni Arabs have been defeated by a coalition of several regional and international forces. The loser can not demand anything.

Sunni Arabs suck at politics but they are a force to be reckoned with. Kurds lost Kirkuk in less than 12 hours. Thousand of Shia militias and Iraqi soldiers in Mosul run away from 400 ISIS terrorists in 2014. Without superior Western and Russian air support they would have won this war easily. But they are s tupid and irrational, so the whole world defeated them. I honestly speaking dont care, Sunnis dont deserve to win this war. They would screw the region in case of victory.

Yes I totally agree. The Sunni Arabs have a lot to answer for, going back to Saddam days. They are definitely paying the price for their arrogance. Their crucial mistake was in rejecting the overthrow of Saddam and resisting the new Iraqi government and boycotting elections. Their political leaders definitely screwed the Sunni Arab community by doing so. Then they decided to get behind ISIL, another huge blunder. They always think short term and never long term. They definitely deserve what is happening to them now, they have become 2nd class citizens. They should be extremely thankful to the Shi'a religious leaders who are advocating restraint of their own militias against the Sunnis, particularly Muqtada and Sistani.

Still I think the Sunnis should have participated in the new government established in early 2000s and like the Kurds peacefully advocate for a separate Sunni state. Sunni central-west Iraq and Sunni east Syria should have been amalgamated into a cohesive
Sunni Arab state, that is the only solution to the ethnic sectarian conflicts plaguing that region

[Firdousi]

Yes I totally agree. The Sunni Arabs have a lot to answer for, going back to Saddam days. They are definitely paying the price for their arrogance. Their crucial mistake was in rejecting the overthrow of Saddam and resisting the new Iraqi government and boycotting elections. Their political leaders definitely screwed the Sunni Arab community by doing so. Then they decided to get behind ISIL, another huge blunder. They always think short term and never long term. They definitely deserve what is happening to them now, they have become 2nd class citizens. They should be extremely thankful to the Shi'a religious leaders who are advocating restraint of their own militias against the Sunnis, particularly Muqtada and Sistani.

Still I think the Sunnis should have participated in the new government established in early 2000s and like the Kurds peacefully advocate for a separate Sunni state. Sunni central-west Iraq and Sunni east Syria should have been amalgamated into a cohesive
Sunni Arab state, that is the only solution to the ethnic sectarian conflicts plaguing that region

Not really. I dounderstand why they boycotted the new pro-Western Iraqi government. Most of Kurdistan and the southern Shia provinces were a de-facto autonomous regions after USA imposing no-fly zones. SO they knew that under a pro-American regime they would be losers basically because USA didnt care about them. USA is at war against Sunni forces, basically because Sunni forces are a threat against the West. Although Shias are anti Western too, they are too weak, their forces and numbers are weaker, their influence is limited to the ME and they dont share any border with any Western country.

Sunni Arabs knew this so war was the only choice left for them. Well, they fought and lost.

[ذو الفقار]

Not really. I dounderstand why they boycotted the new pro-Western Iraqi government. Most of Kurdistan and the southern Shia provinces were a de-facto autonomous regions after USA imposing no-fly zones. SO they knew that under a pro-American regime they would be losers basically because USA didnt care about them. USA is at war against Sunni forces, basically because Sunni forces are a threat against the West. Although Shias are anti Western too, they are too weak, their forces and numbers are weaker, their influence is limited to the ME and they dont share any border with any Western country.

Sunni Arabs knew this so war was the only choice left for them. Well, they fought and lost.

Here I disagree. Firstly, the motivation for Iraq war was to remove Saddam, who was seen as an unstable wild card. It had nothing to do with containing Sunnis. Most of the Bush administration people had no clue about the distinction between Sunni and Shi'ite, including Bush himself. It was only that the Shi'ites in general were supportive of the invasion while the Sunnis weren't, so naturally America was supporting the Shi'ites more. The fact that Baathists and Sunnis were fueling the anti-America insurgency and joining al-Qaeda didn't make matters easier for them.

[Firdousi]

Here I disagree. Firstly, the motivation for Iraq war was to remove Saddam, who was seen as an unstable wild card. It had nothing to do with containing Sunnis. Most of the Bush administration people had no clue about the distinction between Sunni and Shi'ite, including Bush himself. It was only that the Shi'ites in general were supportive of the invasion while the Sunnis weren't, so naturally America was supporting the Shi'ites more. The fact that Baathists and Sunnis were fueling the anti-America insurgency and joining al-Qaeda didn't make matters easier for them.

Eh, NO. Saddam was not a "wild card". Saddam´s army was broken after a long war against Iran and a defeat agains the West in the Gulf War. He couldnt even control most of Kurdhis and SHia regions. The Iraqi war of 2003 was a project carriet out by corrupt neocons addicted to wars and several lobbies such as AIPAC. They wanted to topple Sadam, not because he was Sunni or strong, because he was a "bad boy". Sunnis knew that without Saddam, Shias and Kurds would fill the vacuum.

Anyway, it was a huge mistake. Murica is a broke empire on the verge of collapse (we will see soon), Israel and KSA lost all their influence in the region, and for the first time since the dead of secular panarabism and the Cold War, we see a strong bloke of countries who share a common enemy: Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestina, against Israel and KSA.

The next regional war that shall start in a matter of few years (may ten years from now) I believe Israel will be one of the main losers (lack of proper friends and exhaustion by international supporters and also fatigue by their population against those countries) while KSA is the main loser of this last war along with the USA.

[ذو الفقار]

Eh, NO. Saddam was not a "wild card". Saddam´s army was broken after a long war against Iran and a defeat agains the West in the Gulf War. He couldnt even control most of Kurdhis and SHia regions. The Iraqi war of 2003 was a project carriet out by corrupt neocons addicted to wars and several lobbies such as AIPAC. They wanted to topple Sadam, not because he was Sunni or strong, because he was a "bad boy". Sunnis knew that without Saddam, Shias and Kurds would fill the vacuum.

Anyway, it was a huge mistake. Murica is a broke empire on the verge of collapse (we will see soon), Israel and KSA lost all their influence in the region, and for the first time since the dead of secular panarabism and the Cold War, we see a strong bloke of countries who share a common enemy: Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestina, against Israel and KSA.

The next regional war that shall start in a matter of few years (may ten years from now) I believe Israel will be one of the main losers (lack of proper friends and exhaustion by international supporters and also fatigue by their population against those countries) while KSA is the main loser of this last war along with the USA.

I would say that for the Iraqi people the American toppling of the Baathist regime was an overall positive development. The Sunnis could have partaken in that, but they stupidly went down the wrong course of rejecting the new state, a parliamentary democracy where the Americans would have seen to their rights being preserved in those initial years. Instead they decided to launch a pointless insurgency and go to the brink of a devastating civil war.

I don't think it's necessary true that a regional war would make Israel and the KSA into the main losers. KSA has plenty of allies, including Egypt and Turkey. I doubt Turkey would side with Iran in a war involving the Americans and Saudis. Turkey's relations with Israel have merely cooled off, not gone to the point of open hostility. Iraq seems to be coming back into the Arab fold, i.e., the efforts of Muqtada to mediate with the Saudis. Israel has already emerged as the winner by neutralizing all of its Arab adversaries, i.e., Iraq and now Syria. Now Israel is free to focus all of its hostility on Iran, its last major adversary. But Iran isn't interested in a clash with Israel, for now it only wants to consolidate its position as a regional power. Its the Arabs who have turned out to be the biggest losers, especially the Sunni Arabs of Syria and Iraq.