Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Free Equatorial Nations]

Syria would be engulfed in huge chaos under a federal system with a weak central government, as states would try to get one up over another and harm their enemies. And with a strong central government, you'll just have all the states temporarily work together to overthrow it (cf. what's happening now) who would then fight amongst each other in the anarchy. With an independence route, you'd have some kind of stability and peace, even if economically and in terms of power a unified nation-state would actually benefit the Syrians overall. I envisage a kind of Balkan ideal for the Syrians, that is after a violent breakup a generally cordial relationship as smaller, weaker, independent states.

And sure, there may be more powerful states (like Serbia is more powerful than Macedonia), but the inter-ethnoreligious strife that plagued both late Yugoslavia and modern day Syria would end, or at least be minimized to the point it was no longer of the magnitude of a war/genocide.

Perhaps. Perhaps Syria is to officially permanently break up. But in that case, I doubt the Kurds will be allowed their own country, Turkey will never allow it, and we will see that conflict ignite in the north of the new Sunni State.

Kurdestan's independence relies completely on Russo-U.S. opinion. By that extension, I'm not hopeful. The U.S. will capitulate to Turkish demands and the Russians won't care enough to fight them (I don't think anyway). I can see Syria being split into two: a Sunni majority state of the old French "State of Damascus" and "State of Aleppo", and then a "non-Sunni" state in Latakia. I doubt the Druze have enough clout to get their own state but it's certainly possible.

[Olerand]

Perhaps. Perhaps Syria is to officially permanently break up. But in that case, I doubt the Kurds will be allowed their own country, Turkey will never allow it, and we will see that conflict ignite in the north of the new Sunni State.

Kurdestan's independence relies completely on Russo-U.S. opinion. By that extension, I'm not hopeful. The U.S. will capitulate to Turkish demands and the Russians won't care enough to fight them (I don't think anyway). I can see Syria being split into two: a Sunni majority state of the old French "State of Damascus" and "State of Aleppo", and then a "non-Sunni" state in Latakia. I doubt the Druze have enough clout to get their own state but it's certainly possible.

I can see that. I don't think it's a good solution, either, the Druze and Kurds will not want to live in this Arab Sunni country. Nor will the Sunnis forget what the Shia did during the war, they will still want revenge. So I think that solution won't end well either.

[Geilinor]

That's a good point you have there.

You'd think it'd be common sense, but apparently not. Even Genghis Khan used this system. Yet these people can't? Makes no sense.

The solution is clear: Turn the Middle East over to Mongolia!

[Salus Maior]

Shia minority rule wasn't a terrible idea, the french set it up in Syria and at least until recently it seemed to be working.

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

The thing is, even if someone's the most qualified to have the position, that doesn't mean they're going to be fair and unbiased when it comes to religion or ethnicity.

I think it'd be really hard to find someone like that in the Middle East that'd be supported by the populace.

[Kriga]

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

The thing is, even if someone's the most qualified to have the position, that doesn't mean they're going to be fair and unbiased when it comes to religion or ethnicity.

I think it'd be really hard to find someone like that in the Middle East that'd be supported by the populace.

If only the Middle East had secular education systems...

Religion has been reared so far up their mindset, that it is impossible for the Middle East to adopt a system of merit without disintegrating into chaos due to religious and cultural infighting.

Just divide countries like Syria and Iraq into smaller states. One state for the Sunni, one state for the Shia, and another for the Kurds. Countries in the middle east need to stick to their own. Multiculturalism in the Middle East simply doesn't work.

That much is clear.

[Kubra]

When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

France and the UK took a near independent arabia and then carved it up in their turf, rebellion was sort of unavoidable. That it didn't end up defending that independence shows that the policy was at least somewhat successful. It's not necessarily that it should have been emulated so much as, of anything they could have emulated, it wasn't the worst option possible.

For their local security forces, France recruited heavily from the syrian minority groups, that of course includes the alawites to a considerable degree. This all makes sense, they'd sort of kind of betrayed the sunni arabs after sykes picot, so obviously including them too greatly in security and administration would have been a mistake for them. The higher echelons of syrian army were sunni post-independence, but among non-commission officers alawites were a whopping 65%, just them, that don't happen without folks deliberately making it so. Politically, having states in the mandate separated by ethnicity rather than numbers, though protecting those minority groups and giving them political autonomy for the first time, also lead to their overrepresentation of minorities in comparison to the majority of sunni arabs. The stage was pretty much set for a minority like the alawites to cease the lions share of political power.

Now really, there's no shame in having once been a colonial power doing colonial things, an imperial power doing imperial things, most countries in Europe worth their salt were at some point.

When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Yes, broken up in to states within the mandate, who just so happen to have administrative overlaps with the french administration and just so happen to share the same security forces. They were regrouped before France left, during the state and republic period, though this obviously didn't affect the composition of security forces.
Syria was a state in which Alawites held the lions share of military power. Outside of the west, political power grows out the barrel of a gun, parliaments be damned.

[Ganos Lao]

You know what would've actually been not a terrible idea? Rule by people based on merit rather than religion. Revolutionary concept these days, though, so no wonder it's not got that many people interested in implementing it.

The thing is, even if someone's the most qualified to have the position, that doesn't mean they're going to be fair and unbiased when it comes to religion or ethnicity.

I think it'd be really hard to find someone like that in the Middle East that'd be supported by the populace.

That's why I said it was a revolutionary concept.

[Olerand]

Yeah... given the rebellions that occurred during the time of the Mandate, the long-term effects of the inter-ethnic strife it fostered, and the simple fact that it was formed by screwing over the Arabs, I really doubt this would be a system worthy of emulation.

France and the UK took a near independent arabia and then carved it up in their turf, rebellion was sort of unavoidable. That it didn't end up defending that independence shows that the policy was at least somewhat successful. It's not necessarily that it should have been emulated so much as, of anything they could have emulated, it wasn't the worst option possible.

When France came to Syria, "Syria" was broken up into several smaller ethnic conclaves (which will happen again if the Syrian civil war is to ever end), so the Alawites were dominant in their state, the Druze in theirs, and the Sunnis in what's left of Syria (Lebanon became an independent country). When France left, they all regrouped into one Syrian State. That State had a strong Alawite elite coming from the Alawite state, and yes, they did hold disproportionate power. But the Sunnis were the dominant denomination politically and economically, they were the leaders of the new State, Syria was parliamentary republic and all of its prime ministers were Sunni. France is not responsible for the Soviet-backed Baathist regime that brought the Assads and the Alawites to power.

Frankly, what France created under the mandate is exactly what should happen again if the Syrian Civil War is to be resolved.

Yes, broken up in to states within the mandate, who just so happen to have administrative overlaps with the french administration and just so happen to share the same security forces. They were regrouped before France left, during the state and republic period, though this obviously didn't affect the composition of security forces.
Syria was a state in which Alawites held the lions share of military power. Outside of the west, political power grows out the barrel of a gun, parliaments be damned.

The Sunnis held political power, however. Although you are right that in much of the Third World, he who controls the army controls the State. That link is not of France's making, however. Assad's coup wasn't even backed by France, but by the USSR.

[Kubra]

France and the UK took a near independent arabia and then carved it up in their turf, rebellion was sort of unavoidable. That it didn't end up defending that independence shows that the policy was at least somewhat successful. It's not necessarily that it should have been emulated so much as, of anything they could have emulated, it wasn't the worst option possible.

Yes, broken up in to states within the mandate, who just so happen to have administrative overlaps with the french administration and just so happen to share the same security forces. They were regrouped before France left, during the state and republic period, though this obviously didn't affect the composition of security forces.
Syria was a state in which Alawites held the lions share of military power. Outside of the west, political power grows out the barrel of a gun, parliaments be damned.

The Sunnis held political power, however. Although you are right that in much of the Third World, he who controls the army controls the State. That link is not of France's making, however. Assad's coup wasn't even backed by France, but by the USSR.

It's partially Frances making. The army was made before the country, and it was the french who first decided who got in. As I said, they couldn't very well make it proportional, as the sunni's hated their guts. Again, no judgement, it really was the right choice to make. When your military is mostly in the hands of a minority either afraid of you or hating your guts (alawites were probably the former), then you ain't got power over shit, especially when a few coups confirm that any power in Syria was gonna involve a good degree of military power, with out such parliaments are a sham. France is the one who set up the post-independence overrepresentation of alawites in the army.

[Eisen Choras]

Here is some good news, Iraqi forces have been making ground on their siege against the Daesh in Fallujah - http://www.nrttv.com/EN/Details.aspx?Jimare=7961

Great stuff.
The Iraqis reckoned it would take 2-3 weeks to take the place fully (I'm taking that as a baseline-to-optimistic figure), but one can hope that such an isolated Daesh pocket might begin to collapse as they claim.

Yeah, they now surround the city and beginning full advance: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/middleeas ... n-falluja/

Also in the news report that the Kurdish forces are retaking a Kurdish village to the North of Mosul, as part of an overall offensive to retake Mosul. So overall the Daesh are losing ground. Yay.

[Valaran]

Great stuff.
The Iraqis reckoned it would take 2-3 weeks to take the place fully (I'm taking that as a baseline-to-optimistic figure), but one can hope that such an isolated Daesh pocket might begin to collapse as they claim.

Yeah, they now surround the city and beginning full advance: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/middleeas ... n-falluja/

Also in the news report that the Kurdish forces are retaking a Kurdish village to the North of Mosul, as part of an overall offensive to retake Mosul. So overall the Daesh are losing ground. Yay.

I see there's alos been heavy fighting and an ambush that was fought off with losses. Though yeah, seems to be having a decent early start.

But outside a tactical level in Anbar province, I'm very pessimistic about events right now. Divisions between the forces are paralysing everything right now, or leading to outright conflict - the Kurds will either leave the Iraqi Army to retake Mosul, or continue to claim more territory, and then try to make it Kurdish and then possibly fight with the government over control. Meanwhile the Turks also have plans for Mosul, as does Iran. Just even taking that one place alone, its an utter mess and I think a Kurdish official summed it up right by saying "The dynamics that led to ISIL are still there. There's been no change." Here outlines just some of the issues.

[Eisen Choras]

Yeah, they now surround the city and beginning full advance: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/middleeas ... n-falluja/

Also in the news report that the Kurdish forces are retaking a Kurdish village to the North of Mosul, as part of an overall offensive to retake Mosul. So overall the Daesh are losing ground. Yay.

I see there's alos been heavy fighting and an ambush that was fought off with losses. Though yeah, seems to be having a decent early start.

But outside a tactical level in Anbar province, I'm very pessimistic about events right now. Divisions between the forces are paralysing everything right now, or leading to outright conflict - the Kurds will either leave the Iraqi Army to retake Mosul, or continue to claim more territory, and then try to make it Kurdish and then possibly fight with the government over control. Meanwhile the Turks also have plans for Mosul, as does Iran. Just even taking that one place alone, its an utter mess and I think a Kurdish official summed it up right by saying "The dynamics that led to ISIL are still there. There's been no change." Here outlines just some of the issues.

Can't read it, says I have to subscribe to those ass-clowns to read the story. :/

[Valaran]

Can't read it, says I have to subscribe to those ass-clowns to read the story. :/

Damn; forgot about their paywall (its not a paper I normally get, but I had a cut-out).

It effectively notes the horribly conflicted situation between other actors, that is directly hampering the fight against IS, and has the potential to do much worse later on.

[Seraven]

That would be fine by me.

That's too small. If you really want to create the next big fuck up in American foreign policy, make Taiwan a US State.

US citizens care less about Taiwan.

I don't think they even know where is Taiwan.

They are discriminated economically.

http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-job-discr ... ho-2134792

No they are not descriminated , if they have a lower education they will get a lower wage. It's not my problems most muslims are stupid.

Too much trolling, I see.

[Gauthier]

No they are not descriminated , if they have a lower education they will get a lower wage. It's not my problems most muslims are stupid.

Too much trolling, I see.

Schroedinger's Muslim Part 2: Too stupid to get a decent paying job and at the same time diabolical enough to be a threat to the Western world.

[The Alma Mater]

Too much trolling, I see.

Schroedinger's Muslim Part 2: Too stupid to get a decent paying job and at the same time diabolical enough to be a threat to the Western world.

To be fair, the muslims that go "boom" are seldomn highly educated succesfull participants in society.

[Behran]

Hopefully the Syrian government will liberate Raqqa and the Shia militias will push the takfiris out of Mosul.

[UED]

Hopefully the Syrian government will liberate Raqqa and the Shia militias will push the takfiris out of Mosul.

Probably, the Government is doing very well against all their opponents. They're also wise not to fuck with the Kurds. The Syrian Opposition is still hanging in there, but they're in a bad position. ISIS is getting crushed in all fronts now...

[Valaran]

Hopefully the Syrian government will liberate Raqqa and the Shia militias will push the takfiris out of Mosul.

Probably, the Government is doing very well against all their opponents. They're also wise not to fuck with the Kurds. The Syrian Opposition is still hanging in there, but they're in a bad position. ISIS is getting crushed in all fronts now...

This isn't directly arguing against your points, but I feel the tone is overly optimistic.

The SAA hasn't actually advanced very far since retaking Tadmur; one suspects they have limited offensive capability (espcially when without Hezbollah or Iranian fighters), and are temporarily overstreched (alternatively it is repositioning its forces). I wouldn't expect them to really retake Deir ez-Zor before August at the earliest, let alone Raqqa.

IS is suffering setbacks to be sure, but is not really getting 'crushed'. Many of its affiliates are expanding, Mosul is looking nigh-untouchable in the short term, and the SDF is an unproven force. As the CIA director recently noted, its military forces are still considerably higher than AQ at its peak, and its terror capability is not dimmed. In places like Sinai, it is relatively successful, and Libya is effectively a whole new front (though it is finally under pressure there too).

Worst of all, the conditions that allowed it to rise and gain traction are still present, and the whole campaign risks being undone by significant issues between the various actors fighting IS, particularly in Eastern Syria and Iraq. This is not currently a recipe for success, outside of a limited tactical level.

[Valaran]

Incidentally, Iraq is now claiming to have retaken up to 80% of Fallujah, while force aligned with Libya's Unity Govt.have taken Sirte's port. The latter is perhaps more interesting as until recently, IS had control of a 100 mile stretch around Sirte. Meanwhile in Fallujah, it appears that IS' forces broke under sustained pressure, which will perhaps be a model in how to conduct successful sieges against otherwise heavily defended urban zones (admittedly, they were outnumbered by a ratio of 10:1).

[Senegalboy]

i think the future of syria will be divided you could divide the state like belgium with wallonia and flanders like that but with under a central government.
Sunni state of aleppo:composing of most of the country
kurdish state of Rojava:kurdish majority areas
Alawite state of latakia:latakia
Druze state of As-Suwayda

[Valaran]

i think the future of syria will be divided you could divide the state like belgium with wallonia and flanders like that but with under a central government.
Sunni state of aleppo:composing of most of the country
kurdish state of Rojava:kurdish majority areas
Alawite state of latakia:latakia
Druze state of As-Suwayda

I don't think that I'm confident enough to make a prediction, but a division is very possible. However, it will likely be an Assad rump state, Rojava, and perhaps some rebel areas, unless the military balance shifts dramatically.

[Senegalboy]

i think the future of syria will be divided you could divide the state like belgium with wallonia and flanders like that but with under a central government.
Sunni state of aleppo:composing of most of the country
kurdish state of Rojava:kurdish majority areas
Alawite state of latakia:latakia
Druze state of As-Suwayda

I don't think that I'm confident enough to make a prediction, but a division is very possible. However, it will likely be an Assad rump state, Rojava, and perhaps some rebel areas, unless the military balance shifts dramatically.

But the rebels will never stop fighting whilst assad is alive.the central government should have
A sunni president
A alawite/shia pm
A kurdish Speaker of parliament
A druze vice-president

[Valaran]

But the rebels will never stop fighting whilst assad is alive.

This may well be the case. They're also completely outmatched as of now, and while I don't Assad will ever manage to have more than somewhat fractious hold on a rump state (he also lacks enough military power to simply crush his opponents at once), the rebels are certainly in no position to deny him this.

[Senegalboy]

But the rebels will never stop fighting whilst assad is alive.

This may well be the case. They're also completely outmatched as of now, and while I don't Assad will ever manage to have more than somewhat fractious hold on a rump state (he also lacks enough military power to simply crush his opponents at once), the rebels are certainly in no position to deny him this.

unless there is an intervention the only reason assad is alive is because of ISIS.everyone needs to combat ISIS and obviously assad is way better than ISIS.If ISIS die and the anti-assad coalition destroy ISIS.assad is next.