Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Utrinque Paratus]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Its even possible that fighting on the ground would play into ISISs' hands, as it would make it easier for them to kill western troops, be tremendously costly, and likely cost support for the war and allow ISIS to portray it as a western occupation.

Their ability is definitely exaggerated, the only reason they are winning a couple of battles and taking a few cities is because of their brutal tactics and it is scaring the opposition. Basically what you said, but something definitely does need to be done about the Iraqi Army - even their "Special Forces Units" are running shitless as well.

Deploying our Army to battle them sounds like a great idea in theory, but ultimately ISIS fighters know the terrain of Syria and Iraq better than our troops do, which gives them a massive advantage and it will be one big massive fuck up.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen. Now looking at this conflict, the last relevant matter concerning a US invasion would be the public opinion of US citzens, period.

That's what they thought during Vietnam, and look how that turned out.


Whether you realize it or not the war after 9/11 did have public support because WE WERE DIRECTLY ATTACKED. The current situation in the Middle East does not directly effect the U.S and thus does not have public support. Not to mention we just got out of there after 11 years or so of a failed occupation. The people are tired of U.S intervention in the Middle East and will not react well to us going back, hell I won't react well to us going back. Us intervening any more in Iraq is not what anyone wants and will just make things worse.

And to dismiss the element of public support in a war shows you're incredibly ignorant as to how wars have been won and lost in the past century or two.

You weren't directly attacked by Afghanistan nor by Iraq. Again, the majority of a population is stupid enough to believe anything, Bush used the fear of 9/11 to spread around some hatred and more fear through his lies. Based on that he went with his war. Just put enough propaganda out there of IS having nuclear capabilities and that "public support" will rise through the roof in no time.
Funny though, as winning/losing wars has little to do with public support.

Those soldiers on the ground started the shit that led to IS in the first place. A new western invasion would only make things worse.

I think people are a bit mindless about this- its become some mantra that any western intervention will lead to disaster simply because a previous one did, regardless of any differences between the two situations or the fact that their were specific examples of abuse and grotesque incompetence that lead to the previous failure.

That said, I don't think things are yet at the point where a large scale deployment of ground troops would be justified.

Its not just based on previous wars, its based on what those people in those countries want. Iraq doesn't want the west there on such scale and if the west would come we would go three steps back where both Shia as Sunni militia's fight these western forces, and fun fact, today those sunni and shia forces are armed to the teeth for that matter. Invading Iraq again is the last thing the west should do, same story goes for Syria. You wouldn't be fighting IS alone, you would be fighting nearly all of Iraq/Syria

[New Skaaneland]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Who are "we"?

[Seraven]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Who are "we"?

The Coalition, or the Western World.

[New Skaaneland]

I'm HIF. That's it.

[Cabana]

I'm HIF. That's it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Utrinque Paratus]

I'm HIF. That's it.

What?

[Papait]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Its even possible that fighting on the ground would play into ISISs' hands, as it would make it easier for them to kill western troops, be tremendously costly, and likely cost support for the war and allow ISIS to portray it as a western occupation.

not to mention the fact it would give them even more weapons and supplies.
Still, sending in the Foreign Legion, SAS, Commandos and others, as well as not being bitches about Iranian intervention and hezbollah doing more stuff could still help this war to end sooner.
It woudl be a shame that in a 100 years, a kid in history class asks why we didn't do more to fight the Islamic State.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Its even possible that fighting on the ground would play into ISISs' hands, as it would make it easier for them to kill western troops, be tremendously costly, and likely cost support for the war and allow ISIS to portray it as a western occupation.

not to mention the fact it would give them even more weapons and supplies.
Still, sending in the Foreign Legion, SAS, Commandos and others, as well as not being bitches about Iranian intervention and hezbollah doing more stuff could still help this war to end sooner.
It woudl be a shame that in a 100 years, a kid in history class asks why we didn't do more to fight the Islamic State.

I think we should be sending in limited numbers of troops, but Middle East countries need to start pulling their weight as well.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

not to mention the fact it would give them even more weapons and supplies.
Still, sending in the Foreign Legion, SAS, Commandos and others, as well as not being bitches about Iranian intervention and hezbollah doing more stuff could still help this war to end sooner.
It woudl be a shame that in a 100 years, a kid in history class asks why we didn't do more to fight the Islamic State.

I think we should be sending in limited numbers of troops, but Middle East countries need to start pulling their weight as well.

The thing is, Iraq is a sovereign state, which means that you can't just send troops to it (at least if you try to follow international law). Look at Iran for example, they are more then willing to deploy a large scale force in Iraq, but Iraq hasn't asked for it and so it isn't happening. On the other hand though, i agree that there should be more regional stuff, but that's the problem aswell. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are still going head on in the fight on who becomes the dominant regional power and as long as that isn't solved the regionw on't be safe. Its extremely hard to put a neutral force in Iraq, even impossible so to say. Now i'd rather see Iranian troops there then Saudi troops. Not only has Iran way more interests in a safe Iraq, Iran's armed forces are also way more motivated then the Saudi forces.
As for western involvement, i only support special forces and some airstrikes. I wouldn't support any western "large scale" intervention there, in matter of fact, the only real large scale intervention that i would fully support would probably be a UN one.

[Jamzmania]

I think we should be sending in limited numbers of troops, but Middle East countries need to start pulling their weight as well.

The thing is, Iraq is a sovereign state, which means that you can't just send troops to it (at least if you try to follow international law). Look at Iran for example, they are more then willing to deploy a large scale force in Iraq, but Iraq hasn't asked for it and so it isn't happening. On the other hand though, i agree that there should be more regional stuff, but that's the problem aswell. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are still going head on in the fight on who becomes the dominant regional power and as long as that isn't solved the regionw on't be safe. Its extremely hard to put a neutral force in Iraq, even impossible so to say. Now i'd rather see Iranian troops there then Saudi troops. Not only has Iran way more interests in a safe Iraq, Iran's armed forces are also way more motivated then the Saudi forces.
As for western involvement, i only support special forces and some airstrikes. I wouldn't support any western "large scale" intervention there, in matter of fact, the only real large scale intervention that i would fully support would probably be a UN one.

Who do you think would make up most of any UN intervention?

[Dain II Ironfoot]

The thing is, Iraq is a sovereign state, which means that you can't just send troops to it (at least if you try to follow international law). Look at Iran for example, they are more then willing to deploy a large scale force in Iraq, but Iraq hasn't asked for it and so it isn't happening. On the other hand though, i agree that there should be more regional stuff, but that's the problem aswell. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are still going head on in the fight on who becomes the dominant regional power and as long as that isn't solved the regionw on't be safe. Its extremely hard to put a neutral force in Iraq, even impossible so to say. Now i'd rather see Iranian troops there then Saudi troops. Not only has Iran way more interests in a safe Iraq, Iran's armed forces are also way more motivated then the Saudi forces.
As for western involvement, i only support special forces and some airstrikes. I wouldn't support any western "large scale" intervention there, in matter of fact, the only real large scale intervention that i would fully support would probably be a UN one.

Who do you think would make up most of any UN intervention?

Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia ect.
The first western nation in the list of UN dedicated soldiers is Italy, which is no.27 on the list.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Who do you think would make up most of any UN intervention?

Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia ect.
The first western nation in the list of UN dedicated soldiers is Italy, which is no.27 on the list.

The naivety in this post is amusing.

You're confusing peacekeeper units for actual combat units. Peacekeeper units are very light forces with barely any heavy arms or support intended to contain small-scale clashes between warring factions armed only with rifles and machine guns at best. By themselves they will melt in the face of any serious resistance, let alone the forces ISIS has at its disposal.

None of the top Peacekeeper contributors have the resources by themselves to ship their heavier divisions mind you, so no, the top peacekeeper contributors are not in any way shape or form going to be leaders in any full-on UN intervention; an intervention which will look more like the Korean War than those dinky missions in Africa they have ongoing.

Further, none of these leading peacekeeper nations have the necessary command & control capabilities to organize an intervention of the magnitude required to fight ISIS. Nor do they have the skills to properly coordinate other nations' forces (especially India - see their utterly retarded handling of the Lebanon-Syria border last year when some UN peacekeeper units got attacked by al-Nusra goons).

The only people with the logistical and transport capabilities to bring together the necessary heavy forces, the proper command & control infrastructure, and the only ones with any experience leading multinational forces of any kind or size, is the United States. Not the Chinese, not the Russians, and certainly not Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But since the US itself is unwilling to get involved further in this (not that I blame them, or that I even think it wise for them to do so), then the chances of an actual UN intervention (let alone one without the US) is ZERO.

[Ganos Lao]

Who do you think would make up most of any UN intervention?

Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia ect.
The first western nation in the list of UN dedicated soldiers is Italy, which is no.27 on the list.

Aren't Pakistan the Turkey of the East, you know, when it comes to being suspected of funding terrorism?

[Imperial City-States]

Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia ect.
The first western nation in the list of UN dedicated soldiers is Italy, which is no.27 on the list.

The naivety in this post is amusing.

You're confusing peacekeeper units for actual combat units. Peacekeeper units are very light forces with barely any heavy arms or support intended to contain small-scale clashes between warring factions armed only with rifles and machine guns at best. By themselves they will melt in the face of any serious resistance, let alone the forces ISIS has at its disposal.

None of the top Peacekeeper contributors have the resources by themselves to ship their heavier divisions mind you, so no, the top peacekeeper contributors are not in any way shape or form going to be leaders in any full-on UN intervention; an intervention which will look more like the Korean War than those dinky missions in Africa they have ongoing.

Further, none of these leading peacekeeper nations have the necessary command & control capabilities to organize an intervention of the magnitude required to fight ISIS. Nor do they have the skills to properly coordinate other nations' forces (especially India - see their utterly retarded handling of the Lebanon-Syria border last year when some UN peacekeeper units got attacked by al-Nusra goons).

The only people with the logistical and transport capabilities to bring together the necessary heavy forces, the proper command & control infrastructure, and the only ones with any experience leading multinational forces of any kind or size, is the United States. Not the Chinese, not the Russians, and certainly not Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But since the US itself is unwilling to get involved further in this (not that I blame them, or that I even think it wise for them to do so), then the chances of an actual UN intervention (let alone one without the US) is ZERO.

+1

[Salus Maior]

The locals are either incompetent, Iranian, or unwilling. Our aimless air campaign (as well as the phantom 60-nation coalition) is doing little to stop ISIS. ISIS is expanding, committing daily atrocities as they go, and there are fears that they will soon be able to strike the homeland. What more justification is necessary?

If they're unwilling to fight for themselves why should we fight for them?

Also, what's wrong with Iranians?

[Imperial City-States]

The locals are either incompetent, Iranian, or unwilling. Our aimless air campaign (as well as the phantom 60-nation coalition) is doing little to stop ISIS. ISIS is expanding, committing daily atrocities as they go, and there are fears that they will soon be able to strike the homeland. What more justification is necessary?

If they're unwilling to fight for themselves why should we fight for them?

On board with this. Why should i go fight, and possibly die. For someone who doesn't care enough to fight.

[Ganos Lao]

If they're unwilling to fight for themselves why should we fight for them?

On board with this. Why should i go fight, and possibly die. For someone who doesn't care enough to fight.

Chances are the Iranians are just itching to go FTS and just march into Iraq as defenders of the Shiite faith, but they're probably having to weigh the cons too much to do so.

[Saiwania]

The only people with the logistical and transport capabilities to bring together the necessary heavy forces, the proper command & control infrastructure, and the only ones with any experience leading multinational forces of any kind or size, is the United States. Not the Chinese, not the Russians, and certainly not Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

China and Russia are both still powerful enough to help out if they wanted. I don't think either should be sending troops but they should definitely be mass producing and sending directly to Syria aircraft, tanks, artillery, whatever will boost Assad's regime enough to have them expel IS and the other rebel groups completely out of Syria.

Iran is already involved, so I wouldn't particularly mind if Iran continued with helping Iraq hold the Shia portion and the US should switch focus on sending aircraft and equipment to help the Peshmerga hold their territory instead of trying to help Iraq's central government. It should be recognized that a unified Iraq isn't feasible anymore and to recognize that this war is Iraq effectively dividing into three. Syria would also be splitting up if Assad fell, but he is strong enough to hold Syria together if he was allowed to win there instead of being undermined.

If an independent Sunni state can't replace IS held territory, it would be better for either Jordan or Saudi Arabia to annex it.

[Grave_n_idle]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... ins-intact

That's a weird one.

ISIS won't destroy historical ruins. But they'll still destroy polytheist statues and, one assumes, people.

Is this some kind of.. charm offensive?

[Salus Maior]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/isis-releases-footage-of-palmyra-ruins-intact

That's a weird one.

ISIS won't destroy historical ruins. But they'll still destroy polytheist statues and, one assumes, people.

Is this some kind of.. charm offensive?

....But Palmyra has a Hellenic temple?

Eh, I don't care YAY PALMYRA ^_^

[Romalae]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/isis-releases-footage-of-palmyra-ruins-intact

That's a weird one.

ISIS won't destroy historical ruins. But they'll still destroy polytheist statues and, one assumes, people.

Is this some kind of.. charm offensive?

I'm not gonna get my hopes up about that. They could just be saying that to enhance the shock and outrage once they do eventually raze it.

[Grave_n_idle]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/isis-releases-footage-of-palmyra-ruins-intact

That's a weird one.

ISIS won't destroy historical ruins. But they'll still destroy polytheist statues and, one assumes, people.

Is this some kind of.. charm offensive?

I'm not gonna get my hopes up about that. They could just be saying that to enhance the shock and outrage once they do eventually raze it.

Possibly. Probably, even. But on the off-chance they're legit... what is the agenda? Are they trying to promote a 'moderate' image? (We're only destroying MOST things, not everything. Yay!).

[Migas999]

not to mention the fact it would give them even more weapons and supplies.
Still, sending in the Foreign Legion, SAS, Commandos and others, as well as not being bitches about Iranian intervention and hezbollah doing more stuff could still help this war to end sooner.
It woudl be a shame that in a 100 years, a kid in history class asks why we didn't do more to fight the Islamic State.

I think we should be sending in limited numbers of troops, but Middle East countries need to start pulling their weight as well.

Such as Iran and Saudi Arabia

[Migas999]

I'm not gonna get my hopes up about that. They could just be saying that to enhance the shock and outrage once they do eventually raze it.

Possibly. Probably, even. But on the off-chance they're legit... what is the agenda? Are they trying to promote a 'moderate' image? (We're only destroying MOST things, not everything. Yay!).

A moderate image is kinda of hard to project after some of the shit they´ve done