Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Grave_n_idle]

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

Yeah... that's why I'm not getting it, I guess.

[Migas999]

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.

You learn something new everyday

[Dain II Ironfoot]

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.

Heavy equipment can be provided by nations around the world, that's not even an issue. Same goes for transport, its a world effort remember, not an "all countries go on their own" effort.
Command would be the UN, they can set it up without much issues.
Nope, most of Europe has that experience too and yes, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia ect. can all pretty much handle such thing.
This debate here never was about the chance of a UN intervention, it was about an intervention i would support.
The only naivety here is coming from you.

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?

I don't think i'm following you here...

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.

Iran is very open for a full scale intervention in Iraq, though Iran actually doesn't becouse Iraq hasn't asked them to do so and IS has been driven away from the Shia holy places for now.

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.

Splitting up Iraq is by far the worst thing one can do at this point.

[Migas999]

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.

Mass producing equipment isn´t all that´s necessary, you also need the trained men to handle such equipment and at this point the Syrian army is losing such men quite fast

[Migas999]

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) Peacekeeping forces could easily be provided with heavy equipment by (for example) the Russians or the Chinese, both of which have an interest in stabilizing the region

2)"By themselves" are the key words here but in fact the UN is a colective effort no country is going at it alone efforts are combined to mount the operation

3)The Chinese and the Russians are indeed capable of reuniting all the necessary heavy forces, the proper command & control infrastructure, and do have the experience in such operations

[Imperial City-States]

Considering that the Chinese lack the navel capacity to move their heavy equipment anywhere. The Russians have no need nor desire to move their equipment anywhere. And Everyone in the UN with exception of the U.S is logistically incapable of supporting extended overseas operations in support of heavy equipment. The majority of those in the U.S are having 'Vietnam Syndrome' and aren't going to want to return so soon. Hence as a result the U.N won't be returning soon. Can't really do a whole lot of 'intervening' when your primary logistical support tells you to go fuck yourself.

Example being that the French Incursion into Mali would not have been possible without U.S logistical and intelligence support.

[Migas999]

Considering that the Chinese lack the navel capacity to move their heavy equipment anywhere. The Russians have no need nor desire to move their equipment anywhere. And Everyone in the UN with exception of the U.S is logistically incapable of supporting extended overseas operations in support of heavy equipment. The majority of those in the U.S are having 'Vietnam Syndrome' and aren't going to want to return so soon. Hence as a result the U.N won't be returning soon. Can't really do a whole lot of 'intervening' when your primary logistical support tells you to go fuck yourself.

Example being that the French Incursion into Mali would not have been possible without U.S logistical and intelligence support.

The question I was adressing was not the need or want to move the equipment but rather the capabilities and the Russians definitely have it, as for the chinese would you care to explain how they lack the naval capacity
seems to me they have a lot of transport and landing ships as well as support ships( not being condescendent just really want to know)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... Navy_ships

[Migas999]

Considering that the Chinese lack the navel capacity to move their heavy equipment anywhere. The Russians have no need nor desire to move their equipment anywhere. And Everyone in the UN with exception of the U.S is logistically incapable of supporting extended overseas operations in support of heavy equipment. The majority of those in the U.S are having 'Vietnam Syndrome' and aren't going to want to return so soon. Hence as a result the U.N won't be returning soon. Can't really do a whole lot of 'intervening' when your primary logistical support tells you to go fuck yourself.

Example being that the French Incursion into Mali would not have been possible without U.S logistical and intelligence support.

The question I was adressing was not the need or want to move the equipment but rather the capabilities and the Russians definitely have it, as for the chinese would you care to explain how they lack the naval capacity
seems to me they have a lot of transport and landing ships as well as support ships( not being condescendent just really want to know)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... Navy_ships

As for the logistical support I see your point, but if other countries in the UN pooled their efforts together im sure that the logistical support needed could be gathered

[Saiwania]

Splitting up Iraq is by far the worst thing one can do at this point.

If keeping Iraq together worked, this war wouldn't be happening in Iraq to begin with. It would instead be limited to Syria because IS wouldn't have any support among Iraq's Sunnis, but they do because Iraq's Shia government doesn't rule in their interests. Only Saddam could've kept Iraq together through fear but he is dead and gone. Iraq doesn't control the Kurdish portion either because they have their hands full fighting IS offensives, so the Peshmerga took advantage in filling the power vacuum left from Iraq's official government and military retreating.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Heavy equipment can be provided by nations around the world, that's not even an issue. Same goes for transport, its a world effort remember, not an "all countries go on their own" effort.
Command would be the UN, they can set it up without much issues.
Nope, most of Europe has that experience too and yes, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia ect. can all pretty much handle such thing.
This debate here never was about the chance of a UN intervention, it was about an intervention i would support.
The only naivety here is coming from you.

The UN does not have the power to levy any heavy equipment or support. The Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and even the 1993 Somalia affair (the last time a UN-sponsored intervention mission faced a somewhat serious opponent) were all supported by what were effectively donations. As the present reality clearly shows, no one is willing to donate much save the airstrikes and special forces. This is a serious issue. If no one wants to donate, then nothing happens... a familiar refrain with a lot of UN programs sadly.

The UN does not have a military command of its own. There is no "UN command staff, complete with UN generals and officers" ready to take hold of whatever army you see fit to give them, certainly not one ready to do such a large intervention. They have to be picked from willing member countries as well, and then participating countries will have to be willing to put their troops under the command of that person as well. This is not a simple process. Then those troops will have to be willing to cooperate with soldiers from other countries who have different languages and other communications barriers.

Russia, China, Iran and Turkey have not led a multinational coalition into any kind of serious combat operations within the last 50 years. They have either fought wars solo (the first three) or played a supporting role (Turkey). Saudi Arabia is arguably the only one who has led such an effort of late, namely the Yemen affair a few months ago with the various Arab countries supporting, but for various reasons they don't seem interested in fighting ISIS much (insert here your preferred explanation as to why).

Similarly, no European nation has taken a leading role in any multinational major large-scale military operation within the past 50 years. Libya 2011 was a very short-lived exemption with effort that is the same as what's happening already (i.e. airstrikes and specops).

The utter simplicity of your post betrays the fact that you know nothing about realpolitik or the difficulty behind organizing large-scale military operations. But that's to be expected, your post history here and elsewhere easily paints you as the kind of person who lets his ideological and personal leanings get in the way of understanding reality.

You better understand that geopolitics is indifferent to wishes. What you would support is utterly irrelevant, the reality is a UN intervention of any kind whether it be led by the US or some other country, but especially by some other country not the US, is impossible due to a variety of political and physical constraints and the conflicting incentives of practically everyone involved.

You can keep trying to say that an effective intervention by the UN without the US is possible, but honestly, if that were true, it would have happened by now.

[Imperial City-States]

The question I was adressing was not the need or want to move the equipment but rather the capabilities and the Russians definitely have it, as for the chinese would you care to explain how they lack the naval capacity
seems to me they have a lot of transport and landing ships as well as support ships( not being condescendent just really want to know)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... Navy_ships

The problem with the Chinese Navy is most of it simply 'exist' and isn't actually operational. Just 'having' ships does not mean you can 'use' them. They require trained crews, regular maintenance. Those landing craft you mention carry (on average) a maximum of 2 'heavy' vehicles. That being Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and equivalent supplies. Lander's does not make you able to sustain a long term overseas operation (Only the U.S is actually capable of that feat, but at extreme cost). The key point is they lack the capacity to ship thousands of tons of material that's needed daily for a handful of troops. Sure they can land a Brigade in an Amphibious landing but they can't feed that Brigade for long term operations.

[Migas999]

Heavy equipment can be provided by nations around the world, that's not even an issue. Same goes for transport, its a world effort remember, not an "all countries go on their own" effort.
Command would be the UN, they can set it up without much issues.
Nope, most of Europe has that experience too and yes, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia ect. can all pretty much handle such thing.
This debate here never was about the chance of a UN intervention, it was about an intervention i would support.
The only naivety here is coming from you.

The UN does not have the power to levy any heavy equipment or support. The Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and even the 1993 Somalia affair (the last time a UN-sponsored intervention mission faced a somewhat serious opponent) were all supported by what were effectively donations. As the present reality clearly shows, no one is willing to donate much save the airstrikes and special forces. This is a serious issue. If no one wants to donate, then nothing happens... a familiar refrain with a lot of UN programs sadly.

The UN does not have a military command of its own. There is no "UN command staff, complete with UN generals and officers" ready to take hold of whatever army you see fit to give them, certainly not one ready to do such a large intervention. They have to be picked from willing member countries as well, and then participating countries will have to be willing to put their troops under the command of that person as well. This is not a simple process. Then those troops will have to be willing to cooperate with soldiers from other countries who have different languages and other communications barriers.

Russia, China, Iran and Turkey have not led a multinational coalition into any kind of serious combat operations within the last 50 years. They have either fought wars solo (the first three) or played a supporting role (Turkey). Saudi Arabia is arguably the only one who has led such an effort of late, namely the Yemen affair a few months ago with the various Arab countries supporting, but for various reasons they don't seem interested in fighting ISIS much (insert here your preferred explanation as to why).

Similarly, no European nation has taken a leading role in any multinational major large-scale military operation within the past 50 years. Libya 2011 was a very short-lived exemption with effort that is the same as what's happening already (i.e. airstrikes and specops).

The utter simplicity of your post betrays the fact that you know nothing about realpolitik or the difficulty behind organizing large-scale military operations. But that's to be expected, your post history here and elsewhere easily paints you as the kind of person who lets his ideological and personal leanings get in the way of understanding reality.

You better understand that geopolitics is indifferent to wishes. What you would support is utterly irrelevant, the reality is a UN intervention of any kind whether it be led by the US or some other country, but especially by some other country not the US, is impossible due to a variety of political and physical constraints and the conflicting incentives of practically everyone involved.

You can keep trying to say that an effective intervention by the UN without the US is possible, but honestly, if that were true, it would have happened by now.

You say it could have happened by now, but I ask which countries actually want to intervene in Iraq(besides specops and airstrikes), currently I´m aware of one: Iran but they can´t do much unless the Iraqi government directly asks them so

[Migas999]

The question I was adressing was not the need or want to move the equipment but rather the capabilities and the Russians definitely have it, as for the chinese would you care to explain how they lack the naval capacity
seems to me they have a lot of transport and landing ships as well as support ships( not being condescendent just really want to know)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... Navy_ships

The problem with the Chinese Navy is most of it simply 'exist' and isn't actually operational. Just 'having' ships does not mean you can 'use' them. They require trained crews, regular maintenance. Those landing craft you mention carry (on average) a maximum of 2 'heavy' vehicles. That being Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and equivalent supplies. Lander's does not make you able to sustain a long term overseas operation (Only the U.S is actually capable of that feat, but at extreme cost). The key point is they lack the capacity to ship thousands of tons of material that's needed daily for a handful of troops. Sure they can land a Brigade in an Amphibious landing but they can't feed that Brigade for long term operations.

I thank you for the explanation

[Imperial City-States]

The problem with the Chinese Navy is most of it simply 'exist' and isn't actually operational. Just 'having' ships does not mean you can 'use' them. They require trained crews, regular maintenance. Those landing craft you mention carry (on average) a maximum of 2 'heavy' vehicles. That being Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and equivalent supplies. Lander's does not make you able to sustain a long term overseas operation (Only the U.S is actually capable of that feat, but at extreme cost). The key point is they lack the capacity to ship thousands of tons of material that's needed daily for a handful of troops. Sure they can land a Brigade in an Amphibious landing but they can't feed that Brigade for long term operations.

I thank you for the explanation

You're very welcome. Glad to see someone who asks for an explanation rather than blindly going "NUHUN'

[Migas999]

I thank you for the explanation

You're very welcome. Glad to see someone who asks for an explanation rather than blindly going "NUHUN'

Ain´t no use arguing if you´re just going to be blindly spouting nonsense, might as well learn something

[Imperial City-States]

Something that makes me giggle at time.

China has an Aircraft Carrier that holds 40 aircraft.....


One of the U.S's carries 90......

[Migas999]

Something that makes me giggle at time.

China has an Aircraft Carrier that holds 40 aircraft.....


One of the U.S's carries 90......

And as far as I know the US has 12 carriers
Or was that 13?

[Connori Pilgrims]

You say it could have happened by now, but I ask which countries actually want to intervene in Iraq(besides specops and airstrikes), currently I´m aware of one: Iran but they can´t do much unless the Iraqi government directly asks them so

Iran is presently playing a delicate game in which the ISIS problem (while great) is but one issue to them. This isn't their only, or even greatest issue. There is of course their competition with Saudi Arabia for a sphere of influence within the greater Persian Gulf, which led to the Saudi intervention in Yemen.

While Iran would love to go in there and secure a corridor to Assad's Syria, there's a concern that a massive Iranian intervention like that might spur some kind of Saudi or even a united Arab response. Given what happened in Yemen, this is actually a possibility that Tehran needs to consider. Also, the fact that "Shiite heretics" are coming to kill the nominally-Sunni ISIS might have unintended consequences.

Saudi Arabia in turn seems only interested in holding what influence it has, given Iran's increasing power and the fact that even the US is now trying to talk to Iran. It's possible they see ISIS as a convenient meat-grinder to distract Iran.

Turkey is... well there's a lot of speculation on what the heck kind of relationship Turkey has with ISIS to explain why they aren't willing to fight them, although for now it may just be Erdogan doesn't give a shit and/or is preoccupied with keeping his power at home.

Russia only cares for keeping Assad alive, but they don't have the ability to send forces to help him due to among other things much of the Russian transport fleet rusting. They can only ship him weapons.

China does not give a shit about this; their plans for the greater region include a new economic Silk Road, which thankfully for them will not be passing through ISIS-held lands.

[Imperial City-States]

Something that makes me giggle at time.

China has an Aircraft Carrier that holds 40 aircraft.....


One of the U.S's carries 90......

And as far as I know the US has 12 carriers
Or was that 13?

Well we have 19 that could be 'called' Carriers (large Amphibious Assault ships) But have 11 Super Carriers.

[Migas999]

You say it could have happened by now, but I ask which countries actually want to intervene in Iraq(besides specops and airstrikes), currently I´m aware of one: Iran but they can´t do much unless the Iraqi government directly asks them so

Iran is presently playing a delicate game, in which the ISIS problem (while great) is but one issue to them. This isn't their only, or even greatest issue. There is of course their competition with Saudi Arabia for a sphere of influence within the greater Persian Gulf, which led to the Saudi intervention in Yemen.

There's also the concern that a massive Iranian intervention might spur some kind of Saudi or even a united Arab response. Given what happened in Yemen, this is actually a possibility that Tehran needs to consider.

Saudi Arabia in turn seems only interested in holding what influence it has, given Iran's increasing power and the fact that even the US is now trying to talk to Iran. It's possible they see ISIS as a convenient meat-grinder to distract Iran.

Turkey is... well there's a lot of speculation on what the heck kind of relationship Turkey has with ISIS to explain why they aren't willing to fight them, although for now it may just be Erdogan doesn't give a shit and/or is preoccupied with keeping his power at home.

Isn´t Turkey sort of playing a double game?
http://www.businessinsider.com/turkey-p ... sis-2015-5
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/13 ... over-isil/
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/20 ... ame-syria/

[Migas999]

And as far as I know the US has 12 carriers
Or was that 13?

Well we have 19 that could be 'called' Carriers (large Amphibious Assault ships) But have 11 Super Carriers.

In other words the chinese navy couldn´t hold a candle to the American right?

[Imperial City-States]

Well we have 19 that could be 'called' Carriers (large Amphibious Assault ships) But have 11 Super Carriers.

In other words the chinese navy couldn´t hold a candle to the American right?

Correct, even considering the fact that the U.S Navy is effectively split in half (Pacific/Atlantic). China's only attempted counter to the U.S carrier system is Ballistic Missiles that proxy as Oversized Anti-ship missiles. But those are not operational because the Chinese Army can't into SATCOM.

[Migas999]

In other words the chinese navy couldn´t hold a candle to the American right?

Correct, even considering the fact that the U.S Navy is effectively split in half (Pacific/Atlantic). China's only attempted counter to the U.S carrier system is Ballistic Missiles that proxy as Oversized Anti-ship missiles. But those are not operational because the Chinese Army can't into SATCOM.

Why can´t they into SATCOM?

[Connori Pilgrims]

Isn´t Turkey sort of playing a double game?
http://www.businessinsider.com/turkey-p ... sis-2015-5
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/13 ... over-isil/
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/20 ... ame-syria/

There is that. Oh, and yes the Kurd issue. The Turks have been concerned for a very long time about a possible independent Kurdistan, since they have Kurds who have been uppity. A defeated ISIS could well mean that independent Kurdistan, and potentially trouble for Turkish regions with a lot of Kurds in them. So perhaps they wish ISIS, if not victorious, then alive long enough to weaken the Kurds (so again ISIS is a convenient meatgrinder).

See, basically all the regional players have varying constraints and incentives that either prevent them from more fully attacking ISIS, or hell they even outright use them (indirectly at least) for their own objectives.

[Migas999]

You say it could have happened by now, but I ask which countries actually want to intervene in Iraq(besides specops and airstrikes), currently I´m aware of one: Iran but they can´t do much unless the Iraqi government directly asks them so

Iran is presently playing a delicate game in which the ISIS problem (while great) is but one issue to them. This isn't their only, or even greatest issue. There is of course their competition with Saudi Arabia for a sphere of influence within the greater Persian Gulf, which led to the Saudi intervention in Yemen.

While Iran would love to go in there and secure a corridor to Assad's Syria, there's a concern that a massive Iranian intervention like that might spur some kind of Saudi or even a united Arab response. Given what happened in Yemen, this is actually a possibility that Tehran needs to consider. Also, the fact that "Shiite heretics" are coming to kill the nominally-Sunni ISIS might have unintended consequences.

Saudi Arabia in turn seems only interested in holding what influence it has, given Iran's increasing power and the fact that even the US is now trying to talk to Iran. It's possible they see ISIS as a convenient meat-grinder to distract Iran.

Turkey is... well there's a lot of speculation on what the heck kind of relationship Turkey has with ISIS to explain why they aren't willing to fight them, although for now it may just be Erdogan doesn't give a shit and/or is preoccupied with keeping his power at home.

Russia only cares for keeping Assad alive, but they don't have the ability to send forces to help him due to among other things much of the Russian transport fleet rusting. They can only ship him weapons.

China does not give a shit about this; their plans for the greater region include a new economic Silk Road, which thankfully for them will not be passing through ISIS-held lands.

So Russia´s transport fleet is decaying huh? Is it me or does it seem that the only major power that keeps it´s navy in working order is the US?