Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Filimons]

Iraqi Christians form anti-Daesh militia.

How long till someone makes some anti-American statement about these "crusaders"?

I mean, we already had someone blame it all on the Jews.

Perhaps they'll wait until we get a new Islamic State Crisis Megathread.

Deus Vult! I'm proud of them.

Glory to the Babylonian Brigades!

[Salus Maior]

Glory to the Babylonian Brigades!

You know, if I weren't a skinny nerd with no money and still going through college, I'd probably volunteer to join them.

[Filimons]

Glory to the Babylonian Brigades!

You know, if I weren't a skinny nerd with no money and still going through college, I'd probably volunteer to join them.

I don't think anti-Daesh militias accept many foreigners. If I recall correctly, the Peshmerga even said they need weaponry as opposed to men.

Oh! The Peshmerga have said Daesh militants who surrender will be paroled.

[Ganos Lao]

You know, if I weren't a skinny nerd with no money and still going through college, I'd probably volunteer to join them.

I don't think anti-Daesh militias accept many foreigners. If I recall correctly, the Peshmerga even said they need weaponry as opposed to men.

Oh! The Peshmerga have said Daesh militants who surrender will be paroled.

Over the last few months, hundreds of ISIS militants have come to the Peshmerga front lines to surrender through mediation, and “any ISIS militant who surrenders to the Peshmerga will be treated as a captive and with respect if it is proved they are not charged with crimes,” he continued.

I'm willing to bet some of the Peshmerga will be willing to look the other way in certain cases.

[Salus Maior]

You know, if I weren't a skinny nerd with no money and still going through college, I'd probably volunteer to join them.

I don't think anti-Daesh militias accept many foreigners. If I recall correctly, the Peshmerga even said they need weaponry as opposed to men.

Oh! The Peshmerga have said Daesh militants who surrender will be paroled.

I don't know, I've heard of quite a few Westerners signing up with anti-ISIS militants, mostly with Peshmurga though.

But what if I brought my own weapons?

[Filimons]

I don't think anti-Daesh militias accept many foreigners. If I recall correctly, the Peshmerga even said they need weaponry as opposed to men.

Oh! The Peshmerga have said Daesh militants who surrender will be paroled.

I don't know, I've heard of quite a few Westerners signing up with anti-ISIS militants, mostly with Peshmurga though.

But what if I brought my own weapons?

Good luck getting on a plane to the Middle East with an AK.

[Seraven]

I don't think anti-Daesh militias accept many foreigners. If I recall correctly, the Peshmerga even said they need weaponry as opposed to men.

Oh! The Peshmerga have said Daesh militants who surrender will be paroled.

I don't know, I've heard of quite a few Westerners signing up with anti-ISIS militants, mostly with Peshmurga though.

But what if I brought my own weapons?

You can make weapons using 3D printer, which probably is allowed to bring to the plane?

[Filimons]

Now, let's have a proper news briefing. After all, we need something to discuss.

Defence Secretary recommends Daesh as opposed to Isis.
Massachusetts man accused of plot to bomb crowded places on behalf of Daesh.
Daesh pushing westwards in Libya.
Israeli Peshmerga fighter returns home.

[The Alma Mater]

To impede the progress of the Caliphate as the world government under Islam is to obstruct God.

So a noble thing to do

[The balkens]

To impede the progress of the Caliphate as the world government under Islam is to obstruct God.

What?

[The balkens]

What?

Democracy is not necessary, only Sharia.

no.

[The balkens]

no.

Islam is beautiful and peaceful. Only the West has anything to gain from desstroying the Caliphate, because they are the moneyed ones. Money is a sin.

Or.

By destroying the horde of edgy, whiny, anti western/capitalist teenagers, we could have the middle east at least one ass-crack of a step towards peace.

[The Alma Mater]

no.

Islam is beautiful and peaceful. Only the West has anything to gain from desstroying the Caliphate, because they are the moneyed ones. Money is a sin.

I do somewhat think that the people living in the middle east, who believe they themselves are devout moslims - yet are being brutally slaughtered by Daesh, disagree with the "only the west" notion.

[Ganos Lao]

no.

Islam is beautiful and peaceful. Only the West has anything to gain from desstroying the Caliphate, because they are the moneyed ones. Money is a sin.

So what's your main nation?

[Supreme Allied Commander]

STRATEGY TO DEFEAT Islamic State / ISIL / ISIS / Daesh

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region.

3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits.

4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not a spike within 48 hours.

5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

6) Establish Western military bases in Iraq for training up the local armies. Better if we can supply them by sea or air rather than by long land routes which can have supply routes attacked by road side bombs and ambushes.
_______

So that's my plan but whom to trust to carry it through?

Well I don't trust anyone with my plan except myself, so I volunteer to be appointed NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (or Deputy SACEUR) to carry my plan through to victory in short order.

For my political superior, I want to report to Condoleezza Rice. So please appoint Condi as NATO Secretary General (I don't know if she will accept this office or similar but NATO governments could ask her).

Anyway we need Condi, that's clear. So long as I report through Condi to the NATO North Atlantic Council, no problem.

We should arm the Kurds. Heavy weapons needed!

The Kurds had been calling for more international military aid but what they got from the Pentagon instead was Chuck Hagel's warm words.

August 26, 2014 - Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Kurdish Resupply Effort

Whereas it was the Germans who provided the Kurds with some of the type of anti-tank weapons they particularly needed to counter the ISIS threat of Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices.


MILAN anti-tank weapon

September 1, 2014 - BBC: Germany to supply arms to Kurds fighting IS in Iraq

The President visited the Pentagon on July 6, 2015, to encourage his military leadership team, to order them as Commander-in-Chief to accelerate delivery of the President's objectives and I'm supporting the President's lead with practical suggestions.

I hope the President is demanding rather more acceleration than Chuck Hagel demanded, accelerating the Pentagon from "dead slow" all the way up to "slow", maybe?

Video: President Barack Obama's Statement to Press



but ...
SPIN: Trainers and advisors sent to Kurdistan
REALITY: Fox News reports American special forces required to transit to Kurdistan via Baghdad when they are not allowed to take their heavy weapons and must leave them in Baghdad.

SPIN: ($350 million in equipment to be provided as part of training)
REALITY: New American reports ISIS Seized $1 Billion of U.S. Military Aid. Christian Post reports
ISIS Budget Exceeds $2 Billion in 2015

SPIN: Anti-ISIS coalition airstrikes coordinated with Kurdish forces
REALITY: Fox News reports DELTA and other U.S. special forces currently on the ground are not allowed to participate in the war against ISIS and fight with the Kurds, preventing the most effective coordination of air-strikes with Forward Air Controllers (FAC) / Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) on the ground.

SPIN: 1,000 anti-tank missiles & 40 mine-resistant vehicles sent to Kurdish forces
REALITY: Fox News reports the Kurds dispute those numbers, insisting a lot of those weapons were never transferred to them after being given to Baghdad.

SPIN: $15 million in airlift support, transporting supplies from the U.S. and other coalition partners
REALITY: Huff Post reports Kurds cannot receive US arms directly though Kurds want weapons delivered directly

REQUEST FOR MILITARY AID TO THE KURDS

AT-4 anti-tank weapons


US troops using AT-4 anti-tank weapon

Range - 300 metres.
Cost - $1,500
Design Purpose - It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications although it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank (MBT).
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against ISIS seized HUMVEEs looted from the Iraqi army which have been packed with high explosive and are been driven at high-speed by an ISIS suicide bomber towards the Peshmerga's front lines
How many the Kurds need - Stocks of about 20 per mile of defended front line. 2,000 per 100 miles of front line. Kurds front line with ISIS estimated at 600 miles, so they require to hold stocks of about 12,000 total cost $18 million
How many promised - 1,000
How many received - unknown because the Kurds complain of difficulties in receiving deliveries sent via Baghdad

BGM-71 TOW anti-tank weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tuifgYa-Io

Range - 4,500 metres.
Cost - $60,000
Design Purpose - The Raytheon BGM-71 TOW is a heavy anti-armor/assault missile used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps.
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against as many as 40 ISIS seized Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks looted from the Iraqi army plus other main battle tanks.
How many the Kurds need - 1 per mile of defended front lines. 600 miles of front line requires stocks of about 600, total cost $36 million
How many promised - None.
How many received - None.

M2 Heavy Machine Gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=50&v=U_md7brawJY

Range - 6,800 metres.
Cost - $14,000
Design Purpose - The Browning M2 .50 caliber (12.7mm) Machine Gun, is a World War II era automatic, belt-fed, recoil operated, air-cooled, crew-operated machine gun.
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against attacking ISIS fighters in anything but armoured vehicles.
How many the Kurds need - about 8 per mile of defended front line. 600 miles of front line requires about 4,800, total cost $67 million
How many promised - None.
How many received - None.

Total cost of this request
$18 million (AT-4s) + $38 million (BGM-71 TOWs) + $67 million (M2s)
= $123 million
GOOD VALUE TO STOP ISIS in their tracks at Kurdish front lines!

These are the type of weapons you need to hold off the full-frontal charging attack that ISIS specialize in, which is not militarily sophisticated but does require a defending army to be generously supplied with weapons which can deliver a high-intensity of direct-fire, because there is simply no time to call for reinforcements if your front-line soldiers don't have such weapons to hand.

This next quote gives a broader picture of what other types of military aid the Kurds need.

July 5, 2015 - To defeat Islamic State arm the Kurds retired general says

"Give the Kurds — who are mostly armed only with rocket propelled grenades and AK-47 rifles — more lethal weapons. Give them vehicles. Deploy A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Apache attack helicopters specifically to provide rapid close air support to help the Kurds maintain their long and tenuous front against the Islamic State and to continue their advances toward Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

“The Kurds have lost close to 5,000 troops if not more,” says Garner. “I don’t know how many have been injured. Probably many thousands. Most of that is because they don’t have the weapons they need. Most of the casualties would have been averted had they been supplied correctly.”

A retired Army three-star and former Army Asst. Vice Chief of Staff, Garner first got to know the Kurds during his stint as Commanding General, Joint Task Force Bravo during Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq after Desert Storm.

Specifically, Garner believes that the Kurds should be directly armed with Javelin and TOW anti-tank weapons, 81 mm mortars and M113 armored personnel carriers and uparmored Humvees.

“They have over 600 miles of frontage,” says Garner. “They have to guard the whole front and all that they have is light infantry.

The anti-tank weapons would give the Kurds the ability to stop the truck bombs the Islamic State has used to devastating effect by adding three plates of armor that stops RPGs. The armor thus allows semis packed with thousands of pounds of explosives to be used to blast through defenses.

The vehicles would allow the Kurds to create rapid reaction forces that can respond to incursions along the front or offensive opportunities.

“But they can’t put a rapid reaction force together right now because they don’t have mobility,” says Garner. “They need mobility. We are carving up vehicles in Afghanistan. Why not send them to the Kurds?”

Though close air support aircraft like the A-10s and Apaches would be “an overwhelming game changer,” Garner says he knows none of his suggestions will likely ever come to fruition.

So far, the U.S. has insisted on going through the Shia Baghdad central government for most of the weapons earmarked for the Kurds. And that, says Garner, has been a recipe for failure.

Using a few words I can’t print, Garner says there are three not-so-good reasons why.

“Number one, there is a policy in the State Department that says you can only give stuff to recognized governments,” says Garner, adding that the rationale is bunk given past realities. “We gave tons of stuff to the Contras. Charlie Wilson gave more Stingers than we had in the inventory to the rebels in Afghanistan back in the ‘80s. We’ve done that before for our convenience, but we are overlooking that now.”

Secondly, says Garner, “the Baghdad government does not want the Kurds armed. They know a conflict between them and the Kurds is highly possible.”

And thirdly, “the Iranians have told the administration not to arm the Kurds,” says Garner. “They back the government in Baghdad, which is a puppet government to Iran. Our administration is so immersed in this nuclear deal (with Iran) that I think they will do anything the Iranians tell them to do.”

That's sound advice from a military man who should know.

[Bundabunda]

5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

Why do people assume that this is the answer to peace in Iraq? What lessons are each of the three states going to take away if they get their way and don't learn to negotiate like adults?

Seriously this is one of the things that pisses me off about Iraq, the idea that ethnic partition is magically going to erase all past memories. Did partition stop India and Pakistan from escalating their arms race? What's an example of partition ever working?

Iraqi politicians are damn corrupt and have to answer to their people tbh. Splitting them up doesn't necessarily create better circumstances for all parties involved, it just creates a host of neighbors with their own armies that don't like each other. What a dumb idea to have tbh.

So, what does everyone think about the Iranian talks and how do you guys think it'll affect the Syrian situation? Is it going to escalate Iran's support to the SAA now that economic sanctions might be lifted or is Iran going to have to be more transparent when dealing with the Western world to Assad in order to avoid losing international credibility?

I personally think we'll see a bit of both. Putin called Obama and says he wants a negotiated end to the war, which is really a fantasy at this point, but it's definitely a positive sign IMO. Shows that Russia's faith in Assad is declining as the SAA continues losing more and more land to rebels and jihadists alike. Maybe Putin suggesting cooperation with the US is a sign that Iran is also losing faith in Assad but a public declaration of that message would mean years of effort wasted away trying to preserve the government. After all, they've been sending Afghan Shia'a mercenaries to Syria for the last couple of months, so it's not crazy to think that military cooperation between Iran and Syria is still ongoing.

[The Romulan Republic]

5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

Why do people assume that this is the answer to peace in Iraq? What lessons are each of the three states going to take away if they get their way and don't learn to negotiate like adults?

Seriously this is one of the things that pisses me off about Iraq, the idea that ethnic partition is magically going to erase all past memories. Did partition stop India and Pakistan from escalating their arms race? What's an example of partition ever working?

Iraqi politicians are damn corrupt and have to answer to their people tbh. Splitting them up doesn't necessarily create better circumstances for all parties involved, it just creates a host of neighbors with their own armies that don't like each other. What a dumb idea to have tbh.

So, what does everyone think about the Iranian talks and how do you guys think it'll affect the Syrian situation? Is it going to escalate Iran's support to the SAA now that economic sanctions might be lifted or is Iran going to have to be more transparent when dealing with the Western world to Assad in order to avoid losing international credibility?

I personally think we'll see a bit of both. Putin called Obama and says he wants a negotiated end to the war, which is really a fantasy at this point, but it's definitely a positive sign IMO. Shows that Russia's faith in Assad is declining as the SAA continues losing more and more land to rebels and jihadists alike. Maybe Putin suggesting cooperation with the US is a sign that Iran is also losing faith in Assad but a public declaration of that message would mean years of effort wasted away trying to preserve the government. After all, they've been sending Afghan Shia'a mercenaries to Syria for the last couple of months, so it's not crazy to think that military cooperation between Iran and Syria is still ongoing.

I'm inclined to think as things stand, if Iraq was divided, the different parts would keep fighting. In other words, instead of an internal conflict, we'd have a war between new nations.

[Salus Maior]

I'm inclined to think as things stand, if Iraq was divided, the different parts would keep fighting. In other words, instead of an internal conflict, we'd have a war between new nations.

Why? Their main gripe with each other is lack of representation in their government/one side screwing over another for power in said government. Give them their own nations and governments and that goes away. I see absolutely no reason for them to war with each other after that.

And besides, Kurdistan is breaking off either way. It's already de-facto independent from the Iraqi government.

[Ganos Lao]

Why? Their main gripe with each other is lack of representation in their government/one side screwing over another for power in said government. Give them their own nations and governments and that goes away. I see absolutely no reason for them to war with each other after that.

I don't think it'd be that easy. The whole lack of representation thing runs deep in the region's history, since it's tied to the whole Sunni/Shia thing.

Plus, we all know Iran and the Saudis will be meddling somehow, and that won't help matters either.

[Salus Maior]

5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

Why do people assume that this is the answer to peace in Iraq? What lessons are each of the three states going to take away if they get their way and don't learn to negotiate like adults?

Because it's necessary. The three groups just can't get along for an extended period of time because they decide to screw each other over once in power. Iraq isn't a natural entity anyhow, it was arbitrarily drawn up by the British who didn't give a crap what ethnic groups were in it.

What's so wrong about giving each ethnic group the ability to have fair representation in their government? I see only good things coming from a division of the obviously failed Iraqi state. And besides, the Kurds have already established their independence from the Iraqi government and have expressed their intentions to keep it that way.

[Salus Maior]

Why? Their main gripe with each other is lack of representation in their government/one side screwing over another for power in said government. Give them their own nations and governments and that goes away. I see absolutely no reason for them to war with each other after that.

I don't think it'd be that easy. The whole lack of representation thing runs deep in the region's history, since it's tied to the whole Sunni/Shia thing.

Plus, we all know Iran and the Saudis will be meddling somehow, and that won't help matters either.

I don't understand what you're saying. You do realize that the Sunni state and Shia state would be separate, right? Therefore, both groups get the representation they want.

The Saudis and Iranians will be meddling regardless of what will happen. Hardly something to fear.

[Ganos Lao]

I don't think it'd be that easy. The whole lack of representation thing runs deep in the region's history, since it's tied to the whole Sunni/Shia thing.

Plus, we all know Iran and the Saudis will be meddling somehow, and that won't help matters either.

I don't understand what you're saying. You do realize that the Sunni state and Shia state would be separate, right? Therefore, both groups get the representation they want.

The Saudis and Iranians will be meddling regardless of what will happen. Hardly something to fear.

What I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the idea that division will solve everything. An earlier poster mentioned Pakistan and India, and look at how that turned out.

Also, it's not something to "fear," but merely something that will no doubt inflame tensions and cause some problems, which leads into my first point.

[Salus Maior]

I don't understand what you're saying. You do realize that the Sunni state and Shia state would be separate, right? Therefore, both groups get the representation they want.

The Saudis and Iranians will be meddling regardless of what will happen. Hardly something to fear.

What I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the idea that division will solve everything. An earlier poster mentioned Pakistan and India, and look at how that turned out.

Also, it's not something to "fear," but merely something that will no doubt inflame tensions and cause some problems, which leads into my first point.

India and Pakistan was a mess for a whole lot of reasons, not just for merely being a division. In Iraq's case the division would be much simpler as the areas of Sunni/Shia majority are largely contiguous.

And who's to sy that Iran and the Saudis won't attempt to enflame tensions between ethnic groups within a united Iraq?

[Filimons]

I worry that separate states would mistreat Christians and other minorities within their borders. Just look at the treatment of minorities in Iraqi Kurdistan.

[Bundabunda]

Because it's necessary. The three groups just can't get along for an extended period of time because they decide to screw each other over once in power. Iraq isn't a natural entity anyhow, it was arbitrarily drawn up by the British who didn't give a crap what ethnic groups were in it.

It's not just that though. There are problems within wider Iraqi society that isn't exclusive to one of the three. Corruption within Kurdistan has always been high, not to mention that the political feud between the PUK and KPD stretching back to the 50s. It's not just "muh ethnic minorities" but there's a lot of other factors at play too. What about the fact that it was the Iraqi Air Force and not any Kurdish affiliated groups who rescued Yazidis from Mount Sinjar? There's nothing in that? There's nothing for both sides to agree over after all three sides have shed blood fighting ISIS? Disagreements can run deep, but Iraq's shown that they can unite against a common force.

What's so wrong about giving each ethnic group the ability to have fair representation in their government? I see only good things coming from a division of the obviously failed Iraqi state. And besides, the Kurds have already established their independence from the Iraqi government and have expressed their intentions to keep it that way.

What is the Iraqi state in any sense? I don't subscribe to the idea that this Iraq is the same one that was declared free and democratic under Bush. Maliki ran the country into the ground with the approval of the US and kept a tight leash on descent, including Shia'a parties that were more anti-Iran than the Dawa Party. Iraq's only a failed state because we set it up for failure ten years ago. I agree that the current Iraqi government doesn't represent the people, but I don't agree that exclusively Shia'a, Sunni and Kurdish areas allow for fair representation either.

If I can use the Pakistan-India example again, Pakistan especially shows favoritism to more populated regions. Balochistan didn't get fully functioning electricity until 2004. Who's to say that Kurds won't dedicate all their resources to areas near oil fields and not to rebuild infrastrucutre all over their place?

We put in a puppet regime for eight years and called it a day. There's articles as far back as 2012 about car bombs going off in Mosul and Baghdad on election days. Why didn't people care then?

I've really got to say, the idea reeks of Orientalist attitude too. It's a glaring example of believing that multiculutralism is not for "those" people because "those" people are savages who can only identify with one group. Dividing the map up has or never will be a solution until Iraqis can learn to rebuild together.