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

[Old Stephania]

A. How did we create instability between Shias and Sunnis? B. How did we "let" Syria fall into civil war? C. How is it the fault of the US if people choose to join ISIS?

I am genuinely curious but you keep repeating these opinions as fact without explaining how or why.

A. We removed the only thing keeping the bloody country from tearing itself apart. Saddam was a terrible human, but he was good at keeping control of the area, we got rid of him and left a rather weak government in place (Despite our best efforts), which also happened to be run by the Islamic minority (Not counting the Kurdish).

This is an oversimplified and frankly no-win perspective on the situation. If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein would you also be here crying about how we're responsible for "letting" him get away with genocide, chemical attacks on his own people, and political purges just like you're saying we're responsible for "letting" Syria get out of control? And what do you think would have happened when Saddam died from old age?

While I was not in favour of the invasion of the Iraq based on the lies presented to us at the time bloodshed along ethnic and religious lines was inevitable, and I think the fact the Iraqis invited us in to bomb ISIS speaks volumes about the improved situation in the country compared to the boot of Saddam stamping on their faces.

B. We helped Libya during thier civil war, which broke out around the same time as Syria, we could have easily helped them too, yet for some reason we didn't. Also, I never said we let them fall into civil war, I said we allowed it get as bad as it is currently, you seem to have missed that part.

We did help Libya and it did not stop the country turning into a failed state, or are you saying we didn't help enough and should have launched a full scale invasion to establish a democratic regime just like we did in Iraq? You are once again oversimplifying the situation and are in serious danger of contradicting yourself.

C.It's not our fault people choose to join ISIS, but when most of their top members, their own leader, and a pretty big chunk of their fighters have spent time in US prison camps (That are public, btw, hell, IIRC, CNN had a special talking about the time their leader spent in a US-Iraq prison camp) under charges of terrorism, suspected terrorism, and aiding terrorists/groups in the area, you can see a pretty obvious pattern/timeline forming from this, can't you? Or is that just an opinion to you?

That's all you need to say. Nobody but the individual is responsible for said individual choosing to join ISIS.

And I'm genuinely curious at how you've never heard of any of this? Things and reports like this were all over the news and internet, and still are. Or did you not pay attention to any of this evidence?

I have heard of all of this, but unlike you I don't pretend to understand it.

[Organized States]

ISIS is collapsing as is.

Our current strategy combined with the changing situation in Syria seems to be working out in our favor.

[Imperializt Russia]

A. We removed the only thing keeping the bloody country from tearing itself apart. Saddam was a terrible human, but he was good at keeping control of the area, we got rid of him and left a rather weak government in place (Despite our best efforts), which also happened to be run by the Islamic minority (Not counting the Kurdish).

This is an oversimplified and frankly no-win perspective on the situation. If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein would you also be here crying about how we're responsible for "letting" him get away with genocide, chemical attacks on his own people, and political purges just like you're saying we're responsible for "letting" Syria get out of control? And what do you think would have happened when Saddam died from old age?

While I was not in favour of the invasion of the Iraq based on the lies presented to us at the time bloodshed along ethnic and religious lines was inevitable, and I think the fact the Iraqis invited us in to bomb ISIS speaks volumes about the improved situation in the country compared to the boot of Saddam stamping on their faces.

And you have the balls to complain about oversimplified perspective.

[Old Stephania]

This is an oversimplified and frankly no-win perspective on the situation. If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein would you also be here crying about how we're responsible for "letting" him get away with genocide, chemical attacks on his own people, and political purges just like you're saying we're responsible for "letting" Syria get out of control? And what do you think would have happened when Saddam died from old age?

While I was not in favour of the invasion of the Iraq based on the lies presented to us at the time bloodshed along ethnic and religious lines was inevitable, and I think the fact the Iraqis invited us in to bomb ISIS speaks volumes about the improved situation in the country compared to the boot of Saddam stamping on their faces.

And you have the balls to complain about oversimplified perspective.

By asking questions?

Edit: I'm also curious as to whether you had a point or just wanted to throw in your jab from the sidelines.

[Frank Zipper]

Not unless the US has a better understanding of what to do after, than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Otherwise you will just create another successor organisation to ISIS.

There also doesn't seem any point while you are still allies with Saudi Arabia.

[The Princes of the Universe]

There also doesn't seem any point while you are still allies with Saudi Arabia.

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

[Genivaria]

I don't think you know a single thing about life in Saudi Arabia, tbh fam. Or how ubiquitous the islamist fundamentalist element is.

What do you mean? I'm aware that nearly every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia is dictated by Wahhabist principles enforced by law. That won't be changing anytime soon. The best we can do right now is try to separate Wahhabism from Islamic Terrorism.

Wahhabism is Islamic terrorism plus state endorsement.

[Genivaria]

There also doesn't seem any point while you are still allies with Saudi Arabia.

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

Some people do.
Saudi Arabia is the classic Token Evil Teammate.

[Genivaria]

So they "fight" ISIS (I guarantee you the Saudis won't be doing the majority of the fighting) and just give money to groups like Al Nusra and Boko Haram? Yeah, that sounds fantastic.

They're not going to stop doing the latter, so we might as well get them to take a stand against the former.

This is a terrible idea that leaves the door open to an Iran-Contra-like situation where Saudi Arabia is playing both sides. We know where their loyalties lie, and they're not with the world's decent people of any religion.

Their loyalties also lie with us, and we can use that to our advantage.

Their loyalties lie with profit and extremism.

[SaintB]

Yes.

It's going to take more than air strikes to take down ISIS.

And I trust that a soldier knows the difference between civilian and terrorist.

As an airstrike doesn't know the difference between hospital and bombing target.

Or friendly forces doing a drill and taking fire.

Straight from the mouths of soldiers... they don't know the difference between a civilian and a guerrilla combatant. Even while being shot at they might not know.

[Genivaria]

Yes.

It's going to take more than air strikes to take down ISIS.

And I trust that a soldier knows the difference between civilian and terrorist.

As an airstrike doesn't know the difference between hospital and bombing target.

Or friendly forces doing a drill and taking fire.

Straight from the mouths of soldiers... they don't know the difference between a civilian and a guerrilla combatant. Even while being shot at they might not know.

Anyone who thinks they WOULD know plays way too much Call of Duty.

[SaintB]

We shouldn't be putting soldiers on the ground to fight ISIS and mire ourselves in another pointless conflict that grinds up our people and sends them back damaged or dead. Public opinion is against it and if you know anything about ISIS they want American Soldiers to set foot in their turf to fight them, they want nothing more than an all out war with the United States. They hop we bring our soldiers, our tanks, our fighter jets, they want us to come packing our entire arsenal - these guys want us to NUKE them. They are basically an apocalyptic cult trying to bring about the end of the world and they are willing to be the bad guys to do it.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Nope, it will only serve to cause more terror attacks, because a US ground invasion would be the best possible propaganda engine they could have. If they can play it out to make it look like a war on Islam, their number are going to go through the roof. Not to mention, disgruntled non-Muslims that don't like US overreach or the US period will flock to Syria to join, too. It's already happened with unidentified Brits and Russians, and that's with just airstrikes.

Also, isn't there a megathread for this?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes.

It's going to take more than air strikes to take down ISIS.

And I trust that a soldier knows the difference between civilian and terrorist.

As an airstrike doesn't know the difference between hospital and bombing target.

Or friendly forces doing a drill and taking fire.

Average combat range for infantry is three hundred metres. in Afghanistan, later in the war, it was nearer a kilometre.

Unless you've been told what is there, by a briefing or told over the radio, you don't know what that is you're looking at. What you know is there are muzzle flashes over there and you're being shot at.

More often than not, friendly fire from aircraft is the result of the ground team not calling out targets properly. That aircraft is going a kilometre in about five seconds. He can't see shit. In the case of the MSF hospital, they had the "right" target called out to them. In that, they were told that this building was their target. They did their job.
If Afghan security forces are maliciously calling out targets, that is a huge problem with ground forces.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Yes.

It's going to take more than air strikes to take down ISIS.

And I trust that a soldier knows the difference between civilian and terrorist.

As an airstrike doesn't know the difference between hospital and bombing target.

Or friendly forces doing a drill and taking fire.

Average combat range for infantry is three hundred metres. in Afghanistan, later in the war, it was nearer a kilometre.

Unless you've been told what is there, by a briefing or told over the radio, you don't know what that is you're looking at. What you know is there are muzzle flashes over there and you're being shot at.

More often than not, friendly fire from aircraft is the result of the ground team not calling out targets properly. That aircraft is going a kilometre in about five seconds. He can't see shit. In the case of the MSF hospital, they had the "right" target called out to them. In that, they were told that this building was their target. They did their job.
If Afghan security forces are maliciously calling out targets, that is a huge problem with ground forces.

^This

[Saiwania]

The answer is most obviously yes. But the US shouldn't be doing any of the occupying of territory. The strategy should be to ensure Assad's military recaptures most of Syria with Russia's help, ensure that the Peshmerga hold onto their gains and sit on it, and ensure Iraq's military recaptures most of Iraq with the help of Iran. If ISIS territory first shrinks on all sides, that just leaves a much smaller area that needs to be invaded.

The Sunni portion of Iraq, the area of least value that none of the belligerents want, can be where IS is finally routed and it can promptly be made into a protectorate of Jordan or Saudi Arabia if not an independent Sunni state. A Kurdish state can form in the north, while Iraq is free to become fully Shia like it wanted to.

[Waldriech]

Yes, If we do, the whole world will! We need ISIS destroyed.

[The TransPecos]

Really only a matter of time. The name doesn't matter. 'Submission' will not go away so the name may change but the actions will continue

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, If we do, the whole world will! We need ISIS destroyed.

Because that is totally what happened in Iraq

[Outer Sparta]

There also doesn't seem any point while you are still allies with Saudi Arabia.

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

Why are we allies of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they were responsible for 9/11? An oil sanction on them will cripple their economy dearly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

Why are we allies of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they were responsible for 9/11? An oil sanction on them will cripple their economy dearly.

And ours. We depend on their oil imports. Plus, if we embargo one OPEC founding state, we're bringing OPEC's sanctions against the U.S.

[Uxupox]

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

Why are we allies of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they were responsible for 9/11? An oil sanction on them will cripple their economy dearly.

They were indirectly responsible just like the US was indirectly responsible for it as well.

[Unified Heartless States]

Yes, though this time we should claim territory.
This will be the best way to ensure they don't just fall apart once we leave again.

[Valaran]

Absolutely not. Aside from dubious tactical benefits, this is a stopgap measure at best, and both a costly one (in blood and treasure), without guaranteeing the results one would wish for. Strategically, there is no imperative for this, with the presence of proxy forces that can and do serve the same role. It would be a propaganda and tactical gold mine for IS to be able to kill western 'crusaders', and it does nothing to solve the symptomatic issues that lead to its rise. Moreover, in areas such as Syria, the is a potential for dangerous misunderstandings given the many other actors clogging up air and groundspace. In short, there is no clear sustainable benefit to be derived from this, there is no compelling strategic incentive, and there are plenty of costs, some very bad.

[Imperializt Russia]

SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT.

Why are we allies of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they were responsible for 9/11? An oil sanction on them will cripple their economy dearly.

The Saudi government is not responsible for 9/11.