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

[Novus America]

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

True, they won't be effective as hardened fully trained soldiers, but if the US and other nations could provide training to those who wished to volunteer then they could help somewhat. Afterall, I don't think ISIS have proper training.

The question is why? The will not speak the language, know the culture or terrain, nor be effective in offensive operations. And will likley be viewed with suspicion by the local population. If we are going to train militias they should be locals. Not foreigners.

But what we really need is effective, mechanized Sunni Arab forces in the Sunni areas. And political reform, ISIS is the symptom, not the disease.

[Imperializt Russia]

No. That would be a temporary solution. Inevitably the American people would demand their soldiers be brought home, leaving a power vacuum to be immediately filled by the next terrorist threat. The only way to ensure lasting stability is for local forces to pacify the region themselves.

The American people only "inevitably demand their soldiers home" when the objectives, goals and successes aren't immediately clear and deaths and casualties aren't seen as obvious trades.

The occupation phase of an operation. The 2003 Iraq War was one of the US' most successful campaigns. The eight-year occupation of Iraq from 2003-2011 was what caused troops to be demanded home.

[Imperializt Russia]

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

True, they won't be effective as hardened fully trained soldiers, but if the US and other nations could provide training to those who wished to volunteer then they could help somewhat. Afterall, I don't think ISIS have proper training.

They don't have an eight-week correspondence course for boot camp or a BTEC in soldiering, but many IS recruits had formal military training before joining the organisation, and the organisation runs its own training programmes.

[Novus America]

No. That would be a temporary solution. Inevitably the American people would demand their soldiers be brought home, leaving a power vacuum to be immediately filled by the next terrorist threat. The only way to ensure lasting stability is for local forces to pacify the region themselves.

The American people only "inevitably demand their soldiers home" when the objectives, goals and successes aren't immediately clear and deaths and casualties aren't seen as obvious trades.

The occupation phase of an operation. The 2003 Iraq War was one of the US' most successful campaigns. The eight-year occupation of Iraq from 2003-2011 was what caused troops to be demanded home.

But that is the issue. Sure we could send in the Marines and demolish ISIS' conventional forces and take their territory pretty easily. Then what? What is really needed is political, economic and social reforms. Not simply propping up shit governments who caused ISIS to rise in the first place.

As we discovered defeating these types in the battlefield is not terribly difficult. The problem is dealing with the seemingly intractable political and social problems in the region.

[Imperializt Russia]

The American people only "inevitably demand their soldiers home" when the objectives, goals and successes aren't immediately clear and deaths and casualties aren't seen as obvious trades.

The occupation phase of an operation. The 2003 Iraq War was one of the US' most successful campaigns. The eight-year occupation of Iraq from 2003-2011 was what caused troops to be demanded home.

But that is the issue. Sure we could send in the Marines and demolish ISIS' conventional forces and take their territory pretty easily. Then what? What is really needed is political, economic and social reforms. Not simply propping up shit governments who caused ISIS to rise in the first place.

As we discovered defeating these types in the battlefield is not terribly difficult. The problem is dealing with the seemingly intractable political and social problems in the region.

The reason for this is because we don't have a concise or realistic idea for what the future of Syria will be except for a long-term endgame. No more Assad? Topping. Arab Spring, hooray. Getting there is a pissing miasma.

We haven't learned from Libya or Iraq - I mean, Obama made comments saying that he was disappointed Cameron got "distracted" during Libya and that's why it fucked up, which isn't the reason at all. Obviously it didn't help.

The most stable way for Syria would be securing the Syrian state, and having Assad stand down. Obviously, some groups are completely intransigent to that idea because "fuck Assad". Understandable viewpoint, just not particularly workable.

[Novus America]

But that is the issue. Sure we could send in the Marines and demolish ISIS' conventional forces and take their territory pretty easily. Then what? What is really needed is political, economic and social reforms. Not simply propping up shit governments who caused ISIS to rise in the first place.

As we discovered defeating these types in the battlefield is not terribly difficult. The problem is dealing with the seemingly intractable political and social problems in the region.

The reason for this is because we don't have a concise or realistic idea for what the future of Syria will be except for a long-term endgame. No more Assad? Topping. Arab Spring, hooray. Getting there is a pissing miasma.

We haven't learned from Libya or Iraq - I mean, Obama made comments saying that he was disappointed Cameron got "distracted" during Libya and that's why it fucked up, which isn't the reason at all. Obviously it didn't help.

The most stable way for Syria would be securing the Syrian state, and having Assad stand down. Obviously, some groups are completely intransigent to that idea because "fuck Assad". Understandable viewpoint, just not particularly workable.

Well there is not much of a Syrian state to secure. There is a Syrian warlord with an army. Not a functioning civil society. Sure ideally Assad and the opposition and work out a provisional government. But we tried that in Libya. It fell apart quickly.

The problem is much deeper. Syria is a poorly designed deeply divided colonial leftover with no real civil society. You cannot make chicken salad from chicken shit.

You cannot build a house without a foundation. It tooks us over 30 years to build a mostly working government in the Philippines. Nobody wants to invest the time and resources needed to make something out of Syria.

[Vistulange]

Take out Mossadegh in favour of the Shah? We wind up with Khomeini and Khamenei. Give weapons to Saddam to fight Khomeini? He turns them on Iraq's Kurds. Fund and train local mujaheedin to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? They become al-Qaeda. Take out Saddam? Al-Qaeda has an in, one branch grows even more radical than the rest, and schisms into Daesh. Have we learned nothing from each and every time we've meddled over there backfiring spectacularly?

Pretty much this.

[San Marxos]

Yes, that would be a great way to further radicalize the Middle East and turn the narrative from ISIS vs Everyone to Secular Heathen Imperialists vs Freedom-Fighting Muslims. That's exactly what we want to do.

What we need to do is create a coalition of Middle Eastern nations (consisting of more than just Saudi Arabia & Turkey) to take down ISIS. That can turn the narrative away from Muslim Believers vs Heathen Imperialists and towards Radical Islam vs Tolerant Islam. We can help the Tolerant Islam side of this narrative with military advisors and funding, but we cannot land troops in the Middle East. That'll simply fuel the flames of ISIS' narrative and radical Islam in the Middle East.

The only place we should deploy troops to is Saudi Arabia. It is a hugely bad nation which has more theocratic laws than anyone we are fighting except ISIS, and is far more powerful. We should try to be friends with Iran, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain. Qatar, Egypt, and Palestine. Not the apartheid state of Israel and the theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The only place we should deploy troops to is Saudi Arabia. It is a hugely bad nation which has more theocratic laws than anyone we are fighting except ISIS, and is far more powerful. We should try to be friends with Iran, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain. Qatar, Egypt, and Palestine. Not the apartheid state of Israel and the theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't back an invasion of Saudi Arabia, but they're definitely not our friends no matter how much they pretend to be and we definitely need to stop engaging with them as if they were.

[Vistulange]

Yes, that would be a great way to further radicalize the Middle East and turn the narrative from ISIS vs Everyone to Secular Heathen Imperialists vs Freedom-Fighting Muslims. That's exactly what we want to do.

What we need to do is create a coalition of Middle Eastern nations (consisting of more than just Saudi Arabia & Turkey) to take down ISIS. That can turn the narrative away from Muslim Believers vs Heathen Imperialists and towards Radical Islam vs Tolerant Islam. We can help the Tolerant Islam side of this narrative with military advisors and funding, but we cannot land troops in the Middle East. That'll simply fuel the flames of ISIS' narrative and radical Islam in the Middle East.

The only place we should deploy troops to is Saudi Arabia. It is a hugely bad nation which has more theocratic laws than anyone we are fighting except ISIS, and is far more powerful. We should try to be friends with Iran, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain. Qatar, Egypt, and Palestine. Not the apartheid state of Israel and the theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Israel is not an apartheid state. It has some human rights violations on its record, but nothing near an apartheid state.

Saudi Arabia is a shithole, that is true. The US should stop being so bloody friendly with them if they really want to counter global terrorism.

Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Egypt have their own problems. They really can't be arsed to deal with ISIS right now, so directly. Palestine has trouble being a government on its own, much less act against ISIS.

"Kurdistan" doesn't exist. You are probably referring to the Peshmerga of the KRG.

Turkey would be ideal...

...but there's this guy called Erdoğan and his institutionalised mafia called the "Justice and Development Party", abbreviated as "AKP" in Turkish. If you can take care of them, that would be just great.

[Novus America]

The only place we should deploy troops to is Saudi Arabia. It is a hugely bad nation which has more theocratic laws than anyone we are fighting except ISIS, and is far more powerful. We should try to be friends with Iran, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain. Qatar, Egypt, and Palestine. Not the apartheid state of Israel and the theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't back an invasion of Saudi Arabia, but they're definitely not our friends no matter how much they pretend to be and we definitely need to stop engaging with them as if they were.

True. Ultimately we need to have a sit down with the crown prince. Tell him to stop supporting Wahhabism abroad or face crushing sanctions. He is not stupid, and Saudi Arabia can no longer afford it anyways.

[Imperializt Russia]

The reason for this is because we don't have a concise or realistic idea for what the future of Syria will be except for a long-term endgame. No more Assad? Topping. Arab Spring, hooray. Getting there is a pissing miasma.

We haven't learned from Libya or Iraq - I mean, Obama made comments saying that he was disappointed Cameron got "distracted" during Libya and that's why it fucked up, which isn't the reason at all. Obviously it didn't help.

The most stable way for Syria would be securing the Syrian state, and having Assad stand down. Obviously, some groups are completely intransigent to that idea because "fuck Assad". Understandable viewpoint, just not particularly workable.

Well there is not much of a Syrian state to secure. There is a Syrian warlord with an army. Not a functioning civil society. Sure ideally Assad and the opposition and work out a provisional government. But we tried that in Libya. It fell apart quickly.

The problem is much deeper. Syria is a poorly designed deeply divided colonial leftover with no real civil society. You cannot make chicken salad from chicken shit.

You cannot build a house without a foundation. It tooks us over 30 years to build a mostly working government in the Philippines. Nobody wants to invest the time and resources needed to make something out of Syria.

The Russian air campaign has secured the place of the Syrian state. It had been beaten back from areas but nowhere near destroyed before now, but the Russian campaign has opened up vital routes and taken much pressure off. Given the "international ceasefire" on rebel groups not IS or al-Nusra, that's only going to be consolidated in future.

There can be no working future of Syria with Assad at the helm. But you're not going to get a functioning transition without him there to start it.

[Novus America]

Well there is not much of a Syrian state to secure. There is a Syrian warlord with an army. Not a functioning civil society. Sure ideally Assad and the opposition and work out a provisional government. But we tried that in Libya. It fell apart quickly.

The problem is much deeper. Syria is a poorly designed deeply divided colonial leftover with no real civil society. You cannot make chicken salad from chicken shit.

You cannot build a house without a foundation. It tooks us over 30 years to build a mostly working government in the Philippines. Nobody wants to invest the time and resources needed to make something out of Syria.

The Russian air campaign has secured the place of the Syrian state. It had been beaten back from areas but nowhere near destroyed before now, but the Russian campaign has opened up vital routes and taken much pressure off. Given the "international ceasefire" on rebel groups not IS or al-Nusra, that's only going to be consolidated in future.

There can be no working future of Syria with Assad at the helm. But you're not going to get a functioning transition without him there to start it.

A defacto feudal warlord is not a functioning state. Even if he is advancing. He has won some military victories. Not done anything towards fixing Syria's underlying problems. Thing is there can be no functioning transition without a civil society first. There is nothing to work off of. The mess that is the Syrian "state" will not be a functioning society simply by tranisitioning to a new leadership. It is building a house on sand. See Iraq or Libya. You cannot have a properly functioning modern government without a civil society to build it on.

Partioning is probably best but even then it will take a long time to build a proper and stable state.

[Valaran]

The only place we should deploy troops to is Saudi Arabia. It is a hugely bad nation which has more theocratic laws than anyone we are fighting except ISIS, and is far more powerful. We should try to be friends with Iran, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain. Qatar, Egypt, and Palestine. Not the apartheid state of Israel and the theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Israel is not an apartheid state. It has some human rights violations on its record, but nothing near an apartheid state.

Saudi Arabia is a shithole, that is true. The US should stop being so bloody friendly with them if they really want to counter global terrorism.

Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Egypt have their own problems. They really can't be arsed to deal with ISIS right now, so directly. Palestine has trouble being a government on its own, much less act against ISIS.

"Kurdistan" doesn't exist. You are probably referring to the Peshmerga of the KRG.

Turkey would be ideal...

...but there's this guy called Erdoğan and his institutionalised mafia called the "Justice and Development Party", abbreviated as "AKP" in Turkish. If you can take care of them, that would be just great.

Jordan is decent!

Shame its can't into relevancy enough, though perhaps that's how its managed to survive for so long. Really one of the fragile places right now.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Russian air campaign has secured the place of the Syrian state. It had been beaten back from areas but nowhere near destroyed before now, but the Russian campaign has opened up vital routes and taken much pressure off. Given the "international ceasefire" on rebel groups not IS or al-Nusra, that's only going to be consolidated in future.

There can be no working future of Syria with Assad at the helm. But you're not going to get a functioning transition without him there to start it.

A defacto feudal warlord is not a functioning state. Even if he is advancing. He has won some military victories. Not done anything towards fixing Syria's underlying problems. Thing is there can be no functioning transition without a civil society first. There is nothing to work off of. The mess that is the Syrian "state" will not be a functioning society simply by tranisitioning to a new leadership. It is building a house on sand. See Iraq or Libya. You cannot have a properly functioning modern government without a civil society to build it on.

Partioning is probably best but even then it will take a long time to build a proper and stable state.

You can't have a civil society and a state that carries out all of its duties in the worst civil war the world has seen for decades. It's a three-way conflict that has torn Syria completely asunder for the last half a decade.

[Novus America]

A defacto feudal warlord is not a functioning state. Even if he is advancing. He has won some military victories. Not done anything towards fixing Syria's underlying problems. Thing is there can be no functioning transition without a civil society first. There is nothing to work off of. The mess that is the Syrian "state" will not be a functioning society simply by tranisitioning to a new leadership. It is building a house on sand. See Iraq or Libya. You cannot have a properly functioning modern government without a civil society to build it on.

Partioning is probably best but even then it will take a long time to build a proper and stable state.

You can't have a civil society and a state that carries out all of its duties in the worst civil war the world has seen for decades. It's a three-way conflict that has torn Syria completely asunder for the last half a decade.

Well if he started building a civil society a decade ago there might not be a civil war. Which is more like a five (plus) way war but anyways.

Yes, which is why I do not think Syria's current borders are tenable. Probably best way is Balkanize it. That would mostly end the war and reduce ethnic infighting in the long run.

You basically have a paradox. You cannot end the civil war without civil society, but cannot have civil society without ending the civil war. Maybe time to try something new vs the "uphold colonial borders at all cost" crap.

[Vistulange]

You can't have a civil society and a state that carries out all of its duties in the worst civil war the world has seen for decades. It's a three-way conflict that has torn Syria completely asunder for the last half a decade.

Well if he started building a civil society a decade ago there might not be a civil war. Which is more like a five (plus) way war but anyways.

Yes, which is why I do not think Syria's current borders are tenable. Probably best way is Balkanize it. That would mostly end the war and reduce ethnic infighting in the long run.

You basically have a paradox. You cannot end the civil war without civil society, but cannot have civil society without ending the civil war. Maybe time to try something new vs the "uphold colonial borders at all cost" crap.

Yes, the 1990's were such a good time in the Balkans.

Where do you get your shit from, Novus?

[Geilinor]

Well if he started building a civil society a decade ago there might not be a civil war. Which is more like a five (plus) way war but anyways.

Yes, which is why I do not think Syria's current borders are tenable. Probably best way is Balkanize it. That would mostly end the war and reduce ethnic infighting in the long run.

You basically have a paradox. You cannot end the civil war without civil society, but cannot have civil society without ending the civil war. Maybe time to try something new vs the "uphold colonial borders at all cost" crap.

Yes, the 1990's were such a good time in the Balkans.

Where do you get your shit from, Novus?

Of course they weren't a good time, but it isn't as if Syria is any better than the Balkans in the 1990's. ISIS has already committed ethnic cleansing.

[Esternial]

I'd go faster, but we'd inevitably be losing men and women out there.

I think we should. The longer this takes the more people in the middle east will die, people that didn't sign up to be in a warzone.

[Novus America]

Well if he started building a civil society a decade ago there might not be a civil war. Which is more like a five (plus) way war but anyways.

Yes, which is why I do not think Syria's current borders are tenable. Probably best way is Balkanize it. That would mostly end the war and reduce ethnic infighting in the long run.

You basically have a paradox. You cannot end the civil war without civil society, but cannot have civil society without ending the civil war. Maybe time to try something new vs the "uphold colonial borders at all cost" crap.

Yes, the 1990's were such a good time in the Balkans.

Where do you get your shit from, Novus?

No, they were not a good time. But a start of something better. They are not so bad now. Do you think propping up the failed Yugoslavia would have been better? Fact is an external conflict is easier to overcome. A state can surivive a external Cold War like stand off. It can actually make it strong. But an internal such conflict causes the state to fail.

[Valaran]

I'd go faster, but we'd inevitably be losing men and women out there.

I think we should. The longer this takes the more people in the middle east will die, people that didn't sign up to be in a warzone.

It wouldn't necessarily stop the killing, in short. There's a strong case to be made that the violence would increase, and the idea that this would be a viable and effective solution seems, personally, very optimistic.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I think we should. The longer this takes the more people in the middle east will die, people that didn't sign up to be in a warzone.

My disagreement with the notion of invading Syria has already been noted elsewhere, but your last part got me thinking: How long do you suppose it'll be before someone who's against doing a damned thing for refugees turns around and says those who haven't left did sign up for it by not leaving?

[Valaran]

I think we should. The longer this takes the more people in the middle east will die, people that didn't sign up to be in a warzone.

My disagreement with the notion of invading Syria has already been noted elsewhere, but your last part got me thinking: How long do you suppose it'll be before someone who's against doing a damned thing for refugees turns around and says those who haven't left did sign up for it by not leaving?

I've seen posters state that anyone in IS territory is probably a supporter of them, and so we're ok in treating them as hostile (if not quite enemy combatants). Now, that isn't quite so horrible as it sounds - many are supporters of IS, or at least prefer it to the Iraqi state/Assad (for various reasons, mostly having to do with massacres and sectarian divisions), but still :/

[Leudal (Ancient)]

They really shouldn't as it would only make matters worse. Aside from that it would be more or less impossible considering that Daesh is active in a large amount of nations and has supporters across the globe.
Now lets say the US would be somehow capable of invading Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Nigeria (so bascily only those in which Daesh is a serious threat) with or without permissions of governments, it still leaves huge problems that the US would have to deal with. For example, looking at both Syria and Yemen, the US would be forced to chose sides in the general conflicts there, eventually resulting ina much broader war that would last decades if not longer and in the end would only fuel new generations of extremists.

The best the US, and any other less affected countries can and should do is to support those fighting Daesh. That means sending them proper arms, ammunition, personal equipment and offering them air support and sharing intelligence. In the end only they themselves can end Daesh and save a future generation from becoming such extremists.

[The Princes of the Universe]

My disagreement with the notion of invading Syria has already been noted elsewhere, but your last part got me thinking: How long do you suppose it'll be before someone who's against doing a damned thing for refugees turns around and says those who haven't left did sign up for it by not leaving?

I've seen posters state that anyone in IS territory is probably a supporter of them, and so we're ok in treating them as hostile (if not quite enemy combatants). Now, that isn't quite so horrible as it sounds - many are supporters of IS, or at least prefer it to the Iraqi state/Assad (for various reasons, mostly having to do with massacres and sectarian divisions), but still :/

...I need a drink.