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

[Korica]

you can't send troops into a foreign nation without asking the government's permission, and we all know what the U.S thinks of the Syrian government.

[Valaran]

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.

Yeah. Its messed up enough for that.

[Esternial]

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?

Probably happening already.

[The Princes of the Universe]

...I need a drink.

Yeah. Its messed up enough for that.

Something tells me the only way this situation will have any chance of ending up in the neighbourhood of well is to partition both countries. I'm really not seeing any way around it.

[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?

Probably happening already.

Valaran confirms it's already happened here. I don't want to be human anymore.

[Outer Sparta]

you can't send troops into a foreign nation without asking the government's permission, and we all know what the U.S thinks of the Syrian government.

There is no way in history that the U.S. did ask permission to be in certain wars.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

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 would honestly not buy that story. Those that could flee have indeed done so but one should realize that some aren't capable of fleeing anywhere and just have to face the harsh reality of living under Daesh. Saying that those who remained are supporters of Daesh is just far from the truth and honestly a quiet disturbing thought aswell. For example, do these people strike you as those who liked Daesh?

The biggest problem is that because so many people fled there isn't much hope nor much capability to stage an uprising against Daesh. And if all those people had stayed it would still be a 50-50 chance, either it would have to be done like the Uprising in Herat or it would end in a mass slaughter of civilians.
For such uprising to ever happen, even with the full population would require many troops both in and outside the cities, a thing that could not be done at the time Daesh took it all. Today the day it could be done but i don't think the population is large and strong enough to handle something like that.

In the end its more or less like saying that 3/4 of Europe supported the Nazi's because they didn't flee. We ofcourse know that this is far from the truth, yet such logic is being applied by some today.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

you can't send troops into a foreign nation without asking the government's permission, and we all know what the U.S thinks of the Syrian government.

There is no way in history that the U.S. did ask permission to be in certain wars.

Well there was the Gulf War, which had UN approval attached to it and i doubt Kuwait disagreed... But yeah, its not really that common, not for the US nor for any other nation really.

[Valaran]

Yeah. Its messed up enough for that.

Something tells me the only way this situation will have any chance of ending up in the neighbourhood of well is to partition both countries. I'm really not seeing any way around it.

It seems like the best plan, but I'd argue that its too messy to achieve. Here an ethnic map, compared with a religious one. I'd note that these are actually simplified versions - here's a more detailed one of Syria, for instance, and one of Iraq. Several places, including very important areas (I didn't give a map of oil reserves) have mixed populations espcially urban centres (the Iraq one didn't even bother to show how Baghdad was divided). Even if we had complete authority, to partition things fairly would be practically impossible, and any such division would likely lead to all sides trying to claim as much territory as possible, leading to renewed fighting if not outright genocide (what happened in Israel, Yugoslavia and India-Pakistan sets some chilling precedents).

Taking a leaf out of the Arab Nationalists book, their idea was to transcend religious and ethnic boundaries by supplanting it with national identities. In many cases, they did it wrong, incorrectly thinking that military industrial complexes, bureaucracy and cronyism, a hatred of Israel and populism were sustainable methods of creating these national identities (in reality ones needs careful development of governmental institutions and the like), but perhaps this idea is the one we should be advising?

I would honestly not buy that story. Those that could flee have indeed done so but one should realize that some aren't capable of fleeing anywhere and just have to face the harsh reality of living under Daesh. Saying that those who remained are supporters of Daesh is just far from the truth and honestly a quiet disturbing thought aswell. For example, do these people strike you as those who liked Daesh?

The biggest problem is that because so many people fled there isn't much hope nor much capability to stage an uprising against Daesh. And if all those people had stayed it would still be a 50-50 chance, either it would have to be done like the Uprising in Herat or it would end in a mass slaughter of civilians.
For such uprising to ever happen, even with the full population would require many troops both in and outside the cities, a thing that could not be done at the time Daesh took it all. Today the day it could be done but i don't think the population is large and strong enough to handle something like that.

Yeah. Pretty faulty logic, to be sure.

(If it wasn't so late, I'd dig up the posts).

[New Horensian Kingdom]

Well, there are multiple steps, and not all in this specific order:

1. Support the Kurds, a LOT. If Turkey doesn't like it, we'll tell them, "Oh you don't like us backing Syrian/Iraqi Kurds? We'll just cut you off from military aid then."
1a. Set up a Kurdish state carved out of Iraqi/Syrian/Turkish Kurdistan. Once again, if Turkey complains, we'll threaten to cut off their military aid.
1b. Ensure NATO membership for said Kurdish state.

2. There's no way Assad can stay in power. Once ISIS is reduced to a footnote in history, the Syrians will point a lot of fingers at him, and rightfully so. After all, the Syrian Civil War started as a rather popular and civil uprising against his oppressive rule that only turned violent when he responded to protesters with bullets. There are also credible allegations he let jihadists out of prison to help discredit the rebels early in the war before ISIS rose, which I would not have a hard time believing.
2a. Assad, his family, and the other high-ranks in the Syrian Government/Military will be placed in protective custody by NATO forces pending any sort of criminal charges that may be brought up due to his actions. We will NOT do a repeat of De-Ba'athification in Iraq. Instead, we will let mid-level and low-level members of his government stay put, so long as they pledge allegiance to a post-Assad government and aren't directly implicated in any sort of crimes against humanity. If they are not criminals but do not pledge allegiance, they can peacefully live in Syria as regular citizens or they can leave.
2b. Establish a United Nations-led peacekeeping force in Syria to oversee democratic elections and the formation of a new government (similar to the Yugoslavia region). The old Syrian flag the Free Syrian Army used will be adopted as the new flag of Syria.

3. Establish other United Nations peacekeeping forces in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq, they will oversee the rebuilding of order in former ISIS territories. In Libya, they will oversee the new coalition government.

4. Now, to get to the goal of defeating ISIS, we will do the following:
4a. Pressure the Saudis/Qataris/etc. to go after individuals backing ISIS and other jihadist groups similar to ISIS by threatening them with sanctions. "If you don't go after these backers, we won't buy your oil and we won't supply your military."
4b. Give incentives to Saudi Arabia to commit much more to a coalition against ISIS. "If you increase your forces, we'll buy more oil from you and increase military aid."
4c. The coalition will be (at the minimum) as follows: NATO, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kurds, Free Syrians, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Libya, etc.
4d. Invite Iran and Russia to join, so long as they drop military and financial aid to Assad. If they don't, we'll pressure them as well.
4e. Contribute a max of 15,000 troops to the war effort out of a minimum of 500,000. The rest of NATO and the Middle East coalition will have to contribute the rest.
4f. Dig up some kind of dirt on ISIS leaders and disseminate it through propaganda.
4g. Use airstrikes and spec ops missions to either kill or capture (most likely kill) ISIS leaders. Sure, others may take their spots, but I doubt they will be as effective or good at their job as the last guy. Plus, you may get other people in ISIS to wonder, "Hey, why wasn't I promoted and he/she was?! Time to do a coup and destabilize my own group!"
4h. Do everything in our power to kill Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the so-called "caliph" of ISIS. His death would severely demoralize ISIS.
4i. Let the refugees in. ISIS will not be able to propagandize the rejection of refugees as a sign that the west "is waging a war on Islam." Once the conflict is over, they will be given the option of going back to Syria/Iraq to help rebuild with their fellow countrymen with an incentive of some money, or they can stay in their host nation.
4j. Make sure Trump never steps foot in the White House. ISIS would orgasm if Trump became president, since his mere status as President would add a massive amount of fuel to the whole "the west is waging war against Islam, so you should join ISIS" argument. Same goes for Cruz, especially Cruz, since he uses religion in his arguments even more than Trump.
4k. Organize an uprising similar to the 2001 Herat Uprising in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the 2006 Sunni Awakening in Iraq against Al-Qaeda.

[Vistulange]

Well, there are multiple steps, and not all in this specific order:

1. Support the Kurds, a LOT. If Turkey doesn't like it, we'll tell them, "Oh you don't like us backing Syrian/Iraqi Kurds? We'll just cut you off from military aid then."
1a. Set up a Kurdish state carved out of Iraqi/Syrian/Turkish Kurdistan. Once again, if Turkey complains, we'll threaten to cut off their military aid.
1b. Ensure NATO membership for said Kurdish state.

2. There's no way Assad can stay in power. Once ISIS is reduced to a footnote in history, the Syrians will point a lot of fingers at him, and rightfully so. After all, the Syrian Civil War started as a rather popular and civil uprising against his oppressive rule that only turned violent when he responded to protesters with bullets. There are also credible allegations he let jihadists out of prison to help discredit the rebels early in the war before ISIS rose, which I would not have a hard time believing.
2a. Assad, his family, and the other high-ranks in the Syrian Government/Military will be placed in protective custody by NATO forces pending any sort of criminal charges that may be brought up due to his actions. We will NOT do a repeat of De-Ba'athification in Iraq. Instead, we will let mid-level and low-level members of his government stay put, so long as they pledge allegiance to a post-Assad government and aren't directly implicated in any sort of crimes against humanity. If they are not criminals but do not pledge allegiance, they can peacefully live in Syria as regular citizens or they can leave.
2b. Establish a United Nations-led peacekeeping force in Syria to oversee democratic elections and the formation of a new government (similar to the Yugoslavia region). The old Syrian flag the Free Syrian Army used will be adopted as the new flag of Syria.

3. Establish other United Nations peacekeeping forces in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq, they will oversee the rebuilding of order in former ISIS territories. In Libya, they will oversee the new coalition government.

4. Now, to get to the goal of defeating ISIS, we will do the following:
4a. Pressure the Saudis/Qataris/etc. to go after individuals backing ISIS and other jihadist groups similar to ISIS by threatening them with sanctions. "If you don't go after these backers, we won't buy your oil and we won't supply your military."
4b. Give incentives to Saudi Arabia to commit much more to a coalition against ISIS. "If you increase your forces, we'll buy more oil from you and increase military aid."
4c. The coalition will be (at the minimum) as follows: NATO, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kurds, Free Syrians, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Libya, etc.
4d. Invite Iran and Russia to join, so long as they drop military and financial aid to Assad. If they don't, we'll pressure them as well.
4e. Contribute a max of 15,000 troops to the war effort out of a minimum of 500,000. The rest of NATO and the Middle East coalition will have to contribute the rest.
4f. Dig up some kind of dirt on ISIS leaders and disseminate it through propaganda.
4g. Use airstrikes and spec ops missions to either kill or capture (most likely kill) ISIS leaders. Sure, others may take their spots, but I doubt they will be as effective or good at their job as the last guy. Plus, you may get other people in ISIS to wonder, "Hey, why wasn't I promoted and he/she was?! Time to do a coup and destabilize my own group!"
4h. Do everything in our power to kill Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the so-called "caliph" of ISIS. His death would severely demoralize ISIS.
4i. Let the refugees in. ISIS will not be able to propagandize the rejection of refugees as a sign that the west "is waging a war on Islam." Once the conflict is over, they will be given the option of going back to Syria/Iraq to help rebuild with their fellow countrymen with an incentive of some money, or they can stay in their host nation.
4j. Make sure Trump never steps foot in the White House. ISIS would orgasm if Trump became president, since his mere status as President would add a massive amount of fuel to the whole "the west is waging war against Islam, so you should join ISIS" argument. Same goes for Cruz, especially Cruz, since he uses religion in his arguments even more than Trump.
4k. Organize an uprising similar to the 2001 Herat Uprising in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the 2006 Sunni Awakening in Iraq against Al-Qaeda.

Oh God, you are hilarious. Truly. Do you have any understanding of the regional dynamics? Or are you just sitting at your home reading from Wikipedia?

A Syrian peace without Turkish and Iranian co-operation is unthinkable. Your stupid plan involves alienating Turkey. Let's assume you did cut us off from aid and carve out a part of our country. Do you honestly think we'll be fine with that, the country you probably assume to be filled with barbarians? You'll have fostered another Iran on the doorstep to Europe, and I'm not sure Frau Merkel or Monsieur Hollande would be too happy about that.

Go learn a few things about the whole fucking region, especially that the Kurds aren't some group of democratic, human-rights loving, rainbow-puking hippies.

And you also seem to have this naive idea that the United States can force anybody to do as it wills by saying "if you don't do X, we'll do Y". It's not a unipolar world any longer. Wake up from your bloody wet dream. There's always China and Russia to side with. They might be pretty bad countries, but at least they didn't engineer a coup d'etat in my country like the Yanks did.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

It's not a paradox, it's entirely possible, we're just not at the stage it can occur.

Insurgencies can operate indefinitely when externally supported. Who is the west backing? Insurgent groups.

[-The West Coast-]

Since I'm a soldier and I have served over there, I'd volunteer to deploy again if it meant I got to fight Daesh and push them back into the pit they crawled out of.

[Trumpostan]

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?

As the late Billy Mays once said... BUT WAIT! There's more!

militias armed by Pentagon fight militias armed by CIA

Yup... the only way that can get more interesting is if we send actual ground troops (CIA dudes as well as military) and they support their respective client militias and fire on eachother too.

Lesson learned: lets GTFO of there.

[Trumpostan]

especially that the Kurds aren't some group of democratic, human-rights loving, rainbow-puking hippies.

Of course not. They are defending their people from the occupation and brutal oppression by Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. How would you feel if someone occupied your entire country and stole your resources from under your very nose. The Kurds got the short end of the stick after the end of WW I and the breakup of the tyrannical Ottoman Empire.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The Syrian government forces seem to be doing well lately with Western and Russian air support, so while I'd still want to see the full power of NATO cut loose on the subhuman Islamist vermin for a swift resolution, perhaps that won't be necessary after all.

Let's see how things turn out in a few months.

[Valaran]

The Syrian government forces seem to be doing well lately with Western and Russian air support, so while I'd still want to see the full power of NATO cut loose on the subhuman Islamist vermin for a swift resolution, perhaps that won't be necessary after all.

Its relative. Its been doing very well on the strategic front, but mostly not against IS, and it hasn't been doing so great at capturing swathes of territory. Arguably, given that Aleppo is still split, perhaps it didn't even achieve its main objective (despite cutting the rebels off there). Assad fundamentally has still suffered from severe military attrition, as have a lot of his backers (Russia aside), so its unclear to what extent he can keep pushing forwards (not to mention most of the places he is eyeing up aren't IS controlled). The only real success against IS has been at Palmyra, which is on the western edge of its 2015 advance. I think a good litmus test is how well the SA does in Deir ez-Zor against IS.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

especially that the Kurds aren't some group of democratic, human-rights loving, rainbow-puking hippies.

Of course not. They are defending their people from the occupation and brutal oppression by Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. How would you feel if someone occupied your entire country and stole your resources from under your very nose. The Kurds got the short end of the stick after the end of WW I and the breakup of the tyrannical Ottoman Empire.

Its like saying the entire US is occupying native american lands, its honestly redicilous.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

Since I'm a soldier and I have served over there, I'd volunteer to deploy again if it meant I got to fight Daesh and push them back into the pit they crawled out of.

The thing is, that pit they crawled out of was in fact opened up because of western intervention. If anything we should have learned by now that interventions from the outside will only make matters worse.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Syrian government forces seem to be doing well lately with Western and Russian air support, so while I'd still want to see the full power of NATO cut loose on the subhuman Islamist vermin for a swift resolution, perhaps that won't be necessary after all.

Its relative. Its been doing very well on the strategic front, but mostly not against IS, and it hasn't been doing so great at capturing swathes of territory. Arguably, given that Aleppo is still split, perhaps it didn't even achieve its main objective (despite cutting the rebels off there). Assad fundamentally has still suffered from severe military attrition, as have a lot of his backers (Russia aside), so its unclear to what extent he can keep pushing forwards (not to mention most of the places he is eyeing up aren't IS controlled). The only real success against IS has been at Palmyra, which is on the western edge of its 2015 advance. I think a good litmus test is how well the SA does in Deir ez-Zor against IS.

The strategic objective as far as the Russians seem to have been concerned was giving the government forces an advantageous position, not doing their job for them, and on that basis was successful.

Aleppo is still split, but the rebel and IS positions there are in pretty bad shape and unless the situation's changed much they're basically encircled with supply lines cut.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

The Syrian government forces seem to be doing well lately with Western and Russian air support, so while I'd still want to see the full power of NATO cut loose on the subhuman Islamist vermin for a swift resolution, perhaps that won't be necessary after all.

Its relative. Its been doing very well on the strategic front, but mostly not against IS, and it hasn't been doing so great at capturing swathes of territory. Arguably, given that Aleppo is still split, perhaps it didn't even achieve its main objective (despite cutting the rebels off there). Assad fundamentally has still suffered from severe military attrition, as have a lot of his backers (Russia aside), so its unclear to what extent he can keep pushing forwards (not to mention most of the places he is eyeing up aren't IS controlled). The only real success against IS has been at Palmyra, which is on the western edge of its 2015 advance. I think a good litmus test is how well the SA does in Deir ez-Zor against IS.

Swathes of territory don't mean much if you can't get supplies there, and that's what the government troops are currently doing, securing their supplylines and crippling those of their enemies, making room for easier and quicker battles to get the desired territory.
As for Deir-ez-Zor, i'm afraid it will still be a long battle there. I'm honestly quiet amazed at how long the government managed to keep hold of that part of the city. Thing is that Daesh can easely resupply their men there so i'm not entirely sure if the government will go and attack the city right away.

[Valaran]

Its relative. Its been doing very well on the strategic front, but mostly not against IS, and it hasn't been doing so great at capturing swathes of territory. Arguably, given that Aleppo is still split, perhaps it didn't even achieve its main objective (despite cutting the rebels off there). Assad fundamentally has still suffered from severe military attrition, as have a lot of his backers (Russia aside), so its unclear to what extent he can keep pushing forwards (not to mention most of the places he is eyeing up aren't IS controlled). The only real success against IS has been at Palmyra, which is on the western edge of its 2015 advance. I think a good litmus test is how well the SA does in Deir ez-Zor against IS.

Swathes of territory don't mean much if you can't get supplies there, and that's what the government troops are currently doing, securing their supplylines and crippling those of their enemies, making room for easier and quicker battles to get the desired territory.
As for Deir-ez-Zor, i'm afraid it will still be a long battle there. I'm honestly quiet amazed at how long the government managed to keep hold of that part of the city. Thing is that Daesh can easely resupply their men there so i'm not entirely sure if the government will go and attack the city right away.

Frankly, the government is doing well with what it can do, but it simply can't yet secure swathes of territory, even with good supply lines. It took a lot of supply lines around Aleppo, but has yet to take Aleppo, or make significant inroads into Idlib province. Securing the supply lines is a good plan, but it was also their only viable plan, so I don't really see it as a strategic coup. Moreover, given the relatively compact territory Assad holds, this was always going to be the easier part for him - its easier for the SA to redeploy up and down the central axis of Damascus to Aleppo (which they held before the major push at the end of last year), so I never really considered their main areas in danger of being cut off, aside from a vulnerable highway to Aleppo, and various outposts (Deir ez-Zor, whatever goes on in Hassakh). So, its good, but not indicative of Assad being able to make wider gains against the 'regular' rebels, or having enough strength for a separate push east against IS.

I was looking it up, and Daesh is still outnumbered by government forces (by about 2:1). Secondly, I think both sides have other priorities, and so aren't using their full force. I'm curious to see how it grinds on, but mostly I was using it as an exmaple simply as IS and Assad aren't clashing that much. Maybe Palmyra & environs is a better case study to watch, but perhaps after the symbolically significant recapture of the town, Assad might just not press further.

E: I see that Deirez-Zor might be targeted next, since Palmyra has been recaptured

[Novus America]

The Syrian government forces seem to be doing well lately with Western and Russian air support, so while I'd still want to see the full power of NATO cut loose on the subhuman Islamist vermin for a swift resolution, perhaps that won't be necessary after all.

Let's see how things turn out in a few months.

Obviously NATO could crush ISIS with ease. They are a few thousand over extended and poorly supplied madmen. The question is then what? ISIS is just the symptom of a fundamentally messed up social, political and economic order.

[Novus America]

Since I'm a soldier and I have served over there, I'd volunteer to deploy again if it meant I got to fight Daesh and push them back into the pit they crawled out of.

The thing is, that pit they crawled out of was in fact opened up because of western intervention. If anything we should have learned by now that interventions from the outside will only make matters worse.

Even without western intervention things would likly be just as bad. The Arab Spring would have still happened and turned Iraq into a Syria like mess.

The Arab people are rightly angry at their so called "leaders" who are most corrupt and incompetent and have left the region a mess. Problem is they have no workable plan as to what to do after said leaders are gone.

[The Princes of the Universe]

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?

As the late Billy Mays once said... BUT WAIT! There's more!
militias armed by Pentagon fight militias armed by CIA
Yup... the only way that can get more interesting is if we send actual ground troops (CIA dudes as well as military) and they support their respective client militias and fire on eachother too.
Lesson learned: lets GTFO of there.

*hard facedesk*