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

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Honestly, as someone from a country where the U.S. backed several atrocities, this is the primary reason why any U.S. intervention will not work as intended.

The rest of the world is sick and tired of having the U.S. throwing its weight around like a primadonna.

[HMS Vanguard]

If the US goes back to Iraq, it must be as a colonial power. Law enforcement should be handled by native troops with bilingual American officers, with the death penalty for desertion or individual mutiny and collective punishment for whole civilian districts for large scale mutiny. This can keep order, and eventually eliminate radical Islam, which is probably considered mainstream Islam or just Islam by the inhabitants.

Of course the US will not do this, so instead it must accept the Baghdadi Caliphate.

[Novus America]

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.

Honestly, as someone from a country where the U.S. backed several atrocities, this is the primary reason why any U.S. intervention will not work as intended.

The rest of the world is sick and tired of having the U.S. throwing its weight around like a primadonna.

Yeah, cause what Russia is doing to Ukraine or China is doing to the Phillipines is so much better.
Instead Russia and China should throw their weight around, but unlike the US who left Iraq they are there to stay.

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The rest of the world is sick and tired of having the U.S. throwing its weight around like a primadonna.

More than a few who have never lived anywhere else are sick and tired of it too.

If the US goes back to Iraq, it must be as a colonial power. Law enforcement should be handled by native troops with bilingual American officers, with the death penalty for desertion or individual mutiny and collective punishment for whole civilian districts for large scale mutiny. This can keep order, and eventually eliminate radical Islam, which is probably considered mainstream Islam or just Islam by the inhabitants.

If I had a week, I still wouldn't have enough time to explain why this White Man's Burden bullshit wouldn't work.

[Valaran]

If I had a week, I still wouldn't have enough time to explain why this White Man's Burden bullshit wouldn't work.

It is certainly a flawed plan.

[HMS Vanguard]

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

At the peak of the imperial period Europe was enveloped in war but the rest of the world was comparatively peaceful.

Europe is at peace today because of the tremendous superiority in power of the US. European countries can't profitably fight one another any more, because the winner is the side supported by the US. Europe rationally chose simply to align its policy to be acceptable to the US, and not fight, resulting in policy of European countries being more or less the same everywhere. This in turn is permitting political unification.

The US conquered Europe at arm's length and didn't take responsibility for the European empires nor permit the Europeans to act in proxy. As a result there has been in the second half the twentieth century, and is now, far more violence in the third world than there was in 1900.

[Genivaria]

The rest of the world is sick and tired of having the U.S. throwing its weight around like a primadonna.

More than a few who have never lived anywhere else are sick and tired of it too.

If the US goes back to Iraq, it must be as a colonial power. Law enforcement should be handled by native troops with bilingual American officers, with the death penalty for desertion or individual mutiny and collective punishment for whole civilian districts for large scale mutiny. This can keep order, and eventually eliminate radical Islam, which is probably considered mainstream Islam or just Islam by the inhabitants.

If I had a week, I still wouldn't have enough time to explain why this White Man's Burden bullshit wouldn't work.

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.

If the Zulu for example weren't wiped out by the British then they might have gone on to build their own nation-state in South Africa.
Compared to most Japan got off very lightly in terms of colonialism and was thus free to rapidly industrialize in relative peace from European interference.

Others like say China didn't have that luxury.

[HMS Vanguard]

More than a few who have never lived anywhere else are sick and tired of it too.


If I had a week, I still wouldn't have enough time to explain why this White Man's Burden bullshit wouldn't work.

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.

The cause was removal of imperial rule, not imperial rule.

Under the British, for instance, Hindus and Muslims lived relatively peacefully in a single India without borders. Why? Because if Hindu or Muslim mobs formed to carry out pogroms, the British would shoot them all down. Everyone knew this, so tended not to form mobs to carry out pogroms.

When it became clear that the British would withdraw, the knives came out, and the country had to be partitioned, but they're still trying to pogrom each other, now with nuclear weapons. The British did not make the Muslims and the Hindus hate one another; they did provide an external source of order suppressing violence between them, much like the US in Europe.

[Novus America]

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

At the peak of the imperial period Europe was enveloped in war but the rest of the world was comparatively peaceful.

Europe is at peace today because of the tremendous superiority in power of the US. European countries can't profitably fight one another any more, because the winner is the side supported by the US. Europe rationally chose simply to align its policy to be acceptable to the US, and not fight, resulting in policy of European countries being more or less the same everywhere. This in turn is permitting political unification.

The US conquered Europe at arm's length and didn't take responsibility for the European empires nor permit the Europeans to act in proxy. As a result there has been in the second half the twentieth century, and is now, far more violence in the third world than there was in 1900.

Yes because things like the Belgian Congo and German Southwest Africa were so peaceful.

You know how many people were dying under the brutal imperial regimes? And we had a massive war in the first world too! Good times.

The peak of the Imperial period was so great! WWI was such a good time to be had by all.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.
If the Zulu for example weren't wiped out by the British then they might have gone on to build their own nation-state in South Africa.
Compared to most Japan got off very lightly in terms of colonialism and was thus free to rapidly industrialize in relative peace from European interference.
Others like say China didn't have that luxury.

I wonder what a Zululand that hadn't been wiped out might look like today?

[HMS Vanguard]

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.
If the Zulu for example weren't wiped out by the British then they might have gone on to build their own nation-state in South Africa.
Compared to most Japan got off very lightly in terms of colonialism and was thus free to rapidly industrialize in relative peace from European interference.
Others like say China didn't have that luxury.

I wonder what a Zululand that hadn't been wiped out might look like today?

Zululand still exists and is still inhabited by Zulus who speak Zulu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zululand_ ... nicipality

[Novus America]

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.

The cause was removal of imperial rule, not imperial rule.

Under the British, for instance, Hindus and Muslims lived relatively peacefully in a single India without borders. Why? Because if Hindu or Muslim mobs formed to carry out pogroms, the British would shoot them all down. Everyone knew this, so tended not to form mobs to carry out pogroms.

When it became clear that the British would withdraw, the knives came out, and the country had to be partitioned, but they're still trying to pogrom each other, now with nuclear weapons. The British did not make the Muslims and the Hindus hate one another; they did provide an external source of order suppressing violence between them, much like the US in Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallian ... h_massacre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

Good times...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Honestly, as someone from a country where the U.S. backed several atrocities, this is the primary reason why any U.S. intervention will not work as intended.

The rest of the world is sick and tired of having the U.S. throwing its weight around like a primadonna.

Yeah, cause what Russia is doing to Ukraine or China is doing to the Phillipines is so much better.
Instead Russia and China should throw their weight around, but unlike the US who left Iraq they are there to stay.

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.

But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The cause was removal of imperial rule, not imperial rule.
Under the British, for instance, Hindus and Muslims lived relatively peacefully in a single India without borders. Why? Because if Hindu or Muslim mobs formed to carry out pogroms, the British would shoot them all down. Everyone knew this, so tended not to form mobs to carry out pogroms.
When it became clear that the British would withdraw, the knives came out, and the country had to be partitioned, but they're still trying to pogrom each other, now with nuclear weapons. The British did not make the Muslims and the Hindus hate one another; they did provide an external source of order suppressing violence between them, much like the US in Europe.

If imperial rule was, as you say, the only thing keeping pogroms from happening, then the situation wasn't anywhere near as stable as you want us to think in reality, now was it?

I wonder what a Zululand that hadn't been wiped out might look like today?

Zululand still exists and is still inhabited by Zulus who speak Zulu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zululand_ ... nicipality

You know what I mean.

[HMS Vanguard]

At the peak of the imperial period Europe was enveloped in war but the rest of the world was comparatively peaceful.

Europe is at peace today because of the tremendous superiority in power of the US. European countries can't profitably fight one another any more, because the winner is the side supported by the US. Europe rationally chose simply to align its policy to be acceptable to the US, and not fight, resulting in policy of European countries being more or less the same everywhere. This in turn is permitting political unification.

The US conquered Europe at arm's length and didn't take responsibility for the European empires nor permit the Europeans to act in proxy. As a result there has been in the second half the twentieth century, and is now, far more violence in the third world than there was in 1900.

Yes because things like the Belgian Congo and German Southwest Africa were so peaceful.

You know how many people were dying under the brutal imperial regimes? And we had a massive war in the first world too! Good times.

The peak of the Imperial period was so great! WWI was such a good time to be had by all.

The Belgian Congo was peaceful, well governed, and relatively prosperous. You are thinking of the Congo Free State, which was abolished in 1908.

As the worst example of colonial treatment, the Free State was better than Cambodia, the worst example of post-colonial treatment.

[Mugrul]

Yeah, cause what Russia is doing to Ukraine or China is doing to the Phillipines is so much better.
Instead Russia and China should throw their weight around, but unlike the US who left Iraq they are there to stay.

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.

But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

How have they been racist?

[The Princes of the Universe]

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.
But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

How have they been racist?

The same White Man's Burden bullshit that fueled shit like the Scramble for Africa.

[Novus America]

Yeah, cause what Russia is doing to Ukraine or China is doing to the Phillipines is so much better.
Instead Russia and China should throw their weight around, but unlike the US who left Iraq they are there to stay.

The solution to flawed US interventions is definitely some good old pre WWI cynical real politick imperialism. Cause the multipolar imperial world was such a gas the first time around. We definitely have gone too long with out a world war.

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.

But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

It does have to do with US dominance. The pre US dominated multipolar war brought us WWI. And the much bigger, flashier sequel.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.

But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

How have they been racist?

Many people think "westernizing" a nation should be our goal, or "bringing X shithole to modern times", or even "bring democracy to their backyard" when we have no idea of the issues within these regions.

Our missions should not be to "civilize those fucking backwater hippies", to be fair; and it is ethnocentric and even racist to think that the West, and only the West, has the answers to a regional problem.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, it doesn't have to do much with the United States intervening to be honest.

But our flawed interventions since Vietnam have all been the fault of racist assumptions about people in the areas where we have intervened, or because we don't have enough data by which to go on coupled with racist assumptions about people in the areas where we intervene.

It does have to do with US dominance. The pre US dominated multipolar war brought us WWI. And the much bigger, flashier sequel.

US Dominance is a good thing as long as we don't think we're a rooster in a henhouse.

Which is exactly how we act a majority of the time towards other nations. "My way is the best way. You either do as I say or I'll sanction/bomb/nuke the shit out of you".

[Vexuar]

Sure. Let's act like ISIS is really our business, then send a bunch of angry people with guns to slaughter innocents and overall act like they are taking over the country.

[Novus America]

Yes because things like the Belgian Congo and German Southwest Africa were so peaceful.

You know how many people were dying under the brutal imperial regimes? And we had a massive war in the first world too! Good times.

The peak of the Imperial period was so great! WWI was such a good time to be had by all.

The Belgian Congo was peaceful, well governed, and relatively prosperous. You are thinking of the Congo Free State, which was abolished in 1908.

As the worst example of colonial treatment, the Free State was better than Cambodia, the worst example of post-colonial treatment.

Belgian Congo is used to refer to the free state.
Yes. You said 1900 was good for the third world. Not so good in the Congo.

Pol pot was horrible. But at least there were no world wars after the European Empires declined. Sure beats WWI and II.

[Novus America]

It does have to do with US dominance. The pre US dominated multipolar war brought us WWI. And the much bigger, flashier sequel.

US Dominance is a good thing as long as we don't think we're a rooster in a henhouse.

Which is exactly how we act a majority of the time towards other nations. "My way is the best way. You either do as I say or I'll sanction/bomb/nuke the shit out of you".

Well yes. To a degree. Kuwait might say otherwise. Sure our dominance is far from perfect. And could be better. But cleary a return to the multipolar world war era is not going to be the solution.

[HMS Vanguard]

The Belgian Congo was peaceful, well governed, and relatively prosperous. You are thinking of the Congo Free State, which was abolished in 1908.

As the worst example of colonial treatment, the Free State was better than Cambodia, the worst example of post-colonial treatment.

Belgian Congo is used to refer to the free state.
Yes. You said 1900 was good for the third world. Not so good in the Congo.

The Congo Free State wasn't directly connected to Belgium; it was personal property of the man who was also King of Belgium. The Belgian Congo refers to a Belgian colony that replaced the Free State.

For the colonies as a whole, 1900 was a good year.

Pol pot was horrible. But at least there were no world wars after the European Empires declined. Sure beats WWI and II.

Pol Pot was worse than WWI and WWII for Cambodia, even worse for Cambodia than WWI and WWII were for Europe. However I think this is a red herring; WWI and WWII weren't caused by colonialism, it was tangential, my point being in my first post that if the US had assumed responsibility for the colonies (or backed the Europeans doing so) after WWII, we would have had a considerably more peaceful and stable world. Instead the US aligned with the USSR to create the Third World.

[Mugrul]

How have they been racist?

Many people think "westernizing" a nation should be our goal, or "bringing X shithole to modern times", or even "bring democracy to their backyard" when we have no idea of the issues within these regions.

Our missions should not be to "civilize those fucking backwater hippies", to be fair; and it is ethnocentric and even racist to think that the West, and only the West, has the answers to a regional problem.

Ok so what about Afghanistan in that case. Was it really racist to go ahead and get rid of the Taliban government while giving them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices?