I think we can all agree that ISIS is a threat to the world that needs to be dealt with. The main question is what is the best way of doing so. What do you all think of the idea of massive amounts of boots on the ground? My thinking is that a large invasion force of multinational troops to both invade and truly occupy the ISIS territory would be successful. I’m thinking a huge number, say 500,000 to 1,000,000. The troops would come from multiple nations in addition to the USA. I’m picturing a contribution from all the developed world, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, South Korea, and maybe even Japan after the invasion part is complete. The supply line would be via Turkey. Once the area has been invaded, we would disarm the populace by force. All tenets of Radical Islam would be banned by law, the same way that Nazism and State Shinto were banned (successfully I might add) by law in post WWII Germany and Japan. The newly conquered territory would have troops patrolling the streets, not hunkered down in bases in the countryside. A western style constitution would be imposed by law, similar to how MacArthur imposed his constitution in Japan. Administration could be a multinational effort, but to avoid the perception of Western imperialism by Iran and Saudi Arabia, I would suggest maybe South Korea take the lead role. Yes, this is imperialism, but the main idea is not to avoid the idea of imperialism in general, but that of Western imperialism in particular so that interference by regional neighbors is kept to a minimum. Once the area has been pacified by force of arms, the rest of the world could then help in rebuilding the economy of the area, just like the economies of Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WWII.
I may have posted somethings similar to this in the past, so please forgive me if I have. Other than lack of political will, what would be the main obstacles to the success of such a plan? My guess is that this would probably succeed, and that the only reason it hasn’t been done yet is the aforementioned lack of political will from developed nations.
I also think that assuming the Iraq invasion was going to be done, this is how the the occupation should have been handled, rather than the way Bush did. If it had been done this way, I think the region would not be experiencing the problems it is currently experiencing.
Ah yes, the old “colonialism, but this time it’s different I promise” plan. It seems to get posted here once a month as a solution to some problem or another.
I think it would be an entirely different world if “the political will” wasn’t a stumbling block, so this is one of those times when postulating a major shift in the way the world works but insisting that everything else remain the same is simply not a realistic scenario. What if people could fly, but everything else was the same?
How about this, you start off with a virulent disease and insert it into the area in question, be it Libyia , Syria, Iran etc. Then you let the NGO’s loose with a " cure" that deals with the folks remaining, and amp up the mortality rate even higher.
In the end, the survivors will huddle together in enclaves, and shoot anyone that looks funny.
Isis will effectively dead, along with AL Q and any other problem groups.
Or you can glass the area and get the same result, cause thats the only two ways your going to externally defeat the problem children.
Graeme Wood’s long but worthwhile article is here:
It makes the argument that due to ISIS declaring a Caliphate, it must hold territory. It cannot become an underground group like Al Qaeda because a Caliphate with no territory, is according to their own writings illegitimate. So yes, if that article is correct, taking and holding all of ISIS territory with ground forces would put an end to them.
Did you miss the part where an apocalyptic war between their ‘true’ Islam, and the apostates, infidels, and decadent Westerners… is exactly what they want?
So what? Taking and holding all of their territory would prove that all their beliefs are wrong. Jesus is not going to come back when ground forces take Dabiq, its not going to be the start of the apocalypse. This is a case where giving them what they want, eg a total war to occupy ISIS territory would be justified.
I understand that the western plan is to contain ISIS and sort of besiege its territory before reducing it over the course of several years (maybe I’m mistaken). I don’t believe any kind of assault to take it back in the short term is in the cards.
Of course you can. ISIS has to hold territory OPENLY, as in be the functioning government for their claim to be a Caliphate to be valid. It doesn’t matter who does it, the Kurds can take some of it, Syria / Assad can take some of it back with Russian help, Iran can take some and the Iraqi army with US help can take some.
When they can’t openly claim to be a state, because they have no territory, they’re done.
Here’s a better idea: flood the disputed areas with cheap satellite dishes that can pick up unscrambled (and subtitled) James Bond movies, Baywatch episodes and soft core porn. ISIS will naturally try to confiscate these, cementing in the minds of the average citizen types that they are a bunch of killjoys and nuisances. This should undercut their support.
And now they can never go back? If something changes its just “Well, we have it a sporting chance. Oh well, can’t win them all. What’s next? Should we teach ourselves polo? Or maybe we can start a line of organic hair care products…”
I’m pretty sure these guys would figure something out. People have failed to predict the end of the world any number of times, and it rarely seems to be more than a speed bump.
Read the article I posted. One of the reasons ISIS is getting so many foreign fighters travelling to join them is their declaration of being a Caliphate, according to some interpretations, all muslims are obligated to travel to and fight for a Caliphate when declared. The Caliphate also cannot ever have peace with another country, it must continuously expand and can only declare temporary truces for up to 10 years.
If ISIS loses all it territory, then yes some of the members might go onto to join other extremist groups, but ISIS, the Islamic State, is done, because it can’t be a state with no territory.
Ok. I figured this idea wouldn’t be too popular. The question that naturally arises then is what are the alternatives?
Do we keep bombing on occasion like we (both the USA and Russia) are currently doing? That seems to have had no effect.
Do we go with a few special forces to augment the bombing, like Obama recently proposed?
Do we pick sides and arm the Kurds or some other group, pissing off other groups in the process?
Do we go with boots on the ground, but to a more limited extent, the way Bush did in the second Iraq war? I’m guessing that going in with enough force to break things but not enough force to pick up the pieces would lead to an even worse outcome, which is where I got the idea of a huge invading force.
Do we go with the isolationist school of thought and just ignore the problem?
What other options did I miss?
The reason I brought up political will is because I genuinely don’t understand why a large scale invasion done correctly would fail. I hate to keep bringing up the same examples, but if we defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, how can we not defeat a bunch of terrorists running around in the desert with guns and a crazy ideology? The only answer I can come up with that makes sense to me is that we’re not really trying.
Occupation of ISIS territory by US or allied troops is not the answer, that will only cause more problems down the line. It needs to be taken care by the surrounding countries with US / Allied and Russian help.
• Arm the Kurds, support a Kurdish state taken from parts of Syria and Iraq. That will piss off Turkey, too bad, they can suck it up.
• Accept that attacking Assad’s forces is only making ISIS stronger. The US is never going to help Assad but they could stop attacking his forces. With Russian help he could then retake a smaller Syria (losing some territory to Kurdistan).
• Do whatever is necessary by way of support with Air strikes and Special Forces to help the Iraqi army take back territory up to the border thats agreed on for Kurdistan.
This does sound reasonable to me. Unfortunately, it seems like the first two points of this plan also lack political support in the West. The third point may have political support, but the Iraqi army is so inept they can’t seem to take anything back at this point.
IMO, this is a talking point promoted by conservatives in the US who opposed Obama withdrawing from Iraq. Read Non-US media and it makes clear that the Iraqi army has taken back territory from ISIS (although yes they have had defeats as well).