I hear what you are saying, I just don’t think it’s that tidy of a solution. Maybe we see the end of ISIS, but without getting to the core of turmoil in the Middle East as a whole, you are going to just hasten whatever new form this problem will take- which may be better than ISIS, but may be worse. ISIS is a symptom. It’s like one of those rare cancers that are only seen in severely immuno-suppressed bodies.
There are a couple of critical differences. One is that Germany was in a neighborhood that was aligned to positive change (and even then, East Germany probably wasn’t what we had hoped for) and Japan is an island. ISIS is a symptom of a larger regional problem, and without resolving the wider regional problems you aren’t going to be able to much more than keep a temporary peace at gunpoint.
The other is that Germany and Japan were not fundamentally broken. They had industry, education, a functional bureaucracy, etc. They worked as countries, they were just directing all that energy in a very problematic way. We weren’t rebuilding a country from scratch, we were just guiding their energy elsewhere.
ISIS is not a misguided government. They are what happens when there is no governance. They are a result of the breakdown of social and political structure. And that’s historically not been somethings that is easy to impose externally.
That is incorrect, there is very strict governance in ISIS territory, again read the original aticle I posted from the Atlantic in full. A lack of strong government in Iraq and Syria is what originally allowed ISIS an opening, but what they are now is a very structured government with very specific aims.
Sorry for the slow replies, I’m just waking up for the morning. In the particular case of Iran, I think it’s because even though the Iranians support groups like Hezbollah, the Iranian people are not personally threatening to kill random innocent people. It’s similar to how even though here in the USA you get politicians worried about the latest Chinese or Russsian military advancement, regular people don’t really worry about the Chinese or Russsians. Ordinary people have no reason to be afraid that they will find themselves randomly killed by a Chinese or Russian soldier. Similarly, even in Israel, people are being killed by Palestinian militants, not by Iranian soldiers.
In the case of ISIS, however, ordinary people far from the conflict do have reason to be fearful.
Obama was of course incorrect on this one. He was probably hoping that ISIS would fade away and that the withdrawal from Iraq wouldn’t have the adverse consequences it did end up having.
Yes, they are there to offer violence. The reason for so many is to avoid the way Bush the lesser fought the second Iraq war. Like I mentioned above, he went with enough people to smash everything to bits, but not enough force to pick up the pieces afterwards. If we have enough troops to patrol the streets in Raqqa, Mosul, and the other cities ISIS currently claims, that would go a long way keep the area peaceful. Once that happens, we can focus on rebuilding the area economically, which is another area where Bush failed. He always talked about rebuilding the schools, the water treatment plants, roads, and so on, but it seems he never got around to actually doing it. If the occupying force is large enough, these rebuilding projects could be undertaken safely.
Edited to add. I am under no illusions this would be a quick victory. As someone mentioned above, this plan, if done correctly, would probably take a good 20 to 30 years to really begin turning things around. By this I mean waiting out the current generation of ISIS fighters until they are too old to fight and preventing a new generation from springing up to replace the current generation.
IMO (that’s observation, not opinion) the Iraqi Army IS truly inept at anything required of them.
The talking point that the Iraqi Army is inept is usually promoted by conservatives is true, but it also happens to be the same talking point promoted by people who have observed the Iraqi Army operate AND don’t have a particular agenda.
I read the article. I actually read it a long time ago.
ISIS is maintaining control of territory and providing some government services, but I strongly disagree that they are safely and securely in the “real state” category. Keeping a populace controlled in a time of conflict is not the same thing as running a long term government.
Hey I’ve got an idea,
How about ratcheting up the support we offer to the Kurdish forces already fighting them?
The Turks will protest, but frankly, there seems to be limited room for any other option other than going full swing in backing the Kurdish regions.
It’ll take care of four things, it’ll be Muslims fighting Muslims, it’ll be a local actor taking care of this problem and it will also de-legitimise ISIS style rule of being an effective military/political force, whilst boosting the YPG even more as an egalitarian secularist force.
Who knows, maybe the part of Syria under Kurdish control who have been the only effective force against the Islamists, could be a future base of operations for Syrians of all stripes who want a pluralistic democratic future.
In fact, they’re still active, including in Syria. But they have been out-extremized by ISIS to the point that some argue we should talk with them and come to an agreement with them wrt Syria.
In fact, al Qaeda lost of lot of its “affiliates” in its loose network to ISIS. It’s not that the groups stopped being involved in terrorist actions, it’s that they switched allegiance and now display the ISIS flag instead of the al Qaeda flag.
I do think that for eventual pacification, it is going to need the elimination of ISIS controlled territory and for that you will need ground troops. Whether thats politically possible…well after a few more outrages, I suspect it will.
The Saudis are varsity. They knife America right in the back and America sits there and says thank you sir, may I have another? Plus they behead people in stadiums while on the U.N. human rights council. Now* that’s* pro. People give ISIS the Holy Roman Empire treatment.
I wouldn’t agree, but for the sake of argument, sure.
That’s the way to go if you don’t want to wait around for America’s proxies to do the job. I disagree with the notion, expressed by others, that ISIS is somehow different than other guerrilla organizations and is stupid enough to fight a conventional war against an invading West. It’s like some people think America would ride in with tanks, choppers, and jets, and ISIS would rush to meet them with their pickup trucks and stolen armor and get massacred. Give them a little credit.
One fly in the ointment is while you’re occupying Iraq and Syria with a million troops for 10 years all the foreign fighters can bug out to one of another half dozen problem spots in the ME or North Africa. But you have to start somewhere, I suppose.
That always works. How much this time $2 trillion again?
You’re not getting the sense* they want that*, they’re egging the west on, that all this brutality is designed for exactly that end.
I’d be all for it if it was organized and led by ISIS neighbors. If Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others in the region get together and all contribute big portions of their militaries (like 50% or so), adding up to a force of several hundred thousand, I would be all for the US and European forces contributing and supporting the effort.
Then they can be jointly responsible for occupying and “de-ISISifying” the region afterwards, which may take a decade (like deNazification in postwar Germany). I think that’s the only possible way that ISIS could be gotten rid of permanently without a similar organization coming to power afterwards.
A US/Europe led ground force could get rid of ISIS, but couldn’t change the region and couldn’t de-radicalize it, and would only weaken us (and Europe) without significantly weakening violent radicals.
I assume you are joking.
If you’re talking to me, I’m serious, though I recognize that my scenario is incredibly unlikely to happen. So I’m for staying out – getting involved will only make America weaker.
You think it is a serious idea to propose the Shia Iran and the Wahhabite Saudi Arabia to collaborate on ruling the DAESH territories of the Iraq and the Syria???
No, but its perfectly possible for Daesh / ISIS areas to go back to Syria and Iraq where they came from, except for a chunk reserved for the Kurds. See my post #17 in this thread.
Why would that matter?
If someone wants to live, and threatens my family, I will gladly kill him. And if he wants to die, I will gladly kill him anyway. And if he wants me to give him season tickets to the opera, I will gladly kill him instead. What he wants is irrelevant.
What about this for an idea - build a big wall around them. No one comes out, no one goes in. Wait for them to kill each other.