eta: a couple of posts up: A chunk of the ISIS leadership is Baathist. If you remember those guys from the last time, they got pretty good at working up an insurgency.
Cool. Like rollerball but with smocks. Or is it that one where NYC is a prison ad the President ends up inside or something.
Ok I’m as liberal as they come. I believe peace with Iran is possible, I believe peace with North Korea is possible. I do not believe peace with ISIS / Daesh is possible. Their stated public aim is a world wide caliphate with either death or subjugation for everyone that doesn’t accept their ideology. Total War with ISIS is just as moral as it was against Nazi Germany.
Fuck Godwins law.
So maybe Iran will stay out. What’s the problem here? I know my idea is incredibly unlikely, with or without Iran. What’s the disagreement here?
Maybe?
the interest of the Iran are totally different and in the direct conflict with the Ibn Saud.
It is not incredibly unlikely it is operationally impossible. The parties named do not have a common real interest and it does nothing to address the real origins of the DAESH - it is like thinking that the Soviets and the Americans would productively cooperate in the Germany…
yes it is moral.
But that is not the right quesiton.
is it useful?
I think it is not a useful idea at all and misunderstands the issues of the Iraq and the Syria.
The root issues are in the marginalisation of the rural sunni populations and of course the radicalisation that is not surprising to see in the populations stressed by the economic decline from the decade plus of the war and the strife… plus I think the ecological stresses.
Ok so please tell your solution that will solve the problem? It easy to criticise, whats your answer?
The answer is that there is no simple answer.
pressurizing the DAESH and for the Iraqi side the improvement in the governance and devolving of the power so that there is not Shia supremacist rule over the Sunni areas - sadly just reversing the roles - will help give the Sunni tribes the option of rising against the DAESH but not being played for dupes like the American’s “Awakening” effort before.
The various movements of the Kurds of course are also useful - but they are not a unified entity and there is among them also a risk of the civil war, so this is not some magical solution.
Provoking blindly the Turks over a simplistic idea of the Kurds only undermines the ultimate stability.
I was under the impression the Baathists were one of the more secular belief systems in the area. I would think that this would be an unlikely candidate for a popular rebellion in that area of the world.
Baathismwas the Arab socialist secularism party arising from the 1940s/1950s, indeed one of its founders was a christian.
The failure of the socialist and the socialist-secular models in the economic and in the political fields with the degeneration to the barely disguised clan rule in both of the Baathist countries long ago drained the Baathism of meaning.
you do not understand, it appears that in the DAESH core there are many former Baathists from the old Iraqi army. Are they there from changed beliefs or from a cynical route to power and fighting against a dislike Shia supremacist central power? Difficult to know.
I know very little about the military and may be laughed at, but how about a strategy that leads to many deaths among ISIS soldiers? Assuming contravened weapons were not used, how should soldier deaths be maximized? Is napalm contravened? Perhaps anti-WMD treaties should be abrogable when fighting a particularly heinous and dangerous enemy.
Is Kurdistan territory being used by NATO powers for commando training and drone strikes? If not, why not?
“Maybe” in the extremely unlikely hypothetical. Why does a probably-never-going-to-happen idea get such a bee in your bonnet? I want America to stay out unless this incredibly unlikely thing happens.
So you’re quibbling about the difference between “incredibly unlikely” and “operationally impossible”? Fine. It’s impossible without big changes in the region. Thus, incredibly unlikely, since those big changes probably won’t happen.
No disagreement here, unless you just want to shoehorn an argument in here where none exists.
This is one of the reasons I suggest such a large number of troops. If they came out in a whole bunch of pickup trucks with machine guns on the back, we would only need a few thousand troops, maybe even only a few hundred. If we’re going to root out an enemy that blends in to the populace, we need a huge number of troops to get them in all their hiding places.
I hate to disagree with even sven, but the OP’s idea of long-term occupation is not completely without merit. Not colonialism so much as an occupation akin to that in Germany after 1945.
Two huge (not insurmountable, just very large) practical problems:
[ul]
[li]This will require a commitment both on the part of the occupiers and from the international global order. I don’t think pushing the Republic of Korea into doing it makes much sense.[/li][li]Daesh will try to go elsewhere. It will be a long-term game of Whack-A-Mole across the entire MENA region.[/li][/ul]
It’s not that full-blown long-term occupation won’t work (it might). It’s that the cost of such a project is totally incommensurate with the problem at hand.
It’s a great idea. Assuming you think the mistakes made in the occupation of Iraq were that we should have committed five times as many troops, for five times as long.
Not too mention Turkey’s ruling party isn’t exactly fond of either group.
BTW, sincerely glad to see that you’re safe.
I think the more problematic thing that it would require is a commitment from the rest of the neighborhood. And if you have that, you won’t need the occupation anyway.
Yeah, I’m not really impressed by your evaluation of my knowledge level.
So make them more freely and easily. Thoroughly blanket the area in as much eye-candy western culture as possible. Is arabsat and nilesat content subject to censorship of any kind? If so, fuck 'em. For that matter, get the guys at Funny Or Die to make parody videos of ISIS propaganda.
I was too generous.
So people can have two dishes for no reason?
Your ignorant guess they are rare is silly. Even the shanties have them.
a stupid ill informed idea.
There is already plenty.
As it happens your simple idea that somehow people’s ideas change because they watch the Baywatch have no foundation.
Of course since you obviously know nothing, it is not surprised the suggestions have no understanding or utility.
Since they are in the space and have the pornography on them, do you wish to guess? And there is EUTEL and EURSAT etc etc.
the amount of free to air satellite channels rebroadcasting (or even not free to air but hacked) is enormous.
the idea you have that somehow empty western sex-entertainment is the path to fighting DAESH is childishly badly informed.
We are not living any more in 1970, where your image seems to be frozen.
Ramira, your replies are seriously more hostile than necessary.
Pointing out errors is fine. Commenting on the author’s personality or intelligence are not productive to good discussion.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]