If the United States hadn’t been droning and striking ISIS and simply ignored it, what’s the worst that could happen? It is a headache for the Arab nations in the vicinity and even if the US left ISIS alone, surely they would see fit to fight ISIS on their own as much as possible?
I think there is a real possibility that Jordan would be seriously destabilized to the point that a very friendly and moderate government there collapses. Half of Iraq would probably be handed over to ISIS.
Whether or not ISIS has designs to use its territory to plot attacks on Europe and the US, and also many countries friendly to us, there’s no doubt in my mind that whackos from other terrorist organizations would go there to do the very same.
ETA: And oh yeah, tens of thousands of innocent civilians would be murdered, or at best horribly mistreated, by an incompetent and vicious mob of pieces of human trash for many, many years to come. So, there’s that, too.
You need to clarify. Do you mean ignore them militarily? Or ignore them in an economic and political capacity as well? Treat them no differently than we treat other, more boring terrorist groups? The end result, I think, is that ISIS would eventually commit a terrorist attack on US soil. Maybe not in the near future, and maybe not a very significant one, but they seem determined to attack us at home.
This morning, Saudi forces attacked Shiite rebels (purportedly backed by Iran) in Yemen. They were supported by a coalition of other regional Sunni nations in this and condemned (unsurprisingly) but Iran (and, at a guess, Iraq will join in as well condemning it at some point if they haven’t already). The US didn’t participate nor are we likely too.
What’s any of this have to do with ISIS/ISIL? The region is a powder keg right now. Sunni’s are split on supporting ISIS/ISIL, supporting AQ staying neutral or fighting them (but for what gain, especially in Iraq?). Shiites on the other hand are rallying to oppose them, and Iran is definitely involved. Now, what do you suppose will be the outcome if the US backs out and just lets the region deal with this by themselves? Well, one outcome that springs to my mind is that if ISIS/ISIL wins it will escalate the sectarian violence in the region…a region that the US and all other industrialized nations heavily rely on. If the Shiite coalitions backed by Iran win, however, that might even be worse, since it’s clear that the Shiites in Iraq aren’t keen to share power with the Sunnis or give them any sort of power or stake in the country. You could get a situation just like in Yemen where Saudi and it’s own coalition directly involves itself in striking at Shiite ‘rebels’ if they think Iran is gaining even more of a foot hold. And, that brings Iran into the mix, since they have spent a lot of political capital on this already, and they have their own agenda in the region. This could spark a shooting war between Iran, some Iraqi Shiite coalition against Saudi and it’s own Sunni coalition and, of course, Sunni tribes and factions in Iraq and the region. This could be a perfect storm of holy shit in a region with the most vital resource to most of the world.
All outcomes look to me to be bad ones, but I can’t think of a worse thing than for the US to completely disengage in a region so vital to us and basically just wash our hands and hope they all work things out. The only way we have any sort of leverage, control or input is if we stay engaged. If we give that up we basically just roll the dice and hope for the best.
Ignore it militarily, mainly, an “it’s not our business” attitude. Obviously this would be unwise, but what if?
What do you think?
I suspect a result similar to ignoring the Taliban from 1991-2001, only the global economic stakes are several magnitudes larger.
Last year, before the USA got involved, ISIS was expanding remarkably quickly, especially within Iraq. Of course Iraq attempted to fight back, but the Iraqi forces by themselves are hopeless. The government is corrupt. The soldiers are poorly trained, poorly equipped, unmotivated and disorganized. It’s hardly surprising that when the shooting started, many Iraqi brigades simply disintegrated or switched sides. So without outside assistance, ISIS would have continued rolling through Iran, and probably would have taken Baghdad.
Of course the USA is not the only country that wants to contain ISIS. Iran does. Assad’s regime in Syria does. Turkey does. What would have happened if the USA had not gotten involved? Who knows.
What happened because we ignored the Taliban? Please god don’t say 9/11.
We could afford to ignore the Taliban. It was seeking to take control of Afghanistan, a country we have no vital interest in.
ISIS affects more important areas. If it established itself in the areas it’s seeking control of, it would control a significant portion of the world’s oil supply and be a threat to several countries which are American allies.
AQ was given a secure base and resources in which to train, plan and operate within the structure of a sovereign state. Hell, they were PART of the Afghan state under the Taliban, with their members in many leadership positions within the government. You know this, surly (you know, the whole reason we invaded Afghanistan)? 
The Taliban were nationalists, where as ISIS are transnational jihadists.
What happened because of Pearl Harbor? Please don’t say the American entry into World War II.
I hope you’re not under the impression I blame the attacks on the Taliban. They were enablers, but not participants.
I confess to being mystified by the intricacies of the present Middle East wars. Isn’t U.S. fighting the enemy of ISIS in Syria?
What about the recent U.S. attack on ISIS positions in Tikrit? According to Reuters “The United States conditioned its entry into Iraq’s battle to retake Tikrit from Islamic State on the withdrawal of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias from the clearing operation, and they are no longer there.” Another source gives a different spin: “Three key Shi’ite militias pulled out of the Iraqi assault on the Islamist-held city of Tikrit in protest of U.S. airstrikes supporting the campaign.”
It’s hard to retain enthusiasm for this fight if we can’t even figure out who are our allies and who are our enemies.
I guess I got you mixed up with Ravenman and XT. Lol.
I guess you’re mixing up your posters, but sounds like you still don’t have a point.
So, I take it that you disagree with something I (and Ravenman?) said then? Or was this just your way of handwaving away the fact that Bryan sort of cut the legs out from under whatever you were trying to put on him? I really don’t know as this seems a strange reply from you, based on my past experience with you in various debates.
[QUOTE=septimus]
What about the recent U.S. attack on ISIS positions in Tikrit? According to Reuters “The United States conditioned its entry into Iraq’s battle to retake Tikrit from Islamic State on the withdrawal of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias from the clearing operation, and they are no longer there.” Another source gives a different spin: “Three key Shi’ite militias pulled out of the Iraqi assault on the Islamist-held city of Tikrit in protest of U.S. airstrikes supporting the campaign.”
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t heard of militias pulling out, but it wouldn’t be surprising since many of the Shiite militias are backed by and supported by Iran, who is coordinating the re-taking of Tikrit. Something that they have failed to do while the US kind of held back and let them take the lead. We were ASKED by the Iraqi government and several other factions (including, ironically, several Sunni militia groups) to give aid in the form of air strikes, and as far as I know and as far as I’ve read, various Iraqi forces are moving forward again. Could you link to articles showing that this isn’t the case, because this CNN article seems to indicate that forces are still moving forward along with US and coalition air strikes, not that everyone has left and we are supporting no one.
So, there is a lot of talk and counter talk going on here, with some of it for local consumption and some of it more reality based. It’s ironic that someone who said they didn’t need the coalitions help and that it would be no help at all is now asking for it, but again you have the difference between talking to your local audience who doesn’t want to hear about needing any stinking help (outside of the help Iran is giving, of course, but that’s different :p) and the realities of trying and failing without it several times.
In the Middle East, the enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy…may or may not be your friend.