Based on the internal balance of power that would be as naive as suggesting the Taliban would emerge from the post-Soviet withdrawal chaos to dominate 70% of Afghanistan’s population…er… ummm :smack: Certainly it was naive to think the Taliban could ever recover to win after the repeated beatings the Islamic State of Afghanistan (and their Defense Minister Massoud) laid on them in 1994…inconceivable!!!. :smack: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s support (and in the case of Pakistan that included deployment of troops) were a major part of that. Even that support morphed during the civil war with both countries focusing support on groups other than the Taliban early (like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami for Pakistan).
Three of the four major regional powers border Syria - Turkey, Israel, and Iran. Saudi Arabia being the forth major player and their cash spends even if there’s no border. There’s multiple fault lines among the interests of the four. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sparring for leadership among the Sunni world but both face off against Iran extending power along the Sunni-Shiite fault line. Turkey and Saudi Arabia also have a conflict due to differing forms of government, with Turkey’s example of secular democratic institutions presenting a threat to the Al Saud monarchy. Israel is an 800 lb gorilla on the sidelines that combines strong covert, special operations, and conventional forces with a proven willingness to use them if they see a strong threat developing on their border. The minor nation state players in the area are, in many cases, actively bombing ISIS right now so a coalition of them in support of ISIS against the major power interests is probably not happening either.
There’s plenty of fault lines just internal to Syria. Even a defeat of the Assad regime wouldn’t necessarily take out the Alawite ability to be an important, if weakened, player propped up by Iranian support. The Kurds are a player that can’t be ignored even if they aren’t dominant in any of the countries with Kurdish minorities. How Iraq’s Kurds come out of the ISIS incursion there may well influence how much unofficial support they can provide. Even within the ISIS dominated coalition of extremist Sunni groups the removal of Assad has a potential for exposing disagreements subordinated for the time being. That’s without even bringing up the more moderate rebel groups who’s aim conflict with ISIS on just about everything but removing Assad.
ISIS is clearly the strongest player internal to Syria after the Assad regime. They’ve developed significant tactical and operational power while leading a coalition of more extremist rebels. They’ve ignored a lot of the long term strategic effects of their decisions along the way. They’ve brought themselves in to conflict with the long term interests of most of the regional and world powers. Pushing in to Iraq didn’t do much for their reputation as a good long term proxy to the regional powers either. Once their usefulness against Assad is over they may well find themselves disposable. If the combined forces against the Assad regime can take down the biggest player there’s no reason to think ISIS, in a far weaker position, can’t be next on the chopping block.
IMO a post-Assad prediction other than a bloody, chaotic, rat fuck of a civil war is naive.
Eventually. But before the invasion, al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian fanatic hiding out in Iran. Destroying Iraq’s civil infrastructure gave him an opportunity.
ISIS are cut from the same cloth as he.
So, yes, the USA should stay in Iraq and rebuild it. For a generation. If and only if we actually do it properly. So, no part-time rotations of National Guardsmen, no neo-Nazis signed up out of desperation for troops. It’s going to take a full-time, Arabic-speaking occupation force, with clear and transparent accountability for soldiers who rape (soldiers rape, though) and massacre (they do that too) and terrorize the occupied populace.
Absent that, it’s an argument between letting cancer kill the patient or trying to cut it out with a filthy chainsaw.
All right, my thinking on some points has been stuck in 2014. The Iraqi Army isn’t actually a force of deserters. ISIS is simply a very dangerous terrorist army, as evidenced by their recent victories.
But- what now? C’mon, look at the itinerary. Daesh is facing over 1000 days of bombings courtesy of the US Air Force. 7, maybe 10 strikes a day? Someone with more expertise could pin the number down better than I can, but we are looking at something like 7000-10000+ bombing runs against ISIL over the next 3 years. They only have ~50,000 soldiers, and their territories are poorly run. Sure they steal some oil, but those wells don’t produce nearly what they used to. Sure, they tax the populations of the territory they capture, but those populations become ever more distressed and desperate.
And yes, they achieve some military successes. They are, after all, a terrorist army, it is their motive. But can you imagine the cumulative effect of 10,000 airstrikes on a failed state, miniature military such as ISIS? Once they are on their 5th Caliph they may wonder if perhaps Allah is not really protecting him. When they look out on their lands of famine and disease, will killing everyone who does not conform to their AYIYIYIYIYIYIYI! school of Muslim thought really taste so sweet?
They may succeed in bombing the US once, or twice. People here will go absolutely apeshit if/when that happens. Should we then send in ground troops, sacrifice thousands of our young men and waste a trillion dollars on crony military contracts? No, we should just keep patiently bombing them; they are extremists for sure but only so resilient.
There have already been thousands of US airstrikes on ISIS, and it has had essentially zero effect.
You’re using western logic…not jihadist logic.
You assume that a failed state is a bad thing,and that people will somehow decide to rise up and overthrow the Muslim fanatics who cause it.
But if you use muslim jihadist logic, you reach a very different conclusion. Look at , for example, at Gaza*: It is a failed state, run by a jihadist government which has totally ruined the economy, and yet holds the complete loyalty of the people.
Despite what the Western professors in their ivory towers want to believe, ISIS is here to stay.
(*and let’s all agree not to de-rail this thread into another Israel/Gaza train wreck.)
That’s putting it a bit strongly I think. Part of their core belief is expansion, but their military capabilities aren’t that impressive. They’ve already been repulsed by the Kurds (which aren’t that impressive a force either, more like guerrilla / militias) a few places. What happens when they have reached the maximum regional expansion they’ll ever have. Are they going to dig in and secure the land they have? I doubt it. Will they still be able to attract foreign recruits and donations in the same numbers without spectacular victories (& the prospect of hot 11yo slavegirls for the international jihadtourists)? Even more doubtful. Now they’ve started bombing in SA. I should imagine nothing gets a Saudi turned off the whole jihad funding thingy in Iraq more than having bombs going off in his own neighborhood. It’s all shit and giggles until the chicken come home to roost.
They also only function because of the chaos in the region. Sooner or later presumable at least Syria will get its shit together, and Iraq will perhaps split into more ethnic/religious manageable portions. They’ll be a contained menace for a while like the Taliban in the northern regions of Pakistan, and when rooted from their location they’ll probably morph back into the myriad of other islamists / al qaeda jihadish groups setting op shop in various locations around the globe characterized by instability and chaos.
I wouldn’t say the the airstrikes have had zero effect. They prevented the total massacre of the Yazidis. They systematically kill ISIS soldiers and destroy their equipment. And they kill the leadership- even AlBagdadi is said to have been seriously injured in a strike.
I’m sure my jihadi logic skills are poor. But these guys are taking over in places that don’t really want them AFAIK- they aren’t going to get the fanatical popular support you see in Gaza, though I am willing to be corrected. They depend on maintaining territory through conquest, and how long can they hold a position when they are defenseless against relentless air strikes?
I just can’t see them establishing anything permanent. Failed states don’t make a good tax base for funding a conquering army, and in the long run, after years of bombing, well, you can’t fight when you’re dead.
Problem is, they don’t seem to be getting bombed enough. There needs to be a Kobane style bombing campaign throughout the whole of the territories they hold for them to effective.
In fact, in the version of Sunni Islam ISIS subscribes to, al-Baghdadi loses his legitimacy as Caliph if he goes too long without expanding their territory.
This suggests there was some pre-existing sect of Islam with that belief, as opposed to an ideology largely invented by ISIS. Does anyone other than misguided Atlantic reporters think that?
Another critical difference between Iraq and Libya is that Libyans actually rose up against Muammar Gaddafi, having been inspired by neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.
This was not the case in Iraq, where a coalition of foreign troops invaded the country and Iraqis had not rose up against Saddam Hussein.
Which makes me think that the good time to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein was in 1991, when many Iraqis rose up against him. Saddam lost control of 15 of the country’s 18 provinces. Unfortunately George HW Bush decided not to assist them and Saddam crushed the uprising and bought 12 years in power.
My hunch is that things would have been far better had we given air cover to the Iraqis and they had deposed Saddam on their own. Better for us, them and the region.
However we did go into Iraq but things were different and terrible for both Iraq and the U.S.
Really?! Do you have any cite for this? I would wager that Abdul Karim Qassim was one of the more popular leaders Iraq had seen. He was a dictator and I feel so sad for how the Iraqi royal family was killed in 1958.
But he was far better than Saddam Hussein, did not start destructive wars with his neighbors and nor killed hundreds of thousands of people inside the country, like Hussein.
Plus Qassim was in power for only five years, as opposed to Saddam Hussein.
I would be interested to see any sources about the atrocities carried out in Iraq from 1958-1963.
Objectively nothing, it was one of the few times we did nothing wrong. Problem with Libya is that many former rebels decided they want to have power and use force to gain it. They think since they fought against Gaddafi that it entitles them to rule Libya with impunity. Others are just terrorists who were not former rebels, but just thugs who thrive and prey upon nations with little security.
It’s clear that many Libyans want a democratic future for Libya, the election in 2012 saw huge turnout.
Sadly there are greedy troublemakers such the one time separatist in eastern Libya who wanted to ship and sell oil without the consent of the Tripoli government, until the U.S captured their ship and handed it back to Tripoli, dashing the greedy separatist’s dreams of a autonomous oil state based in Benghazi.
Others are just no life thugs who kill Libyans and foreigners for no reason and sow mayhem.
Animals are what they are.
So in Libya we did not do anything wrong, now Iraq is whole nother story.
I don’t see why most of you think ISIS wouldn’t last more than a few years. I always thought that the organisation was the product of a Darwinian like struggle amongst Jihadi type groups and that this is the end result. They’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
Is ISIS still being trained by the MOSSAD as some reports say-?
Israel ex-officer leads Ukraine protests: Reports
Sunday Feb 16, 2014 Ukrainian media have reported that a former Israeli army officer is playing a leading role in the anti-government protests in the former Soviet republic.
Four other Israelis, who had previously served in the army, were recently reported to have taken part in opposition rallies in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev.
Mossad Agent was an agent of the Israeli Mossad who was seen in MTAC, witnessing an operation that Mossad Officer Ziva David had acquired intel for.
Nov 4, 2014 - *The Islamic State group is the creation of Israel’s Mossad, Iran’s deputy foreign minister said Tuesday, accusing the spy agency of aiming to …
*
Russian writer and political activist: Mossad training ISIS terrorists in Iraq, Syria
Isis claims responsibility for Texas attack
No evidence Islamic State had actual hand in attack as details emerge about would-be gunmen Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi