ISIS in the Middle East is growing

[QuickSilver]

@John_Mace

Not really. The strategy should support the goal. Can you articulate what the goal is, and what strategy is being used to accomplish that goal?

Well, this article, for example, appears to address your question.

[QUOTE=Obama lays out strategy to fight IS:]
Obama said the United States would try to involve Middle Eastern allies in a strategy to counter the jihadists, who have overrun large swathes of territory. The president said regional involvement was “absolutely critical” – although the State Department said Washington had “no plans” for any military coordination with Iran in the fight.

AFP quoted Barack Obama vowing that the extremists from Islamic State would ultimately be defeated and its fighters “hunted down” like Al-Qaeda members.

“It’s not going to happen overnight, but we are steadily moving in the right direction. And we’re going to achieve our goal. We’re going to degrade and ultimately defeat” the Islamic State, Obama said.
[/QUOTE]

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilver

Well, this article, for example, appears to address your question.

That is sort of a goal with a few tactics thrown at it. But what is the strategy of “defeating ISIL”, especially as it relates to Syria? For instance, a strategy might be: “Form a multinational force with land and air forces push ISIL out of Iraq, and enlist the Syrian and Iranian governments to squeeze them from the other direction so we crush them in the middle”.

Is the goal to degrade or defeat? If the goal is to defeat them, then you don’t need a goal of degrading them. And if we do this the way we did it with al-Qaeda, then that is not defeat. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated. This sounds like a mushy goal where “degrade” is the real objective since “defeat” is damn near impossible.

[QuickSilver]

@John_Mace

That is sort of a goal with a few tactics thrown at it. But what is the strategy of “defeating ISIL”, especially as it relates to Syria? For instance, a strategy might be: “Form a multinational force with land and air forces push ISIL out of Iraq, and enlist the Syrian and Iranian governments to squeeze them from the other direction so we crush them in the middle”.

Is the goal to degrade or defeat? If the goal is to defeat them, then you don’t need a goal of degrading them. And if we do this the way we did it with al-Qaeda, then that is not defeat. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated. This sounds like a mushy goal where “degrade” is the real objective since “defeat” is damn near impossible.

This sounds very much like nitpicking while asking the unknowable, the impossible and very likely privileged information.

We degraded (with bombing raids) and defeated (with ground toops) the Nazis in Europe. But there are still Nazis in the world. New ones with every generation. Would you consider Allied victory in Europe incomplete? If so, then sure, we will never truly “defeat” any enemy unless we engage is some sort of genocidal extermination of people who once identified or are in any way related to our enemies.

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilver

This sounds very much like nitpicking while asking the unknowable, the impossible and very likely privileged information.

Well, you said you had the answer. Are you now saying you don’t?

We degraded (with bombing raids) and defeated (with ground toops) the Nazis in Europe. But there are still Nazis in the world. New ones with every generation. Would you consider Allied victory in Europe incomplete? If so, then sure, we will never truly “defeat” any enemy unless we engage is some sort of genocidal extermination of people who once identified or are in any way related to our enemies.

Our goal was not to defeat the Nazis. It was to defeat the state of Germany, which we did.

I would hope that our goal here is to ensure that ISIL doesn’t become a threat to the US. One might argue that the best strategy to achieve that is to stay out of tha conflict altogether. But if we must be in it, on might argue that we should be secondary players, letting those for whom ISIL is a REAL threat take the lead.

If our goal is to save Iraq from ISIL, then I would suggest that is a goal without a military solution. ISIL is the latest incarnation of Sunni disaffection from the Iraqi government. Unless you solve the political problem, you can kill every ISIL fighter and a new Sunni force will take shape in their absence. I hope our strategy isn’t to kill all the Sunnis, because that is what it would take to solve this problem militarily.

[QuickSilver]

@John_Mace

Well, you said you had the answer. Are you now saying you don’t?

I did? When? All I said was that this administration was taking the correct approach so far. Using bombing to good effect. Not rushing headlong into another ground war.

@John_Mace

Our goal was not to defeat the Nazis. It was to defeat the state of Germany, which we did.

And as the state of Germany was being lead by the Nazi party, and Hitler took the liberty to speak on behalf of Germany and it’s people, we declared war on Germany. Please, let’s not be obtuse about this. We fought WWII against fascism; German and Japanese and Italian and Spanish fascism.

@John_Mace

I would hope that our goal here is to ensure that ISIL doesn’t become a threat to the US. One might argue that the best strategy to achieve that is to stay out of tha conflict altogether. But if we must be in it, on might argue that we should be secondary players, letting those for whom ISIL is a REAL threat take the lead.

And I largely agree. Which is why I quoted and cited the article. Because it appears that this is the approach this administration is taking.

@John_Mace

If our goal is to save Iraq from ISIL, then I would suggest that is a goal without a military solution. ISIL is the latest incarnation of Sunni disaffection from the Iraqi government. Unless you solve the political problem, you can kill every ISIL fighter and a new Sunni force will take shape in their absence. I hope our strategy isn’t to kill all the Sunnis, because that is what it would take to solve this problem militarily.

I disagree. A limited military involvement like the surgical bombing strikes against ISIS have yielded positive results in halting their advance and allowing opposition forces within Iraq to take matters into their own hands. So far Kurds have proven to be effective. I have little doubt Iraqi forces are being encouraged to do the same. To what level of success is yet to be determined.

No-one has suggested we kill every Sunni on the face of the earth. I’m not sure why you are bringing it up in the manner of an, “I hope…”. That’s like me sayin, “I hope John Mace isn’t planning on beating his wife”, without a shred of evidence that thought has ever crossed your mind.

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilver

I did? When? All I said was that this administration was taking the correct approach so far. Using bombing to good effect. Not rushing headlong into another ground war.

You said that article addressed my question. Then you said the question couldn’t be answered.

And as the state of Germany was being lead by the Nazi party, and Hitler took the liberty to speak on behalf of Germany and it’s people, we declared war on Germany. Please, let’s not be obtuse about this. We fought WWII against fascism; German and Japanese and Italian and Spanish fascism.

There is nothing “obtuse” about point out errors in your post. Besides which, the analogy with Germany isn’t a good one. ISIL, despite its claims, is not a state.

And I largely agree. Which is why I quoted and cited the article. Because it appears that this is the approach this administration is taking.

That’s odd, since we’re already the only external country engaging in military action against them. That makes us not just the primary player, we are THE ONLY player.

I disagree. A limited military involvement like the surgical bombing strikes against ISIS have yielded positive results in halting their advance and allowing opposition forces within Iraq to take matters into their own hands. So far Kurds have proven to be effective. I have little doubt Iraqi forces are being encouraged to do the same. To what level of success is yet to be determined.

No-one has suggested we kill every Sunni on the face of the earth. I’m not sure why you are bringing it up in the manner of an, “I hope…”. That’s like me sayin, “I hope John Mace isn’t planning on beating his wife”, without a shred of evidence that thought has ever crossed your mind.

I think you are missing the point. ISIL is the symptom, not the cause, of the problem with Iraq. Kill every member of ISIL and you still have the same problem. A new Sunni insurgency will get started, with some new incarnation of ISIL. Trying to solve this militarily is, in essence, committing to a strategy of killing all the Sunnis because that is what it would take. Now, of course we won’t kill every Sunni. We’ll give up, and declare victory(or simply leave) just like the last time.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@John_Mace

Besides which, the analogy with Germany isn’t a good one. ISIL, despite its claims, is not a state.

I know I’m just passing through here, but I think ISIL does have a lot in common with a state. They think they’re starting a caliphate. They have land, lots of resources, an economy and an army. Conquest counts if you can keep it. Left unchecked they will become a state, so at the very least, anti-abortionists ought to consider them a state.

But what is the victory condition? That remains a very good question. I hope Congress ends up gridlocked as always over an inability to agree on raising the revenue to pay for the conflict. No revenue, no war, that’s what I say. But gridlock only works one way these days, no? Obama really is too spineless to take a stand that would actually work.

[John_Mace]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I know I’m just passing through here, but I think ISIL does have a lot in common with a state. They think they’re starting a caliphate. They have land, lots of resources, an economy and an army. Conquest counts if you can keep it. Left unchecked they will become a state, so at the very least, anti-abortionists ought to consider them a state.

And most mental institutions have patients who think they are Jesus or Napoleon. That doesn’t make them Jesus or Napoleon.

To be a state, you must be recognized as such. How many countries recognize ISIL as a state? A “state” is protected by any number of treaties and conventions, none of which applies to ISIL.

[CarnalK]

Not to be a stickler but I think the test for Statehood is more of a matter of being respected as such not as much being officiallyrecognized. Israel, for example, can be unrecognized by whoever but you know they’re still thought of as a State.

[mcysr]

@tagos

So I am sure the Kurds can drive them out of Iraqi Kurd areas. What then? What happens if they keep going into Syrian Kurdish areas? does the USA continue providing air-cover because sure as shit once they drive ISIS from the are it becomes part of ‘Kurdistan’ in their eyes.

I do not believe, not for one second, the Kurds have any interest in fighting for the ‘Iraq’ they are threatening to hold a referendum to leave soon. But if the USA wants to arm and support them to occupy as much of Iraq as they can i’m sure they’ll be all for it.

I would submit that Iraq and Syria are finished as countries. Nothing wrong with having a Kurdistan, even if they take a piece of Turkey. The Kurds have been screwed for years. Their time in the sun.

[mcysr]

I think that the real nature of true, by the book, Islam is not being directly addressed.

What we are seeing is the expression of fundamental Mohammedean Islam, This is exactly what Islam is, and ‘IS’ is very clearly expressing goals of ALL true, by the book, Muslims. The differences between Sunni and Shia are relatively minor and mostly political.

There is minimal, if any, liberal influence existing anywhere in the Islamic universe today. No questioning of basic beliefs is being done in Islam. Nobody thinks Mohammed might have been just a little crazy, or maybe we should change a few of the more extreme things in Islam.

All Islamic sects want Sharia, and any sane person should be terrified of Sharia. Spend some time looking into the details. There is no such thing as a democratic Islamic country or state.

All religions have had their liberal, moderate, and bat-shit-crazy elements.

The Saudis have seen to it over the last two centuries that the liberal and moderate elements of Islam have been essentially eliminated with their extensive promotion of Wahhabism.

The basic problem is that there is NO ‘new testament’ equivalent to the Qur’an to liberalize Islam. Old school Islam does not compromise or co-exist with other ideas.

The real issues is Islam itself.

ALL religions are in essence, the belief in supra-natural nonsense, but Islam wants it to be imposed on the whole world by force. There are many Muslims that are deluded into thinking Islam it is all “peace and love”, but they are not understanding the words of the Qur’an, and Sharia law, as they are very clearly written, and the bat-shit crazy elements always go back to the written word.

To see what is coming in the future, look at the take over of large swaths of Europe by Islam. Google Sharia law in Europe just for kicks.

Islamic fundamentalism is widely spread

Before you attack me as a non-thinking reactionary conservative, please know that I am liberal. I voted for Obama twice.

I am a scientist, rational humanist and an atheist. I have spent a great deal of time in the Middle East and Asia. Islam scares the hell out of me.

[Magiver]

@rock_party

Muslims in the region should take care of this, since they’re the ones most threatened. Saudi Arabia has a small air force and so does UAE.
It’s obvious we’re being goaded into going in. They need “The Crusaders from the West” or “The Great Satan” to reign destruction on them to get broader Islamic support.
Right now is Muslim against Muslim and it needs to stay that way. We can help these other countries, but it’s got to be the threatened Muslim countries in the region that wipe
Isis out.

I’m thinking that if Putin wants his warm water port in the Mediterranean to remain in place he should take care of it. If Assad is his personal bitch then I think Russia should back him with all their resources until the problem is solved.

[QuickSilver]

@John_Mace

You said that article addressed my question. Then you said the question couldn’t be answered.

Neither you nor I nor anyone without a functioning crystal ball can say how the strategy will change going forward. You insist on knowing what the strategy is. The article outlines it. I said it would probably change over time due to changing realities on the ground. You seem to want the answer to how they’re going to change and what the new strategy will be. I’m saying it’s impossible to know that. It’s an uncertain and unpredictable world. Insisting you want the answer to every eventuality is not realistic.

@John_Mace

There is nothing “obtuse” about point out errors in your post. Besides which, the analogy with Germany isn’t a good one. ISIL, despite its claims, is not a state.

I initially use the word “Nazis”, remember? You objected because you wanted to split hairs. So here we are. You win. Not sure what exactly. Because my point was that we “degraded” the Nazis/Germany before we “defeated” them. That was the idea being discussed. State or no state the strategy used was exactly what Obama said the US strategy would be with regards to ISIS. You changed the subject in order to give me a history lesson.

@John_Mace

That’s odd, since we’re already the only external country engaging in military action against them. That makes us not just the primary player, we are THE ONLY player.

The Kurds are very local and are very involved. Thanks to US involvement they are back in the fight. While US is currently the only external country engaged recent summit of 28 nations indicates that may not be for long. In addition, Iraq is being strongly encouraged to get back in the fight to protect its own interests. How effective will they be? Again, no one knows. But that’s the strategy right now and it also may change in unpredictable ways. I bet you’d like to know what those may be and have an answer for them. Me too. Sorry.

@John_Mace

I think you are missing the point. ISIL is the symptom, not the cause, of the problem with Iraq. Kill every member of ISIL and you still have the same problem. A new Sunni insurgency will get started, with some new incarnation of ISIL. Trying to solve this militarily is, in essence, committing to a strategy of killing all the Sunnis because that is what it would take. Now, of course we won’t kill every Sunni. We’ll give up, and declare victory(or simply leave) just like the last time.

You’re stating the obvious. We all know the problems in the middle east run deeper than some new flavour of the same extremist ideology that’s been pervasive there for centuries. The strategy being outlined is realistic in that it is resolving the immediate problem so that perhaps the local governments can get their hands around the larger problem. If there is a will and a way. I’m not holding by breath.

However, that doesn’t mean nothing can/should be done about this particular insurgence by this group of hateful bastards. If the goal remains: to degrade and as a result defeat them - which does not mean kill every last one and stop saying that it does! - then it’s of limited enough scope for me to support the effort.

[John_Mace]

A goal to defeat ISIL that does not have an accompanying strategy to deal with ISIL in Syria is no goal. I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated before it can be understood.

Now if all we want to do is drive ISIL out of Iraq, we can probably do that. But that’s what Obama says we’re not doing, even though it IS what he said we were doing a week ago (containment). But the problem with that is we are now taking sides in the Iraqi Civil War. If you’re OK with that, then fine. I’m not. I don’t want us participating in their civil war since ISIL is not a direct threat to the US.

[QuickSilver]

@John_Mace

A goal to defeat ISIL that does not have an accompanying strategy to deal with ISIL in Syria is no goal. I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated before it can be understood.

Now if all we want to do is drive ISIL out of Iraq, we can probably do that. But that’s what Obama says we’re not doing, even though it IS what he said we were doing a week ago (containment). But the problem with that is we are now taking sides in the Iraqi Civil War. If you’re OK with that, then fine. I’m not. I don’t want us participating in their civil war since ISIL is not a direct threat to the US.

You can repeat it as many times as you like. But US involvement in Syria is whole other kettle of fish. It sounds to me like you have no qualms about getting involved in Syria’s civil war but getting involved in Iraq’s civil war is somehow objectionable. Please explain why.

As for what was said a week ago vs what is being said today, perhaps when new information is presented and evaluated, the president changes his mind/strategy. What would you do, sir?

[adaher]

He’s being advised that we have to go into Syria and he hasn’t finalized anything yet. So hopefully he listens to the people who know more about this stuff than him.

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilver

You can repeat it as many times as you like. But US involvement in Syria is whole other kettle of fish. It sounds to me like you have no qualms about getting involved in Syria’s civil war but getting involved in Iraq’s civil war is somehow objectionable. Please explain why.

No, and sorry if that is the impression you get. I don’t want us to go into Syria, I’m just pointing out that you can’t “defeat ISIL” unless you do. So, if Obama is just saying we’re going to defeat ISIL, and actually has no intention of doing so, that’s fine with me-- I don’t think we need to “defeat ISIL”. But let’s not pretend that he’s communicating a coherent strategy here.

As for what was said a week ago vs what is being said today, perhaps when new information is presented and evaluated, the president changes his mind/strategy. What would you do, sir?

What new information was given? They killed 2 Americans instead of just killing 1 and saying they were going to kill more?

[John_Mace]

@adaher

He’s being advised that we have to go into Syria and he hasn’t finalized anything yet. So hopefully he listens to the people who know more about this stuff than him.

Yeah, why not add one more country to the list of countries we’ve bombed. The world is ours to bomb as we please.

[jayjay]

@John_Mace

Yeah, why not add one more country to the list of countries we’ve bombed. The world is ours to bomb as we please.

Of course it is! And if we don’t, all the other countries are going to point at our shrivelled tiny national genitals in the locker room and LAUGH! /snark, if the tag is necessary.

[John_Mace]

@jayjay

Of course it is! And if we don’t, all the other countries are going to point at our shrivelled tiny national genitals in the locker room and LAUGH! /snark, if the tag is necessary.

Is there any other country in the world where people routinely talk about bombing inside other country’s boundaries without ever considering whether it’s appropriate to do so? It boggles the mind.

I watched Obama’s Meet the Press interview this morning, and he outright said that ISIL is not a threat to the US. He said that could become a threat in the future, but aren’t right now. He was careful not to say he was planning to bomb Syria, but you could tell it was a distinct possibility.

I’m not crazy about our involvement in Iraq, but at least we do have the invite of the legitimate government to do so. Why doesn’t Syria get its pals Russia and Iran to bomb ISIL in its borders? Of course, they might miss and “accidentally” hit some FSA forces, too…