The point is, it looks like even ISIS, among other extremist groups HAVE received funding from wealthy Arabs. Maybe not now…now that they’ve gone off the rails…but still…Why? Why fund any of these extremists? Why not cut them off?
Saudi Arabia funds Sunnis. It’s no secret. Qatar funds Hamas. Iran funds Shias. Not always, true, but still. These extremists are getting…lets say, “support” along the way.
We have been helping the Kurds, and will continue to do so I presume.
I’m just advocating that when we’re there…this time…we are actually helping; freeing people who want our help and there are fewer “blurred lines” as to who is doing good and who isn’t.
One point, when we bomb enough ISIS fronts in Iraq and in Syria (if we go there) I bet they eliminate obvious fronts and start working by blending in with the populace. Like Hamas. Then we’re stuck killing civilians when we go after them. And then, once again, our efforts are despised by all and we’re being exactly like they’ve always thought, the evil West that rains destruction down on them.
Sometimes, a common ideology; sometimes, a common enemy. It’s complicated.
Those “blurred lines” will never go away. War is hell.
I understand that “war is hell.” And I don’t expect when this is all said and done that there will be
flights in and out the area with Americans going to gamble at the new Bagdad or Damascus Harrahs.
But after years in Iraq, spending on average half a billion dollars a day, we couldn’t even say we left with ALLIES in the region. They hated us. They blamed us. Our efforts did no good and were a total waste of lives, time and money.
We should stay out of there unless we’re sure we’re doing good and the good we’re doing will be recognized by the people we’re helping.
But…but…Saddam was a Baaad man.
Are you saying that hanging him and kicking a modern country back to the middle ages wasn’t good?
That doesn’t sound very Patriotic to me!
Staying out of there entirely is an argument many people make. It has its merits. But letting others judge what “doing good” means is tricky. The US was “doing good” when it supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan against Russian incursion. That came to bite the US in the ass in a spectacular way because some (not all) ended up forming or joining Al Qaeda and/or Taliban.
The problem, you see, is knowing not only who the good guys are today, but whether they’ll remain the good guys tomorrow.
Speaking of funding, we need to fund our own war effort. Do nothing until Congress passes tax increases to pay for this. If they can’t do that, gridlock strikes again, let it burn.
Just a bit of an update:
Basically, a base in Anbar less than 50 miles from Baghdad and defended by nearly a thousand men with heavy American air support was besieged for almost a week, despite attempts at relief, and then overwhelmed. That’s another entire brigade gone.
Meanwhile the Syrian Kurds, who not long ago were the safe haven the Yazidis escaped to, are now being overwhelmed by ISIS, with a hundred thousand refugees fleeing into Turkey over the weekend before the Turks sealed the border.
The New York Times reports - here - that Turkey sealed the border to hinder traffic in the other direction, i.e. to prevent P.K.K.-affiliated Turkish Kurds from entering Syria to fight ISIS:
In other news, after a disastrous first showing, the Iraqi Kurds seem to have done a perfectly fine job pushing back ISIS. Since August 8, they have retaken more than twenty villages and towns, including Makhmour.
The Iran-backed Shi’a militias did a fine job at the battle of Amerli, at the beginning of the month. As it turns out, Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s “Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Qods Force” - this guy - was personally present during the battle.
Oh, and speaking about Turkey. Remember those 49 Turkish consulate personnel held captive by ISIS? They have all, somehow, been freed - though the Turks won’t say how. The plot thickens.
It seems that IS are trying to consolidate the northern approaches to Syria, knowing that Turkey won’t do anything if IS does nothing to them, so I’m guessing with the northern flank secured (If they take Kobane) they’ll then turn their attentions to Homs or Aleppo. However I’m hoping Kobane is IS version of Stalingrad.
Meanwhile, Anbar seems to be in total collapse
I wonder: What is the Turkish endgame here, anyway?
At first, I thought the Turks were simply happy to see IS and the YPG slaughtering each other to their hearts’ content. From Ankara’s standpoint, after all, both groups are terrorists, so let ‘em kill each other, best of luck to the both of them – that sort of thing.
But with the Turkish parliament authorizing military action, and Turkish troops amassed at the Syrian border, I have now begun to wonder if maybe – just maaaaybe – the Turks might not be planning a land invasion after all?
If so, they could easily present themselves as the real heroes of the conflict: While other countries went in for useless, impotent air strikes, Turkey – and only Turkey – had the balls to put boots on the ground, take the fight to the enemy, and crush at least IS’ Syrian wing once and for all. (I don’t imagine that they’d go into Iraq.) And since Ankara waited until IS was thisclose to the Turkish border, not to mention that ol’ Ottoman shrine, they could well argue that they were basically acting in preemptive self-defence, too.
Turkish troops on Syrian soil would also humiliate Assad, Turkey’s longtime foe, as well as remind Syria’s Kurds that only Turkey has the power to protect them from their Arab foes (so they’d better play nice in the future).
All in all, I can see how it would make for pretty good PR, basically framing IS as “an Arab problem – with a neo-Ottoman solution.”
We didn’t for whatever good or bad reasons so Turkey decided if it wasn’t getting anything out of it, it wasn’t going to do anything.
He might just be biding his time, no? Waiting 'til they beg, á la Richard III. Dude probably figures that the Americans and their allies don’t want to be seen as having enabled the destruction of the Syrian Kurds by stubbornly refusing to grant him his three little wishes. I do for you, you do for me. If not - bye bye Kobani…
I certainly get the impression that Erdogan wants to invade, but only when all the right conditions have been met. After all, in that very same speech, he did call for a ground invasion, saying that “the terror will not be over… unless there is cooperation for a ground operation.” The key word being cooperation. He wants something in return, natch.
The question is: Will the Americans give it to him? And if not, why not?
The first demand, a no-fly zone, seems reasonable enough. Worked wonders in Iraq. Fairly cheap. Doable. The Iranians would be miffed, sure, but from the American standpoint that’s a plus, no?
The second demand… Not sure I understand it, to be honest. “A secure zone parallel to the region to be declared”? What does that mean, exactly?
The third demand - for “the moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq to be trained and equipped” - seems to have been met already, no? Or at least I recall reading that this was something that America and her allies, amongst them the Saudis, were already planning to do.
One final thing. Keep in mind that Erdogan held his speech in front of an audience of Syrian refugees, the vast majority of them Kurds. He might well have brought up his three demands to explain just what the hell is taking him so long: “See, I want to attack, I really do - but the Americans just won’t play ball! Take it up with them! It’s like they don’t wanna fight that asshole Assad! I’m as angry as you are!”
Too late to edit: The Turks seem to be bargaining over the price, too.
Just last week, Davutoglu “appeared to make intervention conditional on the US-led anti-IS coalition expanding its mandate and committing itself to removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”
Now, with his three demands - none of which go so far as to demand Assad’s removal outright - Erdogan has taken the price down a little bit, so as to make it more palatable for the buyer. “Special price for you, my friend!” 
I don’t get it. IS is on their very borders. The US & Western coalition members can pack up and go home if this whole IS thing gets out of hand - maybe suffering some terrorism from them, but hardly a major concern. The Turks have to live there, and IS would be a permanent threat to them.
Why are the Turks acting as if they have the barganing power here?
I’m guessing that Turkey is just not eager to help Assad by going after his enemies, especially when it also means helping Syrian Kurds. Maybe they figure they can “easily” keep ISIL out of Turkey, and they don’t care much what they do in Syria.
I guess the real question is whether the Turks are (i) more short-sighted compared with Western leaders; or (ii) more level-headed compared with Western leaders, in their analysis of the actual future military threat posed by IS?
Is IS a bunch of radical hicks who have scored easy victories over unchallenging opponents, or is IS really threatening to explode into a significant ME unifier-by-force? Or something inbetween? Truth to tell, I have no idea. I’d have though the first when they were routing the Iraqi army - I just assume the military potential of the Iraqi army post-reconstruction is limited - but they are also beating up on the Kurds, who I would have thought tougher customers.
ISIL has never faced a really good military. Assad isn’t going after them seriously, at least not yet. Turkey also knows that, as a member of NATO, if ISIL actually invades, it can call on its NATO partners if need be. But I doubt ISIL would stand much of a chance against the Turkish military. Remember, ISIL gained a lot of strength in Syria and Iraq by allying with disaffect Sunni Arabs. Turkey doesn’t have a lot of Sunni Arabs.
ETA: This is all conjecture on my part. Just trying to make sense out of something that, on the surface, doesn’t make a lot of sense.
That makes sense, the only issue is if it is short-sighted. Certainly IS (I’m gonna just use “IS” because In can’t keep up ) would have to be positively suicidal to attack the Turks - and indeed, they haven’t presumed to attack the Israelis either, although I believe they have taken over at least one border crossing with them.
That is now, while they are still expanding. The issue is whether they will pose a significant threat to the Turks if and when they get established in their ‘natural homelands’.