ISIS in the Middle East is growing

[lisiate]

@The_Fornicator

South Vietnam’ was a nonsense put up job that lasted 20 years. Goodness knows how.

Maybe $738 Billion (in 2011 dollars) of US spending had a bit to do with it? Interestingly that cite estimates Iraq 2003-2010 as costing $784 billion. Pretty close, although the ‘years collaborationist regime lasted per $100 billion spent’ looks like it will be a lot worse for Iraq.

By comparison the entire US piloted space program has cost about $485 Billion (in 2010dollars)

[rock_party]

Is ISIS pretty much the same group fighting Assaud in Syria or are they just the Sunni allies
of that group?
On the right wing blogosphere, they’re ranting that this is Obama’s fault because we didn’t help the separatists in Syria. But if this is a off shoot of that same group, we’d of been helping the enemy that’s now invading Iraq.
And didn’t John McCain go over and meet with these guys and say they were great and we need
to support them? Where’s his plea for these guys now? If this is basically the same group McCain
was trying to get us to support…what a fuck up McCain.

[jayjay]

@rock_party

Is ISIS pretty much the same group fighting Assaud in Syria or are they just the Sunni allies
of that group?
On the right wing blogosphere, they’re ranting that this is Obama’s fault because we didn’t help the separatists in Syria. But if this is a off shoot of that same group, we’d of been helping the enemy that’s now invading Iraq.
And didn’t John McCain go over and meet with these guys and say they were great and we need
to support them? Where’s his plea for these guys now? If this is basically the same group McCain
was trying to get us to support…what a fuck up McCain.

All of which really shows the futility of seeking easy solutions in the Middle East. There are SO many competing power groups, and their alliances shift from victory to victory. The “good guys” we laud today may be the “bad guys” we deplore tomorrow.

[John_Mace]

@rock_party

Is ISIS pretty much the same group fighting Assaud in Syria or are they just the Sunni allies
of that group?
On the right wing blogosphere, they’re ranting that this is Obama’s fault because we didn’t help the separatists in Syria. But if this is a off shoot of that same group, we’d of been helping the enemy that’s now invading Iraq.
And didn’t John McCain go over and meet with these guys and say they were great and we need
to support them? Where’s his plea for these guys now? If this is basically the same group McCain
was trying to get us to support…what a fuck up McCain.

Emphasis added. Are you asking a question or making a claim?

Hint: There isn’t just one “group fighting Assad”.

[rock_party]

I don’t doubt there’s more than one group fighting Assad. It doesn’t see like they’re at each others throats so I’ll assume the various groups are allies. I don’t hear any condemnation from
any of the Syrian separatists about the group now invading Iraq.
My point though was, the right wing harping on about how this is Obama’s chickens come home to roost and if he’d done something in Syria, this wouldn’t be happening in Iraq. To me this
is total bullshit.

[CarnalK]

@rock_party

I don’t doubt there’s more than one group fighting Assad. It doesn’t see like they’re at each others throats so I’ll assume the various groups are allies.

You are really not following the story then.

Rebel infighting kills thousands of Syrians

GAZIENTEP, Turkey — Syria’s rebel fighters have, over the past two months, suffered some of their heaviest casualties of the three-year civil war — not at the hands of the Assad regime, but in fierce internecine bloodletting that has put opposition medical resources under strain.

The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) — an armed group so radical that it has been disowned even by Al-Qaeda — has turned the war against the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad into a complicated multi-front conflict where rapidly changing alliances and allegiances have led to confusion on the battlefield and an escalating casualty count.

[Tamerlane]

@BrainGlutton

Since 1453, when the Turks conquered Constantinople.

If you’re talking about the Caliphal title, it was 1517. That particular wikipedia article kinda sucks when it comes to particulars.

The Ottoman Caliphate dates from about then, and, while Shi’a Muslims may have simply ignored that claim, no Sunni Muslims contested it.

No Sunni Muslims paid much attention to it. It was pretty much a ceremonial frippery until, as noted, the very late empire when the Ottoman state was tottering and looking for a new rallying cry. That’s also about the time that Turkish nationalism began to be pushed as well. The state was grasping at straws.

[Diceman]

@rock_party

I don’t doubt there’s more than one group fighting Assad. It doesn’t see like they’re at each others throats so I’ll assume the various groups are allies. I don’t hear any condemnation from
any of the Syrian separatists about the group now invading Iraq.
My point though was, the right wing harping on about how this is Obama’s chickens come home to roost and if he’d done something in Syria, this wouldn’t be happening in Iraq. To me this is total bullshit.

The rebels groups in Syria are allied with al Qaida to a greater or lesser degree. Most of them probably regard ISIS as kindred souls.

I suspect, with a high degree of confidence, that most people in the US government are quietly rooting for Assad to crush the rebels, considering him to be the lesser of two evils. That’s why, after the chemical weapon attack, we let him get away with basically saying “Oops! My bad! Won’t happen again.”

[CarnalK]

@Diceman

The rebels groups in Syria are allied with al Qaida to a greater or lesser degree. Most of them probably regard ISIS as kindred souls.

For pete’s sake, did you not see what I quoted 2 posts above yours? ISIL is “an armed group so radical that it has been disowned even by Al-Qaeda”. Further in the article I linked:

ISIL’s actions have become so divisive among rebel groups that the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front, issued an ultimatum on Feb. 25 demanding that the group accept mediation to end the infighting or face expulsion from the region by Nusra fighters.

The Nusra Front has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., but has stayed out of the fighting between ISIL and other opposition groups.

In response to the Nusra ultimatum, ISIL fighters reportedly withdrew from some areas in northern Syria on Friday.

[Dissonance]

@tagos

@Ryan_Liam

But it’s been more effective than it has now, and you know it. The Syrian Army is just as ‘piss poor’ as the Iraqi one of before 2003, yet is somehow being able to hold its own in its own civil war, despite desertions and support from Hezbollah and Iran.

At the risk of inserting facts into your worldview. The syrian army is holding it’s own BECAUSE of, not DESPITE Hezbollah and Iranian support. They are backing and fighting for Assad’s regime.

Indeed. At the risk of inserting some more facts, the Syrian Army is not and never has been as piss poor as the Iraqi Army. The Syrian Army has clearly never been near as effective a fighting force as its primary historic opponent the IDF, but it performed light-years better than the Iraqi Army in the Arab-Israeli Wars. The Iraqi Army was the subject of derision by their own Egyptian and Syrian allies, see Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974. Mind you, the Iraqi 3rd Armored Division, the one that blindly walked into an Israeli ambush on the morning of 13 October 1973 after having halted in front of them for no apparent reason the afternoon before was considered the elite division of the Iraqi Army:

The 3rd Armoured Division saw service later in the Yom Kippur War, under the command of Brig. Gen. Lafta, and was deployed alongside the Jordanian 40th Armoured Brigade. By that time, ‘the division was the elite unit of the army, and Iraqi officers avidly competed to be assigned to it.’[5] The Division suffered heavy casualties during the war, losing more than 157 tanks, 278 dead and 898 wounded.[6] The 8th Mechanised Brigade was completely destroyed on 13 October in an ambush set by four Israeli armoured brigades at Tel Shaar, between Maschara and Nasej.[7]

An Egyptian general Trevor Dupuy interviewed gave him the opinion that the likely cause for the inexplicable decision of the Iraqis to simply halt in mid-afternoon was that they had stopped for lunch and by the time they were done decided it was too close to tea to start moving again.

So sorry Ryan, you’re making shit up calling the Syrian Army “just as piss poor” as the Iraqi Army before 2003.

@Ryan_Liam

Fallen apart in every single conflict in its history, except the Iraq-Iran war. Which until before 1991, was the biggest war of it’s history.

And you clearly aren’t familiar with the Iran-Iraq war to be making a statement like this. The Iraqi Army performed badly from the beginning (The Iraqi troops advancing into Iran in 1980 were described by Patrick Brogan as “badly led and lacking in offensive spirit”), failed to defeat the disorganized and uncoordinated post-revolutionary Iranian resistance and in 1982, guess what it did? I fell apart, abandoning all but a tiny sliver of Iranian territory that it had occupied, leaving behind tens of thousands of prisoners. It was so bad that Saddam announced that he wanted to sue for peace and proposed an immediate ceasefire on 20 June. State of Iraqi armed forces:

The fighting had battered the Iraqi military: its strength fell from 210,000 to 150,000 troops; over 20,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed and over 30,000 captured; two out of four active armoured divisions and at least three mechanised divisions fell to less than a brigade’s strength; and the Iranians had captured over 450 tanks and armoured personnel carriers.[96]

The Iraqi Air Force was also left in poor shape: after losing up to 55 aircraft since early December 1981, they had only 100 intact fighter-bombers and interceptors. A defector who flew his MiG-21 to Syria in June 1982 revealed that the Iraqi Air Force had only three squadrons of fighter-bombers left that were capable of mounting offensive operations into Iran. The Iraqi Army Air Corps was in slightly better shape, and could still operate more than 70 helicopters.[96] Despite that, the Iraqis still held 3,000 tanks, while Iran held 1,000.[36]

At this point, Saddam believed that his army was too demoralised and damaged to hold onto Khuzestan and major swaths of territory in Iran, and withdrew his remaining armed forces from those areas. He redeployed them along the border between Iraq and Iran as a means of defence.[44] However, his troops continued to occupy some key border areas of Iran, and continued to hold onto the disputed territories that prompted his invasion, including the Shatt al-Arab waterway which was the primary cause of the war.[36][52] In response to their failures against the Iranians in Khorramshahr, Saddam ordered the executions of General Juwad Shitnah, General Salah al-Qadhi, and Colonel Masa abd al-Jalil.[65] At least a dozen high-ranking officers were also executed during this time.[86] This became increasingly common punishment for those who failed him in battle.[65]

[Ryan_Liam]

Dissonance
Indeed. At the risk of inserting some more facts, the Syrian Army is not and never has been as piss poor as the Iraqi Army.

And the Iraqi Army has never been as piss poor as you claim it was.

The Syrian Army has clearly never been near as effective a fighting force as its primary historic opponent the IDF, but it performed light-years better than the Iraqi Army in the Arab-Israeli Wars.

The Iraqis send a division that didn’t really want to fight, where as the Syrians are defending their homeland from an invasion, and share a border with Israel, in terms of morale, those are as different as night and day. No wonder the Syrians performed better as a result.

The Iraqi Army was the subject of derision by their own Egyptian and Syrian allies, see Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974. Mind you, the Iraqi 3rd Armored Division, the one that blindly walked into an Israeli ambush on the morning of 13 October 1973 after having halted in front of them for no apparent reason the afternoon before was considered the elite division of the Iraqi Army:

An Egyptian general Trevor Dupuy interviewed gave him the opinion that the likely cause for the inexplicable decision of the Iraqis to simply halt in mid-afternoon was that they had stopped for lunch and by the time they were done decided it was too close to tea to start moving again.

Or that they didn’t want to fight and die to defend Syrians. Because that same division was active in defending Iraq against Iran.

So sorry Ryan, you’re making shit up calling the Syrian Army “just as piss poor” as the Iraqi Army before 2003.

Yeah, that Syrian Army which is being effectively propped up by Hezbollah, the Russians and the Iranian government.

And you clearly aren’t familiar with the Iran-Iraq war to be making a statement like this. The Iraqi Army performed badly from the beginning (The Iraqi troops advancing into Iran in 1980 were described by Patrick Brogan as “badly led and lacking in offensive spirit”), failed to defeat the disorganized and uncoordinated post-revolutionary Iranian resistance and in 1982, guess what it did? I fell apart, abandoning all but a tiny sliver of Iranian territory that it had occupied, leaving behind tens of thousands of prisoners. It was so bad that Saddam announced that he wanted to sue for peace and proposed an immediate ceasefire on 20 June. State of Iraqi armed forces:

Not denying any of this offensive was a disaster, however take note,

The Iraqi army was still a coherent fighting force defending its territory and united in its aim to prevent the Iranians from taking over the country. This is also ignoring the fact Irans population was 40 million and Iraqs was 12 million in 1979, and kept them at bay for 8 years (All this despite having to hold down the Kurds) if the Iraqi army was as bad as you think it was, Iranian influence would of been in Baghdad a lot sooner than it is now.

This isn’t going to change the fact that the US fucked up training the new security forces from the get go, by trying to say ‘well, they’ve always been bad’ is just plain ignoring the history of the Iraqi military. There’s a reason why they went from losing a few wars outside their territory to now being unable to effectively manage their own countrys security, and the blame lies squarely at Paul Bremers de- Baathification campaign. He sowed the seeds of the incompetence we’re witnessing now, and as a by product of that, the end of the state of Iraq as we know it. It’s no accident that most of the military brass came from Mosul, yeah, that same city which is now an ISIS stronghold. Well done.

[Pjen]

The Rise of Isis in Iraq
A strong authoritarian and repressive regime,
dominated by a minority sect, led by an Iron Man,
antagonistic to Iran and Israel, Kurds and Shi’ites
forming an ever present danger to the Western World
and destabilising the whole Middle East.
Such a good result from deposing Saddam Hussain!
To get back to where we started.
Invading Kuwait next? Developing WMDs?
Thank you to the Bush Family and the Neocons.
And all it cost was 5000 dead Americans.

[Ravenman]

I would stick to political commentary, because that is an awful poem.

[El_Kabong]

Rants are down the hall.

And as long as we are hand-wringing, how come all the dead Iraqis don’t count? That number was a hell of a lot more than 5000, IIRC.

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq will split long before that scenario plays out.

But it is a shame that Bush and the rest of the architects of the invasion are not locked up somewhere, or at least banned from going on TV, Radio and Print telling us what to do now and that Obama lost the brilliant war that they had won.

The Republican Party should be done because of this catastrophe. Why anyone would want Republicans in power ever again is astonishing.

[CarnalK]

ISIS in the Middle East is growing
Why the US left Iraq
What should the USA do in Iraq?
What should the West do about the present situation in Iraq?
So, What was the point to the US invading Iraq?
The terrorist haven of Iraq: A self-fulfilling prophecy

And that’s not even all the threads on the Great Debates first page about Iraq. I fail to understand why this rant needed it’s own thread.

[QuickSilver]

@CarnalK

I fail to understand why this rant needed it’s own thread.

It fills a much needed void on the topic.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Axis of Evil
Greeted as liberators
Weeks rather than months

[John_Mace]

ISIS, not Isis. Isis is an Egyptian god.

[John_Mace]

For those wondering who this rag-tag army of ISIS fighters is doing so well in Iraq, they have lots of local help:

Uneasy Alliance Gives Insurgents an Edge in Iraq.

Now, though, with Iraq facing its gravest crisis in years, as Sunni insurgents have swept through northern and central Iraq, Mr. Maliki’s claims about Baathist plots have been at least partly vindicated. While fighters for the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, once an offshoot of Al Qaeda, have taken on the most prominent role in the new insurgency, they have done so in alliance with a deeply rooted network of former loyalists to Saddam Hussein.

The involvement of the Baathists helps explain why just a few thousand Islamic State in Iraq and Syria fighters, many of them fresh off the battlefields of Syria, have been able to capture so much territory so quickly. It sheds light on the complexity of the forces aligned against Baghdad in the conflict — not just the foreign-influenced group known as ISIS, but many homegrown groups, too. And with the Baathists’ deep social and cultural ties to many areas now under insurgent control, it stands as a warning of how hard it might be for the government to regain territory and restore order.