unfortunately that is seldom how the world works. Instead they’ll spread instability, lawlessness and conflict, and Islamists and terrorists (many of the foreigners) trained in the Syrian conflict will take their skills to new battlegrounds. In ten years time we’ll see terrorists acts in the USA or Europe masterminded and carried out by terrorist groups established by rebels in Syria. And if the USA intervenes in any way, we’ll be sure to hear no end to how the USA created the terrorist group, in the same way that they created Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Keep out. There is no upside for you.
I think you are largely correct. If the USA, or GB intervened, they would become the “bad guy” within a week. By staying out, the USA can actually benefit:
-Syria may well break up along ethnic/religious lines-that will keep the islamists busy fighting eachother
-the breakup of Syria may well encourage the breakup of Iraq (the Kurds want their own country)
TE Lawrence accurately forecast this turn of events over 80 years ago. Versailles and its nation building decrees is long gone, the big question is: what will the ME look like in 10-20 years time?
Much of the fighting at this point is between different groups of rebels. Mainly between Islamists and Kurds. The Turks – having a special dislike for the Kurds, and especially any move towards Kurdish independence – have even allowed whole tank battalions to cross the border into Syria (Kurd-jihadist clashes in north Syria). The jihadist have also been busy looting and torching churches and murdering Alawites.
The thing, for me, is that Assad has figured out that he has no way out that doesn’t include killing as many people as it takes to make the rebels stop. He’s killed so many that there is not any other thing he can do. He’s burnt every possible bridge.
This is shaking out into a multi-sided war like the Lebanese Civil War. The Syrian rebels are fighting each other as well as the government. The U.S. is still against Assad but also against ISIS. Iran is for Assad but against ISIS. And so on. It’s hard to see how that can end well.
WTF dude? You post that in 6 (eta:sorry, only 5) different threads all at once? Including " What should the USA do in Iraq?" when it isn’t about Iraq. Bad form.
Though it’s an easy mistake to think they are from/based in Syria, since that’s where they seem to have gathered real strength. It’s also an easy mistake if you are intent on thinking this is a foreign invasion of Iraq, like NFBW is.
I am not discussing ISIS’s predecessor organizations. I am referring to the current terrorist oganization that has its HQ located in Syria according to Wikipedia.
I wonder if Mace and Carnalk would like to try to refute this version of events:
The last line from the excerpt:
" And now ISIS has marched back into western and northern Iraq. Only this time there is no U.S. military to stop it."
Those that contend that ‘marched back into’ is not synonymous or interchangeable with ‘invaded’ are simply in error.
Well, mine was pure whoosh, but I have to admit that CarnalK has a point. They may be “headquartered” in Syria at this point in time, but now they are all over the place in both Syria and Iraq. And they came out of Iraq in the first place.
They were not ISIS when they were driven out of Iraq by the Sunni Anbar tribal fighters who were on Uncle Sam’s payroll at the end of that counter-terrorist campaign. They became ISIS and for a few years headquartered in Syria after being driven out of Iraq. Wherever any of these individual terrorists/barbarians came from originally, they have invaded/marched into Iraq this year from their current base/HQ in Syria as I said.
And that invasion was noticed by most observant people in the world beginning on June 10. I’m not sure of the reason that you missed it.