The war with (or possibly “degradation of”) IS/ISIS/ISIL.
Obama announced “America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.” But will she? Germany has apparently no interest in participating in air strikes. Britain’s Foreign Secretary said ditto. Turkey also opted out, and ruled out the use of its air bases.
And this Washington Post story doesn’t make the search for Arab allies sound encouraging:
Ouch.
Not what you want to hear from prospective allies.
There’s not much evidence that Obama did any real “homework”, in the sense of lining up support in advance. “America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners” thus seems like it can be read as “America kinda hopes it will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.”
So what’s the realistic outlook here? Do we plan to go it alone (or lightly accompanied) if the broad coalition fails to materialize? Could that approach succeed?
Does anyone think the killing of the British gentleman today will change Britain’s stance on actively joining the air strikes?
I initially thought it might, but then realized, his death had to be anticipated prior to their decision, so maybe this doesn’t change things after all.
I hear the video showed yet another western hostage. Do we have any intel on how many they currently have?
The Islamic State can be defeated in Iraq with the combination of the Kurds, the Iraq Army and the U.S. military. But if the Iraq government does not make an accommodation with the Sunnis to integrate them into the government, there will be more civil war.
I don’t see how it can be defeated in Syria, unless the U.S. is willing to accept Syrian government victory in the civil war. Note the latest agreement between all the rebel groups where they agreed NOT to fight each other.
Do the extremists get worse every time we get involved? We supported the mujahadeen, who later became the Taliban. Al Qaeda was able to become much stronger after we killed Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. ISIS apparently was an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq. What’s going to come after we go to war against ISIS?
That’s an impressive amount of whining from someone (the countries) who basically kickstarted ISIS to the tune of billions of dollars of funding and thousands of willing recruits. I think the world has reached a low point in the trust of all the Gulf States and feel betrayed by a thousand things they’ve done. And what did they even suggest they bring to the table if anyone trusted them? Saudi infantry forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria? The tip of the spear? Not bloody likely. It’s not like their military isn’t shit despite the billions and billions of dollars thrown at it. It’s not like Saudi Arabia, ideological speaking, is first cousins with ISIS and has nothing but contempt for the USA.
The war will not succeed unless it includes invading Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
You are going at it alone, with nothing but a two-faced front veneer of support from the Saudis and the rest, and you don’t want to put boots on the ground. But ISIS can’t be destroyed by an air campaign, they’d just blend into the civilian population. The Kurds cannot do your foot work, especially in Syria. And the Syrian allies Obama suggest arming in Syria. The same people who sold the two journalists to ISIS, has entered into a non-aggression alliance with ISIS.
On top of that Kerry has spoken that it is inappropriate that Iran should participate in any concerted effort. How stupid is that? It is already deeply involved; absolutely no solution will come about without involving Iran.
I don’t understand how any progress can be made in this ISIL clusterfuck without rubbing shoulders against the twin reefs of Bashad and Maliki.
Based on Obama’s last speech, however, I think he understands the situation, and has a plan.
This is why I voted for Obama. He can do this kind of thing; he is not ignorant of what military force is meant for, nor does he overestimate what it can achieve.
Why not look at this through the lens of South Vietnam? It’s a model that proved true with the al-Maliki regime:
the Great Intervening Outsiders aren’t stupid: they know the locals need to win their war for themselves. Just give them the required support and materiel to do so.
The locals see mountains of materiel and prestgious support as a boondoggle to exploit. Corruption and fractious infighting ensues, the very last thing needed to succeed. But, as in Vietnam, their guiding article of faith is that the Great Intervening Powers will never let the opposition ideology prevail, so that mountain of swag will keep piling up. And even if worse comes to worse, we have an offshore bank account and a reserved seat on the last chopper out.
The Opposition Ideology doesn’t play by the rules. They have a streamlined philosophy that’s trimmed away impedementia like the Geneva codes. Like the old Anarchists, their guiding article of faith is “the worse the better.”
Didn’t you just do this exact same thing just last week or so? I think I’ll just cite yourself citing from one of the links posted then: “in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” - Steken
Qatar and Saudi Arabia – officially or semi-officially by organisations or wealthy individuals – funded Islamist groups in Syria with billions of dollars in direct aid, as well as many other forms of aid. Many or most of these rebels later turned out to be, or merged with, ISIS.
They received outside funding, but they never relied on outside funding. So claiming that ISIS’ foreign donors “basically kickstarted” the organisation is quite wrong.
The second point is that the quote you repeat mentions only “wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” Yet here you are claiming that the COUNTRIES “basically kickstarted” ISIS. So again: Got a cite for that?
What I’d like to know is why must we (the US) do anything? Just keep on alert for terrorism headed our way and call it a day. If at some point these two faced passive aggressive countries (Saudia Arabia, Qatar, even Turkey) come to us for help, then we can decide what to do.
Their attitude is basically, “You’re saving our ass but we don’t really want to acknowledge it or help out or offer any thanks at all.”
You argue semantics and footnotes on page 645, on which I couldn’t care less. The above quote states the donations were a key component. This is putting it mildly in my opinion, but is fine enough for a cite. If you disagree that a key component for getting started is not the same as kickstarting then take it up with Muhammed because I couldn’t care less.
I’m not going cite-hunting for you. When wealthy individuals and organisations operate on such a level of activity and visibility in a fairy organised state then I assume official involvement or tacit consent which amounts to the same. I do not accept the two-faced opt out which have been used for so many years by Golf states, that it is not official when terrorist aid is funnelled through various so-called aid organisations or wealthy individuals.
You’re right. Why not wait for the threat to get big enough for the Arab states to come to us?
I think the answer is that the leaders of free press nations simply can’t sit by when a group like IS beheads it’s citizens on video. The press, and by extension, the public, makes doing nothing politically impossible. Notice how no one ever asks Putin in Russia or Xi in China what THEY’RE going to do about IS. Because they tell their press to stfu.