Surely the locations of all ISIS controlled oil wells are well known and theres not that many of them. Why can’t the US just airstrike them every time someone tries to collect oil. Or even keep drones permanently circling them and Hellfire every time collection is attempted.
Supposedly they are not getting much foreign funding so they’d collapse in a few months if the money from oil was cut off.
Presumably some non-ISIS civilians work in these oilfields and you want to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths. Also, you want to keep to keep the oilfields for use after ISIS is defeated.
Correct answer. See E; Salvador and Nicaragua for earlier examples. Not to mention the entire Cold War. And the Emmanuel Goldstein book in Orwell’s “1984”.
Let’s keep the off-topic political commentary out of this. If you want to propose a conspiracies on the part of the military-industrial complex take it to Great Debates.
Do you have a cite that ISIS are getting a significant amount of money from oil wells in the areas they control? This is the first time I have seen any such suggestion. Who would be buying oil from them? I would have assumed that, like most irregular armies on the move (or groups of brigands, and, really, from all I hear, they are more like a particularly large and vicious group of brigands than a regular army), they get most of their ‘income’ from pillaging.
ISIS is not America’s problem. They have done nothing to harm us, and I highly doubt that anything Iraq and Syria gives us in return will be worth the money and lives we will throw away.
boffking, this does not address the question in the OP. This being GQ, let’s keep political opinions out of this.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Moderator Instructions
The above goes for everyone. If you want to discuss policy toward ISIS in general, take it to GD. Further political opinionating may be subject to a warning.
There is nothing in the OP regarding the motivation of the US government. And bringing in El Salvador and Nicaragua was going far afield of the OP.
The posts that I moderated were were way off the main issue of ISIS and oil fields, bringing in conspiracies by the military-industrial complex, other countries entirely, and an opinion about the general significance of ISIS. If you wish to discuss these issues, you are welcome to start another thread in Great Debates.
How is it possible that any answer that smacks of general policy or political will must be a digression from an analysis of this question?
I understand you mission and resolve to minimize political discusion in this forum, but if an OP’s question asks for policy, what’s to be done? If there are historical parallels that illustrate the motive, they are surely admissible.
That’s not policy, that’s strategy. And your own post not really relevant even with regard to policy.
Further discussion of moderation should be taken to ATMB. If you don’t feel you can contribute to the narrower question posed in the OP without discussing broader issues, there is no requirement for you to continue to post in this thread. As I said, you are welcome to start another thread in Great Debates if you feel you must. But if you continue to disrupt this one you will receive a warning.
Foreign Policy magazine provides the answer: Attacking refineries is more environmentally friendly than bombing oil fields. (Recall Saddam’s sabotage of Kuwait fields as his army fled.) Moreover, the fields would sustain long term damage and they belong to the Syrian people.