ISIS overall territorial gains have stopped, and receded, in the past 12 months largely due to airstrikes hitting ISIS in coordination with ground forces working against them. To be clear I am not saying they’ve not taken an acre of territory since then, I’m saying it’s a fluid war but the trend is smaller overall territory. Is it your argument they’ve made significant territorial gains? They’ve typically not retaken any major territorial losses they’ve suffered.
Anbar was largely taken over by ISIS In 2014 and there has been limited success against them since then in terms of territorial control of Anbar, but their overall control of territory is down in 2015 vs where it was at the end of 2014. Additionally their ability to pump, perform basic refining, and transport of oil is also down–evidenced by their collapsing ability to pay workers to do these things. They also have virtually no ability to replenish their supplies of the heaviest equipment they seized from the Iraqi military in the earlier phases of the war, and much of that has been destroyed by airstrikes.
not just bombing of course, support for anti-ISIS forces in the area, ongoing peace talks in Vienna
yes
yes#
no, no-one’s should be, no matter what side of the argument they occupy.
Every option from “do nothing” to “airstrikes” means that innocents will die. How many and to what eventual end neither you, I or other armchair generals in this thread can predict. Previous M.E. campaigns have no predictive power because this enemy is a different beast alltogether.
Forgive me dropping into Terminator mode here but by their own, sincerely held beliefs they will not stop until they’ve established their own caliphate and killed or subjugated everyone who opposes that. They’d happily slit the throat of you, your family and anyone you know if they feel it furthers their cause. If they, or the world is destroyed as that happens then so much the better.
There isn’t any bargaining, no diplomatic manoeuvring. There simply is no way of tackling them other than by violent action of some kind, or by allowing their murderous regime to eventually implode (which will include a lot of violence along the way)
If being bombed resulted in groups becoming more powerful, core Al Qaeda would be the most powerful terrorist organization in the world.
Is it?
So, Russia looks at Assad, the person who is single handedly responsible for starting a civil war that has displaced something like 10 million Syrians, divided his own country in what some think is an irreparable way, and who has no chance to lead a future Syria, and thinks, “Yes, this is the man who can bring peace to Syria!”
You are a first rate idiot if you believe any of the nonsensical propaganda coming out of the Kremlin. All Putin is interested in is maintaining a client state in Syria, and their intervention has fuck-all to do with dealing with a terrorist threat to the rest of the world.
Seriously, if you swallow this load of tripe that Russians are in Syria to fight ISIL, you probably also believe that no Russian soldiers are in Ukraine. And that Putin can score five goals in a hockey game against players who could check him if they wanted, but they just don’t.
That Russian pilot got murdered after his plane was shot down precisely because the Russians are doing far more to create new recruits than we are, because their bombing campaigns are following mid-20th century practices of wholesale indiscriminate bombing. American drone strikes are the most precise form of bombing ever devised, creating the least amount of collateral damage of any aerial bombing technique ever before deployed in war.
The American airstrikes are simply not responsible for ISIS generating recruits. ISIS gets recruits because they are successful, and their message of establishing a state with defined territory is deeply appealing to some. As has been reported on recently–the failed promise of that State, in large part due to airstrikes degrading the quality of control ISIS exercises over its territory, is resulting in hundreds of thousands of people deliberately fleeing ISIS territory. More potential “recruits” flee the countries where ISIS is active in a month than ISIS has recruited in its entire resistance, due to the abject failure of their ability to govern a livable society. Without the airstrikes ISIS would be doing vastly better both in recruiting, finances, and in terms of control of territory.
Honestly, this “bombing just creates more terrorists” is an old argument that is more applicable to conflicts earlier in the GWOT or in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it doesn’t largely apply to the war on ISIS.
Wait a minute. Do you think a US pilot would be spared if one was shot down and caught?
As much as I would like to believe that, I doubt it’s true. It may not be verifiable either way, but don’t be so sure of yourself. We kill a lot of civilians in these bombing raids, and they all have not only relatives, but entire tribes that want revenge. Plus… we’re taking sides in the civil war, which pits the other side against us. They may not like Daesh in principle, but Daesh gives them a platform for fighting the Evil Empire.
It doesn’t matter who is killed, it’s the fact of westerners bombing the shit out of Muslims in Islamic states. It doesn’t need to bear any more analysis than that for the old imperialist narrative to be validated on ISIS’ next video production.
When a house is on fire, you don’t argue who is responsible for starting it. You put the fire out and that is what the Russians are doing in Syria. They have the right idea. ISIS and the other motley groups of assholes thrive because the Syrian state collapse. To check and reverse that, the only realistic way to restore the Syrian states authority and that right now means that Assad must stay.
Assad is guilty of all the things people say about him, but right now he is the only option. Once we have peace restored and a functioning state with undisputed authority then little Bashar can have his all expense paid trip to the Hauge organised.
An example is how Milosovich was dealt with at Dayton.
As an aside, saying the Russians have a reasonable approach in Syria, does not make one agree with everything the Russians have said or done. A nuance which of course is lost on an individual with the intellectual ability of a potted plant like yourself.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
That Russian pilot got murdered after his plane was shot down precisely because the Russians are doing far more to create new recruits than we are, because their bombing campaigns are following mid-20th century practices of wholesale indiscriminate bombing. American drone strikes are the most precise form of bombing ever devised, creating the least amount of collateral damage of any aerial bombing technique ever before deployed in war.
The American airstrikes are simply not responsible for ISIS generating recruits. ISIS gets recruits because they are successful, and their message of establishing a state with defined territory is deeply appealing to some. As has been reported on recently–the failed promise of that State, in large part due to airstrikes degrading the quality of control ISIS exercises over its territory, is resulting in hundreds of thousands of people deliberately fleeing ISIS territory. More potential “recruits” flee the countries where ISIS is active in a month than ISIS has recruited in its entire resistance, due to the abject failure of their ability to govern a livable society. Without the airstrikes ISIS would be doing vastly better both in recruiting, finances, and in terms of control of territory.
Honestly, this “bombing just creates more terrorists” is an old argument that is more applicable to conflicts earlier in the GWOT or in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it doesn’t largely apply to the war on ISIS.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
You think that the American planes are dropping flowers and confetti? Its always a dangerous thing to believe ones own propaganda.
Here’s a big hint. I don’t give a fuck when it comes to killing ISIS. I think the world pretty much doesn’t give a fuck when it comes to killing ISIS. I’d rather see bombs falling on ISIS than read about another November 13th type attack or another airliner downed by them, let alone another innocent person murdered on video by these animals.
No, the answer is that Assad must go first before dealing with ISIL.
There are millions of Syrians who fled because of Assad’s refusal to leave power. A pretty good chunk of the opposition to Assad has nothing to do with Al Qaida or ISIL – they are relatively normal people who are pissed at Assad for using chemical weapons to kill their children.
Russia is saying that all these people ought to either be killed or surrender to a terrorist state run by Assad in order to fight ISIL. That is never going to happen. Russia is proposing a plan that only a fool would agree to.
Their approach is to ignore ISIL, bomb the Free Syrian Army, and lie about bombing ISIL in places they have never existed in order to kill people who quite simply want to see Assad go. These aren’t groups who are fighting for a caliphate – they’re fighting for someone other than Assad to lead the country.
I can’t believe how gullible you are to swallow the crap that the Kremlin is putting out. You should be ashamed of yourself. I have to ask again – do you also buy Putin’s lies that no Russian soldiers are in Ukraine?
However, I should point out that most us of here on this MB disagree. If you think it’s just me, you are sorely mistaken. Many of us here realize that “bomb the shit out of those fuckers” has not been an effective strategy in the past and is not likely to be effective one in the future. We see that, even under the best of circumstance, hundreds if not thousands of civilians are being killed along with Da-esh, and their relatives feel the same way you do. And some of us realize that the only real solution to the problem is political, not martial. Last, but not least, many of us DO care if our countries are engaged in military action of questionable legality.
Once more – if bombing created more enemies, then why isn’t core Al Qaida the most powerful terrorist organization on earth? They’ve certainly been bombed more than any other terrorist group.
Well, Al Qaida and ISIS had a conscious uncoupling in 2013 and declared war against each other a couple of months ago. Pretty much a standard divorce then.
ISIS are the glam team now, they pay good money and make cool vidoes. Hanging with the Al Qaida is a bit lame now. They’re the old guys. The action’s in Syria with the true black flag pirates.
I’m pretty sure this “we” you speak of is in your mind. I hope that helps explain the voices you keep hearing.
Political answer to the ISIS problem? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that is with respect to them? You really think they would participate? You really think they will abandon their agenda for this? Are you really this far gone?
Killing the enemy has always been the most effective way of eliminating the threat they pose. It’s worked since man picked up and threw the first rock. We’ve wasted a shitload of money on weapons for our military if this is not true.
But you continue thinking there’s some high road answer to dealing with religions zealots seeking redemption based on killing innocent people. Watch the death and destruction they cause while you find a political solution. Meanwhile, we’ll keep culling their ranks with bombs and more bombs.
Hell, if being bombed resulted in groups becoming more powerful, the Japanese Empire would not have surrendered a week after they got nuked.
Bombing ISIL will not increase their capacity to recruit, because ISIL’s capacity to recruit is limited by the fact that they can only appeal to people who are already monsters. Monsters with self-control, perhaps, but there is nothing in ISIL’s agenda that can appeal to somebody who was not already a horrible human being before they signed up.
Haven’t spent much time in GD on the subjects, have you?
The political answer isn’t for Da-esh-- it’s for the folks that are sympathetic with them because they see they’re own central government to be as bad or worse. They wouldn’t have been able to get into Iraq if the Sunni Arabs hadn’t been dealt out of the Iraqi political process. Syria, of course, is more complicated because they’re in the middle of an all-out Civil War. But that Civil War, which is a breakdown of the political process, is what allowed Da-esh to get it’s foothold in the first place. I suspect you know that, but seem to be more interesting in taking vapid snipes at me rather than discussing the actual issues.
If only it were as simple as a high road vs a low road. The only lasting solution is political, however that doesn’t mean one will materialize. But… we have a long history of screwing up political processes, so I’m not ready to get behind a US-led process. I think it’s something that, if it’s going to come, is going to have to come from the people in those 2 countries.
The world isn’t ours to fix, and some humility should be in order for anyone who has seen our involvement in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
So…first Assad has to go. Then we can start bombing ISIS? If Assad is our first target why have we been bombing ISIS for the last year or more, and leaving Assad more or less alone? Of course the reason we aren’t bombing Assad is that when Assad goes, ISIS steps in. What, you think the “moderate rebels” are finally going to materialize when Assad gets put down?
Yes, we can protect the Kurds. We can protect ethnic minorities. But pretending that Assad’s departure means we can finally fully support the “moderate rebels” in putting down ISIS is, well, I don’t know what it is, but it’s among the silliest things I’ve seen this week, and I’ve been posting in the voluntary castration threads.
If we want to defeat ISIS we need to make common cause with Assad. Which is what we’re doing, at least in the sense that we’ve given up pretending that Assad has to go. If we want to defeat Assad we need to make common cause with ISIS. How’s that going to work? We are, in fact, giving up on getting rid of Assad. The last time we seriously tried to do anything about Assad was the chemical weapons thing a couple years ago. Pretty near to 100% of all the equipment we tried to give the moderate rebels ended up in the hands of ISIS. Helping them means helping ISIS. You don’t wanna help ISIS do you, son? Why do you hate America? So we’re going to help ISIS by arming the moderate rebels, and let’s hear no more of this moderate rebel nonsense.