Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I know, it's like the Clinton doctrine of lobbing a couple cruise missiles at a target and thinking the job is done.
The fight against ISIS
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- news of 2014
I know, it's like the Clinton doctrine of lobbing a couple cruise missiles at a target and thinking the job is done.
SabrinaDeep
Official Checked Star Member
What are we talking about? They brought Ghaddafi and Moubarak down, they are foraging terrorists with weapons and commandos against Assad, they are peeing on Putin's head. The actual situation is exactly what the US and some other foolish European politicians (Sarkozy, Cameron over all) and lobbies (Soros' acolytes for example) wanted. For now taking Isis down is not an option. Maybe at a later time when it will be useful to cash politically, like it happened with Osama Bin Laden. Next related step is war in Ukraine (and let's hope that it stops there, but i doubt it).
No, air strikes will not do it. And neither will simply supplying Kurds, Shia or any other neighbour with a dislike for ISIS. At most it will contain the problem in a geographic sense.
ISIS, you see, is the reason that Western countries are actively supporting military dictatorships in the Middle East and Arabia. In five cases political order has broken down in the region and been supplanted by popular alternatives. First we had the popular elections in Algeria that sparked that country's civil war between the Liberal/Western/Army backed interests and GIS. Second we saw the revolution in Egypt which ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood (the political wing of al-Qaida) and their Salafist supporters; they were then overthrown. Third, in Libya after Ghaddafi al-Qaida and IS have become active, and the hope there stands to traditional tribal politics and ensuing political fragmentation and patrimonialization of the state as a way to counter them. Fourth, we have Syria where we all know what has happened. Last, but not least, we have Iraq in which polarization and hostility between Shia and Sunni has led to a breakdown of political order in the Sunni areas, creating a vacuum that has now been filled by ISIS. We can see a clear trend here, unless we want to delude ourself for reasons of political correctness. Islam is a political force and a political program in these countries, it has a deep popular support, and the result of this is manifested in entities such as the Muslim Brotherhood, GIS, al-Qaida, and ISIS.
If we look at the progress of ISIS we can see another clear trend: They have expanded at a mind-numbing speed into the Sunni areas and have, in areas with a clear Sunni majority, been able to persecute and genocide other minorities with ease. But, and this is important, they have not been nearly as successful when they have tried their hand at areas with significant presence of other religious and ethnic groups. Recently they were forced out of Kobane by Kurdish forces with inferior armaments. The analysis of this is that ISIS lacks the logistical capabilities needed to project military force into areas in which they cannot draw upon the support of the local civil society. And, judging by how things are going, this seems to be the case for the Shia-dominated Iraqi army as well, as well as for any and all local Shia and Kurdish militias: they cannot project military force into areas in which they cannot count upon the support of the civil society and where they will not be able to support themselves through market transactions. So supporting surrounding forces will at most serve to contain ISIS, not remove it. Anyone who says differently is either uninformed, misinformed, delusional, or (as would be the case of any sane politician with access to intelligence service analysts) lying.
As I see it the future for Iraq and Syria, and thus for ISIS as well as for Shia and Kurds, is the present stalemate. They will each control their core areas, contest the middle ground, and push each other back and forth until without anyone actually gaining any ground outside areas in which they have the overwhelming support of the civilian population; and giving the trend of genocide and ethnic cleansing each group will soon have the undivided support of the civilian populations under its control. Thus ISIS will be able to remain active and in control of its areas in Syria and Iraq for a long time and, perhaps, finally coalesce into a real and proper state. And that will be a problem since that state will serve as a base to spread their propaganda among Muslim populations in the West. So, unfortunately, the way to deal with the threat that ISIS poses is to somehow control the civilian Sunni population in the Levant. As long as we---by our selves or through someone like Saddam, Iran, or Saudi Arabia---do not, ISIS will. Nouri al-Maliki was obviously not the correct answer.
The alternative is a forceful foreign intervention, and sooner or later that will most certainly happen. But by whom, and whose interests this will serve is another question.
ISIS, you see, is the reason that Western countries are actively supporting military dictatorships in the Middle East and Arabia. In five cases political order has broken down in the region and been supplanted by popular alternatives. First we had the popular elections in Algeria that sparked that country's civil war between the Liberal/Western/Army backed interests and GIS. Second we saw the revolution in Egypt which ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood (the political wing of al-Qaida) and their Salafist supporters; they were then overthrown. Third, in Libya after Ghaddafi al-Qaida and IS have become active, and the hope there stands to traditional tribal politics and ensuing political fragmentation and patrimonialization of the state as a way to counter them. Fourth, we have Syria where we all know what has happened. Last, but not least, we have Iraq in which polarization and hostility between Shia and Sunni has led to a breakdown of political order in the Sunni areas, creating a vacuum that has now been filled by ISIS. We can see a clear trend here, unless we want to delude ourself for reasons of political correctness. Islam is a political force and a political program in these countries, it has a deep popular support, and the result of this is manifested in entities such as the Muslim Brotherhood, GIS, al-Qaida, and ISIS.
If we look at the progress of ISIS we can see another clear trend: They have expanded at a mind-numbing speed into the Sunni areas and have, in areas with a clear Sunni majority, been able to persecute and genocide other minorities with ease. But, and this is important, they have not been nearly as successful when they have tried their hand at areas with significant presence of other religious and ethnic groups. Recently they were forced out of Kobane by Kurdish forces with inferior armaments. The analysis of this is that ISIS lacks the logistical capabilities needed to project military force into areas in which they cannot draw upon the support of the local civil society. And, judging by how things are going, this seems to be the case for the Shia-dominated Iraqi army as well, as well as for any and all local Shia and Kurdish militias: they cannot project military force into areas in which they cannot count upon the support of the civil society and where they will not be able to support themselves through market transactions. So supporting surrounding forces will at most serve to contain ISIS, not remove it. Anyone who says differently is either uninformed, misinformed, delusional, or (as would be the case of any sane politician with access to intelligence service analysts) lying.
As I see it the future for Iraq and Syria, and thus for ISIS as well as for Shia and Kurds, is the present stalemate. They will each control their core areas, contest the middle ground, and push each other back and forth until without anyone actually gaining any ground outside areas in which they have the overwhelming support of the civilian population; and giving the trend of genocide and ethnic cleansing each group will soon have the undivided support of the civilian populations under its control. Thus ISIS will be able to remain active and in control of its areas in Syria and Iraq for a long time and, perhaps, finally coalesce into a real and proper state. And that will be a problem since that state will serve as a base to spread their propaganda among Muslim populations in the West. So, unfortunately, the way to deal with the threat that ISIS poses is to somehow control the civilian Sunni population in the Levant. As long as we---by our selves or through someone like Saddam, Iran, or Saudi Arabia---do not, ISIS will. Nouri al-Maliki was obviously not the correct answer.
The alternative is a forceful foreign intervention, and sooner or later that will most certainly happen. But by whom, and whose interests this will serve is another question.
US is concern that giving weapons to the opposition might have the high tech stuff in new radical hands if they decide to turn against the givers. Reason why the debate stalled in Syria in Congress to arm the rebels fighting against Al-Assad.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Listening to Dear Leader right now. He referred to ISIS multiple times as "terrorists" but continued to say ISIL.
Also saying that ground troops will not be necessary because he's having Kurds and the opposition play the primary role.
Three year authorization for use of force. But with no time table included.
Also saying that ground troops will not be necessary because he's having Kurds and the opposition play the primary role.
Three year authorization for use of force. But with no time table included.
ISIS better stay away from Najaf, and its Imam Ali Shrine. Al Anbar Province would be wiped off the map of Iraq, if anything happens to the Imam Ali Shrine. Iran can easily muster the forces to stop ISIS, but the violence would get out of hand very quickly.
Indeed, and the the Turks would get nervous. I do not know how Erdogan thinks, but it would not surprise me if he prefers ISIS to independent Kurds on hid borders. And he certainly do not want the Iranians to be any more prominent in the region than they already are.
Personally, I think that Iranian influence (and with that: Russian influence) in Iraq and Syria is a strong contributing factor to Turkish support for ISIS. And for that same reason I tend to distrust Obama on this issue.
