The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[Walsingham]

 

 

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

 

MURICA!!!

 

 

I sure wish we would develop orbital weaponry. Just imagine the jet fuel savings!

 

 

Finally. A green argument for orbital death lasers. Now we'll get them.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm lovin' how Obama desperately doesn't want to do this but has to.

[Gfted1]

 

 

 

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

 

MURICA!!!

 

 

I sure wish we would develop orbital weaponry. Just imagine the jet fuel savings!

 

 

Finally. A green argument for orbital death lasers. Now we'll get them.

 

 

 

Nah, that requires a power source. I prefer Rods from God. Has a nice ring to it too.

[BruceVC]

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

 

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme.

 

Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes.

 

 

You are not  seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya,  ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point?

[rjshae]

At the time I felt nothing but disgust and contempt about the Presidency and their use of contrived evidence and a made-up justification for the invasion. It led to my heightened distrust of anything Republican, even more so than the Demos. The administration's reasoning was tissue-thin, their grand strategy was too likely to fail, and their planning for the take-over was pathetic.

 

I was angry about the whole affair for a long time, and I still won't vote Republican. Not until they start acting less like a bunch of radical nuts and more like responsible politicians.

[Guard Dog]

The older I get the more I realize that James Monroe was a smarter man than history gives him credit for and the Libertarian philosophy is not only right but imperative.  

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't go back in time to 2003 and undo all of this? Is there anyone here who gladly would not trade Saddam Hussien for this mess? 

[Monte Carlo]

The older I get the more I realize that James Monroe was a smarter man than history gives him credit for and the Libertarian philosophy is not only right but imperative.  

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't go back in time to 2003 and undo all of this? Is there anyone here who gladly would not trade Saddam Hussien for this mess? 

 

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual.

 

As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic.

 

The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed.

 

2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone.

 

What happens next?

 

Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt?

 

I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for.

 

The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power.

 

I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant.

 

If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good.

[BruceVC]

 

The older I get the more I realize that James Monroe was a smarter man than history gives him credit for and the Libertarian philosophy is not only right but imperative.  

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't go back in time to 2003 and undo all of this? Is there anyone here who gladly would not trade Saddam Hussien for this mess? 

 

.

 

What happens next?

 

Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt?

 

I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for.

 

The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power.

 

I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant.

 

If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good.

 

 

Wow so the problems  in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I  ever heard one

 

GD is right is some ways, if America hadn't gone into Iraq Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be suppressing brutally any sectarian violence within his county. The Arab spring would still have happened and therefore the Syrian conflict would still have happened. But ISIS would never be as powerful as it is now  as the original ISIS fighters, who would have still flocked to Syria  anyway to fight Assad, wouldn't have been able to align themselves with the disenfranchised tribal Sunni's in Iraq., So in that case there is no doubt the invasion of Iraq has lead to the formation of ISIS in its current structure

 

But I don't blame the USA for the situation because if Al-Maliki had incorporated the Sunnis into his new government ISIS would also not be in the same  position. So I guess it depends on who you want to blame?

 

I feel countries need to take control of there own destinies and Iraq was given that chance in 2011, you can't blame the USA for Iraq  mismanagement of there new political system?

Edited August 9, 2014 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

 

The older I get the more I realize that James Monroe was a smarter man than history gives him credit for and the Libertarian philosophy is not only right but imperative.  

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't go back in time to 2003 and undo all of this? Is there anyone here who gladly would not trade Saddam Hussien for this mess? 

 

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual.

 

As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic.

 

The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed.

 

2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone.

 

What happens next?

 

Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt?

 

I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for.

 

The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power.

 

I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant.

 

If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good.

 

 

honesty doesn't sell well. tell American voters that going into iraq or libya or elsewhere in middle east is necessary for long-range stability o' the region, but that doing so is gonna require a +20 year commitment o' troops/police/ and wholesale infrastructure overhauling is not going to make folks happy.  is different options for a half-arsed but politically viable approach, but regardless, is death by a thousand cuts. go in with troops but never fully commit (RAND studies showed that american troops in iraq were not even 1/3 what they needed to be to be acting as a viable police force) or pretend as if the locals, who is divided by religious and tribal divisions that make cooperation impossible, can magically fix their own problems as long as US supplies drone strikes, intelligence, and glorified care packages? both options is fail.

 

necessary? dunno. am not gonna say we is certain how things in mideast play out if US is complete uninvolved. is also possible that some unrest in the mideast may be part of The Plan. one o' these days those folks is gonna realize that a couple o' decades o' peace and infrastructure building supported by oil revenues could bring about wholesale alterations o' their economies. the west is dependent on oil, but that dependence is nothing compared to middle east dependence on the west for near everything but oil. keep the arabs fighting may 'cause short-term instability in the region, but peace might actual be viewed as a greater long term threat... but that is just our natural cynicism getting off the leash again.

 

regardless, honesty sucks. western nations don't like honesty anymore than does US voters. we don't complete blame politicians 'cause they can't make any positive changes unless they is in office, and is no way to stay in office if you is honest about short and long-term costs o' fixing problems in places such as iraq.

 

"Wow so the problems  in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I  ever heard one"

 

really? is a common criticism and it is gaining much popularity. US influence in the region has been waning for years. obama's handling (non-handling) o' the syria situation were making him look weak and impotent, but recent problems in libya, israel and iraq has all called obama leadership into question. libya were touted as the big success, until recently. now it is looking to some folks like just another example o' obama fail. kerry gets no respect amongst the palestinians or israelis, so the egyptians, who is outspoken enemies o' the muslim brotherhood, gets called into to mediate 'tween israel and hamas? wtf? am not even needing to bring up recent arguments o' obama fail regarding isis/is in iraq. ​am not saying all the criticism is fair, but that you ain't heard obama being blamed is shocking. Presidents typical get disproportionate blame. the notion that media sources outside the US is going easy on obama is striking us as a bit odd. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 9, 2014 by Gromnir

[Rostere]

I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese.

 

d) the people who live in the country in question. Secondly, you disregard the possibility that the countries will align themselves with democracy and the West by themselves, because that is simply the sensible thing to do. See Algeria. It was "vacated" peacefully (in the end), and because of US support for it's decolonialization, it did not have to resort to Soviet support to achieve it. Compare to the protracted situation in Vietnam.

 

You have got to realize influence in people's minds is what matter, and it is not due to military presence, rather the opposite. The Eastern European countries came under Soviet control after WW2, but still they almost immidiately withdrew from the Russian sphere and into NATO and the EU after the Soviets relinquished control. In spite of being under Soviet military control for almost half a century, their minds and public opinion were perfectly groomed for entry into the Western sphere, because of this military control forced upon them. This did not require any military effort at all, in fact not any effort of any kind. It only took these countries to come banging at the gate, asking "Hello, you're rich and not miserable and won't send your military to occupy us, can we join?".

 

In similar fashion the West should retreat from whereever people do not want them, and intervene only when public opinion (over there) is favourable. Libya is a good example. The people said, "send airstrikes", airstrikes were sent, and now there is a gratefulness for that. The country is still in shambles (as any artificial colonial construct like it would be at this point) but now they have been given the best chance we could give them to develop their own democracy, and all we have to do now is to wait.

 

Islamism is pretty much 100% a reaction to Western (Christian) colonialism and intervention in Muslim lands. They feed off conspiracy theories of Western malevolence, US wars and support for Israel. The more you leave them alone and support their own independence, the more Islamism will just deflate, until eventually it's like a flat balloon to be picked up and thrown in the garbage bin. This ISIS debacle is really the best thing which could have happened for US foreign policy - they get both to decimate international terrorist supporters and be a knight in shining armour who helps the poor Muslims when they come asking nicely. Obama should continue to be careful to not intervene until ISIS' victims really are screaming for help though, and stay completely out of occupying any territory.

[BruceVC]

 

 

The older I get the more I realize that James Monroe was a smarter man than history gives him credit for and the Libertarian philosophy is not only right but imperative.  

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't go back in time to 2003 and undo all of this? Is there anyone here who gladly would not trade Saddam Hussien for this mess? 

 

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual.

 

As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic.

 

The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed.

 

2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone.

 

What happens next?

 

Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt?

 

I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for.

 

The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power.

 

I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant.

 

If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good.

 

 

 

"Wow so the problems  in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I  ever heard one"

 

really? is a common criticism and it is gaining much popularity. US influence in the region has been waning for years. obama's handling (non-handling) o' the syria situation were making him look weak and impotent, but recent problems in libya, israel and iraq has all called obama leadership into question. libya were touted as the big success, until recently. now it is looking to some folks like just another example o' obama fail. kerry gets no respect amongst the palestinians or israelis, so the egyptians, who is outspoken enemies o' the muslim brotherhood, gets called into to mediate 'tween israel and hamas? wtf? am not even needing to bring up recent arguments o' obama fail regarding isis/is in iraq. ​am not saying all the criticism is fair, but that you ain't heard obama being blamed is shocking. Presidents typical get disproportionate blame. the notion that media sources outside the US is going easy on obama is striking us as a bit odd. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

How exactly is Obama looking weak by his actions in the ME? Lets break this down, he didn't listen to the Israelis and decided not to bomb Iran, we now have Iran coming to the negotiation table not through military threat or action but through sanctions and the economic impact that were hurting there economy . He didn't not to ignore the US security council veto and act unilaterally in Syria, because the USA would have had to act alone in Syria because after the chemical attacks even the British parliament voted on no military action. This just makes sense as after Iraq you can't seriously think the USA is going to go against the UN security council unless there interests are really threatened.,...and in Syria it is a terrible war but the USA is not really impacted by this. And once again the Libya regime change was handled correctly, its the new Libyan governments responsibility to manage there government. The USA cannot be expected to do this unless you suggest they try to do it like they did it Iraq and we know how that ended up

 

No USA president has ever resolved the issues between the Israel and Palestinians, so if this makes him weak then so are all previous USA presidents

 

So tell me what you would do  differently if you were the president and you could order military action based on the political and historical reality of the ME?

 

I find it strange that people think the definition of the USA being weak is not using military force to resolve every possible crisis, this is not weak to me but prudent and what is to be expected after Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm not saying you are saying this Gromnir, but this is a criticism that is often levelled at Obama..for example " you decided not to attack Iran"...this makes us look weak. Despite the fact the crisis over Iran has been reduced through sanctions and not military intervention

[Gromnir]

you are kidding right? obama said the syrians had crossed a line in syria with gas attacks, but then he did virtual nothing. you may think such action were justified, but to say it don't appear weak to many voters in US or fighters in mideast is silly. the way obama handled libya were to be keeping distance, which made voters and westerners very happy... right up until things started falling apart in libya again. nevertheless, actions o' the US in libya sends a message that the US is unwilling to get their hands dirty. and again, it ain't as if obama woke up two days ago and realized that isis/is were a potential problem. the perception is that he left iraq in a state o' political shambles, creating a situation whereby IS could walk in and grab more territory than any islamic terrorist organization in history has managed to hold (they is printing freaking license plates for chrissakes,) capture US heavy armour such as m-1 tanks, and the damn in mosul that could flood the most populous river valley in iraq which could result in the depths o' up to 500,000 people. that crap didn't happen overnight.

 

etc.

 

and is not about a president being able to resolve the situation in israel. duh. that being said, obama distanced himself from the israelis and the arabs. the arabs don't believe the US will get involved, but they see the US inextricably linked to israel. the israelis don't trust obama specifically given comments he has made about israel and netanyahu. the US has less influence with israel and the palestininas than any president we can care to mention. 

 

...

 

you is being a bit silly. am not saying you should blame obama. review our post. we noted that you saying you hasn't heard obama being blamed is shocking to us. obama is taking much heat in the US press, and we do not find such blame to be at all surprising. Presidents always take heat when things go bad, and things is very freaking bad. pretend that obama doesn't deserve some blame is boardering on obtuse, but that ain't the issue. issue is you claim you has never heard obama being blamed, and you act perplexed that any could blame.  is nothing shocking in obama getting blame. only thing shocking is that obama ain't getting more heat outside the US. he will eventually.

 

is from a cnn article we just read today. cnn... not fox

 

"That is not the first time the administration has been criticized for lacking a strategic vision for countering ISIS.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have repeatedly criticized Obama for undermining American influence globally by not acting decisively enough on Iraq and Syria -- among other global crises."

 

and

 

"Many have also criticized Obama's inaction in Syria as contributing to ISIS' growth by failing to bolster the moderate rebel forces.

 

"Without sufficient financial and military support, moderate rebel factions have dwindled as some fighters and entire groups opted to join ISIS and other Islamist factions fighting against government forces.

The hands-off approach in Syria even prompted the American ambassador to the country, Robert Ford, to resign recently because he could no longer defend the policy, he told CNN in June.

 

""Had there been more military assistance ... the opposition would have probably been able to gain ground a couple years ago more quickly," Ford said. " (And) the ability of al Qaeda and Islamist extremist groups to recruit away from the moderates would have been less."

 

"And aside from the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, Ford said there is "nothing we can point to that has been very successful in our policy."

 

"Ford and others have called ISIS a national security threat to the United States and fears are growing that its fighters could return to Europe or the United States and carry out terrorist attacks.

 

""To stand back and do nothing is to simply see this cancer metastasize further," Ford said."

 

etc.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 9, 2014 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"Despite the fact the crisis over Iran has been reduced"

 

No, it hasn't. The big crisis over Iran is everyone knows theya re on their way to make a nuclear bomb. They still are. How is the crisis reduced? Iran doesn't negotiate.They never have never will. Afterall, the US is the Great Satan. Why would they negotiate with the devil. LMAO

 

 

"Islamism is pretty much 100% a reaction to Western (Christian) colonialism and intervention in Muslim lands."

 

L0L It's about extremism over religious text and raping virgins in heaven.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

 

MURICA!!!

 

 

I sure wish we would develop orbital weaponry. Just imagine the jet fuel savings!

 

 

Finally. A green argument for orbital death lasers. Now we'll get them.

 

 

 

Nah, that requires a power source. I prefer Rods from God. Has a nice ring to it too.

 

am thinking our first exposure to such weapons were via sci-fi of heinlein. heinlein may have been a bit o' an odd bird, but 'tween starship troopers and the moon is a harsh mistress, you got a couple sci-fi novels that actually showed up in US military reading lists... starship troopers being the first such sci-fi book to do so. the moon is a harsh mistress also taught us about terrorist cell organization. and before there were hal, there were mike.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kgambit]

 

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

 

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme.

 

Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes.

 

 

You are not  seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya,  ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point?

 

 

 

Technically you're right since the name change to ISIS wasn't announced until April 2013 but functionally you're wrong.   The expansion of ISI (the precursor to ISIS) occurred as early as December 2011 when it established the Nusra front in Syria (less than a year after the civil war started).  Non-Syrian jihadists began joining ISI/ISIS almost immediately.

 

The details:

 

According to various sources, the Syrian civil war either started on 20 March 2011 in Daraa, after security forces opened fire on the protesting crowd or April 25, when the Syrian Army initiated wide scale attacks in multiple towns resulting in 1000+ deaths.   

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq, and in October, 2002, he formally joined Al Qaeda to create Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq – AQI).   On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi was killed by an American airstrike. He was replaced by Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian.

 

A few months later, in October 2006,  al-Masri united several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions] and on October 13, declared the formation of Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islamiyya (Islamic State of Iraq—ISI).  On Oct. 15, 2006 he named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi its leader.   ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. 

 

Al-Nusra front (also the Nusra front or Jabhat al Nusra) was formed in Syria in December 2011 when emir Baghadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julian to Syria.   The group officially announced its creation on 23 January 2012.   That's clearly less than a year after the Civil war started but not by a lot. 

 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi played a key role in establishing Jabhat al-Nusra. But he considered Abu Mohammed al-Golani, Nusra’s leader, to be his subordinate with a duty to obey him. So Baghdadi announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the integration of its members into ISI, with the new organization being called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.

 

Golani refused the order, but ISIS appeared on the scene with strength anyway. ISIS quickly announced its areas of operations publicly and took control of wide areas without facing much resistance, benefitting from the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters who defected to ISIS.   Some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists.

 

In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced AQI’s operations in Syria and the group’s name change to ISIS; he reiterated the claim that AQI/ISI created the Al Nusra Front in Syria. Al-Baghdadi further stated that the two groups were on the verge of merging.  Al-Julani agreed that AQI/ISI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disputed this claim as well and officially annulled the merger, dictating that ISIS should limit its operations to Iraq.  On June 29, 2014, ISIS again changed its name to simply the “Islamic State" or IS.

 

 Loyalty to al-Qaeda may be the common denominator between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS has been under al-Qaeda’s banner since ISI was founded and inspired by the approach of Zarqawi, and from the jihadist doctrine stipulating “the loyalty of the branch is from the loyalty of the main [organization].” Therefore, ISIS’s loyalty is to al-Qaeda as long as [iSIS’s] emir Baghdadi “didn’t invalidate the allegiance” in an open manner. It should be noted that Baghdadi had refused to implement the decision of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri to dissolve ISIS while maintaining Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI intact. 

 

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1

 

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493

 

 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#ixzz39w0GZag4

 

PS:  I'll take my shots at Obama in another post. 

 

Edited August 9, 2014 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Obama isn't someone I'd normally defend but his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives (McCain/ Romney; random Repub rep/sen) would have been if they had the power to do what they've said. Nothing like saying everything would be fine if they were just in charge and could magically bomb all evil doers with unmissable Righteousness Bombs for hypothetical scenarios.

 

Pragmatically, and in hindsight, he probably should have left Gaddafi in power- there cannot be much appreciation in Washington for all those IS(IS) flags being waved in Benghazi let alone murder of diplomats. Bombing Syria when he said he would was already too late, taking the bail out may have made himself look a bit silly but may well have avoided making things even worse and that's a trade I wish more politicians would take.

 

[This edit courtesy of my cat, who decided I was finished after 1.5 sentences and managed to click 'post' for me]

Edited August 9, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

james cox. who the hell is james cox? well, arguably the worst elected President o' the US were warren harding. is possible andrew johnson or calvin coolidge were worse, but they stepped in from the vice presidency. there is some other candidates for worst President, but harding makes virtual every top five list. most folks who went to university in the US, even if they don't know 'bout harding's presidency, they will likely recognize harding name as having been a president. 

 

harding ran against cox. Gromnir had to look up that fact. we can't tell you squat about james cox w/o doing some research. 

 

history will not measure obama against mcain or romney. is pretty silly to do so in any event as is much difficult to predict Presidential success or even Presidential action before a person becomes President. after all, we didn't know that obama would go native regarding so many NSA directives and and the handling o' guantanamo detainees. who did know? is fun to go down list o' presidential campaign promises and see how Presidents do in keeping such... or how they fail at doing so. Presidency changes folks. is why we don't measure them against hypothetical standards... 'cept for fun. obama a better or worse president than animal from the muppets?

 

 

am betting that today we would get more than a few votes for animal.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/23/darth-vader-is-polling-higher-than-all-potential-2016-presidential-candidates/

 

darth vader, for example, has a good lead over obama.

 

history, for the most part, will not measure obama against romney. is another situation where history gets it right. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps animal for president in 2016

[Guard Dog]

It is WAY too early to try and determine Obama's place in history. Heck we are only now beginning to get a real idea of what Clintons legacy will be. 15-20 years down the road we'll have some perspective on events he set in motion or things he chose not to do. I will say that in terms of individual liberty and personal freedom he is one of the worst. He has absolutely no respect or regard for either and is very much in favor of a heavy handed authoritarian government.

 

However that is a discussion for another thread.

[Gromnir]

It is WAY too early to try and determine Obama's place in history.

 

no disagreement. we were responding to zor's observation 'bout thinking obama has done better than mccain or romney would have. measure obama against the imagined evils of folks who failed to become President? historians rare indulge in such fantasies, and for good reason.  it struck us as more than a bit silly to judge obama based on how he stands up to zor's fantasies o' romney/mccain/other incompetence.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Oh man, I really did suppurate your secondary fundamental, didn't I? Buy one of those inflatable donuts, I hear they help. To short circuit any further long winded silliness I'll also quote myself, just to make sure

 

Obama isn't someone I'd normally defend but his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives

 

One of the factors making Obama look weak is that the alternatives are waving their arms and shouting about how they'd magically fix everything by just blowing up the right people; don't think Mr Cox is doing that to Mr Harding (shame his first name wasn't Red, then we'd have a near perfect description of his function in this argument) let alone in the ME, somehow. And, because they are doing so and their- candidate wise primarily McCain, Romney hasn't said much at all since 2012 though you can judge on what he said then and he too was a lot more interventionist than Obama, but there are plenty of other repubs with a word to say- pronouncements have no probability of being put into action we can make some judgement of the alternative while observing that direct comparison is unfair since their statements are empty of weight or real consequence beyond chest beating, unlike Obama's whose decisions have to actually be implemented. There's far more evidence behind McCain and the repubs in general being more overt and directly interventionist than Obama has been.

 

And there's been plenty of 'what would Gore/ Kerry' have done stuff in GWB's time, a reasonable amount of 'what would GHWB/ Dole have done' in Slick Willy's time, a bit of 'what would Dukakis have done' in GHWB's time but a fair bit of (largely reverse) 'what would Carter/ Mondale' have done in Raygun's time- and beyond, for all those people who believe Raygun won the cold war single handedly. People judge people not just by the objective measure of history, as with Harding, Lincoln, Polk, Jackson etc, but also against the alternatives, and especially so when there has not been enough time to judge objectively via the lens of history- and even then you still get some 'but what if Lincoln had lost in 1860'/ 'what if Trotsky beat Stalin' scenarios.

 

I don't like Obama much at all, he is fundamentally weak and vacillating, has consistently failed to deliver on promises while continuing destructive policies because they're too much work, he has little consideration for genuine liberty and failed to get much important stuff done even when the democrats had majorities in congress; but if it's his ME policy or McCain's (2008; the pre Rove shanking non crazy 2000 McCain, being another story) it's BHO every time, and twice on Sundays despite me not liking him.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

were the butt-hurt stuff s'posed to be ironic or hypocritical? distinguishing the two with zor is frequent difficult.

 

*shrug*

 

why on earth is you thinking bolding "in the ME" as significant? "in Ohio" would be no better if you were trying to use imagined and hypotheticals o' romney and mccain as President to excuse obama actions or inaction. hell, if you pay attention you will observe that Gromnir ain't even saying obama deserves criticism. we noted to bruce that obama IS taking heat for perceived failures, and we noted that your use o' romney and mccain as "punch-out"  opponents for obama is laughable. is just... stoopid. we need not spend much effort on this episode o' fool smiting 'cause your failure here is so darn obvious. 

 

 

is not too late to compare obama's efforts in the ME to emperor palpatine, or perhaps your favorite barista.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 10, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

y'know, 'pon reflection, we thinks zor ignorance is not entirely his fault. this came up in another thread that perhaps europeans don't get American political system 'cause it is different from US. party of the President is often far less important than folks even in the US believe, and the office o' the President, while offering extreme visibility, is frequent far less powerful than folks understand. President, even if he is of the same party as is 'possedley controlling Congress, does not make choices for Congress... particularly a beltway outsider. even if a President has the power to do something, political realities is that he may not be able to do something... and those political realities change yearly, weekly, daily and hourly. read history of major events in American history and you soon discover that by the time the President makes a decision (if he is the one actually making the decision,) that decision is likely a forgone conclusion. dozens and even hundreds o' smaller decisions go into deciding how a particular President will decide on a given issue. who is on the President's staff? what appointments, major and minor, has the Prez made that impact how information gets to the Prez? what is the relationship o' the Prez with Congress, and key members o' Congress? what is relationship o' the Prez with foreign leaders at the time o' the decision? was weather bad in __________, on ________ ? satellites may not have been able to see through cloud cover, or perhaps assets on the ground couldn't get close enough to make out useful details.  how does the President deal with the pentagon? etc.

 

oh, and each previous decision a President made shaped what decisions he were able to make in the future... and zor knows none of those factors, events, appointments conditions and vagaries o' chance that went into romney or mccain's choice #1 much less choice number #20. the absolute arrogance of somebody such as zor suggesting that he knows what woulda happened with romney or maccain decision making "in the ME" is staggering. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

It is WAY too early to try and determine Obama's place in history.

 

no disagreement. we were responding to zor's observation 'bout thinking obama has done better than mccain or romney would have. measure obama against the imagined evils of folks who failed to become President? historians rare indulge in such fantasies, and for good reason.  it struck us as more than a bit silly to judge obama based on how he stands up to zor's fantasies o' romney/mccain/other incompetence.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Completely agree. It really is a subject for speculative historical fiction when you get into "what if this happened". Makes for interesting reading sometimes like Newt Gingrich's novel on what the world would be like if the CSA won the US Civil War. Historical analysis really rests on what did happen. There is no way to know what the world would look like if Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, etc would have won. Honestly in terms of foreign policy I believe the difference would really be on of degree rather than something radically different. 9-11 was still going to happen and the events that set in motion would probably have played out the same. With the exception of Iraq I guess.

[Zoraptor]

Learn something every day, today I learned that you cannot compare one politician to another, that's equivalent to comparing them to fictional characters. I'll... give that approach all the consideration it deserves, shall we say.

 

Sorry for giving bad advice too. Clearly an inflatable donut ain't going to cut it.

[Guard Dog]

y'know, 'pon reflection, we thinks zor ignorance is not entirely his fault. this came up in another thread that perhaps europeans don't get American political system 'cause it is different from US. party of the President is often far less important than folks even in the US believe, and the office o' the President, while offering extreme visibility, is frequent far less powerful than folks understand. President, even if he is of the same party as is 'possedley controlling Congress, does not make choices for Congress...

 

 

 

Unfortunately the Executive branch is becoming more powerful only because Congress is allowing it to happen simply by not stopping it. The most egregious example being the changes made to the ACA a law passed by Congress and signed by the President without introducing amending bills in the legislature. Congress could have and SHOULD have stopped this from happening but because of political affiliation did not. I think future Congresses and the citizens will have cause to regret they didn't. It's hard to believe party loyalty alone would lead a branch of the US government to site quietly by as its Constitutionally given power is marginalized by a "rouge" President.

 

But here I go wandering OT again.