The Beginning of the End of ISIS?

[Zoraptor]

Yep, impossible to say really. The proxy war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia has stuffed things up for Syria every bit as much as the proxy war between the west and their allies and Russia/ Iran has so the rebels would almost certainly be more united with a bit less ideologically based 'support' from some of their 'friends'. Then again, with too little help they'd just get steamrollered, and with even more help you might have Assad gone but you'd just have Libya 2.0, quite possibly with ISIS or Al Qaederia with their capitals in Damascus and Aleppo.

[Volourn]

Supporting the torture for giggles 9as opposed as the likely infective but  understandable means of potentially gaining info) or 'inhumane method' of murdering your enemies is pathetic and evil and certainly doesn't make you good.

 

Itis absolutely disgusting to bash ISIS for burning the pilot alive because you deem it 'inhumane' then turn around and brag about how you are gonna 'crucify', 'burn', or 'cut off multiple limbs as you slowly torture people to death for giggles'. It's bad enough having to kill others in war.. no need to make it even worse. War is not a game.

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/africa/isis-libya-north-africa/index.html

 

This is not completely new information but ISIS is becoming more emboldened in Libya. In summary ISIS has now an established presence in eastern Libya and has been committing its normal barbaric and reprehensible deeds, they recently beheaded several Egyptian Christians. But the fact is that Libya is a failed state and this type of environment is what ISIS thrives in, they have access to manpower and mineral resources like oil

 

It may become necessary for another Western military intervention in Libya to prevent ISIS from using Libya to fund its operations in the Middle East?

Edited February 25, 2015 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

So how many 'interventions' will this be ?

[BruceVC]

So how many 'interventions' will this be ?

 

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary

 

But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for  another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them 

[Malcador]

Actively help to govern - by this you mean occupy ?

 

Wonder what problems could have been avoided if they just left those "rebels" to their fate.

[Valsuelm]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/africa/isis-libya-north-africa/index.html

 

This is not completely new information but ISIS is becoming more emboldened in Libya. In summary ISIS has now an established presence in eastern Libya and has been committing its normal barbaric and reprehensible deeds, they recently beheaded several Egyptian Christians. But the fact is that Libya is a failed state and this type of environment is what ISIS thrives in, they have access to manpower and mineral resources like oil

 

It may become necessary for another Western military intervention in Libya to prevent ISIS from using Libya to fund its operations in the Middle East?

 

 

So how many 'interventions' will this be ?

 

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary

 

But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for  another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them

 

 The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention.

 

The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant.

 

The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

Actively help to govern - by this you mean occupy ?

 

Wonder what problems could have been avoided if they just left those "rebels" to their fate.

 

Well we know from events like Iraq that occupational strategies just don't work, especially in the Middle East where you have  this plethora of sectarian groups and historical tension between Sunni and Shia. So the West would have to back one political movement in Libya and support them politically, militarily and financially until they can govern the country effectively. Then the West can slowly disengage. But the objective needs to be the defeat of Islamic extremism in Libya, like neutralizing ISIS

 

The real consideration around this approach is who is prepared to commit the resources to such a maelstrom of real issues that exist in Libya at the moment. So then the questions become " how relevant is ISIS in Libya to the sustainability of ISIS in Iraq\Syria "  and "how important is the defeat of ISIS to the West" ?

 

I would think its easier to just commit ground troops in Iraq and defeat ISIS utterly there and in Syria, then someone else can address ISIS in Libya. I imagine once ISIS is defeated in Iraq this will make their efforts in Libya less impressive or militarily challenging? 

 

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/africa/isis-libya-north-africa/index.html

 

This is not completely new information but ISIS is becoming more emboldened in Libya. In summary ISIS has now an established presence in eastern Libya and has been committing its normal barbaric and reprehensible deeds, they recently beheaded several Egyptian Christians. But the fact is that Libya is a failed state and this type of environment is what ISIS thrives in, they have access to manpower and mineral resources like oil

 

It may become necessary for another Western military intervention in Libya to prevent ISIS from using Libya to fund its operations in the Middle East?

 

 

So how many 'interventions' will this be ?

 

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary

 

But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for  another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them

 

 The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention.

 

The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant.

 

The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about.

 

 

No Western governments gave countries like Iraq and Libya the chance to govern their own countries and decide their own future. In many ways they messed up, don't blame the West for this 

And  no the West isn't about " Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about " its about a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all  citizens have a good quality of life 

[Zoraptor]

Lol.

 

Said it before and I'll say it again, so long as the west lives in a fantasy of wishful thinking and ignorance and uses the psychotropic melange of (uncritically accepted) Saudi 'intelligence' to decide their ME policy they're doomed to asterisk things up over and over because they aren't even slightly grounded in reality, they're grounded in what they want to be true (basically, that everyone wants to be just like us if only they were given the chance; usually via flattening all their infrastructure and institutions without helping to rebuild them meaningfully then going "now, be like us!" and washing their hands of the whole mess and pooh poohing them/ absolving ourselves of blame when they inevitably fail having had to rebuild their institutions from scratch and create a 'democratic tradition' out of thin air) and what a country with a vested interest in turning every arab country into a loony toons salafi thugocracy want to be true.

[BruceVC]

Lol.

 

Said it before and I'll say it again, so long as the west lives in a fantasy of wishful thinking and ignorance and uses the psychotropic melange of (uncritically accepted) Saudi 'intelligence' to decide their ME policy they're doomed to asterisk things up over and over because they aren't even slightly grounded in reality, they're grounded in what they want to be true (basically, that everyone wants to be just like us if only they were given the chance; usually via flattening all their infrastructure and institutions without helping to rebuild them meaningfully then going "now, be like us!" and washing their hands of the whole mess and pooh poohing them/ absolving ourselves of blame when they inevitably fail having had to rebuild their institutions from scratch and create a 'democratic tradition' out of thin air) and what a country with a vested interest in turning every arab country into a loony toons salafi thugocracy want to be true.

 

Thats such a 2001-2003 perspective of Western foreign policy in the Middle East. The West has learnt and evolved since those days. You know this yet you still refuse to recognise it, I find this odd 

 

Both Iran and Syria are examples that  the days of Western unilateralism as far as intervention is concerned  are over, no its all about coalitions and  UNSC endorsement. And I support this.

 

Just for record what would you personally do about the rise of ISIS ? Lets say you controlled the military of Western countries....what would your strategy be ? Maybe you would have left the Yazidis to die on that mountain in Iraq because that was the catalyst that started the campaign against ISIS?

[Zoraptor]

Your question is irrelevant as I would not have invaded Iraq in 2003. I would have won by, well, not being a moron in the first place. Which is the best way of winning, all things considered.

[Barothmuk]

Thats such a 2001-2003 perspective of Western foreign policy in the Middle East.

....what? Off the top of my head.

 

Iran: 1953

Syria: 1957

Iraq: 1990-1

Afghanistan: 1979-92

 

I was going to go into some detail with these examples but come on, seriously !?

 

EDIT: I've got some free time tomorrow, maybe I'll write something then.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Valsuelm]

 

Actively help to govern - by this you mean occupy ?

 

Wonder what problems could have been avoided if they just left those "rebels" to their fate.

 

Well we know from events like Iraq that occupational strategies just don't work, especially in the Middle East where you have  this plethora of sectarian groups and historical tension between Sunni and Shia. So the West would have to back one political movement in Libya and support them politically, militarily and financially until they can govern the country effectively. Then the West can slowly disengage. But the objective needs to be the defeat of Islamic extremism in Libya, like neutralizing ISIS

 

The real consideration around this approach is who is prepared to commit the resources to such a maelstrom of real issues that exist in Libya at the moment. So then the questions become " how relevant is ISIS in Libya to the sustainability of ISIS in Iraq\Syria "  and "how important is the defeat of ISIS to the West" ?

 

I would think its easier to just commit ground troops in Iraq and defeat ISIS utterly there and in Syria, then someone else can address ISIS in Libya. I imagine once ISIS is defeated in Iraq this will make their efforts in Libya less impressive or militarily challenging? 

 

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/africa/isis-libya-north-africa/index.html

 

This is not completely new information but ISIS is becoming more emboldened in Libya. In summary ISIS has now an established presence in eastern Libya and has been committing its normal barbaric and reprehensible deeds, they recently beheaded several Egyptian Christians. But the fact is that Libya is a failed state and this type of environment is what ISIS thrives in, they have access to manpower and mineral resources like oil

 

It may become necessary for another Western military intervention in Libya to prevent ISIS from using Libya to fund its operations in the Middle East?

 

 

So how many 'interventions' will this be ?

 

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary

 

But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for  another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them

 

 The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention.

 

The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant.

 

The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about.

 

 

No Western governments gave countries like Iraq and Libya the chance to govern their own countries and decide their own future. In many ways they messed up, don't blame the West for this 

And  no the West isn't about " Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about " its about a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all  citizens have a good quality of life 

 

 

You're like a granite wall in the face of logic, reason, historical and current realities.

 

No, western governments did no such thing. They attacked Libya and Iraq unprovoked using lies to justify their actions and create flimsy casus belli. They toppled the very stable governments that were there and left both nations in ruin. Had they not done that ISIS wouldn't be anything we'd have heard about. Had they not done that a lot of people would still be alive. Had they not done that a lot of people who are alive wouldn't be suffering severe life altering injuries, the loss of loved ones, or the loss of the homes and other possessions.

 

Hundreds of thousands are dead (and that's going by the lower estimates)  between both nations, with many more horribly wounded. Thousands of US and other western nations' soldiers are dead, with a great many more severely injured with life altering injuries.

 

You're truly a fool if you actually believe that those wars were about "a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all  citizens have a good quality of life". Not only is the evidence that they were not overwhelming, even if for the sake of argument that's what it was about. Do you really truly think that killing all those people, destroying all that infrastructure, etc is a good way of bringing 'democracy' to anyone? Of bringing anything to anyone?

 

You're a truly despicable heartless deluded human if you actually think such a thing. My guess however if you truly are not thinking about what's happened in any remotely realistic context. Very few people are so evil. Most are just willfully ignorant allowing evil people to lead them with falsehoods. You've demonstrated time and again a willingness to ignore just what has happened in those nations, and others, if those things don't jive with your world view or imagined agendas.

[Gorth]

Part of the problem is, the "west" suffers from a bad case of tunnel vision and expect the rest of the world to have the same vision when it comes to the concept of "Nation States". Guess what, the rest of the world doesn't care about nation states. They care about ideologies, cultures, tribal and family relationships etc. Those completely artificial and abstract ideas like "nations" and "nationalism" is as alien to much of the world as Cricket is to the world of sports. Declaring an area on a map for "Country X" does not in any way endear the population caught within those arbitrary lines to the idea of being Citizen X.

 

Once the "west" gets its head out of its proverbial rear and stop thinking in seventeenth century concept, they might get around to actually try to understand what make people tick and maybe try to create administrative units around that.

[Rostere]

so long as the west lives in a fantasy of wishful thinking and ignorance and uses the psychotropic melange of (uncritically accepted) Saudi Israeli 'intelligence' to decide their ME policy they're doomed to asterisk things up over and over because they aren't even slightly grounded in reality

 

Fixed that for you.

[BruceVC]

Your question is irrelevant as I would not have invaded Iraq in 2003. I would have won by, well, not being a moron in the first place. Which is the best way of winning, all things considered.

 

I'm disappointed by this response but not surprised. This forum is full of people who are happy to constantly criticize the West for historical mistakes but aren't prepared to contribute constructively towards issues that we now have to address

 

You have a good knowledge of politics and the Middle East, is it really so hard for you to suggest how the threat of ISIS can be reduced?

 

Thats such a 2001-2003 perspective of Western foreign policy in the Middle East.

....what? Off the top of my head.

 

Iran: 1953

Syria: 1957

Iraq: 1990-1

Afghanistan: 1979-92

 

I was going to go into some detail with these examples but come on, seriously !?

 

EDIT: I've got some free time tomorrow, maybe I'll write something then.

 

 

I have never said the West was perfect, like every movement or country mistakes happen. But under Obama American foreign policy has definitely changed, the West now respects the views of the UNSC veto. Of course this creates its own challenges, like the required interventions in Syria but thats on Russia and China for vetoing any military action

 

 I can cite many examples but just one point to dispute what both Zora and Rostere have said. They both say American foreign policy is driven by either the Saudis or the Israelis. Both these countries have certain influence in the USA but neither of them determines American interventionism...despite what people assume. We know this because both countries wanted the USA to bomb Iran. And guess what, Obama prudently rejected any military actions. In fact American ( well the Obama administration ) and Israeli relationships are really at a low at the moment. Netanyahu took an unprecedented step and refused to meet with Democrats recently...that is a sign of just how strained the relationship is 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/25/1366753/-Netanyahu-refuses-to-meet-with-Democrats-because-he-doesn-t-want-to-appear-partisan#

Edited February 26, 2015 by BruceVC

[nipsen]

Mm. Common misconception that the Saudis or Israel, or the Jews.. or Aliens, are controlling the US foreign policy.

 

The US foreign policy is actually controlled by dumb people with too much power who happen to believe in incredibly stupid ****. Such as going to war to fix your approval rating at home. Even if it invariably works, the more gore the better -- why would someone actually do that? How would you even contemplate it? But almost all admininstrations did that. Clinton did it (although he didn't have a hard-on about it on TV, so I guess it didn't work so well), Bush 1&2 did it, and Obama did it. It's practically decided on beforehand that it will happen at least once every 8 years, the only question is how much damage these **** are going to do in the process. But the military must be used every 4 years, and there will be a war every 8 or so.

 

Bush is perhaps the one with the undisputed record streak of all presidents so far, though, winning with: 1 final destruction of the UN and all resolutions, making everything spiritually to the left of Michelle Bachmann clap their hands over their ears and scream. Any resolutions involving Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Golan for that matter - who cares guys! It's just a bunch of claptrap. "Repatriation", and "peace process" who even uses words like that? Borders and police authority? East-Timor and Australia. Korea, remember that one? But none of it is going to win any elections, I'll tell you that much, so screw the UN dictator debate club! Also, what the f does "nuclear scientific research" and "commercial atomic power" mean? I don't know, so no one else needs to either! Only thing you need to know is that we have the f'ing bomb, you have resources we're going to pay you for, and we're going to kill you all if you don't suck my ****!

 

And that's how we ended up at "Obama and 'the west' is now not very popular around the world".

 

But.. it's actually you - the people who vote in the presidential elections based on someone's haircut, and don't know there have been 4 other actually important elections in your state. You guys enable these ****, and you're the direct cause of thousands of unnecessary deaths every 4 to 8 years. Who sits in the Whitehouse, which party they might have, what colour of their lapel-pin -- doesn't matter. Because state and the relevant departments are getting a blank check they are going to use every four years. You still have John Bolton in the UN, for example. He's just not opening his mouth on TV any more, so you don't notice how bad for your reputation around the planet people like he is. Same with the "ambassadors" you send to other countries. People get these jobs in two ways: 1. education and mind lent out at West Point. The guy has no original thoughts in his head, but will at least have some sort of latent, unused intelligence in there somewhere. Or 2. a gravy train as a reward for kissing ass and holding African babies. These guys think they're sent to tour the zoo, and see all people who are foreign as if they're at least a bit of a nuisance, but entertaining in small portions. They surround themselves with people who look and think like they do, and then put on a smile when they meet with dignitaries and local state department officials. One of these people actually submitted a building plan to Oslo county about building a fortress with an underground bunker outside of town to replace the embassy inside the capital. I do not kid you, this actually happened.

 

In either case, we're talking about positions that collectively have been classified as either useless and a waste of time, or as a potential intelligence gathering operation. The very idea that there's supposed to be an exchange of ideas, or perhaps even of culture and thought - no. Doesn't happen. It's not involved in the process, 'cause 'Merica. And that's really all there is to it.

 

Some day we'll just mason y'all into a huge dome that stretches from the east to the west coast. Because that's really what the US always wanted, I think. To be left alone in your own filth.

[Gfted1]

All your resources are belong to us.

[Malcador]

Wouldn't be a geopolitics thread without some sanctimony from the Euros.

[nipsen]

Oh, trust me, this is nothing compared to the sanctimonious backtalking you get from your own folks in State. They think.. heck, they /know/, that you're idiots.

[JadedWolf]

Excerpt from a history book from the future: "In 2017, peace was finally declared in the Middle-East, all thanks to years of work, which included some very heavy armchair debating, by the fine people of the community forums of Obsidian Entertainment, specifically the guys from the Off-Topic forum. You'll probably have heard of them from their recently awarded Nobel Peace price."

[nipsen]

Stranger things have happened, though.

 

Five guys took a break from admiring the Ayn Rand portraits on their desks, wrote a few papers, and sold a war based on the concept that it would pay for itself. While arguing that the president has unilateral power to do anything without political sanction by Congress (...which was a "theory" actually filed as a legal opinion in the justice department by a low-level functionary (Yoo), but which then was pulled up by the administration as a common opinion - which since has not been tested in court, since actually throwing it out on it's face after someone used it would mean direct impeachment by Supreme Court, something justices will not want to see. The political leverage to question this with solid legal opinion, if anyone cared about laws and kings and things of that sort, exists of course).

 

And so therefore the Congress wouldn't have to be involved in the approval process when it came to money, or actually approving the war. And then they did it.

 

I.e., the administrations have successfully transformed any controversial law or decision into a political approval rate question, by letting any administration literally interpret the meaning of any law. This power is then specifically to be given by simple majority vote during the presidential election. Where something around 25% of the people vote. After, presidents as well as a sizeable amount of actually learned people argue that the system has checks in place.

 

People in the US tend to think that it's too complicated to grasp, or that it's too complicated to change. But it's not - you have an elite with autonomous power to start wars (a concern to people elsewhere), to collect taxes and spend them on ..very curious things (a concern to the US, you would believe, if for no other reason for self interest). And changing how this works is possible, and a lot of politicians want it to happen. Apart from how it typically means certain failure in the elections.

 

And the thing is that a lot of the people I talk to are not unintelligent by any means. But rather than organising themselves, pushing some input at state and county level, and getting informed in some way - they go by narratives such as this: "Well, I'll gladly sacrifice my tax-money so that the world can have democracy". And it's genuinely altruistic. "I believe we as a people are a giving people". Genuine super-Christians or people who believe in giving people an opportunity to make the best of themselves. "I work 20 hours a day in a store, so that I some day can be a millionaire and give something back to this great nation". Great. Even the "ugly" xenophobia is tainted by this: "We think that we should give people the opportunity to better their lives, not build it for them. Let there be rose-gardens arising out of bloody chaos and war", etc.

 

But name one single politician in Egypt, for example.. try to do it in your head.. usually people can't. Name a single of your own officials involved in current talks and negotiations in Egypt? Can't. Name a group of people in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen that are politically active? Can't. Any newspaper in the Middle-east with wide local circulation? *shrug* Any political organisation and a vague retelling of their political aims? Nope. Any western political parties perhaps? Angela Merkel belongs to..? James Cameron is head of the....? Name any half-current political controversy in any country other than the US? Name the last controversial law passed on the Capitol? ..nothing. And they feel that's completely all right. Because it's none of their business, apparently, outside being part of the grandest scheme of all, having humility in their hearts and for God, and gracing people's lives with the gift... of Democracy. Or something. I don't know. 

 

Just saying that normally the places I hear narratives similar to this outside the US - is in communist cadres with brainwashed folks who wear Mao's little red book as a personal talisman. "The revolution comes tomorrow, for certain this time". Who has to have some hobby outside his crappy day-job. It's like.. that one guy in a city with 50k people. And in the US it's the other way around. Let me tell you - it's scary as ****. I've talked to people in ghettos in Syria with a better grasp of how democracy works. A friend of mine used to travel in Africa. In the middle of the jungle, there's this guy sitting in a pool of mud, with a yellow straw growing out of it - it's his plot of land, apparently. And he's sitting there reading the London Financial Times. People want to know stuff. People have a brain and part of having one means wanting to use it.

 

....and yet.

[Zoraptor]

 

so long as the west lives in a fantasy of wishful thinking and ignorance and uses the psychotropic melange of (uncritically accepted) Saudi Israeli 'intelligence' to decide their ME policy they're doomed to asterisk things up over and over because they aren't even slightly grounded in reality

 

Fixed that for you.

 

 

I initially included Israel myself, but in terms of ISIS specifically I'm not really sure that they had much effect- especially compared to Saudi- so I took them out. Certainly true in the more broad context though, along with any human assets their own intelligence agencies have that say what they want to hear such as Chalabi in 2003.

 

You have a good knowledge of politics and the Middle East, is it really so hard for you to suggest how the threat of ISIS can be reduced?

 

That's like asking an oncologist to treat someone who has gone off on an alternative medicine bender and has had their melanoma become dozens of secondary tumours throughout their body. There's nothing he can do except invent a time machine and convince the person that the frauds peddling snake oil should not have their advice followed.

 

Wouldn't be a geopolitics thread without some sanctimony from the Euros.

 

Hmm, my burgundy passport has expired and I haven't noticed any drop in my sanctimony levels as a consequence.

[Leferd]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/26/on-the-brink-of-extinction-assyrian-christians-crowd-fund-an-army.html?utm_content=bylines&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow

 

Crowdfunding an Assyrian army.

[obyknven]

Allahu Akbar!

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://youtu.be/9gXue0hdN7I