The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[JSS2306]

I'm a fan of Bill Maher. I'm not a huge fan because there are major issues that I disagree with him on. This is one of those times.

I can't embed the video but here's a link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/get-a-grip-maher-rips-war-hawks-for-breathless-hyping-of-isis-threats/

There's a problem with Bill Maher's take on this issue and that is his description of "People saw a couple of beheading's and now they are shitting their pants" act and it's unsettling. He should know better. Obama himself disagrees with him.

Sure, there are people shitting their pants over a couple of beheadings (and they should be) but there's also entire hours long videos of ISIS executing mass people in the same style as AND1 mixtapes on the same soil that we just left.

I'm sorry, that is reprehensible and comes off as pro-Democrat bullshit that doesn't want to acknowledge the consequences of pulling out of a country we were just at war with.

Are we suppose to let this fester more than it already has and let these guys take over more land that actually equals to something like 1/8th (alot of land to me) of the land on US soil?

I gotta say, fuck that. Just because we pulled out of a country doesn't mean we pulled out for the long haul and allow crazy sects of Islam to take control over rather large areas of said land and it is LARGE.

That's insane to me and he's completely downgrading the threat of such actions. I say stick to domestic policies and talk less about foreign policy which includes large swaths of land. Larger than you think it is. We're talking about millions of people effected with the potential of 10's of millions effected by ruthless religious assholes.

Bill, you own the Mets ffs. Fuck off when it comes to humanity in the middle east.

 

[Simon]

Here we go....

 

[brownindian]

I think you're dead-on with all this. There may have been a window to help the moderate Syrian opposition, but I think that's gone. Biggest mistake was leaving Iraq without making arrangements for continued air support for the Iraqi Army. And when ISIS started surging, we waited too long to start air strikes. I think we can prevent them from taking significantly more territory with close air support, but if the goal is to roll them back, that's not going to be enough.

I disagree on 1 account. I feel Bush's biggest mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. US had far less enemies when Saddam was still alive.

 

[RaidenDAWG2]

I disagree on 1 account. I feel Bush's biggest mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. US had far less enemies when Saddam was still alive.

Not true. We had roughly the same number of enemies, we just knew a whole lot less about them and they went by fewer names.

The thing that allows me to discuss this with you is the same tool that accounts for better organization within these enemies post-Saddam (the internet). Jihadis aren't just chatting any more, they're tweeting, they're Facebooking, and they're using the power of the internet to spread their crazy message.

Had Iraq not been invaded, the names might have changed, but the haters of the Great Satan still would have been there, and they would still try to find ways to strike us.

 

[Marcus]

I disagree on 1 account. I feel Bush's biggest mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. US had far less enemies when Saddam was still alive.

We can sit here and argue exactly what merits Bush had for going to war in Iraq, but I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the way we pulled out of there was completely irresponsible and wrong. Obama goofed on that one just for the sake of being able to put a feather in his cap. I understand the need to get out of there after almost a decade at war, but that government was in no way shape or form ready to take complete control of that country, nor were the defense forces ready to actually defend it.

We should have at the very least left residual forces over there to help with the transition for a few more years until it was clear that the Iraqis could handle themselves. We didn't, and they couldn't.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

We can sit here and argue exactly what merits Bush had for going to war in Iraq, but I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the way we pulled out of there was completely irresponsible and wrong. Obama goofed on that one just for the sake of being able to put a feather in his cap. I understand the need to get out of there after almost a decade at war, but that government was in no way shape or form ready to take complete control of that country, nor were the defense forces ready to actually defend it.

We should have at the very least left residual forces over there to help with the transition for a few more years until it was clear that the Iraqis could handle themselves. We didn't, and they couldn't.

Who knows how long it would have taken the Iraqis to get their shit together. After being in the country for a decade if they still can't handle themselves then fuck it.

We have other shit to worry about in our own country, and our constant dicking around in the Middle East has done nothing but create new enemies for ourselves.

 

[Marcus]

Who knows how long it would have taken the Iraqis to get their shit together. After being in the country for a decade if they still can't handle themselves then fuck it.

We have other shit to worry about in our own country, and our constant dicking around in the Middle East has done nothing but create new enemies for ourselves.

This line of thinking is exactly why ISIS was even able to come into existence and spread so quickly in the first place. Just because you shut your eyes and plug your ears doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I disagree on 1 account. I feel Bush's biggest mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. US had far less enemies when Saddam was still alive.

I have no desire to re-open that debate, but I'll just say this:

The primary motivation (or at least, excuse) for AQ striking at us when they did was the continue presence of significant U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia. Their presences was specifically cited in bin Laden's fatwa issued against the U.S.. in 1998. And the reason we still had significant forces in Saudi Arabia was because that douchebag Saddam refused to comply with the ceasefire he'd signed in 1991.

Our strategic policy towards Iraq during the Clinton years was essentially "containment", which required the more or less permanent presence of significant U.S. troops in that region. There's nothing inherently wrong with that as a means of stabilizing a region, but the long-term presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia also had that destabilizing side-effect of pissing off the radicals. And as long as Saddam was still in power and refusing to comply with that ceasefire,
we had to keep those troops there. So it was either keep troops there indefinitely (as we have in South Korea), or remove the source of the problem that required us to keep those troops there.

To get out of that region, we had to get rid of the douchebag who was keeping us there.

And I just want to emphasize that there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping troops in a friendly nation, at its request, when those troops are minding their own business and not bothering anyone. That's what was happening in S.A. during the 90's. I don't believe that some tiny minority of nutbags has any moral right to dictate to the rest of that country a contrary opinion, so I don't believe we were at fault or in the wrong for keeping troops in S.A. I just think it was not in our own national interest to do so long-term.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Who knows how long it would have taken the Iraqis to get their shit together. After being in the country for a decade if they still can't handle themselves then fuck it.

We have other shit to worry about in our own country, and our constant dicking around in the Middle East has done nothing but create new enemies for ourselves.

Well, we've kept troops in South Korea and Europe for more than 60 years after those wars ended to help stabilize -- successfully -- those regions. Nobody is talking about us fighting there indefinitely, or keeping large number of combat troops there infinitely, but there is a middle ground between us carrying the majority of the fighting load, and us just pulling everything out. The transition was too fast, and the lack of even advisors or trainers was a real problem.

 

[FiveThous]

Islamic extremism isn't going anywhere. Reading this thread has simply demonstrated to me that Americans in general do not understand what drives the jihadist.

If we really want an end to this perpetual conflict weer should withdraw from the middle east entirely.

There is really no reason for our troops to be anywhere but the USA, let alone the middle east.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

This line of thinking is exactly why ISIS was even able to come into existence and spread so quickly in the first place. Just because you shut your eyes and plug your ears doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

Yes, a problem exists, in the Middle East. Once we "defeat" ISIS we'll leave a vacuum of power that will be filled by another extremist group. Unless of course we commit troops to the Middle East indefinitely, which after 10 years it seems we have accomplished nothing. If only we had stayed another decade or two maybe this wouldn't have happened.

At a certain point the people of the Middle East need to fight for their own rights. It's not as though ISIS is Nazi Germany or even the Koreans during the Korean war. They have AT MOST 50,000 troops, which even that is probably an overestimation, and more realistically has between 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers. Stack that against the Iraqi military with 250k active personnel, armed and trained by the U.S. (this isn't counting armed police officers) There is no reason why they cannot defend their territory. There is no reason why we should once again get drawn into a conflict in the Middle East.

 

[Marcus]

Yes, a problem exists, in the Middle East. Once we "defeat" ISIS we'll leave a vacuum of power that will be filled by another extremist group. Unless of course we commit troops to the Middle East indefinitely, which after 10 years it seems we have accomplished nothing. If only we had stayed another decade or two maybe this wouldn't have happened.

At a certain point the people of the Middle East need to fight for their own rights. It's not as though ISIS is Nazi Germany or even the Koreans during the Korean war. They have AT MOST 50,000 troops, which even that is probably an overestimation, and more realistically has between 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers. Stack that against the Iraqi military with 250k active personnel, armed and trained by the U.S. (this isn't counting armed police officers) There is no reason why they cannot defend their territory. There is no reason why we should once again get drawn into a conflict in the Middle East.

Already tried that. The result was 30,000 trained and armed Iraqi security forces fleeing from 800 members of ISIS.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Already tried that. The result was 30,000 trained and armed Iraqi security forces fleeing from 800 members of ISIS.

Morale is incredibly important in combat. You had relatively green units, poorly led, facing competent opposition. When the front line units buckled, the panic was contagious. Units that never heard a shot broke.

A leavening of competent advisors can prevent a command from panicking, and competent air support can boost massively the morale of the troops it is supporting. We saw this in spades going all the way back to the '72 and '75 offensives in South Vietnam. The ARVN held in '72 when it had advisors and American supporting arms, but fell apart like a cheap suit in '75. That's not -- for anyone who may want to go off on this tangent -- an argument that we should have stayed in Vietnam. It is simply a factual observation of the factors that can make troops perform better or worse.

It take a long time to build a professional military that has enough faith in itself to hold together in the face of adversity. It helps enormously if you have some professionals to help in the training and leading of those units.

 

[The Oi]

There is really no reason for our troops to be anywhere but the USA, let alone the middle east.

This is patently false. And I'd have agreed with you before doing some research on exactly what ISIS is and what their capabilities are.

We are looking at a situation right now that needs to be handled. A situation that no other country appears to have been willing to proactively tackle without us, but that many recognized as a growing concern. And it's a situation where our presence is welcomed by the majority in the area where we're attacking ISIS.

You're looking at a group that's reportedly taking on between $1B- $2B in revenue per year who are murdering people relentlessly in their efforts to enforce shariah and establish a caliphate. That's enough money to pay their fighters and have a major impact on the oil supply over there. Their recruits are guys who have nothing in life, and they're able to offer not only a cause...but a salary too. Establishing a caliphate means that their goal is world/religious domination. ISIS's army is growing exponentially and they have no interest or plans to stop the growth. What kind of revenue levels or membership do you need to see before you feel somebody should step in?

If you believe that it's a problem that needs tackled and noone besides the US is willing to be the primary enforcer, then do you believe the issue should just be ignored?

 

[Marcus]

There is really no reason for our troops to be anywhere but the USA, let alone the middle east.

Isolationism has proven time and again throughout history to be a terrible strategy. Sit back and wait to be sucker punched, getting drawn into a conflict... or take the fight right to the people that have already made it perfectly clear that they want to kill as many Americans as possible?

There's a case to be made against intervening in another country's affairs when it does not pertain to the US. This is NOT one of those cases. These people are some of most brutal, purely evil barbarians we have seen since the beginning of our regular involvement over there. They are a direct security threat. The real issue at hand stems from the fact that they were underestimated and left unchecked for so long.