The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Simon]

Let the threats begin: Authorities warned of lone-wold terror attacks in U.S. after airstrips against ISIS

 

[brownindian]

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.

I definitely see where you are coming from and those are valid points. But what good is having a sound theory when the implementation was a complete catastrophe. Here is what the Iraq war cost the US in a much larger scale.
- Death to American soldiers and Iraqi civilians
- War spending that is having a huge say in the national debt
- A lack of proper reason given for the war (1st WMD, then terror threat, then Iraqi freedom) leading to a global mistrust upon the US even among the established allies (more countries fought with the US against Al Quaeda in Afghan than in Iraq)
- A lack of proper exit plan leading to a volatile situation there and causing thus establish the breeding grounds for miscontent and hatered (perfect opportunity for terrorists to whitewash and recruit people)
- Removing an evil person who was not afraid to take evil decisions against his enemies (Saddam and AQ were not friends despite their common hatred for the US) and thereby acting as a regional deterrent thereby forcing the US into a situation where every decision they take is now going to be a damned if you do or a damned if you dont.

Also regarding Obama's decision to withdraw troops - That was one of the platforms that he ran in so there is no surprise there and if he had decided to do otherwise then he would not have been voted back.

 

[Marcus]

Let the threats begin: Authorities warned of lone-wold terror attacks in U.S. after airstrips against ISIS

Yeah, they've been saying for weeks how they want lone wolves to come find service members at their homes and kill them and their families.

Threat = capability + intent

While I firmly believe that they have every intention of doing so, right now there are likely so few ISIS operatives actually in the US that I'm really not going to lose sleep over it, wondering if I'm going to wake up with a knife to my throat. It's all just a ploy to scare Westerners. I'd be saying whatever I could too, knowing that I just woke a sleeping giant and they're now raining fire down on my head.

 

[CleveRocks]

The first and second Iraqi war did not cost us any frieinds in the middle east because our only friend in the middle east was Israel. There is no debate on the fact that saddam was looking to buy nukes, and was raising the cash through the oil for food scam. There is no debate that North Korea was supplying silkworm missiles to iraq. There was no debate that korea was developing nukes. We dont go into Iraq, korea ships nukes to saddam, and we would never have gone in. Saddam invades kuwait, SA the UAE and we would have to stand by and watch.

Jihadists hate the west. They hated the west before either iraq war. The only reason they were pissed about the second iraq war was because they were planning to overthrow Saddam themselves and use his army weapons to create the caliphate. They wanted the US out of SA so they could overthrow the kings and take control pretty much as ISIS has done. They could not have taken control of this area if the US had been in country, and moving them out was just naive. Obama thought he could talk his way out of the conflict. But these assholes want us in the conflict, because they use the propoganda to recruit and raise money. It makes no sense to broadcast a beheading unless you want the US to show up....

We need to realize these assholes will never be friends with free countries. They want to live in the stoneage and be martyred. I say we help them along...

 

[RaidenDAWG2]

Yeah, they've been saying for weeks how they want lone wolves to come find service members at their homes and kill them and their families.

Threat = capability + intent

While I firmly believe that they have every intention of doing so, right now there are likely so few ISIS operatives actually in the US that I'm really not going to lose sleep over it, wondering if I'm going to wake up with a knife to my throat. It's all just a ploy to scare Westerners. I'd be saying whatever I could too, knowing that I just woke a sleeping giant and they're now raining fire down on my head.

Tell that to Australia, who just arrested more than a dozen ISIS operatives hours prior to them carrying out random public beheadings.

In Australia. Not Iraq, not Syria, Australia. You're kidding yourself I'd you think they don't have the second variable in your equation.

 

[Simmy]

Tell that to Australia, who just arrested more than a dozen ISIS operatives hours prior to them carrying out random public beheadings.

In Australia. Not Iraq, not Syria, Australia. You're kidding yourself I'd you think they don't have the second variable in your equation.

As an Australian, I can express my absolute agreeance with what you've just said. People don't want to say it, but there's mild panic out here at the moment. This morning a suspected extremist was supposed to meet with federal and local police in Melbourne (where I'm from). They shook hands momentarily before the extremist produced a knife and proceeded to stab 2 federal officers. Law enforcement shot and killed this 18 year old Aghan-Australian on the spot.

Now our federal government is concerned about police backlash locally and nationally. With our biggest event in Melbourne coming up this Saturday (the AFL Grand Final which is like our Super Bowl), security and police presence will be at an unprecedented high with growing concerns that an attack may be taken out on the event this weekend.

On top of this, plus the raids of last week (Australia's biggest counter-terrorism operation in our history), plus the fact that our terror alert level has been raised to high, ISIS have produced a mass video targetting the Australian Federal Parliament House and people of political power. They're encouraging Muslim Australians to kill all Australians.

My point is, this shit is very real. And it's happening here in Australia. Not the US. Not even the UK. Australia. From home-grown terrorism - these are 18-24 year old dillusional kids, brainwashed by ISIS with a very real desire to destroy their own country. I get the feeling that if we're concerned about what's going to happen next in a somewhat unimportant nation on the world scale, there is perhaps some cause for concern for Americans as well.

 

[gourimoko]

Honestly there is so much FUD in this thread it's kept me away..

I'll try this once. Let's say we continue this campaign against ISIS, and let's say they go back to being an underground terrorist organization (they were merely an extension of Al Qaeda in post-Saddam Iraq).

What are our next steps in the region? Are we really saying that we have to maintain a military presence in the region indefinitely?

In essence, looking at this in a ten-year window, what is actually being accomplished? It isn't nothing, ISIS' capabilities are being degraded, but what are the inevitable consequences here?

Again, it calls into question the actual understanding of some of the posters here regarding what drives this type of extremism. Many here are quick to push a button and send off bombs and troops without actually thinking about what the problem is. I don't disagree with the immediate goal of neutralizing ISIS as a military threat; but I do disagree with the notion that we can militarily defeat Islamic extremism which is what ISIS represents and which will be back in force the moment we withdraw (again) leaving a power vacuum.

If the above is true logically, the way I see it is either we nation-build, installing petty and transparent puppet states (the only nations presently supporting us), which has made us no friends in the region; or we actively engage in real diplomacy.

Lastly, before someone ridiculously says that I'm "blaming America" understand that what I am trying to do is assess the problem, logically, before jumping haphazardly into yet another armed conflict without thinking it through. ISIS is the product of that type of cowboy diplomacy, it seems many here are forgetting that. So, with the idiotic invasion in mind, let's not make the same mistakes twice (or a dozen times considering the numerous blunders in the region by past administrations).

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Honestly there is so much FUD in this thread it's kept me away..

I'll try this once. Let's say we continue this campaign against ISIS, and let's say they go back to being an underground terrorist organization (they were merely an extension of Al Qaeda in post-Saddam Iraq).

What are our next steps in the region? Are we really saying that we have to maintain a military presence in the region indefinitely?

No. But we do need to maintain the flexibility to respond to requests for help in a timely manner. When the Iraqi military asked for help against ISIS, we said no. It wasn't until after they'd collapsed and ISIS had grabbed much more land that we finally decided to help. That delay may have forced our military involvement to be more extensive and longer-lasting that it might otherwise have been.

Outside of combat forces, we do need to maintain military cooperation at the officer-training level at least.

I

n essence, looking at this in a ten-year window, what is actually being accomplished? It isn't nothing, ISIS' capabilities are being degraded, but what are the inevitable consequences here? Again, it calls into question the actual understanding of some of the posters here regarding what drives this type of extremism. Many here are quick to push a button and send off bombs and troops without actually thinking about what the problem is. I don't disagree with the immediate goal of neutralizing ISIS as a military threat...;

You seem to be on both sides of the fence here. You apparently support degrading ISIS' military capabilities with a bombing campaign, but then mention the "inevitable consequences" of that as if it is the wrong thing to do. So do you support it despite those consequences, or not?

But I do disagree with the notion that we can militarily defeat Islamic extremism which is what ISIS represents and which will be back in force the moment we withdraw (again) leaving a power vacuum.

Who - either here or elsewhere -- is seriously claiming that Islamic extremism can be "defeated" through only military means? That seems a strawman to me. I'm not sure the word "defeat" is even applicable to the subject outside the purely military threat being presented at any given time by those who hold militant Islamic beliefs.

I think most people would agree with the idea that militant Islam as an ideology ultimately must be reformed/defeated ideologically, by other Muslims, in much the same way Catholicism had to reform during the Reformation to eliminate/reduce extremism.

If the above is true logically, the way I see it is either we nation-build, installing petty and transparent puppet states (the only nations presently supporting us), which has made us no friends in the region; or we actively engage in real diplomacy.

With whom? ISIS?

Lastly, before someone ridiculously says that I'm "blaming America" understand that what I am trying to do is assess the problem, logically, before jumping haphazardly into yet another armed conflict without thinking it through. ISIS is the product of that type of cowboy diplomacy, it seems many here are forgetting that. So, with the idiotic invasion in mind, let's not make the same mistakes twice (or a dozen times considering the numerous blunders in the region by past administrations).

ISIS is murdering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, killing Yazidis to "purify" that portion of Iraq, and even murdering fellow Muslims for not being sufficiently devout. We saw the Taliban tear down Buddhist statues and stone women long before there was a single U.S. soldier in the country. ISIS gained its first real foothold in Syria, during a period in which some have criticized the U.S. government for doing absolutely nothing in Syria.

Yet you blame these blatant acts of purely religious extremism solely on American policy, which is ridiculous. It's our fault. That's like blaming the Vikings for the Inquisition or the Albigensian Crusade. The Wahhabi extremism that motivates this kind of behavior had it's origins in the 18th century before the U.S. even existed as a nation at all.

I do think it is likely true that resentment against the expansion of Western cultural mores is one of the motivating factors for this extremism. Of course, Wahhabism was an objection to liberalization within Islamic culture itself during a period when the Islamic Ottoman Empire -- not the West -- controlled that region, so the objection is to much more than just western influence. It's against anything that isn't considered sufficiently pure.

But even if it was western cultural expansion that pisses them off, and was the triggering cause of their anger, I'd still say fuck 'em. Because what they're demanding is that other people comply with their moral/religious codes, and if we (and their fellow Muslims who opt for a different way) don't, they have the right to force us to do so via violence.

Honestly, do you see ISIS as being the product of anything other than the U.S.? Any other factors to which you'd assign blame/fault/causation? Here's a story about 4 jihadis from ISIS going to Norway to kill some Norwegians? Our fault as well?

http://www.thelocal.no/20140828/pst-were-hunting-four-isis-terrorists-during-norways-terror-alert

 

[jlj3184]

The Salafi/Wahhabi movement is so interesting to me. There are tons of Salafis who do not advocate violence, yet the small sect that do (from UBL/AQ/al-Nusra to ISIS/ISIL) are terrifying, indiscriminate killers.

Several of our strongest allies in the Middle East (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) have some of the highest percentages of Salafis in the world.

The vast majority of the Salafis are peaceful people who just have an heir of superiority about them. It is the ones who are indoctrinated at a young age for a myriad of reasons (impressionable youth, attention, cultural values, media, lack of goods and services, etc) that are causing the problems. Without finding a suitable way to address the core grievances, the Salafi Jihadists cannot truly be defeated.

 

[Simon]

 

[gourimoko]

No. But we do need to maintain the flexibility to respond to requests for help in a timely manner. When the Iraqi military asked for help against ISIS, we said no. It wasn't until after they'd collapsed and ISIS had grabbed much more land that we finally decided to help. That delay may have forced our military involvement to be more extensive and longer-lasting that it might otherwise have been.

We said no because it isn't our conflict. There are many atrocities that happen throughout the world; the United States should not be policing them all.

At what point do Iraqis and others in the region need to fight for their own safety?

Outside of combat forces, we do need to maintain military cooperation at the officer-training level at least.

This is meaningless.

You seem to be on both sides of the fence here. You apparently support degrading ISIS' military capabilities with a bombing campaign, but then mention the "inevitable consequences" of that as if it is the wrong thing to do. So do you support it despite those consequences, or not?

Because for some reason you seem not willing to understand a nuanced argument. I'm not saying bombing ISIS is the "wrong thing to do," as I rarely if ever speak in such absolutes. I'm saying that there are consequences we need to be aware of that we are simply ignoring. There were also consequences to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. As to your question, I've already said 4 times in the thread I support airstrikes against ISIS, but I do not support anything further than that and I do not support arming Syrian "moderates."

Who - either here or elsewhere -- is seriously claiming that Islamic extremism can be "defeated" through only military means? That seems a strawman to me.

It's a strawman because you're not paying attention.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Sunday that it will take an army to beat the "radical Islamic army" of the Islamic State, or ISIS, otherwise the terrorists "will open the gates of hell to spill out on the world." He also suggested ISIS is capable of killing Americans in the United States.

"When the White House tells the world we say what we mean and we do what we say, nobody believes that anymore," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

"It's going to take an army to beat an army. And this idea we'll never have any boots on the ground to defeat them in Syria is fantasy. And all this has come home to roost over the last three years of incompetent decisions ..." he asserted.

ISIS, also known as ISIL, released a video Saturday showing the beheading of 44-year-old British aid worker, David Haines, the father of two who went to Syria to serve at a refugee camp.

The Sunni terror group previously released two more videos showing the beheadings of U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and has threatened to kill more Western hostages.

"The first thing I want to tell the American people, from my point of view, it is our fight," Graham continued. "It is not just their fight. This is a radical Islamic army that's pushing the theory of a master religion, not a master race, like the Nazis. This is not about bringing a few people to justice who behead the innocent in a brutal fashion. It's about protecting millions of people throughout the world from a radical Islamic army, they're intending to come here."

Again, do some basic research or read a newspaper before you toss out ad hominems.

I'm not sure the word "defeat" is even applicable to the subject outside the purely military threat being presented at any given time by those who hold militant Islamic beliefs.

Eh... I don't really know what argument is being stated here..

I think most people would agree with the idea that militant Islam as an ideology ultimately must be reformed/defeated ideologically, by other Muslims, in much the same way Catholicism had to reform during the Reformation to eliminate/reduce extremism.

Ok.

With whom? ISIS?

No.

ISIS is murdering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, killing Yazidis to "purify" that portion of Iraq, and even murdering fellow Muslims for not being sufficiently devout. We saw the Taliban tear down Buddhist statues and stone women long before there was a single U.S. soldier in the country. ISIS gained its first real foothold in Syria, during a period in which some have criticized the U.S. government for doing absolutely nothing in Syria.

So.. we should do what then? I'm just trying to understand when the United States should be engaged militarily and when we shouldn't.

Yet you blame these blatant acts of purely religious extremism solely on American policy, which is ridiculous. It's our fault.

Honestly, at this point Q-Tip, go fuck yourself...

I've had about enough of this type of bullshit from you. It's annoying. You don't have a monopoly on patriotism and I've given my all to my country in the best way I know how.

I've said numerous times I'm not "blaming" the United States, I am stating exactly what the radicals are stating about American foreign policy. Everyone can share in the blame for the mess that was created in the Middle East, and yes that includes the United States. But that doesn't mean that I'm blaming the U.S. for ISIS beheading Syrians and placing their heads on pikes.

However, from an Arab/Islamic standpoint, there are valid criticisms and concerns regarding American foreign policy that must be addressed to end this perpetual conflict with the Islamic world. The primary criticisms are undisputed facts that I pointed out in an earlier post, you claiming that is "blame America first" is honestly disgusting, makes my stomach turn, and is offensive to the point where I would be ready to beat the shit out of someone.

Flat out: you are calling me unpatriotic and basically saying I do not love my country because I disagree with it's foreign policy. If you want to go down that road, put me on ignore. I will no longer be civil if that's how we have to have this conversation.

That's like blaming the Vikings for the Inquisition or the Albigensian Crusade. The Wahhabi extremism that motivates this kind of behavior had it's origins in the 18th century before the U.S. even existed as a nation at all.

Again you know nothing of Islam or what drives Muslims to extremist views, it has nothing to do with 18th century history. Nothing. It sounds as if you've never even spoken to a Muslim in your life.

Stop guessing, and just go out and read Islamic literature, journalism, and editorials.

I do think it is likely true that resentment against the expansion of Western cultural mores is one of the motivating factors for this extremism. Of course, Wahhabism was an objection to liberalization within Islamic culture itself during a period when the Islamic Ottoman Empire -- not the West -- controlled that region, so the objection is to much more than just western influence. It's against anything that isn't considered sufficiently pure.

Again, this is nonsense and rationalization. The primary motivating factors of the jihadi is American hegemony in the Middle East, the continued unwavering support of Israel, and the American presence in Saudi Arabia. Ask any Muslim, radical or not, and the vast vast majority would cite those 3 issues as having paramount importance to Muslims and Arabs everywhere.

Honestly, do you see ISIS as being the product of anything other than the U.S.?

Yes.

Any other factors to which you'd assign blame/fault/causation? Here's a story about 4 jihadis from ISIS going to Norway to kill some Norwegians? Our fault as well?

The things people say over the internet.

 

[The Oi]

or we actively engage in real diplomacy.

How do we engage in diplomacy with ISIS?

 

[gourimoko]

How do we engage in diplomacy with ISIS?

We don't engage in diplomacy with ISIS. Keep in mind, I've said, now 5 times, that we should be bombing ISIS.

I am saying we need to engage in diplomacy with the other actors/states in the region.

We need to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, not precipitously, but over time while simultaneously making a real concerted effort to reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels.

We need to need to allow Israel to defend itself. Stop propping up their state with free arms and loan guarantees in the billions upon billions of dollars. They are more than capable of defending themselves and many Arabs, including myself, regard America's allegiance to Israel a serious part of the problem.

Those are diplomatic steps that the United States can take towards forging a true and meaningful dialogue with other Middle Eastern nations.

The establishment of a Palestinian State would go a long way as well...

The point here is not that you engage ISIS in diplomacy, it's that you engage those who would join ISIS in diplomacy. By changing our foreign policy, we mitigate the problem from here on out. Dropping bombs alone doesn't solve the long-term problem -- and again, for the 6th time, I think we need a combination of both!

 

[The Oi]

Hadn't carefully read any of the longer posts since my last one, so didn't see any of your 437 supposed posts about it.

Thank you.

 

[gourimoko]

Hadn't carefully read any of the longer posts since my last one, so didn't see any of your 437 supposed posts about it.

Thank you.

Actually Jigo, I haven't been posting in the thread at all.. I've just been lurking, reading the viewpoints here and realizing that it's very narrow and not really open to debate.