Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on February 04, 2015, 12:02:03 pm
-
They hanged two captured ISIS terrorists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-mideast-crisis-killing-idUSKBN0L71XE20150204
Thoughts?
-
I don't have many sympathies with those lines of reasoning that are going all "****yeah take your own medicine!", and it's frankly unsurprising to see people like Nassim Taleb carrying the flag for those sentiments. It's escalation 101, pure and simple. I wonder if all these people high fiving Jordan for their "hard stance" on these issues would be having brain orgasms if the US government did the same in GITMO. Why not? It's the exact same thing.
-
Well, the point is to discourage further killings by ISIS. They will kill, yes, but they will be less eager to blaze it far and wide if the consequences are less than favorable. In other words, instead of just gaining propaganda value, they are also losing their fighters (who were before still alive). So, potential recruits now see ISIS killing innocent people, sure, but they also see that ISIS is basically sentencing their fighters to death.
Otherwise, ISIS comes out as a possible winning team (assuming that the potential recruit has no other qualms about joining ISIS and just wants to join a fight on a hard-hitting "winning" team).
-
It's escalation and people are not using their brains sufficiently if they think this is a kind of a showstopper for ISIS or their troops, who are mostly composed by idiots from all around the world who are prepared to die in this "cause" anyway.
-
Well, the point is to discourage further killings by ISIS. They will kill, yes, but they will be less eager to blaze it far and wide if the consequences are less than favorable. In other words, instead of just gaining propaganda value, they are also losing their fighters (who were before still alive). So, potential recruits now see ISIS killing innocent people, sure, but they also see that ISIS is basically sentencing their fighters to death.
At least one of the people who were executed were suicide bombers, I'm not really sure they have issues with losing their lives...
-
Jr2, it says these two had already been sentenced to death years ago. This was not a direct response to the ISIS murder, and the pair weren't even ISIS terrorists, though they're obviously of the same kind of ilk. At worst, it sounds like it just made them get on with something that was going to happen anyway.
-
Well, the point is to discourage further killings by ISIS. They will kill, yes, but they will be less eager to blaze it far and wide if the consequences are less than favorable. In other words, instead of just gaining propaganda value, they are also losing their fighters (who were before still alive). So, potential recruits now see ISIS killing innocent people, sure, but they also see that ISIS is basically sentencing their fighters to death.
At least one of the people who were executed were suicide bombers, I'm not really sure they have issues with losing their lives...
:wtf: When have you EVER seen capital punishment suggested as a preventative measure for the perpetrator?? It's for those who might consider {x, y, z} that the punishment is given out for. Say, rape, murder, whatever.
If it was just the perp, then life in prison would work just fine in preventing repeat offenses (as long as they actually never get released).
-
Well, the point is to discourage further killings by ISIS. They will kill, yes, but they will be less eager to blaze it far and wide if the consequences are less than favorable. In other words, instead of just gaining propaganda value, they are also losing their fighters (who were before still alive). So, potential recruits now see ISIS killing innocent people, sure, but they also see that ISIS is basically sentencing their fighters to death.
At least one of the people who were executed were suicide bombers, I'm not really sure they have issues with losing their lives...
:wtf: When have you EVER seen capital punishment suggested as a preventative measure for the perpetrator?? It's for those who might consider {x, y, z} that the punishment is given out for. Say, rape, murder, whatever.
If it was just the perp, then life in prison would work just fine in preventing repeat offenses (as long as they actually never get released).
My point is that threatening to kill people who are considering to be suicide bombers (among other things) is not really a discouragement. When I said "they" I wasn't talking about the perpetrators...
-
Retaliatory execution is a pretty clear sign of fear and weakness on the part of the government doing the executing. It's like "Well, we have all these rules and procedures that we like in theory, but when something goes wrong we're gonna chuck them and give our side the blood they want." Definitely plays into the ISIS worldview.
-
pretty sure the point of this was to basically say that they are pissed. I'm guessing that Jordan is going to be taking a much more active role in opposing ISIS now.
-
Retaliatory execution is a pretty clear sign of fear and weakness on the part of the government doing the executing. It's like "Well, we have all these rules and procedures that we like in theory, but when something goes wrong we're gonna chuck them and give our side the blood they want." Definitely plays into the ISIS worldview.
Jr2, it says these two had already been sentenced to death years ago. This was not a direct response to the ISIS murder, and the pair weren't even ISIS terrorists, though they're obviously of the same kind of ilk. At worst, it sounds like it just made them get on with something that was going to happen anyway.
Lorric made a salient point to this.
-
They executed only 2 terrorists? I thought that Jordanians were talking about bigger numbers.
-
Here's something interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/04/fox-news-shows-isis-video-jordan-pilot
Mainly about Fox News showing the uncut video of the killing of the Jordan pilot, but also that the New York Post put a picture of him on fire on their front page.
I wonder if they'd do that if it was an American or a European?
-
well two is the minimal number of themmuns you need to kill to get back in the lead after they get one of ussuns
-
Jr2, it says these two had already been sentenced to death years ago. This was not a direct response to the ISIS murder, and the pair weren't even ISIS terrorists, though they're obviously of the same kind of ilk. At worst, it sounds like it just made them get on with something that was going to happen anyway.
:wtf: Did not see your response... dunno how I skipped past it. That's actually what I assumed (that they were already sentenced or at least convicted and awaiting sentencing). -- I was thinking more along the lines of the timing was chosen because of what happened with their pilot.
-
Here's something interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/04/fox-news-shows-isis-video-jordan-pilot
Mainly about Fox News showing the uncut video of the killing of the Jordan pilot, but also that the New York Post put a picture of him on fire on their front page.
I wonder if they'd do that if it was an American or a European?
Of course they wouldn't.
But they've virtually guaranteed the next person to die will do so in an even more inhuman way. So they've given themselves better news stories to talk about. I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.
-
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/02/king-of-jordan-to-bomb-isis-in-syria-personally-3103164.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
TBH, I prefer what Jordan is doing to what the rest of the world is (not) doing. Any attempts at "deescalation" in this conflict are a sorry delusion that's likely to end badly. IS are not "freedom fighters", their goal is not establishing a corner of the world to call their own. Their goal is world domination, no less (as they have repeatedly stated). Not only do they don't mind war, they revel in it. I wouldn't say the execution will cause the next prisoner to die even more brutally. Not saying it won't happen (it will), but it'll be because IS terrorists love being in the spotlight. There's no helping that sort of people. I always admired King Abdullach, and I hope Jordan manages to root out IS at least from their borders, by any means necessary. I tell you, he knows what he's doing much, much better than anyone else (at least from our side...).
-
They vowed to kill them if ISIS kills the pilot, so they kinda had to do it, otherwise if this situation repeats in the future, ISIS wont that believe they really mean the threat. And just because the tactic failed this time does not mean it could not work in the future, perhaps with different ISIS faction and different (more important?) ISIS prisoners.
-
Personally, I don't think this tactic is going to work on ISIS at all. I think it's worth doing, but for people of Jordan and its allies. To show them that the King means business, if nothing else. ISIS the kind of organization that is willing to waste any number of men. Also, it might give people a reason to be somewhat less eager to join (if they'll leave their people to die too often, then their recruit pool might wane somewhat).
-
I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.
sigh. So true. I'm still trying to understand the bigger point though. Is this Jordan trying to "man up", showing ISIS who "da man is"? "Yeah, beheadings are rad, but you know what even more rad is? Burning people. ALIVE." "ooooooo" - (audience).
What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?
But as I said previously, my main disgust is at those westerners who were chanting "hell yeas" to these ridiculous escalations.
-
TBH, I prefer what Jordan is doing to what the rest of the world is (not) doing. Any attempts at "deescalation" in this conflict are a sorry delusion that's likely to end badly. IS are not "freedom fighters", their goal is not establishing a corner of the world to call their own. Their goal is world domination, no less (as they have repeatedly stated).
This. There are some terrorist organizations that can be reasoned with or appeased. ISIS is certainly not one of them. The best thing to do now is to commit forces for attacks against them.
This conflict has only one inevitable conclusion ever since the islamists started to capture actual territory, and that is an all out war of international forces against ISIS. And then establishing some kind of long term occupational zone to ensure they wont come back. Anything else is merely denying the inevitable and likely making the situation worse in the end.
So it does not really matter if the prisoners are executed or not, or if the video is shared or not. However showing the video in its entirety has its positives. It is the role of the media to show reality as it is, without censorship. And it helps to built support for campaigns against ISIS.
-
I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.
What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?
I'm not sure you get quite how cynical I was being. The "they" I was referring to was Fox New, not ISIS. As in Fox News are deliberately baiting ISIS to commit worse acts as that will get them more page views from the sickos who want to watch a man being burned to death, and will give them something apart from beheadings to talk about. Cause beheadings definitely aren't causing the kind of shock they used to.
-
This conflict has only one inevitable conclusion ever since the islamists started to capture actual territory, and that is an all out war of international forces against ISIS. And then establishing some kind of long term occupational zone to ensure they wont come back. Anything else is merely denying the inevitable and likely making the situation worse in the end.
Because the track record of western forces involving themselves in middle-eastern conflicts has been so good these past few decades.
Aren't you kinda forgetting that one of the main reasons IS was able to organize itself as well as it has was a string of absolutely terrible and boneheaded decisions US forces made after the Iraq war? What makes you think that western forces have become any more competent at managing an occupation in the middle east?
So it does not really matter if the prisoners are executed or not, or if the video is shared or not. However showing the video in its entirety has its positives. It is the role of the media to show reality as it is, without censorship. And it helps to built support for campaigns against ISIS.
Does it? Does it really?
-
Because the track record of western forces involving themselves in middle-eastern conflicts has been so good these past few decades.
Aren't you kinda forgetting that one of the main reasons IS was able to organize itself as well as it has was a string of absolutely terrible and boneheaded decisions US forces made after the Iraq war? What makes you think that western forces have become any more competent at managing an occupation in the middle east?
I am aware of that, I just do not see any better alternative. If it was up to me we would not be in Iraq in the first place, but now that the likes of ISIS are popping up in the power vacuum, I think it is the only option.
Does it? Does it really?
What, build support? Id say yes it does.
-
The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?
As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?
-
The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?
Gulf war was a success, tough it was not an occupation. Afghanistan war and occupation is mostly a success IMHO, its a better country that it was before. Iraq war and occupation was a failure.
With these data points, I dont understand why you think all middle eastern interventions are somehow destined to fail. It is just different on a case by case basis, and it is hard to predict. There is no such correlation.
But regardless of that, we should act when the likes of ISIS pop up. Even long term occupation is preferable to letting such a terrorist state exist.
As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?
Huh? The only one that ends up looking barbaric by showing these videos is ISIS. Which obviously helps to build public support for attacks against them.
It is not gore porn, it is journalism. People should see things as they are. News sites that embed these video do nothing wrong. Tough I do understand those who choose to not show it either out of the respect for the dead or for the stomachs of their readership, there is no moral imperative to do so, and there are reasons to show it.
-
I do understand those who choose to not show it either out of the respect for the dead or for the stomachs of their readership, there is no moral imperative to do so, and there are reasons to show it.
It's about decency. It's about respect. It's not necessary to show the video to get the point across, reporting that they burned a man alive in a cage should be all you need.
This isn't some product being taken off the shelves or some person having their freedom of speech rights curtailed. This is someone who was burned alive without their consent and filmed dying without their consent. The most famous example I can think of is the outrage when certain media outside of the UK showed pictures of Princess Diana in the fatal car crash. Wholly unnecessary and disgusting, and this is on a whole different level to that. This is a human being and they don't deserve this.
And this all falls into the hands of IS on top of that. They made this video and did it this way to get attention. Mission accomplished. This is encouraging and enabling them.
-
I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.
What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?
I'm not sure you get quite how cynical I was being.
Oh don't worry I absolutely got your point. I just went on a tangent which is informed by all this nihilistic search for profits in the mainstream media...
I mean, it is obvious what is going on here, at least at a certain "meta" level. We have a world that is informed by a materialistic way of dealing with people, markets, democracies, tolerance, etc., etc., no bigger values (I guess "Free Speech" touched a nerve, but even that one could be construed as simply a type of market idea), multiculturalism and on and on, fueled by a capitalist hegemon that touches everyone in the world with the sole concern for profits, and then we have all this rebellion against this nihilistic landscape with a righteous religious cause.
This Islamist radicalization sounds all like a giant cry of desperation against the meaninglessness of everyday "atheist" materialistic life. They desperately want it not to be true, they desperately want life to have a higher meaning, even if at the cost of creating one of the most barbarous countries that have ever existed. I would even propose that the very relative sucess of ISIS proves that the ultimate radicalization of it, to in a way, go to the end with all this violent logic of extremist religious state of mind, was able to signal to the rest of the world that this is it, this is the real deal, this is the ****, and it proved very successful at bringing people all around the world who were suffering from this ennui of life.
And it can't be helped but to happen, because economics and capitalism pervades the middle east not with the Playstations and iphones, but with giant reservoirs of barrels of oil and tanks. They feel this material nihilism in their face with their lives. This is only going to get worse, before ... well who knows.
-
Well I think the least people should do is if (when) ISIS decide to kill their remaining American hostage, point out that Fox News are responsible for them deciding to do something even more barbaric than a beheading.
-
The spice must flow Karajorma, and Fox has to flow the images. Unless it's a picture of Mohammed. Then, it cannot flow and there people become too upset.
-
The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?
As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?
You know what I find interesting? This:
1) So, we shouldn't have been there in the first place? Maybe, it's debatable, but for better or worse, we did.
2) It is the opinion of many that we shouldn't leave; the region is not ready for that yet. Some just can't seem to make up their mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7XtIsI1c9w) (although they have since retroactively made up their minds, of course).
3) Despite this, we leave. (Apparently, someone decided this before even getting up to speed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvgpgjcxZqQ) on all the issues and then denies ever making that decision (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqmpfW9tho4)).
4) SHTF. The growing threat of ISIS is poo-poohed and dismissed by our current leadership. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imjQK-IvAcg) Later, when the threat can no longer be ignored, blame is set on "bad intelligence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmtJ8Z_Iw2E)". Folks now like to lay the blame on 1), entering Iraq in the first place. Again, just because someone before you made a mistake (debatable), does not mean you get to do whatever you want in response. You have had your options limited by previous choices, ignoring those limits has consequences.
WELL, despite whether we should have been there or not, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT BEFORE we could do so without creating a friggin power vacuum (y'know, the kind which produces either another Sadaam Hussein or even better, ISIS).
Although, you're right, it is awfully convenient to just blame everything on those wrong-headed conservatives. You know, if we could just move everything to the far left center, everything would be golden. I do wish that a real far-right fascist or two would be elected to the house of representatives, just so that their real far-right views could show everyone what real far-right looks like. Bunch of conservative-bashing far left commies, y'all. :P
(FTR I'm not a cookie cutter conservative, I think for myself, and disagree with the R party on lots of things or think that they are doing it wrong, but it irks me that the R party is cast as "far-right" and somehow the D party is "right-center"... I've heard comments elsewhere that some wish "real" far-left politicians would emerge to show everyone how "centrist" the D party really is... both the D and R party are 'left' on government size, scope, and spending (to differing degrees, sure). I would lean Libertarian on that, but nnot as far as the Libertarians take it. Oversight is needed, it just needs to be kept simple and enforced, not carefully manipulated so that your favored cronies can get exemptions (D or R, the cronies don't care, they'll line the pockets of both and usually do).
I think immigration does need an overhaul, but that those who are already here illegally need to head to the back of the line of the (now broader and faster) lines to gain citizenship. Citizenship should mean assimilating, too -- you can have your culture but you must be a US citizen first. If you want to make a mini-{insert country here} in the US, go back where you came from and fix your own country the way you want it.
I think taxes should be lowered but loopholes should be 95% eliminated, thus in actuality raising the taxes on those companies that don't pay anywhere near a decent rate of taxes.
etc, etc, in other words, if you just dismiss everything I say as me being a bat**** crazy far-right conservative, well... then IMHO you're likely a bat**** crazy far-left liberal (which would be why my right-leaning positions seem so far right to you). :P
/end rant, sorry. Feel free to rant too, :hopping: just pause once in a while to smile. :nod:
-
Ah, the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED guy, telling it like it IS.
Yeah there was overwhelming bipartisan support for invading Iraq at Bush's insistence, but there was also overwhelming bipartisan support for getting the hell out of there after it became obvious that we couldn't accomplish any of our goals. Hard liners got their forever-war candidate in 2008 and they lost. The current situation resulting from our change in strategy is as much of a fait accompli as that which Obama inherited post-invasion.
Saying "we shouldn't have left before the job was done" is just as useful as people saying "Bush should never have been president in the first place." It's done, and "don't leave until the job is done" is the exact wrong lesson to take away from it. The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."
-
The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."
some of us do. :nono:
-
Shouldn't have gone in the first place, shouldn't have left with the job unfinished imo.
Swash does have a good point though. You need the support of the people, I mean full support, to be able to see something like this through to the end. I saw something recently, and supposedly the American general at the end of the Vietnam war said something like "you never beat us on the battlefield" to his Viet counterpart, and the response was something like "True. And also completely irrelevant."
-
You need the support of the people, I mean full support, to be able to see something like this through to the end. I saw something recently, and supposedly the American general at the end of the Vietnam war said something like "you never beat us on the battlefield" to his Viet counterpart, and the response was something like "True. And also completely irrelevant."
Not the first time that has happened, probably won't be the last. Interesting:
The Wall Street Journal published an interview in 1995 with Bui Tin, a former colonel who had served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
How North Vietnam Won the War[/i], August 3, 1995, page A8]
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp#8AgQ8kSgLQAWDCDv.99
Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
-
Some people knew this for quite a while. This is basically what Kurtz said in "Apocalypse Now", and what some Iraq opponents said back then. America is getting into unwinnable wars, and they're not unwinnable because of any military reason, but because American public would never approve of what was necessary to win. If America had the collective balls to do it, it could have won a victory in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The manpower and technology were all here. However, this would come at a cost, especially to people in those regions, that America just couldn't pay. In WWII, on the other hand, the public didn't hold the US back. The result? Beaches strewn with thousand of American soldiers and complete and utter destruction of the Nazis. Loses were large, but they were worth it. While the nature of war was different there, the essence was the same - killing the other side's men. Who those men were (soldiers vs. "civilians") merely influenced how capable we were of killing them.
This is also why my predictions about both conflict with Russia and the IS are so dark. NATO is incapable of winning any conflict that would require taking unpopular actions to win. Neither Russia nor IS have this issue, giving them an enormous advantage. Winning a war while being "the hero in shining armor" is a much more difficult feat, and might in fact be impossible against some enemies.
-
The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."
some of us do. :nono:
Yes, and voters have to be considered in aggregate. That's how it works.
-
The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."
some of us do. :nono:
Ditto to what Phantom Hoover said.
Also, feel free to solve for "what would be necessary." I'm thinking it involves America adopting Islam as an official religion, sending tens of thousands of (converted and Arabic speaking) aid workers to poor areas, pouring billions of dollars into improving their social services and bolstering their economies, and not responding with military action when some of our people come home in body bags. If you would be willing to do that, kudos, but we still ain't voting for you.
-
ISIS is not the equivalent of Vietnam, tough. I believe they are more similar to Hitler crossed with Taliban. In both of those cases military solution was applied with really good result. If we do not commit now, we wont leave behind a Vietnam-like country, a country with downsides but a pretty good one. We will leave a North Korea behind, or worse. True, the military is held back by the public, but thats where similarities with Vietnam end.
Liberals and anti-war activists were all about getting out of Iraq over the past decade, including me, and it may be hard to admit we were utterly wrong in that (even tough it did look like a good idea at the time). US was tired of war, is tired of war. But still, now the gloves need to come off.
The lesson is:
Shouldn't have gone in the first place, shouldn't have left with the job unfinished imo.
And I would add:
We should tolerate semi-secular dictators and autocrats in the middle east, cause they are better than Islamists.
-
Going back to the ways of Kissinger is something I will not ever agree with. Not. Ever.
I'd also like to add that I find what jr2 posted absolutely wrong headed. Not only Iraq didn't want American presence in there, the resolutions that established american troops would be out of there was signed by none other than Bush. It's also a moot point in the sense that if anyone here really believes that if 'Murica troops presence would have prevented ISIS from forming then they should disillusion themselves. American troops were the rallying target of every radical muslim, be them shia or not. They were not helping matters at all while being in there.
Now that they have to defend themselves against this new threat, they have to define themselves, they have to start thinking what they are actually a part of or not. It's an identity crisis that Iraq has and should have. If Uncle Sam goes in again, it will only get worse long term.
-
I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens
-
I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens
We should not really support them as much as tolerate them and not get involved. Because any opposition is usualy tied to radical islamists and sectarian violence in some way and that WILL come back to bite us much more than a dictator could. Examples: Afghanistan (Soviets), Iran (Shah), Iraq (Saddam), Syria (Assad), Libya (Kaddafi). All these countries would be better off with their autocrats staying in power. This is actually one of the few rules that does seem to hold even in such a chaotic place as middle east.
If a revolution happens on its own, like in Egypt, then let them have it, but it should happen completely on its own and not be helped in any way at all by the west.
-
I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens
Syria without Assad= total destruction of the country. Forget about any form of democracy in that region.
Secular opposition is a fiction. After FSA's "moderate" leaders were eliminated. At the beginning of the war (when it was really a civil war, not a clash between gov forces and foreign hordes of jihadists) I was quietly standing behind the opposition. But I stopped when I realised that there is no candidate for a leader, no plan, nothing!
In current situation Syrians don't have much of a choice. Assad or Islamists. And sadly in this war there will be no winner among Syrians. For now the only winner of this conflict is Israel. Who's potential opponent's army is now reduced to ashes.
-
I'd also like to add that I find what jr2 posted absolutely wrong headed. Not only Iraq didn't want American presence in there, the resolutions that established american troops would be out of there was signed by none other than Bush. It's also a moot point in the sense that if anyone here really believes that if 'Murica troops presence would have prevented ISIS from forming then they should disillusion themselves. American troops were the rallying target of every radical muslim, be them shia or not. They were not helping matters at all while being in there.
Remember though we were supposed to be making Iraq strong enough to stand on their own with their own army. But instead of setting a goal for the strength of the Iraqi army required for Iraq to stand on their own, instead, an arbitrary time was set. The job wasn't done. If Iraq had been strong enough, they would have thrown IS back.
-
I'm not going to argue with you that the whole Post-Saddam management was a ****ing FUBAR ****fest of biblical proportions. But that started way back in 2003. By 2011, there was very little you could do, corruption and anti-americanism was as abundant as oil.
-
Remember though we were supposed to be making Iraq strong enough to stand on their own with their own army. But instead of setting a goal for the strength of the Iraqi army required for Iraq to stand on their own, instead, an arbitrary time was set. The job wasn't done. If Iraq had been strong enough, they would have thrown IS back.
I don't think so. The problem with Iraq was not only its army's strength. It was corruption and general ineptitude of the entire government, not only the military. The goal should not be Iraq's army being able to stand on its own, but Iraq in general being able to stand on its own. Which was a chancy proposition after Saddam got deposed.
I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens
So far, the last time the region had relative peace and stability was under the autocrats. Getting rid of them seems to come back to bite us more than working with them. Seeing what the Islamists are doing to the place, I'd rather have those self-absorbed dictators than them. Or perhaps what I always suggested: legitimate monarchy, like in Jordan and other Arabic kingdoms. I've checked that once, the only country in which monarchy doesn't work out quite the way I'd like it to is Saudi Arabia (and that's only because they've got a bloody old pervert for a king), and even it is very stable, if overtly religious (in fact, Wahhabism started there). On the other hand, the story of every democracy in the region I seen so far seems to end in "Islamists get to power and terror ensues".
-
i can't be bothered reading dragon's posts in this thread but i'll just post the inevitably necessary response:
no dragon, a monarchy will not magically solve the middle east's problems, please stop suggesting it every time the topic comes up
-
I'm not going to argue with you that the whole Post-Saddam management was a ****ing FUBAR ****fest of biblical proportions. But that started way back in 2003. By 2011, there was very little you could do, corruption and anti-americanism was as abundant as oil.
I'm not saying IS would have never happened. I'm saying it wouldn't have been able to conquer territory (or at least nowhere near as much) in Iraq. IS took advantage of Iraq's weakness and the chaos in Syria to carve out this Islamic State of theirs.
I don't think so. The problem with Iraq was not only its army's strength. It was corruption and general ineptitude of the entire government, not only the military. The goal should not be Iraq's army being able to stand on its own, but Iraq in general being able to stand on its own. Which was a chancy proposition after Saddam got deposed.
Yes, of course. But you don't need an army to run a stable government. The best government in the World could be toppled by a bunch of barbarians with no army there. America wouldn't need army boots on the ground to help with getting a stable government running Iraq.
-
Yes, of course. But you don't need an army to run a stable government. The best government in the World could be toppled by a bunch of barbarians with no army there. America wouldn't need army boots on the ground to help with getting a stable government running Iraq.
But you do need a stable (or at least strong) government to run an army. The greatest army in the world could be defeated by a bunch of barbarians without a competent government as it's helm. :) It happened a quite few times through history, in fact. If Iraq had a large, well equipped army and government like the one it has now, chances are that soon, IS would have a large, well equipped army. IS recruiting foreigners is a big topic, but they also have a large popular support in the Middle East itself, causing, among other things, defections among soldiers fighting them. Iraq would not only need an army, but a government capable of holding it together. Having one without the other would make them last longer than they did, but would not be good for much in the end.
i can't be bothered reading dragon's posts
Nor anyone else's, it might seem. You've contradicted me, your job is done in this thread, thankyouverymuch. Don't bother backing up your position, you don't need to do that on internet (nor indicate sarcasm, fortunately. or capitalize, for that matter). :)
-
But you do need a stable (or at least strong) government to run an army. The greatest army in the world could be defeated by a bunch of barbarians without a competent government as it's helm. :) It happened a quite few times through history, in fact. If Iraq had a large, well equipped army and government like the one it has now, chances are that soon, IS would have a large, well equipped army. IS recruiting foreigners is a big topic, but they also have a large popular support in the Middle East itself, causing, among other things, defections among soldiers fighting them. Iraq would not only need an army, but a government capable of holding it together. Having one without the other would make them last longer than they did, but would not be good for much in the end.
Hmmm, well I don't rate IS highly enough or Iraq's government low enough to think that would have happened, but I still get what you're saying and that there are ways Iraq's army or at least parts of it could have ended up becoming IS's army.
-
You know, we could always pull a Rome and just make them our subjects. :lol:
--They would actually all probably be better off, and we could make them pay tribute in oil ;7 . But we wouldn't stand for it. (Even though we could eventually give them their freedom in 50-100 or more years after the dust settles.) /s
They're just... so evil. And they won't go away on their own (violent, radical, expansionist Islam). I dunno why the Iraqi army had such a hard time, the Kurds don't seem to.
-
They'd cause more trouble than Judea did Rome I think if that was done.
Good luck trying to make them say the pledge of allegiance.
-
That were why the /s tag. :p
-
Why have the burden of taking care of them if we already have what we want from them, i.e., the oil flowing?
I mean, it's flowing. Doesn't matter much if it's ISIS that is selling it, what matters is that it is flowing.
-
Doesn't matter much if it's ISIS that is selling it,
Read that a few times and tell me what the flaw is in this logic.
-
There is no flaw in "this" logic. Oil is a fungible commodity. Read that sentence a few times until you get it.
-
:headdesk: So, millions (maybe eventually more?) of $$ per year to terrorists who want us all to die writhing in agony, and don't really care if they die in the process, doesn't trip any alarm bells? :rolleyes:
-
That doesn't connect to what I was referring to at all. You do know that they are selling their oil to get their **** together I hope.
-
Are you referring to ISIS? "Getting their **** together", for ISIS, also entails prepping their next wave of terror and expansion. Or were you thinking they were using the profits solely for humanitarian goals? They wish to rule the world (eventually).
-
I still fail to connect this basic fact to what I was talking about. I'm talking about oil, man. Big oil. Geopolitics. Russia. ISIS is dangerous, but they are letting the oil flow. More supply and same demand means the price plummets. Oil is a fungible commodity. And if you notice, oil is at the decade's lowest. This single fact is the major culprit in diminishing Putin's power in the world.
I'm guessing America is letting ISIS be. Either iraquis take care of it or not. If not, well, we will have great "concerned" speeches by Obama, but little more than that. ISIS will continue to grow its rule and try to establish a kind of a looser Wahhabist Saudi Arabia in the middle of Iraq. Yes, some of the members might have delusions about conquering the world, but really come on, that's so James Bondian. They know perfectly well that if they even try to war against Iran they will be completely anihilated.
-
:wtf: The US is supplying the Kurds and bombing ISIS, but doesn't have the political will for ground troops. I would hardly call that letting ISIS be.
-
Oh of course they are but as you said, they cannot commit ground troops. This would be over in a week if they did. The problem then would be when they left again.
-
The problem with the invasion of Iraq was that the allies had no plan about what to do after the military victory.
Is there anyone who honestly believes that they have a plan now?
-
Speaking as somebody who is intimately familiar with US civil-military policy, no. No we do not.
-
The problem with Burma (UK), Vietnam (France), Vietnam (USA), Afghanistan (Russia), Iraq (UN/NATO), AFRICA (****ing everyone and mercenaries to boot), Afghanistan (NATO), Iran (Coalition), and now Syria/Iraq (???) is not one of ability, or necessarily plan, but one of commitment.
Insurgencies and terrorist insurrections operate on one premise: they can drag it out with more misery longer than intervenors are willing to stay. They don't have to worry about politics, fickle electorates, or dead bodies. In fact, dead bodies are a recruitment tool for them. They count on one thing that - as all of the above conflicts have in common - has been demonstrated time and again: Western countries will intervene with the best of intentions, but they will do so with restraint and for as little time as possible.
All of the above were "winnable" (militarily, they were all actually won) by the invading forces if they were willing to commit to an occupation. And by occupation, I don't mean 5 years. I mean 25+. Germany is probably the best example of a country where stability was reached after an entire populace was subdued, and it occurred because the Allies parked the divisional equivalent of half the bloody current armed forces of the United States into ONE COUNTRY, for YEARS. Then they got pulled into a military/espionage alliance and liberally sprinkled with foreign military forces, intelligence agencies, and diplomats. Today's stability in Western Europe and the reason we haven't seen yet another war caused by infighting amongst European nations? Military occupation, which led the groundwork for the EU as we know it today. Of course, that military occupation was only sustained because of the threat posed by the Cold War. Without it? Who knows.
Korea is another example. Unlike the other named above, UN-backed forces stayed in Korea to this day. South Korea exists because the UN-backed mission, led by the United States, refused to leave. And, to a very small extent, they're STILL there, 60 years later.
Back to modern insurgencies, it's not that Western power can't crush ISIS where they stand - it's that Western voters won't permit us to spend the money and resources, nor disrupt the lives of troops, long enough to do it. Winning against forces in Iraq and Syria in the short term isn't the problem - the problem is when we leave. Unless you're willing to park several million troops from NATO countries into Iraq and Syria for two or three DECADES, forget it, we've lost. And no Western nation will commit to that - just look at the pressure exerted in every NATO country to exit Afghanistan.
People who don't know military history don't know this - hence why you get the narrative that the US 'lost' the Vietnam war. Militarily, the US trounced the VC. They were a year away from virtual total destruction. The US lost the war for hearts and minds at home.
Want to solve the ISIS problem? Figure out how to get a Western population to commit to a decades-long occupation. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. It's an absolute tragedy, and committing air power and limited ground forces to the conflict at least slows the slaughter, but it's a token stopgap at best.
EDIT: On the original topic - Jordan's response is utterly irrelevant in terms of the geopolitical or military situation. The only thing it - and the video rebroadcast - have done is ensure ISIS will find new and more horrible ways of murdering people. As far as captured ISIS combatants - it doesn't really matter if we imprison them, shoot them, hang them, have them drawn and quartered, whatever, none of it will have any impact on the conflict; it just makes countries who value life look worse.
-
I have little to add to MP-Ryan's post except for one minor correction:
Korea is another example. Unlike the other named above, UN-backed forces stayed in Korea to this day. South North Korea exists because the UN-backed mission, led by the United States, refused to leave. And, to a very small extent, they're STILL there, 60 years later.
South Korea hates North Korea as much as the reverse, and one of the leading reasons why the war hasn't restarted in earnest is the UN presence politely asking them not to.
-
Thing is that both German and South Korea didn't have any particular problem with an insurgency. And both had the threat of a much more powerful threat looming over them.
So I don't know how applicable they are as an example of something that would work in the Middle East
-
I think they're pretty applicable. Also see: Japan after WWII. They didn't have a "more powerful threat" looming over them, just an occupation. Americans stayed there for quite a while, and when they left, the Japan became one of the most advanced countries in the world. That's a country that had its military completely destroyed, its capital firebombed and two cities nuked. The populace was also quite willing (at first) to fight the Americans to the last man, but the emperor knew better than that. Japan today is completely unlike the one before the occupation, and is better off for it.
A large-scale attack followed by a long-term UN occupation would cause a lot of damage to the region, but in long term, could pretty much fix it. Maybe they could even get away with establishing a democracy (though that would likely take one heck of an occupation). But NATO countries are not willing to do that. Not willing to commit forces necessary to take and hold the region for so long. Not willing to crush the insurgents in their holes. Not willing to reshape the culture and impose their own law. That's what it would take, and it has been done in the past.
-
Dragon I don't think that comparing the Japanese to the Arab nations makes any sense. Different cultures, mentality. Japs recovered from the war wounds pretty quick because they are pretty well organised as a nation. You want to set up an occupation. Which burden will be carried mostly by US military. How many soldiers died during the occupation f Iraq? It's all over and over the same. :banghead:
The only solution that I see is the education. Hard, basic work which must be done over the younger generations of the Middle east habitants. Modern, western- type education and nothing else. They must be able to carry on themselves. this is the only way to wipe the radical islam out of these societies.
-
Exactly how would you propose to educate young Middle Easterners without an occupation? 'Cause I'm pretty sure the radicals wish to dominate that area. Teach 'em while they're still learning to walk that the West is the spawn of Satan and that they wish to pollute our beautiful culture of death and dominance, ravage our women, and kill our babies. (A little coarse, sorry, but it's a pale shade of what they actually teach.)
You can't educate without a stable environment (read: you won't have your family executed for going to school).
Are you proposing to dematerialize all Middle-East kids young enough for school to the EU and then back again once they're of age? :confused: We had education gonig, we had schools, the girls were learning too -- and now, their teachers and their families are paying the price with no one to stop the barbarians doing it.
I don't like the idea of occupation. Never did. But I don't like the idea of tribal barbarism running unchecked throughout the Middle East much less. "Not our problem, not our problem" --- well neither is the poor SOB being murdered in the back alley behind your apartment. But you would at least call the police. There is no world police besides those that are willing to do something together. I'm not saying that's necessarily the reason we went in. I would love to think so. But it is the right reason to go in. You have human beings being born, raised, and dying in a cycle of misery and violence.
All I've seen so far is "intervention doesn't work, the area needs to stabilize itself". Hmm. You should really, really hope that you are wrong. Because I don't see the area stabilizing itself. It's almost as if some of you think that the inhabitants are less evolved or something and just need more time. No, they are perfectly capable, they just need decency and a chance. There exist those in the Middle East who would be decent. Now they just need a chance. (Although for the life of me I don't see why the reasonable ones can't get together in agreement at least on the idea of crushing the radicalist cutthroat menace that is engulfing their areas... probably some of that good ol' "not my problem" reasoning, there..)
/end ramble
Eh, side note. If Europe dissolved into chaos, would it be anyone's problem except Europe's? I don't see anyone decrying intervention in WWI or WWII.
-
Because I don't see the area stabilizing itself.
I do see the area stabilizing itself, by all means. If everyone left Middle East alone, the IS would grow stronger, overrun Israel and Jordan, spread to Iran and Turkey (dooming the Shia population there to religious persecution) and then the place would be stable. It would stabilize in a state that is utterly unacceptable. That's why I've been calling for increasingly drastic measures to, at the very least, exterminate the IS. It would not make life there any better, but could protect the rest of the world from them. In the current state of affairs, pulling out and letting the area stabilize itself around IS puts everyone in and out of it in grave danger, setting the world up for a major war.
"Nothing" is the worst thing that can be done. It's important to note that we don't want just any "stable Middle East". We want a stable Middle East that is not an Islamist hellhole. I've people seem to forget that sometimes. If we do nothing, it will stabilize as an Islamist hellhole, and then it'll be very hard to change anything.
-
I agree with Dragon and jr2 entirely. Without a comprehensive war on the radicals and then long term occupation of islamist prone territories, there will only be further persistent conflicts and degeneration of major parts of middle east into islamic hellholes. And this does not apply only to ISIS but also Boko Haram and who knows what else will pop up in the future.
Without that as a prerequisite, there can be no beneficial education, only the opposite, an education that works directly against our goals, since it is based on indoctrinating children into radical islamism.
"Nothing" is the worst thing that can be done.
If the US is hesitant to take on the occupation again, then it would be wise to try to delegate a lot of the tasks on other nations, like the rest of the NATO, our arab allies, or even get Russia and China to help out. But in the end, there wont be any easy solutions to this.
-
I would suggest people don't be too eager to jump onto the 'Domino Effect' bus.
The odds of ISIS enduring in its current shape or form are zero. You need more than religion to build an Empire, yes, we talk about 'Religious' empires like the Catholics etc, but what they were really Empires of were trade, learning, and civil services.
Yes, Warfare is what builds an empire, but ISIS has nothing whatsoever to maintain momentum once the fighting stops, and has already been seen, things don't go so well even for the occupying troops left behind. Rule one of Occupation is to convince ground zero that they have something to gain from you being in charge, even GWB saw that one.
Now, that doesn't mean that I don't agree that end should be accelerated, but I would state that it is not a natural course for this group to over-run the entire area, it simply cannot maintain itself.
-
I wouldn't be so sure. ISIS is more than religion and an army. We have seen them establish (or attempt to) government structures and trade in oil to support themselves. There are some among them that know what they need to survive. They also educate their subjects, not that this is the sort of education we want them to receive (Hamas looks like a beacon of progress besides them). That's why they worry me so much. In its current form, it can't survive, but it can morph into something no more secular, only slightly better on its subjects and much more dangerous. I have a feeling they know this, too. They won't run out of targets to fight anytime soon, either, so they won't have a problem of not having an enemy to rally against. They're not a terrorist group anymore, at least not only.
As for convincing the occupied people they have something to gain from the occupation, they surprisingly have it covered. Namely, their line is that they'll gain the "favor of God" and such. It is a valid approach in the Middle East, since it's primitive and religion there is very strong. Also, they promise a strong leadership instead of constantly squabbling tribal warlords or clueless foreigners, which counts for something, too. It remains to be seen if they really can keep going once their conquests are "secured", but in my opinion, they very much can.
We're not talking about any sort of "Domino Effect". We are talking about a steady and deliberate process of forming an empire that could, if not stopped, threaten European countries and even the US. We are watching an "evil plan" being realized, and we should stop it as soon as possible. The more we wait, the more progress ISIS makes. We're already long past the moment where they could've been nipped in a bud. Don't count on them coming crashing down on their own, because they very much know what they're doing.
-
Germany, South Korea, and Japan are not parallels to what's happening in the Middle East, but they do demonstrate that long term occupation by heavy force works if its maintained. If Western nations (or better, a UN coalition) confined themselves to a purely peacekeeping/policing role as a protector of civilians through a long-term occupation by overwhelming presence of force into Syria and Iraq, there isn't much the radical locals could do about it - and as long as we stay out of politics and confine ourselves to that kind of role, the non-combatant locals aren't going to oppose it either. People the world over care about the safety of themselves and their families, the food in their bellies, and shelter. All other concerns are secondary. Provide those three things and stay out of politicking (ha! Western nations not play politics elsewhere? Good ****ing luck, I know) and an occupation can work anywhere. It's the hearts-and-minds core of counter-insurgent warfare, and it works. Where it doesn't work is when you begin social engineering and interfering in politics.
ISIS has as much chance of forming any sort of empire or projecting real power outside the Middle East as I do of starting a Canadian supremacy movement that will spread maple syrup and beaver populations around the world. That is to say, none. The only real reason for anyone to have any sort of interest in what ISIS is up to whatsoever is humanitarian. I don't like genocides, whatever the guise they operate under. That said, there are three courses of action that Western powers have available to them that have any sort of value:
1. Military invasion and long-term occupation. Won't happen, the political will isn't there. This is one of two solutions which will guarantee some kind of long-term stability forming, by threat of force.
2. Wash our hands of the matter entirely and stay out of the Middle East altogether. This will also guarantee long-term stability as humans tend toward self-organizing social structures, but it will be messy (read: atrocities and a high body count) for the forseeable future.
3. Engage in a limited fashion as we currently are. It looks like we're doing something, it's an inconvenience to ISIS now (though irrelevant in the long run as ISIS has a zero chance of doing anything significant), and it makes us feel good because we don't look like we're sitting back and watching huge swaths of innocent people die, even though that is precisely what we are doing.
Western nations need to make a decision. Either we are the world police, or we're not. If we are, we need to commit. If we're not, we need to quit pretending we are. Nothing, in point of fact, is not the worst thing we can do. What we are doing now - something for the sake of appearances without any meaningful long-term impact - is the worst course of action. In doing nothing, at least, we would let some kind of local stability form where mass slaughter would not persist.
-
ISIS has as much chance of forming any sort of empire or projecting real power outside the Middle East as I do of starting a Canadian supremacy movement that will spread maple syrup and beaver populations around the world.
You are right with regards to "conventional" power. As in, they won't be driving tanks over us anytime soon. However, they are very much capable of carving out a large chunk of Middle East and using that as a base for terrorist attacks. Imagine what would happen if, say, North Korea ran a state-approved terrorist group. The region is too important to just isolate, so, one way or another, they would be capable of dispatching their agents to other countries. They are doing this already, in fact. Imagine if they had an actual, semi-functioning country providing staging grounds for terrorism. They would be capable of taking pot-shots at targets (military and civilian) everywhere, with much better equipment, larger recruit pool and better coordination.
They could use this to force us to enact paranoid anti-terrorism measures which would be crippling by themselves, or live in fear of a terrorist attack. Letting ISIS establish a stable country would be a disaster that would very much threaten the rest of the world. Think of it as another North Korea in the middle of a strategic region, and with a penchant for sabotaging other countries. What happens to the populace is not the only concern here.
Also, there is a matter of Israel, which would be directly threatened if ISIS established a strong power base. Option "2" means essentially "We leave Israel to fend for itself". Which it might or might not pull off. If ISIS managed to establish themselves in Iraq and Syria, they would surely want to get rid of both a major enemy and a big thorn in many peoples' side. If they managed to win that war, we'd be looking at a second Holocaust, given the usual attitude of Islamists towards Jews.
There's also an economic concern. If they managed got acquire control of oil prices (they can already influence them), they could exert political pressure similar to what Russia used to do with natural gas. Though it is a less important concern, we likely don't want that, either.
-
You're far too afraid of terrorism.
-
Imagine what would happen if, say, North Korea ran a state-approved terrorist group.
It'd be a joke, like everything else North Korea attempts to do outside of its own borders?
-
You're far too afraid of terrorism.
No, I'm merely a pessimist. Sorry for assuming the worst-case scenario without explicitly mentioning it, but I live by "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" maxim. I noticed that when you're wrong, optimism produces bitter disappointments, while pessimism produces pleasant surprises. :)
So, I hope that you're right, and that I'm overestimating the threat. However, I'd rather have it that way than underestimate it. Call it erring on the side of caution. I personally probably have nothing to fear, living in a bloody backwater of Europe (if anything, the Russians are more of a concern for me), but I remember the 9/11 attacks. Something tells me that sooner or later, IS will try to repeat the feat. It just makes sense for them to do so, to try to match or exceed the most famous attack (and most damaging one) of 21st century. What I fear is essentially about-2001 Al-Quaeda with official support of an entire country. It is well within IS' potential to become that. Sure, it might peter out and die on its own. Or it might be defeated by anti-Islamist resistance. Those options would be best. But they're just as unlikely as IS actually establishing dominance over Turkey and Iran.
The fact is, if left alone, they will continue terrorist attacks. They're a vital component of their strategy. Regardless of their actual success rate, it would not be a good idea to sit around and let them do their thing. Which is why I consider destruction of IS vital, by any means necessary. They simply can't be allowed to plant bombs in cities and send suicide bombers, even if they never get around to a big strike.
It'd be a joke, like everything else North Korea attempts to do outside of its own borders anywhere ever?
FTFY. Well, yeah, but you can chalk it up to it being North Korea, with all their delusions, incompetence and lies. :) Let's assume we're talking competent terrorist group that just happens to use North Korea for its resources and technology. We're talking about a regime just as fanatical, but somewhat less deluded.
-
It'd be a joke, like everything else North Korea attempts to do outside of its own borders anywhere ever?
FTFY. Well, yeah, but you can chalk it up to it being North Korea, with all their delusions, incompetence and lies. :) Let's assume we're talking competent terrorist group that just happens to use North Korea for its resources and technology. We're talking about a regime just as fanatical, but somewhat less deluded.
NK might suck at a lot of things, but its concentration camps are no joke.
-
And it's been remarkable in its long-term stability, and I see no reason ISIS would be able to recreate that given the wildly different circumstances involved.
-
Imagine if they had an actual, semi-functioning country providing staging grounds for terrorism. They would be capable of taking pot-shots at targets (military and civilian) everywhere, with much better equipment, larger recruit pool and better coordination.
They would also be carpet-bombed back to before the Stone Age. State-sponsored terrorism only works if you have a state, with allies, and preferably a nuclear deterrent. And even then, you don't want to be on that list - note how hard NK fights to stay off of it. Otherwise, you might as well say "NATO air forces, here I am!" Infrastructure we can level. Guys hiding in caves.... meh. Not how ineffective Al Qaeda got after Afghanistan got flattened.
They could use this to force us to enact paranoid anti-terrorism measures which would be crippling by themselves, or live in fear of a terrorist attack. Letting ISIS establish a stable country would be a disaster that would very much threaten the rest of the world. Think of it as another North Korea in the middle of a strategic region, and with a penchant for sabotaging other countries. What happens to the populace is not the only concern here.
ISIS is in no way comparable to NK. If nations fall to psychological stupidity, that's their problem. ISIS can't form a stable country without losing what makes it ISIS. They only operate now through mobility - the moment they've created any sort of infrastructure is the moment they get introduced to aerial ordinance. Air power alone, as is being exercised right this second, is more than sufficient to keep ISIS from posing any tangible threat to other countries. And no, I don't count the odd lone self-radicalized operative already in those nations.
Also, there is a matter of Israel, which would be directly threatened if ISIS established a strong power base. Option "2" means essentially "We leave Israel to fend for itself". Which it might or might not pull off. If ISIS managed to establish themselves in Iraq and Syria, they would surely want to get rid of both a major enemy and a big thorn in many peoples' side. If they managed to win that war, we'd be looking at a second Holocaust, given the usual attitude of Islamists towards Jews.
I'm going to rebut this with as few words as possible: 6-Day War. Yom Kippur War. Every war since. Dimona.
ISIS poses no threat to Israel (virtually no state in the Middle East poses a real threat to the existence of Israel except Israel itself). ISIS poses a threat to the non-glassy nature of Syria and Iraq, but that's only if they are able to form any sort of stable state, which I've already mentioned isn't going to happen.
There's also an economic concern. If they managed got acquire control of oil prices (they can already influence them), they could exert political pressure similar to what Russia used to do with natural gas. Though it is a less important concern, we likely don't want that, either.
If you think ISIS, with limited influence in the middle of no-man's land in Syria and Iraq, is capable of acquiring any sort of "control" over oil prices in a global sense, you really need a lesson in economics. ISIS could shut off the taps in ALL of Syria and Iraq tomorrow and all it would really do is decrease the debt a few countries are incurring right now with oil below $50/bbl. Iraq has 1/5th of the world's proven oil supplies, with a tiny fraction of them actually developed. Canada has over 1/3, and we currently have major projects being deferred and held over because oil prices are so low. Really, all ISIS could do is flood the market further which isn't really a bad thing for anyone but countries relying on high oil prices to keep low taxes. Meh.
-
You talk a lot about any carpet bombing and aerial destruction, to which I already have a response: NATO doesn't have the balls for that. There will be no carpet-bombing, no glassing, no nothing! NATO will outright refuse to hit any area remotely near civilians with anything but the most precise guided weapons. That's what they're doing right now, and that's all they're going to keep doing. Indiscriminate bombing with B-52s is beyond what NATO is willing to do. So are nuclear weapons, even of tactical sort. Russia, maybe, but they're not interested in the place right now. I would love to see ISIS being bombed into oblivion, but NATO will simply refuse to do that out of fear of harming civilians. I don't think ISIS would be dumb enough to enact any permanent infrastructure far enough from civilians for NATO to be able to hit it from the air. Remember the flak Israel got for hitting Hamas ammo dump inside a school? No NATO country would be able to do such a thing. So no. There will be no large-scale response. There should have been one long ago. Nobody had the guts then, nobody will have the guts a couple of years from now. The best shield against NATO bombs in the modern world are innocent children and civilians in general, no nuclear deterrent needed.
If left alone for long enough, ISIS will be able to threaten Israel. All its previous wars were not against fanatics like this. In none of those wars, Israel's enemies really "fought to death". ISIS very well might. Note, I'm talking much more long term than you are. I'm not worried about the next year, I'm worried about a few years after that. Possibly longer. ISIS will grow in strength unless something is done, and could eventually be able to take on Israel. Especially if it grows strong enough for other countries to start overlooking their ideology in favor of having a powerful ally.
ISIS is in no way comparable to NK. If nations fall to psychological stupidity, that's their problem. ISIS can't form a stable country without losing what makes it ISIS. They only operate now through mobility - the moment they've created any sort of infrastructure is the moment they get introduced to aerial ordinance. Air power alone, as is being exercised right this second, is more than sufficient to keep ISIS from posing any tangible threat to other countries. And no, I don't count the odd lone self-radicalized operative already in those nations.
They can change tactics without changing the core of their ideology, which is the real source of danger. It's quite popular in the Middle East, very radical and expansionist. They will continue to grow, and eventually will stop resembling what they are now. It might be unable to form a stable country in its current state, but it might change without becoming less dangerous. If they lose anything, it won't be threat that they pose to others.
-
Examples of Japan and Germany are also not the finest, since those two countries were, before WW2, incredibly advanced culturally and educationally, they regarded themselves as elite people. And they were! Germany was, before WW1, the center of the civilized world. And even still, it wasn't easy. It took a lot of bold steps (Ich ein Berliner!) and a bloody cold war that sparked a lot of infusion of cash into Germany and Japan (Marshall...). Nation building from scratch, which is what we are talking about here, would be far more difficult, especially in this weird post punk cybernetic age crossed with post-apocalyptic landscapes that Iraq are. (For real, so many post apocalyptic sci fi stories could just be reframed like "Somewhere between Iraq and Afhganistan a man named Max just wants fuel for his car..." and it would work perfectly!)
-
Of course, occupation is not guaranteed to work. History tends to roughly repeat itself, but no situation happened twice. Every situation is different somehow, we can speculate and deduce from past experiences, but we can't have certainty. Germany and Japan are not perfect examples, but they are valid arguments. I can't really find a case where a more primitive country was occupied for a long time and whether it brought results or not. Both Germans and Japanese think differently than people in the Middle East. Still, Japan had Western mentality successfully imposed on them (for Germany, the jump wasn't nearly as big). On the other hand, their honor system means that, as the defeated side, they had to agree to that. Arabs may be less susceptible. This is compounded by the fact Japan had no religious issues, Shinto is permissive of other faiths and religion in general plays a different role in Japanese society (Islam, on the other hand, is very "intrusive", with a multitude of strict rules, mandatory daily prayers and very little leeway for its believers). On yet another approach, Japan was technologically on par with America, Middle East is not. If the West was willing to invest in the region, it could greatly improve the quality of life there, possibly inclining people to warm up to the occupation.
I think that occupation is our best chance, strategically speaking, and a better choice than destroying the region. However, there's also an economic consideration. Occupations cost money. I have doubts on whether capturing the oil fields would recoup the cost. Likely not. The economic situation in Europe is sticky, and the US isn't doing as well as it'd like to, either. We're looking at over 20 years of supporting an occupying force, along with improving quality of life in the region and generally trying to keep it working. Being unable to pay for something doesn't usually stop politicians from doing it, but it seems that since the latest recession, everyone started to watch their money. This is part of the reason why I supported just exterminating the IS (especially earlier, when the economy was even worse). It's the cheaper option, to put it bluntly.
The way I see it, we have two semi-decent options. Occupation and destruction. NATO doesn't have money for the former and public support for the latter. It also doesn't have balls for either. So we're implementing a half-arsed solution and hoping that the region will sort itself out. I can't see anything good coming out of that. I just hope the Jewish Quarter in my city stays off their radar (it's mostly a historic site, there are a few Jews around, but hopefully not enough to warrant blowing it up).