[Luis Dias]

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.

[Mars]

  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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[karajorma]

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?

[Scotty]

Speaking as somebody who is intimately familiar with US civil-military policy, no.  No we do not.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[karajorma]

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

[Dragon]

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.

[Col.Hornet]

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.

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.

[jr2]

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?    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.

[Dragon]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[The E]

You're far too afraid of terrorism.

[Phantom Hoover]

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?

[Dragon]

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.