ISIS

[Mike M (the other one)]

Now that the Presidential Race is over.
Let's talk about how we need to stop ISIS/ISIL.

I don't know about you guys, but I am very upset when I hear stories about how they put children in the industrial strength bread dough kneader.

The latest in case you missed it with all of the election stuff going on:

http://nypost.com/2016/10/26/isis-kills-250-kids-in-dough-kneader-burns-adults-alive/

250 kids..... the oldest 4 years old.
6 adults burned alive in the bakery oven.

The beheadings and executions are bad enough, but these are over the top and not the first kids killed this way.

I don't know about you, but I don't think Assad was that bad was he?

[Benton]

there's two alternatives.

1. Kill everyone. Everyone. Not just Muslims, everyone in the middle east.

2. We created a power vacuum when we killed sadam. His Baath party moved on and became Isis. They're replicating their previous path to control, just in a different place. This will continue until things get realigned with the militant minority ruling over the majority. You can help the refugees trying to escape as that process continues until it's played out.

[*bfine32*]

Let Assad and Russia handle it in Syria. We may need to step in in Iraq.

[fredtoast]

There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other. Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let Assad and Russia handle it in Syria. We may need to step in in Iraq.

Unfortunately, that won't work in this case unless it is a coordinated joint operation. ISIS moves back and forth across the Iraqi-Syrian border at will. The Syrians can't conduct combat operations in Iraq. The Iraqis can't conduct combat operations in Syria. We had an intervention in Iraq called The Surge which was hailed as a success at the time. But, the insurgency just crossed into the Syrian desert for rest and refit. Then moved back into Iraq when the opportunity presented itself. 

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other.  Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

Agreed...we now have our own destabilized government to attend to!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

You would need to coordinate the Russian/Syrians to the west, the US/Iraqis to the east, and the Kurds to the north to box ISIS in between a hammer and an anvil and somehow prevent Saudi Arabia and Iran from interfering.

Problem is there are so many competing tribal loyalties, the Sunni/Shia schism, and plain, old fashion corruption Laurence of Arabia couldn't get that shit to work.

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 10:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You would need to coordinate the Russian/Syrians to the west, the US/Iraqis to the east, and the Kurds to the north to box ISIS in between a hammer and an anvil and somehow prevent Saudi Arabia and Iran from interfering.

Problem is there are so many competing tribal loyalties, the Sunni/Shia schism, and plain, old fashion corruption Laurence of Arabia couldn't get that shit to work.

Why would Saudi Arabia and Iran "interfere"?  They are already fighting ISIS.

[Dill]

(11-09-2016, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other.  Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

There have always been smart and dumb ways to intervene. The Kuwait intervention worked out pretty well.

Iraq was a disaster, not one, but MANY bad decisions by neocons, NOT middle east policy experts.

The problem now is that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda thrive in failed states. So pulling out and letting states fail is not a
serious option.

Obama's response to ISIS has been working pretty well, I think. But now we have a president who will be more like the Neocons.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Obama's response to ISIS has been working pretty well, I think. But now we have a president who will be more like the Neocons.

Yep, he's kept them pretty much in check......

OK, I can't do it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2016, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia and Iran "interfere"?  They are already fighting ISIS.

In a word, sectarianism.  In two words, proxy war.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/saudi-arabias-master-plan-against-isis-assad-iran-syria-15221

Quote:Rather, [Saudi Arabia's] ultimate objective in Syria is to take on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Iran-created Shia militias, which are the source of as much, if not more, regional terror than ISIS and Al Qaeda. Should this Islamic coalition move into Syria and become the nucleus of a regional coordinated military approach toward ISIS, Assad and the Shia militias, the Obama administration will be called out on its narrow Syrian objectives and be forced to support the coalition or further degrade an already tenuous relationship with numerous core allies, foremost among them Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/05/saudi-arabia-iran-row-helps-islamic-state.html

Quote:Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Middle East's two opposing powerhouses, fell out spectacularly at the weekend after the Saudis executed a prominent Shiite cleric. The execution of Nimr al-Nimr, a vocal critic of Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia, was one of 47 carried out by the country against people it described as "terrorists."

In particular, the execution of the cleric prompted protests across the region and a retaliatory attack on the Saudi embassy in Iran, a Shia stronghold.

Rising tensions between the Shiite and Sunni authorities have already prompted surrounding nations to divide on sectarian lines, with Saudi Arabia's allies Bahrain, Sudan and UAE joining diplomatic action against Tehran by severing or downgrading ties with the country.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/6/why-would-iran-be-worried-about-saudis-fighting-is/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/strategy-isis-defeat-board-game/400034/

I particularly like this . . .

Quote:America’s strategy is substantially different from everyone else’s. President Barack Obama wants to defeat ISIS by not appearing to be the force defeating ISIS. This is a difficult task, particularly when your air force is the one carrying out most operations against ISIS targets. But Obama is an astute strategist. His plan centers on supporting Kurdish factions as he also supports Turkey which is now attacking the Kurds while also supporting Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen which upsets Iran whom U.S. forces are collaborating with in fighting ISIS in Iraq as he simultaneously yields to pressure from allies to weaken Assad in Syria which complicates things further with Iran which he pacifies by signing the nuclear deal upsetting America’s traditional friend Israel whose anger is absorbed with shipments of advanced weapons escalating the arms race in the region.

It's like peeling an onion; one layer after another.

I don't know what you do in the Middle East, but you seem like well informed, intelligent guy, so do you have any insight into this?

And finally, there is this . . .

Quote:


The Confused Person's Guide to Middle East Conflict

A simple diagram illustrates the region's alliances and hatreds

Confused about what’s happening in the Middle East? No need to worry—our research team at the Institute of Internet Diagrams has come up with the ultimate explainer in the shape of an interactive diagram that sums up the geopolitical alliances traversing this ancient region, which dates back to the Mesozoic Era.


The diagram clearly maps out the relationships between the main players as well as external powers, like the United States and Russia, that are deeply involved in the region. It is best to view the diagram using 3-D glasses, but the graphic will still work if none are available.


While it is common to hear people describe the Middle East as a complex and obscure place, the diagram plainly illustrates that this is not the case. The relationships follow logical patterns reflecting geopolitical interests, partnerships, and conflicts. For example, the United States is evidently on friendly terms with Iran. In Iraq. But America is on the opposite side of the conflict in Yemen. In Syria, the U.S. and Iran are both against and with each other, depending on the outcome of the nuclear talks.

This partially reflects President Obama’s breakthrough system of decision-making, which goes beyond outdated binary oppositions. Forced to choose between confronting and appeasing Iran, Obama has chosen to do both, arguing that at least one of those policies is the right one. Despite critiques from conservatives who are still clinging to old-fashioned ideas, this way of thinking is quite popular in the Middle East, as reflected in the old proverb, “You can have your cake and eat it.”

By carefully following the lines one by one, you can see that Egypt and Qatar are against each other, except in Yemen where they are now allies; Saudi Arabia is both supporting and bombing ISIS; and Libya is its own worst enemy. But it’s best if you draw your own conclusions; the diagram only takes about three minutes to understand fully. After which, you will be qualified to advise President Obama on Middle East policy.

[xxlt]

(11-09-2016, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other.  Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

I am surprised more people do not feel this way.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other. Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

Sure the dead would rather be living, but:

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

Ask those that put their life on the line and you may get an answer other than "a waste".

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a child that has felt the biggest joy in their lives because you bring them an inflated ball?

The true gratitude in the elderlies eyes as you bring them medical aid to a injury they have been suffering through their whole lives?

The desire of a young girl that wants nothing more than to go to school?

Dirt poor farmers that will put on a feast for you because you bring them blankets?

The safety and freedom felt by a village as you occcupy their town?

Young men dying fighting for liberty is tragic, but it damn sure is not a waste.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2016, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure the dead would rather be living, but:

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

Ask those that put their life on the line and you may get an answer other than "a waste".

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a child that has felt the biggest joy in their lives because you bring them a blanket?

The true gratitude in the elderlies eyes as you bring them medical aid to a injury they have been suffering through their whole lives?

The desire of a young girl that wants nothing more than to go to school?

Dirt poor farmers that will put on a feast for you because you bring them blankets?

The safety and freedom felt by a village as you occcupy their town?

Young men dying fighting for liberty is tragic, but it damn sure is not a waste.

Whose liberty?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-10-2016, 01:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whose liberty?

of Human Beings.

[hollodero]

(11-10-2016, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure the dead would rather be living, but:

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

Ask those that put their life on the line and you may get an answer other than "a waste".

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a child that has felt the biggest joy in their lives because you bring them an inflated ball?

The true gratitude in the elderlies eyes as you bring them medical aid to a injury they have been suffering through their whole lives?

The desire of a young girl that wants nothing more than to go to school?

Dirt poor farmers that will put on a feast for you because you bring them blankets?

The safety and freedom felt by a village as you occcupy their town?

Young men dying fighting for liberty is tragic, but it damn sure is not a waste.

But do they? Fight for "liberty" I mean. At this point, they sure believe it (I hope, otherwise you just cultivate cynicism), they might even help selected people (geographically selected people) in ways you described so enthusiastically. But in the end, every recent intervention resulted in more death and destruction then there was before.
Thoughts like that are nice, but if the strategy is failing, there is no good outcome in the bigger picture, not more people saved, but more killed with even more gruesome regimes. I agree with the sentiment above. Either you put in even much much more troops and finances and effort and all that, and are willing to sustain that effort for decades, or you let it be completely. Doing the first thing is politically impossible, and there would still be no guarantee of any success. But half-hearted attempts, connected with the belief all somehow will sort out quickly and the people will come around (which they don't) does more harm than good, and I'd say that's a fair summary of all recent US interventions. 

And talking about terror threats alone. The less you are actively involved, the less new hatred towards the western world will accumulate. Yeah, they hate each other instead, they kill each other instead, and as awful and gruesome as that is, maybe it's just the point that Islamic history has reached right now. What unites them is just hating the US, and that bond is not one you want to strengthen.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 02:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: But do they? Fight for "liberty" I mean. At this point, they sure believe it (I hope, otherwise you just cultivate cynicism), they might even help selected people (geographically selected people) in ways you described so enthusiastically. But in the end, every recent intervention resulted in more death and destruction then there was before.
Thoughts like that are nice, but if the strategy is failing, there is no good outcome in the bigger picture, not more people saved, but more killed with even more gruesome regimes. I agree with the sentiment above. Either you put in even much much more troops and finances and effort and all that, and are willing to sustain that effort for decades, or you let it be completely. Doing the first thing is politically impossible, and there would still be no guarantee of any success. But half-hearted attempts, connected with the belief all somehow will sort out quickly and the people will come around (which they don't) does more harm than good, and I'd say that's a fair summary of all recent US interventions. 

And talking about terror threats alone. The less you are actively involved, the less new hatred towards the western world will accumulate. Yeah, they hate each other instead, they kill each other instead, and as awful and gruesome as that is, maybe it's just the point that Islamic history has reached right now. What unites them is just hating the US, and that bond is not one you want to strengthen.

Of course they fight for liberty (individual and collective). Our biggest issue is not establishing a long term presence after we win on the ground. Hell we still have Troops at permanent bases in italy, germany, and Japan and WWII was about 80 years ago.

[Griever]

i agree with fred

leave the area and let the animals kill each other, stop sending out people in as basically fodder

[Benton]

(11-10-2016, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they fight for liberty (individual and collective). Our biggest issue is not establishing a long term presence after we win on the ground. Hell we still have Troops at permanent bases in italy, germany, and Japan and WWII was about 80 years ago.

The difference being we never won on the ground in the Middle East.

We had victories, we established temporary bases and we hung on to them until temporary objectives were complete. And they were largely irrelevant to opposition forces that are mobile in the sense that they don't observe the same border arrangement as military command. So we punch hard in one spot, they move to the next and we follow there and take another shot. And they move. There's no end to a war like that, as the forces we're combating — in most cases — aren't trying to permanently hold specific resources or locations. There's nothing to "win" for them outside of us leaving the area.

The bases we established post WWII were different. There wasn't continued aggression. We weren't still fighting Nazis in the 70s and 80s. Outside of an attack by a Libyan aligned group, the biggest threat to the naval base in Naples is the local economy. Even if we did have a friendly patch of desert (wasn't that supposed to be the reason we were so chummy with the Saudis?), establishing a significant base there wouldn't do much if the opposition just moves to another area as its stronghold.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they fight for liberty (individual and collective). Our biggest issue is not establishing a long term presence after we win on the ground. Hell we still have Troops at permanent bases in italy, germany, and Japan and WWII was about 80 years ago.

We maintain those bases for strategic reasons to respond to present day and future threats which have nothing to do with WWII. 

"Power projection platforms" as the Army is fond of calling them. im sure we don't want to continue "nation building," but maintaining a long term military presence similar to Italy, Germany, and Japan for the next 80 years would be strategically advantageous for the same reasons we have bases in Italy, Germany, and Japan.