If No ISIS or al-Qaeda, What's Next?

[BFritz21]

I saw something that said ISIS only controls 6% of Iraq, down from 45% a few years ago (although I did see that al-Qaeda could possibly be on the rise again), but, my question is, will Iraq and the Middle East in general ever be stable enough to keep extremist groups from popping up?

If ISIS is completely wiped out, will another extremist group pop-up?

We can stabilize it Iraq all we want and give them the power to control themselves, but extremism is an ideology, which is very difficult to ever completely eliminate.

[BmorePat87]

A lot of this is a result of the history of the last 100 years as well as centuries of shifting rule prior to that. The people ruled by the Ottoman Empire were not given self determination as they were promised after WWI and the British and French divided the region up into mandates to profit off of the newly found oil.

So while Europe was recognizing the importance of ethnic groups having their own states, the Levant and Mesopotamia was being divided in a way that benefitted a foreign power but split up ethnic groups and put some together who did not get along. One of the only states to get a true identity was Israel, which was created by taking land from Palestinians and giving it to mostly European Jews. For the most part, it was uninhabited land and the Palestinians did not necessarily have to leave, but it was a foreign force claiming the land in the eyes of some. Much like we have seen in post colonial Africa, conflicts arose when you put one ethnic group in charge of others. In the years after, you had Pan Arab groups rise up because you need to find a way to unite. Likewise, you saw Islamic groups arise because religion is another way to unite various ethnic groups. The appeal of Islamic groups is that they are almost always anti West, with the West representing the foreign power that has constantly tried to involve itself in the region and prevent independence.

I don't know if we are at a point where they can seek to redraw lines and create more ethnic and tribal based states. You need people to believe in secular governments, but with the lack of infrastructure and education, they will always turn to religion first, and religion looks to keep an anti-West culture in place. There is not enough in place right now to create a future generation of educated leaders that can solve these problems.

If nothing really changes in the region, you'll have something fill the void.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Every time we kill a terrorists leader someone else fills the void. So it is with the organizations themselves. If we are to defeat terrorism we need to defeat the reasons why people become terrorists.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well interestingly enough, if we didn't have such a interest in oil it would dramatically shift our stance on the middle east both now and into the future. Not sure exactly where we would stand, but it would be different. Maybe it would be closer to what we do in Africa where we really don't care all that much about the murders and genocides.

If it weren't for oil we would care about the Middle East about as much as we care about Japan, Norway, and Iceland whaling.

[BFritz21]

(04-26-2017, 09:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A lot of this is a result of the history of the last 100 years as well as centuries of shifting rule prior to that. The people ruled by the Ottoman Empire were not given self determination as they were promised after WWI and the British and French divided the region up into mandates to profit off of the newly found oil.

So while Europe was recognizing the importance of ethnic groups having their own states, the Levant and Mesopotamia was being divided in a way that benefitted a foreign power but split up ethnic groups and put some together who did not get along. One of the only states to get a true identity was Israel, which was created by taking land from Palestinians and giving it to mostly European Jews. For the most part, it was uninhabited land and the Palestinians did not necessarily have to leave, but it was a foreign force claiming the land in the eyes of some. Much like we have seen in post colonial Africa, conflicts arose when you put one ethnic group in charge of others. In the years after, you had Pan Arab groups rise up because you need to find a way to unite. Likewise, you saw Islamic groups arise because religion is another way to unite various ethnic groups. The appeal of Islamic groups is that they are almost always anti West, with the West representing the foreign power that has constantly tried to involve itself in the region and prevent independence.

I don't know if we are at a point where they can seek to redraw lines and create more ethnic and tribal based states. You need people to believe in secular governments, but with the lack of infrastructure and education, they will always turn to religion first, and religion looks to keep an anti-West culture in place. There is not enough in place right now to create a future generation of educated leaders that can solve these problems.

If nothing really changes in the region, you'll have something fill the void.

Those were exactly my thoughts:  Even if we knock out ISIS, the Middle East will continue to just be a vacuum for terrorism.

Like you said, we need to put an infrastructure and education in place (as well as an economy, which is pretty much included in infrastructure) to give them something to turn to other than extremism.

With nothing else going on, why WOULDN'T they turn to terrorism?

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2017, 04:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Those were exactly my thoughts:  Even if we knock out ISIS, the Middle East will continue to just be a vacuum for terrorism.

Like you said, we need to put an infrastructure and education in place (as well as an economy, which is pretty much included in infrastructure) to give them something to turn to other than extremism.

With nothing else going on, why WOULDN'T they turn to terrorism?

A lot of violent organizations are often the direct result of a group of people being in situations where they are offered fewer alternatives, or none at all. The same is true for gangs in inner cities, cartels in Latin America, pirates in Somalia, you name it. Groups like this form because they feel they have no alternative and so they band together to make things better for themselves. They recruit from people that feel like themselves, that they know are on the outside looking in, because they often have a chip on their shoulder that can be exploited. They give them something to be proud of, membership in a group that is doing something, and that gives them the confidence they need to to actually act on that chip.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well interestingly enough, if we didn't have such a interest in oil it would dramatically shift our stance on the middle east both now and into the future. Not sure exactly where we would stand, but it would be different. Maybe it would be closer to what we do in Africa where we really don't care all that much about the murders and genocides.

(04-26-2017, 04:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it weren't for oil we would care about the Middle East about as much as we care about Japan, Norway, and Iceland whaling.

Interesting fact #1: The US imports more oil from Canada than the entirety of OPEC combined.

Interesting fact #2: In 2015 the US exported 458,000 barrels of crude oil *per day*. That number is more than what they import from Iraq.

[Au165]

(04-26-2017, 06:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting fact #1: The US imports more oil from Canada than the entirety of OPEC combined.

Interesting fact #2: In 2015 the US exported 458,000 barrels of crude oil *per day*. That number is more than what they import from Iraq.

If you dot believe our past interest and continued interest in the Middle East is influenced by oil your nuts. It's not just about imports it's about US companies interest in the industry there.

[Benton]

Isis is just the latest incarnate of the latest divisions. This one has a large chunk of former saddam people. They'll either keep adding displaced people looking for a home or they'll get added into another group looking.

[NATI BENGALS]

Realistically.. Only Trump can solve religious conflict. That should be obvious.

Humans fighting on a basis of beliefs and religion is a relatively new concept. I say put Kushner on it. Trump will get this thing figured out in 100 days or less. You better believe it. Obama and the dems started this whole religious war stuff. Trump will end it.


Seriously though. No, for real. Until we get rid of all these dumb ass religions and realize we are the human race in this thing together, and your preferred invisible magic man in the sky isn't gonna bail you out, senseless conflicts will flourish.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-26-2017, 06:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting fact #1: The US imports more oil from Canada than the entirety of OPEC combined.

Interesting fact #2: In 2015 the US exported 458,000 barrels of crude oil *per day*. That number is more than what they import from Iraq.

Interesting fact #3: There were no active WMD programs in Iraq.

Interesting fact #4: Our government was handing out $300 million dollar weapons contracts to stoner high school drop outs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stoner-arms-dealers-20110316?page=9

$300 million dollar crumbs.

[Dill]

(04-26-2017, 04:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A lot of violent organizations are often the direct result of a group of people being in situations where they are offered fewer alternatives, or none at all. The same is true for gangs in inner cities, cartels in Latin America, pirates in Somalia, you name it. Groups like this form because they feel they have no alternative and so they band together to make things better for themselves. They recruit from people that feel like themselves, that they know are on the outside looking in, because they often have a chip on their shoulder that can be exploited. They give them something to be proud of, membership in a group that is doing something, and that gives them the confidence they need to to actually act on that chip.

Bels, I'm pretty sure that all these groups just hate freedom and that is why they attack America.

[Dill]

(04-26-2017, 03:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I saw something that said ISIS only controls 6% of Iraq, down from 45% a few years ago (although I did see that al-Qaeda could possibly be on the rise again), but, my question is, will Iraq and the Middle East in general ever be stable enough to keep extremist groups from popping up?

If ISIS is completely wiped out, will another extremist group pop-up?

We can stabilize it Iraq all we want and give them the power to control themselves, but extremism is an ideology, which is very difficult to ever completely eliminate.

That depends on how ISIS is wiped out. We got ISIS when we "wiped out" Saddam Hussein.

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/new-bomb-capable-of-creating-1500-new-terrorists-i-8778

[BmorePat87]

(04-26-2017, 06:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: oil your nuts. 

That's a weird thing to tell him to do.