ISIS in Iraq and Syria

@Raoul
Intervention means, that foreign powers pick a winner and support him to oppress the other factions. One dictator is replaced by another. The Syian people need to come to their own agreement and understand that fighting only harms them. That’s a bloody and nasty process, but there is no viable alternative. The reality is that the capabilities of all these internal factions would be fairly limited, if other countries wouldn’t constantly prop them up. Stop the flow of weapons/funds/expertise that and the fighting will stop soon after.

What you are saying sounds nice and fine, but is completely unrealistic. The US failed to establish the absolute minimum of public order whenever they tried to do that in the region. It will be exactly the same in Syria. Once you get rid of Assad and dismantle his militias, you have to choose between two very bad options:
1) replacing him with another strong man, who is 100% dependent on your countries funding
2) Creating another semi-anarchic failed state and there is no coming back from this.

During the whole process you´ll further radicalize the whole region painting a big crosshair on your back. Your nutty right-wing politicians will answer that with “they really hate us, because we are so free and awesome, don’t they? We´ll have to send more drones to protect us against these maniacs.” It’s so fecking predictable; it’s hard to believe anyone is willing to go down this road. But don’t worry, Hillary will make it happen.
 
2cents said:
It's not only ISIS who have to be dealt with though. If the US put troops on the ground in Syria, they'd soon enough find themselves fighting every single group of any standing currently involved in the war, alongside the Islamic State AND Assad/Hezbollah. All the focus on ISIS has shifted attention away from the numerous groups of largely local Syrian Sunni origin who are really no better than ISIS, Nusra being the most well known example, but also the coalition of groups making up the Islamic Front.
Click to expand...

That's true, it would need to go beyond ISIS and include more groups. A more important question that needs to be asked is what will happen to Syria without any sort of stabilizing force intervening. If Assad goes, it will leave ISIS, Nusra, and the like to have their way, which no one, even the most vociferous opponents of interventionism will find acceptable.
 
PedroMendez said:
@Raoul
Intervention means, that foreign powers pick a winner and support him to oppress the other factions. One dictator is replaced by another. The Syian people need to come to their own agreement and understand that fighting only harms them. That’s a bloody and nasty process, but there is no viable alternative. The reality is that the capabilities of all these internal factions would be fairly limited, if other countries wouldn’t constantly prop them up. Stop the flow of weapons/funds/expertise that and the fighting will stop soon after.

What you are saying sounds nice and fine, but is completely unrealistic. The US failed to establish the absolute minimum of public order whenever they tried to do that in the region. It will be exactly the same in Syria. Once you get rid of Assad and dismantle his militias, you have to choose between two very bad options:
1) replacing him with another strong man, who is 100% dependent on your countries funding
2) Creating another semi-anarchic failed state and there is no coming back from this.

During the whole process you´ll further radicalize the whole region painting a big crosshair on your back. Your nutty right-wing politicians will answer that with “they really hate us, because we are so free and awesome, don’t they? We´ll have to send more drones to protect us against these maniacs.” It’s so fecking predictable; it’s hard to believe anyone is willing to go down this road. But don’t worry, Hillary will make it happen.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to - it could be a coalition with a clear mandate to stop the violence, create humanitarian corridors, and form a provisional government designed to orgnaize and hold elections for Syrians to choose a long term government.
 
Raoul said:
That's true, it would need to go beyond ISIS and include more groups. A more important question that needs to be asked is what will happen to Syria without any sort of stabilizing force intervening. If Assad goes, it will leave ISIS, Nusra, and the like to have their way, which no one, even the most vociferous opponents of interventionism will find acceptable.
Click to expand...

Even if Assad goes (something by no means as likely as you're making out), I still think the scenario you outline would be more favourable than one in which the US throws troops in - certainly more favourable from the perspective of those troops and their families.
 
Raoul said:
That's true, it would need to go beyond ISIS and include more groups. A more important question that needs to be asked is what will happen to Syria without any sort of stabilizing force intervening. If Assad goes, it will leave ISIS, Nusra, and the like to have their way, which no one, even the most vociferous opponents of interventionism will find acceptable.
Click to expand...
I reckon it'll get carved up sooner or later with different factions taking land. Kurds will take some, the militias will take some and the current regime will keep some.
 
Silva said:
I reckon it'll get carved up sooner or later with different factions taking land. Kurds will take some, the militias will take some and the current regime will keep some.
Click to expand...

The carving up would need to be done from the outside, as it has historically, as the groups will continue to fight for as much as land as possible unless an outside entity comes in and forces them to stop.
 
2cents said:
Even if Assad goes (something by no means as likely as you're making out), I still think the scenario you outline would be more favourable than one in which the US throws troops in - certainly more favourable from the perspective of those troops and their families.
Click to expand...

The problem with Assad going will always be ISIS, Nusra, and others overrunning the Alawite areas, which would more or less result in major carnage. The problem with Assad staying is the carnage will simply take place in other areas.
 
So carnage either way, but at least at the moment no US troops are getting killed, right?
 
PedroMendez said:
so like in afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Pretty much yes, except there would not be a lingering Taliban presence across the border with Pakistan, if Iraq and Syria are both simultaneously stabilized to avoid insurgents hopping back across the border.
 
PedroMendez said:
because Afghanistan was such a staggering success, right?
Click to expand...

It has been yes. It has a functioning democratic government. If you look back at the state of Taliban controlled Afghanistan circa 2001 compared with now, its a massive difference. I was there in 2002/03 and again in 2012-14, and can attest to this.
 
Kaos said:
Stabilising countries which had already been decimated following a crippling world war.

Iraq and Afghanistan though, job well done.
Click to expand...

In Japan and Germany, the US had the benefit of societies that wanted to rebuild and return to normalcy.

In Iraq, people were more interested in killing each other to assert sectarian dominance (because of a 1300 year old argument) and the Americans than building a state. Afghanistan has been a huge mess for the better part of 30 years, if not forever.
 
Sir Matt said:
In Japan and Germany, the US had the benefit of societies that wanted to rebuild and return to normalcy.
Click to expand...

They were also largely homogeneous societies with no major ethnic or sectarian cleavages and no alternative powers to the US capable or interested in attempting to influence the post-war process.
 
Raoul said:
It has been yes. It has a functioning democratic government. If you look back at the state of Taliban controlled Afghanistan circa 2001 compared with now, its a massive difference. I was there in 2002/03 and again in 2012-14, and can attest to this.
Click to expand...

Well, its your taxes, that are wasted. If you think that Afghanistan was a success, there is no point in continuing to argue.
 
2cents said:
They were also largely homogeneous societies with no major ethnic or sectarian cleavages and no alternative powers to the US capable or interested in attempting to influence the post-war process.
Click to expand...

:lol: Are you sure?
 
PedroMendez said:
Well, its your taxes, that are wasted. If you think that Afghanistan was a success, there is no point in continuing to argue.
Click to expand...

Its been a qualified success in that it routed Al-Qaeda elements from organizing attacks on the west, which was the primary reason why the US went in in the first place. Its also been a success in that Afghanistan is now a parliamentary Democracy instead of a theocratic dictatorship. Naturally there are still problems with corruption, but its still quite impressive when you consider it was more or less in the dark ages during Taliban reign.
 
Sir Matt said:
:lol: Are you sure?
Click to expand...

I appreciate that the Soviets were right next door in East Germany. I believe, however, that they were quite happy with the status quo once the division of Germany had been consolidated. I don't think, for example, that we had a situation where the Soviets were able to fund and train anti-US militias which had the support of much of the population in post-war West Germany.
 
Raoul said:
You're not making much of a coherent argument. Can you offer any viable solutions to the Syrian conflict rather than the knee jerk "i hate interventionism" ?
Click to expand...

I don’t hate interventionism. I don’t have any problem with this strategy, when the outcome is favorable. There are regions in the world where an “active” FP makes sense. The middle east isn´t one of them.
 
Sir Matt said:
In Japan and Germany, the US had the benefit of societies that wanted to rebuild and return to normalcy.

In Iraq, people were more interested in killing each other to assert sectarian dominance (because of a 1300 year old argument) and the Americans than building a state. Afghanistan has been a huge mess for the better part of 30 years, if not forever.
Click to expand...

Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis had hated their dictator. What the US did was dismantle their military structure (Japan and Germany had already surrendered), had wrecked havoc upon an already functional society (again Japan and Germany had just lost a devastating world war). Not to mention there wasn't a single spec of Al Qaeda, ISIS or Islamist terrorists before this intervention.

Also, interesting you mention the sectarian dynamic in Iraq for it being a bad idea to retrospectively intervene. Doesn't Syria suffer from the same sectarian complexes?
 
Any credible accounts as what is going on currently in the Qalamoun mountains clashes. What we are getting here are conflicting reports of casualties on both sides, when a major Hizballah offensive is on the cards.
 
holyland red said:
Any credible accounts as what is going on currently in the Qalamoun mountains clashes. What we are getting here are conflicting reports of casualties on both sides, when a major Hizballah offensive is on the cards.
Click to expand...

we won't know until it's over, I do expect Hizbollah to suffer heavy casualties though but hopefully they will be victorious.
 
Ballache said:
we won't know until it's over, I do expect Hizbollah to suffer heavy casualties though but hopefully they will be victorious.
Click to expand...

Otherwise ISIS will be all over Lebanon, won't they...? I think for once I understand why you're waving that yellow flag.
 
holyland red said:
Otherwise ISIS will be all over Lebanon, won't they...? I think for once I understand why you're waving that yellow flag.
Click to expand...

Our army can defend the border, however for that to happen we need to coordinate with the Syrian Army which, if you know Lebanese politics, is not possible. The only hope is Hizbollah, and they really have become good at what they do. ISIS would never be able to take over large areas in Lebanon like they did in Iraq and Syria but it's still a scary prospect. Our Army is also severly under-armed because the Americans fear it's too risky as we might become a threat to Israel or something :lol:
 
Attempts by regime forces to break the siege of the national hospital in Jesr al-Shughour countryside

May 9, 2015 Comments Off on Attempts by regime forces to break the siege of the national hospital in Jesr al-Shughour countryside

Idlib province: Clashes continue between Jesr al-Shughour and Ariha town in an attempt by regime forces to break the siege and release 250 soldiers in the national hospital west of Jesr al-Shughour, amid air strikes around the area and areas of Idlib city. A man from Nehlaia was killed by barrels bombardment on Saraqib earlier.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/05/a...nal-hospital-in-jesr-al-shughour-countryside/

Rumors that Bashar's brother is among the high-rank officials in the besieged hospital.
 
Some footage here, including a massive suicide truck bomb at 1:10

 
IS on the march again in Iraq and Syria - they've finally seized control of Ramadi in the east, and in the west they're approaching the ancient Roman city of Palmyra.
 
Baghdadi making a new tape will probably spur them on for a few weeks. Can't see it lasting, as they are going to get pounded from the air wherever they go, followed up by Iraqi ground troops to mop up.
 
2cents said:
The talk on Twitter is - from the 'experts', none of them had ever heard of this Abu Sayyaf before, and from the IS fanboys, they're laughing saying the operation was obviously aimed at a bigger target but failed and so the US are hyping up the guy they got.
Click to expand...

They would seem incentivized to minimize the relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.