ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Kaos said:
Directly they've stuck to bombing only ISIS for the time being, I'd imagine lagrely because of trying to avert a stand off with Russia and Iran. Covertly though its still pretty much their mission creep - they're still working alongside the Gulf Arab states to ensure that millions of dollars of heavy-grade weaponry makes its way to FSA hands, including some pretty unsavoury Islamist elements.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they've also hit Nusra and their al-Qaeda colleagues (the so-called 'Khorasan Group'). And they've sent in trained rebels to take on ISIS on the ground - those rebels made it about 5km inside Syria before being arrested by Nusra :lol:

I just think when it comes to America in Syria we're talking about a very different beast to the Bush days. Of the external actors involved in the war - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey and the GCC states - I think the Americans have the least amount of influence on what is going on at the moment. And I think that suits Obama just fine.
 
Raoul said:
ISIS is obviously the bigger problem at the moment, but long term there is no reasonable future for Assad in Syria. He's an unelected, minority dictator and his continued presence will only keep the fighting going irrespective of whether ISIS exists or not.
Click to expand...

As heinous of a man as he is, forcefully removing him and collapsing the government will only exacerbate what's already a pretty dire situation. I don't think Assad has a viable future in the long-term, but to forcefully remove him now will open up a power vacuum that won't be filled anytime soon by a democratic process, not to mention the terrifying consequences that await Syria's Alawites and Christians.
 
Kaos said:
As heinous of a man as he is, forcefully removing him and collapsing the government will only exacerbate what's already a pretty dire situation. I don't think Assad has a viable future in the long-term, but to forcefully remove him now will open up a power vacuum that won't be filled anytime soon by a democratic process, not to mention the terrifying consequences that await Syria's Alawites and Christians.
Click to expand...

That's why there needs to be an international peacekeeping force in Syria who can create humanitarian corridors for refugees, as well as keep various factions from getting towards one another.
 
2cents said:
To be fair, they've also hit Nusra and their al-Qaeda colleagues (the so-called 'Khorasan Group'). And they've sent in trained rebels to take on ISIS on the ground - those rebels made it about 5km inside Syria before being arrested by Nusra :lol:

I just think when it comes to America in Syria we're talking about a very different beast to the Bush days. Of the external actors involved in the war - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey and the GCC states - I think the Americans have the least amount of influence on what is going on at the moment. And I think that suits Obama just fine.
Click to expand...

There may be some truth in the Iran deal cooling the US's role in Syria, but I still think they play a pivotal role in propping up the various oppostion factions.
 
Raoul said:
That's why there needs to be an international peacekeeping force in Syria who can create humanitarian corridors for refugees, as well as keep various factions from getting towards one another.
Click to expand...

And who's going to volunteer their heads for that mission?
 
Raoul said:
That's why there needs to be an international peacekeeping force in Syria who can create humanitarian corridors for refugees, as well as keep various factions from getting towards one another.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning this idea of yours but I fail to see how its remotely feasible.

Who's going the be part of this international peacekeeping force? Who would even agree to it? And nevermind figuring out how to get the dozens of warring factions to disarm and step aside.
 
2cents said:
And who's going to volunteer their heads for that mission?
Click to expand...

It would require a military intervention first to clear corridors and the UN could do the rest. It would first require the removal of ISIS though, since they would work to sabotage any humanitarian corridors.
 
Kaos said:
You keep mentioning this idea of yours but I fail to see how its remotely feasible.

Who's going the be part of this international peacekeeping force? Who would even agree to it? And nevermind figuring out how to get the dozens of warring factions to disarm and step aside.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Raoul said:
It would require a military intervention first to clear corridors and the UN could do the rest. It would first require the removal of ISIS though, since they would work to sabotage any humanitarian corridors.
Click to expand...

Removing ISIS first in the right idea, military intervention is the wrong execution. When has a military intervention ever worked in such a scenario?
 
Raoul said:
It would require a military intervention first to clear corridors and the UN could do the rest. It would first require the removal of ISIS though, since they would work to sabotage any humanitarian corridors.
Click to expand...

The Americans are the only power capable of attempting something like this. With the possible exception of the FSA, the major rebel groups in Syria regard America as an enemy. Put a foreign force in Syria now and within a year you'll have every rebel group in the country taking shots at them. I don't think Syria needs any more targets.
 
Kaos said:
Removing ISIS first in the right idea, military intervention is the wrong execution. When has a military intervention ever worked in such a scenario?
Click to expand...

ISIS can be removed quickly with a US led intervention - that obviously wont happen as long as Obama is in charge. Nor will it happen with Russia involved since Putin's only interest is keeping his naval base which would go away if Assad is toppled.
 
2cents said:
The Americans are the only power capable of attempting something like this. With the possible exception of the FSA, the major rebel groups in Syria regard America as an enemy. Put a foreign force in Syria now and within a year you'll have every rebel group in the country taking shots at them. I don't think Syria needs any more targets.
Click to expand...

So they say, but there are are no other viable solutions that don't involve leaving various bad actors on the battlefield.
 
Raoul said:
ISIS can be removed quickly with a US led intervention - that obviously wont happen as long as Obama is in charge. Nor will it happen with Russia involved since Putin's only interest is keeping his naval base which would go away if Assad is toppled.
Click to expand...

And there lies the crux of the problem. The US puts boots on the ground and the whole thing turns into a cataclysmic mess.
 
Kaos said:
And there lies the crux of the problem. The US puts boots on the ground and the whole thing turns into a cataclysmic mess.
Click to expand...

It already is a cataclysmic mess, so the process of fixing things would be no more a mess than what we have now. Every rogue group from ISIS to Assad and everyone in between need to be removed and an internationally led, UN Security Council mandated policy of rebuilding Syria from the ground up needs to be undertaken. Anything short of that will lead to more sustained violence with no end in sight. We will be having these discussions indefinitely unless definitive action is undertaken.
 
Raoul said:
It already is a cataclysmic mess, so the process of fixing things would be no more a mess than what we have now. Every rogue group from ISIS to Assad and everyone in between need to be removed and an internationally led, UN Security Council mandated policy of rebuilding Syria from the ground up needs to be undertaken. Anything short of that will lead to more sustained violence with no end in sight. We will be having these discussions indefinitely unless definitive action is undertaken.
Click to expand...

Again, the Iraq parallels have to be considered. The US thought they could just persevere and force out all the unsavoury elements, but what happened was a war that dragged on, and an increased sense of hostility towards them to the point where they were forced out of the country.
 
Kaos said:
Again, the Iraq parrallels have to be considered. The US thought they could just persevere and force out all the unsavoury elements, but what happened was a war that dragged on, and an increased sense of hostility towards them to the point where they were forced out of the country.
Click to expand...

I agree - mistakes were made after the invasion which shouldn't be made again, nor should the security force leave early as the US did.
 
Raoul said:
I agree - mistakes were made after the invasion which shouldn't be made again, nor should the security force leave early as the US did.
Click to expand...

So what's the plan then? Take out everyone including the Assad government and build from scratch?
 
Kaos said:
So what's the plan then? Take out everyone including the Assad government and build from scratch?
Click to expand...

Yep, in a nutshell. First priority is to get rid of ISIS. Then create humanitarian corridors for civilians to get away from the violence. IT would be a massive undertaking but the since the international community has so far failed Syria, it would need to get done at some point.
 
Raoul said:
It seems to be split down sectarian lines - I'm guessing Assad's apologists in here are generally Shi'a.
Click to expand...

Uzz said:
It does seem that way. Either they're shia or Russian.
Click to expand...
:confused: I am not Shi'a (in fact of the opposite sect) but I share the view that without a proper leadership group in Syria disposing its dictator is pushing country into further chaos. It is a multi-sectarian country with each group having some hatred for other (or reason at least) and leaving the country leaderless (or without a strong leader) will only leave the possibility of genocide further more.
 
Raoul said:
That's why there needs to be an international peacekeeping force in Syria who can create humanitarian corridors for refugees, as well as keep various factions from getting towards one another.
Click to expand...
Sounded good up until it reminded me of Lebanon.

Where do you see the will for such a thing? I can maybe see Russia propping up Assad in Latakia.
 
Distracted Steward said:
Sounded good up until it reminded me of Lebanon.

Where do you see the will for such a thing? I can maybe see Russia propping up Assad in Latakia.
Click to expand...

Depends on the next US administration. If its a Republican, there's a pretty good chance there will be US boots on the ground.
 
Raoul said:
Depends on the next US administration. If its a Republican, there's a pretty good chance there will be US boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
By that point I image there will already be Russian troops there (officially) ... Surely only an idiot or somebody brought up in a family of warmongers would commit us troops to such a scenario...
But yeah I suppose Trump / bush are the most likely candidates so perhaps they are happy to kick of ww3 by proxy
 
Raoul said:
Depends on the next US administration. If its a Republican, there's a pretty good chance there will be US boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
I hope not. Anything more than the infrequent tier one SOF raids on true high value targets would be wandering into another quagmire.

The hawks think the military can solve anything. That disconnect from reality is only going to needlessly imperil more lives.
 
Kaos said:
To add to that - your idea of dealing with Bashar first and IS afterwards is insane. When Saddam was forced out, it took Iraq years to set up elections and even longer to form a tenuous excuse of a government, which to this day cannot function in a coherent way. This has only been in ISIS's favour who now benefit due to Iraq's inability to deal with internal quarrells. You yourself admitted that the FSA were an umbrella of loosely aligned organisations, so going by the Iraq precedence, what makes you think they'll become structured and coherent enough to deal with the IS threat?
Click to expand...
To be honest I'm struggling to believe anybody would think that is a logical plan out of ignorance. I think it's very clear for everybody now what would happen in Syria if Assad's regime collapses before ISIS (or the other extremist groups like Al-Nusra, Ahrar Al-Sham, ...etc.). It's probably just that they want something, but they can't say it outright in public.

Also there is no such thing as "FSA", and that has become very clear. There are hundreds of fractions (the vast majority of which have Al-Qaeda ideology, whether they belong to ISIS, Al-Nusra, or other fractions). The "moderate rebels" have either handed themselves in already and went to regime controlled areas, or are on their way to Germany (together with some ISIS infiltrates), and most of them weren't even fighters. The FSA has always been, but now more than anytime in the past, just a codename for helping extremists covertly.
 
Reading the last 5 pages of this thread makes you wonder what is behind the complete mess that is Syria and the middle east, in my opinion.

Would I be right to say it's down to the following in that order.

1. Political power
2. Economical welfare
3. Religion
 
predator said:
Reading the last 5 pages of this thread makes you wonder what is behind the complete mess that is Syria and the middle east, in my opinion.

Would I be right to say it's down to the following in that order.

1. Political power
2. Economical welfare
3. Religion
Click to expand...

Ultimately its all about Power - as in ISIS wants the power to administer its own region. Assad wants to stay in power in an area that used to be known as Syria, and all the groups in between want a degree of power as well. Russian troops on the ground are also an expression of Putin's desire to have the world perceive Russia as a world power, as opposed to a crumbling dictatorship that is over reliant on oil. And of course the big elephant in the room, the US, also wants to project its own power and interests in the region.
 
2cents said:
Here's a pretty interesting and comprehensive biography of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2015/thebeliever
Click to expand...

In looking at the IS map on that page - its just illustrates that IS is retaining its land because there is no viable force there to evict it. I'm guessing this will continue until an outside intervention does what the Iraqis and Assad regime are incapable of.
 
Kaos said:
There aren't any Russians either :lol:

Just bizarre deductional fallacies. Maybe we have some North Korean posters in the Russia-Ukraine thread too.
Click to expand...

Antihenry is Russian and you are part Shi'a and/or have a Shi'a significant other. I'm guessing our other resident Assad fan is also part Shi'a, although he doesn't like to talk about it. :)
 
Syrian military and ISIS have been ‘ignoring’ each other on the battlefield

http://www.janes.com/article/46898/...e-been-ignoring-each-other-on-the-battlefield

The Syrian military and the Islamic State have been ‘ignoring’ each other on the battlefield, according to information from the IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre (IHS JTIC) database.

The figures suggest that the Islamic State and Assad’s security forces have embraced the clever strategy of ignoring each other while focusing on attacking more moderate opposition groups.

"If we look through the IHS JTIC database for this year, we see that just six per cent of 982 Syrian counterterrorism operations targeted the Islamic State and only 13 per cent of 923 Islamic State attacks in Syria targeted Syrian security forces," said Matthew Henman, manager of IHS JTIC.

"These figures suggest that the Islamic State and Assad’s security forces have embraced the clever strategy of ignoring each other while focusing on attacking more moderate opposition groups.

"Assad is trying to downplay the Syrian revolution narrative and instead portray it as an Islamist insurgency against his government. This way, he can crack down on it with the indirect support of the West.

"The Islamic State is looking to engineer a scenario where it is just them against Assad. Therefore, right now the group’s focus in on marginalising moderate groups to the point where these groups’ fighters are ‘asked’ to join the Islamic State.

"The lose-lose situation that the West could be heading for is the Islamic State vs Assad.”

IHS JTIC worked exclusively with NBC News in London to produce the infographic which can be downloaded in full by clicking here.
 
Raoul said:
In looking at the IS map on that page - its just illustrates that IS is retaining its land because there is no viable force there to evict it. I'm guessing this will continue until an outside intervention does what the Iraqis and Assad regime are incapable of.
Click to expand...
The Iraqis have proven that they do have the forces needed to evict them. It's the US (and its allies) that are trying to limit their involvement for political reasons.
 
Danny1982 said:
The Iraqis have proven that they do have the forces needed to evict them. It's the US (and its allies) that are trying to limit their involvement for political reasons.
Click to expand...

That's completely absurd. If the Iraqis had the cojones to evict them they would've done so along time ago. Fact is they don't have the means to do it, otherwise it would've already happened.
 
Raoul said:
Antihenry is Russian and you are part Shi'a and/or have a Shi'a significant other. I'm guessing our other resident Assad fan is also part Shi'a, although he doesn't like to talk about it. :)
Click to expand...

I'm just as much Sunni as I am Shia, and that's all relevant anyway since I'm first and foremost a Kurd, religion is immaterial to me. I no longer have a SO either :)

Didn't know AH was Russian, caf is a fascinating melting pot.
 
Raoul said:
That's completely absurd. If the Iraqis had the cojones to evict them they would've done so along time ago.
Click to expand...
The US don't allow some forces to operate freely because of their ties with Iran. The US doesn't even sell the Iraqi government the weapons they owed them, or the ammunition they needed, and will only provide them with weapons and ammunitions on conditions that satisfy their political interests and those of their allies. Compare that to how the US is giving Saudi Arabia the free hand in Yemen. Without the US political support (to ISIS' political backers)/limitations on the Iraqi government, ISIS wouldn't have lasted as much as they did in Iraq.

Take Baiji for example. ISIS failed miserably to take the besieged Oil refinery for almost a year, and eventually the Iraqi forces actually re-took all of Baiji. What happened after that? After political pressure on the government they were forced to replace many of the forces in Baiji and the refinery (because 'they're gonna burn the homes and murder the children, get them out now!!!'). Next thing you know both fell easily in ISIS hands.

The US position is understandable though, they don't want Iraq to "fall into the hands of Iran", but to say there are no forces in Iraq that are capable of evicting ISIS is simply not true. It's just that you don't like those forces.
 
kid777 said:


I'd love to see that little bubble in which you live.
Click to expand...


This pretty much underscores the lack of will and fight on the Iraqi side at the moment. They are being propped up by Shi'a militias, Iranian Quds forces, and US air strikes on ISIS positions because their regular military lack the will due to sectarian mismanagement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.