Good question. I suspect that Western governments don't quite know how to deal with the problem. A big problem is that the West wants Assad gone but the same folks attempting to get rid of Assad are the very same folks causing so much grief in northern Iraq. The hope is that a new Iraqi PM will improve things with the Sunnis and that Iraqi and Kurd forces will reverse some of the gains ISIS has made: whether this happens in the short term remains to be seen. It would also help if the Arab League got involved but this is not likely to happen due to several factors.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
Well the thing is that you need to establish the principle of secular government and secular politics, and then deal with authoritarians. Otherwise you open the road to fundamentalism.
The Arab League should issue an official condemnation of ISIS, announce that it will do all it can to curb funds being sent to ISIS, announce that action will be taken against citizens who fight longside ISIS and express solidarity with Iraq [irrespective of the fact that power in Iraq lies in the hands of the ''heretic'' Shias]. If the Arab League was serious about dealing with ISIS it could also send a contingent to help defend Iraq; after all, some countries in the Arab League have spent billions on defence. All this however will never happen as the Arab League is an organisation that is only good for issuing worthless declarations and holding useless emergency summits that achieve nothing. There are also certain countries in the Arab League who probably want to see a weakened Iraqi government.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Arab League is nothing but a front for Saudi Wahhabi vermin who along with some other Gulf States fund ISIS. Bombing the $hit out of ISIS is a good start but dropping some big ones on the real source of all this $hit wouldn't hurt...I can live with higher gas prices!
Im with you Jihn, these scum need to be extinct.
Some interesting info I came across. A map of the fighting in Syria, and some photosets of government bases and equipment in rebel hands. The quantities of captured equipment are impressive, but I have to question that map.
bmpd -
Oryx Blog: The spoils of Regiment 121, captured by the Islamic State
Oryx Blog: The spoils of Brigade 93, captured by the Islamic State
Oryx Blog: Jaish al-Islam, more than just a rebel faction?
bmpd -
Oryx Blog: The spoils of Regiment 121, captured by the Islamic State
Oryx Blog: The spoils of Brigade 93, captured by the Islamic State
Oryx Blog: Jaish al-Islam, more than just a rebel faction?
Perhaps I was thinking more in terms of the degree of military co-ordination i.e. common radio frequencies between Peshmerga and Iraqi Armed Forces, or planning meetings with leaders from both sides to ensure targets properly assigned and no blue-on-blue etc.
I guess this is information that will not trickle out into the open domain that soon.
The problem requires a long term political solution and will not be resolved irrespective of how many bombs the USN drops or how many terrorists/militants/extremists/jihadists are killed. Western governments will also have to start making sound decisions - as opposed to flawed decisions for their own national interests - and examine the root causes behind this: what motivates people to jon ISIS and groups like it? Just as important: what is the present policy towards Syria? We can't concentrate on defeating ISIS in northern Iraq but ignore the fact that ISIS and the West [and the Sunni Guf Arabs] have the same aim in Syria.
Some excerpts from http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Saudis-And-The-ISI-/291747
''If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition.''
''Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West.''
''Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabelled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims.
''In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. ''
''The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement.''
Chuch Hagel says ISIS must be defeated but doesn't say what the long term plan is or if there even is a plan. Short of committing ''boots on the ground'' [how I dislike cliches] and launching a sustained air offensive with more assets [assuming that they are enough ISIS targets to hit]; what can the U.S. do that is isn't currently doing? Is there the political will to push the Saudis harder?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-beyond-anything-seen-201482201115125772.html
Some excerpts from http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Saudis-And-The-ISI-/291747
''If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition.''
''Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West.''
''Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabelled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims.
''In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. ''
''The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement.''
Chuch Hagel says ISIS must be defeated but doesn't say what the long term plan is or if there even is a plan. Short of committing ''boots on the ground'' [how I dislike cliches] and launching a sustained air offensive with more assets [assuming that they are enough ISIS targets to hit]; what can the U.S. do that is isn't currently doing? Is there the political will to push the Saudis harder?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-beyond-anything-seen-201482201115125772.html
Last edited:
Whatever they do they will be crapped on.
If they don't get involved then everyone will blame them for not doing so because arguably it's a situation which the US helped create and they have a responsibility to help unscrew the situation.
If they get involved it's "oh, another ME intervention which will go wrong". "none of our business", "waste of time/money/lives" are others fired at them too.
France recently said that due to US/UK reluctance to intervene in Syria that it's those parties who're to blame for it occurring (can't remember if France got involved in Syria myself either).
Political nightmare, there are reasons for either side and no matter what the US Govt does then people will always blame the US.
If they don't get involved then everyone will blame them for not doing so because arguably it's a situation which the US helped create and they have a responsibility to help unscrew the situation.
If they get involved it's "oh, another ME intervention which will go wrong". "none of our business", "waste of time/money/lives" are others fired at them too.
France recently said that due to US/UK reluctance to intervene in Syria that it's those parties who're to blame for it occurring (can't remember if France got involved in Syria myself either).
Political nightmare, there are reasons for either side and no matter what the US Govt does then people will always blame the US.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Like Colin Powell said years ago prior to the second Iraq war, if you break it you own it. Too bad Bush Sr. couldn't get Jr. off the BS injections that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-Cons were feeding him.
The poor decision-making process that ultimately led to OIF became an example of 'group think' in my social psychology textbook. For a variety of reasons (excessively charismatic personalities etc), nobody was motivated to look at the WMD data thoroughly and/or challenge it.
In any case, I see a clearer purpose for US action in Iraq this time round. Nobody can deny that they are doing something just and right in this case.
Anyway, I'm keeping an eye out for more details regarding the Syrian raid. There's already quite a bit of info that I found here: US launched raid in Syria to rescue American hostages held by Islamic State - The Long War Journal
Something tells me there will be more such missions to come.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Slightly OT but something I have to point out there is some disagreement on.
Some of the decision makers/influencers at the time did not seem affected by "group think" that WMD's were in Iraq, instead some seemed aware that there of the issues with the evidence and appeared to have actively campaigned to discredit any contrary evidence, i.e. that WMD's were merely a pretext for going into Iraq.
Back on topic .....
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Author was spot on. Less than three weeks ago he said "The two remaining Pro-Assadists strongholds in Nothern Syria, Kweres airbase and Tabqa airbase are obviously next on the list."
Here we are three weeks later, and ISIS mops up around Tabqa airport.
He also said, "Tabqa airbase is home to at least two squadrons operating MiG-21s and has provided most of the air support for Pro-Assadists in the North. Although operating captured MiG-21s might be a step too far, Tabqa also houses numerous radars and anti-aircraft guns, an interesting booty for the Islamic State."
Serious question: how many airbases does the Assad regime have under its control? And why couldn't they get a handful of pilots in there to fly out the MiGs before the airport fell?
Taqba was in government hands a few days ago, they fought off an ISIS attack.
Oryx Blog: Tabqa airbase still holding out against the Islamic State
Oryx Blog: Tabqa airbase still holding out against the Islamic State
HurricaneDitka
New Member
The article that I quoted (apparently I made a hash of it) says:
Source: ISIS mops up around Tabqa airport | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR
Sounds like it just happened in the last couple of days.
ETA: BBC reported the same thing: Syria conflict: Islamic State seizes Tabqa airbase
Last edited:
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Serious question: how many airbases does the Assad regime have under its control? And why couldn't they get a handful of pilots in there to fly out the MiGs before the airport fell?[/QUOTE]
It's probably bad form to quote myself, but I did want to share the answer I found:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Air_Force_bases"]List of Syrian Air Force bases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I'm not certain, but if I'm reading the "Held By" flag indicators correctly, Assad still controls 15 out of 21 air bases.
It's probably bad form to quote myself, but I did want to share the answer I found:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Air_Force_bases"]List of Syrian Air Force bases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I'm not certain, but if I'm reading the "Held By" flag indicators correctly, Assad still controls 15 out of 21 air bases.
To answer this question: Oryx has some more discussion on this in a newer post.
Apparently, ISIS only captured two actual functional aircraft, a MiG-21MF and a MiG-21UM model, both of which were down for maintenance (they also captured gaggles of inoperable MiG-21 variants, for whatever that's worth). These are both circa 1970 variants of the MiG-21 with limited combat capability anyway. Flying them out would have probably required not only getting pilots in, but technicians and repair parts, as well.
Even if IS(squared) was able to cobble together some working aircraft out of what they captured (that's assuming the aircraft weren't further disabled by SyAAF forces on the ground prior to the base's fall)...what are they really going to do with them? They don't have pilots or maintainers for them (from memory, the MiG-21 was not a maintenance-friendly aircraft, like most of the aircraft of that generation-I could be wrong about that), they probably don't have fuel, Syria's air defenses will make quick work out of them, and it's not like they need control of the air to be successful anyway (denying enemy tactical air supremacy via MANPADS/AAA is good enough). The SyAAF probably decided rightly that the juice was not worth the squeeze on trying to recover these two airframes.
The most valuable thing out of them would be the cannons and the other items of hung ordnance, since the rebels have shown an amazing talent for turning missiles into surface-surface rockets (albeit ones of very low effectiveness).
As others have previously said, no matter what the US does or does not do, it will get slammed on. Considering how the current administration is vacillating on taking firmer actions, it is doubtful that any "hard" decisions will be made regarding the question of support. Guns, missiles and airstrikes? No problem.
Putting American lives at risk to defend someone else? No way. To a large portion the American public, American lives are more important some random Yazidi or Kurd or Iraqi. This goes, IMO, hand in hand with the concepts of American Exceptionalism and the Islamophobia (and correlating xenophobia) that has been rising over the past decade and a half.
Working as a teacher, I can see huge pressures to focus internally. Infrastructure is failing, children's education is underfunded or lacking resources. So, voters will not care about the issues abroad because as far as they are concerned, it's someone else's kids dying, not getting an education, or having their lives destroyed. That money should go to their child, here in the US.
Special Forces ... sure. They're already there though the level of their presence isn't known. You won't see Stryker Brigades being deployed, that's for sure. The current admin will try to keep it all hush-hush unless it has something positive to report and do a little flag-waving.
At the end of the day, freedom, money and comfort for America first. Then everyone else. Basic "Us vs. Them" mentality that has been fostered since Sept. 11th.
Putting American lives at risk to defend someone else? No way. To a large portion the American public, American lives are more important some random Yazidi or Kurd or Iraqi. This goes, IMO, hand in hand with the concepts of American Exceptionalism and the Islamophobia (and correlating xenophobia) that has been rising over the past decade and a half.
Working as a teacher, I can see huge pressures to focus internally. Infrastructure is failing, children's education is underfunded or lacking resources. So, voters will not care about the issues abroad because as far as they are concerned, it's someone else's kids dying, not getting an education, or having their lives destroyed. That money should go to their child, here in the US.
Special Forces ... sure. They're already there though the level of their presence isn't known. You won't see Stryker Brigades being deployed, that's for sure. The current admin will try to keep it all hush-hush unless it has something positive to report and do a little flag-waving.
At the end of the day, freedom, money and comfort for America first. Then everyone else. Basic "Us vs. Them" mentality that has been fostered since Sept. 11th.