Originally Posted by radind

Even if it was the 'right thing' to do, it turned out badly. I was never in favor of the invasion, but the outcome has been worse than I expected.

Dubya was a glory-seeking pol. A successful war would have ratified his greatness in history. He got his superficial victory, and he failed to recognize that the "mission" was far from "accomplished". Instead he botched what should have been a victory... and lost the peace.

Dubya ran into the Law of Unintended Consequences. If we had left Iraq alone, the old Baathist regime would have been a bulwark against both Iran and ISIS.

Looks like ISIS are doing some attacks in Canada this week.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Looks like ISIS are doing some attacks in Canada this week.

The ID and MO of today's attacker has been revealed and guess what? You guessed correctly. Another home grown terrorist similar to the one who ran over the soldiers in Quebec.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Dubya ran into the Law of Unintended Consequences. If we had left Iraq alone, the old Baathist regime would have been a bulwark against both Iran and ISIS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowba...ntelligence%29

The "right thing" to do is leave them alone to sort out their mess, because the last time a bunch of people from Europe really, really tried, we did this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti...Ottoman_Empire

We're not good, we don't get it, and it's tune we shut up and go focus on something that's not telling other people what to do, nagging them, or shooting/bombing them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I did not mean to imply that you said this. It was this act that led to the increased US involvement. Before this the US action had been restricted to Iraq. What I opposed is extension into Syria. I know it is necessary to deny ISIS a safe haven in Syria if they are to be destroyed. But that is my whole point. I don't WANT the US to destroy ISIS. I want the local powers to have to deal with ISIS, and America.


No. My lumping was to show that people once thought that these Shia Islamists were part of a larger movement, just as they once thought there was an international Communist conspiracy. Now people like you are doing the same thing with ISIS.

It is true that Communists talked about exporting Marxist revolution just as the Shia talked about exporting their Islamic revolution. And ISIS talks about doing the same. But there is a difference between talk and reality. Just because someone says he will do something does not mean he can do it. I can say I intend to work out to get super buff all I want, that doesn't mean it is going to happen.


You implied that Turkey wants to strike at ISIS, but refrains from doing so out of fear of an ISIS inspired civil war with Islamists. You know that the real civil war threat Turkey faces is not from ISIS admirers, but from the Kurds, who ISIS is fighting. Turkey doesn't strike at ISIS because they don't WANT to. As long as ISIS is killing Kurds, they are doing Turkey's dirty work for them.


You made an assertion w/o providing any evidence. I can provide evidence that shows OBL was concerned events in Saudi Arabia rather than in Lebanon as you posited. You have provided no evidence showing that ISIS has designs on Saudi Arabia. Do so.


Above you said that your concern about "Sunni militants in various countries is about each setting off civil wars - being encouraged by ISIL but not necessarily joining them in some regional/global calling for a caliphate." If their threat is not from joining ISIS, then what need is there for moving vans?


Yes. That was a reference to keeping ISIS from falling apart after the easy conquests are over. They aren't quite finished with them, and now that the US is involved, they will be making conquests and losing them for a long time, which will serve to keep people in the IS focused on the "American threat" and not on ISIS's corruption. This will help maintain ISIS's legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters for years, until the US gets tired of killing civilians.


The question should be how did ISIS get Mosul in the first place? When your ally has 30000 troops equipped with expensive weaponry you provided and they are defeated by 800 guys with small arms, its time to find a different ally. Iraq cannot cope with ISIS. All the US air support won't make a difference if their guys run away.

The Kurds at least will fight. But the Kurds are a huge problem for us. They want to establish a state by carving out pieces of several countries just as ISIS wants to do. Allying with the Kurds means war with Turkey. That is the end game. So we are not going to ally with the Kurds. We have abandoned them before and we will do so again.

Now there was a possibility for a different solution, which I think was Obama's original plan. The Kurds in Iraq have established an autonomous zone that is essentially a Kurdish state. We could draw a clear distinction between operating in Iraq only. I think Turkey knows the Iraqi Kurds are never going to be part of Iraq again, and so US support of both the Kurds and Iraq inside Iraq should not overly incite Turkish Kurds. We would NOT support the Kurds in Syria, (and that means letting ISIS have Kobani) because that establishes a new precedent. It says the US might support Kurdish efforts to create more autonomous zones in countries other than Iraq, like Iran or Turkey. You yourself brought up the possibility of civil war in Turkey. Such a war would be between the Kurds and the Turks. ISIS might then decide to intervene in Turkey on the side of the government against the Kurds, figuring that would put the US and Turkey on opposite sides. Turkey might have struck at the Kurds in Turkey to discourage any potential Kurdish revolt. Can't you see how I just don't want the US to get in the middle of something like this? It's none of our business.


I have not said the US cannot make an impact on the battlefield. Of course they can. In Vietnam we are said to have won every battle. But we lost the war.

Here is my position boiled down. I think ISIS is not a threat to the US homeland. I also did not think that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US homeland. And I do not think that Iran getting a bomb is a threat to the US homeland.

The Kool-Aid I refer to is believing that any of these threats are real. The arguments you are using to try to make out that ISIS is some sort threat are just silly. It's basically the Bircher idea that there are Commies (Islamists) in the West who follow instructions from Moscow (ISIS).

I did not believe them then and I do not now. Where I differ is Kennan's policy of containment made sense with the USSR because

(1) they had equal military strength with the US; including a nuclear capability that could destroy us
(2) their GDP was #2 in the world and once they had been rapidly growing
(3) they had a seemingly-attractive ideology

Of these ISIS only has #3. But there is a big difference between how the USSR carried itself and how ISIS doesn't. The USSR tried to present an acceptable face to the world. They would cover up their atrocities; ISIS advertises them. Thus ISIS is eroding their one advantage.

They are monstrous and evil, and clearly a regional threat. But they are not a threat to the US homeland. They are not America's responsibility. If you REALLY thought the US needs to defeat ISIS once and for all, then you would support ground troops, like a million of them, so we do the job right this time. But you are not.

It's like the Iraq Chickenhawks. If they REALLY believed that Iraq posed an existential threat to the US they would have enlisted. That they did not, showed that Iraq was no such threat; and they were right, it wasn't.

Dick Cheney made the same choice wrt Vietnam. He says he had better things to do than enlist. If the US has truly faced an existential threat from Vietnam, he would have gone. But it did not, Cheney was right, he DID have better things to do, like get stinking rich and be vice president.

Contrast the chickenhawks and Cheney with young elite men in the Confederacy. The latter DID join up en masse. They saw an existential threat from the Union and they were right to sign up; the Confederacy DID face an existential threat from the Union.

The chickenhawks and Cheney were also right not to sign up; nothing happened to the US after losing both Vietnam and Iraq wars.

Nothing will happen to the US after we lose this war with ISIS either. Americans know this is their guts and that's why they are reluctant to send in troops. They know that fighting another no-win war is simply not worth more American lives; money sure, we are going to blow it on "national defense" anyways.

I really can't respond to this point-by-point; it's just too much of a jumbled up mess of the most tenuous of connections. Not exactly the linear logical train you are known for.

What I can respond to is a sort of Gestalt of what your presenting which is basically geopolitics that are no longer really relevant in today's world. It is as if as long as ISIL isn't landing amphibious landing craft on Long Island or undertaking the equivalent of Pickett's charge on the Mall in DC they are not a threat. That may have been operational in the last century, but with today's "global guerrillas," it's a joke.

ISIL is a threat because they are not your run-of-the-mill let's-blow-up-something suicide bombing terrorists, including the now sterilized al Qaeda. Ho-hum, another car bomb, suicide jackete, IED went off in whothehellknows fill-in-the-blank - and even that was on the downswing up until this year of ISIL.

ISIL is a threat because being (up until we got involve) a serious contender for a Caliphate is sufficient enough of a possibility to inspire radicalize fundamentalists to pursue jihad and for it to be financially and logistically supported. Up until ISIL emerge in the Syrian civil war from being just another militant group to a state-like entity claiming territory and redrawing national boundaries, who gave a shit?

The attraction ISIL has for gathering 10s of thousands of fighters is their claim to being not only a state, but a state destined by God to eventually rule the globe. And while al Bad-daddy might think that makes him the equivalent of Czar with near and far subjugations, the local fundamentalist more likely sees it as a loose confederation that as long as it is advantageous to link to they will remained linked. The problem for us is that no matter how strong or weak that link, our being killed doesn't really have a gradation.

That all provides a considerable positive feedback loop that can and will continued to recruit, in body or spirit, further Jihadists. Again, many are willing to voice common cause but most have little if any intention of actually joining the ISIL hierarchy. But they don need to actually joint to create mayhem.

Attempting to appease these true believers or just closing one's eyes and clicking your ruby slippers in hope that these meanies will just slip off into nothingness is just plain silly.

From that basic truth flows some rather pretty straightforward conclusions. You don't have to eradicate each and every ISIL figher, you just need to contain, then isolate them, and show that they are not the evil equivalent to un-defeafable supermen. Let them revert back to just another group of thugs that can manipulate their most weak-minded to blow themselves up on occasion - a fad that is inherently self-ending.

It's happening right before your eyes at this moment, but your so wedded to ancient history you can't even see it let alone value it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

ISIL is a threat because they are not your run-of-the-mill let's-blow-up-something suicide bombing terrorists, including the now sterilized al Qaeda. ISIL is a threat because being (up until we got involve) a serious contender for a Caliphate is sufficient enough of a possibility to inspire radicalize fundamentalists to pursue jihad and for it to be financially and logistically supported.

Compare the trajectory of Islamists over the 1996-2014 period with that of International Communism over 1947-1964.

The equivalent of your position on Islam in the struggle with Communism would have you support installation of the Shah in 1953, our support of the Fillipino government in the Huk rebellion 1946-54, the Korean war, and our support of the French and afterwards the rump colonial government in Vietnam.

We had successes (Iran, Phillipines) defeats (China*, Vietnam) and a draw in Korea.
We can see the long term effect of our efforts. Are the countries where we won (Phillipines, Iran) better off and more aligned with the US than those where we lose (China, Vietnam). I will acknowledge Korea is an outstanding success. But then I at my most isolationist would still support that war, because of how Stalin was behaving and how powerful the USSR had the potential to become.

*We did not really contest China, but politically, Democrats were blamed for "losing China", and this political outfall made Democrats begin to fear being labeled "weak". I think the Democratic embrace of the Vietnam war flowed directly from this sort of fear, and I think it has affected Obama's decisions wrt ISIS.

Up until ISIL emerge in the Syrian civil war from being just another militant group to a state-like entity claiming territory and redrawing national boundaries.

I don't see how embracing a transnational ideology like Communism or fundamentalist Islam makes a militant group different. Communism was embraced by militants when it looked like it might be the solution to the problems the militants perceive; today its Islam.

The attraction ISIL has for gathering 10s of thousands of fighters is their claim to being not only a state, but a state destined by God to eventually rule the globe.

No. Its their success. AQ had lots of recruits when it was riding high.

problem for us is that no matter how strong or weak that link, our being killed doesn't really have a gradation.

Here you make a huge logical leap. It is the equivalent of those who said I would father fight them in the jungles of Vietnam than on the shores of Long Island. I did not fall into that camp back then and I don't fall into that camp today either.

That all provides a considerable positive feedback loop that can and will continued to recruit, in body or spirit, further Jihadists. Again, many are willing to voice common cause but most have little if any intention of actually joining the ISIL hierarchy. But they don need to actually joint to create mayhem.

This is very vague. Are you saying that it we don't defeat ISIS over there, American Muslims will rise up by the hundreds and engage in domestic terrorism?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Compare the trajectory of Islamists over the 1996-2014 period with that of International Communism over 1947-1964.

The equivalent of your position on Islam in the struggle with Communism would have you support installation of the Shah in 1953, our support of the Fillipino government in the Huk rebellion 1946-54, the Korean war, and our support of the French and afterwards the rump colonial government in Vietnam.

We had successes (Iran, Phillipines) defeats (China*, Vietnam) and a draw in Korea.
We can see the long term effect of our efforts. Are the countries where we won (Phillipines, Iran) better off and more aligned with the US than those where we lose (China, Vietnam). I will acknowledge Korea is an outstanding success. But then I at my most isolationist would still support that war, because of how Stalin was behaving and how powerful the USSR had the potential to become.

*We did not really contest China, but politically, Democrats were blamed for "losing China", and this political outfall made Democrats begin to fear being labeled "weak". I think the Democratic embrace of the Vietnam war flowed directly from this sort of fear, and I think it has affected Obama's decisions wrt ISIS.


I don't see how embracing a transnational ideology like Communism or fundamentalist Islam makes a militant group different. Communism was embraced by militants when it looked like it might be the solution to the problems the militants perceive; today its Islam.


No. Its their success. AQ had lots of recruits when it was riding high.


Here you make a huge logical leap. It is the equivalent of those who said I would father fight them in the jungles of Vietnam than on the shores of Long Island. I did not fall into that camp back then and I don't fall into that camp today either.


This is very vague. Are you saying that it we don't defeat ISIS over there, American Muslims will rise up by the hundreds and engage in domestic terrorism?

I think where we are at or going is arguing counter-factuals.

The reality is that ISIL has now or soon will reach its high water mark (although I won't be surprised if they make some further news-making ground achievements) and will relatively soon revert back to just another set of thugs doing the suicide bombing dance. That dance will be far less likely to spark the Sunni-Shia conflagration that's been the primary objective since al-Zarqawi wrote down the playbook in 2008. Further, ISIL's ability to finance like-minded groups is not only being strategically degraded but has opened up for scrutiny and shutdown of the Qatar and SA sources that pre-date ISIL.

Your counterfactual is either all of this coming decline in ISIL would have happened anyway without our involvement or that it would at least be contained to those Sunni areas in Iraq/Syria generally already held by ISIL and really of not much of any real US interest. And further, without US involvement there would be much less motivation for fundamentalist groups around the globe to pursue higher levels of terrorism.

My counterfactual is that without US involvement ISIL would continue to expand directly by gaining more territory or at least bringing their direct conflict to a broader area - at least into the rest of Iraq and Syria, but soon making direct trouble in Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey and Iran - until at least the US got involved and stopped them but now in a more complicated and dangerous situation. Also, as long as they could claim being a Caliphe, they would inspire and finance many fundamentalist groups on a global scale.

Neither counter factual can be proven.

I'm just happy that they're on their way to an occasional mention deep in the newspaper, that they never made it to being the threat that al Qaeda proved itself to be and their sterilization took even less time and effort (hopefully without any major gaffs, e.g., Bush's Iraq invasion, on our part), and that their inevitable replacement(s) will be even less potent and lasting.

I can live with that because I'm not under some illusion that but for US involvement these thugs would just simply disappear from the radar screen.

I'm pretty much convince that the adult now occupying the Oval Office thinks pretty much along the same lines. I think there's a good chance we are going to miss him very much in a couple of years regardless how the 2016 election goes.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The "right thing" to do is leave them alone to sort out their mess, because the last time a bunch of people from Europe really, really tried, we did this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti...Ottoman_Empire

We're not good, we don't get it, and it's (time) we shut up and go focus on something that's not telling other people what to do, nagging them, or shooting/bombing them.

On the other thread you said that we have nothing to focus on. If we don't focus on the two causes I mentioned there, then I guess the only cause left is to meddle to our hearts content in others' affairs. Don't you think? Prophet boomer energy (as you call it) has to go somewhere!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator. Does that mean that we did the right thing to invade Iraq and topple him?

No, because Saddam's people did not rise up against him and request some material help.

The Syrian people rose up against Assad non-violently, and were murdered and exiled for their trouble. This is the kind of genocide we stopped in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, but failed to stop in Rwanda.

It doesn't matter if Assad is a "moderate" in his religious views. What counts is what he has done. What he has done is not "moderate," it is fascist (and that's a polite term for it). We need to help the Syrian free people with arms to fight both Assad and the IS. We need to help with arms and air strikes (where appropriate and I hope not too costly) those who are rising up to oppose the IS. We don't need to invade and topple either Assad or the IS. That would not be "the right thing."

But some people here can't see the difference between helping a people under attack who request our help, but not our invading troops, and invading a country that didn't want us to invade, in order to topple a dictator whom the people were not rebelling against.

From Istanbul -

Police detained 17 students after a clash erupted between pro-Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and leftist students at İstanbul University on Friday.


According to media reports, fighting erupted between the two groups on Friday morning.

Many riot police officers were sent to break up the fight at the university, and they detained a total of 17 students. Media reports stated that some of the detained students were slightly injured. The detainees were mainly members of the Muslim Youth Group, who shouted chants like “Live long, Muslim students,” “We are Muslim students; the insults made to us will not be left unpunished” and “We are Muslim students. Because they [the leftist students] insulted Islam, we did what was necessary.”

The detained students were taken to the police station for questioning. The riot police have taken strict security measures around İstanbul University's Faculty of Science, where the fight took place.

This tension that erupted on Friday was not the first incident between pro-ISIL students and other student groups at İstanbul University.

A fight previously took place between pro-ISIL and left-wing students, when nationwide protests for the defense of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani were ongoing in more than 30 provinces across Turkey. The two groups attacked each other with iron rods and other makeshift weapons.

Between Oct. 6 and 13, Turkey saw violent demonstrations in its streets, protesting Turkey's inaction against an onslaught by the ISIL on the pre-dominantly Kurdish town of Kobani. The protests resulted in 40 deaths over the four days.

Furthermore, three pro- ISIL students were detained by police after a quarrel erupted between pro-ISIL students and anti-ISIL students at İstanbul University on Oct. 1.

Riot police units and riot-control vehicles (TOMA) were sent to İstanbul University's faculty of science and letters following the quarrel on Oct. 1. The police detained three pro-ISIL students who had their faces covered, were wearing black hats and were holding sticks in their hands. As the students were taken to the police vehicles, they shouted phrases like “We are Muslim students!”

I guess that sense that there's no support for ISIL in Turkey might be a tad less calming, ey?

Looks like another ISIS-ite came out of the wood work in NYC.

In addition to it moving to the back pages, there's some promising signs -

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/...in_syria_fight

Iraqi Kurds Arrive in Turkey to Join Syria Fight
Iraqi Kurdish forces have arrived in Turkey on their way to fight Islamic State militants in neighboring Syria. The Turkish government is opening its border to the Iraqi Pershmerga to help break the ISIS siege of the town of Kobani.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...-enters-kobani

First reinforcement of Syrian opposition fighters enters Kobani

Beirut, Oct 29 (EFE).- The first reinforcement of fighters from the Syrian opposition forces, or Free Syrian Army, entered the Syrian Kurdish enclave of Kobani on Wednesday to defend the town against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR)reported.

The SOHR said that the 50 fighters, along with their weapons, entered the northern town through the Syrian-Turkish border.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0SO2T020141029

UPDATE 2-Iraqi forces advance in new bid to end Baiji refinery siege

BAGHDAD, Oct 29 (Reuters) - Iraqi security forces said they advanced to within 2 km (1.2 miles) of the city of Baiji on Wednesday in a new offensive to retake the country's biggest oil refinery, besieged since June by Islamic State militants.

Backed by Shi'ite militias and army helicopters, government forces have swept through a desert area to the west of Baiji, aiming to recapture the city 200 km (130 miles) north of the capital.

They hope to cut off supply lines to militants encircling the refinery and gain control of a road leading to Mosul, the biggest city in the north, an army colonel told Reuters.
.
.
.
Government forces inside the refinery complex have been surrounded by the Sunni insurgents who have failed to take it despite frequent attacks and suicide bombings.

The Iraqi government and its allies from the autonomous Kurdish region have been advancing to recapture territory in the north in recent weeks, aided by air strikes from a U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State targets in both Iraq and Syria.

"We have made good advances. We have taken over six villages and now we are only 2 km away from the city of Baiji," said the colonel, who requested anonymity.

Islamic State has used roadside bombs and snipers to slow down the government forces' progress.

"Since yesterday morning we have defused 300 roadside bombs planted by the terrorists to delay our advance," the colonel said.

And a sure sign, almost like clockwork, is when folks start talking military victories alone can't win the day -

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World...uel-extremism/

U.N. warns purely military response in Syria could fuel extremism

And even some promise on the kill-'em-there-instead-of-here front -

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World...East--reports/

Mastermind of failed Australia beheading plot killed in Middle East - reports

Wake me when we're in Mosul.