ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq/Syria/Levant)

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay I've been looking and listening to the mayhem coming out of the growth of the ISIS civil insurrection in Iraq. There is a serious issue at hand here. Are we looking at the birth of an Islamic Caliphate that is about to take a HUGE bite out of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. They, ISIS, have seized assets (banks), and pretty much oil industry infrastructure element they have gotten control of. This isn't a sectarian uprising, this is the birth of a new state. One that could be vastly expansionist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-insurgents-reaping-wealth-as-they-advance.html

As we sit here and waffle over the mess the US made.. and yes we did. Our lack of action in Syria and the waffling over Iraq is leading to one of the biggest and extreme elements of the Islamic world. No one.. the US, the EU and most particularly the future neighbors of this country, will be safe if it comes to be.

They are going to take a HUGE bite of Syria and Iraq..odds are if they do.. the Kurds will form their own separate nation (I got mixed feelings on that) and that would lead to even more destabilization in the region as Turkey and Iran move to further squash their own Kurdish elements. Meanwhile the newly born ISIS nation will be moving out further and taking bites of Lebanon (if they don't in their first move to nationhood).

I think in the next 5 to 10 years.. we'll see a new nation that is more than happy to raise the banner of an Islamic Nation state that will more than happy to start a cycle of destabilizing their neighbors and expanding outward.

Note: I'm not sure that I'm too clear in how I'm putting it out.. but it seems like there is a core of leaders who seem to have a long range plan to make their own nation and aren't quite ready to step up and actually declare it.

[Shjade]

I think in the next 5 to 10 years.. we'll see a new nation that is more than happy to raise the banner of an Islamic Nation state that will more than happy to start a cycle of destabilizing their neighbors and expanding outward.

I'm a little unclear here: do you think establishing an Islamic nation-state is a bad thing as well as forming one that may destabilize the region, or is it just the instability you're worried about?

One of these seems like a valid concern. The other does not.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm a little unclear here: do you think establishing an Islamic nation-state is a bad thing as well as forming one that may destabilize the region, or is it just the instability you're worried about?

One of these seems like a valid concern. The other does not.

I'm thinking THIS state is a problem. There is a concrete and clear plan to take advantage of the instability of the region in what could be called a 'land grab'. I mean we are talking about the seizing of assets, 'taxes' for anyone not of 'our type' and a very strong group of organized fighters who are quite savvy in how they promote their actions.

They are doing quite well, taking advantage of the Syrian AND Iraqi situation to build what could easily be called a 'bandit kingdom' out of both unstable states and are moving towards a full on expansionist nation with a HUGE budget. There are reports as much as 85 MILLION dollars being seized from elements from within the area. The last time a group like this got such a big bit of 'unattached' capital (ie.. not donations from through out the arab world) was the PLO.. who according to some reports took a WEEK to rob the British Bank of the Middle East (with assistance from the Mafia and Lebonese groups) in 1976.

ISIS is quickly moving past the title of 'Terrorist group/organization' to 'Terrorist State' proper. As in an established government. Outlaw or otherwise. Look at other areas in the region. There is no small measure of instability in Lebanon, Syria is possibly on it's last legs and if the Iraqi Kurds pull out of the Iraqi government and found their own state, there will be Kurd groups in Turkey and Iran who will instigate to do the same. ISIS has in the past year moved to agitate and continue issues in regions they were targeting and I don't see them not continuing to destablize any area they think they can get. Which means Syria, Lebanon and any parts of Iraq they can get and I could easily see them looking down the road in 5 to 10 years of a doing a 'second wave' of 'organized insurrections' in Jordan and Kuwait.

Iran.. I think they would lose in that conflict but I'm not in the know as clearly as the ISIS leadership is.

[Retribution]

I am not sure an Islamic state is a bad thing as I feel the popularity of groups like ISIS is largely a result of displaced people. Having said that I am with you on this bunch likely destabilizing their neighbors. One part of me says this bunch needs fought, another part says you know maybe the US and the west should let those in the Middle East sort out their own affairs. I am honestly torn about what I think about it.

On other notes I was reading an article the other day and wish to hell I could find it again to link. I cannot recall if it was on Slate or CNN. In essence, the article said ISIS is violating Bin Laden's principles and that they will live to regret it. The gist was that despite being a homicidal maniac Bin Laden took pains to hide certain brutalities within the future Islamic state that he envisioned because he knew popular resistance would thwart him in establishment of said state if he did not. So he wished to hide what was ultimately going to develop until it was too late. The author argued ISIS is not hiding those facts and thus things are destined to blow up in their faces. I do not know if he is right or not but it sounded plausible. I wish I could find the article again but I have had no luck. It was one of those things I glanced at on my phone and now have no clue where it is.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, I think it looks really unsettling. They are plainly making their victims poster children of their brutalities, flaunting how far they are ready to go even on home ground and against fellow Arabs, Iraqis, Syrians and Muslims. These mass executions of Arabs shown on their *own* video clips look like just the beginning. A few weeks ago there were reports of other Iraqi civilians, both Muslims an Christians, getting executed by ISIS - crucified, according to some sources nearby.  :o Civil wars always tend to be ugly, there were fearful massacres in 1930s Spain, 1960s Indonesia and revolutionary Russia as well, but they are rarely shown up to the whole world by the perpetrators like this.

It would be both destabilizing and a boost to other terrorist movements (incluing al-Qaeda). And if they actually would manage to take Baghdad it would spell a massive loss of credibility for the U.S. - basically the outcome of all that's happened to skyrocketing costs in lives and money since 2003 would seem to be a new dictator, worse than the last one and even more unpredictable (perhaps not as stable a system as Saddam's, but who would want to try their muscles...?)

[Deamonbane]

I know this is gonna sound cliche but... yeah, this is the US's fault.

See, there are three different religious... groups, shall we say, in Iraq (the names of which escape me at the moment), on of which is a majority, with the other two being large minorities. When the US instituted a 'democracy' of course the first thing that they did was to run elections, of which this majority won. This president, which is a part of the majority, of course, made sure that all the officials that he put in place were of the same majority, while influencing the police to investigate and imprison the politicians of the two minorities. Slowly, this meant that the other two minorities had little say in how they were governed. They took this as far as they could, and then decided that enough was enough, so they began taking their land back by force.

One of the minorities moved through lands occupied by their people like a knife through butter, with the Iraqi army running from them, because, well they didn't really care about this land. But as soon as the rebels reached lands held by the people that supported the government, they stopped. Why, because with no support, as well as the army now fighting tooth and toenail to keep these lands, they wouldn't get very far. The second minority suddenly decided that they wanted a piece of the action too, and started taking their own lands back as well.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I know this is gonna sound cliche but... yeah, this is the US's fault.

See, there are three different religious... groups, shall we say, in Iraq (the names of which escape me at the moment), on of which is a majority, with the other two being large minorities. When the US instituted a 'democracy' of course the first thing that they did was to run elections, of which this majority won. This president, which is a part of the majority, of course, made sure that all the officials that he put in place were of the same majority, while influencing the police to investigate and imprison the politicians of the two minorities. Slowly, this meant that the other two minorities had little say in how they were governed. They took this as far as they could, and then decided that enough was enough, so they began taking their land back by force.

This is basically true,  happening after the U.S.'s hasty withdraw from the country with no real plan.  From what I understand, our ambassador had been keeping the Iraqi president honest, making sure that he worked to integrate the three sects into the government and military.  Once we left, Malaki(sp?) was left to his own devices and began to purge the minorities.  Regardless of onyone's views on whether the war should have begun, it can be fairly stated that the area had begun to stabilize at the time of our withdraw.  Bush was wrong about many things, but even he saw that if we didn't leave some sort of force akin to what is still in Germany and Japan that we likely faced the prospect of sending troops back in in the years to come.  Now we have something like 300 'advisors' there with the situation looking eerily like the origins of Vietnam. 

[gaggedLouise]

Bush was wrong about many things, but even he saw that if we didn't leave some sort of force akin to what is still in Germany and Japan that we likely faced the prospect of sending troops back in in the years to come.  Now we have something like 300 'advisors' there with the situation looking eerily like the origins of Vietnam.

*worried nod* Yes, and isn't "military advisors" sometimes a cover name for combat-ready soldiers and officers? I have a feeling we may get to see some attempts to repost US troops inside Iraq, only under a different designation. And God forbid, that might turn out a necessary thing to do.

Oh the irony.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well ISIS declared the existance of the 'Islamic State' over the weekend and said they wouldn't respect 'other borders' as well.

One comment I heard in several articles particularly worries me.

"The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."

http://online.wsj.com/articles/isis-declares-new-islamist-caliphate-1404065263


I also find it ironic, given the last Caliphates were more tolerant of others and had separation of Religion and State.

[Zakharra]

Well ISIS declared the existance of the 'Islamic State' over the weekend and said they wouldn't respect 'other borders' as well.

One comment I heard in several articles particularly worries me.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/isis-declares-new-islamist-caliphate-1404065263


I also find it ironic, given the last Caliphates were more tolerant of others and had separation of Religion and State.

ISIS game plan in about 5 years.

I find it laughable that they think they can succeed without killing a LOT of fellow muslims. Or without getting Russia and China, India and Israel, as well as Indonesia pissed off.  Those are nations that will react violently if ISIS tried to take the land they have.

You mean the Ottoman Empire?

[Oniya]

I doubt that Greece is going to just sit back and take it either.  Last I heard, the Greek Orthodox Church was still kind of a big thing in that region.  [/understatement]

[Formless]

ISIS game plan in about 5 years.

I find it laughable that they think they can succeed without killing a LOT of fellow muslims. Or without getting Russia and China, India and Israel, as well as Indonesia pissed off.  Those are nations that will react violently if ISIS tried to take the land they have.

You mean the Ottoman Empire?

Assuming they can actually maintain a stable hold from within.

The only thing I'll say about this matter is ... They won't last. Sooner than later an inner conflict will occur and they will sabotage each others. History retold.

[Oniya]

Intercontinental empires have always been a real problem to manage, and even in these days of supersonic jets and high speed communication infrastructures, it would still be a lot of work - and that's not even factoring in that some of the citizenry in the affected area might not welcome being assimilated.  Taking an empire by force is asking for trouble.

[gaggedLouise]

*nods to Oniya* I don't see them building a modern navy (military and trade) or air force that fast either - even if they'd have lots of oil, assuming they'd take the Gulf states (?), Iran (??), Saudi Arabia (?? ?) and so on.  ;)

[Moraline]

Interestingly, even the Ottoman Empire wasn't able to control that much land. At it's height it never was able to control it. That empire even had a history of hundreds of years.


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

I think if ISIS was less greedy though and decided to sure up their defenses where they are right now, they could conceivably become a new power in the middle east. 

Instead, I agree with others here. They are going to sabotage themselves and fall apart like all of these terrorist organizations do. Organizations/Tribes/Governments in the region have always had to many quarrels amongst each other (within their own factions), ISIS is nothing more then another extension of this old cycle. It will fall apart very soon. I'm just hoping that they don't drag Iran and Israel into it before they do. If the big boys come out to play then things will get really ugly, really fast.

[Oniya]

Yeah, I thought Zakharra's map of the 'proposed gains' looked a little on the ambitious side, especially with a five-year timeline.  I was also comparing it to the British Empire, the former Soviet Union, and the various Roman empires (Holy and otherwise) as far as size and stability were concerned.  There is such a thing as 'too big'.

[gaggedLouise]

Yeah, I thought Zakharra's map of the 'proposed gains' looked a little on the ambitious side, especially with a five-year timeline.  I was also comparing it to the British Empire, the former Soviet Union, and the various Roman empires (Holy and otherwise) as far as size and stability were concerned.  There is such a thing as 'too big'.

Seems it made it onto ABC News though (not saying that it isn't newsworthy when such a map gets published, but it should be taken as the propaganda waffling it is).

I have a feeling Crimea, Spain and Austria are not on the plate for ISIS either.

[Zakharra]

Yeah, I thought Zakharra's map of the 'proposed gains' looked a little on the ambitious side, especially with a five-year timeline.  I was also comparing it to the British Empire, the former Soviet Union, and the various Roman empires (Holy and otherwise) as far as size and stability were concerned.  There is such a thing as 'too big'.

Heh. Oh yeah is that overly ambitious. If they manage to take and hold onto Iraq and Syria, they will be ripped to shreds if they try to take on Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Israel and Russia. They'd have to defeat a lot of fairly powerful nations to get what they want and hold it, not mentioning that Turkey and Spain are EU and NATO members.  Pardon my language, but that's a shit storm waiting to be unleashed on the 'Caliphate' and I don;t see any way it would survive intact.

[Sabre]

ISIS game plan in about 5 years.

I find it laughable that they think they can succeed without killing a LOT of fellow muslims. Or without getting Russia and China, India and Israel, as well as Indonesia pissed off.  Those are nations that will react violently if ISIS tried to take the land they have.

You mean the Ottoman Empire?

It's not an actual plan. It's PR and propaganda meant to bolster their image as the new vanguard of the Revolution (R). They've been pumping out videos and songs like crazy lately for the sole purpose of self-branding themselves as the freshest faces with the shiniest toys and purest motivations. They do this because they've lost the Al Qaeda brand recognition and have been stuck fighting other Sunni Islamist groups in Syria.

It's why they saw their chance in attacking Lebanon and Iraq and took it, using it to grandstand and rewrite their own image.

The map is meant to invoke Islamist propaganda about the Golden Age that groups like the ISIS are claiming to restore, thus attracting sympathy from radical youth who've grown up with the message in the past decade. It's nothing but clickbait meant to spread their self-aggrandizing myth, and not a detailed or well-researched strategy for world domination. Some guy on his off day in an ISIS camp probably made it, and it went viral within their own webrings, and everyone else eats it up because it's sensational.

[Oniya]

Some guy on his off day in an ISIS camp probably made it, and it went viral within their own webrings, and everyone else eats it up because it's sensational.

Sounds about right.

[gaggedLouise]

The growth outlined on that map would make the Caliphate the biggest country in the entire world, or almost ( I think it's larger than Russia) and the third largest by population. And conditions within that state would be half medieval for a big part of the population, especially women and slaves.

Hmmm...better stick to realities. They're grim enough.

[Zakharra]

It's not an actual plan. It's PR and propaganda meant to bolster their image as the new vanguard of the Revolution (R). They've been pumping out videos and songs like crazy lately for the sole purpose of self-branding themselves as the freshest faces with the shiniest toys and purest motivations. They do this because they've lost the Al Qaeda brand recognition and have been stuck fighting other Sunni Islamist groups in Syria.

It's why they saw their chance in attacking Lebanon and Iraq and took it, using it to grandstand and rewrite their own image.

The map is meant to invoke Islamist propaganda about the Golden Age that groups like the ISIS are claiming to restore, thus attracting sympathy from radical youth who've grown up with the message in the past decade. It's nothing but clickbait meant to spread their self-aggrandizing myth, and not a detailed or well-researched strategy for world domination. Some guy on his off day in an ISIS camp probably made it, and it went viral within their own webrings, and everyone else eats it up because it's sensational.

Oh, no doubt about that. I figure pretty much anything coming from nutcases like them is propaganda, but I'm not discounting that is where they'd like to be in 5 years. Even if it is a million to one shot.  Too many people there hate their neighbors for there to ever be a really civilized place there.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think they will try. I see them doing what a LOT of leaders before them wanted to do. To set up a strong islamic state.

I know Iran respects/fears them enough to work with the Iraqi leadership. I know that right now.. Syria and Iraq are unstable enough to take a bite or two more before they run into a wall. They were strong enough to sell Syria their own damn oil last summer. (they did that while they were attacking them)

Do I think they are collected and coordinated enough to pull it off? No. Do I think that it could be a true Terrorist State? Oh yeah. I think they are a massively destabilizing element within the region. Majorly.

I also think they are going to be a self-sustaining terrorist organization who now has BILLIONS in capital assets. That scares the hell out of me.

[Maiz]

ISIS game plan in about 5 years.

I find it laughable that they think they can succeed without killing a LOT of fellow muslims. Or without getting Russia and China, India and Israel, as well as Indonesia pissed off.  Those are nations that will react violently if ISIS tried to take the land they have.

You mean the Ottoman Empire?

I know people loooooove to be super reactionary and speculate and all that shit but this map is fake as hell and put out by a right wing fascist group who have posted the following tweets+more racist and anti-semetic bullshit:

Just remember, #WhiteMan. Tens of thousands of these possibly infected #Africans are pouring into #Europe in its Southern regions.
#Germany overthrew its overlords. It adopted a seperate banking system outside Jewish cartel influence. That is why we made war.. @coultek
#WWII was not about "muh freedoms." It was about #Germany wanting independence from a banking system not in its interests. @coultek

https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484124314115899393
https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484012587017699329
https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484012997342294016

http://io9.com/that-isis-caliphate-map-is-bogus-so-stop-freaking-ou-1598657469
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-five-year-expansion-map-is-fake-2014-7
http://qz.com/228833/dont-believe-the-people-telling-you-to-freak-out-over-this-isil-map/

Basic research, kiddos.

[Neysha]

Well if ISIS wants to seize Baghdad, there is no time that's going to be better then soon.

The Iraqi Army is in complete disarray, the United States, which besides maybe Iran, is the only foreign power with enough capability to force a change in momentum, is dragging its feet on even considering airstrikes, or even in expedited sale of things like Cessna airplanes and Hellfire missiles, and the Shia and Kurdish factions, thanks to the irresponsible leadership of Nouri al-Maliki, are still at each others throats almost as much as they are against facing ISIS. With the Northern and Western approaches to Baghdad under threat, that means ISIS only needs to seize the southern approaches. However those are still under the implicit control of Sunni tribes who as of yet remain loyal (or at least neutral) to the current Iraqi government.

In order to effectively cut off Baghdad, a city of nine million people, ISIS is going to have to either persuade or assassinate their way into convincing these Sunni tribes south of Baghdad to switch sides. When that is done, Baghdad will be essentially cutoff, except for the roads southeast leading to Al Kut... which have to cross bridges. But you don't need to surround a city completely to starve it into submission. With the Anbar largely under their control, with them in control of Tikrit (all reports made by the IA are along the level of Baghdad Bob levels of ridicule), Fallujah, threatening Samarrah and in Baqubah means they have essentially cut off Baghdad from the North and Western approaches. They are able to directly threaten not only the huuuuuge military base in Balad but also the Baghdad International Airport. That means that Maliki's whining and desperate pleas for Russian Su-25's and American F-16's, even if they do become answered, will mean jack squat since they won't have an immediate base to operate from. Combine that with the fact ISIS has captured lots of IA artillery and Scud missile launchers as well as surface to air missiles means they don't even have to take over such places in order to threaten them. ISIS already controls a large portion of the electricity and power, as well as water and domestic gasoline sources for Baghdad and the rest of the country, the cordon will just seal the deal.

ISIS doesn't even have to capture all of Baghdad, just besiege it with a cordon around most of the city, and then the mere fact that the city is under threat means it'll be an ulcer for the Iraqi government to solve, and thus allow ISIS to consolidate it's power in Northern and Western Iraq, regardless of whether Baghdad is ultimately captured or not. And then, I doubt even the direct involvement of the Iranian military will be able to change anything.

[Vekseid]

I know people loooooove to be super reactionary and speculate and all that shit but this map is fake as hell and put out by a right wing fascist group who have posted the following tweets+more racist and anti-semetic bullshit:https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484124314115899393
https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484012587017699329
https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/484012997342294016

http://io9.com/that-isis-caliphate-map-is-bogus-so-stop-freaking-ou-1598657469
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-five-year-expansion-map-is-fake-2014-7
http://qz.com/228833/dont-believe-the-people-telling-you-to-freak-out-over-this-isil-map/

Basic research, kiddos.

To top that off...

Attacking both NATO and BRIC?

[Monkeys Razor]

To top that off...

Attacking both NATO and BRIC?

I can't see ISIS even lasting in Iraq let alone expanding, and I am a right winger.

[Neysha]

Whose going to extricate ISIS from Iraq then?

[Monkeys Razor]

Whose going to extricate ISIS from Iraq then?

Were you asking me?

[Callie Del Noire]

Were you asking me?

The point she is trying to make is we have possibly the most radical Islamic Terrorist organization EVER nearly hitting critical mass and becoming a full fledged militantly agressive state, via taking a big bite out of two unstable countries.

Put another way. Six or seven  years ago..ISIS didn't exist, they were a sub branch of Bin Laden's group. Last summer, they were strong enough to sell Syrian oil to the Assad regime. That is right, they were raising capital by selling oil to the same people they were fighting. Today, they have some where north of two BILLION dollars in capital. That means, unlike Al Qaida, they are fiscally reliant on NO ONE. All the radical Saudi, Iranian, Jordanian, ECT clerics that used money as a lever to manipulate events in the region via terrorism can be told to pound sand. ISIS is truly self guiding, obligated to no one.

Already, they are claiming Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in part or whole as theirs. In addition to doing the standard 'We hate Israel', they have also made it abundantly clear they will crush Hammas as well. Best parallel I can think of..well truth be told.. I can't at the moment. They have tentatively asserted they will be the unifying group for Islam. IE.. Follow OUR ways or be declared an enemy of the faith and put to the sword.

For a perspective of how deep the shit is getting..IRAN gave IRAQ JETS to fight them. The same country that was working to destabilize northern Iraq less than five years ago is supporting, advising and supplying them.

IF Iran had a nuke right now, it would be a hard call between using it on Tel Aviv or a location they knew where the leadership of ISIS is.

What we, and the rest of the western world, should be doing right now is trying to build a coalition group to help Iraq and setting up a properly stable and balanced government like we should have done in the first place instead of foolishly thinking we could dash in and out in less than a generation

If we don't.. Well I think we will be looking at decades of civil wars throughout the Middle East. And easily loss of life into the millions.

[Monkeys Razor]

The point she is trying to make is we have possibly the most radical Islamic Terrorist organization EVER nearly hitting critical mass and becoming a full fledged militantly agressive state, via taking a big bite out of two unstable countries.

Put another way. Six or seven  years ago..ISIS didn't exist, they were a sub branch of Bin Laden's group. Last summer, they were strong enough to sell Syrian oil to the Assad regime. That is right, they were raising capital by selling oil to the same people they were fighting. Today, they have some where north of two BILLION dollars in capital. That means, unlike Al Qaida, they are fiscally reliant on NO ONE. All the radical Saudi, Iranian, Jordanian, ECT clerics that used money as a lever to manipulate events in the region via terrorism can be told to pound sand. ISIS is truly self guiding, obligated to no one.

Already, they are claiming Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in part or whole as theirs. In addition to doing the standard 'We hate Israel', they have also made it abundantly clear they will crush Hammas as well. Best parallel I can think of..well truth be told.. I can't at the moment. They have tentatively asserted they will be the unifying group for Islam. IE.. Follow OUR ways or be declared an enemy of the faith and put to the sword.

For a perspective of how deep the shit is getting..IRAN gave IRAQ JETS to fight them. The same country that was working to destabilize northern Iraq less than five years ago is supporting, advising and supplying them.

IF Iran had a nuke right now, it would be a hard call between using it on Tel Aviv or a location they knew where the leadership of ISIS is.

What we, and the rest of the western world, should be doing right now is trying to build a coalition group to help Iraq and setting up a properly stable and balanced government like we should have done in the first place instead of foolishly thinking we could dash in and out in less than a generation

If we don't.. Well I think we will be looking at decades of civil wars throughout the Middle East. And easily loss of life into the millions.

Firstly I just wasn't sure if she was addressing me or not so I asked. :-)

And yes I do agree something needs to be done and although I didn't support the whole war against WMD's once they went in they should have stayed to finish the job and maintain a force in the country to rebuild and stabilize the nation. That said it will be interesting to see what happens next, I can a mixed force of Middle Eastern countries and the USA/NATO going in again or some kind of operation to keep ISIS hemmed in.

Nuking the leadership of ISIS wouldn't work, just like we saw with the death of Bin Laden and Hussein there is always someone else and usually someone worse to take over once they are gone.

That is why a force should have been kept in the country long term rather than being pulled out, the same will happen in Afghanistan.

[Neysha]

Yes, unfortunately Nouri al-Maliki decided to have a conscious uncoupling with the United States in not agreeing to a SOFA to allow our troops to remain there. And then within a week of the US depature, he sent tanks to arrest the Sunni Vice President and began the process of purging the military and police of US trained officers, of Sunni Awakening Council and Concerned Local Citizen aligned groups who were Sunni and replaced them with officers who depended more on loyalty and nepotism. PM Maliki seemed to assume that the US support of Iraq was somehow unconditional only to find out it actually wasn't. He thought that threatening to end ten billion dollars worth of arms contracts to Iraq was something the US wouldn't risk losing. He was wrong about that too.

Now he's incapable of bringing the Kurds, instead his power bloc is accusing them of collusion, and due to oil disputes, hasn't released to the Kurds their portion of the budget even now. And in desperation he's gone to Iran for support, not realizing that just because they are 'co-religionists' that Iraqi Shia are also highly nationalistic and don't want to be puppets to Iran anymore then they want to suffer the Americans or Sunnis again. Maliki a few days ago had a confrontation with a Conservative Shia cleric, Sarkhi Hasani in parliament. The disputes, apparently Iranian related (in that Hasani is anti-Iranian and Maliki is pro-Iranian) resulted in violent clashes in Karbala and Baghdad.

[gaggedLouise]

*nods at Neysha* Ukraine; Iraq, Syia and ISIS; Japan deciding to take a more active role in its on defences and stepping up to have a real army again - does look like 2014 will be the year when the "post-Cold-War" era of half-peace and no one wanting to make too much of a loud rustle came to an end.

[Monkeys Razor]

*nods at Neysha* Ukraine; Iraq, Syia and ISIS; Japan deciding to take a more active role in its on defences and stepping up to have a real army again - does look like 2014 will be the year when the "post-Cold-War" era of half-peace and no one wanting to make too much of a loud rustle came to an end.

The whole "half peace" thing is why we have the problems we have I agree with you. The way the west has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular doesn't achieve anything in the end as they do not want to look like invaders but they aren't liberators either they are just seeing the seeds for more trouble in the future.

[HannibalBarca]

One thing that would guarantee a multilateral, UN Security Council unanimous vote to invade and crush the Iranian government would be them using any nuke on any target.  No country in the world is safe from nuclear weapons, and the level of pariah status for a nation of Iran's size and power would make its defeat a foregone conclusion at the hands of a coalition of the US, Russia, China--you name it.  Nothing like annihilation to unify considered enemies.

As the preceding is just a response to a conjectured response by Iran to ISIS, I'd rather focus on ISIS.  Setting up a nation-state isn't small change.  They're still a terrorist organization.  They only have less than 40,000 fighters from what I've heard, and they are still defeating the Iraqi Army--not the best morale and leadership around.  When ISIS faces a regional enemy with the will and the determination to defend their homeland, like the Kurds, the Iranians, or Israel...then we'll see what they're made of.

I wonder if they can even shift gears from terrorist operations to the kind of warfare actual national governments use--total war.  Espionage, counterintelligence, wholesale cyberattacks, and the usual conventional warfare based around airpower, not just ground troops.  Once they shift from guerilla tactics to actual masses of infantry or armored vehicles, they are a hard target.  Once they form an actual government and have to base it in a capital in order to exercise their national will, they are a hard target.  That's when Israel and Iran (weird to mention them together, yes?) will hit them hard, and knock them back to the level of a terrorist organization.  I could see the Kurds using that as an excuse to seize more territory for themselves as well.

Of course all of this will destabilize the area; that's a given.  The question is, what will that destabilization result in?  The Arab Spring showed that not all regional destabilization is a bad thing for all states.  The sectarian conflict in the region isn't going away any time, soon, however, and that is the root of all evil there...along with poverty.

[Neysha]

ISIS have been acting more like a proper guerrilla army then the classic insurgency that the US faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they did what they are doing now back when the US was occupying Iraq, they would've been clobbered much like Sadr's Mahdi Army was back in April of 2004 where you had 'battles' between Shia militia and Coalition troops that resulted in hundreds of dead militia and a handful of Coalition casualties. Hence the insurgency was far more dispersed and fluid and essentially 'incapable' of holding territory or fighting anything larger then skirmishes with their adversaries.

What we have here is a guerrilla army that's moved well beyond an insurgency, but still below a conventional force. They're acting like Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War or the Viet Cong/NVA main force units in Vietnam except with a stronger emphasis on terrorism, but still with the capable of fighting actual open battles, holding and seizing territory, and not just infiltrating, but controlling the territory they seize to the extent they are able to enforce law and order, extort taxes, and even engage in resource extraction and offer social services. They've shown they're more then capable of standing toe to toe if not being superior to the Iraqi Army that Maliki has spent the past three years nerfing into uselessness) as well as protecting and battling the Syrian Army, the Peshmerga and rival Syrian rebel groups (the Free Syrian Army, Islamic Front, al-Nusra) rather effectively as long as they are in Sunni-controlled territory.

It seems like ISIS militants, instead of besieging Baghdad, are using the largesse of equipment they've liberated from the Iraqi Army to reinforce their forces in Eastern Syria. Even as we speak, ISIS forces are busy swallowing up the last pockets of resistance along the Syrian portion of the Euphrates River.



That little pocket around Deir ez-Zor is an oil producing area held by the other AQ aligned Syrian Rebel group al-Nusra. But ISIS recently conquered it and drove them out, now they control an extra oil producing area in Eastern Syria. And once the Islamic State ends it's understanding with the Syrian Assad regime (basically... we'll fight other Rebel groups more then the government and you'll pay us above market price for the oil fields of yours that we now control) they'll swallow up the government holdings in Deir-ezzor and essentially have contiguous control over a large swath of Eastern Syria.

[Chulanowa]

While interesting as a case study, ISIS is ultimately nothing, a flash-in-the-pan of opportunism that has no real staying power.

The term "extremist fundamentalist" might be pretty trite-sounding after all this time, but that's a perfectly accurate term for these guys. They're o out-there that they were disowned by Al-Qaeda. AQ, while certainly extremist in its way. envisions a world where it and its affiliates rule over the assorted sects and groups in the middle east with an iron fist. ISIS, on the other hand, envisions a middle east where the only people left alive are sunni salafists, and this al-Baghdadi dude ruling over those. That is obviously untenable and unachievable, especially given where the group is operating.

And with fundamentalists... the whole idea of fundamentalism, of any flavor is "I'm more 'pure' than the guy next to me." And hte more hardcore the fundamentalism ,the bigger the divisions caused by even minor differences of opinion. Let ISIS squat over its territorial gains for three months and they'll basically dissolve into about thirteen different armed gangs intent on murdering each other.

And third, those territorial gains are pure opportunism, rather than an indicator of effectiveness. Syria's forces are naturally focused on the west of the nation which is where most of the activity is, where the important cities are, etc. Eastern Syria's pretty vacant for the most part. Same with northern / Western Iraq, it's not exactly heavily populated and isn't the first concern of the Iraqi government. Also, as we've seen, the Iraqi military is... less than effective. However this is not always going to be the case; Syria is very handily crushing and subsuming the insurgents, and will soon turn its attention West. iraq is getting bolstered by Iran, which has a pretty capable military. To the south, Saudi Arabia has moved its forces to the Iraq border, just in case - and movement against Saudi Arabia is very likely to bring a US response beyond "military advisers."

What we're likely to see is either ISIS self-destructs, or a joint operation by the Arab league states plus Iran and maybe Turkey moves to crush them. either way ISIS and its "caliphate" is not long for the world.

However the repercussions are going to be interesting. The weakness of iraq's government and military has been very painfully demonstrated; in the northern portion of hte country, Kurds are calling for an independence referendum, which may lead to similar moves by Kurds in Syriua, Turkey, and Iran... which could lead to more fighting, obviously. Southern Iraq is further split by this mess, its Shia majority being violently targeted by ISIS, which has the appearance of support from the Sunni community (even if it's not actually supported by them). It's anyone's guess whether Iraq remains "Iraq" or is split into two or three states.

Syria and Iran are going to come out of this with very solid gains; Assad in Damascus will have affirmed his authority over Syria and achieved a place of political prominence that may lead to renewed diplomatic pressure on Israel with regard to GOlan - it's unlikley to become military, as Assad's been very adamant in the past about that being a diplomatic issue, and Syria's military will be depleted at this point. Iran however is not likely to take many losses, and will reaffirm its regional power and cultural solidification among the Shia of the Persian gulf area - Iraq, Bahrain, minorities in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.

[HannibalBarca]

That little pocket around Deir ez-Zor is an oil producing area held by the other AQ aligned Syrian Rebel group al-Nusra. But ISIS recently conquered it and drove them out, now they control an extra oil producing area in Eastern Syria. And once the Islamic State ends it's understanding with the Syrian Assad regime (basically... we'll fight other Rebel groups more then the government and you'll pay us above market price for the oil fields of yours that we now control) they'll swallow up the government holdings in Deir-ezzor and essentially have contiguous control over a large swath of Eastern Syria.

What do the purple, yellow, and pink regions represent?  I'm guessing pink is Assad's regime, purple likely the other Islamic militias, and yellow the Free Syrian forces.

It looks like, much as usual happens in such situations, the fractious nature of the various rebel groups does nothing to help them when one begins to get the upper hand.  My question is whether ISIS will seek to conquer the other rebel factions, or attempt to deal a death blow to Assad's forces.  I'm not sure if they're strong enough to do that...yet or ever.  If they are using liberated Iraqi army equipment, it puts them on a better footing to do so...but just owning tanks and APCs doesn't make you an effective armored fighting force.  They need qualified crews for those vehicles and artillery, not to mention a command structure and actual leaders from squadron to division level to make those forces effective in the field.  I can't picture your typical terrorist fighters running armor across Syria and doing anything but being destroyed by experienced tankers in the Syrian Army.  If anything, they should maintain their guerilla tactics...to engage in a conventional battle before their forces are trained up would result in the same kind of ass-kicking the Continentals originally received from the British Army in America...until they were trained up enough and experienced.  Hopefully ISIS is too obsessed with the religious side of their group to pay attention to proper military strategy and tactics.  Considering how they've fared so far, I'm mixed on it.

Honestly, I see Iran coming out ahead in this whole affair more than anyone else.  They really don't have anything to lose, other than their allies in Palestine and Syria suffering through the current crisis.  They may even be able to seize territory from Iraq with no repercussions--is the world really going to put together a coalition to go into Iraq again, this time to push Iran out of it?

No, the only thing I see pushing the world into this is if Iran does the really stupid thing and threatens anybody with nukes.  No fanatic like a religious fanatic--but trust religious fanatics to underestimate the threat secular governments see them as if they go full-on nuclear threat.

While interesting as a case study, ISIS is ultimately nothing, a flash-in-the-pan of opportunism that has no real staying power.

That's what the largest percentage of my opinion falls into as well.  However, even if they ultimately fail, the shockwaves of what they are attempting will shift the paradigm, as far as what religious terrorist groups may try and claim.  Just like Dominionists in the U.S., the Caliphate types aren't going away, at least not until the entire region evolves away from predominantly conservative Islam to some kind of reform version.  Islam has never had a reform like Christianity, and until it does and forms some kind of liberal wing to counteract and counterbalance the conservative branch...this sort of thing will crop up repeatedly.

[gaggedLouise]

One thing that would guarantee a multilateral, UN Security Council unanimous vote to invade and crush the Iranian government would be them using any nuke on any target.  No country in the world is safe from nuclear weapons, and the level of pariah status for a nation of Iran's size and power would make its defeat a foregone conclusion at the hands of a coalition of the US, Russia, China--you name it.  Nothing like annihilation to unify considered enemies.

Not intending to rain on anyone's parade or sidetrack the thread, but Israel has nuclear weapons; practically all security experts and intelligence specialists agree they have had functional nuclear strike capability for a few decades. They have (in the opinion of most experts) hundreds of warheads, very effective missile launching/guiding systems and the best air force in the Middle East. Even if Iran did acquire atomic weapons, there's no way they would catch up with the stock and technical know-how in firing them that Israel has built up, not for many, many years. And many states in the region view Israel as a key enemy (not least Iran, but others too). For well-known reasons, there's never been any UN action to engage with the question of Israeli nukes.

Okay, most UN states (in number) do see Iran as more dangerous and volatile than Israel - or they're allied with countries that are taking that view (many African countries are hooked up with France and so on) but I'm not that sure Russia and China would allow a UN invasion of Iran, a major country and an ally on their own doorstep.

[HannibalBarca]

I think every powerful nation in the world has a vested interest in not letting the nuclear Pandora's Box open, ever.  Once one nation sets one off, the next will be that much easier.  True, Israel has had nukes for a long time...but neither are they a fundamentalist religious state.  And I believe Russia and China would specifically feel threatened by a use of a nuclear weapon from Iran--who would say they wouldn't be next, seeing as they are so close to each other?  Trade and neighborliness aside, all bets are off once your crazy ayatollah starts spouting off about infidels needing to be burned in fire. 

The political fallout (no pun intended) from a nuclear strike by any nation would be severe in the extreme, and it is partially that threat that keeps nations like Iran from using them.  Three times (at least) India and Pakistan have been on the brink of nuclear war, and each time the threats of the rest of the nuclear powers backed them down.  If anything could unify this world against a common threat (if only for that one threat), it would be a rogue state or madman threatening to use atomic weapons.

[Neysha]

What do the purple, yellow, and pink regions represent?  I'm guessing pink is Assad's regime, purple likely the other Islamic militias, and yellow the Free Syrian forces.

Yellow is actually Kurdish control. But yeah, green is the various non-ISIS groups. The Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front and al-Nusra.

[Zakharra]

Yellow is actually Kurdish control. But yeah, green is the various non-ISIS groups. The Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front and al-Nusra.

Are the gray areas ISIS controlled ones?

[Neysha]

Though nothing to "confirm" what is probably obvious... the Iraqi Armies armored counterattack to retake Tikrit, despite Iraqi reports to the contrary, have failed.



Bet Maliki wished he didn't remove all of those American trained officers and replace them with pathetic cronies and political parasites.

Are the gray areas ISIS controlled ones?

Yes they are.

[Neysha]

Dun Dun Dunnn...

Iraq chases Baghdad sleeper cells as ‘Zero Hour’ looms over capital



Iraqi insurgents are preparing for an assault on Baghdad, with sleeper cells planted inside the capital to rise up at "Zero Hour" and aid fighters pushing in from the outskirts, according to senior Iraqi and U.S. security officials.

Sunni fighters have seized wide swathes of the north and west of the country in a three week lightning advance and say they are bearing down on the capital, a city of 7 million people still scarred by the intense street fighting between its Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods during U.S. occupation.

The government says it is rounding up members of sleeper cells to help safeguard the capital, and Shi'ite paramilitary groups say they are helping the authorities. Some Sunni residents say the crackdown is being used to intimidate them.

Iraqis speak of a "Zero Hour" as the moment a previously-prepared attack plan would start to unfold.

A high-level Iraqi security official estimated there were 1,500 sleeper cell members hibernating in western Baghdad and a further 1,000 in areas on the outskirts of the capital.
He said their goal was to penetrate the U.S.-made "Green Zone" - a fortified enclave of government buildings on the west bank of the Tigris - as a propaganda victory and then carve out enclaves in west Baghdad and in outlying areas.

"There are so many sleeper cells in Baghdad," the official said. "They will seize an area and won't let anyone take it back... In western Baghdad, they are ready and prepared."

A man who describes himself as a member of one such cell, originally from Anbar province, the mainly Sunni Western area that has been a heartland of the insurgency, said he has been working in Baghdad as a laborer while secretly coordinating intelligence for his group of Sunni fighters. The attack on the capital will come soon, said the man, who asked to be called Abu Ahmed.

"We are ready. It can come any minute," he told Reuters during a meeting in a public place, glancing nervously around to see if anyone was watching. "We will have some surprises," he said. He pulled his baseball cap down tight on his face and stopped speaking anytime a stranger approached.

A portly man in his mid-30s wearing a striped sports shirt, the man said he fought as part of an insurgent group called the 1920 Revolution Brigades during the U.S. occupation and was jailed by the Iraqi government from 2007-2009. He gave up fighting in 2010, tired from war and relatively optimistic about the future. But last year, he took up arms again out of anger at a crackdown against Sunni protesters by the Shi'ite-led government, joining the Military Council, a loose federation of Sunni armed groups and tribal fighters that has since emerged as a full-fledged insurgent umbrella group. While it was not possible to verify all details of his story, Reuters reporters are confident of his identity.

Like many Sunni fighters, Abu Ahmed is not a member of the al-Qaeda offshoot once known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and is ambivalent about the group which launched the latest uprising by seizing the main northern city Mosul on June 10 and shortened its name this week to the Islamic State.

Abu Ahmed said his own group, which includes former officers in Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein's disbanded army, supports some aims of ISIS. "There are some good members of ISIS and some bad," he said. Of the good ones: "We have the same cause."

The government says it can protect the capital and has spies who are tracking sleeper agents like Abu Ahmed to round them up.
"We have ample security plans. The sleeper cells are not only in Baghdad but in all other provinces and they are waiting for any chance to carry out attacks," said Lieutenant-General Qassim Atta, the prime minister's military spokesman.
"We keep those cells under careful and daily scrutiny and follow up. We have arrested some of them. We have dispatched intelligence members to follow up those cells closely and we have special plans to counter their activities."

An attempt to take Baghdad, a majority Shi'ite city with heavily fortified areas, would be a huge task for a rebellion that has so far concentrated on controlling Sunni areas. Many Baghdadis, Sunnis as well as Shiites, say they would fight an insurgency led by militants who want to establish a caliphate. Millions of people fled the capital and millions more fled homes within it, turning previously mixed neighborhoods into fortresses dominated by one sect or the other.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said Washington had evidence that ISIS was in the process of configuring its forces for a Baghdad assault using a plan that would include coordinated ISIS suicide strikes. However, other U.S. officials believe ISIS could overextend itself were it to try to take all of Baghdad. They say the more likely scenario would be for fighters to seize a Sunni district and cause disruption with bomb attacks.

"We will receive orders about Zero Hour," said Abu Sa'da, an ISIS fighter reached by telephone in Mosul. He said the group had cells in Baghdad and communicated with them by e-mail despite the government's sporadic blocking of Internet in an effort to disrupt the militants.

For now, it is a cat and mouse game in the city. Abu Ahmed said the insurgency had agents in the Iraqi security forces, government ministries and inside the Green Zone. Men like him try to dodge an intensified campaign by the security forces and Shi'ite militias to round up conspirators.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/03/Iraq-chases-Baghdad-sleeper-cells-as-Zero-Hour-looms-over-capital.html

Guess we'll be seeing in the next few days whether ISIS will actually assault Baghdad, simply besiege it or not even seriously threaten it at all. (beyond terrorist style attacks)

[Neysha]

Some new developments on the Islamic State front:

First, the Islamic State has taken over the Mosul Museum, which is housing countless antiquities.

Second, the Iraqi Parliament has decided to reconvene on August 12th... supposedly due to political difficulties. No rush or anything, they need plenty of time to gather up their things (like looted wealth) and prepare to reconvene somewhere more secure... like Monaco. ::)

Thirdly, the Islamic State is an equal opportunity destroyer of religious shrines, whether Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Christian!

[gaggedLouise]

Some new developments on the Islamic State front:

First, the Islamic State has taken over the Mosul Museum, which is housing countless antiquities.

Second, the Iraqi Parliament has decided to reconvene on August 12th... supposedly due to political difficulties. No rush or anything, they need plenty of time to gather up their things (like looted wealth) and prepare to reconvene somewhere more secure... like Monaco. ::)

Thirdly, the Islamic State is an equal opportunity destroyer of religious shrines, whether Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Christian!

*sigh* They may likely be fighting over Babylon as well as Baghdad within a few weeks. (Babylon is close to the Shi'ite holy city of Karbala, a place ISIS would be very committed to taking, and there's already been fighting reported nearby)

[Neysha]

In case any of you were wondering what's happened in the past week, nothing good. While Gaza/Israel has been dominating world news (for inane reasons IMHO) the important conflict in Iraq has fallen by the wayside.

The prognosis still isn't good. The Iraqis, as I just saw on Al Jazeera, have claimed to have captured Tikrit (a third time in the past month they made that claim) but the truth is far more grim. Since the April Northern Iraq Offensives, essentially four entire Iraqi Army divisions have been destroyed due to battle and desertion. The Iraqi government is about to lose Haditha and Ramadi, which are both basically surrounded. Samarra, a largely Shia city north of Baghdad, is being held by large numbers of untrained, lightly equipped Shia militias (who have had great success massacring Sunni prisoners) who in other theaters (such as the numerous failed offensives to retake Tikrit) have shown to be nothing more then cannon fodder against veteran Islamic State militants. Twitter is literally full of pictures of Shia militiamen who can't flee fast enough simply having their corpses littering the battlefield or being captured by the dozen.

So basically, Haditha and Ramadi are about to fall, and Samarra may fall sooner or later, and after that, a siege of Baghdad can be tightened. It's estimated the Islamic State has captured dozens of mortars, roughly fifteen hundred Humvees, four thousand general purpose machine guns and over fifty 155mm howitzers as well as mountains of ammunition and hundreds of other vehicles, such as trucks and jeeps and other light armored vehicles. The situation in Samarra is so desperate that the Iraqi government is deploying police SWAT units to bolster the Shia militia defending that city. But thanks to corruption, incompetence and graft, essentials like food, water, pay and ammunition aren't reaching many deployed ISF and militia forces and they have to depend on the charity of the locals to supply them.

The Iranians are already there, they've already lost a pilot and two IRGC "advisors" in combat. But it seems the insertion of Iraqi Shia volunteers who fought in the Syrian Civil War and Iranian "advisors" and airpower hasn't done much to change the balance. It's doubtful if the new purchase of Russian helicopters, jets and so forth. Meanwhile the US advisers dispatched to Iraq are finishing their assessment of what the Iraqi Armed Forces need to help stem the tide of the Islamic State. Also, in case Baghdad is threatened, the United States has a brigades worth of US Marines stationed in the Persian Gulf, as well as an aircraft carrier full of jets to likely facilitate a withdrawal of the US Embassy if need be.

[Euron Greyjoy]

Unless  a lot of people from the West leave to join ISIS or convert in masses to Islam while in Europe, I'm not worried about ISIS. However, they should could be a threat if they got a hold of nuke or dirty bomb. ISIS has yet to fight an actual military with their only experience, in fighting Syrian and Iraq government forces. With Assad still president and the fact Iraqi soldiers ran rather than fight, I consider them untested.

[Callie Del Noire]

Unless  a lot of people from the West leave to join ISIS or convert in masses to Islam while in Europe, I'm not worried about ISIS. However, they should could be a threat if they got a hold of nuke or dirty bomb. ISIS has yet to fight an actual military with their only experience, in fighting Syrian and Iraq government forces. With Assad still president and the fact Iraqi soldiers ran rather than fight, I consider them untested.

They, ISIS, are holding a lot of rich territory on both sides of the border. Last summer they sold Assad his OWN oil to keep him going against other groups in Syria.

That tells me they know how to fight their sort of war quite  well. I definitely call veterans of the chetznen, iragi and Syrian conflict as well as other.. Unskilled

[Neysha]

They've fought Iran's Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard in Syria and Iraq, as well as Hezbollah rather extensively in the Syrian Civil War. Not to mention the more premier units of the Syrian and Iraqi forces, including those poor ISF Special Forces which I think are still clinging to bits of Basij despite their complete lack of supply from the Iraqi government or relevance to the overall picture of the war.

They'd obviously get clobbered by any of your typically lavishly equipped Western forces, but they're far more capable then any of their contemporaries. And in addition to being an effective militia, they are fantastic at terrorism.

Speaking of which, since Gaza is inexplicably still dominating the news, here's a bit of what's been happening. ISIS decided that destroying lives and societies wasn't enough, so they went full out on iconoclasm and just destroyed two ancient tombs dedicated to major figures in the Christian and Muslim religion, the (alledged) tombs of Jonah (the fellow swallowed by the whale) and one of the six alleged tombs of Daniel.

Also, thanks to the Iraqi's being Iraqi's, ISIS has continued to focus temporarily on consolidating their control of some key oil fields in Eastern Syria. Earlier I mentioned Deir ez-Zor. Well they managed to eliminate most of the Rebel opposition there since then, and just in the past week annihilated an entire battalion of the Syrian army that they were in a quasi-Cold War with there. According to the Islamic State, they've captured fifteen main battle tanks, three BMP armored vehicles, and numerous vehicle mounted BM-21 Grad rocket launchers as well as numerous amounts of smaller weapons including mortars, RPG's and heavy machine guns. And Wall Street Journal recently reported the Islamic State has opened up other offensives, using their captured Iraqi equipment, to seize other Syrian army holdouts in Eastern Syria, the assaults having captured numerous other armored fighting vehicles including six 2S1 122mm Self Propelled Howitzers. Those assaults also killed two Syrian Army Brigadier Generals and wiped out a lot of the local Ba'ath infrastructure. (the Ba'ath Party being the main Sunni secular organization in many cases)

Here's some pictures of the weapons they've captured from Syria recently.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

BM-21 Rocket Launchers



T-62 Main Battle Tanks



Anti-Tank Guided Missiles



Assorted weapons, including a pair of seemingly fancy ones in the back.

[Euron Greyjoy]

Like    Chulanowa and I said, ISIS are taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq most soldiers ran away rather than fight, but when ISIS attacked the Kurds they were pushed back. The problem Iraq faces besides an obviously inefficient government, is its lack of supplies which doesn't help when ISIS is looting equipment from them. If ISIS were to try what there doing in Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia they'd get their noses bloody.

[Callie Del Noire]

Like    Chulanowa and I said, ISIS are taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq most soldiers ran away rather than fight, but when ISIS attacked the Kurds they were pushed back. The problem Iraq faces besides an obviously inefficient government, is its lack of supplies which doesn't help when ISIS is looting equipment from them. If ISIS were to try what there doing in Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia they'd get their noses bloody.

Today, tomorrow and next month...perhaps but if they continue their nonconventional approach to conquest, I wouldn't bet on it being as clear cut as you think years down the road. Add in a 'ain't our problem' I'm still seeing in western politics and you can see a problem. After they eat Syria, I can see the Russians HAPPILY selling them arms.

[Neysha]

The main thing is that the Islamic State can consolidate its power in Eastern Syria and Northern and Western Iraq which sits astride or adjacent to significant oil reserves as well as key power and water production and transportation infrastructure. Not to mention things like refineries and cultural sites and the like. What ISIS seems to have been doing as of late is using its lucrative success and largesse of supplies in Iraq to help consolidate their conquests in Eastern Syria, securing the remaining government and rival Rebel holdouts. Just in the past twenty four hours or so, they captured another major Syrian military base, the home of the 121st Artillery Regiment and captured a significant trove of towed, rocket and self propelled artillery, as well as significant amounts of ammunition and heavier munitions.

The main saving grace for any expansion is that the Islamic State would have a tough time expanding beyond most of Syria and Iraq, since their main base is Sunni Muslims. Not Druze, or Shia, or anything like that. Meanwhile in regards to the Druze and Alawites in Syria, they should be somewhat safe because the bit of Western Syria hugging the coast is largely Alawite and Druze, and significantly mountainous so it should be easier to defend. Likewise the northern portions of Iraqi Kurdistan are similarly mountainous. What's interesting is seeing how Iraqi Kurdistan is dealing with its own refugee crisis, as well as the fact they are suffering from water and power shortages in some areas due to Islamic State interference. The Kurdish peshmerga are also suffering due to a lack of financing, as the Maliki government hasn't given the Kurds its share of the central budget for years now, nor has it authorized or allowed the Kurds to officially purchase arms or sell oil. (all of which has to be done on the black market) So the Kurdish peshmerga by and large hasn't been paid in months and finds itself compelled to defend a six hundred mile border with the Islamic State, despite the overall peshmerga numbers outnumbering the total number of Islamic State fighters several times over.

The Islamic State has forced the current Iraqi government into an interesting quandary. If the Kurds push for more independence, it'll hasten the collapse of the Iraqi central government and state by and large, and that is something the Islamic State wants and desires.

[Neysha]

Check it out!

Mosul shops must now have their mannequins wear veils...



And also, check out all of the heavy artillery they captured from the Syrians recently.

[Alsheriam]

I've been saying this RE: Syria ever since I joined the International Institute for Strategic Studies and I will say this again:

Obama and the rest of the West is at fault for this mess.

Why?

Remember NATO intervention in Libya and all that hubbub about R2P (Responsibility to Protect)? Bullshit. Ideals played no part in this. NATO eagerly went in because it was brain-dead easy for the military to pull it off. The theater was basically a single highway hugging the coastline, and the terrain is flat and easy to bomb: ideal for aerial bombardment. Easy.

So, whatever happened to R2P and all that fuss about the "protection of civilians" in Syria? That was all conveniently forgotten once the West remembered that Assad's regime is well-supplied with Russian weapons and all of Assad's territory is blanketed by sophisticated anti-air weapon systems. Remember that SA-11 Gadfly which shot down MH17? That was just one vehicle, and it was deployed under suboptimal conditions because the SA-11 is usually supported and supplemented by a full suite of radar systems. Now take that fully-supported SA-11 vehicle, multiply that capability by the magnitude of 40. Nobody in NATO wanted to risk losing hundreds of millions in shiny military hardware for the sake of some shithole that didn't bear much geopolitical significance to begin with.

Now, take that hype surrounding R2P in Libya, and imagine how excited the Syrian opposition movement - back then in 2011 very much widely influenced and led by the secular and liberal Syrian National council - must have been when they heard the Westerners were taking a tangible interest in helping the Arab Spring along? They must have been counting the days till it was their turn, but it never came. Obama's administration was given the recommendation by dozens of think-tanks and advisers to start sending weapons and SF personnel to train the rebels, but he refused to do because of rising isolationist sentiment in the American public.

It was thanks to Western neglect that out of pure desperation, the Syrian opposition movement ran into the eager, welcoming hands of Islamists and jihadist groups like al-Qaeda. By 2013, groups like the Islamist al-Nusra Front and ISIS began to rise, and the rest is history.

My impression is that the Syrians didn't want to side with jihadists at first, because they knew how introducing Islamist influence would split them up and result in infighting (which did happen). The Western world had a golden opportunity to make some positive change in the Middle East for a very long time (since Syria had people who had the desire to fight, as opposed to Iraq/Afghanistan where the locals didn't give a damn and let ISAF do all the fighting for them), and the West blew it. Any talk of sending assistance to the Syrians at this time is pointless.

[Neysha]

I have to agree, Obama has shown a discernible lack of will when it comes to foreign policy affairs, even after earning his second term in office.

His Syrian policy has been mind numbing in it's impotence.

First he alienates Assad by repeatedly denouncing him for his brutal suppression of largely peaceful protests and demonstrations. That's fine, I agree with that. Assad is a bad person and we should be supporting the largely secular anti-Assad opposition. But this means... essentially... that Assad working with the US in any practical manner is no longer an option.

So what does Obama do next? Nothing. Even as the Civil War ramps up, he refuses to give the Syrian Rebels anything but backpacks, band aids and bread and even that is in small amounts. He talks a lot about how bad Assad is, but doesn't do anything tangible. Why? Because Obama is afraid that if we send anti-tank weapons and the like to the Free Syrian Army, it may end up in the hands of radical Rebels! So while the Free Syrian Army is begging for help... guess who answers the call primarily? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Guess what? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States don't want to supply the secular, pro-Western Free Syrian Army elements. They want to fund the more Islamist organizations. The Islamic Front. Al-Nusra. The more Islamized factions of the FSA. Suddenly we see a proliferation of weapons primarily in the Islamist, radical, fundamentalist elements of the Rebel movement, because they are the only ones getting significant amounts of weapons, training and munitions. This entire time Obama is dithering, not supplying any of the Syrian Rebels because he's afraid of radicals getting weapons while still permitting the Gulf States and the Saudis to supply the already radical Syrian Rebels with those very same weapons.

Then shockingly, after the Chemical Warfare attacks on civilians and crossing Obama's red line, Obama restrains his response as many voice the fears that they could be supporting Islamists in the Syrian Rebels. Well you see, by not doing anything, we've already been supporting the Syrian Islamists in the Rebel ranks. We left arming and supplying of the Syrian Rebels to the paragons of tolerance and secularism and moderation like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Now we're wringing our hands over how Islamists have grown more powerful in the region when the West allowed this to happen by ignoring the problem, out of a fear that the Islamists would grow to powerful... ::)

[gaggedLouise]

I'd agree with both of you. Obama's record on Syria (or on the Near East in general) hasn't been impressive at all, not after the Arab Spring began anyway, and there's a visible lack of long-term strategy and will. IMO it comes down both to the economic troubles of America - no one wants another expensive war effort, even if it were to be short and that might not be the case in Syria, it just spells overstretching and a weight on the economy - and the gridlock of congressional politics: both Obama and some key people in Congress seem unable to strike deals with each other. If the U.S. had been in a better position economically, there would have been some serious assistance to the Syrian opposition back in 2012 and perhaps even some Nato/US boots in the ground last year.

The prospect of having Syria and ISIS (and Afghanistan and West Africa?) essentially left alone right up to January 2017 because no one in Washington has the political space, the money and the resources to do anything decisive about them is abysmal. No heavyweights in Europe are going to want to take a remotely leading role on those either: both Cameron and Hollande are going to be too busy with other things and Germany taking on that kind of role in something that smacks of military power projection is a no-no... - Unfortunately Obama seems to have become almost a lame duck as for foreign politics and being able to drive serious reforms, at this point - and there won't be much let-up on that until he leaves the White House because everyone has their own electioneering motives tucked into the mix.

Check it out!

Mosul shops must now have their mannequins wear veils...

*sighs* I can't help thinking of women about to be hanged for resisting whomever...

[gaggedLouise]

So the US has finally been pushed to engage formally with the wave of ISIS advance, if only to avert having Chaldean Christians and others killed in cold blood and getting it on the tv news, and to protect U S. military interests.

Dianne Feinstein (Dem) comments, "It takes an army to defeat an army" and I think she seriously has a point. A couple of air strikes alone won't drive back ISIS for real, not even if they are repeated over time. To eliminate them as a first-rank player in Iraq and Syria (and to protect the Kurds and Christians, among other things, and avoid a free-for-all) would take an army effort at some point over the next year or so. Which is another big headache of course.

[kylie]

      They're only supposed to have about 50,000 troops I think it was, and many of those pressed into service under some duress.  If it weren't for so many urban areas involved, it might be almost the sort of situation where Rumsfeld's opening Afghan type of strategy might have a shot (primarily local ground and some bought off forces, plus US air and special ops with some lighter divisions on the ground).  As it is, I'm not sure just how far that would go.  But I don't see them fending off any serious ground force that also owns the air, for control of the roads.  Unless (ahem just saying what if) Russia wanted to get very dirty with SAM shipments...  One just has to wonder a little, these days.

      It seems the eventual problem could be more, how much of a blow would that deal the organization itself and what exactly would keep them at bay afterward.  Or would there be more nasty factional fighting in the South again, now that the central government has lost whatever front of control it had previously managed.

[gaggedLouise]

      They're only supposed to have about 50,000 troops I think it was, and many of those pressed into service under some duress.  If it weren't for so many urban areas involved, it might be almost the sort of situation where Rumsfeld's opening Afghan type of strategy might have a shot (primarily local ground and some bought off forces, plus US air and special ops with some lighter divisions on the ground).  As it is, I'm not sure just how far that would go.  But I don't see them fending off any serious ground force that also owns the air, for control of the roads.  Unless (ahem just saying what if) Russia wanted to get very dirty with SAM shipments...  One just has to wonder a little, these days.

      It seems the eventual problem could be more, how much of a blow would that deal the organization itself and what exactly would keep them at bay afterward.  Or would there be more nasty factional fighting in the South again, now that the central government has lost whatever front of control it had previously managed.

Yep, I'm not that far from your assessment but I think ISIS (and whatever groups might spin off from them) are clearly a latent long-term threat, even if they would be pushed back out of central Iraq. And as for strength: how many trained soldiers/fighters did the Taliban actually have at any given time in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan? Estimates seem to be in the range of 50-60.000 men and that would have been in 2001 and the years just after, by 2008/10 it had dropped - it still enabled them to maintain a steady presence, control of parts of both countries - up till a kind of comeback in the last two years or so, a dozen years later, when some observers think they simply cannot be counted out of any long-term deal over the future of Afghanistan.

[Neysha]

Defending Irbil is one thing, but to actually retake territory, I'm not sure what can be done in such a limited fashion. The recent operations around Mosul, southwest of Irbil and in the Sinjar region seem to show that despite their vaunted reputation, the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga, for various reasons including lack of equipment and pay, just aren't up to par with the Islamic State fighters, sometimes not even on their own or non-Sunni territory. The way the peshmerga fled from Sinjar was in fact quite galling, considering they had set up that place as a safe haven for refugees but when the Islamic State applied pressure to the area, the Peshmerga literally fled just as effectively as the ISF forces did. It was kind of a sobering display of a lack of martial prowess or will.

In order to turn this around, the US will have to move beyond just pinpoint strikes. They're going to have to invest heavily in air corridors to allow aid and supplies and munitions to arrive to supply the Peshmerga Army, regardless of what the Iraqi Central Government desires. The Iraqi government was supposed to share a significant portion of its budget to the Kurdish North and furthermore when the US left, the Kurdish segments of the Army were supposed to receive 200 million dollars worth of American equipment which again the Iraqi Central Government refused to release to them. The peshmerga as they are, seem completely incapable of an effective offensive action as of late, and have trouble even holding territory. At a minimum they're going to need lots of small arms, ammunition, rocket launchers, and artillery to defend themselves, and likely a fair number of vehicles to begin any sort of offensive action. They also need to be able to sell their oil on the market, circumventing the Iraqi Central Government, so that they can actually pay their peshmerga fighters. The Kurds don't want to sacrifice themselves to save other people solely fueled and funded by goodwill after all.

The airstrikes will likely have to be expanded too, and bring in more FAC's and other advisers to help coordinate airstrikes and the Peshmerga forces. I mean airstrikes without actual eyes on the ground are going to be of limited value against forces like ISIS. And that's just a truth of warfare. The air campaign against the Taliban back in 2001 was negligible to the point of being mock worthy until Green Berets and other Special Forces embedded with Northern Alliance fighters were able to directly target enemy forces with airstrikes.

The downside of supporting the Peshmerga is that it will help cement what is likely already over, which is the borderlines of the state of Iraq as we know it now. If this crisis ends with the Kurds more formidable and they attempt to become more independent of the Iraqi Central Government, the US fears are that the Shia governed portion of Iraq will be pushed further into the Iranian camp. But the Iraqi governments recalcitrance seems to have compelled the US to either largely ignore the crisis, or support the peshmerga in lieu of a lack of any other practical options.

[kylie]

Defending Irbil is one thing, but to actually retake territory, I'm not sure what can be done in such a limited fashion. The recent operations around Mosul, southwest of Irbil and in the Sinjar region seem to show that despite their vaunted reputation, the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga, for various reasons including lack of equipment and pay, just aren't up to par with the Islamic State fighters...

         Yes, I've read that they have been withdrawing a bit too, to some watchers' apparent surprise. 

          Seems people are pretty weak at analyzing the strength or will of some groups over there...  Though maybe that can swing both ways.  I could be wrong, but I'm doubtful that the bulk of ISIS -- at least, the bulk of the current form of ISIS within Iraq -- is as committed or as established as the Taliban were in Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan, they had been going at it within the same territory for a decade.  More of the country is extremely rugged terrain and there was even less example of secular government to think about.  In Iraq, many of the ranks have just recently been teased out or joined under duress from the current situation.

The airstrikes will likely have to be expanded too, and bring in more FAC's and other advisers to help coordinate airstrikes and the Peshmerga forces. I mean airstrikes without actual eyes on the ground are going to be of limited value against forces like ISIS. And that's just a truth of warfare. The air campaign against the Taliban back in 2001 was negligible to the point of being mock worthy until Green Berets and other Special Forces embedded with Northern Alliance fighters were able to directly target enemy forces with airstrikes.

        Yeah, I kind of figured they would.  Actually a little surprised some of it wasn't done already.  But it's been a while since 2001, and I don't recall exactly how long it took them to get set up.  There was a lot of mulling around picking local leadership of various factions and getting them on board enough to be minimally coordinated for a broader offensive, too.  Though I'd hope that's maybe a little harder in the terrain of Afghanistan than it should be in Iraq...  Then again, we don't get a lot of news about local (barely, even about regional) Iraqi politics.  That is something that's been super scarce in regular media, despite the very long war.

The downside of supporting the Peshmerga is that it will help cement what is likely already over, which is the borderlines of the state of Iraq as we know it now. If this crisis ends with the Kurds more formidable and they attempt to become more independent of the Iraqi Central Government, the US fears are that the Shia governed portion of Iraq will be pushed further into the Iranian camp. But the Iraqi governments recalcitrance seems to have compelled the US to either largely ignore the crisis, or support the peshmerga in lieu of a lack of any other practical options.

           Well, apart from sending in some heavier divisions, I don't see how else it's going to get done.  The Baghdad government has lost a great deal of credibility and at least in terms of what little we hear, the Kurds seem to have a smoother history of dealing with the US.  Iran is already pretty well inserting itself into a significant part of Southern matters anyway.  I don't see that being prevented regardless.

             I'm just not sure whether or not a fight could be done without big, heavy divisions being shipped around.  They can take a long time getting there.  Though it appears Obama has hinted this may just need to go on for a long time in any case.  The question is, go on just how.
 

[gaggedLouise]

Apparently there's a standoff unfolding right now between the Iraqi PM and President, and Iraqi and Kurdish militias in Baghdad have taken up positions in support of PM al-Malaki. He could be said to be fighting for his life, politically.

Dun dun dun....doesn't make the weather any less inviting for an ISIS attempt on Baghdad in the near future.

[Neysha]

Apparently there's a standoff unfolding right now between the Iraqi PM and President, and Iraqi and Kurdish militias in Baghdad have taken up positions in support of PM al-Malaki. He could be said to be fighting for his life, politically.

Dun dun dun....doesn't make the weather any less inviting for an ISIS attempt on Baghdad in the near future.

Whatever could make you think that?



;)

[Formless]

Yeah ... Its funny how they went ' artistic ' with their logo to the point where they can be easily depicted as apostates themselves.

I'm sorry but I cannot take the ISIS seriously. They're just a bunch of desperate warmongers running out of options.

[kylie]

           The Guardian seems to be saying that the peshmergas' problem with ISIS is perhaps as much captured US-supplied equipment, as any difference in training (though there may be some of the latter too).

A flush of weapons delivered by the US on Monday has eased immediate fears of light arms shortages. But the new rifles and bullets are no match for the heavy weaponry carried by Isis, most of which was also supplied by the US – to the Iraqi military during the nine-year occupation.

Much of those heavy weapons, including tanks, humvees, troop carriers and artillery pieces were seized by Isis when the Iraqi Army abandoned all its bases in the Arab north of the country in mid-June.

The enormous arsenal has given Isis an added potency that continues to startle the Kurds and expose the limitations of their military and political power.

            I was actually a little surprised by this.  Not that I'm any driver or technician but...  Not surprised that they would take the equipment off the state where they could.  But are tanks and APC's all so similar that just anyone can oeprate them within a few days?  I imagine ISIS would have lots of experience with Russian and some Euro- supplied vehicles in Syria...  And probably some of what the Iraqi army got were rather aged US models. 

             But how effectively can they really use this stuff?  Or again on the other side, are these peshmerga all really have just nothing but light infantry and mostly on foot plus whatever incorporated utility vehicles?  That might be it.

[Callie Del Noire]

           The Guardian seems to be saying that the peshmergas' problem with ISIS is perhaps as much captured US-supplied equipment, as any difference in training (though there may be some of the latter too).

            I was actually a little surprised by this.  Not that I'm any driver or technician but...  Not surprised that they would take the equipment off the state where they could.  But are tanks and APC's all so similar that just anyone can oeprate them within a few days?  I imagine ISIS would have lots of experience with Russian and some Euro- supplied vehicles in Syria...  And probably some of what the Iraqi army got were rather aged US models. 

             But how effectively can they really use this stuff?  Or again on the other side, are these peshmerga all really have just nothing but light infantry and mostly on foot plus whatever incorporated utility vehicles?  That might be it.

Part of the problem is no one wanted to supply the Kurds with anything. Period. For fear they would try to create a separate Kurdistan out of chunks of several countries. As soon as the US left Iraq, they got cut off of the materials they were SUPPOSED to get for regional defense as well as anything else the PM could get away with. Hence they are under armed and underdeveloped compared to other regions.

[Aiden]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/

This stuff with Isis is just...well, I have no words. I am glad I didn't see the video that is circulating.

[gaggedLouise]

*nods* There were reports fairly early on that ISIS had resorted to crucifixion of captives, even women. That kind of barbarity is what really made me notice them, and it's designed to spread terror and fear of course.

[Question Mark]

I've been too busy to closely follow the ISIS situation.  Could someone better informed tell me how likely it is that ISIS will eventually reach a stalemate/peace and become a sovereign, independent state?

[Question Mark]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/isis-threatens-missing-journalist-steven-joel-sotloff-latest-video-article-1.1909682

So, now what?

[Aiden]

They are getting desperate and trying to provoke the US into a bigger war (other than airstrikes). Use that as propaganda to recruit more to their cause. At least that is what I believe is happening.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've been too busy to closely follow the ISIS situation.  Could someone better informed tell me how likely it is that ISIS will eventually reach a stalemate/peace and become a sovereign, independent state?

Only if they  the only remaining country on earth. As far as I can tell their manifesto is intrinsically expansionic. They are, depending on how you read things, claiming any lands ever held by any Islamic force.

[Neysha]

Yeah ISIS has the will and desire to keep expanding until they reach a hard stop, but only due to practical reasons, not due to a lack of ambition and zeal. They're even more medieval then the Taliban were in their dreams of an Islamic Caliphate.



Their desire to create slave markets in Mosul, the banning of the teaching of philosophy and the sciences and countless other primitive nonsense.

The main thing is that the Islamic State has largely been focusing on moving most of its captured heavy equipment back to Syria, and has been doing that ever since the June Northern Iraq Offensive in an effort to solidify their hold on Eastern Syria. They've mauled the al-Nusra front and other Rebel groups and since June have seized five important Assad military bases with Tabqa Airbase being the sixth about to fall. 

[consortium11]

I've been too busy to closely follow the ISIS situation.  Could someone better informed tell me how likely it is that ISIS will eventually reach a stalemate/peace

Unlikely. The basic philosophical frame-work is one of unending war until the whole world falls under their caliphate. Practicalities may mean that they don't always engage in conventional war but they are going to be pushing for it as long as they exist.

and become a sovereign, independent state?

In some ways they already are. The borders may be flexible but they are enacting laws, have a system of governance, have a court system, receive taxes etc etc

The main thing is that the Islamic State has largely been focusing on moving most of its captured heavy equipment back to Syria, and has been doing that ever since the June Northern Iraq Offensive in an effort to solidify their hold on Eastern Syria. They've mauled the al-Nusra front and other Rebel groups and since June have seized five important Assad military bases with Tabqa Airbase being the sixth about to fall.

I think this is a point that many people aren't giving enough significance to.

As tragic as it is, what is happening in Iraq is largely a sideshow to the Islamic State as things stand. Their big focus remains Syria... and looked at with strategic glasses that is very sensible decision for them.

Iraq has allowed them to procure significant amounts of equipment etc but right now it's simply not practical to hold it. The West would inevitably get involved. Political considerations mean that troops are unlikely to put boots on the ground but air-power will certainly be relied upon... and while that alone is not enough to dislodge them from cities it is enough to blunt any military offensives and to hold them in place while the rest of the Iraqi forces start to finally get their act together.

Syria on the other hand?

If the West had gone in hard when they first mooted the prospect then none of this may have happened. Yes, we'd have been fighting on the same side as the then ISIS in opposing Assad, but our presence would have considerably strengthened the liberal and secular elements of the resistance and prevented ISIS from being any more than a fringe element of the fringe element. If we'd done a complete 180 and supported Assad we'd have nipped ISIS in the bud.

But now?

Now we're in the situation where opposing the Islamic State is Syria means we'd be fighting alongside Assad; a man the West has threatened to bomb, called a war criminal and generally been extremely opposed to. Even for the more real-politique minded amongst us that's generally seen as a step too far. Because of that the Islamic State forces in Syria can operate largely unmolested, especially in the East where they essentially already rule. What's going in Iraq is largely an optimistic land grab... what's happening in Syria is the main event, which is why the majority of the captured equipment is being sent there.

[Neysha]

Yes and the Islamic State essentially has a safe haven in Syria as well, because (probably rightly) the United States and Allied forces likely won't launch airstrikes into Syria or engage in other similar operations unless it's an extraordinary situation like when the US launched an unsuccessful special forces raid on an Islamic State compound which allegedly held hostages.

[kylie]

        I know I keep touting Guardian articles cause I find them quite readable and (if I may say) and often sounding a tad more critical in spots than some of the familiar big US choices I used to follow...  Anyway, their reports are picking up on ISIS quickly.  There is some foreboding discussion of how the hardware captured in Iraq is being turned to good effect in the Syria campaign. 

It's kind of funny how they quote some unnamed diplomat at incredible length, in direct quotes, for that article (excerpted immediately below).  That sort of unattributed and apparently formal quotation isn't all so common in the Guardian actually.  The language of the extended quotation sounds rather more like a prepared statement, or perhaps a pretty verbose email.

A revitalised Isis threatens to change that dynamic. Using armoured vehicles supplied by the US to the vanquished Iraqi army, Isis has taken 12 villages in the Aleppo countryside in the past fortnight and is threatening to turn its guns on the opposition at the same time as it tries to engage the Syrian regime.

"For Isis, it is crucial to control such a long stretch of border with Turkey, because it wants to continue the influx of foreign fighters," the western diplomat said. "Aleppo is the key to all of northern Syria.

         There is a piece on the background of Isis.  Including this below.

Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.

Facing Assad's army and intelligence services, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iraq's Shia Islamist militias and their grand patron, Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Syria's initially peaceful protesters quickly became disenchanted, disillusioned and disenfranchised – and then radicalised and violently militant.

The Shia Islamist axis used chemical weapons, artillery and barrel bombs to preserve its crescent of influence. Syria's Sunni Arab revolutionaries in turn sought international assistance, and when the world refused, they embraced a pact with the devil, al-Qaida.

......

Ironically, al-Qaida's wholesale introduction into Iraq came at the hands of Assad's regime. From 2005 until the end of the American occupation of Iraq, Assad's military intelligence services and their Iranian backers sought to defeat the US forces by training, financing and arming al-Qaida operatives inside Syria and dispatching them across the border to foment chaos and destruction.

General David Petraeus and other senior American officials warned Assad that he was igniting a fire that would eventually burn his house down, but Damascus did nothing to stop the flow of fighters, culminating in a crippling blow to Maliki's government the day Iraq's foreign and finance ministries were bombed. Maliki publicly condemned his future ally in Damascus for the attack.

And so, Syria's unravelling spilled into Iraq, and vice versa. Powerful regional tribes such as the Shammar and Anezah, faced with countless dead and persecuted members in both countries, banded together with former Iraqi and Syrian military officers, embracing Isis jihadis as their frontline shock troops. Cash poured in from sympathetic donors around the region.

         What surprises me lately about the Western response (though it's nothing really new), is how Foley's murder and even the plight of the Christian minority in Iraq have been played up.  Even the idea that the US should conduct a campaign with nearing a hundred airstrikes (I think it was up there now?), nominally in defense of "our personnel" in the region is a particularly exceptional idea.  Not that this is the only time such a rationale has been used in US foreign policy history, I suspect -- there's an aspect of it in treaties forced upon Japan or the conquest of Hawaii, just to name a couple... 

         But aside from utter raw exceptionalism ("We will naturally, always go anywhere in the world to save one of our people or any Christian village" Oh really??)...  I think there ought to be a better excuse -- erm, explanation.  Are these particular couple hundred embassy employees particularly close with oh say, the Iraqi Oil Ministry or is this simply abstract code for "And this is a base we will not give up, we mean it so whatever else it takes in the region..."  ?  To me, the optics if you will are rather silly when the rhetoric is so much on a few people (or a single reporter, even) who don't clearly have much to do with the US government or obvious "hard" security outcomes. 

          And just as another aside, it is also pretty ironic that Obama is here using the criticism of Benghazi matters against those who might otherwise wish to damn him whether he does or doesn't, too.  Now about the worst they can do is damn him for not doing more --- at the risk of sounding like they want another full-on ground war.  And maybe there's something to be said for wanting that, I'm not sure, but if so I don't hear of the stage being prepped well for that case by many in Congress yet.

           Libya?  Yes, but the US had a history of more or less openly opposing that regime.  And has yet to invade North Korea, either...  It isn't especially surprising that in some places "R2P" rhetoric would accompany a hard-nosed choice, and in others with more defenses there would be no such hard-nosed choice.  It doesn't necessarily mean the "Protect" ideal is a complete falsehood if it isn't attempted everywhere it might logically be invoked (there would be a whole lot of those then, too -- and sometimes there may be some of both plain military campaign and aid, though Somalia made many believe it is often ridiculous to attempt that).  Sure though, it's true that regimes like those in North Korea (and Syria) may reasonably draw the conclusion that arming up is their best chance of escaping the cut.

            Another thought:  ISIS is reportedly preparing to fight perhaps both Assad and other rebel groups in the way, more or less simultaneously -- yet ISIS barely has the numbers of a few US combat divisions [oh or was that only in Iraq? but we can look for numbers], and they are propping up this strategy now with captured US-supplied equipment.  So if they actually can present a serious threat to the Syrian government based upon that and geographic position (proximity to Turkey), then how would they -- or even they plus Assad (assuming the US would not support either) -- fare if actually faced with US ground forces coming from Turkey?  I could be wrong, but I don't think they'd do very well at least conventionally.  Not saying anyone has the will to do it, knowing it would probably involve casualties and risk leaving yet another vaccuum behind afterward. 

           But I don't think there's a great reason for anyone to ally seriously with Assad.  His people might know where the SAMs are, but a serious campaign would start whittling those away and control its own space going in.  Beyond that, his reputation was beyond hellish before and now he seems to have a weakened hand on the ground too.  There are other factions the US has supported at some level, and while they might not control the whole area...  I just don't see reinstating Assad as a viable choice. 

            The humanitarian situation is certainly tragic and I did wish there had been a serious intervention in the past, even a ground intervention.  But I have to admit it's feeling very difficult by now to imagine a long-term stability in that part of the world.  While I don't think the particular talk of "red lines" regarding chemical weapons played out very well, I also think blaming Obama as a leader or his administration simply for not going in might be a little much.  I'm not satisfied with everything they did, but I'm not sure I could spell out a neat alternative either. 

          Maybe there should have been a more public debate about Syria and what would be expected of any other moves the US might make, and what the American public would support.  It might be the right thing from a humanitarian standpoint to save what you can, make an effort, lose some troops, and who knows maybe even to get impeached for trying it if there was a huge public backlash against another serious Mideast war just then.  But leaving alone the obvious political risk, that might not bode well for other attempts to "do the right thing" and try to save more people or carve out a peace (is it perhaps, Bosnia-style??) down the road -- even in more favorable circumstances.

[Cassandra LeMay]

In all the discussions and debates on ISIS / IS I often read how this is the fault of the West and/or the U.S., how we did the wrong thing here, failed to do the right thing there, and so on. I guess everyone here knows the general direction of those arguments and has heard them.  I'd like to share my take on this. (Please imagine quotation marks around the words us, we, and they wherever you like):

They hate us. It's as simple as that.

Why do they hate us?

> Because we live in societies that allow women to drive cars, vote, and get a suntan clad in nothing more than a few square centimeters of fabric (if that much).

> Because in western societies two people in love can walk down the street holding hands and kiss in public without fearing for their lives.

> Because we can use the name of God in vein without being stoned to death for it.

> Because we are free to drink alcohol and are free to eat the meat of animals they consider unclean.

> Because we think it is wrong to chop someone's hands off for stealing a few bucks.

The list goes on and on, but just one or two of the above items are enough to mark us as infidels who should either be converted or sent to hell without further ado.

These guys try to understand the world using an instruction manual that is a) somewhat dated, and b) allows for no diverging points of view (at least not according to how they read it), and that would still be true if Iraq hadn't been invaded, or if some border or the other hadn't been drawn the way it was a hundred years ago.

Would there be fewer of those murderous maniacs if some things had happened differently? Maybe. But sometimes people get funny ideas into their heads and decide to act on them. Just look at all the people from western countries who have decided to join ISIS. No one bombed their hometown lately, and no one drew any artificial borders through their home countries, and they have not seen any of the hardships living in the third world entails, but they still decide that it would be a swell idea to go chop some people's heads off because they are infidels who deserve nothing better. And it's not just ISIS. The guy in the U.S. who grabs a gun and starts shooting kids in their school. Some crazies who think it would be a great idea to use sarin in the Tokyo metro. Some guy in Europe who sets fire to a building full of people because their skin color doesn't match the average of the population.

Sometimes people get ideas into their heads and act on those ideas. We may look long and hard for reasons, might try to understand the "why" behind it, might look for logical explanations to what may strike us as anything from odd to crazy to unbelievable, but sometimes people just are like that. Sometimes we just have to accept that there are people out there who do what they do, no matter what.

All that said, do I think that the West couldn't have handled a few things in the past better, should have handled some things differently? Yes. I do. But I also think that all the debates of what the West did wrong clouds the fact that people like ISIS have always been around, probably will be around till the sun burns out, and do what they do for reasons that are their own.

[kylie]

          I've generally been a little skeptical on the "They hate us for our freedoms" line. 

          I suppose it has a certain degree of match with some people, particularly at a rather confused or unconscious level I'm inclined to say.  Often people get really angry about others having options they haven't been given and appearing to more or less make them functional.  Maybe not all options play out so well under all circumstances -- try the US social model in Latin America in the 1970's-80's for instance, there are arguments about the "need" for authoritarian government in Chile, maybe Peru? etc. floating around though in the end Pinochet did get caught with a lot of corruption also.

          On the other hand, if you look into the longer history of the groups that morphed into Al Qaeda...  And with our oh so involved American history programs teaching us so much as a matter of course about this subject (that is totally scoffing if you didn't notice)...  I'm no widely read Mideast area studies person but...  I will make some effort at the jump and refer you for some sort of start, to a video "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." (Hmm, used to have a full link on Youtube if still there and I can find it again...)  Ugh, I think Youtube may have pulled it for copyright, but here is production info and you might be able to see it in sections here. It's a critique of rightists on both sides of the world acting very similar as well as a documentary history, but at least it is something relatively more involved than quick neoliberal political slogans about "freedom" for now.  And you're naturally free to double check the analysis or dig up another.

          Basically, the point I wanted to add is that some of the early activists who developed what Al Qaeda later claims as part of its philosophical rationale, were often concerned with corruption of Mideast governments (particularly Egypt) and exploitation of their people by (particularly but not solely Western) business and military interests.  Granted some of them also adopted a very austere and restrictive interpretation of Islam either before or during that thought.  But there is also a serious thread of opposition to the more neocolonial aspects of the modern international system, and also a dose of nationalism (though you might call it "virulent" I suppose if you like, I'm not sure precisely how to draw that line here). 

         So, different people in such an outfit can have different amounts and versions of each of these broad agendas in play.  But making it all about jealousy isn't so comprehensive an explanation...  Unless you think say, 'most everyone' gets jealous when they can't be the ones rigging the world to the advantage of some tiny elite, and to a much lesser extent to more interesting circuses and cultural diversions for their people (not that such diversions aren't fulfilling and even potentially explosive, but all the same).  And I do allow that it's possible to argue, well that sort of jealousy is also just how the world often works too.  In that case:  Just don't tell me it's obviously envy of only, always "good" things across the ocean.   

[consortium11]

I've generally been a little skeptical on the "They hate us for our freedoms" line.

Considering how ISIS are treating civilians in Iraq and Syria who have different religious beliefs and how strictly they're enforcing Sharia law I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about.

If they were attacking Iraq as a US puppet state and not demolishing Churches and Mosques, imprisoning and caning those who use alcohol, crucifying and massacring people then you could argue that they're merely reacting to Western interference. But they're not... they're invading specifically to form a new Caliphate under their strict interpretation of religion and executing those who don't abide by their view.

[Aiden]

They Id's Foley's killer, this dude is FUCKED.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rapper-identified-as-james-foleys-executioner-reports-20140824-107w1i.html

[Callie Del Noire]

They Id's Foley's killer, this dude is FUCKED.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rapper-identified-as-james-foleys-executioner-reports-20140824-107w1i.html

If he's lucky.. the bullet that kills him won't be heard for a second or two after the impact. If he's unlucky.. well the SAS will catch him, bag him, tag him and render him to someplace dark, dank and totally lawyer empty.

[kylie]

Considering how ISIS are treating civilians in Iraq and Syria who have different religious beliefs and how strictly they're enforcing Sharia law I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about.

If they were attacking Iraq as a US puppet state and not demolishing Churches and Mosques, imprisoning and caning those who use alcohol, crucifying and massacring people then you could argue that they're merely reacting to Western interference. But they're not... they're invading specifically to form a new Caliphate under their strict interpretation of religion and executing those who don't abide by their view.

If I'm not mistaken, they are both attacking the Syrian state at least, and doing all those other things.  Who's to say there has to be only one goal, or only one type of person or group represented inside ISIS.  I dunno how easy it is to take Baghdad (what with it being both the major center, and add in Iran getting ready to pounce just on the other side), or if they are really interested in that strategically anyway.

         If group psychology was all as simple as you suggest, then we could also say obviously most people in the US want to keep most Black and Native American people in abject poverty...  And maybe we just all hate them.  Because that is what our combined social actions and choice of institutions we continue to let our leadership maintain, have ended up doing.  Look at how blatantly transparent we are.  Oh yes, and perhaps we also all totally want Israel to kill hundreds and thousands of Palestinian civilians, because gee America funds that military too...

         You can't judge what everyone wants or feels or thinks simply by outcomes the group seems to be pursuing or even rules it seems to be installing at the moment.  In a group that operates so much on force and intimidation, you might even have to assume that some people are repeating party line because they're afraid of the consequences of not doing so --- and things may feel like an avalanche more than a chosen project.  There are incentives to act like it's all about proving yourself to be the most radical (and maybe even, the most paranoid) thing around, and sometimes dangers if you don't. 

          It may be a more or less direct reflection of what some people would choose from the get-go, and probably not all of them.

.....  But I don't think life in groups and amidst violence is all that simple as you suggest.   

          You can also look at the Iraqi Sunnis, who I believe are giving ISIS the green light to advance through territory and providing personnel to fight among ISIS (at least in Iraq) --- but I imagine their own communities do not follow the whole social program being set up where ISIS happens to make camp.  Until recently, they were the privileged crowd in one relatively secular government. 

[consortium11]

         If I'm not mistaken, they are both attacking the Syrian state at least, and doing all those other things.  Who's to say there has to be only one goal, or only one type of person or group represented inside ISIS.  I dunno how easy it is to take Baghdad (what with it being both the major center, and add in Iran getting ready to pounce just on the other side), or if they are really interested in that strategically anyway.

The Islamic State just stoned a man to death in Iraq after convicting him of adultery in one of their courts.

Exactly what geo-political pressures or influence from the West were the reasons behind that?

They blew up Jonah's Tomb fairly recently.

Exactly what geo-political pressures or influence from the West were the reasons behind that?

I'm not going to link to the videos (although they're easily available with a quick google search) but the Islamic State are cutting the hands off of reported thieves and beheading Christians.

Exactly what geo-political pressures or influence from the West were the reasons behind that?

The comparison with the US is disingenuous. I'm not saying that all those who are within the land the Islamic State controls or under its authority "hate us for our freedoms". I'm saying those who make up the Islamic State do. These are the people who stone people to death for adultery, cane people for drinking alcohol, demolish the holy sites of other religions (or different sects of the same religion), crucify and behead their victims while enforcing strict, fundamentalist Sharia law on those who fall under their control.

Considering they're doing that to Shiite Muslims in Iraq and Syria I'm not sure how one can say they're doing it because of the West. Considering that they've openly said their primary interest is in killing "the hypocrites, because they are much more dangerous than those who are fundamentally heretics" (i.e. fellow Muslims who don't follow their strict faith rather than those from different religions) I'm not sure how one can argue this is due to Western interference. Considering they've expressly said they have no intention of currently confronting Israel (the normal lighting rod for criticism of the West's policy and impact on the Middle East), preferring instead to continue killing Shiites, I'm no sure how one can argue that it's due to Western interference.

We're not talking about the Iraqi insurgency here, men (and women) who had seen their country invaded, their infrastructure destroyed, their institutions gutted and a vindictive, short-sighted despot put in control. We're not talking about the various Palestinian groups who see themselves as facing an occupier who constantly keeps them ground down with the support of the West. We're not talking about Hezbollah, formed through a combination of Iranian and Lebanese influence, money and power to oppose an Israeli (backed by the West) invasion.

We're talking about roughly 25,000 hardcore fundamentalists who right now are more interested in purging Muslims then fighting the West. They don't care about the neo-colonial aspects... they want the same themselves eventually. They don't care about nationalism... nationalism is a rather vague subject at best in the Middle East and the Islamic State are based around the idea of a Caliphate that ignores pretty much all borders. They're not even particularly bothered about corruption... everything they've said and done has been about the lack of faith others have shown.

It's a cop out to point at any insurgency or terrorist group in the Middle East and say "well, they're doing it because of the West". In some cases it may well be true; I've already listed a couple. But some simply follow a fundamentalist strain of Islam untouched by the equivalent of a renaissance which is extremely harsh and extremely expansionist. The Wests actions in disposing Hussein (a strong man who held fundamentalist groups in check) and weakening Assad (likewise) may have provided the conditions for the Islamic State to rise but their motivations and reasoning are not directly related to the West or the West's impact on the Middle East.

[Callie Del Noire]

Today, while on the way to work, I heard about an suicide bomber in a Iraq mosque. Someone wore a bomb vest into a crowd of Shite worshipers. That wasn't anything about the west. That was about a cultural/religious clash that dates back centuries.  These men are using the image/backstory of the most enlightened part of their culture and perverting it.

As for Assad/Sadam holding them back, I don't think they were. They were paying off these men for years. Playing them against rivals in the region. It's a regional thing, half the rich idiots in Qatar, Saudi and the UAE have been doing this for DECADES to play their games. I have said before that Syria was a decade away from having the various forces they had sponsored for years in Israel, Lebanon and other regions. The Assad regime has been linked directly to assassinations in several of their neighbors. Saddam did the same with folks throughout the Gulf region.

ISIS/ISIL is the logical evolution of feeding these mad dogs then not feeding them.

They slipped their leash, found capital of their own, and are in a prime spot where they are able to control events. The indecisive nature of the West in Syria, and the reluctance of the political establishment to build a coordinated front of resistance in Iraq have only continued to build ISIS/ISIL into a bandit kingdom that couldn't form any other way.

If the coordination of the rival forces in Iraq, backing of moderate elements in Syria by the west, or a lack of planning on ISIS/ISIL and we wouldn't be looking at the birth of the Islamic Caliphate.

It is going to take a decisive plan of action, the changing of the rules of engagement to cover the 'dancing' over the Syrian/Iraq border and a MULTI-National task force to put these mad dogs down.

And THEN when it's done.. a long term commitment by this multi-nation group in rebuilding/developing the region.

And that last step.. will never happen. At best we're going to delay regional destabilization a generation or so.

[kylie]

               Consortium, sorry but you're going all over for me.  You started out on "They hate the West for its freedoms," which in the US is a famous neocon political slogan dating back to 9/11.  Washington has used that kind of rhetoric to imply that well obviously American civil society is much preferable in every way and obviously fundamentalists cannot be understood any other way at all, only fought because look, it's all basically blind jealousy and (neat reason-less sounding language here) "hate."  And none of them surely are thinking about anything else, and all of them must be pretty interested in attacking the US directly and no matter if it's in the region or in North America.  Or so we are kind of led to believe as that slogan has been used.

                I'm not saying the outfit hasn't done draconian stuff.  And presumably some of their leadership has some interest in fundamentalist management strategy or possibly the amorphous notion of some international "caliphate" dream (though be careful, it's another thing US Central Command loves to cite in memos but various fundamentalists love to disagree about if you look for coordinated details).  And some might be interested in attacking specifically American stuff or going abroad.  I wouldn't assume you find half the outfit all having the same opinion on the details of all those things you mention.  I rather suspect, particularly in Iraq, that most are interested in some parts more than others.

                  Your "25,000 hardcore" figure seems like a rather hyped media term to me.  Googling, I see some papers saying "25,000 hardcore fighters" and others saying "25,000 Wahabis" but I can't see how they all get to be obviously equally conservative on all the same issues by default.  That would also seem to be hinting half the force now in Iraq are nothing at all but fundamentalist zombies, as it were?  By that number I think they mean basically, everyone who came out of Syria -- and then the other half are most of the Iraqis, I suppose?  Even if it somehow were anywhere near correct to say that and all Syrian Isis in Iraq are totally on the same page, then you end up with a near 50/50 split between 'known hardcore" (as if they were all the same) and everyone else (who I've read reported more in detail, in Iraq, are clearly not all from the same situation but then Iraq was generally tribal or secular). 

           It's kind of like every other Western unit that does non-conventional operations getting labeled "commandos."  It makes the situation sound dramatic, paints one big faceless force to be reckoned with as a fiery image to follow, but tells you very little about where they are coming from or when and why particular groups do what they do. 

            But more to the original point, when even you say some groups are more interested in "purging Muslims" than interacting with the West at all?  That just doesn't square with your original claim:  "They hate us for our freedoms."  If they are mainly concerned about Muslims, then they don't have to be thinking about the West much at all.  They might be incidentally or as a matter of vague propaganda, but the one doesn't require the other.  Certainly not of the rank and file, though I bet the US cares much less about many of those than the volume of the press releases would suggest.

            ...  Whereas those who are working with one eye more immediately against the West, are not all railing solely against things that can be neatly reduced to that Western feel-good word "freedoms."  Scan through comments pages in some widely read foreign papers (still thinking of the Guardian myself), and see how often aggrieved people from Russia or China say both things like, the US is decadent and gaudy and soulless AND it's a big corrupt bully or maybe an abuser of labor all over the place. I could think of some more claims they may toss, which are not all entirely false by certain objective measures.  So whether it's out of reading on many issues or a desire to rachet up verbal bowling points, people with one or two concerns have often learned or been encouraged to shotgun.  I would expect some considerable fraction of Isis can do this, too. 

           There are also some released regular prisoners who may not have much of a fundamentalist concern per se...  And now hundreds of Western fighters are reportedly starting to join Isis; I could be wrong but I think you'll have a harder time establishing they're all faceless Wahabist fanatics of all the exact same mold and motivations, either.

[consortium11]

               Consortium, sorry but you're going all over for me.  You started out on "They hate the West for its freedoms," which in the US is a famous neocon political slogan dating back to 9/11.  Washington has used that kind of rhetoric to imply that well obviously American civil society is much preferable in every way and obviously fundamentalists cannot be understood any other way at all, only fought because look, it's all basically blind jealousy and (neat reason-less sounding language here) "hate."  And none of them surely are thinking about anything else, and all of them must be pretty interested in attacking the US directly and no matter if it's in the region or in North America.  Or so we are kind of led to believe as that slogan has been used.

If you're going to quote the statement it may be worth putting in the context of the whole speech... which includes:

But its goal [with regards to Al-Quida]  is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed.

They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Now, for fairly obvious reasons, the speech was primarily about America... it was an address by the US President to the US congress in the wake of 9/11. But similar sentiments were produced across the world in the wake of the attack and since then the "they hate us for our freedoms" meme has been appropriated to cover (frequently mockingly) the view that certain individuals or organisations hate others because of more liberal (used in the non-political sense) rights and freedoms they enjoy, normally contrasted with the "blowback" theory that views such acts as being a reaction to the influence and impact the West has had on other countries.

I'm running on the (I think fairly safe) assumption that your post with regards to your skepticism about "they hate us for our freedoms" was in response to Cassandra LeMay's post that some of them do hate us (and I use "us" in the most encompassing way... everyone who isn't the Islamic State and/or doesn't share their fundamentalist world view) for our freedoms; the freedom to not follow Shariah Law, the freedom to worship a different religion (or even a different interpretation of the same religion), the freedom to drink alcohol, the freedom for women to not have to cover themselves in public and be in the presence of a family member etc etc.

And every action by the Islamic State indicates that the above is exactly why they're fighting.

If there was another reason for their aggression and hatred, especially if it was the blow back reasoning, you'd expect their efforts to be based on attacking Western interests and opposing Israel. But they're not (at least yet...). They're about setting up their strict Caliphate, "punishing the infidels", destroying religious sites and imposing their fundamentalist views (often at the point of a sword) to anyone unfortunate enough to fall under their power. They're about removing the very freedoms that are noted in the "hate us for our freedoms" speech.

And presumably some of their leadership has some interest in fundamentalist management strategy or possibly the amorphous notion of some international "caliphate" dream (though be careful, it's another thing US Central Command loves to cite in memos but various fundamentalists love to disagree about if you look for coordinated details).

Thankfully we don't have to cite memos, we can actually look at what ISIS/the Islamic State has said and done... such as actually declaring an international Caliphate

Your "25,000 hardcore" figure seems like a rather hyped media term to me.

It's actually at the low-end of estimates, with recent ones more frequently putting it in the 50,000 to 100,000 range.

But more to the original point, when even you say some groups are more interested in "purging Muslims" than interacting with the West at all?  That just doesn't square with your original claim:  "They hate us for our freedoms."  If they are mainly concerned about Muslims, then they don't have to be thinking about the West much at all.  They might be incidentally or as a matter of vague propaganda, but the one doesn't require the other.  Certainly not of the rank and file, though I bet the US cares much less about many of those than the volume of the press releases would suggest.

As mentioned previously, the "us" in "they hate us for our freedoms" has never been the preserve of Americans, Europeans or even Westerners in general. It's everyone who's not them... in the speech where the term first appeared the Islamist attacks in Africa and Asia were specifically mentioned. They hate "fellow" Muslims for their freedom to worship a different branch of Islam or not follow Shariah law. That's a freedom... and it's one the Islamic State is intent on taking away.

...  Whereas those who are working with one eye more immediately against the West, are not all railing solely against things that can be neatly reduced to that Western feel-good word "freedoms."  Scan through comments pages in some widely read foreign papers (still thinking of the Guardian myself), and see how often aggrieved people from Russia or China say both things like, the US is decadent and gaudy and soulless AND it's a big corrupt bully or maybe an abuser of labor all over the place. I could think of some more claims they may toss, which are not all entirely false by certain objective measures.  So whether it's out of reading on many issues or a desire to rachet up verbal bowling points, people with one or two concerns have often learned or been encouraged to shotgun.  I would expect some considerable fraction of Isis can do this, too.

           There are also some released regular prisoners who may not have much of a fundamentalist concern per se...

I've written for the Guardian... I'm well aware of the trend of the comments there (although I'd note that the vast majority come from people within the UK or USA).

But we don't have to rely on comments on the Guardian from people who are highly unlikely to be members of the Islamic State generally complaining about the US and West in general. We can look at the masses of video and reporting coming out of the Islamic State where the militants (be they Syrian, Iraqi, from elsewhere in the Middle East, from further afield or from the West) talk about what brought them to fight... and pretty much universally it's to spread their fundamentalist "word of Allah" and kill non-believers. Somewhat surprisingly considering their origins Vice News has arguably had the best coverage of this; they have a lot of videos from inside the Islamic State.

And now hundreds of Western fighters are reportedly starting to join Isis; I could be wrong but I think you'll have a harder time establishing they're all faceless Wahabist fanatics of all the exact same mold and motivations, either.

There's actually a pretty simple way.

As you've pointed out, there are a lot of people who dislike how the West acts in general and in the Middle East in particular, often vehemently. People deplored the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq even more and detest the West's support for Israel. Yet more hate what they see as the corruption of the West, the absolute power of the "1%" etc etc. These people come from virtually all countries, political persuasions, religions, philosophies etc etc.

Yet how many of those who have gone to fight for the Islamic State haven't been fundamentalist Muslims of a specific branch of a specific branch?

When volunteers went to fight in the Spanish Civil War even those on the nominal same side had radical differences and few similarities; the nationalists could call upon Nazi's, fascists, small "c" conservatives, Catholic fundamentalists, anti-imperialists, anti-communists and yet more groups. The opposition could call upon idealist liberals (in the classical sense), socialists, communists and others.

There is no such coalition in ISIS. It's Islamic fundamentalists. If the reasons why people fought for ISIS weren't predicated on that fundamentalist take on a religion you'd expect people with differing faiths to have joined... yet they haven't.

[Formless]

Aside from the fact that the ISIS's fight is nothing but a predicted ' power struggle'. Its actually a misunderstanding to think they are ' hating ' the west for its freedoms.

I hate to be the one who says this , but for the sake of argument let it be said. They hate USA. If you wish to take it on a politically correct realm , then we agree that they do hate USA for its freedoms and for harnessing other religions besides Islam.

But from a logical view? It seems the ISIS are just going after what they can to earn some sort of political influence. Because the European countries have as much freedom as the US , yet you don't see the ISIS showing any interest in going against them?

Its actually funny how the ISIS says they will liberate Saudi Arabia ( The heart of the Islamic Nation ). I mean what is there to liberate since we enforce the religion in its sternest ways? So going about the true reasons of this group of barbarians? Its nothing but a way for them to gain some political and military backup.

As a final note , I'll add this historical saying about the land of Iraq. ' Iraq is where Sedition blossoms and dies. '

[gaggedLouise]

Its actually funny how the ISIS says they will liberate Saudi Arabia ( The heart of the Islamic Nation ). I mean what is there to liberate since we enforce the religion in its sternest ways? So going about the true reasons of this group of barbarians? Its nothing but a way for them to gain some political and military backup.

As a final note , I'll add this historical saying about the land of Iraq. ' Iraq is where Sedition blossoms and dies. '

Nods, it's like them telling the Saudi Arabian regime and their imams: "You're not tough enough, guys". Which is also basically what bin-Laden did for much of his career as a Jihadist leader.

[consortium11]

Because the European countries have as much freedom as the US , yet you don't see the ISIS showing any interest in going against them?

They've basically taken as much interest in Europe as the US at this point; they've occasionally talked about how they're the devil but not seemingly put any effort into attacking their interests directly. Because of the relatively high number of UK jihadis who have traveled to fight for them the UK tends to pop up fairly frequently as a target of derision in their PR releases.

I'd note that from what we know the Islamic State seemingly actually prioritises capturing certain European citizens more than they do US ones; while the US and UK pretty much refuses to pay ransoms other countries allegedly do (unfortunately living up to the stereotype France are generally considered one of the most frequent at doing this) and as such the Islamic State can help fund itself by targeting their citizens.

[Callie Del Noire]

But from a logical view? It seems the ISIS are just going after what they can to earn some sort of political influence. Because the European countries have as much freedom as the US , yet you don't see the ISIS showing any interest in going against them?

What, you mean besides threatening them as well? And laying loose claim to most of the Med adjacent EU countries? Because they haven't implicitly laid the sword at the steps of all the European Governments doesn't mean that those same governments aren't on the list as well.

I will confess to be surprised that given the anti-islmanic attitudes in some parts of western europe that there hasn't been threats made loudly. They are coming though. Don't forget it is a LOT easier to get at most European venues than US ones. I imagine once the folks in ISIL/ISIS are done blowing up their own local holy sites and religious rivals they will go back to blowing up European citizens along with US ones.

[kylie]

If you're going to quote the statement it may be worth putting in the context of the whole speech... which includes:

Now, for fairly obvious reasons, the speech was primarily about America... it was an address by the US President to the US congress in the wake of 9/11.

Yes, and you're obviously rather well read on it.  You're bringing up plenty of stuff that I wasn't thinking of at all.  So forgive me if I stick more with what I actually had in mind.

          The broader context I recall now, is how very much it's been used in domestic political culture as a rather simplistic shortcut to excuse among conservatives in the US generally:  The whole string of endless war, rushing through of the Patriot Act largely unread, rendition of captives on to torturing regimes, bombing by everything from dumb Superfortress to hopefully smarter lasers and drones, and even extension of the initially "anti-terror" campaign on into Iraq where it arguably didn't belong (or not so much at that time).  Whatever among all this one supports, one doesn't have to talk much about who does what over where and why they say they do it, or the timing with which they do it, or the whole region of people and factions they are often talking to as opposed to (or at least, usually in addition to) America.  One simply repeats, "Well they hate us for our freedoms.  That's all you ever need to know."  And I have heard it repeated in crass, common folk talk long after that speech you are picking over high-brow responses to. 

          If anything, I'm less concerned with how you would seek to quantify such words that are all fire and brimstone in themselves...  Than the fact that most people won't think to ever question it.  It is not any empirical claim in itself that has a definite target or consistent evidence.  You yourself end up saying, "Oh but I'm not talking about" this or that and have to slice and dice it to make sense out of it.  But what it does do is scream "hate" and "freedom" rah rah let's bomb the ragheads cause they're obviously oh so impenetrably evil and different.  Even Hitler often received more useful analysis than this.

But similar sentiments were produced across the world in the wake of the attack and since then the "they hate us for our freedoms" meme has been appropriated to cover (frequently mockingly) the view that certain individuals or organisations hate others because of more liberal (used in the non-political sense) rights and freedoms they enjoy, normally contrasted with the "blowback" theory that views such acts as being a reaction to the influence and impact the West has had on other countries.

Again, I'm not entirely convinced that the pursuit or interest in one, obviates pursuit or interest in the other.  Not everyone has the scope or interest to just hop across the world.  Nor the rush to conduct suicide missions against say, Navy bases in the Gulf.  It doesn't mean none of them care (though some of them probably don't).  And not everyone has the fundamentalist interest in sharia law, but that doesn't mean they can always restrain those influential leaders or comrades who do.

         I do think the displacement of communities and imposition of restrictive cultural rules is sickening.  I just don't like a slogan that feeds on that imagery to create a mindless, single-minded, self-righteousness in response.  And you may recall that in fact the Bush administration which used this slogan, actually invested very little to help the same women in Afghanistan who it so loved to hold up as the prime examples of how awful the regimes it opposed was. 

        So at least pick some hard-headed reasons when going to war for me to decide on (real ones, tell me about those oil lines and btw probable sweet Halliburton contracts you want --- and not the faked WMD evidence).  Or don't toss me humanitarian scraps you don't mean to actually deal with anytime soon.  Anything else, and such a slogan lets the people have a feelgood war about issues that post-occupation, we often aren't very able or willing to devote resources to anyway.  How many years after the fall of Baghdad did we hear, oh we can't secure educational facilities yet, we can barely keep the power on half the day. 

         I might still support a ground war against Isis.  But I would prefer not to do it by repeating a slogan that works like that.  You may be willing to pick and choose and find a good case here, exception there.  I have run into enough hotheads who are not.  And it flies around encouraging them not to.

I'm running on the (I think fairly safe) assumption that your post with regards to your skepticism about "they hate us for our freedoms" was in response to Cassandra LeMay's post

Shrugs.  Wasn't even thinking of it.  Haven't read it, or not that I recall.  Is she the only one of any note who's ever had a problem with the slogan?  Though it may or may not be consistent.  Is it really necessary that I precisely follow the particular logic of some opinion leader you happen to feel encapsulates the spirit of a whole swath somewhere you think you already have the neat response for, to have my thoughts on the matter considered?  If you want or need to use her to make some point, you could start on that point already and see if that is even what I had in mind.  Or maybe even, ask rather than assume I'm obviously completely in line with whoever you like to pick.

... that some of them do hate us (and I use "us" in the most encompassing way... everyone who isn't the Islamic State and/or doesn't share their fundamentalist world view) for our freedoms; the freedom to not follow Shariah Law, the freedom to worship a different religion (or even a different interpretation of the same religion), the freedom to drink alcohol, the freedom for women to not have to cover themselves in public and be in the presence of a family member etc etc.

        Again, I suggest you look into the whole "Caliphate" idea closely.  My understanding is it's been overplayed by Central Command, but that's based on reading a few reports more from the Iraq era.  I don't care so much about a press release from some faction or handful so much as what I think the mass actually lives like and can sustain.  And there, when you start chopping of a different 25,000 here or there (fine let's not talk about Iraq then), it just suggests to me that that movement you are harping about as the only thing to pay attention to -- maybe it's not all that uniform on the inside.

        I'd also be skeptical that an organization that claims to be taking over a chunk of Al Qaeda's following, would (at least formally) be able to entirely dispense with its originating, historical claims about Western interference and corruption in Arab governments and other neo-colonial influences.

And every action by the Islamic State indicates that the above is exactly why they're fighting.

         Again trying to come up to date a little though...  My understanding is this organization, and in particular those 25,000 who you at one point tried to limit more to Syria ("I'm not talking about in Iraq," wasn't it??) ...  They were mainly involved with fighting the Syrian regime until they had setbacks, after which they suddenly found it more convenient to move into the lightly defended North of Iraq.  But oh, I suppose they simply hated the Syrian regime for its freedoms too?  After all, everything they do must be singularly focused as you say...  So wouldn't you suppose?  I don't see it lining up.

Thankfully we don't have to cite memos, we can actually look at what ISIS/the Islamic State has said and done... such as actually declaring an international Caliphate

         We're gonna just zing by each other here.  You're looking at "news" events in the direction of 'the big waves' form which only care about easily found 'shocking' outcomes, and then trying (I think) to convert it into some kind of common psychological claim that encompasses all how many, is it a hundred thou you're up to now?  I'm talking about the slogan that says we know what they want and generalizing it to abstract levels like "hate."  Perhaps on your own terms you're right, if all you care about is can enough people be dragged in one direction and keep the mess going a while.  Seems that is what got the US into Iraq, too.  Not everyone believed everything they were told, not everyone wanted the same thing precisely -- but there was enough overlap to create a disaster.  I just don't want to go bandying about a slogan that focuses thought in the same way.  That's all.

            And again I agree they're doing some shocking stuff and (if you think so) it wouldn't be a bad idea to put more effort into stopping it -- Though I'm not sure how that would work out neatly.  I'm rather concerned it just won't work out soon.  So it would take something of a whole new paradigm to stay engaged and sit on the matter, and at what cost.  That isn't such a new conversation after Bosnia or the previous Iraq conflict.  Not sure the US has the will or means to pull it off though...  Or perhaps, the perspective to predict where it would lead next in the region.  The track record isn't so great, thus far.

Yet how many of those who have gone to fight for the Islamic State haven't been fundamentalist Muslims of a specific branch of a specific branch?

When volunteers went to fight in the Spanish Civil War even those on the nominal same side had radical differences and few similarities; the nationalists could call upon Nazi's, fascists, small "c" conservatives, Catholic fundamentalists, anti-imperialists, anti-communists and yet more groups. The opposition could call upon idealist liberals (in the classical sense), socialists, communists and others.

There is no such coalition in ISIS. It's Islamic fundamentalists. If the reasons why people fought for ISIS weren't predicated on that fundamentalist take on a religion you'd expect people with differing faiths to have joined... yet they haven't.

This is all kind of minor I think to the larger discussion.  But the fourth point gets more at what nags me.

         First, they haven't been in the news all that long.  I'd say it's only this invasion of Iraq that has made them look like a military success story that many people in the West are that familiar with.

         Second, you have more speculation based on history of much earlier wars --- but do you have numbers?  You could be right this time, but just saying.  Maybe the situation of the media and global capital, and circles critical of all that, isn't quite what it was in the 1930's.

         Third, some have joined.   I can't find it at the drop of a hat, but there were articles in the Guardian a couple weeks ago about Brits who became, if I recall, suicide bombers but they were believed to be far from socially conservative.  Perhaps motivated by something very different than a concern for purging the Muslim world of certain minorities or certain dress customs.  I think it was suggested to be more, a concern that the Syrian government was being atrocious as also shown in some Isis media?  So perhaps back to the first two points.  I don't know how many it takes to impress you or whether they're in a grand spot to all be interviewed.  But too early to tell on the macro level, I might wager. 

         Fourth, it still sounds like making "fundamentalism" out to be one singular mold.  And there I return to my assertions that the group can do all sorts of unsavory stuff and not all seem immediately intent on anything critical or noble in a liberal Western mold....  But then, most of these people don't live in an environment where they have the means or luxury of dealing in that mold to begin with.  And that is not entirely their own fault...  Some of it may be the regime's, hell by extension of global economics some is probably even ours.  And what if they have enough shred of consciousness of society and history to "hate" as you like to put it so vaguely, some of that?

[Callie Del Noire]

Point of fact Kylie, if you're willing to follow the evolution of the ISIL leadership and personalities involved some of them have been involved in Jihadi (and mercenary) activities in the Gulf region as far back as 1994 or so. Look up ISIL on Wikipedia for some of the names.  Some of the leadership had even been hired by Saddam to suppress Kurdish indepence while giving Saddam the ability to not be associated with the suppression

Like I said before, these groups have stooged around the Middle East for decades working for pretty much anyone who could pay them to shot, bomb or stab someone else. This current group started forming from similar groups like Al-queada in Iraq while the US was moving out of the region

The ISIL movement really gained cohesion and focus with the on set of the Syrian Civil war and the recent failure of Iraq to maintain a properly balanced government. (The old leadership was too busy consolidating power among his ow people)

With the failure of groups like the Assad regime and Saddam Hussein's death, their sponsors have stoped paying them. So they are building their own little badit caliphate. With the limp waisted actions of the White House and the EU in building a proper alliance of moderate forces in Turkey, these men were able to pulled it off

Like I said before, this will take a commitment of more than air strikes and withy washy waffling on the West's behalf. One thing is required the intestinal fortitude to realiZe any commitment we make will require 2 to possibly 3 generations of active on the ground involvement in the region to help the more moderate elements build countries will last.

Problem is..ISIL is shooting the moderates while we waffle and dick around.

Additionally, a lot of the regional issues date back to the arbitrary formation of nations at the end of the First World War. There a LOT of issues that go back a century or so that have never been resolved beyond whoever was in charge shooting anyone who complained about the status quo since then. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Like I said before, this will take a commitment of more than air strikes and withy washy waffling on the West's behalf. One thing is required the intestinal fortitude to realiZe any commitment we make will require 2 to possibly 3 generations of active on the ground involvement in the region to help the more moderate elements build countries will last.

The U.S. struggles to maintain a commitment for more than 8 years at a time, let alone 2 generations. With the degree to which politics has become polarized, I can't imagine that fortitude being possible for a long time from now - even if both parties magically recognized what needed to be done, the 2nd one in power would end it immediately to avoid being seen as supporting their predecessor's policies.

[kylie]

Point of fact Kylie, if you're willing to follow the evolution of the ISIL leadership and personalities involved some of them have been involved in Jihadi (and mercenary) activities in the Gulf region as far back as 1994 or so.

Yes, yes.  Some, some, some.  I'm not trying to argue they aren't doing atrocious stuff.  Sure go after the operational leadership that is doing that.  I'm not saying they are all angels, for heaven's sake. 

          I'm just not in favor of tossing around "hate" and "freedom" and then watching as we go in and do little to nothing, to help many of the people actually suffering most from that same social mess that was used to motivate support for the action. 

       And sometimes one has to ask:  Is this military, particularly knowing the other sorts of things it does tend to protect in that particular region (pipelines, hardened Green Zone buildings, corrupt and often oppressive regimes, maybe select favorite local guerrilla units of the day), a tool that is going to deal with the kind of "hate" one claims to be concerned with?  Don't gimme the 'they're so evil' style slogan.  Tell me exactly what is going to be policed and what is not.  And try not to let the last part become something nearly as outrageous as what we have now.  But we've seen this show before, haven't we? 

         Unless everyone wants to make a deal.  I'll adopt that neat little slogan if we can agree it's also proper to say:  American culture "hates" Blacks to some considerable extent, too.  A different kind of hate, perhaps, but it does little to help them and  much to harm them on a daily basis, no matter what individual factions or leaders say they are trying to achieve.  But I doubt you'd all be comfortable with that.  It might be something too close to truth and parity.

Like I said before, this will take a commitment of more than air strikes and withy washy waffling on the West's behalf. One thing is required the intestinal fortitude to realiZe any commitment we make will require 2 to possibly 3 generations of active on the ground involvement in the region to help the more moderate elements build countries will last.

As I said, another paradigm.  The US would have to actually invest in things like education (not leaving it to half unprotected, scantly funded NGO's in many areas), women's rights at the township level at least, and perhaps even cultural stuff (what if museums and religious monuments are useful for inspiring some policy choices later?)...  But then...  We have swaths of the US where investments in these things are scarce or directed in very questionable and biased ways.  Do we even have the political will and means to do this well in a large foreign country?  Particularly now.  We aren't riding so high as we were with the occupation of Japan.

[Callie Del Noire]

       
          As I said, another paradigm.  The US would have to actually invest in things like education (not leaving it to half unprotected, scantly funded NGO's in many areas), women's rights at the township level at least, and perhaps even cultural stuff (what if museums and religious monuments are useful for inspiring some policy choices later?)...  But then...  We have swaths of the US where investments in these things are scarce or directed in very questionable and biased ways.  Do we even have the political will and means to do this well in a large foreign country?  Particularly now.  We aren't riding so high as we were with the occupation of Japan.

Exactly.. we need to BUILD the country.. not the government. Unfortunately, both you and Glyph are right. We're so polarized and ruled by this week's opinion polls that this will not happen short of a MASSIVE polarizing event. Something that I cannot predict or so. We need a leader of MASSIVE appeal across all venues, a true statesman.

Unfortunately they are all dead.

So, we're (in my opinion) doomed to a slow erratic progression over the next two to three generations. Our Grandchildren will be reaping the 'rewards' of our fathers (and ourselves) hubris and foolishness.

[kylie]

         Just curious...  What is going on with the estimates of Isis numbers? 

Estimates of Islamic State strength range from 7,000 to 30,000.

         Is this simply a mistake?  Are they not counting Iraqi units originating from other communities that may have been pressed in, however under duress or temporarily for the sake of logistics...  Or did a lot of people leave after the US started bombing, or otherwise get pulled away recently?  Or were the numbers before just inflated?

         None of which shows that anyone else is moving them away.  But it's still rather odd, isn't it?

[Kythia]

Over here (UK) the name seems to have changed to just IS/Islamic State.  Is that reflected elsewhere?

[gaggedLouise]

It's mostly ISIS here in Sweden, but IS is getting used too.

[kylie]

       Yeah, there's been a lot of back and forth about the name and however to refer to the outfit. 

Some Mideast/ Muslim factions are apparently furious that they've even taken up the term "Islamic" to begin with...  Though it would seem all sorts of movements in the region have.

        And, with perhaps a little more focus from the West now...  It's all still going!

In an excellent piece on the militants last week, the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, wrote: “Opponents of the term Islamic State say it is neither Islamic nor a state: thus the suggestion of a group of British imams to [David] Cameron that he use the expression ‘Un-Islamic State’. In a similar legitimacy-undermining vein, Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Dar al-Ifta, urged the media to use the rather heavy-handed QSIS: ‘Al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria’. Daesh, now officially adopted by the French government, is the Arabic acronym for Al Dawla al-Islamyia fil Iraq wa’al Sham.”

[consortium11]

Trying to follow the exact name of terrorist groups is always somewhat challenging and it seems especially so in the case of Islamic groups; in it's time what now calls itself the Islamic State has been known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jabhat al-Nusra, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (hence ISIS) and now the Islamic State.

That said I'm not sure on what basis we shouldn't call them the Islamic State... it's what they call themselves these days. We still refer to the LFA as the Lord's Resistance Army despite them doing the Lord's work as much as Islamic State is Islamic, not being an army and not fighting a resistance.

[Oniya]

Well, the 'Holy Roman Empire' was neither Roman, nor an Empire (not particularly 'holy', either...) - it was a loose collection of mostly Germanic territories.

I am glad to see that there is some backlash about the name, though.  In this day and age, using a name like that implies speaking for all people meeting the descriptor, even (some might say especially) when that is far from the case.

[kylie]

       Owen Jones wrote a column I thought was interesting, with these recommendations.  Though I'm not sure how practical they are.  I'm just not sure if Iraq can really be integrated...  I'm not clear whether further partition is a viable long-term option (or the least worst option), either.

At the moment, many Iraqi Sunni Muslims prefer Isis to the sectarian Shia militias. Until that is addressed through a process of national reconciliation and by integrating the Sunni minority – reversing the damage done by Maliki-style sectarianism – little will change. Jihadis have previously been turfed out by Sunni tribes, but there must be confidence in what replaces Isis.

Murderous Shia militias must be dismantled. Kurdish peshmerga must, undoubtedly, be properly armed. The western-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar must be compelled to crack down on the funding networks that are helping to sustain Isis and other terrorists. As General Jonathan Shaw says, these western client states must stop exporting the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology that underpins jihadi terrorists everywhere. Economic sanctions – and certainly arms embargoes – must result from non-compliance. External military intervention in Iraq and Syria must be led by regional powers, not by western forces as Isis craves.

[NenaShadowslayer]

I'm manly upset they dare to use the name of the great Goddess Isis, Goddess of magic, wife of Orisi, Lady of the otherworld. Sure, they use it as an abbreviation, but it's still her name. It's ironic as all get out; a group of terrorism who clam to worship the one true god and treat their woman like slaves deemed their group Isis, a Goddess who would sooner kill a mortal man for telling her what to do as.
As for what we've messed up, I believe we've messed up for a lot longer than we'd like to admit. I mean, we BOMBED innocent children in japan to get a point across in the cold war for Hekita's sakes. If that's not the biggest screw up we've made, what is?

[Ephiral]

I'm manly upset they dare to use the name of the great Goddess Isis, Goddess of magic, wife of Orisi, Lady of the otherworld. Sure, they use it as an abbreviation, but it's still her name. It's ironic as all get out; a group of terrorism who clam to worship the one true god and treat their woman like slaves deemed their group Isis, a Goddess who would sooner kill a mortal man for telling her what to do as.
As for what we've messed up, I believe we've messed up for a lot longer than we'd like to admit. I mean, we BOMBED innocent children in japan to get a point across in the cold war for Hekita's sakes. If that's not the biggest screw up we've made, what is?

Is... is this a Poe? Because it's pretty incoherent and ignorant.

First, you're... you're aware that "they" don't actually call it ISIS, because they're using neither the English language nor the Western alphabet, right? Please tell me you understand this.

Second: Really? Mass murder, mayhem, and oppression, and your issue is word selection and perceived offense to a deity? You, um, might want to check your priorities if human lives are that low on it.

Third: Um, what bombing are you referring to? Because the obvious one was WW2, not the cold war.

Fourth: Depends on how you define "we", but if you're really looking for a candidate for "biggest screwup by Western civilization", I'd humbly submit the near-genocide of indigenous people in North America and Australia.

[Question Mark]

Is... is this a Poe? Because it's pretty incoherent and ignorant.

First, you're... you're aware that "they" don't actually call it ISIS, because they're using neither the English language nor the Western alphabet, right? Please tell me you understand this.

Second: Really? Mass murder, mayhem, and oppression, and your issue is word selection and perceived offense to a deity? You, um, might want to check your priorities if human lives are that low on it.

Third: Um, what bombing are you referring to? Because the obvious one was WW2, not the cold war.

Fourth: Depends on how you define "we", but if you're really looking for a candidate for "biggest screwup by Western civilization", I'd humbly submit the near-genocide of indigenous people in North America and Australia.

I won't speak to her post, but I think you could have worded your response a bit more civilly.

[Kythia]

Huh, I thought that was HealerGirl at first.  I was amazed.

[gaggedLouise]

Huh, I thought that was HealerGirl at first.  I was amazed.

Yep, I keep connecting her to that avie too. She's been effectively on a time-out for several months, for some unknown reason: I hope she will be back with us in time.

[TheGlyphstone]

Maybe it's her evil twin from a parallel universe.

[Kythia]

Nah, she'd have a goatee if she were an evil twin.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I have a question pertaining to this thread: Does any one think Americans and Britain's should be concerned, if not worried about Islamic/Issis influence in America and Europe?

If so, how much of a threat do you think Indoctrination/converting posses?

I understand the home states are not the present issue. And I feel for the people being inflicted by Issis. But it is clear that Isis is trying to influence people to be radical in America and Europe, through online vids/adds. What with people running armed across the whitehouse lawn, and people beheading co workers. It seems people here are listening.

To me it is something of concern, and should be more then enough reason to put troops on the ground. (On top of the previous reasons, which are also more then enough for us to take action. Inaction at this point is morally wrong, be you Catholic, a Non radical Islamic, or even an atheist. Inaction is sadly however, something many countries are currently guilty of.) Bombing wont work, and unless we can obtain a foot hold they will continue to indoctrinate more young boys into the fold, effectively replenishing numbers.

[Ebb]

I think the idea of enacting violence against anyone in response to YouTube videos is morally indefensible and likely to be completely ineffective. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be acting against ISIS in some capacity, but it ought to be in response to their own documented instances of brutality, or in the interests of preserving global stability, not in an effort to prevent the indoctrination that you're concerned about.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I was not saying its my main concern, or should be any ones. In fact I did state that there are better reasons to act, I was merely asking if it is of any real concern to any one else. Sorry if the question was stupid. Just trying to contribute to a conversation.

[Ebb]

I don't think it's a stupid question at all. It's very reasonable to ask what is the minimum provocation required in order to justify violence. I expect that many people will have answers different from my own.

[kylie]

     And here's the Guardian arguing that not only is the West lining up for proxy war against Syria and (at least by way of denying stability in the neighborhood) Iran, but also that perhaps the US isn't all that interested in truly decimating ISIS at all. 

     Of course, funny how very little the people at home hear in the early years, while these things are being started.  Even lately I'd be rather surprised if there's a very serious investigation in much of the American press of who's who historically inside say, Syria (not that it's the easiest thing to do lately, granted but how did we get there anyway).  It's all just "Yuhuh, we're funding 'the better Muslims' in a war against tyranny" or some vague "defending our interests, nothing to see here" vibe -- blah blah.  While barely spending ten minutes of news time on who the heck is who or where the money is going exactly (bribe, wink nudge, weapons, authoritarian state buddies, warlord, bribe some more).

     Though I'm rather more dubious about the last sentence.  So, bleh all around.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

[Sheoldred]

I find it funny how all the toys distributed in this video are tiny guns. Even the little girl at 12.:47 gets a gun. 'No, hun, we don't have dolls. But you can have something better.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsN5OkFpREY