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.  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.