ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Rhyfelwyr]

We didn't slap the brand name on them, however in saying that you bring up an important point... ISIS has only been able to do what it has done because it has given itself such a recognizable brand identity. There is no little irony in the fact that it is a thoroughly modern caliphate - very capitalistic and tech-savvy. On the former point, that is probably due to their origins in Al-Qaeda - I remember coming across an article where it was described how Bin Laden used his business experience in the West to run Al-Qaeda like a sort of corporation - everything right down to the group's grocery shopping had to be inventoried. As for their tech-savvyness, that is the real secret to their success. Their use of social media, viral videos and 'shock' tactics to make the headlines in Western media is what has fuelled their recruitment drive for Muslims all over the world - the coverage they get is so prolific and dramatic that it lends them a sort of credibility as a fighting force. It has also earned them a lot of cheap battlefield victories - their vicious image is what is thought to have caused the Iraqi army to flee before them.

ISIS should be nothing - they are a tiny fighting force, only around 15-20k men. But they are punching above their weight because they are using all the latest technology at their disposal to give off the image of a more substantial organisation. That's also why people in the West are talking about them, even though they are really just the latest in a long line of petty, sectarian terrorist groups.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Many of my colleagues were crying yesterday. The journalist chap who was killed was a graduate of our Journalism program.


I don't think the West, separately or collectively, is prepared to deal with the Middle East. I predict we shall, separately and collectively, "keep on keepin' on" with our existing mélange of policies, over-reactions, and outraged sensibilities. This will, of course, engender the same current level of success we enjoy in the region.


The Middle East has a rich history and the cultures raised in that region have long-standing rules for settling grievances. These are imprinted on their youth as a part of identity establishment and have the same degree of identity connection that social stoicism has for an upper class Brit or "alles in ordnung" has for the educated German. It is not simply a component of how they interact with others but of WHO they are. With that level of entrenched mind set, our options for real "change" are limited.

We can keep on what doing more or less what we are doing an thereby generate the same joyous results we have enjoyed to date.

We can withdraw from the region more or less entirely, trading for oil with whatever potentate currently controls it but accepting that we have no way to insure stability of production or delivery. All of the local forces who oppose Western (usually USA) efforts in the region would be the victors in this instance.

We can back a local proxy or three and let them fight by local rules while supporting them lavishly, funding their efforts, and ignoring their gross violations of human rights and freedoms. This would allow us to put boots on necks by proxy, though it would not change the "meta" of the area.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under orthodox rules of engagement. This would be followed by a period of occupation during which new cultural values would be inculcated and local institutions allowed to mature to make that culture shift permanent. This would involve at least 20 years of occupation, the first decade of which would closely resemble the experience of US forces in Iraq after Gulf II.

We can go in collectively using 90+% of our combined military capability under local rules of engagement (active use of war crime tactics). This would be followed by a period of occupation of not less than 20 years to allow for the same changes noted in the previous option. Casualties during the initial decade would be substantially lower among occupying forces but much higher among the civilian population. The die-off would actually work to bring cultural change faster, though the likelihood of backlash may undercut the change effort.

I would like to see option two. I will see option one.

[HoreTore]

I don't think the West, separately or collectively, is prepared to deal with the Middle East.

Many more journalists have been whacked in Ukraine.

The brutality we see? Old news as well.

The Middle East isn't very special. It's just currently very hostile to the US.

[Pannonian]

Many more journalists have been whacked in Ukraine.

The brutality we see? Old news as well.

The Middle East isn't very special. It's just currently very hostile to the US.

Terms of negotiation in places like Ukraine are a bit closer to our western mindset though. That the rebels tried to cover up their involvement in the downing of the airliner is proof enough of this. If it happened in the middle east, you'd have had factions competing to claim credit.

[HoreTore]

Terms of negotiation in places like Ukraine are a bit closer to our western mindset though. That the rebels tried to cover up their involvement in the downing of the airliner is proof enough of this. If it happened in the middle east, you'd have had factions competing to claim credit.

Is that really a matter of differing mindsets?

The Ukrainians have everything to loose by taking credit, while groups in the mid-east can look to gain from it. If the Ukrainians could gain an advantage by taking credit - do you really think they wouldn't?

See: nationalist romanticizing of utterly brutal warcrimes during the Bosnian war.

Further, I don't see how ISIS would jump at the chance to take credit for the accidental shooting of a plane full of Sunni fundamentalist imams.

[Pannonian]

Is that really a matter of differing mindsets?

The Ukrainians have everything to loose by taking credit, while groups in the mid-east can look to gain from it. If the Ukrainians could gain an advantage by taking credit - do you really think they wouldn't?

See: nationalist romanticizing of utterly brutal warcrimes during the Bosnian war.

Further, I don't see how ISIS would jump at the chance to take credit for the accidental shooting of a plane full of Sunni fundamentalist imams.

One faction or another would. That's the point about Ukraine and other places like that. All sides work roughly in ways that are generally comprehensible to the west. Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it, and if it involved foreign nationals, then they'll even change operational methods to avoid repeating that in the future (as far as they're able to). However, in the middle east, there will always be factions competing to be as outrageous as possible from our western perspective, so that there is always something to gain for someone to trump the others in alienating them and us. Little we can do in the middle east in our experience results in lasting credit; no matter what we do, there will always be someone looking to be as pointlessly destructive as possible (from our perspective) that will corresponding get them power (which is alien to our understanding of the world). In Ukraine, we can be fairly certain what works and what does not; it's just a matter of whether we're capable and willing.

And as I've said before, I count Israel in the list of middle eastern countries with their alien middle eastern perspectives. They're different mainly because of the influence of what Frag would call lefties: liberals and socialists. If they're ever marginalised or even disappear, Israel would be little different from the other middle eastern countries.

[HoreTore]

Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it

I suggest you read up on the Yugoslav war.

You will find plenty of nationalists celebrating the deaths of civilians. While you're at it, you could also look up groups like the RAF.

You still have not dealt with the issue of punishment, though. These middle eastern groups you talk about will face no consequences for their actions. Every western group will face harsh consequences. Until you've dealt with that problem, I can't see how you can conclude on mentality.

Further, I think you will find that Mid-Eastern regimes respond as anyone else to the use of force. Look at Fatah. What I think you're forgetting is the difference between the short and the long term, and the concept of loosing a battle to win a war(undoubtedly a mindset Hamas had in the recent trolling).

Still, you are completely correct that western leaders generally do not have a clue of how Arab leaders think(and the opposite is also true). The Bush administration had little clue as to what Saddam was thinking, and why he acted the way he did. But that could also be said of most of the Cold War. When did we ever know what the Russkies were really up to?

[Strike For The South]

ISIS should be nothing - they are a tiny fighting force, only around 15-20k men. But they are punching above their weight because they are using all the latest technology at their disposal to give off the image of a more substantial organisation. That's also why people in the West are talking about them, even though they are really just the latest in a long line of petty, sectarian terrorist groups.

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

[Fragony]

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

Who is we, not me and you. You play football and live the dream judging from the looks of your really pretty girlfriend, and I am cashing in on my interests and won't have to work a day in my life. IS is so vile, it's too rediculous for me to understand from my comfortable bliss. It's so incredibly nasty what they are doing, they ought to be destroyed simply because they are so incrededibly cruel.

[rajpoot]

RIP to the two journalists.
I just read the news about the second one being murdered. I can't even begin to imagine what their families must be going through after seeing what was videotaped....It is terrible. Sickening. No innocent man deserves to go that way. And I cannot even begin to imagine what they must put their captives through to have them say stuff like that.
I'm certain there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who are glad that the USA is fighting against terror. I'm sure people are grateful. But like it's been mentioned the cost has been terrible. No one country should bear the brunt of the suffering.
Either way the only thing I can think of at the moment is how these literally need to be bombed back to the stone age and then some more for a good measure.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am of two minds here. On one hand, I feel exactly like you just described. On the other, ISIS is just the worst kind of evil, and I (and many other vets) feel very invested in that part of the world these days. I'm literally torn right down the middle between thinking we should stay out of it, and showing up at the recruiter's office to beg for a chance to go back there and end that horrible group of extremists. Its heart-wrenching for all vets, and even worse for those still in the Army who have served in the war on terror.

I'm willing to let you and your mates go back if that is what we decide. I do have a couple of requirements though:

1. Congress has to Declare War formally and commit the country completely. Treat it as a "true" war upon which we feel our survival and fortune depends.

2. You and your mates get to write the rules of engagement.

[Pannonian]

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

You might be interested in this.

[Vincent Butler]

War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that. We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

[Noncommunist]

War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that. We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

[Vincent Butler]

While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

It would be nice if we did not have to get involved again, though I never supported the troop withdrawal to begin with, not in the circumstances it was done in. As to the chances of them nuking us, maybe not a nuke, but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough. I agree, bomb them back to the stone age, and then some more. But we also need to cut their supply lines, stop whoever is supplying them and punish them too.

[HoreTore]

but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough.

How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

[Pannonian]

On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

The channel of communication was sufficient for us to bilaterally reduce nuclear threats and stockpiles. This bilateralism was possible because we had enough in common to make such agreement possible. Conflict was within mutually understood bounds. With the middle eastern lot, they operate by a drastically different set of values, and there is no scope for a similar bilateralism. The closest we had was when strongmen ruled these countries, putting down opposition inside their own borders whilst jockeying for international position. That we could deal with state to state. But we got too full of our own penchant for freedom and democracy, and overthrew these strongmen so that their populations could join us in the new democratic world. Well, this is the new democratic world, and the regimes being chosen aren't what we hoped for.

Parallel to this is the case of Turkey. We opposed the old Kemalist regime because we considered it anti-democratic. The Turkish people are now freer to choose the government they like, and it's one which is more alien to us than the old westernised Kemalist Turkey which we could broadly identify with. Sure, it's better than basket cases like Iraq, but perhaps secularism might have spread further in Turkey had we left them to their own devices for longer, rather than press them to conform to our democratic ideals. Sometimes, the general population of a country may be so foreign to us that their idea of what is good may work on a completely set of rules to what we consider to be the case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We can keep fighting evil men on behalf of ungrateful bastards until we are all broke and have nothing to eat with except good intentions. Or we can realize that all of our attempts at turning a desert into glass will just spawn more evil men.

Let the middle east live under hell until the culture changes against religious fundamentalism. Geo-political white knights are just as dumb as real life white knights.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh for goodness' sake. Why do we keep talking about the Islamic world as if it is in some sort of permanent state of apocalyptic war, as if every guy on the street is strapped with C4 and runs around shouting "derka derka jihad a jihad!"?

Across most of the Islamic world right now, most people are living peaceful lives and are concerned only with getting their breakfast and getting to work on time.

Are we forgetting what Europe looked like within our grandparents' lifetimes? The massive wars that were waged continually for hundreds of years? The bloody revolutions? The ethnic cleansing? The suppressed revolts?

The Islamic world is just working through some things the same way we did in Europe. I've said before I think what is going on there is a sort of mixture of a Reformation/Counter-Reformation on the one hand, and 20th-Century style ideological wars on the other. It has went from being a land of goat herders to having a fairly substantial and well-educated middle-class - they are flirting with nationalism, ideology and populist religion in the exact same way the people of Europe did when they first became exposed to them. They will also move on from these things eventually, just like we did in Europe.

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

I didn't say anything about whether or not we should be sending troops back again.

But on the technology point, I would say that the way that ISIS uses social media and the like to deliberately manipulate Western media and create a certain image for itself is unprecedented amongst similar groups. I suspect that the decision to have a man with a strong British accent carry out the recent beheadings was another of their propaganda ploys - they will have known that having a Briton do it would make it stand out above a regular Iraqi/Syrian Arab. Everything they do is about grabbing the headlines. That's why people are talking about them.