ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[HoreTore]

It is an interesting quirk of history that what you said actually holds true way further back than 1848. The British establishment has always had to fear its population in a way that rulers on the continent have not. One consequence of the widespread adoptation of the longbow was that the 'middling sorts' (yeomen farmers and the like) had the firepower to seriously challenge the elite heavy cavalry of the nobility. IIRC the French banned the longbow for this reason - it would have been dangerous in their own strict feudal order to give peasants the capacity to defeat their rulers in battle. Again, IIRC, such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

True enough.

Things never happen in isolation, and finding a "first cause" is always problematic due to the inevitability of prior important events. But even though there are events prior to 1848. England has their history, Germany(+east) had their peasant wars, the Low Countries had their republic, the French revolution, etc etc...

Still, I regard 1848 as higher than all of those because of the international nature of the revolution. All of the above were confined to a particular area(even if it drew in other powers). 1848 happened basically everywhere, all at once. To me, that is very significant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

Further, gradual change is exactly what happened in Europe. Apart from the russkies, all mainland revolutions failed. Spectacularly.

Actually, Britain is somewhat of an exception by this point. We already had a monarchy constrained by an assembly, and by 1832 the franchise to most property holders (not just owners). The later reform acts were really an extension of the process of extending and regularising the franchise.

If Britain had a particular impetus for Reform it would probably be the Revolutionary War which lost us the 13 Colonies, a war which itself sparked war in France. Both those revolutions succeeded, and I would argue that 1848 was a symptom of the groundswell that created rather than a major cause of change in itself.

[HopAlongBunny]

Maybe less bombing would be more effective:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...cant-crush-it/

A political solution? Is it even possible?

[Hooahguy]

Maybe less bombing would be more effective:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...cant-crush-it/

A political solution? Is it even possible?

The article definitely raises some points, though his use of David Swanson is laughable.

left sectarian division

No, it has always been there, Saddamn was just crushing it with an iron boot. No amount of US intervention (or lack thereof) can mend the Sunni-Shia divide.

And Swanson's solution to the IS problem is pathetically naive.

Yeah, because apologizing is really gonna make those IS guys just put down their arms and co-exist peacefully with everyone!

Send journalists, aid workers, peaceworkers, human shields, and negotiators into crisis zones, understanding that this means risking lives, but fewer lives than further militarization risks.

Because IS clearly values innocent lives. What an utter moron.

[Husar]

Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

Seems like the aftermath could be spared a lot more bloodshed if the US backed a multi-state solution....

[rory_20_uk]

Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

I would imagine that right about now weapons that have problems is better than fighing with strong words.

And it does seem to be sensible to use older stockpiles to help one's puppets in killing one's enemies (including traitors who have left to fight for Her Majesty's enemies). Countries should give small tranches at a time to as far as possible ensure that weaponry is used rather than stockpiled (as if bad persons are struggling to get hold of guns...)

[Hooahguy]

Second US journalist murdered by IS.

[HopAlongBunny]

I thought that SA article was a little too sunny.
It seems it would require participants on all sides as dedicated to peace, as they are presently dedicated to killing each other.
Long time before we get to that stage :(

[Pannonian]

I would imagine that right about now weapons that have problems is better than fighing with strong words.

Do the French have any Chauchats left?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do the French have any Chauchats left?

The wiki piece suggests that -- aside from museum collections etc. -- the French were VERY thorough in getting rid of that "piéce d' excrément."

[Pannonian]

The wiki piece suggests that -- aside from museum collections etc. -- the French were VERY thorough in getting rid of that "piéce d' excrément."

I'd imagine a Chauchat could come in handy. If you get in close enough, you could swing the Chauchat and club the enemy to death with a 20lb lump of metal. Also, if you have a rifle grenade attachment, you could toss a grenade up and use the Chauchat as a cricket bat to propel the grenade a fair distance. In fact, you wouldn't even need the rifle grenade attachment to use the Chauchat for that purpose, which just proves how inherently versatile it is.

[Kralizec]

And Swanson's solution to the IS problem is pathetically naive.

I would have said criminally naive. Even the site's name makes me want to smack my head.

There's so much wrong with that article...I don't know where to start, or when I would end.

[Fragony]

What teh que? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...b-9705120.html

Have they lost their mind?

[HoreTore]

Meanwhile the german government has decided that a good "recycling" solution for old weapon stockpiles would be to just gift the old stuff to the Kurds.

As such the Kurdish fighters will receive G3 and G36 rifles, MG3 machineguns and some old Panzerfaust launchers and Milan ATGMs.
Additionally they will get the P1 pistols, 10k of which were already given to Afghani policemen. And of course a few million rounds of ammunition for the rifles and ammunition for the rocket/missile launchers.

Now you may say the G36 is a relatively new rifle, but some production models were found to melt if fired a bit too often as they were made using inferior plastic. "But the good old P1 pistol that serves the Afghani police will save them!" you say, well, maybe, but it was known to be horribly inaccurate and is by now completely phased out of army service.

The G3 rifles may actually be useful though, word is they were used by the army in Afghanistan again because of their superior firepower and longer range/accuracy (let's hope Vuk won't read this).
The Milan and Panzerfaust are probably good enough to crack the few tanks and armored cars that ISIS use.

I heard the USA/Iraqi army provided a lot of the gear ISIS uses right now for free, so what are other countries giving to increase the fun? Didn't the UK want to send some packages to the Kurds as well? Will they also send old cold war stuff for the vintage fun?

And what are the further implications? IF the Kurdish warriors win this for everyone else, will it help establish a free Kurdistan or will we then give more guns to the Iraqi army to beat down the Kurds?

The AG3 is a hilarious weapon. In a positive way. Smaller calibres are for girls.

The reason it's been phased out in Europe is because it's not an assault rifle. It's designed to blam the russkies from afar(200m), not sneak around in buildings. As European wars are now more urban in nature, we needed a gun to enter houses with.

I'm sure the guns will suit the Kurds fighting ISIS. My impression of the conflict is that most of the fighting takes place on the outskirts of town, and then the winner strolls into town unopposed. The AG3 has long range with decent accuracy and rate of fire, and it's quite comfortable to walk around with. The magazines are horrible to carry around if you have more than 5(100 shots) though.

EDIT: Also, the *fomp* launcher is hilarious. Well worth the extra weight!

[Strike For The South]

Do we care simply because one of the malita groups has gelled into a semi Coherent force? This has been going on for a decade, bands of men kidnap, ransom, and behead Westerners. Why should I care now? Why are all my facebook friends suddenly clamoring for us to get re involved in Iraq?

Who gives a god damn? Seriously, Let them fuck little boys and stone women for wearing anklets. Have a couple of them teach at your universities and beg you to see their side of things, all the while making excuses for blatant oppression. I'm so over caring, give the whole thing back to the Turks and let the Israelis satisfy their barbarous blood lust.

Slap a brand name on these assholes and suddenly they are more dangerous. Fuck that and fuck the bullshit media suddenly giving a shit about peoples heads being lopped off and fuck the people who suddenly care because the Yazidi look white and have blue eyes.

If you'll go excuse me I have more to debt to accumulate in my right to work (lolololololol) state.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Pannonian]

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?

An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement. Representatives of both sides talked, and they talked and talked. Do we have the same kind of confidence in dealing with the middle east? If we send a representative to talk with these loons, do we have any confidence that they'll return alive?

I'd like us to try recognising the IS on the conditions that they'll maintain a line of communication with us, and that they'll accept those members of our population who would rather be there than here.

[HoreTore]

An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement.

Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

[Pannonian]

Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

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.