ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Papewaio]

I really do wonder why we are in such a rush to get rid of the dictators when we are then put in a position to kill many more to resolve the power vacuum we create.

Or overthrow democratically elected governments and wonder why the terrorist groups we invested in don't play nicely when they are in power.

[AE Bravo]

If the goal is to destabilize a country, taking out the incumbent is the way to go.

I'm sure this was the goal, or else it would've been resolved years ago.

[Idaho]

This article about researching the background of ISIS fighters is interesting. Not really bought into the caliphate.

http://www.thenation.com/article/wha...sis-prisoners/

[Myth]

Pissing off a bombmer jet is never smart:

https://www.facebook.com/67514442261...9825858483013/

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that we now have the opportunity to coax forces on the ground. We can enact and enforce a ceasefire/dmz line (black line on map) coupled with a no-fly zone. Jordanian and Saudi ground forces could enforce this in the southern DMZ (yellow arrows), Turkish ground forces could enforce this in the Northern DMZ (blue arrows). This would force both the Alawite/Russian coalition as well as the Rebel coalition to focus in the center and East simultaneously (generally less populated and more prone to ISIS influence)

This will assist the Rebels as it diminishes both Assad and ISIS. Once the rebels secure Homs, the DMZ can be extended to isolate Alawite Syria into a Lebanon like mini-state (removing both them and the Russians from the conflict) and further concentrate rebel forces eastward as Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi ground forces police the Western areas.

Western Air and intelligence services enforce the DMZ/No Fly and continue to hammer ISIS.

Good idea? Terrible Idea?

[Montmorency]

Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.

At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.

As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.

At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.

As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.

Assad isnt focused on ISIS, he spends his ordinance attacking western rebels. Blocking that would focus him along his borders in the East - which would bring him into more regular and exclusive contact with ISIS controlled towns.
Additionally, the cover which this woulf buy the Rebels would allow them to re-focus East as well; rather than in every direction. They would have more regular and less clandestine access to supplies and more constant influence from establishment/moderate forces. This would allow them to focus on clearing their limited areas of regime/isis forces and also move eastward into renewed conflict with ISIS held towns.

We have no interest in re-establishing the Iraqi governments sectarian control over the West of Iraq - we did that already and their policies failed in in record time. It would be better to keep Western Iraq and Central/Eastern Syria apart, as semi-autonomous regions within distinct nations (Iraq and, what would probably be a former segment of Syria) - this would help to avoid a Sunni "Jihadistan" under the influence of Saudi Arabia - ensuring that the Turks, The Kurds, the Shiaa & Moderate Sunni Iraqi's, the Gulf States, Saudis and Jordanians have a balanced stake in a divided region.

I envision a single nation of Syria controlled like Berlin or Bosnia; Sunni Arabs & Kurds in the North and East (with the Arab areas under the security of Turkish and Emirati Forces), Sunni Arabs in the South, (under the joint security of Saudi and Jordanians, bordering with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights) and an overwhelmingly Alawite Shia Coastal Region under the control of the Baathist party and their Russian Benefactors, just a bit larger than Lebanon.

[Crandar]

Good idea? Terrible Idea?

Pretty terrible, even if it was applicable.

To begin with, I would prefer it if states that actively supported Al-Nusra, the representative of AQ in Syria, whose leader is a former lieutenant of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no military presence in Syria. Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by rebels securing Homs. Thankfully, there are no rebels in the city itself, since they were wiped out in May 2014, during what is the most decisive victory of the Syrian Army:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs

[ICantSpellDawg]

Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.

Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?