ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

If the Kurds become "our" (USA or NATO or Europe) boots on the ground in this conflict -- and by that I mean taking the fight to ISIS and pushing them from Iraq etc. -- the Kurds have one well known price. Like many, I have received some PM missives from our Kurdish voice -- have any of you detected a lessening of his desire from an independent Kurdish homeland? I haven't

You can do what we Brits did and promise them what they want, only to offer the land to an outside people as a romantic gesture just after the war is won. A Clinton declaration could declare that Iraq is to be the Babylonian homeland. Then you should stick around for a few decades while everyone fights everyone else, until you call it quits and leave, with a legacy of absolutely everyone in the region hating your guts.

[rvg]

You can do what we Brits did and promise them what they want...

The ISIS want martyrdom, paradise and 72 virgins. We can promise to arrange the martyrdom part. Kurds already have their independence within their grasp.

[Rhyfelwyr]

On the Syrian front, I think it is interesting that some voices within the British establishment have come full circle, and suggestions have been made to support Assad against the rebels.

Former head of the Army Lord Dannatt and ex-Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind were the two that called for this, but the government doesn't look like backing it. Not yet anyway.

[Slyspy]

That is because they recognise ISIS as a bigger threat to general security than Assad. Perhaps they have also learnt that a secular strongman, however unpleasant, is better than the religious nutters.

[Pannonian]

That is because they recognise ISIS as a bigger threat to general security than Assad. Perhaps they have also learnt that a secular strongman, however unpleasant, is better than the religious nutters.

It looks like the same has happened in Libya, with us removing a secular sob, followed by religiosi moving into the vacuum.

[Viking]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

[Pannonian]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It looks like the same has happened in Libya, with us removing a secular sob, followed by religiosi moving into the vacuum.

Throughout the Islamic world, their fundamentalists are often the first organized component to emerge from a chaotic situation. They have a clear ideology, a ready-made framework for governance, and credibility with those who take their religion seriously. It is little wonder they are often first off the mark.

Our failure to accurately account for this, despite repeated lessons, does annoy me.

[Shaka_Khan]

Throughout the Islamic world, their fundamentalists are often the first organized component to emerge from a chaotic situation. They have a clear ideology, a ready-made framework for governance, and credibility with those who take their religion seriously. It is little wonder they are often first off the mark.

Our failure to accurately account for this, despite repeated lessons, does annoy me.

Most of us in the Western world tend to confuse who the real bad guys are when not knowing the situation and the language enough. On the outside, the rebellions look like people with more similar views as us rebelling against a dictatorship. People who haven't traveled outside the Western world tend to generalize about the world outside the Western world. Maybe some of the rebels were seeking a more tolerant and democratic future, but it's apparent that they're unable to stop the extremist ones. Sadly, the people who seek a more peaceful and tolerant life in certain places of the Middle East are not powerful enough to defend themselves. We need to stand back and look carefully before we decide to intervene because we clearly didn't see the whole picture. Otherwise, we could end up helping the people who would harm us, and lose the people who were actually preventing those harmful people from becoming more powerful.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You can do what we Brits did and promise them what they want, only to offer the land to an outside people as a romantic gesture just after the war is won. A Clinton declaration could declare that Iraq is to be the Babylonian homeland. Then you should stick around for a few decades while everyone fights everyone else, until you call it quits and leave, with a legacy of absolutely everyone in the region hating your guts.

We have managed to enact such a legacy without the efforts of a Balfour or a Lawrence.