ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

kwaigonegin

Colonel
All you need to know about the Obama Administration's efforts, impact and effectiveness, in building a separate force on the ground to fight ISIS in Syria is summed up by the recent short comments by the US Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter in front of the US Congress:



Epic fail.

US Air Strikes are having an impact. But the ISIS forces will never be completely defeated and dislodged by that alone...and everyone knew it.

Such a minimal force as the US has created to date will have zero impact on the ground...and everyone knows that too.

No sense at this point, IMHO, even including them in any serious discussion.

Now, US air support for other sizable and effective forces on the ground, like the Turkish forces on the Turkish/Syrian border, or the Kurd forces in Iraq can be very helpful and telling.

If the Iraqi forces raise their game and display the commitment and dedication to gight and win...and not run... air support for them can be very helpful too.

Air support can also strike targets of opportunity and destroy Command and Control when it is found, take out leadership when they are found, and degrade ISIS depots and infrastructure.

But in the end...boots on the ground are going to have to take back territory and ultimately defeat ISIS fighters on the ground. US air support and air support from others can help those forces...but air strikes alone cannot replace them.

Problem is the damn Turks are also bombing the PKK who seems to be the only ones actively fighting ISIS in an effective manner.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Problem is the damn Turks are also bombing the PKK who seems to be the only ones actively fighting ISIS in an effective manner.
Yes, I spoke to this on the either the Turks or Persian Gulf thread.

And the Iraqis are particularly not happy about it because the Kurds are one of the only bright spots in Iraq in the fight against ISIS. Turkey hurting them frees up ISIS resource against the Iraqi military.

The Turks were forced to come out and directly start fighting ISIS after the ISIS terror attacks in Turkey. They used that to not only attack ISIS, but to go open season across the borders into Syria and Iraq after the Kurds.

It is a convoluted, screwed up mess with so many alignments and counter alignments.

But, IMHO, one thing is for sure...ISIS cannot be allowed by the civilized world to consolidate and solidify and consolidate their own nation.

And it is ultimately going to take ground forces in significant strength to put that to an end.

Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and Iraq all have a direct stake in stopping ISIS specifically in Iraq and Syria...but those various players also have their own animosities and conflicts...so it is a very hard thing to bring together.

On the periphery you have Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But that is just more of the same in terms of their having conflicts and animosities that keep them from all coming together.

IMHO, the best answer in Syria was to let Assad take care of business. The Bush admins and others found ways to work with Assad, despite his problems. That was because it was the cleanest, least disruptive and chaotic answer in Syria. And despite his own issues, Assad at least is rational and can be talked to.

In Iraq, IMHO, the Iraqis would be willing to put together a force and work with the Kurds allowing their continued level of autonomy in order to defeat ISIS. If Syria were getting the upper hand against ISIS on their side of the border, the fight against ISIS in Iraq would be more manageable.

But it has to happen on both sides of the Syrian/Iraqi border. I believe the US, the UK, Jordan, and others could and should use their air support against ISIS while allowing Assad to make gains against them too.

Assad, with whatever warts, was a whole lot better than what is happening now.

But all of that is just my opinion.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Yes, I spoke to this on the either the Turks or Persian Gulf thread.

And the Iraqis are particularly not happy about it because the Kurds are one of the only bright spots in Iraq in the fight against ISIS. Turkey hurting them frees up ISIS resource against the Iraqi military.

The Turks were forced to come out and directly start fighting ISIS after the ISIS terror attacks in Turkey. They used that to not only attack ISIS, but to go open season across the borders into Syria and Iraq after the Kurds.

It is a convoluted, screwed up mess with so many alignments and counter alignments.

But, IMHO, one thing is for sure...ISIS cannot be allowed by the civilized world to consolidate and solidify and consolidate their own nation.

And it is ultimately going to take ground forces in significant strength to put that to an end.

Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and Iraq all have a direct stake in stopping ISIS specifically in Iraq and Syria...but those various players also have their own animosities and conflicts...so it is a very hard thing to bring together.

On the periphery you have Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But that is just more of the same in terms of their having conflicts and animosities that keep them from all coming together.

IMHO, the best answer in Syria was to let Assad take care of business. The Bush admins and others found ways to work with Assad, despite his problems. That was because it was the cleanest, least disruptive and chaotic answer in Syria. And despite his own issues, Assad at least is rational and can be talked to.

In Iraq, IMHO, the Iraqis would be willing to put together a force and work with the Kurds allowing their continued level of autonomy in order to defeat ISIS. If Syria were getting the upper hand against ISIS on their side of the border, the fight against ISIS in Iraq would be more manageable.

But it has to happen on both sides of the Syrian/Iraqi border. I believe the US, the UK, Jordan, and others could and should use their air support against ISIS while allowing Assad to make gains against them too.

Assad, with whatever warts, was a whole lot better than what is happening now.

But all of that is just my opinion.

I agree.. Should've let Assad deal with it the way he sees fit afterall Syria is/was a sovereign country regardless of how outside parties feel about it but the problem now is he is so weaken he cannot fight ISIS by himself. Should've never messed it up!

Assad is far from a benevolent despot but at least he is 100X better than ISIS and is the actual head of state not to mention the average syrians life were much much better before than they are now.. certainly the minority groups like the christians and other sects were anyway.

It seems like we keep repeating the same cluster over and over and over again!
Topple some dictator only to be replaced by a bunch of rag tag hardcore islamic fundamentalists hell bent of destroying human civilization.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Assad is no saint but atleast Syria was not threatening or attacking anyone

Refugees used to go to Syria for it's open door policy now Syrians are the refugees

Gaddafi was also no saint but atleast no gangsters and middle men used Libya as a staging ground for all the refuges coming into Europe

Saddam was no saint but again no ISIS or islamic fundamentalist had roots there

As a matter of fact all of the above were actually very heavy handed with any sort of extremism or rebel groups

I said it long ago in this forum this will get a lot worse before getting better

Now Turkey is being drawn into this conflict and I have a feeling it won't be the last country

This war is now spreading and will keep spreading

What is the solution? Everyone puts into boots like 650,000 troops on the ground with the full bangs and whistles of a Las Vegas jack pot and cleans this up because no "surgical" or "aerial" campaign will stop ISIS or any other group in the region

But no one is going to commit so let's just sit and watch what happens
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
The Islamic State executes 15 policemen and arrested four journalism students in Mosul

q7NUOO4.jpg

Mosul (Iraq), Aug. 2 (EFE) .- The jihadist Islamic State (EI) today executed 15 police and Iraqi police arrested four journalism students accused of collaborating with the foreign press in Mosul, in northern Iraq.

Speaking to EFE, Mohamed al Bayati, head of security for the Iraqi province of Nineveh (north), of which Mosul is the capital, he explained that these events are part of a campaign of arrests and executions against members of the security services and public officials by the EI.

The 15 officers were shot in a square in Mosul, opposite the town hall of this city and in the eyes of passersby, aiming -specific Al Bayati- to "intimidate" residents.

Later, their bodies were delivered to the forensic medicine department of Mosul, the official said, adding that the jihadists are carrying out mass arrests of workers of the election commission and members of the security forces, who had declared their allegiance to EI .

Furthermore, four students of journalism at the University of Mosul were arrested this morning in different districts of the city accused of publishing pictures of "the land of the caliphate" and thus cooperate with the foreign press, he told Efe a member of the union Iraqi journalists, Sufian to Mashhandani.

The images of Mosul were allegedly posted on Facebook pages of the detained students.

After his arrest, the students were taken to a prison in EI located southeast of the city for questioning by a court of jihadists on their alleged collaboration with foreign media.

At Mashhandani he said the terrorist organization still has custody since early this year to eight Iraqi journalists, of which his whereabouts are unknown so far.

Since the EI occupied Mosul, on 10 June last year, he has killed hundreds of people to oppose their extremist ideology, including human rights activists, doctors, journalists, military and police.

The IA further stated at the end of June 2014 a caliphate in the territories under their control in Syria and Iraq.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Back to bottling my Grenache
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The problem is PKK is listed as a terrorist organization, so the US has little reason to pressure Turkey to stop its air strikes on the PKK.

PKK is secular (communists?) and fighting for a piece of territory for themselves. ISIS is global and want to kill all infidels. Which is a lesser evil?
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
If ever there was a clear and indisputable case for an UN military intervention, ISIS is it.

Weird how all the R2P advocates who used that and other arguments to justify military interventions in Libya, and which were then floated to press for action in Syria (against Assad) have suddenly gone so very mute now that a real monster has emerged that unapologetically slaughter prisoners and civilians alike in the most horrific of ways and inflicts other horrors on the survivors.

Under any objective definition, the way ISIS have persecuted and slaughtered minorities constitute war crimes and genocide.

Why isn't anyone pressing the UN to mandate an international military intervention to go in and root these animals out and end their reign of terror?

It would be hard to think of a bogeyman opponent that is more universally hated and better suited to getting the world's major powers to band together and unite against.

This would seem like a perfect opportunity for the P5 to fight together against a common enemy, and thereby improving relations between those top powers.

And yet, the regional powers seem more interested in fighting each other in proxy wars and settling scores, and the major world powers could not be less interested.

It is truly puzzling and frustrating.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
Good point, Wolf. The world needs a US President who is a little more wingnutty in dealing with ISIL. How I miss the Bush.
 
Top