War Against ISIL

[marcus]

The only reason U.S. is going in is because it's an opportunity to release their fireworks and then replace those fireworks. The military industrial complex doesn't like quiet for too long. They get antsy and press their lobbyists (congressmen and senators) to push for wars. Remember how antsy McCain was getting when Syria was happening? Well now, we have IS. IS is the perfect bad guy. It's like how each Bond movie has a crazier villain that needs to be stopped. They're so crazy and demented that even Al Quaeda has spoken out against them. But of course, they are not a threat beyond an unstable region, created thanks to the powers. This time though, it's easier to get the people behind you. Something like 2/3 of Americans back attacking IS.

[bush_cheney2004]

This time though, it's easier to get the people behind you. Something like 2/3 of Americans back attacking IS.

More Americans backed the invasion of Iraq.

[marcus]

Yes. The Bush administration really PR'd the shit out of the made-up evidence.

"Don't worry. Americans are easily moved" - Netanyahu

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans will do whatever the hell they please about ISIL if the mood strikes.

They have the means and the will to do so...Canada doesn't....watch it on American TV.

[On Guard for Thee]

Naw. American TV is too full of shit. We like the real facts up here. What does Fox have going on of late?

[-1=e^ipi]

They want Iraq and Syria.

No, they want the entire world. Iraq and Syria is just the first step.

Of course it is unlikely they will achieve that goal.

[Big Guy]

No one disputes that ground troops will be needed. From where?

Iraq - No - the mercenaries dropped their weapons and disappeared, some joined ISIS.

Iran - maybe - but at what cost?

Turkey - maybe - but reluctant to get involved right now.

Syria - need co-ordination with USA forces - unlikely.

Kurds - probably - but will probably have to promise them a partitioned state.

Israel - wild card - has the ground forces, close, but potential for world war.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt et al - unlikely.

Canada - I certainly hope not.

Where else?

[Big Guy]

I will presume to do some handicapping to provide a target for others;

SYRIA (Assad) – Already at war with the bad guys ISIL and the good guys insurgent rebels. If USA wipes out ISIS then they can concentrate on the other rebels and wipe them out. If ISIL wins, back where it is to-day. A winner no matter what happens.

IRAN – Their nuclear program is progressing just fine with nobody bothering them about it now. If USA wipes out ISIL then they gain power in the region and will have the strongest forces in the region. If ISIL wins, has the capacity to go to war (with Assad as partner) against a depleted and damaged ISIL military force. If USA starting to lose or looking weak, may be “asked” to join the ground forces battle. If it does so will then join the “big boys” in the world. A winner no matter what happens.

IRAQ – Already a failed state. Obviously in trouble, mercenaries armed forces better in track than in conflict. If USA wins, will be worse off than before this war, being controlled directly again by the USA. If ISIL wins then they may as well join ISIL, the new power in the Middle East. Loser no matter what happens.

UAE, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA – Want no part of this. Probably financing ISIL under the table and supporting USA in public. Winners no matter who ends up winning.

ISRAEL – In a tough spot. Supposed staunch USA supporter. If ISIL is a threat to USA national security and vital interests (the stated reason for the war) then much more of a threat to Israel. If USA wins will keep current power and influence but depending on what and in what form of support it gives to USA efforts. Sending in seasoned ground troops may precipitate expanding the war with countries changing sides. If ISIL wins then time to start buying up lots and lots of weapons.

CANADA – Currently paying lip service to military assistance but trying to shift into humanitarian role. Will be difficult to reject pressure from USA for greater and greater involvement. A mistake here could guarantee curtains for Harper in coming election. Will probably join an air offensive but if ISIL has any anti-air stuff and knocks a Canadian plane down then may review any involvement. If USA wins (with Canada help) will continue relationship with USA. If ISIL wins will have to share blame with USA and fall further back in world opinion.

RUSSIA – Happy to have Crimea and Eastern Ukraine off the front pages. The only potential power able to influence Assad and/or Iran. A winner no matter what happens. If USA is forced to step down can co-ordinate a ground offensive of Assad and Iranian ground troops to show USA how this is done. Tough to ask Russia for help after what has been said about ambitions and sanctions.

I do agree with marcus in that you cannot eradicate an enemy that is not in uniform. Everybody in the region who hates the USA for any reason (especially for “collateral damage”) is gravitating towards ISIL. The forces seem to be doubling in size every couple of months – now estimated at 40 to 50 thousand.

You reap what you sow.

For those having read this far, this is meant as an off hand white paper meant to be criticized.

[Moonlight Graham]

Maybe 20-30 years ago, oil-dependence was a good way of explaining the West's behaviour with respect to middle eastern foreign policy. Before that desire to defeat the communists and waging proxy wars against the USSR was a good explanation. And it is very clear that the decade's long alliance between the US and gulf states has origins strongly rooted in oil.

But trying to explain the West's behaviour today as a result of 'desire for oil' is so overly simplistic and wrong it is ridiculous. If it was all about the oil, then why hasn't the US built the keystone XL pipeline? Then they would be far less oil dependent on the middle east then.

We have meddled in the ME in the first place primarily because of oil. The primary reason al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 was US & western foreign intervention on Muslim lands (most importantly Saudi Arabia during 1991 Gulf War, home of Mecca and Medina). Saddam attacked Kuwait because of oil, and we defended Kuwait because of oil.

Now we're militarily in the ME because of 1) oil, 2) jihadists, and 3) other crap like Israeli/Jewish lobbying and the military-industrial complex. If we have no desire to intervene in the ME and blow up Muslims on a consistent basis because we don't use much oil, jihadists won't target us as a prime target and will then focus on the "near enemy" (in their words), that being "apostate" Muslims in the ME and "apostate" Muslim states in order to secure their Muslim caliphate fantasy. Then it will be Muslim states like Iran and Saudi Arabia who will primarily have to deal with these jihadist nutjobs and not us. Recruiting will also be harder because there will be a lot less PO'd Muslims walking around. In the meantime, we can use all those trillions saved on ME military action to invest in and/or subsidize alternative energy technologies as well as securing our own borders and foreign assets from whatever reduced terror threat may still exist.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In the meantime, we can use all those trillions saved on ME military action to invest in and/or subsidize alternative energy technologies as well as securing our own borders and foreign assets from whatever reduced terror threat may still exist.

Not a good strategy, as the world operates on a hydrocarbon based economy. Canada has not invested saved billions or trillions in alternative energy technologies, unless bitumen mining and refining counts. Oil is still worth dying for.

[-1=e^ipi]

IRAQ – If ISIL wins then they may as well join ISIL, the new power in the Middle East. Loser no matter what happens.

ISIL considers the majority of the population of Iraq to be apostates that should be killed. How do you not learn after having been shown to have a very poor understanding of the situation time after time?

UAE, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA – Want no part of this. Probably financing ISIL under the table and supporting USA in public. Winners no matter who ends up winning.

The thing is, if ISIS grows too large then these countries will be under threat, especially Saudi Arabia. ISIS will spread to Saudi Arabia and Jordan before it will spread to more distant parts of the world.

Also, why are you considering Egypt to be along the same lines as the UAE and Saudi Arabia? If Mohammed Morsi was still in power, maybe. But the current government in Egypt are the nationalists and military, who are opposed to Islamist groups like ISIS and Mohammed Morsi. Did you forget about all that fighting in Sinai last year between the Egyptian military and the Islamists?

If USA wins (with Canada help) will continue relationship with USA. If ISIL wins will have to share blame with USA and fall further back in world opinion.

How does a particular would side 'win'? There isn't going to be any 'winning' from either side.

RUSSIA – A winner no matter what happens.

No. Russia's interest is seeing that Assad stays in power, since Assad is an ally of Russia, let's Russia have a military base in the Mediterranean, and buys Russian military equipment.

I do agree with marcus in that you cannot eradicate an enemy that is not in uniform. Everybody in the region who hates the USA for any reason (especially for “collateral damage”) is gravitating towards ISIL.

BS. The Shia Iranians aren't gravitating towards ISIS. The alawites and people in Assad's regime aren't gravitating to join ISIS. The anti-Islamist Egyptians that feel betrayed by the US for siding with the Islamist Muslim brotherhood aren't gravitating towards ISIS.

Edited September 15, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

We have meddled in the ME in the first place primarily because of oil. The primary reason al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 was US & western foreign intervention on Muslim lands (most importantly Saudi Arabia during 1991 Gulf War, home of Mecca and Medina). Saddam attacked Kuwait because of oil, and we defended Kuwait because of oil.

Who is 'we' here? Are you talking about the West? The west has been intervening since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW2. The initial 'intervening' was primarily due to colonialism and imperialism by the French and British. Though I guess you could go back a bit earlier and point to attempts by the French to colonize North Africa since Napoleonic times.

US oil based intervention only started after 1938 when oil was discovered (1941 was when development of the oil fields actually started). Of course during that time you had WW2, so it was really only after WW2 that oil became a significant factor in Western middle-eastern foreign policy. But that was also the beginning of the cold war, in which case the Christian Americans thought that the God-loving Arabs would make good allies against the evil godless communists, which is when a strong alliance really started between the West and the gulf states. Of course during the cold war you had various proxy wars between the US and the USSR.

Look, I admitted that 20-30 years ago, oil was a significant explanation of Western Foreign policy towards the middle east. So bringing up the Gulf war as a counter example doesn't make much sense since that occurs 20-30 years ago.

Now we're militarily in the ME because of 1) oil, 2) jihadists, and 3) other crap like Israeli/Jewish lobbying and the military-industrial complex.

There are far more reasons than this, and oil isn't the main one.

jihadists won't target us as a prime target and will then focus on the "near enemy" (in their words), that being "apostate" Muslims in the ME and "apostate" Muslim states in order to secure their Muslim caliphate fantasy.

Jihadists target pretty much all parts of the world, not just the West. They target Hindus and Sheiks in India, Buddhists in Burma, Christians and Hindus in Indonesia, Christians and Animists in Africa, etc. They do it because they believe jihad is central to their religion and that it is their duty to ensure that Islam takes over the world.

Now why might the west be targeting more frequently in the past few decades? Simply because it isn't Islamic and has been successful over the past few decades. The Islamists can't stand the idea that the world super power is non-Islamic, since according to them, Islam is destined to take over the world. If the super power were China or Russia, then they would be the targets. There is a reason why the 911 hijackers chose to attack the US rather than Canada, Britain or Germany. That is because the US was the world super power and the hijackers wanted to show the world that they were more powerful than the world super power.

[Big Guy]

. How do you not learn after having been shown to have a very poor understanding of the situation time after time?

...

Your opinion is your opinion - with which I, history and reality disagree. But you have a right to your opinion. I am very comfortable with my understanding of the situation since my projections have been proven correct more often than incorrect - that is what happens when you have the courage to predict an opinion of an outcome that will be proven once the situation plays out.

Rather than getting into some silly disagreement of an opinion on whose opinion is too opinionated and whose opinion is or is not based on a guess or benign prejudicial blinkers I will continue to state what I think and accept any civilized difference in a point of view as a difference in a point of view and not get into some wasteful comparative navel gazing from someone who not only cannot count the number of angels on the head of a pin but who has been denied the ability to see them.

[eyeball]

Anyone ready to pick a winner?

The military industrial disease.

[Guest]

Rather them than the Islamic Caliphate disease.

Edited September 15, 2014 by bcsapper

[Moonlight Graham]

Look, I admitted that 20-30 years ago, oil was a significant explanation of Western Foreign policy towards the middle east. So bringing up the Gulf war as a counter example doesn't make much sense since that occurs 20-30 years ago.

We're talking about the roots of jihadism against the US/West, so the 1991 Gulf War is significantly relevant. One of the key reasons for al Qaeda attacking the US was as retribution for its presence in "the land of the 2 Holy Places" (Mecca and Medina), aka Saudi Arabia. The US established military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and troops remained there until 2003. This isn't my theory, this is straight out of fatwas by bin laden and interviews with him.

Now why might the west be targeting more frequently in the past few decades? Simply because it isn't Islamic and has been successful over the past few decades. The Islamists can't stand the idea that the world super power is non-Islamic, since according to them, Islam is destined to take over the world. If the super power were China or Russia, then they would be the targets. There is a reason why the 911 hijackers chose to attack the US rather than Canada, Britain or Germany. That is because the US was the world super power and the hijackers wanted to show the world that they were more powerful than the world super power.

That's not accurate, that is your theory. Go read the interviews and fatwas by bin Laden, he'll tell you exactly why they targeted the US. Here's one to start, the 1998 fatwa signed by bin Laden (leader of al-Qaeda) and leaders of 4 other major Islamist groups at the time (from Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh):

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone: First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. [3rd point covers the Jew-US/Crusader alliance)

...

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

...

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

[GostHacked]

I will presume to do some handicapping to provide a target for others;

SYRIA (Assad) – Already at war with the bad guys ISIL and the good guys insurgent rebels. If USA wipes out ISIS then they can concentrate on the other rebels and wipe them out. If ISIL wins, back where it is to-day. A winner no matter what happens.

How does one expect to weed out the bad rebels from the good rebels? I'd rather back Assad up than the rebels. And I am no fan of Assad. If any one recalls, I did ask some Q's about Syria. Meaning, there was Assad, and the rebels, and I mentioned a possible 3rd faction at play. Turns out I was correct in that assumption as well. All while asking in January when the US was going to go back into Iraq. Obama's response at that time was 'sounds like a YOU problem'.

Obama, Cameron, Harper, and many other asshats wanted this to happen. And only now is Obama making this a US problem. It was their mess in the first place, but whatever.

I guess since we cannot even learn recent history we are going to repeat it. Maybe it is time for some of our leaders to step on the battlefield first and show their true integrity and mettle. But history has shown that they have the bravery of being out of range.

[Hudson Jones]

They will not dare go into a country with stable military forces. 40-50 thousands crazies with guns could have been a real threat half a century ago, but now, with airstrikes from planes, helicopters and drones, they will just be mowed down.

-1=e^ipi's attempt at making this a black and white religious issue is superficial and shallow. When you say Islamist, who are you talking about? ISIS is different than the Islamists in Iran. Al Quaeda, another Islamist group has separated itself from ISIS. Majority of Muslim countries have condemned and have vowed to support an attack against ISIS. Why is it that you keep evoking Foxnews style, shallow arguments?

Also, to suggest that oil is not part of the equation in this conflict is totally wrong. These Western wars have three major reasons why they happen:

1) Natural resources

2) Military spending

3) Geo-political

When there is a war, the biggest industries who put a lot of money towards lobbying politicians, benefit. These would be the military industrial complex and energy companies.

Former president, Cheney and his buddy, Bush Jr. profited from wars. They went in, secured the oil, and then "rebuilt" Iraq, thanks to Halliburton.

[bush_cheney2004]

World access to proven petroleum reserves is a very straightforward and practical objective, far more than so called "human rights". Political and economic stability enables this objective. Do it "for the children", but really mean it "for the resources".

[waldo]

World access to proven petroleum reserves is a very straightforward and practical objective, far more than so called "human rights". Political and economic stability enables this objective. Do it "for the children", but really mean it "for the resources".

it helps when practicalities, like war, can pay for themselves with those resources... just ask Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy! Regime change (in the name of oil) paid for American's Iraq war costs! Oh... wait now... it didn't!

[Derek 2.0]

CANADA – Currently paying lip service to military assistance but trying to shift into humanitarian role. Will be difficult to reject pressure from USA for greater and greater involvement. A mistake here could guarantee curtains for Harper in coming election. Will probably join an air offensive but if ISIL has any anti-air stuff and knocks a Canadian plane down then may review any involvement. If USA wins (with Canada help) will continue relationship with USA. If ISIL wins will have to share blame with USA and fall further back in world opinion.

Doubtful they have anything with the potential to threaten a Hornet at high altitude……..with that said, to contribute to an air offensive with fighters, we’d require forgoing our current NATO commitment in Romania.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's not accurate, that is your theory. Go read the interviews and fatwas by bin Laden, he'll tell you exactly why they targeted the US. Here's one to start, the 1998 fatwa signed by bin Laden (leader of al-Qaeda) and leaders of 4 other major Islamist groups at the time (from Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh):

Do various violent Islamists use perceptions of 'foreign aggression' plus verses in the Islamic texts to justify their jihad? Absolutely.

Does that mean foreign aggression is the root cause for the development of ISIS and other anti-western Jihadists? No. It's a contributing factor sure, but not the root cause, not even the main cause.

The violent Islamists believe that they are destined to take over the world and that it is their duty to bring Islam to everyone. The fact that they can use foreign aggression to help justify their actions is not the same thing as foreign aggression being the primary cause of their actions.

Offensive jihad has existed for 1400 years, ever since Mohammed decided to 'pre-emptively' invade Syria and start a war with the Byzantine empire that lasted centuries until the Byzantine empire collapsed and Constantinople was sacked and renamed Istanbul. How do you think North Africa, Persia, Turkey, Pakistan, the Balkans and Iberia became part of various Caliphates? It was offensive jihad.

-1=e^ipi's attempt at making this a black and white religious issue is superficial and shallow.

That isn't my position. Strawman.

There are many contributing factors, religion is just a major one. And western politicians that continuously ignore this like Cameron, Obama and Harper don't help by ignoring it.

Also, to suggest that oil is not part of the equation in this conflict is totally wrong.

I never said it wasn't. Just that it isn't very useful at explaining western foreign policy in the past 1.5 decades compared to other explanations.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Does that mean foreign aggression is the root cause for the development of ISIS and other anti-western Jihadists? No. It's a contributing factor sure, but not the root cause, not even the main cause.

Agreed....the jihadists were organizing and planning attacks before the Gulf War in 1991....with modern roots to be found in the U.K. as early as the 1970's. That UN action was just drafted like many others to add to a growing list of "grievances" and religious causes stemming from infidel culture and liberal ideas penetrating and upsetting the backward status quo.

[Hudson Jones]

Why is ISIS thriving in Iraq and Syria and not in other Muslim countries? Because of instability. Instability caused due to Western intervention. The Iraq War toppled Saddam, destabilized the country, and led to a wave of sectarian bloodshed. It also made Iraq a safe haven and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda affiliates like ISIS, which was founded in 2004.

U.S. intervention is the major reason why ISIS is thriving.

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. intervention is the major reason why ISIS is thriving.

Sure....we'll just overlook the fact that Canada ran out of bombs attacking the locals in Libya !