isis
 

thoughts?

I'm all for helping them hit their limits and begin their inevitable decline. Folks like that just make enemies everywhere. We must be the good friends of the enemies of Isis.

It's even possible we can get the Iraqis to straighten up and fly more right, out of fear of these guys....

why on earth are we going in?

why not the un?

why not iran or turkey?

france, england...

i don't think anyone can deny, getting rid of Saddam was a grave mistake.

Message from ISIS.

“This is the message of the leader of the faithful,” wrote the leader, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a message addressed to “America, the defender of the cross.”
“You should know, you defender of the cross, that getting others to fight on your behalf will not do for you in Syria as it will not do for you in Iraq. And soon enough, you will be in direct confrontation - forced to do so - God willing. And the sons of Islam have prepared themselves for this day. So wait and we will be waiting too.” NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/wo...e-package&_r=0

ISIS is big trouble for every modern country. Will be a long bloody mess to cleanup taking years of commitment. To many countries seem to be willing to let someone else take the lead.

History has proven over and over whenever threats like ISIS arise the problem is never nipped in the bud. Only after the it has spread to extreme levels no longer to be ignored, thus causing a maximum of effort to mend.

I see no difference here.

Barney

Didn't he used to hang with Osiris?

Dave

That's what keeps popping up in my mind, weren't they Egyptian, from Bumfuk or somewhere?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

We had to go in.

We had a huge humanitarian/PR crisis...Thousands of starving non belligerents including women and children stranded on a mountain
surrounded by the blood thirsty ISIS.

We were depending on the Kurds, but
ISIS over ran the Peshmerga - armed Kurds in the North Iraq - who we had hope would keep them at bay.

Iran...securing Baghdad and no love for "kurdistan".
Turkey...no love for the Kurds or "Kurdistan".
France...has her hands full in Mali.
England...very anxious to get out of Afghanistan. :D

War is always a repugnant choice for a peacenik/progressive as I claim to be but we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. I have confidence that this CIC is better suited and of clean hands compared to the neocon cabal who came before.

That said, we and our allies broke Iraq and we are obligated to help the Kurds & the Yazidi people. I'm less sanguine about Maliki and the Shias in the south, they created/emboldened ISIS forces.

I think we have to get rid of IS.

By the way I heard on the news that if you call them ISIS instead of IS in Mosul you get punished with 70 lashes of the whip.

"She" Dave

A wider campaign to 'get rid of IS' is going to have to be an international deal. We can't and shouldn't take it on alone otherwise we will be what they say we are, "Defenders of the Cross".

We are and will be sorry Bobby no getting around that.

Pretty much the only reason Obama is lifting a finger now. Can't be a Jew hater and Christian hater all at the same time it's not good for elections.

US air power will have limited effect against ISIS since it's is not a conventional war. It could help the Kurds from losing more ground. Long term solution has to be from within, not from a coalition of forces from the west.

You'd think we learned that from the last time around...........:rolleyes:

Dave

They can't even get their act together and settle on a PM. Obama said just now that we will not be Iraq's Air Force. Hope it stays that way.

"Obama Said" LMAO

That dip shit has said a whole bunch of things none of them being true.

Agreed, you would think so. :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5663739.html


At least Baghdad and Kurdistan realize there is a common enemy.
I think we should bomb the ISIS control centers in Syria..that is where the command and control element is.

think about it...no one would really be upset about that except ISIS. Analysts say that is where the decisions about Iraq are being made. ISIS also has the Mosul Dam.

Time to roll out a few of those M.O.A.B.s, eh?

I hope the crazy mofos in IS don't blow the dam but they probably will try it.

The 60 day clock mandated under the War Powers Act should be in play here.

I think Obama has to pull the chestnuts of the Bush debacle out of the fire. I think deep down he does not want Kurdistan to go under on his watch. There are probably two nations the USA will sort of go out of their way to protect because they have been such loyal allies (besides the UK and Japan): Poland and "Kurdistan".

He was totally correct in what he said about second thoughts on the pull out in 2011. I was there when we had 100,000 men and women in Iraq: the amount of troops had no impact on the increasing body count.

Ice, when we had "100,000" troops in Iraq, how many were in combat maneuver batallions not committed to static defense? My bet is 5000 maybe, likely less.

An informative reading on current situation of ISIS.

A Rogue State Along Two Rivers
How ISIS Came to Control Large Portions of Syria and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...wo-rivers.html

Thanks especially for the geographical insight.

It was really disheartening to read about Fallujah.

Well you maybe are missing a point. There were a lot of service members killed on convoys...those soldiers who would have been in the old days "in the rear with the gear". In other words getting killed by an IED or a mortar can happen to anyone in the theater. Of course those infantry at the front lines ("tip of the spear") had it dangerous too...especially in both Fallujah campains in 2004 and in the surge months of 2007.

And I was not thinking of only American deaths....during the war thousands of Iraqi civilians were getting killed by bombs, sectarian violence, etc. despite our presence. Iraq is about as big as California or Texas (as large as an American state in other words) and we had only about 100,000 troops there, most of which as you are correct in stating had static roles i.e. logistical or base security. However to say we controlled the country is not true...we only controlled the US bases we were on. Travel between bases was usually done by air since road travel was an invitation for an IED.

In 2004 an American could not travel unless in a helicopter or a military convoy armed to the teeth.

In 2014 getting rid of ISIS without troops on the ground would be a good objective. Do not know if that is possible or not. I would be for blowing them up in the open desert should the opportunity arise. This may be something that has to be dealt with whether we want to get involved or not. And our allies need to stop waiting for us to do everything.

I was stationed on Lake Habbaniyah not far from Ramadi.

Obviously much collusion between the former Sunni insurgents and Baathists with ISIS.

Sometimes a video is significant in getting a better feel of what a person
is trying to communicate.

I believe the President is saying I will strive to protect the Kurds but the
rest can f--k off. I am not going to waste more American lives and material
in this hell hole. The problems are too deep seated...the people there have to find their own solutions.

I too read what you read. But......I am not sure the President will not be pushed into a deeper engagement by McCain & co. or engage ISIS without direct involvement of our Western Allies.

Depends on how much ISIS imbeds itself into Iraqi society. My gut belief is that they are workingwith Sunnis who have no intention of cooperating with a Shiite state. I think they are our old enemies that used to follow Saddam. Otherwise why would they be taking over all those Sunni cities with such ease? One thing anyone who has been in Iraq can tell you is that the Sunni tribes run Anbar province....and they have let ISIS in.

I am not optimistic. It may come down to question does the world want an outlaw regime dedicated to exporting terrorism infesting the Middle East in a big territorial swath extending from Syria all the way across Iraq to Iran? At best we are looking at a sort of Mexican-cartel type of corrupt gangster rule across that part of the Middle East....they could just make it sort an Wild West of sorts. But I am sure they will not stop there. Exportation of terrorism would be bound to follow.

Ice, I have some questions and comments.

It is my understanding that under Saddam, the Sunni's were mostly secular. ISIS is now ultra Islamic hell bent on establishing a caliphate, Sharia law and so on. In other words, probably even more extreme than what the Taliban wanted to or did in Afghanistan. How is this possible unless the moderate Sunni's are afraid of the ISIS militants? Would they want to live in such an environment? Look what happened in Egypt.

If Sunnis want to segregate themselves, Kurds have already done so, why not let Iraq split into three countries. Whose interest is it anyway to keep Iraq a single unified country? After being ruled by Saddam & the Sunnis by force, why would the Shia's be open to share power with the Sunni's?

If ISIS forms a state, a rogue state in the Middle East, they would well positioned to export terrorism due to access to oil wealth. This alone is scary unless we decide to bomb their oil fields if they gain control. I believe that their oil will find it's way to the market keeping their coffers filled.

Yes under Saddam they were secular. I do not see ISIS as a true religious force. Any group that summarily executes people is not religious in my book, and they are using religion as just an excuse to carry out mass murder, rapes, etc. It is all about power. The religious aspect is there just to make it easier for them to justify killing others since they are "infidels" and thus different and not really human. I mean the recent report that they were selling captured women to their followers is not evidence to me of people who religiously devout. I am pretty sure the Koran does not condone rape and slavery.

These ISIS followers came from Iraq and the movement started in Syria because of the power vacuum there.

I agree with you...I sort of do not buy the conventional wisdom that Malaki should reach out to Sunnis now. I mean look who the Sunnis have reached out to recently....

Even if Iraq is split three ways the ISIS problem will continue. I would not be surprised however if the Sunnis in Anbar turn on ISIS once they feel they have an independent state. However is that part of Iraq as wealthy as Kurdistan or the Southern part? It would seem not to be since ISIS is intent on getting resources from wherever they can find them.

I guess one could look at it from a different angle. One can maybe view ISIS as evidence that Malaki and the Kurds have successfully taken control of their respective sectors and that in desperation the Sunnis have joined ISIS in a bid to grab something for themselves.

I mean if you were Shia and had been oppressed for decades under Saddam would really care about defending Mosul or Ramadi since your former enemies live their anyway? Maybe that is why the Iraqi Army in Mosul fled....they knew Baghdad was not going to help them.

If you think about it Baghdad and Kurdistan have the upper hand in the long run...they just have to keep ISIS out. And they have the oil fields.
ISIS has to overrun and conquer both sectors. The money and humvees will only last so long.

That is how I sort of see it.

Also is ISIS treating Sunnis the same way as they are treating those that are not Sunni? In other words there has to be some sort of alliance going on in the Sunni areas of Iraq.

I believe the president will ignore McCain and co and our Western Allies are not too eager.

It is instructive how a simple low application IED has affected the boots on the ground mentality.
The American and Western public dread boots on the ground.

There is to much pictorial history of limbless solders associated with the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns.

Really?

Ignore the "It will be a cakewalk" crowd!?

Ignore the "We will be greeted as liberators" crowd!?

How can he ignore expert Foreign Policy prognosticators such as these?

Seems to be this idea that Obama lost Iraq all of a sudden.

ISIS is just the new name of Al Qaeda In Iraq, which did not exist until we invaded that country in 2003.

Indeed. How can it be that many in our country consider someone who finished at the bottom of his class at Annapolis (894 of 899), was a lousy pilot and became known only for being shot down over Hanoi be considered an expert in military affairs? He and his kindred spirits (e..g., Graham) seem to believe that that there is no conflict in the world that cannot be improved by American intervention. One would like to think that he and his ilk would be smart enough to have learned a lesson or two in the past decade.

What did you fly?

Why would he?

Senator McCain still holds his seat of power.

Finnbow is not a public figure...like a Senator, Governor, President.