isis

[icenine]

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.

[Rajoo]

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.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

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.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

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.

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.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I believe the president will ignore McCain and co

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?

[icenine]

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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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?

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.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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?

What did you fly?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Why would he?

Senator McCain still holds his seat of power.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by nailer

What did you fly?

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