Jihadistan

This is an interesting article that begs the question, have we witnessed the birth of a new country?

If so, what does the future for the US look like in the region?

ISIS actually frightens people into joining their militia. At the rate they're going, they are going to be hard to stop. We can't take the risk of letting our men get captured because they know how easy they can negotiate with this administration. At this point, it's just getting bigger and worse.

With the $400 Million + dollars they have they can also pay for some military muscle.

(07-09-2014 03:20 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  With the $400 Million + dollars they have they can also pay for some military muscle.

Outside of what they've already gotten from us that we gave to the Iraqis that threw their weapons down and ran. They've got weapons AND vehicles of ours...

They have a lot of military hardware of ours.

I think the fact they provide social services is interesting. They seem to think that they really are creating a nation instead of just controlling territory as a militia.

(07-09-2014 03:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They have a lot of military hardware of ours.

I think the fact they provide social services is interesting. They seem to think that they really are creating a nation instead of just controlling territory as a militia.

Maybe they're trying to copy Hamas? Their version of "capturing the hearts and minds"?

(07-09-2014 03:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Jihadistan

This is an interesting article that begs the question, have we witnessed the birth of a new country?

If so, what does the future for the US look like in the region?

That's a good article.

To answer your question, YES. They are probably there for quite some time. ISIS/ISIL is not just a militia, they are about a societal way of life. Lots of people in the areas that they control agree with this way of life. And the leaders that do not agree with their principles simply carve out exceptions for their territory and then they join ISIS.

In the past, democracies (led by the US) have jumped in to stop these groups from cleansing those opposed to this type rule. However, Obama will not intervene and has basically conceded the northern and western parts of Iraq to ISIS and the Kurds. We have a presence in Baghdad, a city ISIS is unlikely to attack in order to add to its gains. They may strategically attack weapons caches and such though for stuff, but not for land.

If I had to guess, I would think Syria would make a definitive move within the next year to push ISIS more into Iraq. I would expect them to use chem/bio weapons once ISIS starts to dominate the other rebel groups in Syria. I doubt there will be any real consequences since the US has checked completely out of the Middle East.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They have a lot of military hardware of ours.

I think the fact they provide social services is interesting. They seem to think that they really are creating a nation instead of just controlling territory as a militia.

Maybe they're trying to copy Hamas? Their version of "capturing the hearts and minds"?

Yeah, that seems to be the case.

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

This, the fear of Saddam actually kept the two groups from fighting. Any history book would tell you that Iraq (the area) and Afghanistan are to place where they have always fought and always will, no government has stood more than 50 years in either place.

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They have a lot of military hardware of ours.

I think the fact they provide social services is interesting. They seem to think that they really are creating a nation instead of just controlling territory as a militia.

Maybe they're trying to copy Hamas? Their version of "capturing the hearts and minds"?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban ... all have operated in the same way - replacing government services in their respective regions.

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

You do realize that our military had not engaged the enemy in Iraq in quite some time. Just because the military is there doesn't mean we are fighting in a daily war. Plus, it doesn't take a huge force to accomplish this task. We do it in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Yes, we would have a perpetual footprint there...but, maybe we could use it to expand our influence and ability to gather surveillance in the region to avoid future attacks.

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

The US has been forward deployed in Germany, Japan and SK for over 50 years. This would have been no different. If we weren't willing to be there for the long haul, then we shouldn't have gone at all.

(07-10-2014 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. This is what happens when you go in half-assed.

It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

The US has been forward deployed in Germany, Japan and SK for over 50 years. This would have been no different. If we weren't willing to be there for the long haul, then we shouldn't have gone at all.

You don't have the religious differences in Germany and Japan that you do in Iraq. The differences were right beneath the surface, as you saw when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, and the Shia immediately tried an uprising.

IMO we shouldn't have gone at all.

(07-10-2014 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It doesn't matter what we did militarily, or how many people we killed or how bada** we acted in the process. As soon as we left this was very likely going to happen. And if it didn't, it would have been due to political cease-fire between the Sunni and Shia, not anything we did.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

The US has been forward deployed in Germany, Japan and SK for over 50 years. This would have been no different. If we weren't willing to be there for the long haul, then we shouldn't have gone at all.

You don't have the religious differences in Germany and Japan that you do in Iraq. The differences were right beneath the surface, as you saw when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, and the Shia immediately tried an uprising.

IMO we shouldn't have gone at all.

The religious differences were not a problem. While we were there, nothing was going to happen. The US was too big to oppose by any faction and al-Malaki minded his manners. When Obama telegraphed his move to get entirely out of Iraq, then al-Malaki had to consolidate his government based on ethnicity. We left a power vacuum and ISIS and the Kurds filled it. That's what happens when you don't have a plan.

(07-10-2014 03:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Obama wanted out of Iraq, regardless of the costs. We needed to maintain a presence in the country to keep al-Maliki on the right track and to keep ISIS out. ISIS was stuck in Syria until decided to tell them we would be leaving. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Iraq fell apart.

People may not have liked the war in Iraq, but once we promised people we would stand with them and they openly stood with us, we had a responsibility to stay with them. Instead, we left many Iraqis like lambs to the slaughter. They stood up for democratic ideas because they thought the US had their backs. We didn't and they paid the full measure for that stand.

We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

The US has been forward deployed in Germany, Japan and SK for over 50 years. This would have been no different. If we weren't willing to be there for the long haul, then we shouldn't have gone at all.

You don't have the religious differences in Germany and Japan that you do in Iraq. The differences were right beneath the surface, as you saw when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, and the Shia immediately tried an uprising.

IMO we shouldn't have gone at all.

The religious differences were not a problem. While we were there, nothing was going to happen. The US was too big to oppose by any faction and al-Malaki minded his manners. When Obama telegraphed his move to get entirely out of Iraq, then al-Malaki had to consolidate his government based on ethnicity. We left a power vacuum and ISIS and the Kurds filled it. That's what happens when you don't have a plan.

There was still violence the whole time we were there, it was just at a lower level. In any case, we weren't going to stay there when our soldiers were going to be liable to be charged for whatever incidents might occur. If something happened and a US soldier got charged with some kind of debatable crime and thrown in prison, you guys would blame Obama for it.

(07-10-2014 04:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We would still be in there 20+ years from now, and it would have to be a major presence, to actually accomplish anything. Which would mean more cost and more casualties. A mere presence wouldn't have been enough. And even then it would likely devolve into violence after we left. We can't fix religious differences.

The US has been forward deployed in Germany, Japan and SK for over 50 years. This would have been no different. If we weren't willing to be there for the long haul, then we shouldn't have gone at all.

You don't have the religious differences in Germany and Japan that you do in Iraq. The differences were right beneath the surface, as you saw when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, and the Shia immediately tried an uprising.

IMO we shouldn't have gone at all.

The religious differences were not a problem. While we were there, nothing was going to happen. The US was too big to oppose by any faction and al-Malaki minded his manners. When Obama telegraphed his move to get entirely out of Iraq, then al-Malaki had to consolidate his government based on ethnicity. We left a power vacuum and ISIS and the Kurds filled it. That's what happens when you don't have a plan.

There was still violence the whole time we were there, it was just at a lower level. In any case, we weren't going to stay there when our soldiers were going to be liable to be charged for whatever incidents might occur. If something happened and a US soldier got charged with some kind of debatable crime and thrown in prison, you guys would blame Obama for it.

Right, because that would mean he hadn't negotiated the correct terms. Most accounts say zerO made no serious attempt to force those terms, which would have easily been forced-you simply say this is what we're going to do, and made it abundantly clear he wasn't serious about our staying at all. As already mentioned above, when we left it created a vacuum and the bad guys are always going to try and fill that.

Now? Guess what? We ARE back in there, albeit as "advisers", how long til one or some of them are killed or captured? And we have no back-up to get them out?

As was discussed in another thread a couple weeks ago, how we left Iraq will have more devastating results than how we went in. What's done is done, now what do we do? And no, sending John eff#$% Kerry over there to huff and puff isn't the answer...