http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32846852

Quote:As the jihadist fighters of Islamic State push ever further across Syria and Iraq, taking cities, airbases, prisons and border posts, US President Barack Obama has dismissed their gains as "a tactical setback".

The US-led coalition against IS, he insisted, is not losing to the jihadists. But the awkward truth is, the coalition is certainly not winning.

Every day that IS continues to even exist on the ground, every day that it carries out its harsh rule on a cowed population, and every day that it grows closer to becoming an entrenched, functioning, if albeit pariah state, is a mark of failure by some of the world's richest and most powerful armed forces ranged against it.

"I think the coalition strategy against IS was kind of non-existent," says Charlie Winter, a research analyst with the London-based counter extremism think-tank Quilliam.

"From the beginning it was dropping bombs against Islamic State positions, hoping to try and kill a few leaders, take out some artillery positions, that sort of thing.

"But besides that, it has resoundingly failed. Ramadi has just been taken, Palmyra has just been taken, Deir al-Zour airport is about to fall," Mr Winter says.

Quote:To be fair, the coalition strategy has not been an abject failure.

Over the last 11 months it has had some notable successes, including saving the Kurdish cities of both Kobane and Irbil from being overrun by IS.

The jihadists threw wave after wave of fighters at Kobane - but repeated and intensive coalition air strikes, coupled with a spirited defence by Kurdish fighters, drove them back.

Air strikes also drove IS fighters off the Mosul and Haditha dams where it was feared they could have set off explosions triggering deadly floods.

A US-led humanitarian rescue programme saved thousands of displaced Kurdish and Yazidi families from death and starvation in the far north of Iraq as IS overran their villages.

And there have been a few precision-guided surgical strikes that have killed operational commanders, plus the recent Delta Force raid into Syria that killed the man who ran IS oil revenues.

But for IS, these are manageable losses, irritating but not life-threatening to their cause. Their march across much of the Middle East continues.

The biggest setback to IS was not even a part of coalition strategy, it was the result of a joint Iraqi-Iranian deal.

The Iraqi government's recapture from IS of the Sunni town of Tikrit was achieved largely with the help of Shia Iraqi militias, trained, armed and funded by the Iranians.

Quote:"The problem is the diverging interests and strategies of the IS opponents," says the Saudi analyst and expert on IS, Aimen Deen.

"The US, the EU, the GCC, Turkey and the Iranian axis (Iran, Assad, Baghdad and Hezbollah) as well as the rest of the Syrian opposition are fighting an unco-ordinated campaign against IS."

From a coalition operations room in the Gulf, targets are identified, missions are drawn up, and aircraft from a range of European and Arab countries take part in precision-guided air strikes.

But there is only so much that can be achieved from the air.

IS fighters have learned to avoid exposing their forces and equipment in easily targeted columns that can be struck in open country, preferring instead to embed themselves wherever they can in populated areas amongst civilians.

The problem is that ultimately this is a campaign that can only be decided on the ground, and there is no universally acceptable force that can take that job on.

In Syria, IS has now overshadowed all other rebel groups and their only real enemy is the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with its well-documented list of atrocities that include dropping barrel bombs filled with chlorine.

In both Syria and Iraq the poorly-armed Kurds have fought back tenaciously to defend their homeland from the advance of IS, helped by US air power.

But they don't do expeditionary warfare and have no appetite for going off to fight outside their area.

Quote:As of May 2015 the only units capable of taking on IS on the battlefield are trained Shia fighters backed by Iran. That includes Hizbollah units sent from Lebanon and Iraqi Shia directed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps advisers.

Neither will be popular in Sunni areas.

Against this backdrop, official US optimism about the direction of the campaign is unlikely to be matched by reality on the ground.

In the short term at least, the prognosis for that part of the Middle East is dire.

"The capture of Palmyra will not be the last setback for the anti‐IS coalition in Syria and Iraq," says Mr Deen.

"Come Ramadan (mid-June), IS' campaign will be relentless and almost unstoppable."

Here's one problem, that I think I've mentioned before.

In the area currently held by ISIS, western Iraq and eastern Syria, ISIS might actually be the most appropriate organization to hold power. Those areas are Sunni parts of countries where the rulers are predominantly Shia. Opposing ISIS puts us at odds with the local population in many of those areas.

After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

(05-25-2015 05:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32846852

Quote:As the jihadist fighters of Islamic State push ever further across Syria and Iraq, taking cities, airbases, prisons and border posts, US President Barack Obama has dismissed their gains as "a tactical setback".

The US-led coalition against IS, he insisted, is not losing to the jihadists. But the awkward truth is, the coalition is certainly not winning.

Every day that IS continues to even exist on the ground, every day that it carries out its harsh rule on a cowed population, and every day that it grows closer to becoming an entrenched, functioning, if albeit pariah state, is a mark of failure by some of the world's richest and most powerful armed forces ranged against it.

"I think the coalition strategy against IS was kind of non-existent," says Charlie Winter, a research analyst with the London-based counter extremism think-tank Quilliam.

"From the beginning it was dropping bombs against Islamic State positions, hoping to try and kill a few leaders, take out some artillery positions, that sort of thing.

"But besides that, it has resoundingly failed. Ramadi has just been taken, Palmyra has just been taken, Deir al-Zour airport is about to fall," Mr Winter says.

Quote:To be fair, the coalition strategy has not been an abject failure.

Over the last 11 months it has had some notable successes, including saving the Kurdish cities of both Kobane and Irbil from being overrun by IS.

The jihadists threw wave after wave of fighters at Kobane - but repeated and intensive coalition air strikes, coupled with a spirited defence by Kurdish fighters, drove them back.

Air strikes also drove IS fighters off the Mosul and Haditha dams where it was feared they could have set off explosions triggering deadly floods.

A US-led humanitarian rescue programme saved thousands of displaced Kurdish and Yazidi families from death and starvation in the far north of Iraq as IS overran their villages.

And there have been a few precision-guided surgical strikes that have killed operational commanders, plus the recent Delta Force raid into Syria that killed the man who ran IS oil revenues.

But for IS, these are manageable losses, irritating but not life-threatening to their cause. Their march across much of the Middle East continues.

The biggest setback to IS was not even a part of coalition strategy, it was the result of a joint Iraqi-Iranian deal.

The Iraqi government's recapture from IS of the Sunni town of Tikrit was achieved largely with the help of Shia Iraqi militias, trained, armed and funded by the Iranians.

Quote:"The problem is the diverging interests and strategies of the IS opponents," says the Saudi analyst and expert on IS, Aimen Deen.

"The US, the EU, the GCC, Turkey and the Iranian axis (Iran, Assad, Baghdad and Hezbollah) as well as the rest of the Syrian opposition are fighting an unco-ordinated campaign against IS."

From a coalition operations room in the Gulf, targets are identified, missions are drawn up, and aircraft from a range of European and Arab countries take part in precision-guided air strikes.

But there is only so much that can be achieved from the air.

IS fighters have learned to avoid exposing their forces and equipment in easily targeted columns that can be struck in open country, preferring instead to embed themselves wherever they can in populated areas amongst civilians.

The problem is that ultimately this is a campaign that can only be decided on the ground, and there is no universally acceptable force that can take that job on.

In Syria, IS has now overshadowed all other rebel groups and their only real enemy is the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with its well-documented list of atrocities that include dropping barrel bombs filled with chlorine.

In both Syria and Iraq the poorly-armed Kurds have fought back tenaciously to defend their homeland from the advance of IS, helped by US air power.

But they don't do expeditionary warfare and have no appetite for going off to fight outside their area.

Quote:As of May 2015 the only units capable of taking on IS on the battlefield are trained Shia fighters backed by Iran. That includes Hizbollah units sent from Lebanon and Iraqi Shia directed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps advisers.

Neither will be popular in Sunni areas.

Against this backdrop, official US optimism about the direction of the campaign is unlikely to be matched by reality on the ground.

In the short term at least, the prognosis for that part of the Middle East is dire.

"The capture of Palmyra will not be the last setback for the anti‐IS coalition in Syria and Iraq," says Mr Deen.

"Come Ramadan (mid-June), IS' campaign will be relentless and almost unstoppable."

Just nuke the whole region(except Israel). That is a common solution on these boards. I do agree with part of what UConn-SMU. Get out of the region.

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

No more American boots on the ground in the Middle East in combat roles. IF these people want freedom they must fight for it (with support from the US) in order to appreciate it and defend it. If ISIS really is the minority in the countries there should be no shortage of fighters lining up to defeat them. At the US should have to do is provide supplies and air support to make it happen. 6 years ago all of the disputed territory was under US control now virtually none of it is. No American lives should be sacrificed to regain this territory.

Draw a line in the Sand, Build a Wall and Say ok That is Your land now and Anyone crossing over the Wall into Non ISIS controlled territory will be killed on sight.

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

I'm with you on this. We have issue hear that need dealt with. If we are going to have a campaign to fix a country. How about we start with Mexico.

(05-25-2015 07:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

I'm with you on this. We have issue hear that need dealt with. If we are going to have a campaign to fix a country. How about we start with Mexico.

Actually, we should start right here in THIS country. Problem is "fixing" means different things to different people.

(05-25-2015 05:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Quote:As the jihadist fighters of Islamic State push ever further across Syria and Iraq, taking cities, airbases, prisons and border posts, US President Barack Obama has dismissed their gains as "a tactical setback".

...

"I think the coalition strategy against IS was kind of non-existent," says Charlie Winter, a research analyst with the London-based counter extremism think-tank Quilliam.

Quote:To be fair, the coalition strategy has not been an abject failure.

Claiming Kobane as a victory is kind of ridiculous. The Kurds lost the city of Kobane to ISIS. They retook a massive pile of rubble.

But the quote about non-existent strategy is pretty spot-on. Obama elaborated a goal without a strategy capable of achieving it. There is no possibility of completing the mission ... it is a situation tailor made for a quagmire, just wanting for a Lucitania/Gulf of Tonkin moment as a tipping point to raise the stakes and expose the US as weak once again.

The mistakes made in Iraq were made in the early 1990s, and this administration is eager not to repeat the consequences that came about in the 2000s without paying attention to the fact that those were set in motion by the earlier mistakes.

We don't need to get further involved in Iraq. But we don't need to make goals or commitments without the strategy to achieve them.

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

This is more and more where I stand. You want to live in tents and treat half your population like dogs - knock yourself out. We will leave you alone, don't Fck with us.

Turkish preacher Mucahid Cihad Han made the astonishing claim that those who masturbate will find their hands pregnant and be forced to raise the offspring in the afterlife

(05-26-2015 09:43 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Turkish preacher Mucahid Cihad Han made the astonishing claim that those who masturbate will find their hands pregnant and be forced to raise the offspring in the afterlife

So You're saying Those 72 Virgins are No longer Virgins ?

http://nypost.com/2015/05/23/obamas-feck...ic-terror/

Quote:The stirring speeches of yesteryear inspired us then, and still do. In times of grave danger, great leaders rallied their nations with appeals to duty and visions of victory.

“With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God,” FDR said after Pearl Harbor.

“We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” Winston Churchill said in 1941.

“I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!” Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in his D-Day address to Allied troops.

Then there is Barack Obama. After the Islamic State won major battles in Iraq and Syria last week, he said: “I don’t think we’re losing.”

Oy, how the mighty have fallen.

Quote:Beginning with his foolish refusal to concede the Islamic roots of Islamic terror, Obama’s uncertain course created the vacuum filled by the Islamic State. Brutally determined to build a modern caliphate, it now controls about half of Syria and, after seizing the major Iraqi city of Ramadi, controls a huge portion of that country as well.

It was after those shocking gains that Obama made his bizarre observation about not losing. That seems to be good enough for him.

“We’re eight months into what we’ve always anticipated to be a multiyear campaign,” he told The Atlantic magazine, calling the Ramadi loss a “tactical setback.”

A “campaign” for what? A “setback” from what?

Obama never laid out a clear vision, because he doesn’t have one. He pulled all American troops out of Iraq in 2011, and claimed credit for ending the war.

That helped get him re-elected, and he was dismissive of the Islamic State even early last year, calling the terror group a “JV squad.” He was warned then he was wrong, yet it wasn’t until Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff were beheaded last summer that Obama changed his tune.

Yet the pinprick airstrikes he ordered were more about placating outraged public opinion than making a military difference. Despite his saying the goal was to “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group,” analysts scoffed that the means he offered were too puny to achieve the ends.

Nothing has changed — except the Islamic State is proving his critics right with its expansion. And not just in territory, but in money, arms and manpower.

So much so that in its propaganda magazine, the group claims it might be able to buy a nuclear weapon within a year. “It’s the sum of all fears for Western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago,” the magazine boasts. “And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? That’s easy enough to make.”

The leaders of the Islamic State are madmen, but they have a vision for victory, and a mountain of corpses in two countries to prove it.

Quote:The Islamic State wants to attack America and, as its magazine says, “do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot . . . something truly epic.”

Is that what it will take to wake Obama?

We need to disconnect from the Muslim world. We'll give them 1,000 years to mature and then we'll check back to see how they're doing.

(05-26-2015 05:14 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We need to disconnect from the Muslim world. We'll give them 1,000 years to mature and then we'll check back to see how they're doing.

Caves, clubs and hunter-gathering?

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

That would be wonderful, but that region of the world will not simply let the West excommunicate them without a fight. You will be made to care because when the oil money dries up and the wealthy princes leave, who do think will be blamed for the poverty and despair that will rise? Autocratic power needs a good scapegoat to stay at the helm and there isn't one better than the United States.

(05-25-2015 05:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's one problem, that I think I've mentioned before.

In the area currently held by ISIS, western Iraq and eastern Syria, ISIS might actually be the most appropriate organization to hold power. Those areas are Sunni parts of countries where the rulers are predominantly Shia. Opposing ISIS puts us at odds with the local population in many of those areas.

The last time ISIS held Anbar (under the name AQ-I) they were rejected by the Sunni Tribes because of their insane implementation of Sharia Law. They ran to the U.S. for help.

Now we aren't there anymore in any significant numbers. The only thing we can offer them if they turn against ISIS is a Partition. I don't think Obama would support that.

These events remind me of Vietnam circa 74-75. Just going through the Motions...

(05-27-2015 01:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

That would be wonderful, but that region of the world will not simply let the West excommunicate them without a fight. You will be made to care because when the oil money dries up and the wealthy princes leave, who do think will be blamed for the poverty and despair that will rise? Autocratic power needs a good scapegoat to stay at the helm and there isn't one better than the United States.

Next on the ISIS/ISIL list is Jordan.

Then it's Israel.

Then the Jericos start landing all over the Middle East..

I'd like to avoid a Nuclear Exchange if possible.

"Speak softly but carry a big stick," was a good maxim in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, and still is today.

Now we are on the opposite end of the spectrum, drawing a line in Syria but then backing down, and otherwise running our mouth a lot but not showing the willingness to do anything more than a half-assed attempt to back it up. In the context of the Arab/Middle Eastern way of life, that comes off as incredible weakness. We run our moth, but then turn into wimps when somebody doesn't go along.

Going through the motions, like Vietnam 1974-75 is a very apt description. The difference is that because of oil, this time it really matters.

(05-27-2015 01:41 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 01:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 05:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  After almost 15 years of Americans deeply involved in this area of the world, I'm getting closer to the position that we should just stay out. Let them all kill each other. The survivors can go on living in the 7th century.

Animals.

That would be wonderful, but that region of the world will not simply let the West excommunicate them without a fight. You will be made to care because when the oil money dries up and the wealthy princes leave, who do think will be blamed for the poverty and despair that will rise? Autocratic power needs a good scapegoat to stay at the helm and there isn't one better than the United States.

Next on the ISIS/ISIL list is Jordan.

Then it's Israel.

Then the Jericos start landing all over the Middle East..

I'd like to avoid a Nuclear Exchange if possible.

Israel would absolutely obliterate ISIS. Not worried.

The only thing I'd worry about would be Obama sabotaging Israel's defensive capabilities with sanctions for not "showing restraint".