(06-05-2015 02:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 02:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember this. Eastern Syria is a Sunni majority in a country governed by a Shia elite group that live along the coast and coastal mountains. Western Iraq is a Sunni minority in a country governed by a Shia majority. The area encompassed by ISIS today probably should be an independent nation with a Sunni government. The problem is that ISIS is the only Sunni power to come forward so far. The US has a history of all to often backing the wrong side. This is one case where we are trying to defeat the one power that arguably represents the wishes of the people living within its footprint.

Of course the problem with an independent Sunni nation in the area is that it would be incredibly poor--no oil, no water, no coast.

Sad to say, the further things go, the more it looks as if Saddam--a Sunni who could wield power over a Shia majority--was probably the best solution for Iraq.

It took about two years for the Sunni Tribes to realize the Iron Rule of AQ-I wasn't the answer.

The problem, as Owl stated, is most definitely the fact that the Sunnis in the region really haven't had anyone be able to step up and fill the power vacuum in a way that isn't a terrorist group or extremist cell of religious fanatics. I think part of that is a result of the oppression the Sunnis in Iraq (and Syria) suffered under their respective regimes. The military was mostly Shi'ite or Shi'ite-supporting Sunnis in Iraq, and the infrastructure that really would allow Sunni groups to rise up and take control wasn't there. Instead a malevolent group, henceforth known as ISIS, was able to use their power that they had to overwhelm any serious opposition (of which there was little) and assert themselves as the really dominant force in the region. Iraq is a fractured state, but we face a difficult conundrum - if Saddam would have not been taken from power, how many thousands would have died under his rule? Would it compare to today's ISIS? Unfortunately, such comparisons don't really have much bearing on what we have to do now other than understanding how we can deal with some of the aspects.

I say get out, let them sort it out, and deal with whatever strong men emerges.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(06-05-2015 09:39 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I say get out, let them sort it out, and deal with whatever strong men emerges.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Honestly, as horrific as it is to let them go at it like they will, that wouldn't be the worst course of action. Though I still favor using intelligence agencies and special ops to chip away at their power.

(06-05-2015 07:31 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 04:54 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  As I said in another thread, it isn't just like there's a foreign group sitting on this territory and occupying it. They've got their tendrils everywhere in society, doing just enough of the "right things" (offering necessary services, building roads, hospitals, etc. that, although would be good if built by world standards, exist just to enforce their laws further) to suppress any opposition in the general public and keep them in a state of slavery. This is not something you can just: bomb them (thousands of enslaved civilians will die if you hit an ISIS camp which isn't ONLY fighters); march in and say, "Okay, civilians! We're here to liberate you!" (they're everywhere in the region and have built their military around the terrain to assure rule); or file a complaint somewhere (won't do any good -- they only listen to themselves and their own desires for more power). Thus, this is an extremely difficult situation.

Kind of Like the Democrat Party! BTW ,I'm Not Comparing Democrats with the Horrible ISIS but with the analogy Posted

Not just like the Democratic Party. Both parties offer incentives to various groups for support if/when they get into politics. That's just how it works, and ISIS is no different although their endgoals are quite obviously horrific. Your analogy is more in tune with civilization in general and organized government. No government can exist without offering services and enforcing laws, since that is the entire point of having any organized society. You give something and you get something in return. The difference is ISIS wants you to give everything and in return they don't kill you. It's not like anyone in either party in the US is doing that.

In response to JMUDunk:

I had begun to type that I think a CIA Northern Alliance-type of operation like what was used to destabilize the Taliban in Afghanistan would probably be a better solution. Obviously, it will have to be some type of combination of clandestine operations and aerial strikes, but combating ISIS instead of a comparatively weaker organization globally like the Taliban is obviously more difficult. We can't just sit back and let them do whatever they want, but the options are a lot more limited. I'm a big proponent of intelligence operations and I think precision strikes and acts are a lot more important and meaningful in the long run, and to be quite honest I just don't see many other alternatives other than trying to uproot them from within by trying to forge alliances with tribal groups and directing CIA/NSA/etc. resources towards the fight.

Fair enough. A reasonable, thoughtful answer. Thanks.

BUT, with what you are proposing (and I am probably pretty close to what you suggest here) you do know you're talking ground forces, right? (Not this cartoonish "boots on the ground!" mantra). But a commitment of U.S., ALL volunteers, BTW, and our 60 nation "alliance" of troops and support that would necessarily number in the tens of thousands.

Those CIA and SF operatives are the bad-asses, bad- asses, but it still means a commitment. Does your leader from behinder have the will to do that? Let them go in and take care of business?

Or, again, do we sit idly by and watch the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because we, as a Nation, no longer have the will or stomach to fight? He's made it clear that he doesn't, so now what?

Or, perhaps, is it simply because Brownlivesdon'tmatter?

At one time ALL lives mattered, even the Irish!

(06-06-2015 01:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fair enough. A reasonable, thoughtful answer. Thanks.

BUT, with what you are proposing (and I am probably pretty close to what you suggest here) you do know you're talking ground forces, right? (Not this cartoonish "boots on the ground!" mantra). But a commitment of U.S., ALL volunteers, BTW, and our 60 nation "alliance" of troops and support that would necessarily number in the tens of thousands.

Those CIA and SF operatives are the bad-asses, bad- asses, but it still means a commitment. Does your leader from behinder have the will to do that? Let them go in and take care of business?

Or, again, do we sit idly by and watch the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because we, as a Nation, no longer have the will or stomach to fight? He's made it clear that he doesn't, so now what?

Or, perhaps, is it simply because Brownlivesdon'tmatter?

At one time ALL lives mattered, even the Irish!

Obviously there would have to be some level of ground force to carry out a more clandestine operation like that, though I would hesitate to say that it is a good idea to funnel in army boots on the ground, for example. And the alliance really can't do much more than its strongest member (us), and I think we all know that the CIA/SF are the tops in the world in terms of their operational capability. Honestly, other than providing material and operational support, I don't foresee too much that can be done otherwise by the 60+ allied nations, short of an all-out flood of forces, which I think would end up with hundreds of thousands or millions dead in the region. Obama has to deal with this balance, and I think he's erring on the side of caution on the CIA/SF deal, which I think is (waiting, that is) pretty costly. I think public opinion at large in the US is split all over the political spectrum between those who think we have no reason to interfere and those who believe it is our moral obligation to save people from genocide. We've seen it many times before - Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq (under Saddam), etc. yet we always go into this waiting period of wishy-washy leadership. To me it is better to do something more, but unfortunately I do not make the decisions and I don't know all the specific details.