IRAQ WAR III

[Rusty Edge]

IRAQ WAR III -That's what I'm worrying about these days.

Now that the Calaphate has been restored, I think another war is practically inevitable.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

In fact, ISIS wants to draw the American Crusaders into it. Of course, guys like GOP presidential hopefuls Rick Santorum and Scott Walker would have us fully participating already, if it were in their power.

I'd like to thank the NeoCons at the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, and their dumb buttocked belief in the domino theory, particularly that removing the Iraqi dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy would spread democracy across the Middle East, and that those democracies would be more friendly to Israel and the USA. We saw how well that worked in Egypt.  Without the Defense Policy Board the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) / restoration of The Caliphate would not have been possible.

ISIS is fundamentalist, medieval style Islam. Annual Jihad. Crucifixion, amputation, and slavery. Enslave the Christians and Jews, use their women as concubines of the holy warriors.  As for other Muslims, the ones who have shirked their scriptural duty to rally to the banner of the Caliph, the heretic Shiites, or any other group of Muslims who have liberalized and diluted the literal words of the Prophet, they are marked for death and executed when captured.

Obama is merely stirring the pot with his drones, emigration policies, and statement that ISIS is not true Islam. A believer thwarted from living in the Caliphate will likely retaliate against the country that stopped him.

From the article- "The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest. Al-Qaeda’s core is rare among jihadist groups for its focus on the “far enemy” (the West); most jihadist groups’ main concerns lie closer to home. That’s especially true of the Islamic State, precisely because of its ideology. It sees enemies everywhere around it, and while its leadership wishes ill on the United States, the application of Sharia in the caliphate and the expansion to contiguous lands are paramount. Baghdadi has said as much directly: in November he told his Saudi agents to “deal with the rafida [Shia] first … then al-Sulul [Sunni supporters of the Saudi monarchy] … before the crusaders and their bases.”

So in other words, if the USA were to withdrawal from the region, ISIS would be in a death match with Iran. Countries like Saudi Arabia would be forced to decide if they would pledge loyalty to the Caliph and become a province, or fight against them.

Well, it is a religious quarrel, and I think we should let them sort things out without interference. USA presence can only unite and rally various factions against us. Al Queda was a response to sustained American presence in Arabia. Involvement is a no-win.

IRAQ WAR III - it's one we really need to sit out.

[Geo]

Domino effect works two ways. ISIS is fanatic and determined enough to topple existing countries which already are rife with internal strife. Iraq and Syria would likely topple quick enough. Jordany is pretty stable internally, but is unlikely to repel a fanatic assault launched across the desert, which brings the Battles of the Jordan quickly within view.
The existing semi-autonomous areas controlled by the Kurds would be unlikely to withstand. They're determined as well, but too lightly armed.
Letting Iran handle the IS likely means it will control at the very least the Tigris -and Euphrates rivers basin and the whole north shore of the Persian Gulf after the dust settles.
And all that means a couple dozen million people will for a time be at the mercy of those medieval butchers you described earlier, Rusty.

No, its better to try contain this while its still pretty isolated.

[Buster's Uncle]

The Islamic world is Chinatown.  They're still working out all the crap from colonialism and the aftermath of WWI.  It's an enormously complicated question with no easy answers.

[Lorizael]

I'm still not sure why the US has any right/responsibility to interfere with the Middle East. And aside from that, we seem to be spectacularly bad at doing so. Maybe we should focus on what we're good at, instead? (The other argument I make in these conversations is this one: the only way the US has ever made allies out of enemies is by more or less mercilessly crushing that enemy and then playing with nice whoever remains. See Germany, Japan. Also see the Pierson's Puppeteers plans for the Kzinti via humans in Known Space. This solution, while seemingly effective, also has the tendency to leave millions dead, which is why we haven't really tried it in the last 70 years.)

[Rusty Edge]

Domino effect works two ways.

You may well be right about the rest of this, Geo,  time will tell.

That said, I don't believe in the domino theory. Eurasia did not become Communist. Not even SouthEast Asia. Neither did all of Africa. Or Central America.

The establishment of the state of Israel did not spread parliamentary government  across the region.








'

[Buster's Uncle]

It's a tough moral dilemma, the middle east crap - on one hand, it's none of our business and we're not wanted, on the other, it's sorta wrong to do nothing while you hear the neighbors coming to blows.  And on the gripping hand, we broke Iraq...

[Geo]

And a positive sounding 'Yes we can' politician didn't achieve the most powerful position in the world. Twice.
It is more the driving force behind the 'domino' and the counterforce put in position against it.
Without NATO (admittedly, mostly US) backup, ISIS today would occupy quite a bit larger territory.
Think of the piracy situation along the Somali coast a couple years ago. Without naval patrols things would be way worse in the region by now, and not alone on the maritime level.

[Rusty Edge]

It seems Barrack the Bomber has decided his death by drones policy doesn't pack enough punch.

The Turks have decided they stand against the Caliphate, rather than subordinate to it. So we're gearing up for USAF bombing from a Turkish base adjacent to Syria. The undeclared war against the Caliphate will begin in two or three weeks.

Terrorist counterstrikes in the USA to follow...

[Geo]

Terrorist counterstrikes in the USA to follow...

Those terrorists have announced terror strikes all over the world multiple times. Mosttimes, they don't succeed or even get things going.
What was the last one in the USA? Those brothers exploding a bomb at the finish line of a marathon on the East Coast?

[Rusty Edge]

Sadly, no.

July 16th, an Isis sympathizer sprayed a military recruiting office in a strip mall with bullets, killing or wounding everyone.

[Geo]

No stopping of the fanbois.

[Rusty Edge]

It seems Barrack the Bomber has decided his death by drones policy doesn't pack enough punch.

The Turks have decided they stand against the Caliphate, rather than subordinate to it. So we're gearing up for USAF bombing from a Turkish base adjacent to Syria. The undeclared war against the Caliphate will begin in two or three weeks.

Terrorist counterstrikes in the USA to follow...

Well, I'm no longer concerned about the terrorist aspect as such.

My concern regards other mid-eastern nations facing the choice the Turks did-

Are you going to recognize the legitimacy of the caliphate, dissolve your government and be absorbed by it?

OR

Are you going to deny it's legitimacy, deny it funds,  deny it people, and oppose it?

My fear is that western intervention will allow many middle eastern governments to sit on the fence in safety, denounce the West, fund the fanatics instead of the refugees, allow jihadists to be recruited and trained within their borders, and allow this war to continue for a generation or more.

No more arms sales to Saudi Arabia or whoever until they take a stand, if I had my way.

[Rusty Edge]

Or to put it another way...

When someone claims to be The Messiah, everybody within the faith has to make up their mind one way or the other and act accordingly.

[vonbach]

We had no enemies in the middle east at all until we backed Israel.

[Rusty Edge]

We had no enemies in the middle east at all until we backed Israel.

That's a generalization, but not one I would argue against.

Here's an interesting exception- Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

We cleverly overthrew the popular socialist government. Pretty awesome at the time,
in the long run.....not so much.