We live in the age of consent; you can't just drop some bombs on a country because you suspect terrorists on their soil. Worse, you can't even attack a country without permission of the Security Council and you need a very strong case that it's just self defense, your honor.
Oh wait, you could, We did so in Afghanistan and repeated the trick in Iraq and now these are nice and peaceful countries where western democracy has settled and the people feel liberated now.
The coalition of the willing of that era has fallen apart and their governments have been criticized. Heck, it even cost Tony Blair his good standing. Poor guy now makes a living advising obscure Eastern dictators.
Speaking about Eastern. If Russia can't interfere in Ukraine surely we can't interfere in Syria. Or can we?
But surely this is for a good cause. Nobody wants an Islamic State so everybody will be happy if we 'destroy them'.
Well, it depends on who you ask. Not every government where IS is active, is looking forward to spontaneous bombings. Case in point Assad who struggles with a civil war, is still not happy with the idea of Western planes dropping bombs on his country. Call the guy nationalistic, but he will have this in common with most national leaders. He says he would like to be consulted at least…
Iran then, a country which doesn't share any warm religious feelings with the IS Sunnis and a close neighbor in the region; are they in favor of Western bombs? Nope, they are not. They find it slightly hypocrite that coalition members in the recent past supported "financially and military' the very same terrorists in Iraq and Syria which they are now expected to bomb.
Other countries then; surely some members of this coalition must be willing to destroy and destruct as Obama likes saying.
Nah, Germany and even Great Britain say just dropping bombs on a country without consent, is a bridge too far. That leaves us with Denmark, Poland an Austria, well know military air forces which will crumble the Islamic State….
Or the as yet unnamed list of Arab states. Like they will actively fight…
Yes, as Sunni states, they would like to see Syria which has a Shiite majority, fall. However as religious brothers of IS their support will be limited to words, a bit of money and maybe the use by the Americans of their airports.
Saudi-Arabia and Qatar have on paper the means to support this 'coalition' but both have actively supported IS with weapons and money and share the Sunni belief, so they are hardly the reliable partners to build a coalition on.
Forging an international coalition is never easy, but this must be the most cripple one in recent history. Nobody will go first; the US seems to be walking this alone…
Options for the West:
– boots on the ground repeat of Afghanistan/Iraq. Chase IS in Syria and Iraq and defeat them.
Pro: It would deprive IS of their (sources of) wealth like oil, banks etc. and it would destroy their heavy weapons as well as disrupt their organization.
Contra: body bags will come back in disturbing high numbers so public opinion won't accept it. And defeat is possible, but destruction not. IS can survive a military defeat.
– air strikes on strategic targets and kill leaders / destabilize with drones.
Pro: public opinion loves the show of force. No body bags. Air strikes disrupt further progress by IS. Kurds and Iraqi army are helped with an air cover.
Contra: which strategic targets? it's not a regular army so hardly any centralized resources to go after. Enemy knows how drones work. Also they are less effective without intelligence on the ground and IS terror rule will stop special forces and local informants.
– do nothing, let the locals sort it out.
Pro: cheap, no major political risks, Iran and Turkey have sufficient motives to help southern Iraq beat IS.
Contra: public opinion wants 'something' for cruelty shown on television. No strategic gains to be made in the region, they could well decide to go it alone and ignore the West. #politics
And at the bottom of that ramp is World War 3.
And here's a few reasons for nobody to go first and to just sit back for a while and keep watch.
http://www.newsweek.com/isiss-enemy-list-10-reasons-islamic-state-doomed-268953
I don't agree with newsweek +Gijs van Dijk as the 'enemy of your enemy is my friend' factor is not included.
Yes it is +Max Huijgen , both ways even. 🙂
The best that can be hoped for is to stop IS from spreading, slow the genocide, and stop IS from having a physically centralized government. Beyond that, there is no way to change people. They must change themselves. As mentioned above, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't 'fixed' nor will they be for a long time to come. And they must do it for themselves.
I'm starting to think Israel is behind Isis. How come they are not a target and Isis seems to be going after Israel's enemy's. +Max Huijgen is the hat what you mean by enemy of my enemy?
+Doug Russell IS is picking the low hanging fruit first. Israil would bomb the heck out of them. IS likes defenseless people to pick on.
+Patrick Smith I agree to an extent but I'm playing devils advocate. The article says Isis did car bombings against Hezbollah in Lebanon. How come none have gone off in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? No. One enemy is the US . Newsweek article never mentions Israel once. Why are they not seen as a threat to Isis?
Max Huijgen Very well said. I agree with you. Our hands got tired from writing on web stop arming ISIS AND SYRIAN OPPOSITION IN SYRIA But! no one listen after Syria has being destroyed now Western government started to see the whole picture. Too bad
ISIS has also made threats against Putin.
+Doug Russell perhaps they are first trying to 'purify' Islam. Hence the bombings of Islamic shrines, the burning of Korans etc. My guess is if they are left alone, they will eventually poke a finger into Israel's eye.
Bombing ISIS is like whack s mole. Real solution is a large powerful and (confident) stable Arab state which is the real pan Arab dream which Britain and US have always worked to undermine.
Give me the power for one month and i'll show that thing called ISIS WHAT I WILL DO TO THEM . AMEN. NOT SOMETHING GOOD FOR SURE.
'Boots on Ground' is the gayest fucking statement ever. You mean 'trained murders and terrorists to violate other nations integrity'. Oh, US don't want to take your land they just want to rule you and take everything worth having from your lands. What's the problem??? you can still call your country the name you use for it so you get to keep your 'territorial integrity'….hahahhaahahahaha, what a hypocrisy…China is going to fucking nuke the United States one day mark my words.
And yet another take:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide
+John Flori John, you may not realize it, but that is speech that is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Just sayin'. You may miss the U.S. after it is gone.
This is just a "back door" move to drag us into attacking Syria. Before you know it, our rogue regime will be bombing Assad. And the troubling thing is that our regime armed and trained these whack-a-doodles from the start. There is no need to form a coalition to stop ISIS or whatever name they want to give this group. We have no business in Iraq or Syria. We were not asked by either country to "please come and invade us" and while you are here "please bomb and kill as many of our civilian population as you wish".
Yeah, our country has been overrun with warmongering morons. I suggest all of our "leaders" (roflmfao) watch the move "Lawrence of Arabia". T.E. Lawrence was unable to get any unified effort among the various factions during his time in the region and nothing has changed. Let the Arabs rule Arabs.
There are too many moles to whack. Financial and legal methods are the best way to proceed. It's tempting to strike against beheadings but that creates more enemies.
World war IV!!!!!!
There are many people who wish the U.S. harm hoping we will take that approach (ignore them). The war we are in is not the war of our fathers or grandfathers, it is a cyber war. And we are foolish if we do not recognize that. The U.S. Department of Defense has been trying to tell us to pay attention, but we would prefer to argue about social themes that do not (really) affect our condition. (And many hope we continue in our political stupidity.)
+Max Huijgen Amazing how people play armchair general ready to start new wars when hundreds of thousands have died from rash decisions since 9/11. And yet somehow radically egregious aggression in the Ukraine by Russia gets swept under the rug.
The countries of the middle east and north africa need to start owning their own future. That's the nature of this coalition and yes, it won't be easy. But we have no choice if we are to enact long lasting fundamental change. Otherwise it will just be more whack-a-mole…
"We" are not engaged in any war. The US department of Defense can go fuck themselves.
+Max Huijgen Personally I feel, US should clean up hte mess that they have created. But, it is time they put the interest of the local people ahead of their own geostrategic interests and may be they might succeed
@Meg tufano – You are mistaken. No one will miss the US once it is gone. Firstly other nations are ready and able to fill the void. We certainly won't miss US hypocrisy; US bullying of the UN; US support of the racist terrorist state of Israel; US sanctions against countries it dislikes; US extra-judicial murders; US destabilisation of sovereign states… the list is endless. In fact there is a lot about the US we won't miss.
+Able Lawrence clearing up the self created mess is a continuous process as a new mess results. Only difference is that every time there are more (US) weapons available to all parties.
IS is well stocked with US arms thanks to the help offered to 'western friendly' parties in Syria and of course the overrun military bases of Iraq
Are you referring to me as an armchair general? +John Blossom I thought this was a rant about international relations, a subject in which I'm well qualified.
Somebody should a gather couple of hours of aerial footage from the aftermath of World War II Germany and Japan, burn it on a DVD, and send it to the leader of ISIS with narration.
Get somebody like Martin Sheen to do the voiceover: "This is the aftermath of what happens when the great American nation and her allies are stirred from their slumber…"
"Hundreds of thousands of tons of incendiary devices rain mercilessly from the sky day and night…"
+Max Huijgen Well, none of us are generals, and unless you have a relative in the armed services, none of us have any blood in this game. And it's not really a game, is it. Live are at stake either way, but war is not a theory – it's a brutal fact.
My son is in the Army National Guard, but it will be 6 to 12 months before he will be ready for deployment.
Uh, +John Blossom this is not a war plan, this is an analysis of international relations outlining the possible options for a war plan.
Generals make plans within the confines of international relations analysis. Not the other way around.
And I happen to have studied quite long and got all the certificates to be more than qualified to look into this situation.
It seems like containment is the best we can hope for without causing extreme collateral damage to innocent people. It's like a gigantic hostage situation.
+Patrick Smith As far as the U.S. role, probably. But the local nations can do much more – if they want to. They sponsor this insanity, albeit with some backing from Russia and China, but they don't have to take the aid.
Options for the West:
– boots on the ground repeat of Afghanistan/Iraq. Chase IS in Syria and Iraq and defeat them.
Pro: It would deprive IS of their (sources of) wealth like oil, banks etc. and it would destroy their heavy weapons as well as disrupt their organization.
Contra: body bags will come back in disturbing high numbers so public opinion won't accept it. And defeat is possible, but destruction not. IS can survive a military defeat.
– air strikes on strategic targets and kill leaders / destabilize with drones.
Pro: public opinion loves the show of force. No body bags. Air strikes disrupt further progress by IS. Kurds and Iraqi army are helped with an air cover.
Contra: which strategic targets? it's not a regular army so hardly any centralized resources to go after. Enemy knows how drones work. Also they are less effective without intelligence on the ground and IS terror rule will stop special forces and local informants.
– do nothing, let the locals sort it out.
Pro: cheap, no major political risks, Iran and Turkey have sufficient motives to help southern Iraq beat IS.
Contra: public opinion wants 'something' for cruelty shown on television. No strategic gains to be made in the region, they could well decide to go it alone and ignore the West.
China and Russia back this +John Blossom? Source?
+Max Huijgen Look at the weapons – they're not just AK-47 knockoffs and leftover Soviet stuff by a long shot. I am suspecting Web support also – the crime cartels in Russia are quite adept at funnelling money from malware to questionable recipients. Let's face it – the ISIL invasion in many ways played out first and foremost like a bank heist – 400 mil snatch-and-grab. Lots of that money goes to Russian armaments suppliers…
Let's not pretend the USA doesn't supply weapons to just about anyone who wants to pay +John Blossom . The USA isn't any better. The main reason you see so many AK's is because they are really cheap, generally don't brake and if they do, they can be fixed with a hammer and blow torch.
That's not what the experts say +John Blossom You can 'suspect' things, but actual research tells a different story
The most serious stuff like armored personnel carriers, artillery, rocket launchers and mortars are all US made and the main goal of the air strikes.
There is some very old Russian stuff around (sixties AK-47) but lots of brand new advanced American small arms M-16's,
All of this can be traced back to weapons which were conquered on Western supported rebels in Syria, arm depots in Iraq, etc.
Some heavy weapons (like anti-tank rockets) are Yugoslavian in origin, but were shipped by Saudi-Arabia to again western supported Syrian rebels.
The rest of the heavy weapons is US.
+Gijs van Dijk There's not doubt that the U.S. has been a major arms supplier. But let's face it – you know what we're doing, by and large. But for some reason the western media gives Russia and China a free pass again and again on their funding of the upstarts who are butchering people around the world. The Ukraine is just a small part of a much larger Russian funding of global instability in search of higher energy prices for their oligarchs and strategic imbalance which can keep the pressure off of badly needed reforms in Russia. It's so much easier to attack big/bad/culturally dominant USA – and to covertly pine for the old Soviet days. We can't go back, folks. We need to find peace in this world without Stalinism/Maoism. And yes, U.S. corporatism is a huge problem. But face first that until you have stable and safe nations rooted in democratic values it's hard to take on that issue. Scared-witless U.S. heartlanders will keep the crazies in our Congress holding the plug on reason until you start dealing with the crazies around the world that freak them out.
+Max Huijgen I think that you're missing the larger import of ISIL. Where do you think that the 400 mil is going? Sure, left-over U.S. weapons are more common than candy bars in Iraq, especially since the do-nothing Iraqi army fled the scene. But look at what ISIL and other arms of terrorism are funding – they fund the brutal instability in Africa, in other parts of the middle east, Asia and beyond. That money isn't hanging around gathering interest in Swiss banks – it's going into arms merchants' pockets.
This is why this new coalition building in the middle east is so important, as dubious as its prospects may look right now. Until you have Arabs disciplining Arabs who harm Arabs, not much changes.
And, actually, thinking of Russia's financial issues, I have to think that just as the CIA has used various operations such as opium farms to fund covert operations through the years, I have to think that Russia and China must use terrorists and crime rings to fund their own covert operations on many levels. The world is not a vacuum – patterns of actions imply patterns of funding actions…
+John Blossom You're entitled to some obscure views, but believe me that IS can't seriously buy heavy weapons. That market doesn't exist for non state actors.
But putting money in decent payments for their troops brings them much more: high morale and a decent chance on obtaining even more weapons by defeating the Iraqi army or the Kurds.
Oh, and Isis is not active outside of the middle east. Their foremost goal is getting a firm hold on their current region.
They are a highly efficient, smart organization. They are not wasting energy on vague future goals.
"Boots on the ground" can be solved by issuing more appropriate "roman sandals" for the terrain, eh? Surely not flip-flops!
+Max Huijgen Good points, but still short of the big picture. Given the number of alleged troops, they'd be pulling down about $100K/yr apiece if every dime of their bank booty went to them – and that doesn't count income from kidnappings, graft and shakedowns. Doesn't add up, IMO. They're scaling for larger operations – and, perhaps not coincidentally, wider actions in Africa and beyond seemed to have stepped up lately.
In the meantime, while sales by the top 100 arms companies fell globally by 4.2 percent as of 2012 data, Russian arms sales increased 28 percent in the same period. Hmm. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140131/DEFREG03/301310035/Report-Russia-Surges-Global-Arms-Sales
+Max Huijgen Whether we like it or not, America is the de facto Roman imperial power that is reluctantly trying to maintain its Pax Romana. In the dying days of the empire (it was true of British empire too) troops were mostly made of people from outside the homeland (various tribes and ethnicities) Americans won't have trouble finding mercenaries for the empire provided the carrot of a path to immigration is dangled for those who complete service honorably. Rome declined due its reluctance to fight other peoples wars, even when the subjects from the frontiers were more than eager. All this eventually led to the "barbarian" subjects losing faith in the empire and eventually marching on the empire and sacking Rome. (Sacking of Rome by Goths)
The 400 million (some estimates go as high as 2 billion) IS is rumored to be earning, seems highly overrated.
The oil is mostly unsold, the rest goes away in low volumes at heavily discounted prices.
Overrunning the banks in Mosul is unlikely to have net hundreds of millions.
Anyway +John Blossom IS will spend most of it in its own economy. If they don't pay the street cleaners, bureaucrats, hospitals, oil technicians etc the locals will turn away from IS.
+Max Huijgen The 400mm was just from the bank heists, as I understand it. I agree that some of this will go to administration, in all likelihood, but if some are estimating that their military capacity could expand easily to 20-30.000 active combatants, then one assumes that they get arms from somewhere…
The regular cannon fodder will only get small arms and it's estimated that IS got hold of about two to three times more of these weapons than they have combatants.
Not so surprising when complete brigades fled leaving their weapons behind.
So, any guesses what will happen now?
+Patrick Smith Not much until after the U.S. elections.
+Max Huijgen Yes, they have plenty of those. And that's what it takes, mostly, to turn the world upside down. If you have is that much surplus, where does it go? Nigeria, Liberia, &c. And that's in general how they'll keep it in terms of armaments, because anything big enough to be identified by satellite or drone imagery is toast. Rumsfeld wanted to hit Iraq in part because he wanted things big enough to blow up with heavy/sophisticated armaments, so that U.S. power would look dramatic. But his strategy was a total crock – once you take those things out, the fighting goes to basic armaments, improvised explosives and the willingness to use them. And in a war of attrition, usually it's almost impossible to overcome this sort of opposition when they have ample ammunition. Just ask the British that's how they lost the War of Independence in North America.
Obama's no fool, he's had years of experience dealing with U.S. generals and political hawks, he'll do what he has to with airstrikes but that's mostly to buy Kerry some time to rework the political landscape a bit. It's not a very rosy outlook either way, but one must try.
They don't necessarily have to pay the street cleaners much, +Max Huijgen . They could always remind them that they've got more room in mass graves for the uncooperative. These cats are not long on administration, just long on genocide, beheadings, teaching children to behead, and grabbing assets. If they had good administrators, their oil wouldn't be unsold, still. On a black market basis, there are many municipalities on the northern side of the Mediterranean as well as areas of Africa facing an uncertain fuel oil shortage for the winter with the mess in Ukraine.
Don't over estimate the power of terror +Jo Dunaway The nazis paid their bureaucrats well to make sure the trains arrived in Auschwitz…
I don't think we should underestimate it on the areas where they have taken over and killed off hundreds, while selling women and girls to sex slavery. Those people who have had their villages overrun are feeling pretty vulnerable right now.
+Jo Dunaway Good points, I don't really know that much about what's happening on the ground, but I get the sense that it's mostly a gangster economy – shaking down people and organisations down for needed funds, some of which may go for admin, but much of which gets funnelled into dark channels of various kinds.
+Max Huijgen Bureaucrats, yes. To +Jo Dunaway's point, these cats don't seem long on government. Kind of the radical Islamic version of "Stuff happens"…
+Wy Doesitmatter Use your real name and I will respond. You should be blocked by +Max Huijgen .
The comment is gone +Meg Tufano
+Meg Tufano , you show your stupidity and intolerance by demanding anyone who disagrees with your views should be blocked. Heil diktator Meg. What me "real name" is is irrelevant. I did not create my Google+ profile to please morons like you.
+Max Huijgen Ah. I never knew I had any power to do anything. ;')
+Wy Doesitmatter And if you think I would block anyone who disagrees with me, you have not followed me much! ;') I would have blocked most of my interlocutors… I prefer discussion; especially prefer to ad hominem . But, oh, I forgot about discussions with those who prefer to fight than switch to discussion.
Being a moron, much more fun. Thanks. That's a great idea for a profession. As far as I can see, it works marvelously, especially in the U.S. GOP.
;')
+Meg Tufano: I quote you: "You [Wy Doesitmatter] should be blocked …". Hypocrite, much, or is it dementia?
But I agree you don't have any power, thankfully!
+Meg Tufano… oh, I forgot to say, I don't follow you much, except in this thread.
… But, I did view your profile and I could like you 🙂
I take back the comment about you being a moron, just a tad intolerant.