The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Martim Silva]

Speaking of the oil revenue, it's a bit inane that the US and its coalition haven't been seriously going after ISIS oil facilities, oil trucks, etc. Just started doing it recently. Meanwhile ISIS has been earning hundreds of millions of dollars over the year.

To say the least.

Let's think about this more clearly.

The "western coalition" has been active against ISIS for over a year, and has achieved what, terror attacks on Paris?


In the meanwhile, ISIS has terrorized the region acting with impunity and sending its operatives to attack abroad, be it Beirut, Tunis or in Europe.


It should be clear to all by now that Turkey got ISIS back.

The US asks for a bomb run on ISIS?

Ok, Turkey bombs the Kurds (who are fighting ISIS).

We try to stop ISIS funding?

Turkey lets them sell their oil via its territory.


No side here is a Saint, but Putin has pretty much put the finger on the issue: to solve the Syrian Civil War and beat ISIS, Turkey HAS to be neutralized. Unless that happens, the region cannot be pacified, simple as that.

Which, I guess, is why Russia has been running so many 'bait' missions over Turkish space: the planes involved are old and vulnerable and, to be frank, their only purpose is to be shot down. Russia never sent its modern planes anywhere near Turkish airspace, just the old junk.

So now the Turks attacked, and they downed a plane that passed through a few miles of their territory during a few seconds. And the pilots are dead.

Were the Russian passovers acceptable? Not really, diplomatic protests were in order.

But shooting down a warplane with lethal force, especially when it was over another nation's airspace? Sorry, that's an act of war.


Now, NATO can say all it wants, but two facts remain:

1. It is a DEFENSIVE alliance, not one where it goes to war if one of its members commits an act of war against a nation that can invoke the right to self-defense.

2. This conflict is about ISIS. And Turkey backs ISIS. Is NATO seriously saying it will side with ISIS-backers? After the western failure to defeat ISIS in any meaningful way, that's the same thing as saying it actually backs ISIS. Which won't go down well with global public opinion, especially since the Paris attacks are so fresh in everyone's mind.

Also, let's reverse a bit the scenario: say it was the US was bombing terrorists near a neutral minor country that the US does not like much, like Venezuela. And that a US F-118 or so passed over a tiny slice of their territory for 10-17 seconds. And they shoot it down over US-friendly airspace because of that. AND that the US airman get killed and their images shown.

Now, really, do you think the US - or ANY major power - can let a minor nation do this to them and reply with just some protests and economic sanctions? If you think 'yes', sit back and think deeply about it.


So, say Russia moves (and it can do so, since now it has the Crimea, it has air and naval dominance over the Black Sea) to neutralize the Turkish ability to project power in the region, in order to beat ISIS [and, of course, the rebels that pester Assad].

What can NATO do?

Go to war to defend a nation that decided to attack the planes of a country that invokes the right to self-defense?

And how would you explain to the national oppositions and the public why you're backing a nation that backs ISIS? You say you liked the Paris attacks?

How do you get THAT pass Congress? "Hey, let's risk nuclear war to back ISIS?"

Or through the French parliament? "Hey, let's risk nuclear war to protect the guys that protect the terrorists that just ravaged us"

Or through most NATO nations, really. If some - like Poland - were already afraid that NATO might not act in case of a Russian aggression [and in the case of Poland, NATO would truly be justified to go to war], then what to expect when the "defense" is no "defense" at all, and the guys to be "defended" were "attacked" because they were partially defending our worse enemies (and partially their own groups).

Do you really think NATO would go along with that?

[Admiral Yi]

I'd like to see some more evidence of Turkish backing for ISIS apart from the existence of smuggling and an inference about the motivation to shoot down the Russian plane.

[Eddie Teach]

Martim got one thing right. NATO is a defensive alliance. We're not gonna go to war over this incident, however that doesn't give Russia impunity to do whatever it likes to Turkey. 

[Malthus]

Heh, even assuming NATO does fuck-all while Russia beats on the Turk, the one thing Putin needs right now is ... another war. With Turkey. 

The country is already leaking money at the seams, and has already bitten off more than it can chew. What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

[alfred russel]

What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

Kars rightfully belongs to Russia.

Also Constantinople.

[Malthus]

What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

Kars rightfully belongs to Russia.

Also Constantinople.

Heh, I'm pretty sure a Putinite march on Istanbul isn't very likely. 

[Martim Silva]

I'd like to see some more evidence of Turkish backing for ISIS apart from the existence of smuggling and an inference about the motivation to shoot down the Russian plane.

How about Turkey bombing the Kurds (at a time when the Kurds were trying their best to stop ISIS) when instead they were supposed to bomb ISIS?

Sounds normal? (not to mention NATO pretty much doing jack shit about it bar some vague protests)

How about letting hundreds and hundreds of rather large oil trucks move through the country with zero checks?

("Oh, those millions upon millions of oil barrels moving along our territory for months on end? I'm sure they just magically appeared from fantasyland. No need to verify or investigate anything, really now")

The country is already leaking money at the seams, and has already bitten off more than it can chew. What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

Not so much a war but more a way to disable that country's ability to project power and back terrorists.

And the "sense" is one that you - and any other westerner - should be asking: "Do we want to defeat ISIS?".

Because as long as Erdogan's Turkey is around, ISIS won't go away.

[Admiral Yi]

How about Turkey bombing the Kurds (at a time when the Kurds were trying their best to stop ISIS) when instead they were supposed to bomb ISIS?

Sounds normal? (not to mention NATO pretty much doing jack shit about it bar some vague protests)

How about letting hundreds and hundreds of rather large oil trucks move through the country with zero checks?

("Oh, those millions upon millions of oil barrels moving along our territory for months on end? I'm sure they just magically appeared from fantasyland. No need to verify or investigate anything, really now")

Do you have some evidence that Turkey is "letting" those oil trucks cross the border with "zero checks?"

It's no secret that Turkey has a problem with Kurds.  But again your making an inference about motive.  One could as easily make the claim that the US is trying to prop up the Assad regime, because we are bombing ISIS, which is fighting the Allawites.

[jimmy olsen]

Heh, even assuming NATO does fuck-all while Russia beats on the Turk, the one thing Putin needs right now is ... another war. With Turkey. 

The country is already leaking money at the seams, and has already bitten off more than it can chew. What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

I find the idea that Russia could win a one on one war with Turkey to be questionable. They have a large, well equiped and well trained military, and have the advantage of defending some of the most harsh terrain in the world. As long as the conflict remained conventional, the Russians aren't going to get far.

[LaCroix]

I'd like to see some more evidence of Turkish backing for ISIS apart from the existence of smuggling and an inference about the motivation to shoot down the Russian plane.

exactly. no evidence exists or we'd know about it.

[grumbler]

Coupla notes:
1.  The Russian plane flew through Turkish airspace, turned, and flew through it again.  I don't know whether Russian navigation and radio discipline is so bad that the pilots just didn't know where they were or that they were the subject of the warnings, but it was almost certainly the fact that the violation was repeated that led to the (unfortunate) decision to down the aircraft.
2.  Russia is the power that has actually been backing ISIS.  Their goal has been to help ISIS eliminate the non-ISIS rebels and present the world with the lesser-of-two-evils choice between ISIS and their butcher buddy, Assad.
3.  Turkish corruption and inefficiency have certainly been vital to the funding of ISIS.  If I was a senior NATO official, I'd make it plain that Turkey needs to shoot some of its crooked officials and jail the rest to stop the oil smuggling if they want any help from the rest of NATO against Russia.

[Martinus]

What possible sense could there be in a fight with Turkey?

Kars rightfully belongs to Russia.

Also Constantinople.

Heh, I'm pretty sure a Putinite march on Istanbul isn't very likely. 

Still, the mere thought would probably give Spellus a permanent orgasm.

[Valmy]

Is that time period you were talking about when you said Turkey is "dangerously close to peace, prosperity, and international respect"?

No I was talking about early in his tenure.

[The Brain]

Is that time period you were talking about when you said Turkey is "dangerously close to peace, prosperity, and international respect"?

No I was talking about early in his tenure.

Tenet.

[Syt]

Russia knows what helps against terrorism: more paranoia:

https://www.rt.com/politics/323624-moscow-authorities-tell-business-owners/

Moscow authorities tell business owners to step up anti-terror measures

The Moscow Department of Trade and Services is asking the owners of shops, restaurants and other public enterprises to hire additional security to conduct checks on buildings and pay special attention to employees who spend a large amount of time abroad.

The memo, sent to all public businesses, contains detailed instructions on the new recommendations, including a request to check tables in cafés each time they have been used by clients, according to Aleksey Nemeryuk, the head of the Moscow department.

In comments to Izvestia daily, Nemeryuk added it was important to monitor employees who spend long periods of time abroad, especially in countries with active Islamist movements.

READ MORE: Activists urge FSB to launch nationwide anti-terrorist public movement

Nemeryuk also told reporters that city authorities have invited business owners and managers to several anti-terrorist conferences to be held with the participation of the Interior Ministry and the Federal Security Service (FSB).

The official added that even before the memo was issued, many Moscow companies had reacted to threats to Russia made by international terrorist groups such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

Several top managers of major Moscow café chains and shopping malls told Izvestia they received the memo on anti-terrorist measures about a week ago, and confirmed their companies were already working in this direction.

READ MORE: Both chambers of Russian parliament support tougher punishment for terrorism

Managers from restaurant companies also told reporters that the number of visitors to their establishments had dropped by up to 70 percent in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris. However, within a week things had returned to normal, they said.

Earlier this week, Oleg Denisenko MP (Communist Party) asked the FSB and the National Anti-Terror Committee to urgently draw up a law that would make it obligatory for shopping centers to have metal detectors at all entrances. It remains to be seen whether this proposal will be transformed into a bill.