The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Malthus]

So ISIL is not Islamic? 

I read that it was a Zionist plot to discredit Islam. It was in the Internet, so it must be true.

[Viking]

So ISIL is not Islamic? 

Calling the Islamic State "Islamic" would be Islamophobic.

[Hansmeister]

I find it humorous that Obama thinks our strategy in Somalia and Yemen has been successful and should be emulated in Iraq and Syria.

[KRonn]

I find it humorous that Obama thinks our strategy in Somalia and Yemen has been successful and should be emulated in Iraq and Syria.

That was a bit of a puzzle to me also. Both failed states where the US conducts drone strikes, tries to support the governments but the nations are a mess. Not the US fault as those places have their own issues and long term disputes, but it's odd to point to them as successful strategy. Killing a few leaders and extremists and blowing up some buildings isn't really a long term strategy. Get the regional nations much more involved in this ancient feuding. These are their issues. The US and the West aren't going to be able to fix the religious and cultural infighting and problems, some of which has been going on for centuries.

Also reading that most Arab states in the region are balking and stalling, finding other things to do like clean out their sock drawers, rather than sign onto any strong or public support of US action. Sheesh, this huge problem of ISIL is in their backyards, threatening them all, and their response is tepid.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Which Iraq war are you?

[garbon]

Which Iraq war are you?

You're The 2014 Counterterrorism Campaign!

You're unpredictable, mysterious, and a little bit reserved—in other words, you're the United States' current counterterrorism campaign against ISIS! You're slow to open up to people, and it's sometimes difficult to tell what you're thinking, but in a little while, who knows what you'll be like? You might be a total extrovert, or maybe a bookworm! Your personality really could be anything down the road!

[derspiess]

http://www.clickhole.com/article/stunning-map-shows-just-how-much-iraq-and-syria-vi-924

[Eddie Teach]

You're The Gulf War!
Nice job! It turns out that you're the Gulf War! You're ambitious and outgoing, and you're never afraid to speak your mind. You're all business, and you don't mess around. When there's a job to be done, no matter how horrifying, you roll up your sleeves and do it. Nice!

[Viking]

I find it humorous that Obama thinks our strategy in Somalia and Yemen has been successful and should be emulated in Iraq and Syria.

That was a bit of a puzzle to me also. Both failed states where the US conducts drone strikes, tries to support the governments but the nations are a mess. Not the US fault as those places have their own issues and long term disputes, but it's odd to point to them as successful strategy. Killing a few leaders and extremists and blowing up some buildings isn't really a long term strategy. Get the regional nations much more involved in this ancient feuding. These are their issues. The US and the West aren't going to be able to fix the religious and cultural infighting and problems, some of which has been going on for centuries.

Also reading that most Arab states in the region are balking and stalling, finding other things to do like clean out their sock drawers, rather than sign onto any strong or public support of US action. Sheesh, this huge problem of ISIL is in their backyards, threatening them all, and their response is tepid.

Basically, to quote bin laden, people will follow a strong horse. Virtually by definition any US backed leader is not a strong horse. If the leader were strong he'd not need US support. In arab society legitimacy is not gained by representing a group of people or from the ballot box but rather by achievement and success.

Yassir Arafat milked one indecisive skirmish with a small israeli force in 1968 into 35 years of leadership of the palesinians no matter how catastrophic his performance. Maliki was given the "throne" of iraq by the americans, he didn't take it. So he hasn't been tested and consequently nobody actually supports or obeys him. This is why he had to politicize the army since he wasn't able to trust anybody but his own people.

Being a US ally mean you have really cool military toys, but it also means you can't massacre your own people to take proper control of your country.

[Berkut]

I suspect that before all this over, we will see us ground combat troops again. Not with this President though.

[mongers]

I suspect that before all this over, we will see us ground combat troops again. Not with this President though.

Well that would certainly bolster the military credentials of a newly elected President Hilary. 

[Berkut]

I am not saying that is a good thing, just that it seems very likely.

Air power can radically curtail their ability to continue to expand, but it will take ground troops to roll them back. I don't think you are going to see entire brigades going and doing it, but I would not be at all surprised to see US ground troops "advising" in combat roles.

It would be really great if that wasn't needed though.

[mongers]

I am not saying that is a good thing, just that it seems very likely.

Air power can radically curtail their ability to continue to expand, but it will take ground troops to roll them back. I don't think you are going to see entire brigades going and doing it, but I would not be at all surprised to see US ground troops "advising" in combat roles.

It would be really great if that wasn't needed though.

Yes, I don't disagree with you. 

I think if you have a President Patraeus next , there'd be less chance of formal US military units fighting in Iraq, as opposed to a President from a civilian background. 

[PJL]

I am not saying that is a good thing, just that it seems very likely.

Air power can radically curtail their ability to continue to expand, but it will take ground troops to roll them back. I don't think you are going to see entire brigades going and doing it, but I would not be at all surprised to see US ground troops "advising" in combat roles.

It would be really great if that wasn't needed though.

I'm sure there are 'advisors' on the ground already (well we know of the 500 already in Iraq, but there's probably more). But to be honest, it's probably the most cost effective way of containing the situation. People here have complained about us not giving more support in Yemen & Somailia, but airstrikes in the area is a step up from throwing a few missiles at terrorist camps. I would argue that it has been a success so far in the fact that no major terrorist plot has occurred in the West in the last 5 years. It may look like firefighting, but we can only do so much. If the regional players in the area are unwilling to help, then what else can we do? Virtually every other action we have done has been shown to be costly at least in monetary terms, and worse in lives lost. Hell, if anything, at least the Africans have tried to do something in the Somalia area with peacekeeping troops, something which the Iraqi-Syrian conflict has yet to provide.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, these are the kind of knuckleheads that will need some curbside attention.  General Zinni was right the other week;  two brigades could knock these assholes back into the Syrian mountainside. 
But the moment we leave, they'll filter back and get together again.  Or whichever more radicalized group that shows up to take their place.  Until we go back again.  Rinse, repeat.