The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Grallon]

So I read you guys are at war again?  Well at least my favorite newspaper prints that Obama has declared war against EI or ISIS or whatever the mongrels call themselves these days.

So how does it feels to be back in the stew?

Why don't you guys do humanity a service and eradicate them all at once?



G.

[garbon]

So I read you guys are at war again?  Well at least my favorite newspaper prints that Obama has declared war against EI or ISIS or whatever the mongrels call themselves these days.

So how does it feels to be back in the stew?

Why don't you guys do humanity a service and eradicate them all at once?



G.

I think we shouldn't have left in the first place.

[Hansmeister]

Obama has the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to understand the nature of the conflict.  Then again his understanding of any issue has never been above the level of a stupid college freshman who just discovered Chomsky and Zinn and suddenly thinks he understands the world.

When it comes to internal conflicts we break them down into three categories, which are from the smallest to the largest:

Terrorist conflict - defined as war through terrorist attacks, mainly against civilian targets, to undermine the credibility of the government. The enemy is a relatively small organization, rarely more than a few hundred strong, usually divided into many autonomously operating cells.  You combat it by an aggressive policing effort, combining intelligence and targeted strikes that seeks to identify the terrorist network and the capture or kill its members.

Insurgency - tends to combine terrorist acts and raids to get the government to relinquish control of difficult to defend territories.  Insurgencies must have a safe harbor to operate from, usually remote regions or neighboring countries. Counter insurgency strategies focus on increasing local security and gaining the support of the local populace to eliminate said safe harbors and denying the insurgents freedom of movement.

Civil war - control of a country is divided with the opposition controlling sizeable territory and able to field large forces that can challenge to gov't's security forces directly for control of the country. In a civil war the only way to ensure success is to boost the capabilities of the conventional forces to the point where they can achieve decisive victory.

During a war the category can change several times, and each time you have to change your tactics along with it. I used to complain that our conventional generals just didn't understand it and wasted several good opportunities early in the Iraq war to secure victory. Today most generals to understand it, but alas the ignorant generalissimo Obama has overruled them and insisted on a counterterrorism strategy with a very limited counterinsurgency component when we are in fact facing a civil war conflict. Hence, the strategy has zero chance of succeeding.

[viper37]

Obama has the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to understand the nature of the conflict.  Then again his understanding of any issue has never been above the level of a stupid college freshman who just discovered Chomsky and Zinn and suddenly thinks he understands the world.

How did it go the last time you were in the area, with a very good President who understood perfectly the nature of the conflict unfolding in front of him?

[CountDeMoney]

 

He understands, alright.  He understands Middle East conflict is a quagmire from which there is no permanent exit, just varying degrees of blender settings.  We'll just be killing the same rebranded Islamotards swinging on monkey bars, over and over and over again.

[Admiral Yi]

Hans: so don't leave us hanging.  What would be the optimal policy to follow right now in Iraq?  In Syria?

[Viking]

He understands, alright.  He understands Middle East conflict is a quagmire from which there is no permanent exit, just varying degrees of blender settings.  We'll just be killing the same rebranded Islamotards swinging on monkey bars, over and over and over again.

He understands, only he's not actually trying to resolve the issue or advance US interests. He's trying to be a politician. If "doing the right thing" is going to shoot him in the foot as a politician he won't do the right thing. Bush and Blair were doing what they thought was "the right thing" and see how they turned out.

[The Brain]

Well Bush was under orders from Sky Santa.

[Tonitrus]

Well Bush was under orders from Sky Santa.

Better than Sea Santa.

[CountDeMoney]

He understands, only he's not actually trying to resolve the issue or advance US interests. He's trying to be a politician. If "doing the right thing" is going to shoot him in the foot as a politician he won't do the right thing. Bush and Blair were doing what they thought was "the right thing" and see how they turned out.

There is no way to resolve the issue of religion-based ethnic conflict in the Levant, which is nothing more than a proxy war between Saudis and Iranians.  Certainly not democracy, which doesn't work with politically-immature societies and it's a money sink anyway with those greedy corrupt bastards, and nobody wants to go back to what used to work: pragmatic strongman generals with really awesome hats.

The only US interests that need to be advanced is to suck their oil out as quickly as possible--and since we've become adept to destroying our own country's environment to do it ourselves instead, that reduces our compelling interests in the Middle East to simply killing as many of them as possible from 30,000 feet.

"Doing the right thing" is ensuring no more US servicemen coming home in cardboard boxes.  It's bad enough our material and financial support to the Saudis and the Gulf States is used against us in the export of terrorism as it is, not a single Iraqi, Syrian or other miscellaneous moon god worshiper is worth a single drop of US blood, regardless of how much money private sector contractors can make after we break shit.  Maybe the Lebanese, but that's about it.

[Josephus]

This wouldn't be happening if Saddam were still around.

[CountDeMoney]

Exactly.

[garbon]

He'd be a doddering old man now. Just look at Gaddafi.

[CountDeMoney]

Uday.

[garbon]

Didn't Gaddafi have sons too?