The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[CountDeMoney]

He didn't raise them right.

[The Brain]

Didn't Gaddafi have sons too?

He also had a broom where brooms don't go. Not really a model to follow.

[Viking]

He didn't raise them right.

Ghaddafi let his sons play soccer, Saddam insisted the put in extra hours in the torture chamber.. for fun y'know.

[Tonitrus]

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

I dunno...given that the Arab Spring didn't start in Iraq, and brought about revolution/civil war in states that were most similar to pre-invasion Iraq...I could see the same chain of events occurring, albeit in a slightly different form.  Saddam's Iraq would be inundated with purges, sure, and assuming we're still doing the north/south no-fly zones, we might be bashing him over the head to protect the Kurds/Sunnis anyway.

[CountDeMoney]

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

I dunno...given that the Arab Spring didn't start in Iraq, and brought about revolution/civil war in states that were most similar to pre-invasion Iraq...I could see the same chain of events occurring, albeit in a slightly different form.  Saddam's Iraq would be inundated with purges, sure, and assuming we're still doing the north/south no-fly zones, we might be bashing him over the head to protect the Kurds/Sunnis anyway.

Nah, I just don't see the Arab Spring taking root in Iraq like it did elsewhere, or even spreading from Syria.  Even with Northern Watch/Southern Watch in full swing, Saddam had his people locked the fuck down.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Also it means carte blanche despite massive ideological and financial support for extremists.

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

Yep.

It's easy to criticise Obama but it's difficult to really suggest a credible alternative.

[citizen k]

His name was David Haines.

[Hansmeister]

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

Part1: Iraq

On the Iraq side the issue is a little easier so I start there. You start with two maneuver brigades, a sustainment brigade, an SF Bn as well as some intel assets, for a total of around 15,000 Soldiers.  The maneuver brigades, preferably striker, push ISIL out of the territory they occupy, while SF works with indigenous forces to conduct targeted raids against ISIL leadership.  Within a few weeks ISIL will be downgraded to an insurgency force with its army having been largely destroyed.  At this time the Iraqi army, assisted by about 2,000 embedded advisors would take the lead in pacifying the area, while SOCOM would conduct targeted killings of ISIS leadership. One maneuver BDE would be held in reserve to keep the Iraqi government from doing stupid shit (as Maliki did on the very day we pulled out when he launched attacks on Sunni and Kurds). This residual force of 10,000 would stay in Iraq indefinitely. Within 6 months ISIL would be reduced to a terrorist group.

Syria is a much harder nut to crack, and we would still have to make one big decision before we can start. I will address that in a separate post.

[Ed Anger]

The Moffs will keep the local systems in line.

[Tonitrus]

The problem with throwing in even just 15k troops into Iraq is that you go back to the fun games of convoys, unfriendly locals, IEDs, etc.

And I am pretty sure, even with all the ISIS stuff going on, the Iraqi government never pushed the idea of lots of U.S. ground troops coming back in.

[Hansmeister]

The problem with throwing in even just 15k troops into Iraq is that you go back to the fun games of convoys, unfriendly locals, IEDs, etc.

And I am pretty sure, even with all the ISIS stuff going on, the Iraqi government never pushed the idea of lots of U.S. ground troops coming back in.

Well, actually the Iraqi govt asked us to keep 15,000 troops in Iraq back in 2010. If anything they want them more today than back then.

And given the small force logistics would be a much smaller problem, particularly when using Strykers.  IEDs have largely been neutralized as a serious threat due to better technology and tactics anyway, and after the initial push there wouldn't be any long logistical lines that need to be protected.

[Siege]

/cue Imperial March

Former VP Cheney meeting with House GOP as Iraq strategy debated
Washingtonpost.com

The leading architect of the Iraq War will be on Capitol Hill Tuesday for a private chat with House Republicans, just as Congress is grappling again with how involved the United States should be in the region’s snowballing unrest.

Yes, that would be former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the war’s most ardent defenders to this day. He was invited by the campaign arm of the Republicans to come speak at the first GOP weekly conference meeting since Congress’ five-week break, a House GOP official confirmed to the Loop.

With the midterm elections nearing, the get-together was originally intended to focus more on politics than policy, and is being held at the Republican National Committee headquarters. And so it’s pure coincidence that Cheney will be the guest speaker just as Iraq returns to the headlines.

While the rationale for the 2003 war has been largely debunked, Cheney maintains that the goals of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were one in the same. (In July, our very own Fact Checker Glenn Kessler gave that claim three Pinocchios out of a possible four.)

With President Obama expected to lay out a strategy for fighting ISIS on Wednesday, Cheney will certainly have a few words of wisdom to share on the topic of killing terrorists.

In recent interviews, Cheney has issued dire warnings about ignoring the militant group, saying inaction will result in an attack worse than Sept. 11. President Bill Clinton has said Cheney created ISIS by invading Iraq in the first place.

Are you a fucking liberal now?
You know perfectly well that we all, including you, were convinced saddam had nucleral weapons because the only thing he needed to do, to stay alive today, was to open Irak to UN inspections.
He said no, for no reason, and we all assumed he had nukes.

Why else would you say no to UN inspections headed by muslims UN employees?

[Razgovory]

He didn't.

[Siege]

He didn't.

Ecxxplain your lie.

[Tonitrus]

Somebody must have let 'ol Siegy into the hard stuff this time.