The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[jimmy olsen]

Libya's in a lot worse shape than I thought.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/libya-faces-isis-crisis-italy-wants-nato-intervention-n306896

Libya Faces ISIS Crisis: Italy Wants NATO Intervention
By Cassandra Vinograd

LONDON — Italy warned that ISIS is at Europe's doorstep as France and Egypt called for the United Nations Security Council to meet over the spiraling crisis in Libya.

The growing alarm came as Egyptian jets bombed ISIS targets in the North African nation as revenge for the beheadings — documented in an ISIS propaganda video — of 21 Coptic Christian Egyptian nationals in Libya.

The release of the video has underscored fears that ISIS is taking advantage of the chaos in Libya to expand its reach and stake a firmer foothold there.

French President Francois Hollande spoke by phone with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, to discuss the situation in Libya on Monday, according to Hollande's office. It said the two spoke of the growth of ISIS in Libya and "underscored the importance of the security council meeting and for the international community to take new measures" against the threat.

Libya has been unraveling since the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. There are rival governments operating under separate parliaments — each with their own security brigades — and a plethora of armed Islamist groups jockeying for control.

United Nations negotiators have been meeting with representatives from the internationally-backed government and the one which claimed power through force in Tripoli last summer.

But the presence of numerous and competing armed Islamist groups has added fuel to the political fire, and an upsurge in violence has had Western nations increasingly alarmed.

Libya is not only situated close to Egypt and Algeria, but is just across the Mediterranean Sea from Europe. The spiraling violence has sent floods of migrants to European shores — and ISIS has repeatedly mentioned used Rome as a benchmark of its growth.

Italy's Interior Minister Angelino Alfano expressed the growing alarm in an interview with La Republica and urged NATO to intervene "for the future of the Western world."

"ISIS is at the door," he said. "There is no time to waste."

ISIS has been operating in Libya for months. One group of Libyan fighters pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in November and at least two other factions followed suit. Since then, ISIS supporters in Libya have claimed responsibility for a number of attacks — including the November car bombings outside of the Egyptian and U.A.E. embassies.

In December, a top U.S. general said ISIS had set up training camps in Libya. At the time, Gen. David Rodriguez described the camps as "small and very nascent," with an estimated "couple of hundred" individuals linked to ISIS.

For now, ISIS is competing for influence against the many other Islamist militant groups in Libya. The group might be able to rely on the fact that they're more disciplined and better organized than some of their rivals, according to Firas Abi Ali, who heads Middle East and North Africa forecasting for IHS Country Risk.

The latest video, though, is aimed at an external — rather than internal — audience, Abi Ali said, adding that it will force governments fighting ISIS to make a choice: engage in Libya at great economic cost, or risk looking weak and inconsistent. Either option is a win-win for ISIS, he said.

"This is more about saying to the west that [ISIS] has spread out to multiple countries and therefore showing that fighting ISIS is going to require a larger commitment," he explained.

Libya is strategically important because of its oil and also because of its neighbors. At the moment, ISIS isn't controlling territory there that is important in and of itself, according to Abi Ali.

"The importance of Libya is a lot more about whoever controls it being able to project power into Egypt Tunisia and Algeria," he said. "That's what actually matters far more than Libya."

NBC News' Claudio Lavanga contributed to this report.

[KRonn]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

[grumbler]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

I don't think that your idea of the West fighting to keep Gaddafi in power (because that's what it would have taken) is very realistic.  The breakdown of  central authority was always the likeliest outcome of Gaddafi's rule.  At least the Western intervention created the small chance that chaos could be averted.  That it didn't work doesn't mean it was a bad idea, since the alternatives were worse.

[PJL]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

I don't think that your idea of the West fighting to keep Gaddafi in power (because that's what it would have taken) is very realistic.  The breakdown of  central authority was always the likeliest outcome of Gaddafi's rule.  At least the Western intervention created the small chance that chaos could be averted.  That it didn't work doesn't mean it was a bad idea, since the alternatives were worse.

I disagree. Most likely alternative if Gadaffi died peacefully would have been one of his sons taking over. Law and order would have still prevailed. Even North Korea is better than lawlessness.

[KRonn]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

I don't think that your idea of the West fighting to keep Gaddafi in power (because that's what it would have taken) is very realistic.  The breakdown of  central authority was always the likeliest outcome of Gaddafi's rule.  At least the Western intervention created the small chance that chaos could be averted.  That it didn't work doesn't mean it was a bad idea, since the alternatives were worse.

Well, there's truth to that since the country was going into an uprising anyway, though maybe Gaddafi could have quelled it well enough without the west keeping him in power, as I certainly wouldn't want the west to assist him either. I just wonder that if the rebels hadn't had the western help in some romantic notion that some kind of Arab democracy would prevail then maybe Libya would have continued on as is and not become yet another failed extremist state.

[Grinning_Colossus]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

I don't think that your idea of the West fighting to keep Gaddafi in power (because that's what it would have taken) is very realistic.  The breakdown of  central authority was always the likeliest outcome of Gaddafi's rule.  At least the Western intervention created the small chance that chaos could be averted.  That it didn't work doesn't mean it was a bad idea, since the alternatives were worse.

I think he would have won on his own. NATO intervened because it looked like the war was turning against the rebels--they were being slowly pushed back toward Benghazi--and Gaddafi would have remembered the West's willingness to turn against him.

[frunk]

I disagree. Most likely alternative if Gadaffi died peacefully would have been one of his sons taking over. Law and order would have still prevailed. Even North Korea is better than lawlessness.

If Gadaffi wasn't toppled I think an extended Syrian type Civil War was most likely.  It looks like Libya is headed that way anyway, but at least they had a shot at a less horrible result.  I'd still rather a dozen Libyan style interventions to the Iraqi invasion, with the resultant expense and mess.

[KRonn]

I think it really comes down to no good options in these cases. The Arab Spring wasn't likely to end well in most cases. I think many people thought they might go fairly well as citizens deposed repressive governments and could bring in voting and more liberal change. But there were too many groups, some extremist, with many groups willing to fight for power, that would mar a transition. Syria, Libya, Yemen, all are in civil war or are failed states. Egypt is now with another autocratic leader.

[grumbler]

I disagree. Most likely alternative if Gadaffi died peacefully would have been one of his sons taking over. Law and order would have still prevailed. Even North Korea is better than lawlessness.

Well, you are free to invent any scenario you please, of course.  History tells us that small tribes don't dominate multi-tribal areas for long, however.  Tell the Nigerians about law and order prevailing under those circumstances.  Or Chad.  Or Liberia.  Or Syria.

[Ed Anger]

Saw the video of the BUFFs over Anbar. Got a boner so massive, I had to go to the ER.

[Queequeg]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Amazing article. 

[jimmy olsen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Amazing article.

Can you give us a little more than that?

[Josquius]

The West should have left Ghadaffi in control in Libya. It's just become another hugely failed state that the extremists can fight over.

If something needs to be done then Egypt and Saudi Arabia can go in. They both have large militaries, especially Egypt which probably has an army as large as France or the UK. That way Arabs/Muslims can try and determine how the nation is rebuilt, not have a western nation be the main driver in yet another Muslim nation.

I've seen a lot of people comment that the west shouldn't have toppled Ghadaffi...but without foreign intervention would Libya really have returned to business as usual?
I think its more likely it would turn into a Syria analogue. i.e. not much different to the situation today...only with one of the key players being a big bad dictator with some serious military hardware to use on civilians.

[Queequeg]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Amazing article.

Can you give us a little more than that?

Islamic State is Islamic.  People who argue this are retarded and if anything making things worse. 

[mongers]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Amazing article.

Is that any different to what I've been saying for ages, that it's a suicide death cult?