The Middle East Crisis, Time For Boots on the Ground ?

[mongers]

Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Your plan assumes that there will be something else on the ground to take their place.  Unfortunately that assumption has proved incorrect in the past.

No I'm not assuming that, the plan it to hammer ISIL, do the maximum damage whilst they're vulnerable, in the process of which destroying the local myth of their invincibility. Then withdraw, leaving it up to whatever forces choose to fill the vacuum. If no one does, then revert to a policy of containment, like the one that worked with Saddam. This then leaves it up to the regional powers like Saudi Arabia to eventually come up with their own military solution to ISIL on the ground or not. 

The whole plan is predicated not on 'nation building' but smashing, all be it temporarily, a suicide death cult; killing as many foreign fighters as possible in the process. If we see a surfeit of UK Muslim families grieving for their dead 'misguided'* sons, then so much the better. Some people need to understand the consequences of not positively influencing their children away from horrible ideologies.



* how anyone can be in the dark about how despicable this organisation is I don't know. Given the information age we live in I'd argue there's not even the waffen-SS excuse available.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how boots on the ground smashes them.  The US is talking about degrading their ability and that it will take a long time.  If you put boots on the ground in one area they will just move to another.

[Tonitrus]

I am not sure how boots on the ground smashes them.  The US is talking about degrading their ability and that it will take a long time.  If you put boots on the ground in one area they will just move to another.

Indeed.  Boots on the ground in Iraq is probably no problem.  Moving those boots into Syria?  Assad may be ok with the air strikes, and we can hit ISIS there and still get away with saying we're not directly involving ourselves in the civil war...ground troops inside Syria would make that nearly impossible to argue.

[sbr]

Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Your plan assumes that there will be something else on the ground to take their place.  Unfortunately that assumption has proved incorrect in the past.

No I'm not assuming that, the plan it to hammer ISIL, do the maximum damage whilst they're vulnerable, in the process of which destroying the local myth of their invincibility. Then withdraw, leaving it up to whatever forces choose to fill the vacuum. If no one does, then revert to a policy of containment, like the one that worked with Saddam. This then leaves it up to the regional powers like Saudi Arabia to eventually come up with their own military solution to ISIL on the ground or not. 

The whole plan is predicated not on 'nation building' but smashing, all be it temporarily, a suicide death cult; killing as many foreign fighters as possible in the process. If we see a surfeit of UK Muslim families grieving for their dead 'misguided'* sons, then so much the better. Some people need to understand the consequences of not positively influencing their children away from horrible ideologies.



* how anyone can be in the dark about how despicable this organisation is I don't know. Given the information age we live in I'd argue there's not even the waffen-SS excuse available.

Why would you assume that whatever takes ISIL's place is any different or better than ISIL?

[Valmy]

Why would you assume that whatever takes ISIL's place is any different or better than ISIL?

Yeah remember how removing Saddam Hussein was going to increase regional stability?

[CountDeMoney]

As far as money goes, aside from selling oil at rock-bottom prices, they have very wealthy patrons in our friends in the Gulf:  Qatar, the UAE and to a lesser extent, SA. 

So, when people bitch about the Europeans paying ransoms for hostages as funding ISIS, maybe they should think first about what exactly our government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.  With friends like these, who needs friends.

The ISIL sponsors in Qatar, the UAE, and SA are enemies of the west, not their "bestest buddies," let alone friends.

our government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.

Who ya gonna believe, your own lying eyes...or the deft touch and dulcet tones of Joltin' "We have a variety of canned press release apologies already printed out, Mr. President" Joe?

UAE demands 'clarification' of Biden's comments

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates said Sunday it wants "a formal clarification" of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's recent comments that America's allies in the Middle East sent weapons and cash to extremists fighting in Syria.

Biden already apologized to Turkey over his comments, made Thursday during a question-and-answer session at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Biden said that "our biggest problem is our allies" who are engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shiite war against Syrian President Bashar Assad. He specifically named Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

"What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied were (Jabhat) al-Nusra and al-Qaida and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world," he said.

The UAE's official news agency carried a statement from Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash calling Biden's comments "far from the truth." The UAE Foreign Ministry said it was astonished by the remarks.

The UAE is a key Arab partner in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group and has targeted its fighters in airstrikes in Syria. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan also have carried out airstrikes against the group in Iraq and Syria, while Qatar has provided logistical support.

Gargash said the vice president "gave a negative and inaccurate impression" about the UAE's support in confronting the Islamic State group and terrorism. He said Biden's statement ignored the political and practical steps taken by the UAE, as well as its position against terrorism financing.

"The UAE's counter-terrorism approach reflects a pioneering national commitment that recognizes the extent of the danger posed by terrorism to the region and to its people," Gargash said.

There has been no official comment from Saudi officials over Biden's comments. On Saturday, Biden called to apologize to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the White House said.

"The vice president apologized for any implication that Turkey or other allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL or other violent extremists in Syria," the White House said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

instead of apologising they should release the money-trails.

[Sheilbh]

Airstrikes and supporting Assad & the Kurds and a non-divisive Iraqi government to the hilt is the least worst option. Unless the situation gets to the point where it spooks the financial markets, in which case further action may be needed. Yes, it will be blood for oil in a way, but it's better than blood for religion / ideology etc..

Assad's forces don't really fight ISIS and I think he's probably got more reasons to hope they keep going than most.

[viper37]

drones and other air strikes should be sufficient to support the local troops already on the ground

unfortunately, no.

The US&coallition did not plan for the after Saddam as well as they should have, instead relying on prayers to do the job for them.  Wich gave us this mess where part of the population feels disenfranchised with the central government and welcomed any opportunity to get rid of them.

Iraq will need a long term ground force if we want to push ISIS out of there.  Airstrikes will have them move in cities and dig in the way Germans dug themselves in their trenches in WW1.  It might stop ISIS advance, but it doesn't stop them in the long term, and they're just building their forces to fight the other arabs first, than Israel, the US and other western countries.

Then we either push for reforms in the Iraqui government or we split the country in 3 parts.

[Tamas]

Too risky.  The Muslim world is turning against ISIS.  The only way for them to recover their prestige and popularity would be for them to be fightng the evil yanqui pigdogs and kill them every once in a while.  That is why they are grabbing every American they can get their hands on and cutting his head off.  Best to fight them by proxy on the ground.

yes