Can the rest of the world deal with ISIS if the US stays out?

[bilby]

ISIS doesn't seem to be any more dangerous to the world than any other band of Middle Eastern brigands; and seem to be slightly less unpleasant (not a difficult achievement) than some of the 'friendly' regimes they have supplanted.

Discussions of what to do about ISIS always seem to start from the assumption that something MUST be done, and urgently.

I have yet to see any good support for this assumption, that would not equally have implied that urgent action was needed against many other organisations (including sovereign governments) in the Middle East, against whom no action was taken for decades (and in many cases, against whom no action has yet been contemplated), with few ill-effects outside the Middle East itself.

Why any non-Middle Eastern nation needs to give a flying fuck about ISIS is really not clear at all.

I somewhat agree with the position in bold but I think the broader Middle East problem is just the stability of the various countries and the massive upheaval it causes. There appears to be a humanitarian crisis unfolding as refugees from all over the middle east try to reach Europe. That will end in tears.

Sure; but most of those refugees are from Syria - and were quite happy to stay in Syria until people started dropping bombs on them. Some of the bombs are being dropped by Assad; Others by the US and her allies. Oh, and the ones being dropped by Assad are mostly being supplied from outside the country.

The big issue here is not that there is a threat (from ISIS, or from the various dictators in the region) to the west; but rather that there are lots of votes for looking 'tough' up for grabs. Dropping bombs on people looks 'tough'; being mean to refugees also looks 'tough'. Governments who don't want to look after their people need to do something to keep their votes; and 'protecting' them from mythical or self-inflicted threats is quite an effective strategy.

For fuck's sake, our Prime Minister even asked Obama to request Australian Airforce strikes in Syria, so that he could pretend it wasn't his idea, and act tough without looking aggressive. That cynical shit has nothing to do with Syria, or any of the groups vying for power there, at all. It's all about vying for power in Canberra. I suspect that the bombs being dropped in Iraq and Syria are all aimed at avoiding regime change in Washington DC, London, Canberra, Ottawa, etc., rather than at causing regime change in the Middle East.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean we're not following a "you break it, you bought it" philosophy in dealing with Iraq?

I really have no idea what the US or the World should do. Bilby, who's opinion I respect seems to think this is much ado about nothing. I'd like other opinions as well. Maybe we should give another country $1 trillion to handle it for us. We would probably end up saving money.

Odd you say that... it was the other way around with the Gulf War when Daddy Bush was in charge. We were paid by everyone else to fight it.

Regardless, a military option won't work with ISIS. Military options almost never work well against terrorism. Diplomatic efforts are required to get Sunnis from supporting them, but the assholes the George W. Bush Admin helped put in power in Iraq really fucked the donkey with an elephant size vibrator, so we are dealing with that stuff.

Or we could be like 25 to 35% of the Republican base and pretend we can just "nuke 'em" and that'd solve it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Europe is much better at appeasement than actually dealing with hard problems. The Arab nations take Sunni/Shia sides.

You want to expand on that a little? ISIS is mostly Sunni right? Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni? So that would make Bernies's plan is stupid.

The point is none of them are going to be remotely neutral.

 

[NobleSavage]

I really have no idea what the US or the World should do. Bilby, who's opinion I respect seems to think this is much ado about nothing. I'd like other opinions as well. Maybe we should give another country $1 trillion to handle it for us. We would probably end up saving money.

Odd you say that... it was the other way around with the Gulf War when Daddy Bush was in charge. We were paid by everyone else to fight it.

Regardless, a military option won't work with ISIS. Military options almost never work well against terrorism. Diplomatic efforts are required to get Sunnis from supporting them, but the assholes the George W. Bush Admin helped put in power in Iraq really fucked the donkey with an elephant size vibrator, so we are dealing with that stuff.

Or we could be like 25 to 35% of the Republican base and pretend we can just "nuke 'em" and that'd solve it.

I don't think ISIS is a traditional terrorist organization. They occupy land, tax people, and have oil to sell. That is not to say they don't use terror tactics. I posted this before, it's a good read:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-16/isis-not-terrorist-group

And from NPR this is a good discussion on how they are getting new weapons: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-06-...raq-getting-their-weapons-answer-surprised-us (transcript available).

“There’s a number of sources,” says David Axe, a freelance war reporter who knows a lot about weaponry. “ISIS, like all Syrian opposition groups,” he says, “enjoys a strong level of support from Turkey, from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia."

They reference the Brooking Institute and the NYT

Officially, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia deny that their citizens support ISIS in any way. Qatar and Saudi Arabia even point to laws they have passed that make it difficult for individuals to send aid to militants. However, research by the Brookings Institution shows their enforcement of such laws and policies has been mixed.

Money from the Gulf is used to acquire weapons on the black market, says Axe. He says New York Times reporting last year examined air traffic data and found that planes fly with weapons from the Gulf to Turkey, or sometimes head to third countries like Croatia to pick up weapons first and then to Turkey.

Croatia has a thriving small arms industry, says Axe, with black market ties.From Turkey, the weapons are moved overland into Syria.

So when there is a homogenous Sunni Muslim state in what is now Syria and Iraq and when Iran gets the bomb will the middle east achieve a stable balance of power?

 

[bilby]

I really have no idea what the US or the World should do. Bilby, who's opinion I respect seems to think this is much ado about nothing. I'd like other opinions as well. Maybe we should give another country $1 trillion to handle it for us. We would probably end up saving money.

Odd you say that... it was the other way around with the Gulf War when Daddy Bush was in charge. We were paid by everyone else to fight it.

Regardless, a military option won't work with ISIS. Military options almost never work well against terrorism. Diplomatic efforts are required to get Sunnis from supporting them, but the assholes the George W. Bush Admin helped put in power in Iraq really fucked the donkey with an elephant size vibrator, so we are dealing with that stuff.

Or we could be like 25 to 35% of the Republican base and pretend we can just "nuke 'em" and that'd solve it.

ISIS has nothing to do with terrorism. They are a rebel faction that overlap two pre-existing states, and who have carved out their own area of control; They are no more 'terrorists' than the Confederacy were 'terrorists' in the American Civil War. They are rebels, who have successfully supplanted the local authority in their sphere of influence.

The 'Terrorists' label is just a way to persuade western voters that this distant group poses an immediate threat to them - but it's pure fiction. The US and her allies created a power vacuum; it has been filled. Terrorists don't control territory.

 

[TSwizzle]

Ultimately and in the longer term ISIS are a threat to "western interests" at least and any state nearby.

 

[untermensche]

Seeing as the US considers the entire planet and all it's resources potential US property to control and profit from, it is hard not to threaten US interests.

 

[bilby]

Ultimately and in the longer term ISIS are a threat to "western interests" at least and any state nearby.

Why? What have ISIS done that makes them a demonstrably larger threat than any other player in the Middle East? They control an area of land, in which they impose ruthless Islamic law - but then, so does Saudi Arabia.

 

[TSwizzle]

ISIS (and their Sunni backers) have aspirations that go beyond their existing turf.

 

[bilby]

ISIS (and their Sunni backers) have aspirations that go beyond their existing turf.

Who doesn't?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Odd you say that... it was the other way around with the Gulf War when Daddy Bush was in charge. We were paid by everyone else to fight it.

Regardless, a military option won't work with ISIS. Military options almost never work well against terrorism. Diplomatic efforts are required to get Sunnis from supporting them, but the assholes the George W. Bush Admin helped put in power in Iraq really fucked the donkey with an elephant size vibrator, so we are dealing with that stuff.

Or we could be like 25 to 35% of the Republican base and pretend we can just "nuke 'em" and that'd solve it.

I don't think ISIS is a traditional terrorist organization. They occupy land, tax people, and have oil to sell. That is not to say they don't use terror tactics. I posted this before, it's a good read:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-16/isis-not-terrorist-group

And from NPR this is a good discussion on how they are getting new weapons: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-06-...raq-getting-their-weapons-answer-surprised-us (transcript available).

“There’s a number of sources,” says David Axe, a freelance war reporter who knows a lot about weaponry. “ISIS, like all Syrian opposition groups,” he says, “enjoys a strong level of support from Turkey, from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia."

They reference the Brooking Institute and the NYT

Officially, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia deny that their citizens support ISIS in any way. Qatar and Saudi Arabia even point to laws they have passed that make it difficult for individuals to send aid to militants. However, research by the Brookings Institution shows their enforcement of such laws and policies has been mixed.

Money from the Gulf is used to acquire weapons on the black market, says Axe. He says New York Times reporting last year examined air traffic data and found that planes fly with weapons from the Gulf to Turkey, or sometimes head to third countries like Croatia to pick up weapons first and then to Turkey.

Croatia has a thriving small arms industry, says Axe, with black market ties.From Turkey, the weapons are moved overland into Syria.

So when there is a homogenous Sunni Muslim state in what is now Syria and Iraq and when Iran gets the bomb will the middle east achieve a stable balance of power?

ISIS is by definition terrorist organisation. Even the article says it uses terrorist tactics. It's rather like saying that the Nazis were not anti semitic in the traditional sense. However they can thank the US and Western former colonialists for creating the void for ISIS and others of their Ilk to fill.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* END OF QUOTE

I believe that we should not underestimate ISIS when it says it is sending dormant cells into Europe on boats with illegal migrants. Indeed out open door policy for refugees may prove the ideal Trojan horse to enable this organisation to attack the West from within.

 

[untermensche]

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

This perfectly describes the US invasion of Iraq and many many other US activities.

 

[NobleSavage]

ISIS is by definition terrorist organisation. Even the article says it uses terrorist tactics. It's rather like saying that the Nazis were not anti semitic in the traditional sense. However they can thank the US and Western former colonialists for creating the void for ISIS and others of their Ilk to fill.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* END OF QUOTE

I believe that we should not underestimate ISIS when it says it is sending dormant cells into Europe on boats with illegal migrants. Indeed out open door policy for refugees may prove the ideal Trojan horse to enable this organisation to attack the West from within.

The word "terrorism" has been used so much lately for so many different things that its use as a word is just about worthless - IMO. The point of that Foreign Affairs article wasn't so much about the definition of terrorism and whether or not ISIS fits; rather, the tactics used against AQ will not work with ISIS.

 

[whichphilosophy]

ISIS is by definition terrorist organisation. Even the article says it uses terrorist tactics. It's rather like saying that the Nazis were not anti semitic in the traditional sense. However they can thank the US and Western former colonialists for creating the void for ISIS and others of their Ilk to fill.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* END OF QUOTE

I believe that we should not underestimate ISIS when it says it is sending dormant cells into Europe on boats with illegal migrants. Indeed out open door policy for refugees may prove the ideal Trojan horse to enable this organisation to attack the West from within.

The word "terrorism" has been used so much lately for so many different things that its use as a word is just about worthless - IMO. The point of that Foreign Affairs article wasn't so much about the definition of terrorism and whether or not ISIS fits; rather, the tactics used against AQ will not work with ISIS.

The article defines terrorism which also applies to ISIS.

 

[whichphilosophy]

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

This perfectly describes the US invasion of Iraq and many many other US activities.

...Or perhaps British and American foreign policy in the region.

 

[funinspace]

The word "terrorism" has been used so much lately for so many different things that its use as a word is just about worthless - IMO. The point of that Foreign Affairs article wasn't so much about the definition of terrorism and whether or not ISIS fits; rather, the tactics used against AQ will not work with ISIS.

The article defines terrorism which also applies to ISIS.

Sure, ISIS openly uses terrorism as part of its policy, much like many nations employ terrorism clandestinely. I think the broader question was "is ISIS more than just a terrorist organization?". And I think the answer to that question, is that they are definitely more than just a terrorist organization, as they are a budding nation state, whether or not other countries like it. Whether they survive as a nation state is unknown at this time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd you say that... it was the other way around with the Gulf War when Daddy Bush was in charge. We were paid by everyone else to fight it.

Regardless, a military option won't work with ISIS. Military options almost never work well against terrorism. Diplomatic efforts are required to get Sunnis from supporting them, but the assholes the George W. Bush Admin helped put in power in Iraq really fucked the donkey with an elephant size vibrator, so we are dealing with that stuff.

Or we could be like 25 to 35% of the Republican base and pretend we can just "nuke 'em" and that'd solve it.

ISIS has nothing to do with terrorism. They are a rebel faction that overlap two pre-existing states, and who have carved out their own area of control; They are no more 'terrorists' than the Confederacy were 'terrorists' in the American Civil War.

Umm... the Confederacy were terrorists.

They are rebels, who have successfully supplanted the local authority in their sphere of influence.

They are a group of thugs that thought al Qaeda was too docile that went out, and terrorized a bunch of areas, slaughtered many people, and only control "their" territory because no one has been able to fight back.

The 'Terrorists' label is just a way to persuade western voters that this distant group poses an immediate threat to them - but it's pure fiction. The US and her allies created a power vacuum; it has been filled. Terrorists don't control territory.

Umm... these guys do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ultimately and in the longer term ISIS are a threat to "western interests" at least and any state nearby.

Why? What have ISIS done that makes them a demonstrably larger threat than any other player in the Middle East? They control an area of land, in which they impose ruthless Islamic law - but then, so does Saudi Arabia.

The oil. It is always about the oil. If ISIS continues to grow in popularity with the hilariously uninformed, they could pose threats to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

ISIS have gone out of their way to be brutal, slaughtering people in the most graphic manners to be able to sell themselves like they are a cola. They are also destroying priceless antiquities in order to help continue their narrative and pretend that the rest of the world hasn't existed. They are also nuts. They are the Scientologists of the Islamic faith.

 

[funinspace]

Why? What have ISIS done that makes them a demonstrably larger threat than any other player in the Middle East? They control an area of land, in which they impose ruthless Islamic law - but then, so does Saudi Arabia.

The oil. It is always about the oil. If ISIS continues to grow in popularity with the hilariously uninformed, they could pose threats to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

I'd say they are a dangerous threat to SA and the remaining rump state of Iraq, especially if the west gets bored. They will only be a serious threat to Iran, if they show that they can actually command a real military, assuming the west doesn't just bomb anything significant to smithereens if they gained control of even more significant territory.

ISIS have gone out of their way to be brutal, slaughtering people in the most graphic manners to be able to sell themselves like they are a cola. They are also destroying priceless antiquities in order to help continue their narrative and pretend that the rest of the world hasn't existed. They are also nuts. They are the Scientologists of the Islamic faith.

For once I'd say that is awfully harsh on the ontologists... ISIS is more like Fred Phelps church, but on steroids, and with real power.

 

[untermensche]

This perfectly describes the US invasion of Iraq and many many other US activities.

...Or perhaps British and American foreign policy in the region.

I never say it but it should always be understood.

The US is just carrying out the policies that made the British powerful.

The exploitation is slightly different. Less need of troops and the holding of land.

You simply seek out the easily corruptible and put them in charge. Like the Saudi royal family.