One other thing to note... We have worked with the Syrians before against a common enemy. In 1990-1991 the Syrians sent their 9th Armored Division and a Special Forces Regiment to Kuwait to assist the coalition in ejecting Iraqi forces from that country. They actually fought a bit, too - it wasn't just a token contribution. Yes, the Assad regime is a bloody and tyrannical regime, and they are certainly no friend of ours. But if we have to, we can work with them against a common enemy. ISIS is a FAR greater threat to pretty much everyone on the planet than the Assad regime. It's worth sucking it up and holding hands with Assad if that's what's necessary to eliminate that threat. At least after the dust settles we know what we're getting with Assad. Without Assad... Is there any way this has a good outcome at this point? I'll take Assad and reasonable if oppressive stability over Islamists - whether ISIS, Nusra, or Muslim Brotherhood goons calling themselves the "Free" Syrian Army - any day.
I have said from the beginning that Assad is probably the lesser of many evils. If there is anyone there we should work with, it's him.
What do you get when you have millions of uneducated people with a strict religion while sitting on top of trillions of dollars In oil? Apparently this
I do not agree. I think people don't get how brutal Assad has been in this civil war. From a pure human rights perspective, he's arguably worse than IS. Say what you will about the Islamic State, they really don't torture their enemies before shooting/beheading them first. Now I don't care that much about human rights, and not at all when it comes to Arabs fighting each other. The problem is that we have ignored this Alawite dictator for three years as he engages in a policy of barbarism in the Syrian Civil War - but are now taking action relatively quickly against a Sunni organization which is fighting him? What do you think the Sunnis will say? And I'm not that much inclined to help the Shias because we need to think about the long term, something which democracies suck at in foreign policy - and in the long term, Iran is more dangerous than IS, and Syria remains Iran's ally. My perspective is that while IS needs to be attacked, I don't lift a finger to directly help Assad.
I would tell the Assad regime that we are going to attack ISIS forces in eastern and northeastern Syria from the air to protect our ally in Iraq, and that it is because the regime cannot prevent the on-going invasion next door launched from their own territory by the ISIS religious terrorists. That if they attempt to prevent those attacks, which will have the bonus of weakening those terrorist ISIS forces in Syria, those attacks will continue, and that any Syrian military attempts to prevent the attacks will be stopped - by any means. Just straight and to the point. Then we need to act, assuming President Obama can make up his mind as to what to do.
And how exactly does one deal with ISIS in Syria without having someone on the ground to work with against them? We can't. Airstrikes alone won't do it - they won't even come close. I understand what you are saying about Iran, and I agree. But that is a less immediate threat, and as bad as the Iranians are they are positively sane compared to the ISIS monsters. We can coerce and cajole the Iranians to do what we want with the right foreign policy (this administration is surely getting it wrong so far), but we cannot deal with ISIS in any way but militarily. And a military solution to ISIS requires boots on the ground. If not ours, someone else's. Understand that there are no good options at this point, only a range of bad ones. And Mr. "No Strategy" is going to have to choose one at some point.
ISIS wants to free Aafia Siddiqui, aka "Ms. Al Qaeda", a known terrorist, with a brother who is an architect in...Houston.
The danger of extremist Islam is closer than you guys think. While some guys from the left are still rationalizing what radical Islamist guys say and post...you might already have Boston bombers or their relatives among you, in Houston. Let's not forget that there was a mosque in Houston from which funds were funneled to Islamist terrorists, and that we have posters here who attended that mosque in the past.
We don't. We let IS rampage in Syria, because Assad is not in any way shape, or form, our friend. I have absolutely no problems chasing IS out of Iraq, into Syria and then stopping them at the border tellling them "you can fight Assad as much as you want, we don't care." Heck, as I've said before - if there was a way to control IS so that they would focus their efforts entirely on fighting the Shias/Iran and not touch the West, I'd probably give them Iraq. Of course, no such method of control exists. The fact is this: the Sunnis are going to be annoyed at us if we attack IS in Iraq without making efforts to get it into the central Iraqi's government head that they need to represent the entire damn country. They will be PISSED at us if we attack IS in Syria and thus implicitly support Assad. I actually think Obama's done a very good job with Iran. Bush, for all of his "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, really didn't do a whole lot to actually impact Iran in and of itself - and I don't mean in the "he helped the Iranian out by removing Saddam" thing, I mean that his sanctions were nowhere as tough as Obama has been. Obama has been the opposite - his rhetoric has been more conciliatory towards Iran, but his actions have made it clear that he intends to squeeze the mullahs until they crack which they have begun to do as Iran can't even fly planes anymore due to a lack of parts. And while Iran is less immediate, I'm trying to approach things in the long term, which our country needs to do a better job of in general.
"Friend"? Who gives a shiite about friends? The Soviets weren't our "friends" during WWII, but that didn't stop us from working with them to defeat common enemies. You are delusional if you think you can keep them pout of Iraq while they have Syria. They don't see the borders like we do, and as long as they have a presence on one side of the "border", they will be impossible to eradicate on the other. See the Afghan/Pak border if you doubt this. So what? Who gives a fuq what they think? There is going to be no Sunni Awakening this time because there are going to be no US boots on the ground to protect them. We cannot be constrained by Sunni sensitivities - that is a recipe for inaction. Er... you think signing a treaty with them allowing them to enrich uranium is good policy? You think abandoning Iraq and vastly increasing Iranian influence is good policy? You think utterly failing to support the opposition in Iran in 2009-10 was good policy? He hasn't done a single thing right yet where Iran is concerned. But that's really a separate discussion. The basic fact of the matter is that unless ISIS is dealt with on *both* sides of the "border" that no longer exists, it cannot be effectively dealt with, much less eradicated. Do you suggest a permanent, indefinite air war in the region? Because unless we actually adopt a strategy to remove the ISIS threat that is exactly what we will end up with. And what will you say when ISIS eventually begins to attack the West and America? Say they pull off another 9/11, oir more likely a mumbai-type attack (or series of attacks). Would you be willing to confront the entirety of the threat then? Or would you still think of it as an "Iraqi-side of the border" problem then, too? The border's gone. If you only want to operate "in Iraq" and not in Syria at this point, then what you are effectively saying is "I only want to hit them in half of the Islamic State". For quite obvious reasons, that will not work. And again, we cannot - *cannot* - accomplish this mission from the air alone. It must involve boots on the ground. If not American boots, then whose? The Free Syrian Army is almost as bad as they are. It's Assad or nothing, which is why, I suspect, Obama is having such a huge problem deciding upon a strategy. He is searching for a good option that doesn't exist. And until he settles for that less-than-optimal option that he will inevitably have to take, ISIS will grow in strength and more people will die.
Here is another reminder of just what we're dealing with: Survivor of ISIS children's camp reveals how young boys are whipped and made to watch men being crucified and women stoned to death A survivor of an Islamic State children's camp today revealed how young boys are being lashed with whips and forced to watch the executions of men and women. Mohammed, whose name has been changed out of fears for his safety, was just 13 when he was made to attend one of the terror group's camps in northern Syria. Under supervision by militants, he was taught the Quran, trained in the use of weapons and forced to watch men being crucified and women stoned to death. He was also made to take oaths of allegiance to ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and witness boys younger than himself being 'brought to the camp and lashed'... 'We saw a young man who did not fast for Ramadan, so they crucified him for three days, and we saw a woman being stoned [to death] because she committed adultery.'... Mohammed's father, who did not wish to be named, said ISIS had told him that if he prevented his son from attending the camp, they would 'cut off' his head... This afternoon, sickening footage emerged appearing to show ISIS militants parading around 250 captured soldiers through the desert in their underwear before killing them. A militant fighter claimed the men were from the Syrian government's Tabqa air base which extremists seized on Sunday, potentially handing them warplanes, tanks, artillery and ammunition. Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737095/Survivor-ISIS-childrens-camp-reveals-young-boys-whipped-watch-men-crucified-women-stoned-death.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 I keep calling these guys monsters. It's not an exaggeration. The world hasn't seen anything like these guys in a long time, and it's not something that can be ignored - or dealt with only on one side of a nonexistent border.
No matter how hard you try to tell them, the lefties on this board won't believe you. Islam is a religion of peace, its doctrine is one of love, understanding & Forgivness...we in the west have just misunderstood Islam & Islamic teachings. When the Hamas charter (Article 7) calls for the extermination of Jews & quotes: "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews." They'll say it's just an 'extremist ideology of hatred and genocide’ that has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teachings. ...but tell them that that is a direct quote from Mohummad from the Hadith & they'll tell you that you've taken it out of context, mis-interpreted the text or 'you're an islamophobic racist hate monger that copies & pasts from known islamophobic web-sites.' We were watching a video clip, the other day, of the Sydney riots over the anti-Islamic you tube clip and saw two of the 'Australian' guys that are currently overseas posing with heads that they've cut off...a year & a half ago they were marching calling for the 'beheading of all those who insult the prophet mohummad & Islam', the lefties here didn't take them seriously, now they're in Iraq & Syria beheading those that they say have insulted their religion...& letting their children play, as well as pose with the severed heads. I'm thankful for the majority of Muslims that are awesome people, (my favorite basketball player of all-time is Muslim, my daughters best friend that comes over every day is Muslim, my neighbours are Muslim and they're awesome folks), but know that there is a pretty large percentage of extremist among you that is growing. In Europe it has become an uncontrollable epidemic, especially in France & England. In Sydney Australia it has already begun to happen. Don't say y'all haven't been warned.
It's true that what I propose won't eradicate them. I'm less interested in eradicating IS and more interested in trying to turn them against Assad/Iran. If you chase them into Syria, they'll fight in Syria, and I don't care about ISIS's actions in Syria. Obviously, as you have said, IS will continue to attempt to cross the Iraq border, and that will likely mean that we will be needing to deal with them for quite some time. But the same will be true if we try to eradicate IS and anger the Sunnis by helping Assad, as IS will just go to the guerilla/insurgent style which they used before Mosul. There is no quick and easy solution to this. I'm contrasted by Sunni sensitivities because I want a US ally in the Middle East beyond Israel. I'm ambivalent about the Kurds - they're good people, but I really, really do not care for the principle of self-determination, especially when our greatest ally, the British, are threatening to rip themselves apart for that very principle. The Shias are out of the question, and I can't trust Turkey with Erdogan. This leaves the Sunnis. It doesn't mean I'm going to continually kowtow to them, but it means that I do think it is important to factor in their opinions - especially when I don't think sending in our troops into Syria is the best idea to begin with. 1. If the Daily Mail reported that the sky was blue, I would be convinced that the sky is green. The Daily Mail is tabloid garbage at the same level of something like the NY Daily News. 2. It's one thing to argue that we need to stop IS because they're psychopathic lunatics. No one denies this. It's another thing to argue that we need to stop IS because they're psychopathic lunatics .... and then claim that we should back Assad to stop them. Assad is no better than IS from a human rights standpoint and arguably worse. Now, you can argue that we need to stop IS because they are a strategic/terrorist threat to the United States, and this threat is so dangerous that it necessitates working together with someone like Assad. That is a coherent argument. But when you call IS monsters, that is not your argument. The first is not necessarily enriching uranium and is a temporary relief on unrelenting economic pressure which Obama has kept up on the Iranians. The second was inevitable as it was a product of the Bush years and it would have been problematic for Obama to rip up the agreement. Of course, for that reason, it is ridiculous how Democrats claimed credit for us leaving Iraq up until IS blew up, but that's the nature of politics. The third would have accomplished nothing and likely backfired.
Er... They're already against Assad and Iran, in case you did not notice? We don't need to do crapola to make them want to kill Shiites and Alawites. Already there - killing the apostates is job #1 for them, and when they are done, the West is next. You should be very interested in eradicating IS. We can't contain them. It should be plainly obvious at this point that borders are irrelevant tot hem - they see the whole world as their playing field. It is only a matter of time until they start reaching out to touch others across the seas. Any strategy that does not include their eradication as an end result is not a useful strategy. Stop right there- that border is already gone. This is what you fail to understand. It's *gone*. Stop looking at the Sykes-Picot map as reality, it is out the window as long as ISIS is playing the game. You need to look at IS-controlled territory as a contiguous state now. They do, and that is how they will operate. If you hit them in one part of their "state" but refuse to hit them in another, guess where they'll mass? Guess where they'll organize? Guess where they'll launch operations from? It's the same reason we are destined to lose the Afghanistan war. As long as the Taliban can simply slink across the Pak border into Waziristan and other tribal areas in Pakistan there is no way to defeat them, they will simply wait us out. Do you think that Americans have the patience for a sustained, indefinite military campaign - one that could last decades - against ISIS? Don;t hold your breath, because your countrymen surely will not. If you leave them a safe haven, then it is impossible to win. Defense doesn't win wars when the attacker is on a mission from God and has land, money, and an effectively endless supply of brainwashed killers at its disposal.. As in, forever. You will have to be there forever if you ignore what's going on on the "Syrian" side of the nonexistent border, because they will always have a safe haven to retreat to, regroup in, rearm in, and launch fresh attacks. We are in agreement on this one. Please tell this to POTUS, because he doesn't seem to be getting it. The military gave Bambi a bunch of options this week and he didn't like any of them, so we have "no strategy"... He has to choose a less-than-optimal strategy at some point. This cannot go on forever, because the enemy has a say, too - and the longer we wait, the more powerful they get, and at some point they will take the initiative. The only remotely reliable Sunnis in the region are the Jordanians. No one else is trustworthy. The Iraqi Sunnis are not coming back into the fold as long as there is no American presence to protect them. They may turn against the fanatics at some point - there have already been skirmishes (but not recently, as IS consolidates) - but they are not going to trust the Shiite government again. And why should they? There will be no Awakening II. You shouldn't be. They are the best allies we have in the region short of Israel. They know what we did for them, they would die for us. And they are the most effective faction out there at the moment; with proper support they could roll back ISIS in most of northern Iraq. The Shias - Iranians included - are not as bad as these ISIS people. Yes, they are a problem, but they are not nearly as fanatical. We can coerce, finagle, and generally deal with the Shias - we cannot deal with the IS types. We can and must use the Shias to oppose them, like it or not. The Middle East is full of evils. Always choose the lesser when comparing two evils. I would largely agree - Erdogan is a POS and an Islamist in his own right, but his country is far more dynamic and Westernized, and he is limited in what he can do. ISIS is also a direct threat to them in the medium and long term, and Turkey appears prepared to take some action against them. Er... When did I say we should send our troops into Syria? I am saying that we should ally with Assad so that we DON'T have to send our troops into Syria. Coordinate our air attacks with his ground movements, likely insert some ATACs / SOF in there to guide things along. This is what is going to happen at some point anyway. Why postpone it? So you're saying the report on the "child camps" and executions are inaccurate? These reports have been confirmed by multiple sources - IS spokespeople included. Assad is a brutal POS, but he is essentially a rational actor. He has no ambitions apart from clinging to power - everything he does contributes to that mission. He doesn't want to convert the world to Islam, he has no plans to conquer his neighbors, he is absolutely not a threat to the USA. You are trying to equate the two to win an argument, and it is silly. They're both bad, but one is clearly far worse, and far more of a threat to regional and global stability - not to mention the USA. You're using that as an excuse to stay out of it. Generally, I'd agree with the principal of sitting back and watching two enemies duke it out (worked great in the '80s), but this situation is quite a bit different. This one will hit our shores at some point. I am making BOTH arguments. They are monsters - from a human rights standpoint, certainly - who present a clear threat to the USA. Why would you propose that those two arguments are mutually exclusive? That is silly. Get your head out of the sand. We need to deal with these a$$holes now. The longer we wait, the harder the solution.
Rationalizing fundamentalist/extremists is dangerous. This isn't any different than rationalizing nazis. The extremists want to commit genocide, kill other Muslims, forcibly convert the whole world to their version of Islam and install a religious state.
A couple things, because I don't like going after every single quote: 1. When it comes to the Kurds, the problem isn't the Kurds in and of themselves. The problem is that supporting the Kurds means giving further support to the theory of self-determination, and I am strongly opposed to that idea. I think self-determination in general is destabilizing, incredibly dangerous, and unAmerican. The bloodiest war in our history was fought among other things, against the concept of self-determination, and our most trustworthy ally could destroy itself next month in the name of that ideal. Because of that problem, I don't like the concept of Kurdish independence at all, which would inevitably happen if we backed them to the hilt. 2. The point of my Syrian proposal is that I flat do not care what IS does in Syria - I might start caring if IS grows strong enough to the point where they could threaten to completely topple Assad, but it's questionable whether IS possesses that strength to begin with and they certainly won't if we drive them out of their key cities in Iraq and in the process destroy a great deal of their equipment. Once we've done that, there's no critical need to eradicate IS - just like there was no critical need to go across the Kuwait border in Gulf War I and topple Saddam. Perhaps we might need to enforce the border as you've said. Well, even if we do, enforcing a line is much easier than enacting another quasi-occupation of IS held territory which we would need to do should we try to eradicate them. Eradicating IS in Syria helps no one but the Syrians, and if anything we should be trying to destroy the Syrians. 3. If you have multiple sources on these ISIS camps, then please use something other than the Daily Mail. And one thing I will point out is that there have been atrocities which our media has attributed to IS which just isn't true. For example, about a month ago, there were claims that IS was mutilating female genitals, but that was eventually revealed to be not true. More recently, there were claims that IS had banned the study of chemistry and philosophy in the areas they had governed, and that too was eventually debunked. And besides if you want to talk monsters, do you seriously want me to bring up what Assad has done to his people over the past 3 years? 4. Let's make it clear what I'm proposing: I don't think we're at a stage where we need to put boots on the ground yet against IS, especially since the US still needs time to recover. I think air strikes and special forces, combined with help from the many groups who are willing to fight IS, will be enough to slowly drive them out of Iraq. And my objective is to drive them out of Iraq. IS can for now, do whatever they want in Syria.
