Iraq in Crisis- Merged Superthread

[GR66]

The reason we shouldn't intervene is that we can't "win" vs. radical Islam.  We can destroy some of the symptoms (IS leaders, concentrations of troops, etc.) but just like in the Palestinian Territories, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, we are only cutting heads off the hydra.  To really "defeat" the radicals you need to eliminate the general pool of the population they are coming from. 

We outsiders from the non-Muslim West cannot do that.  Only the Muslim world can do it once they become fed up enough with their hatred and violence to turn on them and destroy them...and change their culture and political structures enough to prevent their re-emergence as a serious threat. 

As heartless as it may seem we should sit back and let them sort it out among themselves.  That's not to say we should do absolutely nothing.  We should tighten our security to prevent attacks on our homeland.  We should recognize a "firewall" of relatively moderate states/groups in and surrounding the area that we can support against the radicals (humanitarian aid, training, sales of weapons, even airstrikes against high-value assets controlled by the radicals) to prevent the spread of the radicals into the non-Muslim World.  We should strike and strike HARD in retaliation for any attacks on our homeland.  We should NOT however put boots on the ground in combat.  Let the moderate Muslim world face their own extremists.  Let them pay the price in blood that will make them say that "never again" will they let this cancer grow within their society. 

 

[George Wallace]

At the same time we have to totally blockade those countries.  NO ONE in or out.  No MORONS from: the media, tourists, NGOs, Doctors Without Frontiers, etc. ........NO ONE goes in and no one comes out.  NOTHING comes out.  No radio.  No news.  No telephone.  No television.  No internet.  Nothing. 

I would also advocate that the WEST and other sympathetic nations not supply arms, supplies, medicine or any other form of aid to those nations.  The blockade must be total, or it will fail.

Unfortunately, the ignorant amongst us will cry out that we are being racist, inhuman, uncaring, and so many other names; and try to show mercy to those who want to kill us. 

As Jungle said:  "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

 

[Kirkhill]

Forget the altruism for a minute and focus on whether or not we can afford to let a third of the planet go to seed and disrupt our way of life. 

At a certain point it no longer is an issue of whether or not they're eating themselves.  It is whether or not they are biting us.

Sometimes you just have to get into the swamp with the alligators because they leave you no other option.

I agree entirely there is no "winning".  The RCMP haven't won in the west despite being here since 1873.  In fact they are constantly increasing their numbers and being aided by "auxiliary" (apologies to all concerned) forces in every major city and town and province and reservation.  Not to mention mall watchmen and the occasional ACP foray by the CF (eg Batoche).

The Royal Navy, in large part, gained its public support because it cut down the frequency with which crews of unsavoury characters - a mixture of Berbers, Morisco, Spaniards, Basques, French, Dutch, Scots and English - operated out of the Moroccan ports of Sallee and Rabat in the 16 and 1700s.  The British Army had its first offshore garrison in Tangiers for exactly the same reason.  Gibraltar was captured in large part to ensure passage of merchant traffic to the Levant.

There is no winning.  That doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.

I haven't won in my own backyard.  I still have to cut the grass and shovel the ruddy snow on a continuing basis.    Unfortunately I have to do it or figure on paying somebody else to do it.

Insh'Allah.

 

[George Wallace]

I haven't won in my own backyard.  I still have to cut the grass .......

Pave it.


;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Pave it.


;D

Like it  ;D

How about glass?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Forget the altruism for a minute and focus on whether or not we can afford to let a third of the planet go to seed and disrupt our way of life. 

At a certain point it no longer is an issue of whether or not they're eating themselves.  It is whether or not they are biting us.

Sometimes you just have to get into the swamp with the alligators because they leave you no other option.

I agree entirely there is no "winning".  The RCMP haven't won in the west despite being here since 1873.  In fact they are constantly increasing their numbers and being aided by "auxiliary" (apologies to all concerned) forces in every major city and town and province and reservation.  Not to mention mall watchmen and the occasional ACP foray by the CF (eg Batoche).

The Royal Navy, in large part, gained its public support because it cut down the frequency with which crews of unsavoury characters - a mixture of Berbers, Morisco, Spaniards, Basques, French, Dutch, Scots and English - operated out of the Moroccan ports of Sallee and Rabat in the 16 and 1700s.  The British Army had its first offshore garrison in Tangiers for exactly the same reason.  Gibraltar was captured in large part to ensure passage of merchant traffic to the Levant.

There is no winning.  That doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.

I haven't won in my own backyard.  I still have to cut the grass and shovel the ruddy snow on a continuing basis.    Unfortunately I have to do it or figure on paying somebody else to do it.

Insh'Allah.

Oustanding Post!  One of the best I have read on here 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Like it  ;D

How about glass?

Perfect.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Forget the altruism for a minute and focus on whether or not we can afford to let a third of the planet go to seed and disrupt our way of life. 

At a certain point it no longer is an issue of whether or not they're eating themselves.  It is whether or not they are biting us.

Sometimes you just have to get into the swamp with the alligators because they leave you no other option.

I agree entirely there is no "winning".  The RCMP haven't won in the west despite being here since 1873.  In fact they are constantly increasing their numbers and being aided by "auxiliary" (apologies to all concerned) forces in every major city and town and province and reservation.  Not to mention mall watchmen and the occasional ACP foray by the CF (eg Batoche).

The Royal Navy, in large part, gained its public support because it cut down the frequency with which crews of unsavoury characters - a mixture of Berbers, Morisco, Spaniards, Basques, French, Dutch, Scots and English - operated out of the Moroccan ports of Sallee and Rabat in the 16 and 1700s.  The British Army had its first offshore garrison in Tangiers for exactly the same reason.  Gibraltar was captured in large part to ensure passage of merchant traffic to the Levant.

There is no winning.  That doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.

I haven't won in my own backyard.  I still have to cut the grass and shovel the ruddy snow on a continuing basis.    Unfortunately I have to do it or figure on paying somebody else to do it.

Insh'Allah.

All right, let's suppose you and Jungle are, at the very least, partly right and we have to do something ...

What are our interests in the Islamic Crescent?

    1. Oil ...
             

        We, the West (if it has adult leadership), can "take" the oil in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, etc, etc ... it will require a bit of killing and recolonization, with the sort of long, very, very long term
        internal security bill that implies. We can leave the oil in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the Chinese, and they are, equally, welcome to do a deal with Iran.

    2. Religious - which really means social and cultural - reformation and enlightenment which can be advanced by the neocolonization and (consequential) suppression (by killing, mainly) of Wahhabism and related sects.

But, let's not fool ourselves: the whole Islamic Crescent* (less than ¼ of the world) offers little of use to the other 75%, except for oil. Most are culturally backwards, to be charitable, and they are unlikely, in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren, to get much better. So we can have the oil, we can manage the people - we just need the right attitude. But we cannot make them into liberal or even conservative democrats and there's no point in  trying. We can teach them to obey the rules of a civilized society ... we can domesticate (teach (limited) 'rules' to) a wolf, if we work at it long enough.


Edit: typo
_____
*

  The Islamic Crescent: all the coloured bits

 

[cupper]

This should clarify the whole Syrian Opposition thing.

;D

 

[Kirkhill]

All right, let's suppose you and Jungle are, at the very least, partly right and we have to do something ...

What are our interests in the Islamic Crescent?

    1. Oil ...
             

        We, the West (if it has adult leadership), can "take" the oil in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, etc, etc ... it will require a bit of killing and recolonization, with the sort of long, very, very long term
        internal security bill that implies. We can leave the oil in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the Chinese, and they are, equally, welcome to do a deal with Iran.

    2. Religious - which really means social and cultural - reformation and enlightenment which can be advanced by the neocolonization and (consequential) suppression (by killing, mainly) of Wahhabism and related sects.

But, let's not fool ourselves: the whole Islamic Crescent* (less than ¼ of the world) offers little of use to the other 75%, except for oil. Most are culturally backwards, to be charitable, and they are unlikely, in the lifetime of you great, great grandchildren, to get much better. So we can have the oil, we can manage the people - we just need the right attitude. But we cannot make them into liberal or even conservative democrats and there's no point in  trying. We can teach them to obey the rules of a civilized society ... we can domesticate (teach (limited) 'rules' to) a wolf, if we work at it long enough.

_____
*

  The Islamic Crescent: all the coloured bits

I'm not in disagreement with you on what those deserts offer.  Nor am I in disagreement with your general containment strategy.  Nor am I expecting the mob over there to change any time soon.  They haven't since before the Barbary Corsairs.

What I am suggesting is that the containment strategy can't be to retreat to our fortresses and wait for the Zombies to kill themselves off.  There needs to be a forward containment strategy.  By that I mean that we have to go back to the concept of safehavens and freeports - Calcutta, Singapore and Hong Kong come to mind. Muscat as well. Fort Churchill and York Factory.

We establish listening posts and trading points with the willing.  We ignore the rest.  Reset to the Honourable East India Company era and put all that Reforming Victorian nonsense behind us......

And be prepared to make pretty pictures in the sand if need be.  >

 

[daftandbarmy]

Gordon was pretty keen on mixing it up in the Colonies vs. various crazy Mahdi types... until he had his head chopped off of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gordon

But then again that was in support of a recognized colonial administration based in a prominent European country. No real parallels these days so intervention can be difficult to justify in many cases.

 

[Kirkhill]

Gordon was pretty keen on mixing it up in the Colonies vs. various crazy Mahdi types... until he had his head chopped off of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gordon

But then again that was in support of a recognized colonial administration based in a prominent European country. No real parallels these days so intervention can be difficult to justify in many cases.

Even with modern technology I wouldn't go anyplace near Khartoum, Darfur or Timbouctou.  Let the French keep swanning around those deserts if they want to.  I would stay close to tide water.

Edit to add: Although the Stans and Mongolia may be worth a higher level of risk - potentially mitigated by a more accomodating population and leadership.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even with modern technology I wouldn't go anyplace near Khartoum, Darfur or Timbouctou.  Let the French keep swanning around those deserts if they want to.  I would stay close to tide water.

Edit to add: Although the Stans and Mongolia may be worth a higher level of risk - potentially mitigated by a more accomodating population and leadership.

Mongolia?  Really?

Now, there are, I admit, some attractions in Mongolia ...

          ... but they are allied (I guess that's the right word) with:

    Do we really want to poke a stick in that hornet's nest?

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe we don't want to be sending Drew (Royal or otherwise) and Infanteer off to Ulan Bataar in the near future.  But keeping open diplomatic and trade channels and offering support in talking shops doesn't seem to be an inherently aggressive poise.  Surely that can be accommodated by "civilized" nations?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe we don't want to be sending Drew (Royal or otherwise) and Infanteer off to Ulan Bataar in the near future.  But keeping open diplomatic and trade channels and offering support in talking shops doesn't seem to be an inherently aggressive poise.  Surely that can be accommodated by "civilized" nations?

We're there ... we've had a real embassy in Ulan Bator for several years now.  Minister Baird recently visited.

According to an article in the Canadian Military Journal Vol. 10, No. 1, 2009 we have done some work together.

Hijack ends

 

[Kirkhill]

We're there ... we've had a real embassy in Ulan Bator for several years now.  Minister Baird recently visited.

According to an article in the Canadian Military Journal Vol. 10, No. 1, 2009 we have done some work together.

Hijack ends

Point understood ..... http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/mongolia-mongolie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng

A point underscored by this article ....http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/China-Asia/Brooke-James/Mongolia-Chinas-Canada

Perhaps this tangent is worth pursuing under the China thread or a separate one on Mongolia.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suggest we all go back and re-read Asterix and the Black Gold: As they cross the desert, Asterix and Obelix keep bumping into tribes looking for one another for purpose of waring: Each tribe is looking for a different one (not A vs B and then B vs A, but A looking for B, who is looking for C, who is looking for D, etc.) Everyone's explanation: we don't like them.

But we must keep in mind also that all these middle east countries are currently hooked on oil revenue (best  proof: It is reported that ISIS is dealing with the Assad regime to sell them oil for revenue, which Assad then resells to the West.). This means that regardless of their "societal" situation or regime in place, they will sell oil to whoever wants to purchase it (and their internal market simply cannot absorb that much oil). Thus, the proposal of kirkhill - to basically establish enclaves for purpose of trading and concentrating on defending those plus the sea lanes of communications might be the best tool at this time to force the region into a review of its culture to bring it in line with modern ways, or otherwise let them get on within their realm.

Under such scenario, though, it would be absolutely necessary for the other nations to accept that they  would have to strictly refuse to provide arms/ammunition/ technology or advice. We would let them use their oil revenue to purchase food, water and raw material, but that is it: we would have to leave them to figure out what to do with it by themselves. IMO there are enough sufficiently educated and informed ordinary people in those countries that, once it is clear that the rest of the world is leaving them to their own device, they would get the courage to overthrow those "religious" nut bars and "evolve" Islam.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hagel: Seven Nations Pledge Arms for Iraqi Kurds in Fight Against ISIL


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued August 26, 2014)
 


WASHINGTON --- Seven nations have joined the United States and the Iraqi government with pledges to provide arms to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq where they are battling terrorists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today.

Albania, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Italy, France and the United Kingdom “have committed to helping provide Kurdish forces urgently needed arms and equipment,“ Hagel said in a written statement as his spokesman, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby was describing the threat from ISIL as “only going to grow.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/156510/us-details-kurdish-arms-aid.html

I'm not quite sure what I think about this .... especially in light of OGBD's point about denying the region arms generally. 

In 50,000 ft terms I agree with you,  OGBD. 

But....

In practical terms, dealing with people that could be positive "agents of change", like the Kurds and the Ukrainians, and who are faced with existential threats I'm supportive of supplying them assistance to survive against forces of chaos.

 

[CougarKing]

Would supplying all those surplus MRAPs lying at some depot in the US or Afghanistan be one measure to counter this?

Defense News

Islamic State Relying More on Suicide Squads
Aug. 27, 2014 - 03:04PM  |  By AWAD MUSTAFA
DUBAI — Militants with the Islamic State (IS) are increasingly relying on terror tactics and suicide squads, and the method was key in their recent capture of one of Syria’s largest air bases, experts say.

IS fighters captured the strategic Tabqa air base in the Raqqa province after raging battles since Aug. 19, tallying more than 170 members of government forces and over 360 IS fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The weeks of fighting for control of Tabqa air base has featured a terror strategy by a group of special IS fighters named “Inghimasy,” or infiltrators, who operate with a “ready-to-die” attitude, said Hassan Hassan, Syrian affairs expert and research associate at United Arab Emirates-based Delma Institute.

“The regime put a very good fight but [IS] has taken all the facilities in Raqqa surrounding the base,” Hassan said. “As the base became isolated, IS designated about 100 Inghimasy suicide bombers who weakened the defenses.”

(...EDITED)

 

[YZT580]

If you are going to put up a wall then the nations have to agree to boycott everything: especially including oil and other natural resources.  Absolutely no trade permitted by anyone and I have my doubts as to whether that can be pulled off.  There is always a China to a North Korea bridge that negates all efforts.