Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Something just dawned on me while reading about ISIS and Iraq.

I wonder if part of the reason we did not move into Syria is....the US was happy to let radical Islamists be across the border of Iraq instead of inside it. AQAP was winding down, whether intentionally or not, violence was ebbing in Iraq (although never really going away) and maybe the US was hoping, in addition to killing his own people, Assad would eventually wipe out the remainder of Al Qaeda splinters too. As long as radical islam was busy fighting Assad for Syria, they weren't fighting seriously for control of Iraq. Just your garden variety bombing and terror.

Except now, the threat we've basically ignored is taking cities and villages in Iraq and they are totally unable to deal with them. I mean, consider the kind of people in ISIS. They've survived and even grown within the context of fighting a guerrilla and terror campaign in Syria. They're battle hardened, have seen and done horrible things and now they're attacking a government who, if we're honest, has never fully had a grip on either the country politically or its security situation. While they don't have the numbers I'd think to overrun the country, I think they have more than enough to hold a city and a province, and further destabilize Iraq by calling out Al-Maliki's ability to govern directly.

[Sheb]

I think the reasons the US didn't move into Syria is that Obama don't like military operation larger than a drone strike.

[10ebbor10]

Also, and perhaps worst of all, ISIS has taken over various oil fields in Syria, which gives them a limited ability to fund themselves.

[XXSockXX]

Something just dawned on me while reading about ISIS and Iraq.

I wonder if part of the reason we did not move into Syria is....the US was happy to let radical Islamists be across the border of Iraq instead of inside it. AQAP was winding down, whether intentionally or not, violence was ebbing in Iraq (although never really going away) and maybe the US was hoping, in addition to killing his own people, Assad would eventually wipe out the remainder of Al Qaeda splinters too. As long as radical islam was busy fighting Assad for Syria, they weren't fighting seriously for control of Iraq. Just your garden variety bombing and terror.

Except now, the threat we've basically ignored is taking cities and villages in Iraq and they are totally unable to deal with them. I mean, consider the kind of people in ISIS. They've survived and even grown within the context of fighting a guerrilla and terror campaign in Syria. They're battle hardened, have seen and done horrible things and now they're attacking a government who, if we're honest, has never fully had a grip on either the country politically or its security situation. While they don't have the numbers I'd think to overrun the country, I think they have more than enough to hold a city and a province, and further destabilize Iraq by calling out Al-Maliki's ability to govern directly.

I don't know, the situation in Syria is complicated anyway and past experiences have shown that these interventions don't really make things better. The sad lesson is that leaving murderous regimes in place may result in less deaths and more stability.

ISIS is fighting various opposition groups in Syria too, not only Assad, and they have split from Al Quaeda. Not sure anyone had them on the radar a year ago. Their core seem to be foreign fighters, like from Chechnya, but they are liberating many prisoners in Iraq. That may not be enough to start a civil war in Iraq too, but it might strenghten their position in Syria.

Also, and perhaps worst of all, ISIS has taken over various oil fields in Syria, which gives them a limited ability to fund themselves.

Apparently they have also captured Baiji, where the largest oil refinery in Iraq is.

[Guardian G.I.]

Here's something unrelevant and lighthearted about ISIS: a while ago they posted a map of the Islamic world under their banner:

Note the borders of other states. Apparently people at ISIS are fans of strategy games by Paradox Interactive, Victoria 2 in particular.

[Helgoland]

At least they're not going after the muslims on the Balkan.

[Sheb]

Or in the Caucasus.

[XXSockXX]

Maybe they have not manufactured the necessary CBs yet.

[Descan]

They'll take India, full of Hindus, but ignore Bosnia.

Nobody likes Bosnia, it seems.

[Sheb]

Well, you could make an argument it belong to a muslim realm, after all much of the ruling class was muslims ever since the Mughal conquest.

[Helgoland]

It belongs to the Anglican realm, then.

[Sheb]

They are also grabbing Buddhist Myanmar. I guess they just decided everything between Morrocco and Indonesia was muslim.

[XXSockXX]

Well, ugly borders are a big problem in any Paradox game, and no land connection increases revolt risk IIRC. Also India is usually a cash cow there.

Notably they also don't want the Uighur parts of China.

[Descan]

Well, ugly borders are a big problem in any Paradox game, and no land connection increases revolt risk IIRC. Also India is usually a cash cow there.

Notably they also don't want the Uighur parts of China.

Nah, even dumb extremists who think India is muslim know not to fuck with the Sisko Chinese.

[ibot66]

By not bombing the shit out of it. Repeatedly.

When America bombs everything, it ruins everything.
When America DOESN'T bomb everything, it ruins everything.