Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Randarkman posted:

Assad, Nasser and Saddam Hussein were supposed to be socialists, see how they turned out for their countries.

really I'd say that the success of Islamism, especially in the Arab world, is due in great part to the failure of ideologies such as nationalism and socialism in the Middle East or the reduction of regimes professing these ideologies into brutal military dictatorships.

Ultimately those regimes hadn't need socialist for a long time, the "reduction" happened for the most part before the Cold War even ended.

Nasser maybe, but Assad got into position by helping launch a coup against the more traditional Baath by helping the militarists and Saddam while a populist to some degree during the 1970s, I don't really think can be called a socialist either. I mean we are talking about Papa Assad and Saddam here.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 00:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 06:43

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

ascendance posted:

Probably in the tens of millions. But then, I think the US is using this as an excuse to dump any obsolete hardware they can find, which is why you're seeing a Mk 82 dumb bomb.

We still use Mk 82s all the time. We just strap a GPS guidance system around it these days and call it a JDAM.

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

# ? Oct 24, 2014 00:34

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

Yeah, Assad and Saddam (and arguably Gaddafi too, though not to the same extent) were "socialists" in the same way Hitler was, as a buzz word to gain power until they could gently caress everyone over, purge the actual socialists and laugh about how stupid people were to believe them.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 00:36

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ascendance posted:

They've kimd of hit the limite to growth, which is Sunnis Arabs fed up with Shia or Alawite dominance, and willing to change sides and join them.

To territorial expansion perhaps...no, I really don't agree. They fit the profile of Muhammad and Saud too well. They could conquer Arabia.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 00:53

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

Alas, I weep for the Mid-East that could have been had Nasser's Pan-Arabism actually worked :sadwave:

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:00

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

SedanChair posted:

To territorial expansion perhaps...no, I really don't agree. They fit the profile of Muhammad and Saud too well. They could conquer Arabia.

Their primary source of funding and their principal backer? Members of Daesh have their aunts and cousins and brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:03

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ascendance posted:

Their primary source of funding and their principal backer? Members of Daesh have their aunts and cousins and brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia.

But they don't love the decadent House of Saud. It wouldn't be the first time a militant group turned on their backers. They would love to crucify Prince Bandar.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:05

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

SedanChair posted:

But they don't love the decadent House of Saud. It wouldn't be the first time a militant group turned on their backers. They would love to crucify Prince Bandar.

The house of Saud being destroyed by jihadists would be hilarious.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:07

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

Isn't that almost happening the main reason they started pushing conservative religious law so hard and backing so many militant groups, kind of as appeasement? Not that that would make it less funny, probably more funny actually.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:12

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

SedanChair posted:

But they don't love the decadent House of Saud. It wouldn't be the first time a militant group turned on their backers. They would love to crucify Prince Bandar.

Good thing Prince Bandar has access to whole clans and families, who could easily become hostage to the good behavior of Saudi Jihadis, and is probably paying the bills for a whole bunch of other jihadis, like those guys they let out of prison to go fight Assad.

The Saudis haven't stayed in power for as long as they have without knowing a lot of dirty tricks.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:15

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ascendance posted:

Good thing Prince Bandar has access to whole clans and families, who could easily become hostage to the good behavior of Saudi Jihadis, and is probably paying the bills for a whole bunch of other jihadis, like those guys they let out of prison to go fight Assad.

The Saudis haven't stayed in power for as long as they have without knowing a lot of dirty tricks.

Oh it'd be real nasty, that's for sure. On the other hand, Saudis are actually used to living under a brutal theocratic dictatorship, everyone resents the decadence, hypocrisy and uselessness of the princes, and the Saudi military is possibly the biggest joke on earth. The jihadis are now the only people with Saudi connections and actual fighting skills. For me to suggest actual conquest of the entire peninsula is a little hyperbolic but that country is going to fall apart someday and ISIS vets will play a role.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:23

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Insha'Allah.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:27

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

never trust an elf posted:

So why'd ISIS quit with the hostage shenanigans? Seemed to working for them on a PR level

That's actually a really interesting subject. They named Peter Kassig as the next to die in the last one, but Kassig is a Muslim convert who treated jihadists among others. There's been guys from JaN who have publicly asked ISIS to spare him, so now they're kind of stuck between sending a message to the west, and the transparent cold blooded murder of a Muslim based on nationality when nationality is supposed to mean nothing in the caliphate.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:29

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One

New Adam Curtis Blog about the international / national left and the Kurds.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 01:49

Honj Steak: May 31, 2013; Hi there.

Der Spiegel did an interview with a high-ranking ISIS recruiter and apparent Salafi "ideological guide" in Turkey: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/is-islamischer-staat-streitgespraech-mit-einem-islamisten-a-998720.html (in German)

tl;dr Democracy, art and culture are inherently evil and for infidels; the methods of the West are no better than theirs; they won't stop until everyone in the world is either converted to the Salafist movement or dead.

Likeable guy. :thumbsup:

# ? Oct 24, 2014 02:01

ascendance: Feb 19, 2013

SedanChair posted:

Oh it'd be real nasty, that's for sure. On the other hand, Saudis are actually used to living under a brutal theocratic dictatorship, everyone resents the decadence, hypocrisy and uselessness of the princes, and the Saudi military is possibly the biggest joke on earth. The jihadis are now the only people with Saudi connections and actual fighting skills. For me to suggest actual conquest of the entire peninsula is a little hyperbolic but that country is going to fall apart someday and ISIS vets will play a role.

Thing is, the Saudi princes can basically skew right, make some public apologies and atonement, and get things back on track. Y'know, the same way American evangelicals can continue to have a career in ministry after being busted with a male hooker.

And I think we are misreading things. The jihadis ARE an important wing of the Saudi military. Muslim armies since the birth of Islam have always depended on those kids of irregulars. The modern day is no different.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 02:05

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

How are u posted:

Alas, I weep for the Mid-East that could have been had Nasser's Pan-Arabism actually worked

I've never seen a good description of what he wanted through that. Could you explain it?

# ? Oct 24, 2014 02:22

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

McDowell posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One

New Adam Curtis Blog about the international / national left and the Kurds.

This was excellent, thanks!

# ? Oct 24, 2014 02:32

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

How are u posted:

Alas, I weep for the Mid-East that could have been had Nasser's Pan-Arabism actually worked

Where would Kurds, Persians, Assyrians, Berbers, and all the rest of the sizable non-Arab minorities fit in there?

# ? Oct 24, 2014 03:18

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ba29_story.html

quote:

What makes this story chilling is that Gaood was one of the Sunni leaders the U.S. government was hoping could organize resistance in Anbar. He was one of two dozen Iraqi tribal elders whom Allen met when he visited in early October. Gaood says he warned then that without urgent help, �we are going to have to give up the fight.�

�Gen. Allen said, �I will put you in touch with someone in Centcom.� But it never happened,� Gaood says.

Military campaigns often start slowly, and that has certainly been the case with President Obama�s pledge to �degrade and ultimately destroy� the Islamic State. When Allen visited tribal leaders in Amman, he cautioned that he was in �listening mode� while the United States prepared its strategy. The U.S. presentation was �vague,� says Gaood. �Every time the Iraqis meet with Americans, they just take notes.�

So what was that about the comprehensive strategy? :smithicide:

# ? Oct 24, 2014 03:47

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Torpor posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ba29_story.html

So what was that about the comprehensive strategy?

A comprehensive strategy should be able to withstand such shocks.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 03:51

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

Absurd Alhazred posted:

A comprehensive strategy should be able to withstand such shocks.

This is the best strategy then, it is impossible to have shocks to withstand if you have no goal at all.

That BBC video posted by McDowell contains a video of a reporter going to kurdish areas of turkey...holy poo poo. :stonk:

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:13

pantslesswithwolves: Oct 28, 2008; Ba-dam ba-DUMMMMMM

Don't think I saw this posted here yet:

quote:

The Syrian opposition force to be recruited by the U.S. military and its coalition partners will be trained to defend territory, rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State, according to senior U.S. and allied officials, some of whom are concerned that the approach is flawed.

Although moderate Syrian fighters are deemed essential to defeating the Islamic State under the Obama administration�s strategy, officials do not believe the newly assembled units will be capable of capturing key towns from militants without the help of forward-deployed U.S. combat teams, which President Obama has so far ruled out. The Syrian rebel force will be tasked instead with trying to prevent the Islamic State from extending its reach beyond the large stretches of territory it already controls.

�We have a big disconnect within our strategy. We need a credible, moderate Syrian force, but we have not been willing to commit what it takes to build that force,� said a senior U.S. official involved in Syria and Iraq operations who, like others cited in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the training program.

Military commanders are reluctant to push Syrian fighters into full-scale battles with well-armed militants if they cannot summon close air support and medical evacuations, mindful of how fledgling forces in Iraq and Afghanistan crumbled without that assistance during the early years of the wars in those nations. But U.S. military aircraft cannot provide that aid without American or allied troops in close proximity to provide accurate targeting information on secure radio channels.

Military officials also want U.S. and allied special operations troops to advise opposition forces if those forces are thrust into combat, helping them to fight effectively and reducing the chances that the new units will disintegrate in the heat of battle.

The outgoing commander of NATO�s Land Command in Izmir, Turkey, said on Wednesday that every member of the alliance is worried about thousands of radicalized young men travelling to Syria to join the Islamic State . (AP)
�You cannot field an effective force if you�re not on the ground to advise and assist them,� said a senior U.S. military officer with extensive experience in training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries.

Obama�s unwillingness to deploy ground combat forces is rooted in concern that American troops would be drawn into a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

In announcing the campaign to confront the Islamic State, the president said the United States would �strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists.� The Pentagon subsequently announced that the U.S. military would seek to train as many as 5,000 Syrian fighters a year, aiming to build what Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called an �effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels.�

The Obama administration�s plan calls for U.S. Special Operations troops to recruit moderate Syrian opponents of the Islamic State from refugee communities in Jordan, Turkey and other nations. They will be flown to Saudi Arabia, trained for about eight weeks, and then sent into the small enclaves of Syria already controlled by the Free Syrian Army and other moderate opponents of the Islamic State. The first units are expected to be deployed in roughly six months.

�The plan is for them to safeguard cleared areas,� said a senior official of an Arab nation that is part of the U.S.-led coalition and who has been briefed on the training program. �They will end up being a defensive force more than an offensive force.�

Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Pentagon�s Joint Staff, said the opposition fighters would receive �basic training to secure their villages.� The force, he said, �will have some effect,� but he acknowledged that the fighters �won�t have the decisive effect� in the battle against the Islamic State.

A defensive opposition force also could allow President Bashar al-Assad�s government to regain territory it has lost to the Islamic State, which has been pummeled � but remains far from defeated � by hundreds of U.S. and coalition airstrikes over the past month.

The administration has made little secret of the fact that reversing Islamic State gains in Iraq is the primary goal of its military strategy in the region. Airstrikes in Syria, senior administration officials have said, are not designed to push out the militants but to destroy the infrastructure, sources of revenue and command structure that have enabled them to operate successfully in Iraq.

Those officials maintain that it is premature to focus on the question of whether U.S. advisers should deploy with the new Syrian force. A more pressing concern, they contend, is the challenge of recruiting willing, competent fighters from Syrian refugee communities. U.S. officials do not want to pull away members of the Free Syrian Army who already are fighting in Syria, but they worry that many of those who have fled the country as refugees may not want to return to their war-ravaged homeland.

The officials said they intend for U.S. troops to use the basic training sessions, which will focus on unit discipline and elementary combat skills, to identify promising candidates for more advanced courses. Those individuals could be schooled to engage in more offensive missions.

�We will evolve and learn as the program proceeds,� said a senior Defense Department official. For now, the official said, �there is an enormous focus on building leadership structure.�

The first phase, Mayville said, �is identify and vet them, create a relationship and give them basic training.� Then, he said, they will �go back and protect their communities.�

Thus far, senior military leaders have concurred in public with Obama�s decision not to send ground combat troops to Syria and Iraq, but the country�s top military officer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has said that if he determines that it is necessary for U.S. advisers to accompany local forces on attacks against Islamic State targets, he would make such a recommendation to the president.

Administration officials say technological advancements will allow the U.S. military to provide a degree of air support to Syrian forces without having to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They note that in Iraq, U.S. commanders recently employed surveillance aircraft, including drones, to identify Islamic State militants near the Mosul Dam, striking them in proximity to Kurdish forces.

But military officials regard those Kurdish forces as far more seasoned than the newly assembled Syrian fighters will be. �This isn�t just about coordinating airstrikes,� the senior military officer said. �It�s about keeping up morale, attending to injuries, ensuring order within the ranks. You can�t do that from afar.�

U.S. officials are talking to the governments of Jordan, Qatar and Turkey about opening additional training camps in those nations, should the volume of recruits exceed capacity in the two facilities that are being established in Saudi Arabia.

Skeptics of the administration�s policy within the Pentagon and in Congress worry that the recruitment effort will be hindered by a lack of a clear U.S. commitment to assist the new force. They also argue that the administration�s unwillingness to commit to toppling Assad � Obama has said he wants to see a �political solution� to the civil war in Syria � will lead many moderate opponents to sit on the sidelines.

�It�s immoral to ask these young men to fight and die when we�re not going to protect them from Bashar Assad�s barrel bombs or from ISIS,� said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, referring to the Islamic State by a common acronym. �You�re not going to get people to volunteer to do that.�

The senior Defense Department official said the administration is �committed to making sure these forces succeed.� Other officials said those steps could involve the use of covert operatives and private contractors reporting to the CIA, not the Pentagon, who could provide combat advice to Syrian forces and summon air support. Another option under consideration is to ask Arab nations that have participated in airstrikes on Islamic State targets to send some of their special operations units to Syria.

But the senior Arab official said such a request would be unlikely to receive an enthusiastic response among coalition members if the United States did not also commit troops.

So this entire campaign thus far seems like just one half-measure after the other. We're really going to train people how to defend their villages when they've been taking and holding territory since early 2012? I get that this is a tentative first step, but it seems like a pretty halting one at that.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:20

Huggybear: Jun 17, 2005; I got the jimjams

Torpor posted:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0pezTGCQAA5yd9.png:large

there is a photo sequence of the IS soldier on the hill getting bombed.

The target was tall sheir or whatever that mountain/hill was called that was 5km to the west of Kobane.

I don't get why they would not only give away their position with a flag, given how long the airstrikes have been going on, but also...standing silhouetted on a hill in broad daylight...? Who is that loving stupid? I know the majority of the grunts are just random idiots from around the world, but I thought that ISIL had competent military leadership - or does it only exist in the higher echelons?

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:21

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

suboptimal posted:

Don't think I saw this posted here yet:

So this entire campaign thus far seems like just one half-measure after the other. We're really going to train people how to defend their villages when they've been taking and holding territory since early 2012? I get that this is a tentative first step, but it seems like a pretty halting one at that.

That's some This is What Winning Looks Like type poo poo. Are they going to teach them how not to poo poo where they eat, too? :rolleyes:

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:32

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Huggybear posted:

I don't get why they would not only give away their position with a flag, given how long the airstrikes have been going on, but also...standing silhouetted on a hill in broad daylight...? Who is that loving stupid? I know the majority of the grunts are just random idiots from around the world, but I thought that ISIL had competent military leadership - or does it only exist in the higher echelons?

I'm beginning to think all these young men going on about their "martyrdom" have some kind of death wish!!

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:41

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

Absurd Alhazred posted:

That's some This is What Winning Looks Like type poo poo. Are they going to teach them how not to poo poo where they eat, too?

Watching the whitehouse flail around on this whole issue is soulcrushing. It is like watching a disabled person fall out of their wheel chair and flail around on the ground, but without the legitimate justification of being disabled.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:42

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

even if the war was being prosecuted 100% competently it would still be a catastrophic gently caress up failure, so, I don't think incompetence really matters here.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 04:48

Kawasaki Nun: Jul 16, 2001; by Reene

Torpor posted:

Watching the whitehouse flail around on this whole issue is soulcrushing. It is like watching a disabled person fall out of their wheel chair and flail around on the ground, but without the legitimate justification of being disabled.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

That's some This is What Winning Looks Like type poo poo. Are they going to teach them how not to poo poo where they eat, too?

Where do you think the bar is set for an appropriate white house response at this point?

# ? Oct 24, 2014 05:48

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

Kawasaki Nun posted:

Where do you think the bar is set for an appropriate white house response at this point?

I would just like it if they didn't dig into the ground, rather than not reach where a bar would be set. I mean, holy poo poo, having a head honcho go out to the area and give out his phone number in case of emergencies and then *miss the call* is just loving insane.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 05:51

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Torpor posted:

I would just like it if they didn't dig into the ground, rather than not reach where a bar would be set. I mean, holy poo poo, having a head honcho go out to the area and give out his phone number in case of emergencies and then *miss the call* is just loving insane.

Yeah. "Leaders" without follow-through should get shitcanned.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 06:34

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

I'm all ears for your guys' plans.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 07:03

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Sergg posted:

I'm all ears for your guys' plans.

I'm more or less okay with most of what the US is doing against ISIS over there, except if the choice comes up of either "do nothing" or "support people holding their ground like a bunch of idiots", I would go with "don't bother". Also, shitcan people who can't return a damned phone-call.

Also, get a serious war bill passed through congress, the link to 9/11 is mad tenuous.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 07:05

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

Sergg posted:

I'm all ears for your guys' plans.

Cut and run. Or, if the U.S. has to feel like it's doing something, provide a lot of support to refugees, probably protect the minority groups that are likely to genocided and let ISIS rule over its stupid Sunni shithole nightmare state. It is just hard to conceive of any action the U.S. could take that would defeat ISIS and also doesn't create another generation of radical militants.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 07:52

Atomizer: Jun 24, 2007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8a-v9sACXk

Vittek posted:

They are also trying to (re)capture the Mosul Dam. Same deal, the have it surrounded but airstrikes etc. IS managed to recapture Tall Shiar (sp) hill west of Kobane so they can put down another flag and run away. And of course, the most important news: IS installed free to use telephone booths in Mosul for free phone calls. FREE CALLS! Take that, western phone companies.

Wow, phone booths? Let's party like it's 1989! :toot:

Malleum posted:

Since nobody's answered, it's a ZPU-2, an old Soviet AA mount that's essentially 2 14.5mm machine guns wired to the same trigger. Irregular forces like it because it's big enough to really put the hurt on whatever's downrange yet light enough to put on the back of a truck. And since the Soviets loved to arm the third world, there's tons of the things just laying around in army bases and wherever else they could stuff them.

Thank you! I thought it was probably a 14.5 because of all the Soviet surplus stuff, but I'm not that familiar with that stuff in general.

Brown Moses posted:

Those are actually both ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns (although they work on people too).

That works too!

fade5 posted:

They were using hostages to try to provoke the US (as well as the rest of the world) in to starting a war with them. They got what they wanted, a war with the US (and quite a few other countries).

Now they're slowly coming to the realization that starting a war with the US is a very, very bad idea.

The thing is, the US is really, really good at bombing things, especially when we've got guys on the ground to do mop-up after the strike. See: Kobani, and the no-fly zone in Libya. We may not be good at rebuilding a country afterwards, but we are great at tipping the scales while the fighting's going on.

Contrast the situation in Kobani with the situation in Syria, where a lack of coordination with rebel groups on the ground means that bombing ISIS is not really helping, since there's no way for rebel groups to use the strikes against ISIS to their advantage.

Yeah, we're great at blowing poo poo up, but less good at occupying countries indefinitely.

Huggybear posted:

I don't get why they would not only give away their position with a flag, given how long the airstrikes have been going on, but also...standing silhouetted on a hill in broad daylight...? Who is that loving stupid? I know the majority of the grunts are just random idiots from around the world, but I thought that ISIL had competent military leadership - or does it only exist in the higher echelons?

It's part of their psychological warfare. They want to show that "we own this hill/building/whatever, and we're coming for you," even if it obviously means they reveal their positions to airstrikes. It's directed at the Kurds in Kobane, and perhaps the observers in Turkey. See this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stronghold.html

pengun101 posted:

I haven't seen that one yet? what page is it linked on?

Edit: never mind found it. am i a broken person for being sorta happy that ISIS guy was killed.

Could you (or anyone else) link the "Kurdish sniper shots" video (with the headshot on the dude in the pickup truck?)

# ? Oct 24, 2014 08:00

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Sergg posted:

I'm all ears for your guys' plans.

Do you want an actually good plan or a plan that's possible in the current US political climate?

# ? Oct 24, 2014 11:37

Saki: Jan 9, 2008; Can't you feel the knife?

Jagchosis posted:

Cut and run. Or, if the U.S. has to feel like it's doing something, provide a lot of support to refugees, probably protect the minority groups that are likely to genocided and let ISIS rule over its stupid Sunni shithole nightmare state. It is just hard to conceive of any action the U.S. could take that would defeat ISIS and also doesn't create another generation of radical militants.

Cutting and running means allowing genocide. No way around it.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 11:44

nigel thornberry: Jul 29, 2013

We can't cut and run now, since we all already cut and ran from Iraq years ago, thank god. Barring a ground invasion of central Iraq, all we can and should do is provide support to refugees and airstrikes to ISIS in places where genocide is imminent.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 12:21

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

"the plan" should consist of effectively assisting local allies on the ground. Doing things like answering phone calls helps; also training troops, providing equipment, providing ACTUAL BOMB DETECTORS, etc. It doesn't even have to be fancy poo poo.

The US is throwing MRAPs at US police agencies for basically free; why didn't we give them to the Iraqi's who are actually having problems with IEDs? Give them things like helmets. The Kurds in particular appear to have poo poo equipment, and I'm not even talking artillery and tanks.

For instance, on NPR, the kurds are apparently suffering a lot of casualties from IEDs; that type of thing is demoralizing. MRAP would be pretty handy, not to mention body armor and helmets.

The Kurds in Syria have basically fancy pajamas and AK47s with apparently Ork made vehicles. Things like helmets and body armor would be good things. Hell, proper footwear would probably be a step up.

There is an entire unit in the US Army dedicated to supporting allies, actually probably several. At any rate they are not being used. Maybe they will be used after the election?

Effective assistance would also consist of diplomatically attempting to heal or bridge rifts between ethnic factions. I think, to an extent, this actually happening but not really publicized. It is also contingent upon answering phones, which is something the US is not good at.

I think the US can actually use assistance to the Kurds in the region to moderate stances and potentially heal rifts between themselves and the Turks. For instance going to the PYD and telling them to go to the bargaining table with other factions in Syrian Kurdistan and they will get tanks, would be an effective use of this method.

I feel like the bombing campaign is like a band aid. The actual police and soldiers on the ground need to be well trained and have decent morale. I've never been a soldier but I imagine having protection against bullets and IEDs would be a big help.

I'm not sure how I feel about the FSA and other opposition groups, they seem to be a fractured mess.

I think the current plan is more focused on the diplomacy but not so much on military support sufficient to stabilize our allies in the face of IS attacks. The fact that the operation had no operation name until like last week is indicative of the US not really knowing what to do. If the white house thinks a bombing campaign is necessary, it should probably send enough aircraft to conduct an actual bombing campaign.

Torpor fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Oct 24, 2014

# ? Oct 24, 2014 14:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 06:43

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

It's not as though Obama will endanger his party by taking meaningful action, but they could be hitting ISIS harder from the air and really pushing for support in Congress.

# ? Oct 24, 2014 14:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »