08-08-2014, 04:19 PM
In his public speeches, President Obama refers to them as "ISIL" -- Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. They are most commonly referred to in the media as "ISIS" -- Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Same diff.
But, they recently rebranded themselves from "ISIS/ISIL" to plain old "IS" -- Islamic State. Why restrict themselves from terrorizing citizens beyond Iraq and Syria, after all.
I support what we're doing in Iraq right now, though I don't believe it's being done with a primary focus on protecting our embassies in Iraq -- that's just PC justification and sounds less interventionist. I believe it's being done because IS has kicked major 'effin ass in a short period of time and they are well on their way to making their short-to-mid term goal of creating an Islamic Fundamentalist State which erases part of the current border between Iraq and Syria. I can't say what their long term goals encompass.
I think Obama wrongly anticipated that the Iraqi soldiers trained by US forces would put up a better fight against the "terrorist group" and, thus, adopted a wait and see policy. We waited; we see; it ain't good.
I also believe that Kurds are smart and bad-ass. But, even in the autonomous region of Kurdistan within Iraq, IS kicked ass and took names, much to the surprise of many. The Kurds actually requested US intervention and PM Maliki and the Kurds are actually joining forces (they're not friends) to combat the IS threat.
Some of IS's Sunni leaders were Saddam loyalists. When Saddam was targeted by the US, they turned to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, at the time, was the strongest force of opposition to US intervention. But, then a faction split from al-Qaeda because their goals were more about creating an Islamic State and control over portions of the Middle East than about bombing a foreign/western target here or there. They've since recruited disgruntled Sunnis who were ignored/suppressed by US-back Shiite PM Maliki when he assumed Sunni Hussein's ruling position. IS is smarter, more ruthless, and broader-minded than al-Qaeda. I say none of that with respect or admiration; only because it's reality. They are now also rich after having carefully chosen oil-producing land-grabs and marketed themselves like no other terrorist/rebel/insurgent (however the 'eff you wanna label them) before them. World leaders are now waking up to what a lot of us who follow the trends and conquest maps have seen since a year or less into the massive terrorist infiltration of the Syrian freedom fight. Sometimes optimism thwarts realism until it doesn't.
Anyway, there was no genocide in Iraq previously. Shiites and Kurds and Christians may have felt some discrimination under the Hussein Sunni regime, but no life threat or forced conversion. The same is true with Syria. Now, IS is moving beyond land grabs and using its strengths gained through infiltrating other causes to pursue its ultimate goal -- all Islam, all the time, all the way.
I agree with Mags about staying outta other countries' civil wars and conflicts, for the most part. I did support the intervention in Afghanistan after 9⁄11 and would again today (though, turns out, Pakistan mighta been more effective -- I believe that couldn't readily be ascertained at the time, in good faith). I did not support the no-evidence based invasion of Iraq (which, turns out, was blatantly lie-based).
I support US aid to the displaced in Syria and Iraq; offering humanitarian aid to people of all faiths is something that I'd not object to, as long as we have the means. I do not support military intervention in Syria unless it's to combat the IS infiltration into the "freedom fighters" quest. I support today's air strike of IS militants and weaponry because, unlike Hussein and Assad, I believe that IS is in fact genocidal.
At the same time, I think that ISIS is so much better organized and capable than most entities, that they actually present less of an immediate threat to the US and the west than al-Qaeda and the nuke-possessing governments of ME countries. However, if left unchecked, they will IMO topple any Islamic Fundamentalist resistance and present a much greater threat to the non-Islamic world than those before them, in the long run.
To answer Mags' question: are there any good strategists today? Probably. Have they stopped looking at threats in terms of governments, countries, and other traditional frameworks? IMO, not so much. That's the problem. They need to look at where the power and the threats lie in today's terms and they're behind the times when it comes to non-geographical boundaries and alliances.
All just my strong opinions based on observation and analysis (upon which I no longer make a living and welcome debate, but obviously still feel passionate about).
Yep, I think this shit is really important, but I'll give it a rest now. Promise.
But, they recently rebranded themselves from "ISIS/ISIL" to plain old "IS" -- Islamic State. Why restrict themselves from terrorizing citizens beyond Iraq and Syria, after all.
I support what we're doing in Iraq right now, though I don't believe it's being done with a primary focus on protecting our embassies in Iraq -- that's just PC justification and sounds less interventionist. I believe it's being done because IS has kicked major 'effin ass in a short period of time and they are well on their way to making their short-to-mid term goal of creating an Islamic Fundamentalist State which erases part of the current border between Iraq and Syria. I can't say what their long term goals encompass.
I think Obama wrongly anticipated that the Iraqi soldiers trained by US forces would put up a better fight against the "terrorist group" and, thus, adopted a wait and see policy. We waited; we see; it ain't good.
I also believe that Kurds are smart and bad-ass. But, even in the autonomous region of Kurdistan within Iraq, IS kicked ass and took names, much to the surprise of many. The Kurds actually requested US intervention and PM Maliki and the Kurds are actually joining forces (they're not friends) to combat the IS threat.
Some of IS's Sunni leaders were Saddam loyalists. When Saddam was targeted by the US, they turned to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, at the time, was the strongest force of opposition to US intervention. But, then a faction split from al-Qaeda because their goals were more about creating an Islamic State and control over portions of the Middle East than about bombing a foreign/western target here or there. They've since recruited disgruntled Sunnis who were ignored/suppressed by US-back Shiite PM Maliki when he assumed Sunni Hussein's ruling position. IS is smarter, more ruthless, and broader-minded than al-Qaeda. I say none of that with respect or admiration; only because it's reality. They are now also rich after having carefully chosen oil-producing land-grabs and marketed themselves like no other terrorist/rebel/insurgent (however the 'eff you wanna label them) before them. World leaders are now waking up to what a lot of us who follow the trends and conquest maps have seen since a year or less into the massive terrorist infiltration of the Syrian freedom fight. Sometimes optimism thwarts realism until it doesn't.
Anyway, there was no genocide in Iraq previously. Shiites and Kurds and Christians may have felt some discrimination under the Hussein Sunni regime, but no life threat or forced conversion. The same is true with Syria. Now, IS is moving beyond land grabs and using its strengths gained through infiltrating other causes to pursue its ultimate goal -- all Islam, all the time, all the way.
I agree with Mags about staying outta other countries' civil wars and conflicts, for the most part. I did support the intervention in Afghanistan after 9⁄11 and would again today (though, turns out, Pakistan mighta been more effective -- I believe that couldn't readily be ascertained at the time, in good faith). I did not support the no-evidence based invasion of Iraq (which, turns out, was blatantly lie-based).
I support US aid to the displaced in Syria and Iraq; offering humanitarian aid to people of all faiths is something that I'd not object to, as long as we have the means. I do not support military intervention in Syria unless it's to combat the IS infiltration into the "freedom fighters" quest. I support today's air strike of IS militants and weaponry because, unlike Hussein and Assad, I believe that IS is in fact genocidal.
At the same time, I think that ISIS is so much better organized and capable than most entities, that they actually present less of an immediate threat to the US and the west than al-Qaeda and the nuke-possessing governments of ME countries. However, if left unchecked, they will IMO topple any Islamic Fundamentalist resistance and present a much greater threat to the non-Islamic world than those before them, in the long run.
To answer Mags' question: are there any good strategists today? Probably. Have they stopped looking at threats in terms of governments, countries, and other traditional frameworks? IMO, not so much. That's the problem. They need to look at where the power and the threats lie in today's terms and they're behind the times when it comes to non-geographical boundaries and alliances.
All just my strong opinions based on observation and analysis (upon which I no longer make a living and welcome debate, but obviously still feel passionate about).
Yep, I think this shit is really important, but I'll give it a rest now. Promise.