ISIS Takes Iraq-Syria Border Towns

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 08:32:08 PM EST
Tags: ISIS (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Reuters reports ISIS has taken the towns of al-Qaim on the Iraq side of border with Syria and Albukamal, on the Syrian side. ISIS says it has also taken Rawa and Aneh. It may soon have control of the entire Euphrates Valley.

The militants seem to be trying to connect up these two pockets and secure control of the whole Euphrates valley from the Syrian border to Baghdad.

....If the rebels can join up those two areas and take full control in Ramadi, they would be in a position to prepare for an assault on the western approaches to Baghdad, using Falluja as the springboard.

Up next: Haditha and Hit, which are between Aneh and Ramadi. It will then control everything from the Syrian border to Baghdad.

Reading ISIS literature and twitter feeds, it seems what ISIS cares about is tearing down geographical boundaries set long ago by the Sykes-Picot agreement and establishing a unified Islamic state which it refers to as Khilafah or a Caliphate state -- and overthrowing the U.S.- backed Shi'a government in Iraq, which discriminated against the Sunnis and through violence, reduced their numbers.

Given ISIS' insistence that its view of Islam is the only correct view, it doesn't seem likely ISIS will accept anything less than a total victory in Iraq, Syria, and neighboring countries. So the calls for Iraq to be fairer to the Sunnis and end sectarianism don't seem like they will solve anything. ISIS wants to retake the geographic territory it views as having been stolen from them by the West (Britain and France in particular) a century ago, and as to religion, it's their way or the highway (with the highway being a graveyard.)

While ISIS opposes the policies of the U.S. Government and many in Europe, it doesn't seem to be at all focused on putting its flags down here. ISIS seems intent on dominating its own territory. While its recruitment efforts are aimed at Muslims in all parts of the world, it want the recruits to come to where ISIS is fighting and strategizing, not start new wars in their home countries.

ISIS is intent on destroying those who oppose or stand in the way of its goal of creating a unified Islamic state, in which its view of Islam controls the government and every facet of the lives of the people. It doesn't seem interested in turning non-Muslim dominated Western countries into Muslim states. ISIS has more in common with a military organization rather than a terrorist one. After all, all wars are violent and end in death and atrocities.

The West calls ISIS terrorists. Muslims who oppose them call them Kharjites, a name for a group of violent rebels and outcasts that existed centuries ago, which had a different view of Islam and wanted to impose it on others. I think they are militants (fighters) and religious fanatics (or perhaps just purists) who want to overthrow the governments of existing Islamic countries and install their own governing systems. It's really a war over territory and ideology.

ISIS has been on a big roll for over a week. It's waging war in several places, and winning in all of them. It doesn't seem they leave much to chance, but instead, like any successful war machine, strategize, plan and map out their battles, recruit and train their troops, keep up morale, conduct a PR campaign, and soldier on.

It really has very little to do with us, and we should stay out of it. It's long past time we stopped trying to impose our view of how countries should be governed on countries and people on the other side of the world.

< World Cup Day 10 | World Cup Day 11 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

ISIS Takes Iraq-Syria Border Towns | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How far will Iran (none / 0) (#1)
by MKS on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:47:46 PM EST

go to stop ISIS and protect majority Shia in Iraq?

Probably no farther... (none / 0) (#2)
by unitron on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:05:28 AM EST

...than Megiddo.

: - )


Armageddon? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MKS on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:23:24 AM EST

The religious conservatives seem to take delight in war and turmoil.....It means the Second Coming is nigh....


With all these wars of the past (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 06:35:16 AM EST

And there was no second coming, why do they think this one will be different? I think it is a horrible way to live, a horrible way to grow up, avoiding true problem solving and conflict resolution and just wishing for it all to be over soon.


That's why the ... (none / 0) (#11)
by unitron on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 10:33:47 AM EST

..."spiritual descendents" of those here in the US who never had anything good to say about the Jews just love them some Israel, 'cause they think it means that the End Times are coming "This time for sure".

In other words, they're just a means to an (or The) end.

But a multi-country war in the Middle East that includes a fierce battle between who knows who somewhere in the vicinity of Meggido is by no means an impossibility even if there is no Supreme Being actually involved.

With Sunni and Shia at each others throats the Kurds may decide to take advantage of the situation to make some moves towards establishing an actual Kurdistan, which means Turkey would have a cow, and the whole place could turn into Game of Thrones King of the Week club very quickly, with alliances shifting at lightspeed.


: The Kurds already have made such (none / 0) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:48:02 PM EST

Moves. They have been waiting for this. And because of the history of genocide against them we left them with the equipment to Git'er done too in the midst of all this. I don't really care if they establish their own nation. Just don't

Great analysis. (none / 0) (#4)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 04:36:03 AM EST

Thank you Jeralyn.

I have to agree wholeheartedly.

This would appear to be an effort based on nationalism.
An attempt to reclaim its own territory and rid it of the influence of invaders and colonialists.

Personally, the religious extremism is something that I loath.
But, as weird as this may seem to some, I think we live under a kind of religious extremism of our own - where a nutty president, like Bush, could push a button to end all human life on the planet if he or she so desired. And so far, all these American nuts have made their adherence to what they call "Christianity" a feature of their public persona.

No it doesn't sound weird (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:28:20 PM EST

Especially from you.

But what it does sound is uninformed. We live in totally secular society. Even the evileeeee Bush went to Congress before he acted.

And it isn't Christians that are killing each other, and non-Muslims, in an endless jihad.

It is not nationalism. It is religious based hatred and disagreement between Sunni and Shia. And the desire of the ISIS is to establish a Sunni theocracy and work towards control of the entire world.

I know that sounds silly. But they have killed thousands and will kill thousands more in an attempt to control.


: Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:36:08 PM EST

Bush was evil.
What we did in Iraq was evil.
What the congress did was unconscionable.
Civil wars are awful. They kill people. Innocent people.
If you are for an American intervention, say so.
But if you think that we live in "a totally secular society", all I can say is "Merry Christmas and Happy Easter".
Hillary is the latest to tell us how much she is guided by the Bible. Bush called Jesus his "favorite philosopher". Obama has told us about his Christian beliefs many times. Even our currency has to inform us to trust in God.
But - the subject here is whether or not we should favor an American intervention in Iraq. I do not.
If you do, say so.

What? (none / 0) (#6)
by Politalkix on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:02:19 AM EST

"ISIS is intent on destroying those who oppose or stand in the way of its goal of creating a unified Islamic state, in which its view of Islam controls the government and every facet of the lives of the people. It doesn't seem interested in turning non-Muslim dominated Western countries into Muslim states."

If the Caliphate is the model, turning non-Muslim countries into Muslim states is definitely a goal. The Ummayad Caliphate that ruled from Damuscus in Syria conquered the Iberian peninsula. Its push towards conquering the rest of Europe came to a halt after it was repulsed by Charles Martel and the Franks.

The Ottoman Caliphate subjugated Greece and other regions in Eastern Europe.

It is one thing to say that it is not wise to get involved in a civil war in Iraq and Syria at this time. It is completely something else to say that the same people whose stated goal is reviving the glory days of the Caliphate have no designs for conquering non-Muslim lands in the future.

Yes - and No! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 08:19:26 AM EST

Yes. It is one thing to say that it is not wise to get involved in a civil war in Iraq. One would think that we would have learned that lesson by now, but I'm not convinced that we have.

As to your assertion inferring the possible extra-territorial colonial ambitions of Isis, this is a generalization that can be made about any nation. Our own, for example, which keeps its tentacles neatly wrapped around the governments of other countries.

I think Jeralyn has good reason to say that, "It doesn't seem interested in turning non-Muslim dominated Western countries into Muslim states." It doesn't.

I would assume you question Jeralyn's conclusion because you think that, based on history - some from the very distant past - possible expansionist goals on the part of ISIS is a rationale that could be advanced to promote yet another American intervention.

I am obviously against American intervention in this civil war.

Our country is broke.
It is falling apart.
Our political system is falling apart.
Our people are without gainful employment.
Corporate entities including banks are gobbling up assets and providing no services in return.

Can't we force our politicians and pundits to focus on our real and worsening problems and leave other countries to focus on theirs? More and more, our tendency to get involved in these wars seems to be a deliberate way to change the focus of American citizens from our needs to our fears - and change the subject from the impotence, cluelessness, callousness and stupidity of the government into one that gives the illusion of power and competence.

One final thought, lest my previous sentence implies that I have no compassion for the people who might be brutalized in the conflict in Iraq: People who are dedicated to the proposition of coming to the aid of one faction or another should consider going to Iraq and forming a brigade.

But to once again have our government, which has proven itself to be extremely stupid and/or self-involved-agenda driven, start bombing or sending "advisors", is not only misguided, but almost criminal in my estimation.


One final thought (none / 0) (#9)
by Politalkix on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 08:37:34 AM EST

And people who see no difference between America and ISIS to callously write "As to your assertion inferring the possible extra-territorial colonial ambitions of Isis, this is a generalization that can be made about any nation. Our own, for example, which keeps its tentacles neatly wrapped around the governments of other countries" should go and live in ISIS controlled lands and criticize the militants in the same way they speak against policies of the US government. But they are too clever not to do that because they know such an action will cause them to get flogged or beheaded.


I didn't (none / 0) (#12)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 10:45:58 AM EST

say that there is no difference between America and ISIS.

I did clearly infer that America has possessed a seriously imperialistic foreign policy from time to time - freely foisting its will upon the governments and peoples in different countries. Vietnam, for example. Iraq is another is more recent example.

In our own country, it is worth remembering that these lands originally belongs to a people who were virtually wiped out in a fashion that can only be called genocide.

So, I think it behooves us to have a little modesty when it comes to getting on a high horse and condemning others for reportedly despicable or imperialistic behavior.


You did clearly "imply" (none / 0) (#13)
by NYShooter on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 11:49:48 AM EST

that America has sucked from time to time.

Hopefully, the victim countries alluded to in your comments "inferred" the bombs "be-a-popping" in time to get outta the way.


: Absolutely. (none / 0) (#15)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:16:44 PM EST

You're right.

What you are saying is that (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:41:36 PM EST

there is a moral equivalency between ISIS and America.

That is disgusting and uneducated. And all I need to prove my point is to note that we do not fight for land just the defeat of enemies that clearly mean to harm us.

And yes, that includes Muslim terrorists.

I wish I could call you a Pacifist. But you are worse. You are an isolationist just as the Repubs before WWII were isolationists. They thought they could get along with the killers and rapers of Europe and Asia. History shows that our late actions caused millions to die and the cost of the war, to us, was much higher than it needed to be.


: I will (none / 0) (#23)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:27:27 PM EST

simply say that it appears as if you are for another American intervention in Iraq.
I am not.
As for moral equivalency, I happen to love the US of A, but I will freely admit that it is difficult for me to distinguish between the act of dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets, and the acts of a terrorist group.
I"ll even update that to Bush's unconscionable reign of terror on Iraq which his foul administration called, "shock and awe".
Be that as it may, if you are for American intervention, say so.
I think this comment may be a little hard for you to comprehend, but being against an American intervention in Iraq is not a pacifist position. Neither is it isolationist.
It is simply a position based on what I am reading about the situation - one in which I feel we can do no good, protect nobody, cause even more deaths, and expose our nation to extreme danger.

Ha! Whatever! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:44:06 PM EST

I'm not designing my day around anyone's hubris, whether that be Dick Cheney's hubris or the hubris of the current leadership of ISIS.

ISIS has only "taken" Sunni strongholds, you act like they have actually " taken" something they had to fight for :)


I bet you that we had some French (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:13:32 PM EST

saying the same as you when Hitler reoccupied

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler violates the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact by sending German military forces into the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone along the Rhine River in western Germany.

Hitler did this to test the British and French allies. One of the major terms of the Versailles Treaty was that the Rhineland area (which bordered France and was how Germany had invaded France in the past) would remain demilitarized. Hitler took the that chance that the allies would not respond, to show the allies that they didn't take the treaty seriously. At this point in time the British and French armies would have easily crushed the German army, despite Hitler's rearmament campaign. Hitler knew this and so gave his troops orders to retreat if the allies advanced. (showing how he was not attempting an invasion, he was testing the allies) If the allies had responded, Hitler would have been crushed and humiliated, because many German army generals were unsure of Hitler's character and would have wanted him to fall flat on his face!! in the end the allies were preoccupied with the crisis in Abyssinia, and thought that by appeasing him (letting him get away with everything) that he would eventually give up on trying to overturn the Treaty. This turned out to be a big mistake on the allies part, because after Hitler took this risk and got away with it, it was more likely that he would begin to openly break the treaty and invade other countries, which is what he eventually did.

And as if (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 03:15:31 PM EST

There is comparison to be made between WWII Germany and ISIS. Yer looney toons :)


Since you make an insult I will follow with an (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:17:58 PM EST

explanation.

The comparison is not between ISIS and Germany.

It is between the French and English and Americans who could have quashed Hitler at a minimal cost in blood and treasure but thought they could deal with Hitler and you and people like you who don't want to fight when the end would be quick and easy.

I trust that is not to complex for you to understand.


: I don't consider you an expert on quashing (none / 0) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 10:14:51 PM EST

I don't even consider you a marginal quasher :)

And there is it...the inevitable go-to (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:53:07 AM EST

irrelevant Nazi comparison.


And now I'm French :) (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 03:08:23 PM EST

Like that's a baaaaaad thing.

I find the wine to only be okay though. I suppose I'll manage somehow :)


Ah, but the cheese! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Zorba on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 03:14:56 PM EST

The cheese is excellent. ;-)


: Too true (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 03:17:07 PM EST

I gotta another brie in the fridge to bake balsamic cherries on :). When the dad's away...mom will play :)

I can tell when I have made a solid point (2.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:13:30 PM EST

because of the way you respond.

No, you aren't French.

And you aren't an early 40's Repub.

You are a garden variety Leftie who is an isolationist.


: Bahahahahaha! Now I'm an isolationist (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 07:19:00 PM EST

1st of all when did that happen? 2nd, is being an isolationist bad? And this is not to say I am an isolationist, it wasn't long ago I was called a hawk...so whatever, but you sling labels around that it feels like come with dog whistles. Conservatives are such a mess these days though they should probably just stick to whistling past graveyards :)

Long ago, Joe Biden... (none / 0) (#8)
by thomas rogan on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 08:34:50 AM EST

Joe Biden long ago proposed splitting Iraq into three states, long before Malaki could be made into the scapegoat. What was the mystique about keeping the old borders? No one had suggested keeping Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union as one country, after all.

Partitioning a country is not painless (none / 0) (#10)
by Politalkix on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 08:51:57 AM EST

Yugoslavia got partitioned completely after an extended civil war. Please check with the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians whether it was a painless exercise. I am sure it was not.

In 1948, the UN Partition Plan to divide the region of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem did not solve the Israeli-Arab problem in the Middle East.

The partition of British India into two countries, India and Pakistan, led to unimaginable horrors during the partition process (millions dead from rioting and many millions displaced from their homes), numerous subsequent wars between India and Pakistan and two nuclear armed neighbors.


Well we have unimaginable horrors now (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:52:33 PM EST

It is not for us to tell another nation where the lines on the map must be and who must get along with who and who gets to be in charge of who and run things.


But Joe Biden wanted to draw that map (none / 0) (#24)
by Politalkix on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 02:35:16 PM EST

and tell the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds where they should live. You are contradicting yourself.

And since (according to you) we have no business in telling other nations where the lines of their maps should be, why give a selective free pass only to the ISIS Caliphate? Let Iran also revive its Safavid empire (if not the Persian empire) and Turkey revive its Ottoman empire and Israel claim the biblical lands of Judea, Samaria and Jordan Valley and Russia invade the lands of the former Soviet Republics.


: No I'm not (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 03:05:22 PM EST

I have agreed zero times with Joe Biden's war ideas :)
What I think You need is to directly visit a battlefield or at very least be on the outskirts praying or meditating or drinking...whatever it is you do to get through the day hoping for the outcome the intellectuals are preaching on.
War brass tacks is about killing and who can kill who better.
There is no one willing to kill or be killed for the ideas you posted above. And Sunnis are only alongside ISIS so that they can't be victimized. This is all simple math right now.
Few people want to die for stupid $hit. It is easier if you can institutionalize their thought processes though to have a long term trained fighting force...make them into soldiers who will fight when told....but that only works short term if what they are fighting for does not improve their lives.
Hell, we even eventually discovered the Panzers had to be and were high on amphetamines to do what they were doing. Calm down :)

As I understand it, there is no 'mystique' (none / 0) (#38)
by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:50:18 AM EST

but mainly the practical division of resources. There is natural resource wealth in two of the 3 divisions, and not in the third. Setting up a state with no way immediate way to support itself would require external support until it found its way to an industry, tourism (sounds crazy now, but if things were safe there I would love to see it), or some other niche.


Hold your horses (none / 0) (#14)
by koshembos on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56:02 AM EST

The world knows ISIS for less than a month. Yet, trajectories of its world, at least Arab world, domination abound. The media is infested with experts that know everything there is to know about ISIS.

Actually, all we see is a short period of success in Iraq, brutality and dreams of an empire. ISIS is a danger, but in Assad survived quite nicely against them. They haven't seen the Shia militias, Iran Revolutionary guard and the Jordanian military. They may still win, but the panic is premature.

Apropos Megiddo, fantics with AK47s are a poor match for the Israeli military. (Israel is part of the Caliphate.)

ISIS or ISIL (the Levant), (none / 0) (#17)
by KeysDan on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 12:40:01 PM EST

also being referred to as" an al Qaeda-style" insurgency, has been supported by the US, according to Senator Rand Paul (R. KY). ISIS has been funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well, Paul adds, as part of anti-Assad forces. Apparently, the good Syrian rebels.

It is not clear what Senator Paul's sources are, but the surprise and rapidity of ISIS on the Iraqi stage are worthy of investigation. Another intelligence lapse, or something else? Of course, the US has been supporting the Maliki government for years, to the tune of $billions. And, why the internationally ominous "al Qaeda-style" reference?

It's true (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 04:42:17 PM EST

Our strongest allies in the ME have funded and supported ISIS because ISIS has the goods to fight the Shia marginalization of Sunnis with, and there was some recent murdering of Sunnis involved there.

I don't exactly believe that all this equates to our support, we didn't exactly get upset with them though for supporting the Syrian insurgency fighters and that is who ISIS is.

You know who really cracks me up? John McCain, who had his photo taken with Sunni religious extremist fighters in Syria when he was lobbying for us to get involved with all that and give them aid and arms.

You wanna bet me a few faces who were in that photo aren't fighting for ISIS right this minute :)?

It must be so confusing being John McCain and wondering who the real you is :)

If any of the rumors are true though that we sent arms and training to the Syrian insurgency....well then yes....we aided in the formation and success of ISIS


Bahahahahaha I didn't keep up (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 04:47:39 PM EST

With our Syrian efforts. We claim to be only assisting the moderates, what a load of bull$hit :). When you are fighting to the death, nobody on your side checks your religious fervor, they just need your warm body. We have supplied ISIS, I can almost promise you :)

If they aren't packing arms provided by us, we freed them up in the Syrian insurgency so that they could expand the fight to Iraq. We did it. What a bunch of slobbering idiots in DC.


: And if we haven't already, the policies (none / 0) (#39)
by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:51:52 AM EST

McCain and Graham were pushing for most assuredly would have.

And....tanks that they confiscated in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 22, 2014 at 05:13:58 PM EST

Are now being reportedly shipped to the Syrian front to fight Assad.
