home

The West "Just Doesn't Get" ISIS

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of news site Rai al-Youm and the author of several books on Islamic extremism including this new book on ISIS, has a column today about how the West still doesn't comprehend ISIS.

He says The West and the invasion of Iraq are responsible for the creation and expansion of ISIS. ISIS is a bigger threat than al Qaida ever was, but we cannot defeat ISIS militarily.

[More...]

After fourteen years in Afghanistan and ten in Iraq (not to mention the drone campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan), isn’t it obvious that a military solution is impossible and that, in terms of ‘hearts and minds’, such missions are counter-productive, often propelling ‘moderate’ Muslims into the arms of the extremists?

...The response is always the same: bomb the hell out them. But the assumption that military superiority will win the day has not only been proved wrong, it is arguably directly responsible for the evolution of IS.

How the U.S. is to blame for the rise of ISIS:

Had the Pentagon stopped [after Afghanistan], we would not have IS, the spawn of al-Qaeda, knocking at the southern gates of Europe now. It was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that revitalised the organisation and popularised its cause.

He says extremism remains and increases because its causes remain. He also blames the U.S. for the increased sectarian tensions in the region:

Let us consider Iraq: before the 2003 US-led invasion and occupation, sectarian tensions in Iraq were few and Sunni-Shi’a couples were commonplace among my Iraqi friends.

He says Paul Bremer got it wrong when he ordered the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces, thinking all of them were Sunnis.

The disbanded Iraqi army—which was established before Saddam came to power—was firmly nationalist and, contrary to Bremer’s belief was mixed, in sectarian terms, with its fair share of Shi’a generals. Embittered by Bremer’s treatment of them, many Sunni commanders joined the insurgency, taking whole brigades with them. These elite ex-army men are now playing a leading role in the Islamic State’s devastating military successes, training fighters, planning military strategy and directing intelligence units.

The Shi'a militias and Kurds are not the solution:

The government and its western backers have been relying on Shi’a militias to battle the extremists—but they are just as vicious and prone to committing atrocities as IS; Kurdish forces have also been deployed, but their agenda is essentially separatist.

His solution for halting ISIS: Let the warring factions battle it out and destroy each other. Foreign interference should be limited to "passive diplomacy." If that doesn't happen, he concludes:

[O]nly a long term, carefully thought out, and region-wide strategy could work. A concerted effort by the region’s policy-makers and influencers to introduce and nurture values of tolerance, unity, mutual co-operation and peace would have a good chance of ousting IS... because hatred, anger and resentment are the oxygen it needs to flourish.

< Defense Rests in James Holmes' Aurora Theater Shooting Trial | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, George Tenet, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and all your minions.  Especially Tony Blair.


    Just like Kissenger (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:24:26 PM EST
    Before the Invasion, Iraq was an idyllic place.  Proof that the Americans should support brutal dictators around the world to maintain order.  If only we had supported Saddam Hussein, he would have kept the fringe elements that became ISIS under control by imprisoning and beheading them himself before they grew.

    Yeah, we're so much (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:43:08 PM EST
    better than Saddam.

    But that's because Saddam didn't have the American Psychological Association organizing his war on truth.

    Parent

    Are you actually arguing that ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 08:45:27 PM EST
    ... Iraq is better off today than it was 15 years ago? Seriously, I really don't know what else to say in response to your regurgitation of AM squawk radio claptrap, other than to note that you appear to be completely impervious to both the present reality in the region and our country's rather sorry history of interaction with Iraq.

    Parent
    No, only... (none / 0) (#23)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    I'm only saying that if it were the Republican Nixon/Kissenger supporting the Shah of Iran or other assorted right wing dictators under the guise of a country's "unique character" and because they contained assorted extremists (whether religious or Communist), they would be excoriated by left wing bloggers.

    Parent
    In a word (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 06:37:03 AM EST
     yes,
    If only we had supported Saddam Hussein, he would have kept the fringe elements that became ISIS under control by imprisoning and beheading them himself before they grew.
    , if you substitute tolerate and contain for support.

    The fact is Sadam did effectively suppress the Jihadist movement, secular Sunnis versus radical Sunnis, the best case scenario for the west.

    Whatever you think of Sadam, Iraq was a stronghold for secular Islam in the region, we destroyed that stronghold with predictable results.

    Parent

    Pretty much agree with all you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 04:50:19 PM EST
    Nothing complicated here.

    Every nation, culture, and/or society is unique unto itself. So, what's happened in the M.E, or, rather, what we caused to happen in the M.E. should surprise no one. I could sit here writing ageless truisms all day long ("Those that forget history are condemned to......" "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," and, so on) and they would point to one thing: No nation/society can impose its culture on to another one......period.

    Look at all the governments in the M.E. Until we elected a historical, imbecilic, President back in 2000, The M.E. was a relatively sound & stable region. Yes, the countries were corrupt, and, yes, virtually all were repressive dictatorships. But, in terms of the region's relationship with the U.S, everything was hunky-dory. We knew how to play that game; hell, we practically invented it. It's simple, pay off the power brokers, partner up with the leadership, exploit the people and resources, and voila, Peace & Prosperity reigns.  Well, it reigns, then, as now, for the 1%, anyway. And, please understand, the subject we're discussing here is, "stability," not, "fairness," and, in that regard it was a successfully policy.  

    Now, regarding Iraq, a little history is called for. All the stories about the brutality of the Hussein regime are (for the most part) true. But, Saddam didn't invent that play book. Almost all the M.E. countries adopted, in one form or another, similar policies. And, while the default memory we've adopted when talking about pre-2003 Iraq, "Saddam Hussein, a "brutal torturer & killer," may be true, it was true (and, this is important) for only a small percentage of Iraq's citizens. Absolutely, get on a government list titled, "suspected, subversives, plotters & schemers," and, you probably should start worrying when if get a 3:00 A.M. knock on your door. But, as far as the rest of Iraq's citizens were treated, the country was a virtual oasis of enlightenment, progressiveness, and equality.

    Women enjoyed virtual equality with men, culture and education were government priorities, and, while Iraq was an Islamic country, it functioned in a mostly secular manner.

    Wrapping up, I'm sure that my comments are subject to all sorts of criticism. But, I believe the conversation was about, whether Iraq, the M.E, and the U.S, are better, or, worse off today, by our "taking Saddam out?" And, if we are honest about Iraq's condition today, on a relative basis, I think that there's only one conclusion that can be reached: Our assault on Iraq in 2003 will probably be remembered as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in all of America's history.

    And, unfortunately, the damage we inflicted was so bad it will be many decades before we can even begin to assess its totality.

    Parent

    Using NY Shooter's words, I ask (none / 0) (#22)
    by Green26 on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:01:50 PM EST
    "whether Iraq, the M.E, and the U.S, are better, or, worse off today, by [the US/Obama pulling out of Iraq in 2011, after AQ had largely been defeated, Iraq had become considerably more stabilized, and Syria wasn't yet a breeding ground terror groups]." And, if we are honest about Iraq's condition today, on a relative basis, I think that there's only one conclusion that can be reached: [the US/Obama shouldn't have pulled out of Iraq at that time].

    Parent
    You see (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    you're advocating for continuing a mess that was set in motion when Bush disbanded the Iraqi army. I guess more soldiers would have done what? How many thousands of Americans are you willing to let die because of the lies of Bush? That is the question. Apparently you are okay with untold Americans dying because you can't handle the truth of the situation. Obama was handed a mess but he chose to run for president and no one made him but no one is going to buy this lie of Iraq was a utopia until Obama came on the scene.

    The truth of the matter is Iraq will always be a quagmire. It was one a few months after we went in and it will continue to be one until they settle the problem themselves.

    Parent

    One ridiculous conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    Particulalry considering to consistently bury your head in the sand ignoring one, critical but inconvenient fact that bursts your whole argument.

    We were legally required to pull out of Iraq under the terms of the SOFA Bush signed.

    Now is where you insert the silly claim that Obama should have magically made the Iraqis sign a new SOFA that neither side wanted.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Yman, we have debated the SOFA (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    ad nauseam. I don't recall ever seeing anyone who was actually involved or close to the action at the time, use your (bogus) excuse or say that the US/Obama couldn't have negotiated what they believe was needed to stay in Iraq.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    we have debated the SOFA ad nauseam, when you can not win on the facts you resort to the ultimate dodge :  
    that the US/Obama couldn't have negotiated what they believe was needed to stay in Iraq.
    , demanding that your opponents prove a negative. Sorry you lose.

    Parent
    Then read and learn what did happen (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    back then:

    What killed the deal

    The agreement failed over a demand that American troops be given immunity from prosecution by Iraqis, a very touchy political issue within the Iraqi Parliament. Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.

    But no immunity meant no sizable residual troop presence.

    "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October 2011 news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."



    Parent
    And I suppose someone should care (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:07:45 PM EST
    ... what you saw, let alone what you can recall seeing?

    Heh.

    BTW - The Iraqi public was strongly against a continued US presence and the members of the Iraqi parliament were well aware of this.  Moreover, SOFA talks broke down over Iraqi refusal to provide for legal immunity for US soldiers, as provided in the prior SOFA.  But perhaps you can't recall seeing these basic facts.


    Parent

    I tried and tried but I can't resist (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    Yman, in case you forgot we invaded and conquered Iraq.

    That means we could have done what we pleased.

    Now Bush screwed up.  But Obama, supposedly the smartest man in the world, is the one that left.

    He is ISIS's daddy. Deal with it and all the blood that comes with it.

    Parent

    If Conquered Iraq... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:03:15 PM EST
    ...means strutting on aircraft carrier with a banner saying 'Mission Accomplished', then yes we conquered Iraq.

    Back in reality, we in no way conquered Iraq.  The idea that the country was ever under our control is about as silly as the idea that we can defeat ISIS with our military might.

    Conquering nations don't need surges to try, and fail miserably, to control Baghdad.  They don't need to.  At no pint in time did the US control Baghdad, even after the 5 brigades were added for the surge.  At best, we controlled a third of the city.

    Parent

    Refreshing (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    bit of clarity from you.
    in case you forgot we invaded and conquered Iraq.
    That means we could have done what we pleased.
    That's Hitler talk Jim, we fought wars over invasions and conquests, we hung people for doing what they pleased.

     Now you advocate America as the bully, forcing our will on countries and peoples by force of arms, blatantly breaking long standing international law.

    Might does not make right and when a Nation starts acting as it does, it's headed to that place on the map that reads  "here be monsters".

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim - ISIS is at your feet (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    ... and all the other armchair cheerleaders who wanted Bush to go to war.

    You broke it, you bought it.

    BTW - "We conquered Iraq" - heh.  "Mission accomplished" according to the chickenhawks.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Hey there, Georgia, (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:03:17 AM EST
    A little harsh, don't you think?

    Greeny is entitled to his opinion, no? And, he should get some credit for the verbal/visual, "Penn & Teller" impersonation too; pretty slick all around I thought.

    Look at how cleverly he gets his points across, and, using my own words to boot! But, you gotta look real close to catch the verbal jiu-jitsu. I'm truly impressed; First, he goes along, using my words, "strategically," to get you nodding your head in approval, then, he morphs into "tactical" mode, reaches up his sleeve for the hidden "kicker,"  "the US/Obama shouldn't have pulled out of Iraq at that time,"(Jimaka's patented answer to everything, btw) and, then, yells out victoriously, "BLACKJACK!"

    Woo-boy, that was fun, but now, Green26, let me try to answer you in a slightly more serious manner. Unfortunately, the answer will be disappointing, "I have no effing clue whether we should, or, should not have pulled out of Iraq at that time." And, that's not just a "brush off" answer either.

    I'm sure you know (I sure as hell do) that whatever plans are in play when entering a battle, they're thrown out the window the instant the first shot is fired. After 10 years of fighting a maddening, unfamiliar, and, asymmetrical war, with hundreds and hundreds of interlocking, overlapping, consecutive, concurrent, AND divergent, strategic AND political, contingencies to consider, I'm sure you can understand that giving a "Yes, or, No" answer to that question is just impossible. And, anybody who thinks there is a "Yes/No" answer shouldn't be allowed to participate in this debate either.

    This is not a back-handed way of me criticizing you, or your question (I believe you've made some very interesting & insightful contributions here) it's just that the answer would have to come in the form of a dialogue, and not in the much easier, one word, response.

    To put some perspective to what I'm trying to say, try this one: Should we have dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima? And/or, was is really necessary to drop the second one on Nagasaki a few days later? I'm sure we all have quick, knee-jerk, emotion based answers to those questions. But, I'm also sure that a "Yes/No" response won't cut it, not if you truly want an honest, thorough, and complete answer.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 09:40:42 AM EST
    it's the conservative myth thing. The myth is that everything was fine until Obama came along. But again, so many conservatives reside in a self induced bubble there really is no convincing them. When you look at the polls that say 2/3 of Republicans think that Iraq was the right thing to do and that there really were WMD's they are refusing to face up to the facts of the situation and would rather retreat to a fantasy world and unfortunately no amount of facts are going to remove them from the comfort of their fantasy world. It's just easier to keep up the fantasy than face the harsh truths.

    Parent
    et al again (2.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    Yman - There would have been no magic. All Obama had to do was tell'em we were staying. It's called being big enough to get what you need to do.

    Mordiggian - You don't mind nicknames?? Please. Don't tempt me. ;-)

    GA - This thread is about ISIS now. What, who, when, why and if doesn't matter. The question is, what should we do about ISIS?

    Now, instead of answering that question all you can do is argue politics. Thanks for proving my point.

    Anybody - Is there anyone here who is willing to describe what they would do about ISIS and discuss what all the ramifications are?? And remember, the author says just don't do anything.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    Jim it kind of does matter. Do you want the same people who created ISIS handling the situation? Obviously using the same fraternity of failure in Iraq to come up with a solution is a bad idea. The person Jeralyn links to posits something to think about.

    If you've got nothing but the same failed solutions from failures from the Bush administration there's no use even discussing it. If you've got another idea then go on with it.

    Parent

    FYI, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    You can't force the Iraqis to agree to give our soldiers immunity, or to a new SOFA for that matter.  Unless, of course, you have some magic potion.

    All Obama had to do was tell'em we were staying. It's called being big enough to get what you need to do.

    How would YOU know?  

    Heh.

    You giving this advice is like Limbaugh offering dieting advice.

    Parent

    And we couldn't force the volunteer (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    Soldiers to desire to fight in and for the idea of Iraq either, because that is where a unified Iraq is now.  It's an idea, not a reality. Once it was obvious there were no WMDs, there was no reason worth dying for for any U.S. soldier to commit to.  So they didn't, and their families pressured them to get out of the service as quickly as possible...and rightfully so.  I will never understand how Conservatives still believe they have forces at their fingertips willing to die for any silly notion.

    Parent
    Hit me with your best shot Jim. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    I'm not afraid of old outdated Southern insults, or old outdated Southerners, for that matter.

    Parent
    Sounds (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 05:58:21 PM EST
    pretty much spot on to me.

    This is part of a comment below the Atwan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Green26 on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    column:  "I have read a lot of articles about ISIS. This is easily the worst of them all. For someone who claims to have the expertise you have, this is beyond pathetic. It is also shallow and deliberately misleading,...

    You do not note that it has been proven that the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey.. funded and armed anyone who was willing to pick up arms against Al-Assad and the Syrian army. The funding came in the form of tens of billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with ISIS fighters smuggled into Syria by Turkey and Jordan. This has been exposed and as a journalist this is a terrible error on your part.

    Further more, there are no civil wars in Iraq or Syria. You make it sound that ISIS is comprised of Iraqis and Syrians, which has also been proven to be a lie. The majority of them are Saudi, North African, Afghan, Chechneyan.. up to 80% are foreigners. This is not a civil war, it is a foreign invasion.

    It is also a complete lie that ISIS has wide support in the Muslim world, simply because most of the victims of ISIS are muslim. The Arab and Muslim world has seen what ISIS do to their victims and they want none of it. The only country in the world where their version of Islam is practiced is Saudi Arabia. You should have noted that ISIS follow the teachings of Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the father of Wahhabi Islam. It should have been stated clearly that they have the blessing of Saudi's top clerics.

    Your point on Palestine is pathetic. ...

    It is also false that there is a Shi'a militia fighting ISIS. It is an Iraqi militia comprised of Shias, Sunnis, and Christians. Their mere existence is proof that ISIS is foreign to the middle east and that they have not succeeded in destroying the true secular nature of its people.

    Maybe the worst thing you did is fail to mention the part that the Syrian army and Hezbollah are playing. They are the only reason ISIS has not completely taken over Syria and they are the only path to its salvation.

    You are the one who just doesn't get it. People like you are the reason why so many in the West don't get it either."

    several reputable analysts have (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 01:54:58 AM EST
    recommended the article on twitter today. None that I have read have criticized it.

    And the commenter you quote is wrong -- there is a Shi'a milita. The Times of India yesterday:

    Iraqi Shia militia fighters are tightening a noose around the Islamic State-held city of Falluja west of Baghdad as the first stage of a ounteroffensive in the Sunni province of Anbar, likely to determine the course of the conflict in coming months.

    Same from the Telegraph in May which adds:

    That the Iraqi government has been forced to rely on Shia militias for the task is yet another sign of the weakness of its US-trained army, despite it being backed by US air power and military advisers re-posted to Baghdad last year.

    And the BBC. The Shi'a militias are backed by Iran.

    Parent

    Reading about this author (wiki) does (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 10, 2015 at 11:20:56 PM EST
    not inspire me to trust him.

    Then read Juan Cole (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:00:39 AM EST
    At his blog, Informed Comment.  His analysis is good because he can read and understand Arabic.  His latest post is about the late Omar Sharif.

    Parent
    Why would anyone be!I've the media about this? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 07:57:24 AM EST
    Western media have zero track record of being honest or knowledgeable. They have proven facile and gullible time after time, reporters and analysts alike. There is no truth in the psycopathy of brutality, only wretched lies told by everyone to everyone else. We are dealing with something that has NO answer, which is what life usually vomits up when you force yourselves and others to eat sh*t for decades. Islam's been at war with itself since the schism. State sponsored mass murder is like that. And until the arms trade is halted, and it's only getting worse now, come on,we know this will go on forever. If America is good at one thing it is absolutely deluding itself in uniquely American ways. And we are in full delusion mode to this day.

    cut out that schism line, I meant to. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 07:59:08 AM EST
    Sigh...

    Parent
    ISIS (none / 0) (#13)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:24:38 AM EST
    The writer admits that ISIS is composed of disgruntled Saddam Hussein Sunni ex-military -- you know, that same military known for its brutality against unarmed men, women and children. What's changed???

    The West may not understand IS, but the Kurds [and Shia] sure do.

    And that's why the Kurds are risking their lives fighting them, and why the West should be giving the Kurds everything they request to take down IS.

    This author is afraid that that will happen.

    Site violator (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 09:19:37 AM EST


    The air bra? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    I thought those were free :)

    Parent
    The air bra? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    I thought those were free :)

    Parent
    The link to the column (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    doesn't work.

    But based on the excerpts it appears that the author thinks that IS will just peter out after a few years and he is wrong when he writes:

    After fourteen years in Afghanistan and ten in Iraq (not to mention the drone campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan), isn't it obvious that a military solution is impossible

    First, the military solution worked in Iraq until we left.

    And please. Let's don't get into a political argument over who is to blame. We each have our rock solid positions.

    But the fact is that we did leave and IS bloomed.

    Secondly, we haven't tried another military solution. We have dabbled at war. And that doesn't work. Put the resources on the problem and it can be solved.

    That we have not is a political based decision. I think we will suffer greatly because we have failed to remove the cancer in its early stage.

    Time will tell. In the meantime we will just have to read what the author writes and try to figure out his agenda.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    are a hoot Jim, first you say  
    Let's don't get into a political argument over who is to blame
    then turn right around and say.
    That we have not is a political based decision


    Parent
    LOL, you noticed it too. (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 02:23:13 AM EST
    And, that's why I only make a comment when addressing Jim; never, ever, try entering into a dialogue. Be aware that he sports a mean verbal chipper/shredder. Just stand back, and don't get sucked in.

    I just can't understand why everyone doesn't see that.

    I give Jim his due respect as a fellow Tennessean, and a sprightly Senior. And, trust me, I can separate this Jim from "that" Jim (if you know what I mean.)

    Life is too short, hate makes it even shorter.

    Parent

    I'd Put it Differently (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    But the fact is that we did leave and IS bloomed.

    But the fact is Bush and Cheney (However the prime mover was Paul Wolfowitz.) decided we had to remove Saddam Hussein and nothing has worked well since.

    Parent

    "We Built Their Death Squads: (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    ISIS's Bizarre Orgin Story"     Link NSFW.

    From the WaPo:

    In March 2009, in a wind-swept sliver of Iraq, a sense of uncertainty befell the southern town of Garma, home to one of the Iraq war's most notorious prisons. The sprawling Camp Bucca detention center, which had detained some of the war's most radical extremists along the Kuwait border, had just freed hundreds of inmates. Families rejoiced, anxiously awaiting their sons, brothers and fathers who had been lost to Bucca for years. But a local official fretted.

    "These men weren't planting flowers in a garden," police chief Saad Abbas Mahmoud told The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid, estimating that 90 percent of the freed prisoners would soon resume fighting. "They weren't strolling down the street. This problem is both big and dangerous. And regrettably, the Iraqi government and the authorities don't know how big the problem has become."

    Mahmoud's assessment of Camp Bucca, which funneled 100,000 detainees through its barracks and closed months later, would prove prescient. The camp now represents an opening chapter in the history of the Islamic State -- many of its leaders, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were incarcerated and probably met there. According to former prison commanders, analysts and soldiers, Camp Bucca provided a unique setting for both prisoner radicalization and inmate collaboration -- and was formative in the development of today's most potent jihadist force.



    et al (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    FlJoe - The point is that we have not used our full military capabilities see the sentence directly above.

    Secondly, we haven't tried another military solution. We have dabbled at war. And that doesn't work. Put the resources on the problem and it can be solved.

    Mordiggian, from your link.

    if we're not the father of ISIS, the United States is at least some sort of uncle.

    I don't think anyone fails to recognize that when we invaded Iraq we should have been committed to stay until it was truly stable.

    Again, let's don't start arguing politics or who did what when, the fact is that we left and ISIS came into being.

    That's reality. The question now is what should we do about it?

    Abdel Bari Atwan argues that a military solution is impossible. Given that ISIS stated goal is to establish a world wide caliphate, or at least achieve Osama bin Ladin's goal of:

    So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    I don't see that we have a choice. These people are as serious as cancer and like cancer they will just keep spreading.

    RickyJim - Yes, the initial strategy was wrong  but the surge got everything under control. Again, not debating whose fault it was that we left...you blame Bush and I blame Obama....we did leave and what is, is.

    Chip writes:

    And that's why the Kurds are risking their lives fighting them, and why the West should be giving the Kurds everything they request to take down IS.

    This author is afraid that that will happen.

    Yes, but given that Abdel Bari Atwan is highly sympathetic of the Palestinians who are a client state of Iran who is supposedly fighting ISIS, you would think it would be the other way.

    NYShooter writes:

    Until we elected a historical, imbecilic, President back in 2000, The M.E. was a relatively sound & stable region.

    Again trying to leave the politics out, you are a Democrat and there is nothing any Repub could do that would please you, the words "relatively sound" ring rather loud.

    First, the situation in Lebanon had been boiling. Al Qaeda was enjoying the mentoring of the Taliban and bin Ladin was making it plain, see the above link to  the 1997 interview by Peter Arnett, that  he was on the war path. The USS Cole attack was very fresh, 10/2000, and Iraq had been violating the terms of the Desert Storm UN sanctioned agreement regularly along with the Oil For Food agreement. Saddam had gassed his on people and the world's major intelligence agencies believed he had WMD's. And the Prime Minister of Niger believed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium.

    In fact, Bush, dumb though he was in your view, immediately increased the CIA's resources five fold and on 7/5/2001 Rice warned all the agency heads that an attack was expected. That may have failed but it was done. And then we have all the foul ups by FBI not looking at a hard drive because of the Chinese Firewall Clinton's minions had installed.

    Now we can argue all day whether or not Bush should have invaded Iraq. I say yes, based on what he knew then, he should have. You will disagree and that's fine. I say the strategy of what to do next was wrong but the surge fixed that.

    So let's have a beer and move on to right now. And right now the problem is ISIS and what should we do now, not what was done years and years ago.

    Yeah. I know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:18:57 PM EST
    let's not get political about how we got there and messed things up,  let's get political about the failure to completely clean up the mess that's there now.

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 09:35:14 PM EST
    so  
    We have dabbled at war. And that doesn't work. Put the resources on the problem and it can be solved.
    I wouldn't call thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties "dabbling". I wouldn't call 8 years  and a couple trillion dollars "dabbling" I wouldn't call a continued deployment of 100+ combat troops "dabbling". Your mileage obviously varies by a light year.

    Now you want to do it again, this time no pussy footing around. We do it right this time and it will be over in a matter of weeks, this time it will pay for its self, this time we will be greeted as liberators, this time the coffins will not be landing at Dover in a steady stream. You make it sound sooooo easy.

    Parent

    et al 2 (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    NYhooter -  First a genial good morning and a simple question. How do you expect to have a serious discussion when you take someone's moniker and change it? Green26 becomes "Greeny". And then instead of answering my remarks  you  decide that I am a "sprightly Senior."

    What does my age and physical condition have to do with anything??? I mean I thought, as a liberal, you would be against describing/responding to people based on their age??

    My comment was about ISIS, which is the subject of the post. To that end, as I pointed out to FLJoe and now you:

    First, the military solution worked in Iraq until we left.

    And please. Let's don't get into a political argument over who is to blame. We each have our rock solid positions.

    Does that confuse you? Let me try again. The subject is ISIS and what we should do now. Arguing over how we got here changes nothing and accomplishes only ego enhancement when we feel we have scored points against our opponents and has been the subject of many other posts of a political nature.

    Now as to:

    I'm sure you know (I sure as hell do) that whatever plans are in play when entering a battle, they're thrown out the window the instant the first shot is fired.

    That's true when you are speaking of a "battle." But that isn't true when we speak beyond a battle. There is a strategy to consider. Losing a battle may or may not change the war's results. And while tactics may change based on short term results and situations, strategies are much firmer and should be well developed before the battle and not changed based on current situations. Remember there were times on D-Day in which it appeared that we were being thrown back. If we had decided to withdraw the war would have been extended and thousands more killed.

    FlJoe - The subject is ISIS, and that was my point. We have dabbled around in our response. We have not brought our full force to bear on the problem that was created by our withdrawal.

    Should we?? I say yes. And no, I haven't said it will be easy or quick. You are just making things up. But...and here's the point..Waiting will only require more force, more resources and more people killed.

    So I am refuting and commenting on the article and the author's position. You, because you don't want to, for whatever reason, think the problem will just go away, which is what he claims to believe.


    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    I understand the subject is ISIS. I also understand you are using the same argument that Bush and the neo-cons used in 2003, just substituting ISIS for Saddam, without explaining what exactly will be different this time. We spent eight years at tremendous cost trying to turn into Iraq into some kind of stable state, we did not succed.

    Parent
    I don't mind nicknames (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    and since I'm on the other side of 5 decades, I'll gladly be the Sprightly Senior here.

    Parent
    Don't (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    bother to argue with someone who can't handle the truth. The fact that ISIS was created by Bush is something Jim will never accept.

    Parent
    "Let's not bicker and argue (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    about who killed who."

    King of Swamp Castle,  Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    Parent

    Jim's omnibus "et all" responses (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    Is it not blog-clogging if you lump 10 replies into one, long reply several times?

    Just curious.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    know about that, but be careful guys and gals, heavy doses of concentrated jabberwocky, doublespeak and revisionist history can be hazardous to your mental health.

    Parent
    Better off? (none / 0) (#24)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    Iraq had attacked our ally Kuwait in 1991.  If we had marched in and toppled Saddam (the way we marched in and toppled Hitler) and imposed an American style constitution, had an American governor for 5-10 years, and had American boots on the ground to this day, Iraq would have been fine.  Although Joe Biden was right that it should have been partitioned into three states, much as the mythological Yugoslavia was partitioned into several countries with no one except a few Serb nationalists objecting now.

    et al again and sure enough (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    No, GA. If you think ISIS is not a threat then just say you agree with the author. I have said I favor a military solution.

    And Bush is no longer in power. The new President is named O B A M A.

    Mordiggian. Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.  Of course you couldn't resist....lol.

    FLJoe - The first difference is that ISIS is invading and killing in an open and overt manner while threatening and recruiting.

    When, if at all, would you act?

    Jim (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    it doesn't matter if Bush is in power. The GOP is still shopping his solutions. That is the problem. And apparently you are still in love with the Bush fantasy solutions that do not work. No point in discussing someone who has bought into continuing the failed GOP policies in the middle east.

    Parent
    I'm not bating you and (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    I'm certainly not de-bating you.

    Parent
    Did you mean... (none / 0) (#67)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    ..."bating", or "baiting"?

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    If the US had not pulled out of Iraq in 2011 (and still had a military presence in Iraq in 2014), do you think ISIS would have taken Mosul?

    Entirely (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    possible. The insurgents were taking territory when we were there before 2011 and it could have been a mass slaughter of US ground troops.

    The truth of the matter is there will never be enough troops there because if the entire population does not want you there it's never going to work.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    If we had nuked Moscow in 1946, do you think we would have had a 40 year cold war?

    Parent
    Sort of depends... (none / 0) (#68)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    ...upon whether there was a declared war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. at the time or not.

    If there wasn't, and we just up and did it, I don't know if any other country in the world would ever trust us again about anything.

    I kinda wish a very skilled author of fiction would take that premise (nuking Moscow in '46 without a declared war underway) and run with it.

    Parent

    Another Question - ISIS (none / 0) (#49)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    Had the US not invaded Iraq, do you think ISIS would not have come to exist? Taliban and Al Qaeda existed prior to the invasion of Iraq, I think going back into the 90's for Al Qaeda and the 80's for the Taliban. Bin Laden obviously "existed" before the Iraq invasion. Some of the early ISIS leaders were part of terrorist groups prior to the Iraq invasion, I believe.

    How long would Hussein have lasted as the leader of Iraq, or lived? What would have happened after his departure?

    I see that General Odierno said in 2010 that 80% of the ISI's (which grew out of AQI, I believe) top 42 leaders, recruiters and financiers, had been killed or captured, with only 8 remaining, and that they had been cut off from al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. Had the US kept a military presence in Iraq and been more on top of Syria (which even people like H. Clinton have said the US should have done), would ISIS have developed like it has today?

    Question (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    If we had 100k combat troops in Nigeria would Boko Haram exist? Probably not in it's current dangerous form. The truth is we could probably enforce our will militarily, at considerable costs, on the population of any smallish country. Just because we can do such things doesn't mean it's the right or smart thing to do, matter of fact it has been proven again and again, post ww2, to end in disaster or at best a very expensive "draw".

    You once again are dodging the debate, this time using hypothetical scenarios instead of historical facts and geo-political realities.

     

    Parent

    Are you equating the risks (none / 0) (#55)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    and threats of ISIS and Boko Haram? I sure hope not. The US was in Iraq. It had defeated AQI. The US pulled out. ISIS developed from the remnants of AQI, and cut its teeth in Syria.

    Parent
    Of (none / 0) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    course not, just pointing out Jihadism is a worldwide problem. Any large scale military action ultimately is just a very expensive single shot at whack a mole.

    Parent
    ISIS (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 07:31:53 AM EST
    has been there even since we invaded Iraq. ISIS was formed from the insurgents we were fighting for years but just because the insurgents didn't call themselves ISIS back in 2004 doesn't mean they were not there.

    Parent
    Why does everyone forget (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    Their military was stop-lossed, forced to serve in Iraq.  Staying in Iraq was not agreed to either, Bush agreed to leave and signed off on it.  But staying in Iraq was not sustainable, it had at the point where we left destroyed the troop readiness and morale of the United States Army.  It had destroyed retention and meeting recruitment goals too.

    Parent
    More ISIS Bombings in Baghdad, (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    28 Dead.  In a statement posted on social media, IS described Sunday night's bombings as the "pounce of the monotheists on the chests of the apostates".

    Meanwhile, the UN has said that about 15,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the start of 2014.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 11, 2015 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    call girl?  That new