Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

Yes but you see, Darth Mane probably likes the French proxy warriors American Revolutionaries and as such doesn't want a comparison that's as vacuous as his Mongol one to be made. Presumably because he doesn't like the Khanate.

The example relies therefore less on conventional understandings of history and the power of an analogy; and more about how you can furiously not backpedal to save face.

 

Fear of the long rifle but also first hand experience of its effectiveness in places like Kings Mtn. It also should be pointed out how extremists like the Sons of Liberty were great propagandists. Paul Revere was one and his illustration depicting the smiling evil-grinning British soldiers gunning down innocent British colonists during the Boston Massacre set the tone.

 

Who said I hated the Khanate?

I love everything war related. Good and bad. I can admire the Mongols for their accomplishments, and dislike them for their methods.

Genghis Khan is certainly one of the top Generals of all time.

 

Oh you love war, excellent.

Tell me what do you want to be when you grow up?

 

LOL!!!

When I say I love war I mean to say is that I love the stories, strategies, tactics, people, etc involved. I like Military History.

Meanie

 

Correct.

However that would beg the question of why one of the most brutal military leaders in history, who presided over the most brutal massacre in history, would warrant nothing more than a clumsy analogy against a second-rate insurgent group who have it within their capacity to cause modest geopolitical waves?

 

Lets see how bold Isis gets.

 

Let's stop with the personal attacks, everyone.

 

I think it's somewhat telling that the IS' main successes have come in either collapsed Syria, or weak Iraq. Any additional expansion would be unlikely given the capacity of states to actually respond militarily.

But who knows - maybe the IS horseback archers will prevail.

 

That's right. Syria/Iraq: these are really failed states they're confronting. And they're on the outskirts of Baghdad but they're not taking it. For one, the Iraqi capitol is more Shiia than it was during the Iraq war. Most of the Sunnis were driven out by Maliki and moved to other Sunni-majority regions of the state. Second, Iran won't let a Shiia bloodbath take place in Baghdad.
Third: ISIS into Baghdad = a type of Lippmann Gap(this usually applies to nation-states or states but something similar could occur here). They will overextend their capabilities and manpower leading to dissension and a weakening of their position as a whole.

 

Yes, but... MONGOLS?

 

Khaaannnnnn!

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...sing-fight-against-islamic-state-will-and-way​

​

Iraq, Syria and jihadism

The will and the way

The coalition may already be losing the fight against Islamic State

​

Oct 11th 2014 | From the print edition​

​

​

​

​

THESE are early days, but the campaign that Barack Obama announced almost exactly a month ago to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State is not going well. In both Syria and Iraq, IS is scoring victories against the West and its Sunni Arab allies. The coalition’s strategy is beset by contradictions and self-imposed constraints, with two of the worst offenders being the two countries that could do the most to degrade IS: America and Turkey. The coalition must rise above these shortcomings, or IS will end up being validated in the eyes of could-be jihadists—the very opposite of what the coalition’s leaders set out to achieve.​

​

As The Economist went to press, the strategically important Kurdish town of Kobane, on the border with Turkey, had been entered by heavily armed IS fighters and surrounded on three sides. Coalition air strikes have delayed the town’s fall, but probably by only a few days. If Kobane succumbs there will be a chorus of demands for a redoubled coalition effort, offset by dire warnings of the dangers of mission creep.​

​

IS poses a threat to the entire Middle East and is potentially a source of terrorism against the West. So more effort makes sense, but only if the campaign can resolve its contradictions.
That task starts with Turkey. Despite a vote in the parliament in Ankara on October 2nd, authorising the country’s forces to operate in Syria, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is engaged in an elaborate juggling act. He says, correctly, that air strikes alone cannot overcome IS and that every means must be used to defeat it. But although he has tanks parked along the border, he refuses to help the Kurds, whom he sees as his enemies. Indeed, even as he leaves Kobane to its fate, his riot police are killing Kurds protesting within Turkey. Mr Erdogan seems wary of offering anything more than rhetorical Turkish support for the coalition, unless America enforces a buffer and no-fly zone on the Syrian side of the border. He is also insisting that America should make removing the Assad regime a higher priority than tackling IS.
America’s strategy is also beset with tensions. Although it wants to see Mr Assad go, it is reluctant to join that fight for now, partly because success in Iraq depends on persuading the government in Baghdad to become sufficiently inclusive to woo back the alienated Sunni tribes. And for that it needs the help of Iran, Mr Assad’s closest ally. Meanwhile, America’s collaboration with the Shia-led government has not made it any easier to win over suspicious Sunnis. While air strikes have helped the Kurds regain some ground from IS, security in Sunni-dominated Anbar province has continued to deteriorate. After IS fighters overran some Iraqi army bases and seized control of Abu Ghraib, within shelling range of Baghdad’s international airport, America sent in Apache attack helicopters to hit IS targets along the road that runs west of Baghdad to the IS stronghold of Falluja. Calling up the Apaches—not boots on the ground, perhaps, but certainly boots in the air—is an admission that high-flying fast jets have their limitations.
The coalition is also up against the law of unintended consequences. After its first big attack in Syria, it has targeted the oil refineries which help finance IS’s activities and other bits of IS infrastructure. But military action has also driven the dwindling band of “moderate rebels”—the ones that America aims to train and arm—into the embrace of jihadist groups, such as the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, which now portray the coalition as an anti-Sunni stooge of the Assad regime.
Kurds all the way
John Allen, a former general and Mr Obama’s special envoy for the coalition against IS, flew to Ankara this week in an effort to find common ground with the Turks. Nobody would claim there are easy answers for either Mr Obama or Mr Erdogan, but both are guilty of willing an end while withholding the means to secure it. In Mr Erdogan’s case, it is nonsense to claim he backs the effort to destroy IS while he leaves Kobane’s Kurds to be slaughtered. If the town falls, both Turkey’s reputation and its security will suffer a grievous blow. Better to act as a full member of the coalition and use the goodwill this generates to influence it from the inside. Mr Erdogan should use his troops to save Kobane—and give America permission to fly from the giant NATO airbase at nearby Incirlik.
For his part, Mr Obama needs to face up to two things. First, most of the coalition wants to see the back of Mr Assad: his serial brutalities against his own people have appalled Sunnis everywhere. Russia and Iran have hinted that they would accept a more pragmatic military figure in his place if their interests were respected. Mr Obama should work on that. Second, the fight against IS cannot succeed without competent troops on the ground to guide coalition aircraft to their targets, pursue enemy leaders and take and hold territory. That calls for the use of special forces in greater numbers and on more missions. Other troops need to be embedded in the better Iraqi units to train and mentor them. When Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, called for that, he was slapped down by Mr Obama. With such actions the president means to look resolute, but the people he reassures most are the jihadists.​

From the print edition: Leaders​

​

A solid piece. Mr Obama and Mr Erdogan are making any form of progress and success against IS difficult. This is't surprising, per se - Mr Obama has never been the astute diplomat or world leader we hoped he would be. And Mr Erdogan's stance on the Kurds is unlikely to shift any time soon.

One could, I suppose, argue that Mr Obama's crippling paralysis on international affairs is the result of his predecessor's immense and sustained damage to US prestige. That could be a fair point; Mr Bush was probably the most destructive President the US ever had. But Mr Obama did also talk about consensus building and in this case, he seems unable to form one.

Either way, this is going... swimmingly.

 

he is degrading and destroying his own degradation and destruction of isis. this guy is DEEP.

 

I'd be shocked if the Turks lifted a finger to help the Kurds. They'd like to sit back and watch somebody else wipe them out for a change.

 

Whatever the cost, too, it seems.

 

Adolf Eichmann's best man died in Syria, reportedly having given Assad advice on how to torture people

http://www.timesofisrael.com/alois-brunner-most-wanted-nazi-died-unrepentant-in-syria/

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-cl...-at-lindt-chocolate-cafe-20141214-127824.html

Some clown supporting these other clowns has taken hostages in Sydney.

Can these guys just get cancer and die? We are disinterested in their version of Islam and shari'a. Like 100%.

 

I'm not generally a fan of military intervention but the small spec ops squads taking IS guys out without obliterating civilians in the process meet with my approval.

http://rt.com/uk/208175-sas-secret-attack-isis/

 

I'm all in favor if this will contain ISIS and prevent the U.S. from sending more "advisors" in.

 

Russia Today story citing a Daily Mail story. We need Fox News to complete the circle.

 

Haha!

The Mail on Sunday ran a feature but it's been covered by more reputable rags.

I think it's the best approach. IS have few friends, even al Qaida have denounced them as barbaric. Surgical strikes and supply line disruption might just do the trick.

 

You honestly have no way of knowing whether or not civilians are being harmed in the process or not. It would be highly unusual if they weren't, since these people are in areas with civilians and firearms are being used by both sides.

 

Actually, Al-Anbar and Ninevah provinces, where ISIS has consolidated their control, are lightly populated compared to the central provinces of Iraq(except for the eastern side of both). That's why the article mentions the spec ops using 4x4s.

 

Yes, they are relatively lightly populated. But people still live there. ISIS is occupying towns and villages, not mountain-top villain hideouts. Even if they were, the group does a reasonable amount of kidnapping for a variety of reasons. Any or all of the above mean that civilians are probably nearby once the shooting starts. You're kidding yourself if you think no one ever gets hurt inadvertently.