ISIL War in Iraq and Syria

[Farnan]

Now that the war against ISIS now involves both Iraq and Syria I decided to post a new thread so that the same arguments don't occur in both threads.

This thread is about the war between a coalition led by the United States against the terror group ISIL (also known as Daesh, ISIS and IS).

Some of the latest information:

Speech by POTUS on 10 September:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...address-nation

Official White House Strategy for Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...nd-levant-isil

DOD statement on the deployment of additional troops to Iraq:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123127

Iraq Live Updates from Al Jazeera:

http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Iraq_2

So it looks like we will have a drone base in Iraqi Kurdistan. And the plan in Iraq and Syria will be multi-faceted involving local troops and US airstrikes.

What do you think of the situation in Iraq and Syria? What is your opinion of the President's plan?

[Stavroforos]

It's a solution that might help get rid of IS, but the "arm groups to do your fighting" approach almost always seems to have negative consequences, from the short to the long term. The best solution would be US air support and troops helping on the ground, but with the land forces being made up of Arab and Muslim states or an international coalition, but that seems to be something nobody wants to risk so we'll probably have to deal with the problem of a heavily armed Kurdish force which won't be given independence by the Iraqi government when it sees that it's safe from IS supplying arms and men in Turkish Kurdistan (this isn't me saying that that is going to happen, or even the most likely scenario, but something which seems to be the trend of non-state-actor forces being armed and moneyed).

[opock]

As ironic as it presently is given the circumstances, an alliance with the Sunnis is our only viable long term way out of the clusterf that Syria/Iraq has become. Convince them that they will be protected short term (against ISIS) and mid to long term (against Iran and its puppets in the region), then provide them the means to carry out that promise. Basically the US needs to create a credible Sunni proxy army in Syria to first remove ISIS and eventually remove Assad (air support required for both phases). In Iraq the Sunnis just need to be protected from ISIS and made strong enough to create some sort of Kurdistan like autonomy but still part of a unified state.

The various Kurdish parties will continue to do their thing, and we should assist them as much as possible without encouraging them to become reckless or destabilize relations with Turkey. The Shiites in Iraq will be under Iranian domination regardless and there is nothing we can do. Autonomy for the Kurds/Sunnis in Iraq will limit the damage of that domination as much as possible. In Syria the Assad coalition has to be removed and Sunni control of the country established, but with basic protections still provided to ensure there is no genocide/ethnic cleansing/marginalization in revenge once they lose power.

A win for the US is ISIS destroyed in Iraq and Syria, Iranian influence destroyed in Syria and confined to Southern Iraq, and Hezbollah isolated and weakened in Lebanon. Of course all those parties will have something to say about that, so we are in for a good rumble if we actually decide to fully commit (which I'm still not 100% sure Obama has).

[Caligula's_Horse]

A massive air campaign can certainly hamper ISIS' spread, and open up vulnerabilities for forces on the ground to exploit. However, without the forces on the ground pulling their weight, even getting to a point where ISIS is crippled is impossible. An air campaign can knock an organization down, but it takes someone gound-side to stomp an organization into a bloody pulp to make sure it never gets back up again.

While I have no doubt the Americans can pull the air campaign part on their own even without anyone elses' help, the available ground forces are all questionable.
The Free Syrian Army was never much of a unified organization, mostly comprised of countless small militias that aren't even under the same command; unless they (surprisingly) pull themselves together, and soon, I have my doubts they'll suffice. Kurdish forces, while fierce in defense of their land, have neither numbers, equipment or logistical capacity to do much far from home. And if the Iraqi army was up to scratch, we wouldn't have had this crisis spill over from Syria to begin with.
That leaves us with options unfavorable to the west to serve as ground troops. Assad supported by Hezballah is one option, though they might not be up to it either (bled white by years of fighting). Assuming none of the moderate Sunni nations like Jordan or Turkey send their own troops, there's still the option of Iranian forces, which while capable, are if anything worse then Assad as far as the western interest goes. Then there are other jihadists like Al-Nusra, but they usually try avoiding fighting ISIS if at all possible.

While American involvement from the air and in supply of rebels can certainly change how the conflict plays out, it will by no means lead to a swift resolution.
Even if all of ISIS' enemies gang up on it, making up for their individual ineptitude, they'll just go back to killing each other afterwards.

My guess is that the conflict will eventually die down on its own after a few years of fighting have thoroughly exhausted everyone. At that point, Syria and potentially western Iraq will dissolve into a Somalia like condition, where the central government is a joke and every punk with a militia can call himself king of an apartment block, with some well off with bigger militias punks calling themselves president of Syria (including the one that never let go of the title).

Something else to watch out for is the conflict spilling over into Jordan. The population never liked their monarchy much to begin with, and with the refugees flooding over the border and discontent on the rise due to events across the border, things could get ugly.
Jordan's army isn't likely to collapse like Iraq's, however; its said to be quite competent, and as far as I know, loyal to the regime. This means that instead of a militant takeover of the vacuum like in Iraq, we'll instead get rioters and revolutionaries being gunned down in the street in a sequel to Black September.

[wulfgar610]

A massive air campaign can certainly hamper ISIS' spread

The Yanks have been overflying and shooting up up that piece of Iraq since 23 years ago. They've spent quarter of a century dropping bombs on the place. I'm sure more bombs is the solution? They figured doing all that would cause Saddam's fall. It didn't, then the American's got frustrated after more than a decade.

[athanaric]

The Yanks have been overflying and shooting up up that piece of Iraq since 23 years ago. They've spent quarter of a century dropping bombs on the place. I'm sure more bombs is the solution? They figured doing all that would cause Saddam's fall. It didn't, then the American's got frustrated after more than a decade.

Well the difference is that now the Americans are merely providing air support for the local armies operating on the ground. And that they have everyone's approval, from Israel to Iran.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Americans may still want to rescue any remaining hostages that ISIS has, so massive air campaign is unlikely; also, counter-productive.

[Thorn777]

TEAM america to the rescue.

Any word on bombing "assad" targets?

[Caligula's_Horse]

The Yanks have been overflying and shooting up up that piece of Iraq since 23 years ago. They've spent quarter of a century dropping bombs on the place. I'm sure more bombs is the solution? They figured doing all that would cause Saddam's fall. It didn't, then the American's got frustrated after more than a decade.

Its not a matter of how much you bomb so much as whether the bombing fits with the current political context.
It actually achieved its intended goal quite well in 1991. Its the American deposing of Saddam in 2003 that caused the problems, not the bombings themselves. Again, its all about the greater political context.

Besides, the primary argument against getting rid of people like Saddam or Assad is that better the devil you know; the power vacuum might lead to someone worse. The "beauty" of fighting a group like ISIS, once they're replaced with a vacuum, at the very least nothing worse will come along, because genocidal maniacs looking to murder everyone that isn't them is as bad as it gets.

And on an unrelated note toCondottiere 40K:
The aim of the attacks isn't to release American hostages. That can be attempted by commandos regardless of the larger campaign. The aim of the attack is to protect the US' image and prestige--with public opinion being what it is, even the overly cautious and hesitant Obama can't help but be forced into a military campaign to show the world that beheading Americans in front of a camera won't be tolerated.

[Elemental]

The Yanks have been overflying and shooting up up that piece of Iraq since 23 years ago. They've spent quarter of a century dropping bombs on the place. I'm sure more bombs is the solution? They figured doing all that would cause Saddam's fall. It didn't, then the American's got frustrated after more than a decade.

And give some weapons to supposedly moderates, and then in 5 years time when the moderates decapitate an american, everyone will be asking what the when wrong.

Drop bombs and give out weapons. A recipe for success for many decades now.

[spartan117]

I am continuing the discussion from the other Iraqi War thread.

Well we are going to bomb Syria that's a fact. Assad really doesn't have a choice in that.

And we will likely train and equip FSA.

Yeah except I said no such thing. Maybe you read like two words of what I typed, Assad and approval somewhere. lol

I foresee a number of possible problems with your calculation. It will be a feat of diplomacy to actually get the Arab Kingdoms to send their own military forces into Syria. And I think it will be even problematic to get the Iraqi government to engage ISIS in Syria at least without Assad or Iran's approval let alone getting the Arab Kingdoms to send forces into Syrian and Iraq. Simply, Egypt and UAE bombing militias in Libya is not sending an army into Syria.

Anyway your steps make no note of Assad. Presumably these 'moderate rebels' will engage both ISIS and Assad's forces. In the more immediate future does the US bomb Assad's forces to better secure the current rebel holdings across Syria? Would this lead to the bombing to Hezbollah as well? Besides the difficulties arising from attacking Hezbollah, this will lead to less cooperation from Iran. Iran is currently cooperating to the extent of supporting the replacement of Maliki. But if Iran is angered at US strikes it is certainly possible that the Shiite government and Shitte militias in Iraq will be less cooperative and less inclusive. Surely this would make both steps 1 and 2 a bit more difficult.

But let us assume all these steps are done successfully and ISIS is eliminated in its current capacity. And in addition the Syrian rebels overthrow Assad. Does the US intend to rebuild and construct an inclusive functional government and military in future Syria? This would probably need to be done to prevent the same outcome as current Libya and 90's Afghanistan. (Fracturing and infighting)

Finally what will happen with the Kurds? Will they be granted their own state out of parts of Syria and Iraq? It may be diplomatically easier to secure their independence in this future Syrian state but it may be more difficult for the Baghdad government to allow greater autonomy or independence.

It just seems all this talk is terribly shortsighted.

I think victory is a multi-step process that will take time. This is my concept:

Step One: Ensure that current inclusive government in Iraq remains so. Increase US and Coalition bombing campaign.
Step Two: Bring Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States into the Coalition, encourage this coalition force to deploy ground troops to support the Anbar Campaign and future Salah ah Din Campaign. This coalition will accept the enlistment of Iraqi Sunnis as an auxiliary force. At the same tie encourage Iraq to withdraw the Shi'ite militias to Baghdad, perhaps offer a cash reward for their current service to keep them happy.
Step Three: Facilitate peace negotiations between Turkey and PKK. Work to get them to a level where Turkey removes the PKK from the terror group list, enabling the US and UK to do the same.
Step Four: Negotiate peace and alliance between the KRG, YPG and FSA. Encourage the FSA and YPG to build a united front against ISIS. Since the PKK would be off the terror list as part of step three we can arm the YPG and use their territory to train and equip the FSA.
Step Five: Provide air support for YPG and FSA combined front against ISIS.

[Portuguese Rebel]

You know what would help? If yanks would stop arming terrorist radicals to avoid fighting them a couple of years later... Really! Arming "moderate religious radical nuts" is starting to get old.

And i'm usually against intervention of states in other states the way it have been happening in the middle east. But now, you've made a huge ass mess and so it has to be cleaned. What are you going to do now? Arm the Syrian government?

[hellheaven1987]

Apartly Russian Tsardom just warned US better not trying a bombing campaign in Syria...

So who wants to bet how soon Obama's Grand Alliance against ISIS would be done half-ass?

[opock]

Russia is forced to fight a war to barely hold onto Eastern Ukraine. The middle east is well beyond any capabilities they can even dream of. The only asset they have for the Assad's of the middle east is their UNSC veto. That's it. Russia has no power projection outside of border regions of various neighbors it meddles in.

[Stavroforos]

Apartly Russian Tsardom just warned US better not trying a bombing campaign in Syria...

So who wants to bet how soon Obama's Grand Alliance against ISIS would be done half-ass?

A year ago, that might have mattered, but Russia has managed to isolate itself from the West now with Ukraine and it carries much less weight. There's nothing Russia can really do at this point besides arming IS, and I don't think they want to do that. Providing direct support to Assad is their only choice, and this actually sounds like it could be an interesting choice, but this would mean going against the US and its actions directly, which will probably have a stronger response from the US than the situation in Ukraine.

[Vanoi]

TEAM america to the rescue.

Any word on bombing "assad" targets?

Only if they shoot at American aircraft. if not, Assad's army won't be targetted.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Turks won't actively cooperate nor permit military operations from their bases in fear of the Turkish hostages that ISIS hold.

[white-wolf]

The Turks won't actively cooperate nor permit military operations from their bases in fear of the Turkish hostages that ISIS hold.

Yes, there is no American planes flying from Turkey to bomb ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

[Thorn777]

Only if they shoot at American aircraft. if not, Assad's army won't be targetted.

Surely Assad would like you shooting down enemy elements, yet hes against your intervention, which makes this another breach of international-law thats so highly touted on these days because it fits the agenda this time.

And I think hes against it because USA can not be trusted, seeing as it was at the helm starting this "rebellion" and at any time can claim "to have been shot at by Assad" or "that there have been new chemical-weapons fascilities found that have to be taken out"(a story coincidentally already circulating again).

But surely its all in the hands of Assad.

[Condottiere 40K]

The CIA estimates current numbers between twenty to thirty thousand.

I understand one traditional method was counting outhouses.