Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The West's last intervention in Iraq is clearly the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 50 years, Libya being perhaps the second worst, and to a great degree has led to the situation we are all in now with ISIS roaming around creating havoc, and militant factions of sunnis and shias fighting out sectarian and territorial wars, while side whacking Christians, druzes and overspilling into relatively stable Arab countries like Tunisia.

I am very worried about the deteriorating situation in the Arab/Islamic world. I don't see what is to be done about it that won't be very expensive in time, treasure and tears. Some of the possible measures would be unconscionable, such as sinking the migrant boats in the Med. We've seen enough 1984 gunship scenarios already.

If we are going to intervene with military force, we need to prepare it well, not just the logistics of the initial invasion but even more important, the nation building occupation that will need to follow. And nothing will be of any use without the will of the Western populations being firmly supportive to the bitter end.

No, Iraq was not the blunder that created ISIS. The blunder was the current administrations refusal to pick a dog in the fight, during the beginning of the Syrian civil war. This led to the growth of ISIS. Again, the administrations refusal to insist on keeping US forces in Iraq to help shore their military up, led to the quick defeat of the Iraqi military. Mawlaki dismantling the upper echelons of Iraq's military, the second we left the country was what gutted their ability to lead a coherent defense.

Going into Iraq played no major role in the situation we are in today. The way we left Iraq, and extension military affairs on the Arabian Peninsula, is what led to the mess we are all in today.

...

TLDR: We were only able/compelled to leave Iraq badly because we had gone in badly to start with.

The invasion of Iraq removed an unpleasant but powerful dictatorship that acted as a stabilising force both within Iraq and in the region generally. How far do you think ISIS or any other insurgent group would have got against the Iraqi army if Saddam was still in charge.

The woeful disintegration of Iraq after the war was the result of bad preparation by the COTW for the post-war scenario. It took years for us to get our act even partly together, by which time radical Islamism had mutated away from Al Qaeda to Al Shabbab, ISIS and other such groups in various countries.

Back in 2009 the Obama administration came to power faced by the need to resolve two foreign wars that were expensive and unpopular, while dealing with the worst global economic crisis since the Great Slump in the 1930s.

Considering the alternative solution to Afghanistan/Iraq was to spend even more money and lives in those countries, it is easy to see why they took the opposite course.

Obama and Cameron bear a lot of responsibility for the bad outcome of the Libyan revolution.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The West's last intervention in Iraq is clearly the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 50 years, Libya being perhaps the second worst, and to a great degree has led to the situation we are all in now with ISIS roaming around creating havoc, and militant factions of sunnis and shias fighting out sectarian and territorial wars, while side whacking Christians, druzes and overspilling into relatively stable Arab countries like Tunisia.

I am very worried about the deteriorating situation in the Arab/Islamic world. I don't see what is to be done about it that won't be very expensive in time, treasure and tears. Some of the possible measures would be unconscionable, such as sinking the migrant boats in the Med. We've seen enough 1984 gunship scenarios already.

If we are going to intervene with military force, we need to prepare it well, not just the logistics of the initial invasion but even more important, the nation building occupation that will need to follow. And nothing will be of any use without the will of the Western populations being firmly supportive to the bitter end.

No, Iraq was not the blunder that created ISIS. The blunder was the current administrations refusal to pick a dog in the fight, during the beginning of the Syrian civil war. This led to the growth of ISIS. Again, the administrations refusal to insist on keeping US forces in Iraq to help shore their military up, led to the quick defeat of the Iraqi military. Mawlaki dismantling the upper echelons of Iraq's military, the second we left the country was what gutted their ability to lead a coherent defense.

Going into Iraq played no major role in the situation we are in today. The way we left Iraq, and extension military affairs on the Arabian Peninsula, is what led to the mess we are all in today.

...

TLDR: We were only able/compelled to leave Iraq badly because we had gone in badly to start with.

The invasion of Iraq removed an unpleasant but powerful dictatorship that acted as a stabilising force both within Iraq and in the region generally. How far do you think ISIS or any other insurgent group would have got against the Iraqi army if Saddam was still in charge.

The woeful disintegration of Iraq after the war was the result of bad preparation by the COTW for the post-war scenario. It took years for us to get our act even partly together, by which time radical Islamism had mutated away from Al Qaeda to Al Shabbab, ISIS and other such groups in various countries.

Back in 2009 the Obama administration came to power faced by the need to resolve two foreign wars that were expensive and unpopular, while dealing with the worst global economic crisis since the Great Slump in the 1930s.

Considering the alternative solution to Afghanistan/Iraq was to spend even more money and lives in those countries, it is easy to see why they took the opposite course.

Obama and Cameron bear a lot of responsibility for the bad outcome of the Libyan revolution.

And ISIS is how we are paying for the easy course.

ISIS are savages, at some point the world has to deal with them, eventually there going to do something that truely piss,s off the world and beings the full fury and wrath of the various militaries on there heads. Right now it's Tunisia, what's next? Paris, London, new York or

Given time they could get there hands on any kinda stuff, even chemical weapons, there about the region, .there rare but not all gone.

It's not a if, but a when something has to be done, whatever it is will take the full commitment of the various powers.

Or worse still wake up a nest of vipers and drag Israel into the war, or i nvade someone like iran who do not mess about.

 jhe90 wrote:
ISIS are savages, at some point the world has to deal with them, eventually there going to do something that truely piss,s off the world and beings the full fury and wrath of the various militaries on there heads. Right now it's Tunisia, what's next? Paris, London, new York or

ISIS is a problem much of the western world is hoping will go away. This is part of the short term mentality of most western politicians.

 jhe90 wrote:

Given time they could get there hands on any kinda stuff, even chemical weapons, there about the region, .there rare but not all gone.

The terrorist with a WMD is a case of how, not if. As soon as they find out how they will. Islamic State could grow their own labs, or more likely steal from ex-Soviet or western sources. Iran wont hand over nuclear materials, they want the bomb for a level of defence immunity North Korea and Pakistan share but Iraq so evidently lacked.

 jhe90 wrote:

It's not a if, but a when something has to be done, whatever it is will take the full commitment of the various powers.

Due to home grown milititantism and the inability to deal with the problems within because of political correct conditioning this is a task most politicans will kick down to the next administration.

 jhe90 wrote:

Or worse still wake up a nest of vipers and drag Israel into the war, or i nvade someone like iran who do not mess about.

Israel was a part of the problem from the start. Israel bombs Arabs when if feels like doing so, regardless of whether they are at war or who they are, and this casual us-and-them mentality influriates even moderate Moslems. Israel did a lot of bombing in Syria around the time ISIS began, shooting up whoever they felt like and then denying doing so despite witnesses. Obama pissed off Netanyahu by letting the cat out of the bag by saying Israel was involved in illegal bombing in Syria. What pissed off Netanyahu was that is removed 'plausible deniability', normally along the grounds of Israel bombs who they feel like, but if anyone says Israel did any bombing, its just an anti-Semitic slur.

Israel bombed both sides of the Syrian conflict to bog it down and remove infrastructure, so it became the long drawn out knife fight it has become. This turned what could have been a short campaign like the rest of the 'Arab Spring' into a protracted one compounded human misery and formed a crucible that made the rise of even lower forms of extremism inevitable. What came out could have had any number of names, but one policy: a bloodthirsty feral religious militancy devoid of any moral check.

ISIS is not a threat to Israel, in fact is is a blessing. Israel faces as much hatred as can be thrown at it already, and frankly always has, they can take it. The extra level of human moral decline that ISIS represents is no additional danger to them, but it widens the bounds of Islamic terror considerably, makes it everyones problem and thus forces us onto the same side as the Israelis. wanted or not.
This is not to say Israel is behind ISIS, I dont believe that at all, but it is not fazed by it, and would want to see it eradicated unless all Islamist movements followed suit. It is not surprising that when Israel bombs Syria they target Assads infrastructure and that of groups opposing Assad, but not Islamic State, they leave those alone, to grow.

Islamic militantcy was not been a real threat to Israel since after the Six Day War, the only thing Israel fears is an Arab peace movement. ISIS they laugh at, it puts the entire west in the same threat position as a settler on the west bank. An Islamic Ghandi would frighten the pants off them, its the oneIslamist threat they could not defeat with the IDF, the existence of ISIS makes an Islamic peace movement even further away than ever.

Tunisia protests against the attack and shows solidarity with Britain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3142087/Thousands-defiant-Tunisians-light-candles-march-streets-protest-massacre-brought-blood-beaches-leaving-39-dead.html

[WARNING - BIG PHOTO DUMP]



I like Tunisia...

Is it a reasonably secular and liberal country? It appears so in the photos, not a whole lot of women in full burqa's etc.

A number of tourists decided to stay in Tunisia instead of booking early flights to be there at this time, in defiance.

There was a similar reaction after the incident in March.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/tunisia-tourism-pledge_n_6909422.html

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I like Tunisia...

Is it a reasonably secular and liberal country? It appears so in the photos, not a whole lot of women in full burqa's etc.

It has the dubious distinction of having sent more fighters to fight for ISIS then any country in the world. It has to regulate mosques to make sure extremist views aren't being preached, but can't reach them all, as the suspects mosque was unregulated. The fact that the suspect, and the museum suspects were in their low 20's is pretty worrying and indicative of more problems to come.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Is it a reasonably secular and liberal country? It appears so in the photos, not a whole lot of women in full burqa's etc.

Of course, depends on your standard, depend on which part of the country/population you are talking about, …
They are certainly way more secular and liberal than Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan. They are certainly less secular, and I am pretty sure less liberal, than Albania.
If you want to get an idea, look at the stuff that happened after their revolution. The (moderate) Islamist Ennahdha party won the first elections, two atheists that were imprisoned for expressing themselves on internet, there was an attack AND a trial on local TV channel Nessma TV because they broadcast the movie Persepolis made in France by Iranian cartoonist Marjane Satrapi (it is kind of autobiographic and when she portray herself imagining some conversations with God, well, God is represented…). Afterward, Ennahdha lost the latest elections, the atheists were released before doing their full term.

 djones520 wrote:


No, Iraq was not the blunder that created ISIS. The blunder was the current administrations refusal to pick a dog in the fight, during the beginning of the Syrian civil war. This led to the growth of ISIS. Again, the administrations refusal to insist on keeping US forces in Iraq to help shore their military up, led to the quick defeat of the Iraqi military. Mawlaki dismantling the upper echelons of Iraq's military, the second we left the country was what gutted their ability to lead a coherent defense.

Going into Iraq played no major role in the situation we are in today. The way we left Iraq, and extension military affairs on the Arabian Peninsula, is what led to the mess we are all in today.

Ya because the US has a great track record in picking dogs in the ME. You picked sudam, you picked osama, and mccain wanted Obama to pick ISIS in syria.

going into Iraq is the major blunder that put the us in the situation it is in today. Like it or not sudam hussain was the best thing going for Iraq and stability in the region. And the Bush jr made a huge blunder in getting rid of him, by drumming up a war based entirely on lies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And speaking of backing the wrong country, I found this today:

Islamic State threatens to topple Hamas in Gaza
http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-threatens-topple-hamas-gaza-203927884.html

Who does america back and allow to be Israels neighbor?