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.

Lots of madness going on in the world today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33287136

Kuwait Shia mosque blast death toll 'rises to 25'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33287978

Tunisia attack on Sousse beach 'kills 28'

Add in the beheading and attempted bombing in France, its a pretty gakky Friday. Lifted slightly by today's ruling in America.

Media are putting 2+2 together and getting ISIS for all of these nasty little events. The Kuwati suicide bombing is linked to an ISIS affiliate in Saudi.

Did they all occur at the same time? Sounds like someone co-ordinated these fething atrocities.

Shrike, I don't think so. It doesn't look a coordinated effort. Just wrong time wrong place(s).

This as well:

Syria crisis: Islamic State 'kills 120 civilians' in Kobane

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33285699

But that seems the norm for that part of the world at the moment.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Shrike, I don't think so. It doesn't look a coordinated effort. Just wrong time wrong place(s).

This as well:

Syria crisis: Islamic State 'kills 120 civilians' in Kobane

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33285699

But that seems the norm for that part of the world at the moment.

Yeah, I was just about to post that, but then I realised what country it was from. That's almost daily life there.

what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

President Obama is slowly putting more and more troops in harms way, though not enough to do anything but just enough to appear as if he is trying. Personally, I say bomb them from the air and don't bother with troops on the ground.

I am waiting for someone to point out that apparently, Islam is not compatible with Arabs society. We get statements like this with the West every time a terror attack happens in the West, so surely we should have the same when much more deadly terror attacks happen in North Africa or the Middle East, right?

Militant Islam is incompatible with any society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

Which is something I think everyone is starting to regret now.

 djones520 wrote:
Militant Islam is incompatible with any society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

Which is something I think everyone is starting to regret now.

We always swing too far to the other side of options after previous fracas and conflicts. And the Middle East usually means epic fail where western intervention is concerned.

Can the West (realistically the US) be more aggressive in support of Anti ISIS operations (militarily) within the region under threat, with non partisan/non political aims?
Could it do so with existing support?
Could it do so with support from their own political base?

 djones520 wrote:
Militant Islam is incompatible with any society.

I know. Usually does not prevent the emphasis being put on “Islam is not compatible with the West”, as if it was a problem that could and should be dealt with locally, by sending Muslims away.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Militant Islam is incompatible with any society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

Which is something I think everyone is starting to regret now.

We always swing too far to the other side of options after previous fracas and conflicts. And the Middle East usually means epic fail where western intervention is concerned.

Can the West (realistically the US) be more aggressive in support of Anti ISIS operations (militarily) within the region under threat, with non partisan/non political aims?
Could it do so with existing support?
Could it do so with support from their own political base?

I'm getting tired of this "realistically, the US" stuff. ISIS is causing problems on our shores, but Europe has even bigger worries. Lets see a British and French division put on the ground in Iraq first. We'll do our part in fighting these people (hell, I'm in Afghanistan doing my part right now). Lets let the rest of the western world start sharing the burden as well.

I know the British have been a strongest allies in this venture to date, and the French, while they've been a stick in our side in some parts, have certainly taken the fight up in others (Mali for example), but I'm sick and tired of everyone just looking at us, and waiting for us to do something first


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to have 18 months deployed fighting terrorism when I'm done with this tour, and that is a drop in the bucket compared to many in the US military. I've got a friend whose here that will have more then 4 years when his is done.

It would be nice if our allies would help take some of the burden off our shoulders in those regards. We all face this threat equally, but the load is not being carried equally.

This has just killed a lot of the Tunisian summer economy, which relies on tourism, just at the beginning of peak season.

There will be a lot of hardship.

 djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Militant Islam is incompatible with any society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
what is the Wests position on Syria at the moment?

Have we washed our hands of it?

Which is something I think everyone is starting to regret now.

We always swing too far to the other side of options after previous fracas and conflicts. And the Middle East usually means epic fail where western intervention is concerned.

Can the West (realistically the US) be more aggressive in support of Anti ISIS operations (militarily) within the region under threat, with non partisan/non political aims?
Could it do so with existing support?
Could it do so with support from their own political base?

I'm getting tired of this "realistically, the US" stuff. ISIS is causing problems on our shores, but Europe has even bigger worries. Lets see a British and French division put on the ground in Iraq first. We'll do our part in fighting these people (hell, I'm in Afghanistan doing my part right now). Lets let the rest of the western world start sharing the burden as well.

I know the British have been a strongest allies in this venture to date, and the French, while they've been a stick in our side in some parts, have certainly taken the fight up in others (Mali for example), but I'm sick and tired of everyone just looking at us, and waiting for us to do something first


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to have 18 months deployed fighting terrorism when I'm done with this tour, and that is a drop in the bucket compared to many in the US military. I've got a friend whose here that will have more then 4 years when his is done.

It would be nice if our allies would help take some of the burden off our shoulders in those regards. We all face this threat equally, but the load is not being carried equally.

I agree with you. I would like to see Us British and the Europeans take a very strong lead on tackling IS on their doorstep and without assistance from the US military.

I don't think we are really able to operate a sustained operation of the type required. And asa supposed massive power block that lack of power projection is really telling.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
This has just killed a lot of the Tunisian summer economy, which relies on tourism, just at the beginning of peak season.

There will be a lot of hardship.

Oh hell yeah. FO travel advice will be interesting to see in the coming weeks.

An entrenched IS presence will cause problems for however long they remain a potential threat.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


I agree with you. I would like to see Us British and the Europeans take a very strong lead on tackling IS on their doorstep and without assistance from the US military.

'US led' operations usually European operations with White House grandstanding. Though not always.
It is far from the truth to say Europe doesnt pull its weight or waits for America to act. Generally as often as not it is better if the Americans stay out but bankroll operations or provide tech. By and large Americans do not have the mentality for peace keeping operations, and generally work better when the OpFor lines up ready to be shot at.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

I don't think we are really able to operate a sustained operation of the type required. And as a supposed massive power block that lack of power projection is really telling.

The US army in particular is spread alarmingly thin, so are most European militaries, but the latter is not news.
IIRC the US army can now only raise two brigades at short notice.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This has just killed a lot of the Tunisian summer economy, which relies on tourism, just at the beginning of peak season.

There will be a lot of hardship.

Oh hell yeah. FO travel advice will be interesting to see in the coming weeks.

An entrenched IS presence will cause problems for however long they remain a potential threat.

This can go several ways, when Tunisians see a marked economic drop they will be upset with IS, upset enough to do something about it, but it only requires a tiny entrenched fanatic minority to not only keep pace but extend operations.

Once your morals stoop low enough to encompass this gunning down tourists on beaches is a simple and effective target.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


I agree with you. I would like to see Us British and the Europeans take a very strong lead on tackling IS on their doorstep and without assistance from the US military.

'US led' operations usually European operations with White House grandstanding. Though not always.
It is far from the truth to say Europe doesnt pull its weight or waits for America to act. Generally as often as not it is better if the Americans stay out but bankroll operations or provide tech. By and large Americans do not have the mentality for peace keeping operations, and generally work better when the OpFor lines up ready to be shot at.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

I don't think we are really able to operate a sustained operation of the type required. And as a supposed massive power block that lack of power projection is really telling.

The US army in particular is spread alarmingly thin, so are most European militaries, but the latter is not news.
IIRC the US army can now only raise two brigades at short notice.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This has just killed a lot of the Tunisian summer economy, which relies on tourism, just at the beginning of peak season.

There will be a lot of hardship.

Oh hell yeah. FO travel advice will be interesting to see in the coming weeks.

An entrenched IS presence will cause problems for however long they remain a potential threat.

This can go several ways, when Tunisians see a marked economic drop they will be upset with IS, upset enough to do something about it, but it only requires a tiny entrenched fanatic minority to not only keep pace but extend operations.

Once your morals stoop low enough to encompass this gunning down tourists on beaches is a simple and effective target.

That is a very unintelligent statement. The US from 2001 to 2013 deployed more then 2.5 Million service members from all branches just to Iraq and Afghanistan, that is not including disaster relief and other minor brush fire wars. 1/3rd of those had been on multiple deployments. up until 2014 the British have only deployed 220,000. So "'US led' operations usually European operations with White House grandstanding" kind of wrong. As far as peace keeping operations are concerned. The US Military is designed for War with peacekeeping as a secondary objective. if you want peace keepers use the UN.

As far as force projection and rapid reaction, I don't know if you were referring to the US army specifically or ALL us ground forces. In the case of the latter, the entire USMC is capable of deploying at short notice. we have 7 MEU's (Marine Expeditionary Units) which are capable of deployment within 6 hours each MEU is 2,200ish Marines with Air, artillery armor and infantry all integrated into a single command structure. The Army is utilized for long term operations. the USMC is utilized for going in and kicking the door open and rapid reaction.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


I agree with you. I would like to see Us British and the Europeans take a very strong lead on tackling IS on their doorstep and without assistance from the US military.

'US led' operations usually European operations with White House grandstanding. Though not always.
It is far from the truth to say Europe doesnt pull its weight or waits for America to act. Generally as often as not it is better if the Americans stay out but bankroll operations or provide tech. By and large Americans do not have the mentality for peace keeping operations, and generally work better when the OpFor lines up ready to be shot at.

.

Oh man... thank you for that laugh.

The past twenty years has shown us that large scale, direct western intervention is not an effective way to combat Islamic militarism. Yes, someone has to fight ISIS where it lives. We just need to wake up to the fact that it isn't us that's going to do that. We need to support the people who's job that is.

*Sigh*

Ugh I hate all the death that is going around currently.

All this gak is why I've been avoiding the news at times and playing Minecraft, much as its important, the constant news of death and massacres is plain depressing.

There's only so much you can take before you need a break.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The West's last intervention in Iraq is clearly the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 50 years,

Bush got what he wanted, oil.

Blair got what he wanted, a big game of soldiers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

That is a very unintelligent statement. The US from 2001 to 2013 deployed more then 2.5 Million service members from all branches just to Iraq and Afghanistan, that is not including disaster relief and other minor brush fire wars. 1/3rd of those had been on multiple deployments. up until 2014 the British have only deployed 220,000. So "'US led' operations usually European operations with White House grandstanding" kind of wrong. As far as peace keeping operations are concerned. The US Military is designed for War with peacekeeping as a secondary objective. if you want peace keepers use the UN.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both invasions, and their aftermath, not peace keeping operations. Afghanistan was tricky as getting rid of the Taliban government jn 2001 was justifiable, however the policy handling of uninvited in has born bitter fruit.

The US, and due to Blair we in the UK are culpable for that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

As far as force projection and rapid reaction, I don't know if you were referring to the US army specifically or ALL us ground forces. In the case of the latter, the entire USMC is capable of deploying at short notice. we have 7 MEU's (Marine Expeditionary Units) which are capable of deployment within 6 hours each MEU is 2,200ish Marines with Air, artillery armor and infantry all integrated into a single command structure. The Army is utilized for long term operations. the USMC is utilized for going in and kicking the door open and rapid reaction.

Just the US Army.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/army-of-two-sequesters-training-cuts-leave-only-2-brigades-combat-ready/

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20131021/DEFREG02/310210035/Only-Two-US-Army-Brigades-Now-Combat-Ready-Chief-Says

Orlanth, that article was written 2 years ago. That is ancient history for us.

And I'd love to see this mystical eruption of oil that we got from Iraq. Because when I look at actual facts, all I see is that China gets it all.

But.... I thought terrorist attacks with guns only take place in the U.S.........

 djones520 wrote:
Orlanth, that article was written 2 years ago. That is ancient history for us.

Fair enough.

I cant be blamed for taking the word of official sources.

 djones520 wrote:

And I'd love to see this mystical eruption of oil that we got from Iraq. Because when I look at actual facts, all I see is that China gets it all.

Sure but US companies sells it to them. The US got the bulk of the oil contracts, France muscled in for some. The UK did not, Blair expected and received personal gain, opposed to national, for involving the UK in an illegal war.

Orlanth... it wasn't an illegal war.

The U.N. approved it.

Unlike Libya/Syria.

EDIT: And I'm still waiting for that oil we were supposed to get.

 whembly wrote:
Orlanth... it wasn't an illegal war.

The U.N. approved it.

The Un did not approve Iraq, the 'coalition of the willing' did.

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Orlanth... it wasn't an illegal war.

The U.N. approved it.

The Un did not approve Iraq, the 'coalition of the willing' did.

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Unlike Libya/Syria.

We weren't formally in Libya, just helping the rebels from a stand off position with the end of removing Gadafi, but the US and UK had scores to settle there. Libya is not yet a lost cause.

Which, if 'coalition of the willing" war over Iraq was illegal... so was the Libyan war.

The western powers didn't make an illegal war on Libya, they intervened in a civil war on the behalf of one of the sides.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... I don't buy 'oil' really had much bearing over the War. Just like Obama/Hillary wanting Gaddafi gone... Bush/et. al. wanted Saddam gone.

Saddam was certainly a factor, but first Saddam complied with the UN weapons inspectors, he believed (rightly ) that his survival depended on doing so. Bush wanted rid of him anyway. Bush mainly wanted a war for the benefits of military adventurism, plus oil control. Blair was in it for the former, he thought he would tap into the same euphoria that Thatcher did post Falklands, or even evoke rthe Churchillian memory. Blair wasn't too far wrong here as his government had a near complete media lockdown and could spin anything, but also cultivated a large Moslem minority who werent going to be bought and was able to burn though spin, with help from a brief resurgence of the old left. It finished Blair, and is the sole reason Labour wont have him back..

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Unlike Libya/Syria.

We weren't formally in Libya, just helping the rebels from a stand off position with the end of removing Gadafi, but the US and UK had scores to settle there. Libya is not yet a lost cause.

Which, if 'coalition of the willing" war over Iraq was illegal... so was the Libyan war.

The western powers didn't make an illegal war on Libya, they intervened in a civil war on the behalf of one of the sides.

That doesn't make any sense...

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... I don't buy 'oil' really had much bearing over the War. Just like Obama/Hillary wanting Gaddafi gone... Bush/et. al. wanted Saddam gone.

Saddam was certainly a factor, but first Saddam complied with the UN weapons inspectors, he believed (rightly ) that his survival depended on doing so. Bush wanted rid of him anyway. Bush mainly wanted a war for the benefits of military adventurism, plus oil control. Blair was in it for the former, he thought he would tap into the same euphoria that Thatcher did post Falklands, or even evoke rthe Churchillian memory. Blair wasn't too far wrong here as his government had a near complete media lockdown and could spin anything, but also cultivated a large Moslem minority who werent going to be bought and was able to burn though spin, with help from a brief resurgence of the old left. It finished Blair, and is the sole reason Labour wont have him back..

Ah... k.

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Unlike Libya/Syria.

We weren't formally in Libya, just helping the rebels from a stand off position with the end of removing Gadafi, but the US and UK had scores to settle there. Libya is not yet a lost cause.

Which, if 'coalition of the willing" war over Iraq was illegal... so was the Libyan war.

The western powers didn't make an illegal war on Libya, they intervened in a civil war on the behalf of one of the sides.

That doesn't make any sense...

Yes it does, there is a world of difference between marching into a country and supporting a belligerent in a country.

For a start you are backing a war, not starting one.

Second there is a faction insode the target nation which is ostentaciously in control of operations. In Libya this is the case, the rebels largely chose their campaign ad targets and goals on their own schedule. i am sure concessions were demanded, and some poeple may or may not have been frozen out or invited in on behest of external powers, but largely it was by Libyans for Libyans.

Third the moral debt to remove Gaddafi was strong, especially for the UK. We do not forget that a Libyan citizen inside the Libyan embassy shot at a British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher killed her and relied on diplomatic immunity. That Gaddafi directly funded and opened training camps for the IRA and was connected with the Lockerbie bombing. The UK was very quickly in on the rebel camp even before anyone else, except perhaps Mossad. We had scores to settle with Gaddafi which were waiting this opportunity. Saddm on the other hand had been adequately dealt with in the first Gulf War, and subsequent handling by the UN.