ISIS

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.

**BaronIveagh**

At the request of the mods i post this here, and hope they don't delete it as double posting.

Seems the Kurds are starting to complain about Turkey giving ISIS their positions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33818282

**motyak**

It's only double posting and needing deleting if someone has posted in this ISIS thread about this particular ISIS related topic. But I'd assume that you, as a responsible user, gave the recent pages of the thread a once over to ensure no one beat you to it. If that's the case, then you're good here.

**BaronIveagh**

motyak wrote:
It's only double posting and needing deleting if someone has posted in this ISIS thread about this particular ISIS related topic. But I'd assume that you, as a responsible user, gave the recent pages of the thread a once over to ensure no one beat you to it. If that's the case, then you're good here.

Being the last one who posted, almost a week ago, yes. Since this is new today, though related to some earlier posts.

**Da Boss**

I was listening to a podcast about this recently where the Middle East correspondent was adamant that Turkey had been supporting and encouraging ISIS against the Kurds. Pretty disgraceful, and now some blow back as suicide bombers cross the border.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
I was listening to a podcast about this recently where the Middle East correspondent was adamant that Turkey had been supporting and encouraging ISIS against the Kurds. Pretty disgraceful, and now some blow back as suicide bombers cross the border.

It's the Middle East. The only certainty is that everyone involved is persuing their own agenda

**Jihadin**

US combat aircraft's are now operating out of the airbase there now.

**Da Boss**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I was listening to a podcast about this recently where the Middle East correspondent was adamant that Turkey had been supporting and encouraging ISIS against the Kurds. Pretty disgraceful, and now some blow back as suicide bombers cross the border.

The only certainty is that everyone involved is persuing their own agenda

Fixed that for ya

**Ouze**

Jihadin had posted this earlier as a standalone that got locked, so reposting it here as it's salient as well as interesting:

U.S. investigating 'credible' reports that ISIS used chemical weapons
By Barbara Starr, Jim Sciutto and Elise Labott, CNN

Washington (CNN)The U.S. is investigating what it believes are "credible" reports that ISIS fighters used mustard agent in an attack against Kurdish Peshmerga this week, causing several of them to fall ill, U.S. officials working in at least three separate parts of the Obama administration said Thursday.

All of them strongly emphasized more intelligence is being gathered on exactly what may have happened near the town of Makhmour in northern Iraq. While there have been accounts posted in social media about the incident, the officials said they have independent information that strongly led them to assess there was a use of chemical weapons. The officials would not tell CNN what evidence led them to this belief.

The officials emphasized the intelligence indicates it was likely a small amount of chemical agent and a low concentration. U.S. officials are concerned, but this is not considered to be a massive attack.

A senior U.S. official said that ordnance fired at Peshmerga last week in northern Iraq produced a small number of injuries with "wounds consistent with a blister-producing agent."

The U.S. believes ISIS, also known as ISIL, most likely used either mortar or rocket shells to deliver the chemical warfare agent. One official said those who fell ill had symptoms of breathing problems believed to be associated with mustard gas and not chlorine gas, which is another agent that its believed the Assad regime has used on its civilians in Syria.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "If they do possess these kind of weapons ... my guess is they're more likely to have gotten them as old weapons left over in Iraq from the old WMD program there than they were likely to obtain them in Syria in some kind of a hidden cache of the regime's."

A U.S. official said ISIS had used chlorine in the past, but that it is hard to weaponize.

The major question for the U.S. intelligence community now is to determine exactly what happened, and if it is mustard gas, to try to figure out how ISIS came into possession of it. Officials tell CNN it may have come from old chemical weapons caches in Iraq or Syria that the U.S. does not know about.

It's also not known how much of the agent ISIS may have.

"Did ISIS find some mustard gas shells?" one official asked. "We think they did. We think they have used it."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mustard gas, also known as sulfur mustard, is a chemical warfare agent. The agent was developed during World War I and was banned by treaty in 1993. While it is usually not fatal, according to the CDC, it can cause blistering of the skin, eye pain and blindness, as well as respiratory problems.

Blake Narenda, a spokesperson for the State Department's Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Bureau, said, "We continue to take these and all allegations of chemical weapons use very seriously. As in previous instances of alleged ISIL use of chemicals as weapons, we are aware of the reports and are seeking additional information. We continue to monitor these reports closely, and would further stress that use of any chemicals or biological material as a weapon is completely inconsistent with international standards and norms regarding such capabilities."

CNN has previously reported claims from monitoring groups that ISIS used chlorine weapons against Kurdish forces.

**Dreadclaw69**

I don't mean to be dismissive but what do we expect to be done in light of this? We are already unofficially at war with ISIS. I don't see this as the catalyst for boots on the ground. And we went through this Red Line scenario before with Assad (to jog everyone's memory the Administration blinked)

**djones520**

This administration has passed the buck so hard on this issue, that nothing more will be done. We will step up our inneffectual air strikes, that is it.

**Ensis Ferrae**

djones520 wrote:
This administration has passed the buck so hard on this issue, that nothing more will be done. We will step up our inneffectual air strikes, that is it.

Im guessing that what the next administration does will be highly dependent on who that administration is headed by.

I'd suspect that if it were any number of Rs, we'd be right back in the thick of things, with numbers similar to our 08 levels.

Hilary, I kind of expect would do more of what's current;y going on..

Sanders, while I know his rhetoric regarding budgets, the VA and the DoD's relationships (money-wise), I think that if the case was presented to him the right way, he'd do some more boots on ground actions, but I don't think he'd turn it into another Iraq like the R's would.

**whembly**

What do ya'll think of Trump's plan? (finally)

Have US take control of the region's oil field and do whatever can be done to isolate ISIS from international banking infrastructures. Is that even possible?

**Jihadin**

Not really, we already know the oil fields they are using. Question though would be do we hold it and rebuild it or pass it off to Iraq (to lose again). Take the port(s) they are using to load oil tankers for black market sales. Less foot print. higher draw for them to come out to take back the port

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Not really, we already know the oil fields they are using. Question though would be do we hold it and rebuild it or pass it off to Iraq (to lose again). Take the port(s) they are using to load oil tankers for black market sales. Less foot print. higher draw for them to come out to take back the port

I can see us actually taking the ports. That makes immense sense for a variety of reasons.

What about banking infrastruction things? ISIS isn't solely on cash basis...right? There's gotta be some electronic banking activities there...right?

**Xenomancers**

Hordini wrote:
You do realize there were other groups in Syria besides ISIS, right? The Free Syrian Army was a pretty significant force that was seeing some success, and was mostly a moderate, secular militia fighting against Assad. But since nobody did anything to support them, they saddled up with some of the more extremist groups in the country for lack of other allies. At this point they've actually fought against ISIS in some areas as well. It's not like the only two options were siding with ISIS or siding with Assad, there are more than two factions operating in Syria, and two years ago, ISIS wasn't yet the most powerful anti-Assad group.

ISIS used the FSA to take power. It's not like everyone didn't see it happening. FSA filled its ranks with "freedom fighters (AKA radical Islamics)" from all over the region. ISIS then took over and changed the objective from overthrowing Assad to overthrowing Assad and Iraq. It looks real bad for the US because we were supporting the FSA with "non military aid (AKA aiding them also with military aid through other avenues)" Turns out - we indirectly supporting ISIS for a great while.

There will never be peace in this region though as long as Islam exists...it's a sad truth that the rest of the world needs to start understanding quickly.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
Not really, we already know the oil fields they are using. Question though would be do we hold it and rebuild it or pass it off to Iraq (to lose again). Take the port(s) they are using to load oil tankers for black market sales. Less foot print. higher draw for them to come out to take back the port

Just for giggles, we could give the oil fields to Israel

More seriously, yeah, I think the ports make some sense, but I have to wonder how many viable options there are for those ports? What I'm saying is, if we know they use 2 particular ports, but there are 8 more viable options for them to use, do we need to take all 10 to truly remove that "threat"?

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I don't mean to be dismissive but what do we expect to be done in light of this? We are already unofficially at war with ISIS. I don't see this as the catalyst for boots on the ground. And we went through this Red Line scenario before with Assad (to jog everyone's memory the Administration blinked)

djones520 wrote:This administration has passed the buck so hard on this issue, that nothing more will be done. We will step up our inneffectual air strikes, that is it.

And these two quotes right here, back to back, are all you need to know.

We need to fight Assad, which helps ISIL. We also need to fight ISIL, which helps Assad. The US needs to intervene more aggressively to fight ISIL but the fighting we're already doing against ISIL is unconstitutional. That's about the size of it, right?

I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Not really, we already know the oil fields they are using. Question though would be do we hold it and rebuild it or pass it off to Iraq (to lose again). Take the port(s) they are using to load oil tankers for black market sales. Less foot print. higher draw for them to come out to take back the port

I can see us actually taking the ports. That makes immense sense for a variety of reasons.

What about banking infrastruction things? ISIS isn't solely on cash basis...right? There's gotta be some electronic banking activities there...right?

Pretty complicated though we do try to track financials. The whole hawala deal is not gonna hit the electrons they way normal banking does, they do deal in cash a lot, and other funding coming in comes through organizations that at times if we were to stop/seize there are tons of issues (think charities and mosques for example).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

Except many/most of the air strikes are a complete waste for a variety of reasons. Lots of expense (and risk to flight crews) with very little gain tactically, operationally and even worse, strategically. Even if you want to go with an air only option, the way we are currently executing that option is a waste.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
The US needs to intervene more aggressively to fight ISIL but the fighting we're already doing against ISIL is unconstitutional.

I think the rub may have something to do with that fine edge of "If we declare war on ISIS/ISIL, are we recognizing them as a legitimate State?"

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ouze wrote:
The US needs to intervene more aggressively to fight ISIL but the fighting we're already doing against ISIL is unconstitutional.

I think the rub may have something to do with that fine edge of "If we declare war on ISIS/ISIL, are we recognizing them as a legitimate State?"

As they are not a legitimate state, just like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, no declaration of war is required. They are no more than brigands and lawless thugs.

**Ouze**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ouze wrote:
The US needs to intervene more aggressively to fight ISIL but the fighting we're already doing against ISIL is unconstitutional.

I think the rub may have something to do with that fine edge of "If we declare war on ISIS/ISIL, are we recognizing them as a legitimate State?"

I'm going to sidestep that

There needs only need be a congressionally-issued AUMF, just as was done with the Taliban, to satisfy the War Powers Resolution. The Resolution does not make a distinction as to whether or not military forces are deployed against a recognized state or not.

**CptJake**

I think 'declaration of war' isn't the right term here, especially as we have not been formally 'declaring war' in a LONG time.

Instead I think we need/should want congressional authorization for the fight against these groups. If the congress critters had a collective hair on their collective nuts they would use their power of the purse strings to either authorize and fund the efforts (like they did for the Iraq war) or say NO, and refuse to allow funds to be allocated towards the effort.

**Jihadin**

I rather not send troops back in. I feel it will only be US troops going back in. Its not worth a 2nd round of blood, sweat and tears. If a individual rise up and seize control of the country then by all means let him have it. Leave Assad alone and let Putin deal with that mayhem in Syria.

If we do send troops back in then force them to come at us. Seize the infrastructure that supports then and bomb everything that looks aggressive on all avenue of approach. That falls under ROE.

**Psienesis**

The problem with sending troops back in is that ISIL controls a massive stretch of land, and trying to take that infrastructure and then hold it is suicidal (since ISIL doesn't give a feth about the infrastructure, they'll just shell it to rubble while we occupy it). ISIL is not a political body in the normal sense of the term, it is what would happen if someone like WBC suddenly became hundreds of thousands strong with access to military-grade hardware, and I think it's time to look at it in that light which is, I know, actually really difficult, because when you're fairly normal, trying to comprehend the bug-feth insane is freakin' hard.

Never mind the campaign that would be required to get into such areas to actually seize something of importance and then try to lure ISIL into a "traditional" war, when ISIL has absolutely no qualms about using suicide-bombers and the like. This sounds, to me, like an opportunity to waste an awful lot of American blood for very little strategic gain.

That Turkey may have been feeding ISIL the locations of Kurdish strongholds is not surprising, Turkey has not been friendly to the Kurds... ever, really.

At this point, without a clear mission plan, with clear goals and clear objectives, sending troops in is going to make Vietnam look like a day-trip to Epcot Center.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

Largely? How about we just stay out of it instead. We can't back either side. Our allies or other actors who might be able to contain either side are unreliable, or openly hostile to each other. Instead of expending our supply of munitions and putting strain on our airframes why don't we just sell arms to our allies instead? The situation in the Middle East will change when the people there want it to change. Forcing change by external actors doesn't seem to turn out so well unless you start to consider genocide and replacing the existing population , which I don't think any reasonable person would consider.

**Hordini**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The situation in the Middle East will change when the people there want it to change. Forcing change by external actors doesn't seem to turn out so well unless you start to consider genocide and replacing the existing population , which I don't think any reasonable person would consider.

You mean kind of like what ISIS is doing?

**Ghazkuul**

The rather annoying thing about ISIS is that back in 2012-2013 we were unofficially tracking them as a threat to local stability that was quickly growing. Nobody really cared though because all of our focus was on Afghanistan at that point.

**dusara217**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

Largely? How about we just stay out of it instead. We can't back either side. Our allies or other actors who might be able to contain either side are unreliable, or openly hostile to each other. Instead of expending our supply of munitions and putting strain on our airframes why don't we just sell arms to our allies instead? The situation in the Middle East will change when the people there want it to change. Forcing change by external actors doesn't seem to turn out so well unless you start to consider genocide and replacing the existing population , which I don't think any reasonable person would consider.

Hey, genocide is a very viable course of action. Kill their society, kill their way of life, and pacify them via a metric asston of propaganda and pro-West messages, combined with another metric asston of good deeds. A few decades later, most of them will be Westernized, and we will have effectively committed genocide. Of course, this would probably just bring down even more US-hate, and give Putin and our enemies an excuse to start really going after us. But, it would pacify the Middle East.

**Hordini**

dusara217 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I think you guys need to consider we actually don't have a winning play here, and that the best move (i.e. least harmful) might be to largely stay out of it, and contribute limited airstrikes where we can. In other words, what we're doing now.

Largely? How about we just stay out of it instead. We can't back either side. Our allies or other actors who might be able to contain either side are unreliable, or openly hostile to each other. Instead of expending our supply of munitions and putting strain on our airframes why don't we just sell arms to our allies instead? The situation in the Middle East will change when the people there want it to change. Forcing change by external actors doesn't seem to turn out so well unless you start to consider genocide and replacing the existing population , which I don't think any reasonable person would consider.
Hey, genocide is a very viable course of action. Kill their society, kill their way of life, and pacify them via a metric asston of propaganda and pro-West messages, combined with another metric asston of good deeds. A few decades later, most of them will be Westernized, and we will have effectively committed genocide. Of course, this would probably just bring down even more US-hate, and give Putin and our enemies an excuse to start really going after us. But, it would pacify the Middle East.

Dude, shut up. Just shut up. Please. Genocide is in no way a viable course of action.

And in addition, ISIS is not a society, or a way of life. It's a group of religious extremists, criminals, and slavers who prey on those weaker than themselves, and they are not going to be pacified by propaganda and pro-Western messages.

**Ouze**

Hordini wrote:
Dude, shut up. Just shut up. Please.

10/10, would exalt again.