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.

I don't know about all that, it was bad but not hyperbole bad. There is still WW2, Korean War and Vietnam that were much much worse examples of diplomacy.

Maybe the worst since.....the 2000s.

WW2 was the result of diplomatic failure in the 30s.

The Korean War had little effect globally, and was actually very beneficial to Japan.

The Vietnam War also had little global effect.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW2 was the result of diplomatic failure in the 30s.

The Korean War had little effect globally, and was actually very beneficial to Japan.

The Vietnam War also had little global effect.

Aye. None of those had the same contagious effect that the failure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had on the whole of the Middle East.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a terrible mess and very difficult to see any way out of it. The hands-on approach was a huge failure in Iraq and even worse in Afghanistan. The hands-off approach turned out badly in Libya. The remote hands approach isn't working in Syria.

Yet, ISIL are powerful enough to try and destabilise most of the countries in the region. The attack on the Russian airliner is not only a shot back at Russia's bombing campaign in Syria, it is also a blow to Egypt's tourism industry and will affect the economy there, throwing people out of jobs and so on.

Therefore we can't really afford to ignore ISIL.

Why do you think Afghanistan is even worse than Iraq? It looks like Afghanistan is in better shape than Iraq right now. Afghanistan has also not reached the level of violence that Iraq did during the height of coalition operations there. Now, they're probably not ready to successfully self-govern and be fully responsible for their own security, but Iraq wasn't really either, which is why they are having the problems they're having now.

Who really cares which is worse, Ganners or Iraq? Both wars were linked into a larger regional conflict which overall has been the worst failure of western diplomacy since the 1930s.

War is, by definition, a failure of diplomacy. And while the situation is not good, I think you're exaggerating a bit. I can think of a variety of horrendous diplomatic failures that have a lot higher body counts. Iraq and Afghanistan are just the most recent examples.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a terrible mess and very difficult to see any way out of it. The hands-on approach was a huge failure in Iraq and even worse in Afghanistan. The hands-off approach turned out badly in Libya. The remote hands approach isn't working in Syria.

Yet, ISIL are powerful enough to try and destabilise most of the countries in the region. The attack on the Russian airliner is not only a shot back at Russia's bombing campaign in Syria, it is also a blow to Egypt's tourism industry and will affect the economy there, throwing people out of jobs and so on.

Therefore we can't really afford to ignore ISIL.

Why do you think Afghanistan is even worse than Iraq? It looks like Afghanistan is in better shape than Iraq right now. Afghanistan has also not reached the level of violence that Iraq did during the height of coalition operations there. Now, they're probably not ready to successfully self-govern and be fully responsible for their own security, but Iraq wasn't really either, which is why they are having the problems they're having now.

Actually Afghanistan is better off then Iraq. Life in Afghanistan.....not in the built up urban areas is simplistic

That was my point. Afghanistan is better off than Iraq currently.

That's like saying that being stuck in a burning house if a lot better than jumping out of a plane without a parachute

It is if you have a fear of heights...

I've done both.

Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW2 was the result of diplomatic failure in the 30s.

The Korean War had little effect globally, and was actually very beneficial to Japan.

China might disagree with you.

The Vietnam War also had little global effect.

Laos, Cambodia, China, and Thailand may disagree with that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

"War is the continuation of politics (diplomacy) by other means." (Clausewitz.)

The success of a war isn't judged by the number of casualties (low or high) it is judged by the long term results compared to war aims.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

Hezbollah's founding doctrine was to fight Israel. By backing Assad and attacking fellow Muslims, they've made a lot of enemies in the Middle East.

I'm not sure it's right to lump Afghanistan in with Iraq (in fact that's seems to be how you guys ended up in Iraq in the first place). Obviously Afghanistan is one of the worst places in the world still but it may actually be a bit better than before the Invasion. At least women aren't legally prohibited from leaving their homes now. Yes, maybe it only have went from 2nd worst country in the world to 5th worst country but still.....moving on up.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

Hezbollah's founding doctrine was to fight Israel. By backing Assad and attacking fellow Muslims, they've made a lot of enemies in the Middle East.

They already had those just because of being shiite. Sunnis (which are the vast majority of muslims) seem to really, really hate shiites for some incomprehensible reason.

Hezbollah has never made use of suicide bombers afaik. It has been accused of using suicide bombers, but unlike other radical islamist groups it has always denied doing so.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

Hezbollah's founding doctrine was to fight Israel. By backing Assad and attacking fellow Muslims, they've made a lot of enemies in the Middle East.

They already had those just because of being shiite. Sunnis (which are the vast majority of muslims) seem to really, really hate shiites for some incomprehensible reason.

Hezbollah has never made use of suicide bombers afaik. It has been accused of using suicide bombers, but unlike other radical islamist groups it has always denied doing so.

It's not an incomprehensible reason, the divide came following the Prophet's death, when his successors fell out amongst themselves.

And as Bismarck once said, never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Factional violence is a hallmark of most large religions. Christianity went through it not so many centuries ago and, broadly speaking, Protestant vs Catholic tensions have been contributing factors to social/political unrest in some areas of Europe throughout the 20th century.

That two groups of the world's largest religion don't like each other is really no surprise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

Hezbollah's founding doctrine was to fight Israel. By backing Assad and attacking fellow Muslims, they've made a lot of enemies in the Middle East.

They already had those just because of being shiite. Sunnis (which are the vast majority of muslims) seem to really, really hate shiites for some incomprehensible reason.

Hezbollah has never made use of suicide bombers afaik. It has been accused of using suicide bombers, but unlike other radical islamist groups it has always denied doing so.

It's not an incomprehensible reason, the divide came following the Prophet's death, when his successors fell out amongst themselves.

And as Bismarck once said, never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Yeah, but how is the question about who is the true successor of Ali as the leader of the caliphate still a reason to fight over nowadays? Considering the fact that all people involved and their direct descendents are pretty much dead, and the caliphate no longer exists. That is incomprehensible to me. Why don't they team up to get a new caliphate first and only then start to fight over who gets to be boss? Right now, it seems like they are fighting over nothing. Also, it seems the modern conflict between sunni and shia is only very recent, and that sunnis and shiites used to live together peacefully in the past (one story I read about it connects the conflict to the rise of wahabism, the ideology of Saudi Arabia and ISIS).
Whatever the case, I don't get it, even after reading a lot about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Factional violence is a hallmark of most large religions. Christianity went through it not so many centuries ago and, broadly speaking, Protestant vs Catholic tensions have been contributing factors to social/political unrest in some areas of Europe throughout the 20th century.

That two groups of the world's largest religion don't like each other is really no surprise.

At least Christians fight over perfectly understandable and reasonable things like: Who gets the biggest hat, whether to use leavened or unleavened bread in ceremonies or with how many fingers one should make the sign of the cross.

It should also be noted that many of the current Middle Eastern countries lived as subjects of one or another European powers until the 20th century, which prevented a lot of sectarian violence.

 Psienesis wrote:
It should also be noted that many of the current Middle Eastern countries lived as subjects of one or another European powers until the 20th century, which prevented a lot of sectarian violence.

It should also be noted that there wasn't much sectarian violence until the European powers came and then left. They changed the dynamic of the M.E. forever. Their meddling in the M.E. built the ground work for what we have these days.

Britain for instance simply carpet bombed any descent from the locals in Iraq for years. Built boarders were there were none and played favorites with factions pitting them against each other. Britain refused to allow Iran to control its own future, going so far as to have the US stage a coup and install a dictator.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Built boarders were there were none and played favorites with factions pitting them against each other.

That latter reason, IIRC, is one of the bigger reasons why TE Lawrence was so highly pissed about things.

 BrotherGecko wrote:


It should also be noted that there wasn't much sectarian violence until the European powers came and then left.

That's a joke, right? Right?

Sunni's and Shia's have been murdering each other since they came into existence. Sectarian violence has been absolutely rife through the Middle East since Islam took over, and experienced its great schism. No one gave a damn about it prior to the European conquering because the ME had nothing to offer the western world prior to the discovery/need for petroleum.

Yup... and you can add Arab vs Persian to that bucket too.

Also... ISIS is poking the bear again:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/12/new-isis-video-says-jihadis-coming-for-kremlin/?intcmp=hpbt1

 whembly wrote:
Yup... and you can add Arab vs Persian to that bucket too.

Also... ISIS is poking the bear again:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/12/new-isis-video-says-jihadis-coming-for-kremlin/?intcmp=hpbt1

Putin comes out as a winner no matter what ISIL say and do.
He has backed up an ally, with blood.
He has a war which will deflect interest in problems inside his federation.
He now has an enemy he can use to increase governments grip on power.
All the while he is running circles around western intervention against ISIL. (pick a frigging side guys, really). If the Caliphate does go after Russia in a big way what are the west and in particular the US going to do? Stand aside and let Russia chew up through Syria into Iraq? or have a deadly standoff? Its loose loose for fans of the red line.


The potential loss of Russian civilian life will just fuel him even more.

The COAT campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were connected by GWOT concepts and have been characterised by religious/political/social entanglements involving power groups like Islamic sects, rich Saudis, Iran, Russian post-Soviet clients (Assad). These are not within our power to control.

Some of the bad results of the campaigns were to destabilise the region, and to increase radical Islamic insurgency.

Afghanistan may be a slightly less bad place now than years ago, but that won't survive the resurgent Taleban.

Goodbye Jihadi John, US drone strike, in there own words. "Evaporated"

Well press conference coming soon from the US for more details of the attack.

 djones520 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:


It should also be noted that there wasn't much sectarian violence until the European powers came and then left.

That's a joke, right? Right?

Sunni's and Shia's have been murdering each other since they came into existence. Sectarian violence has been absolutely rife through the Middle East since Islam took over, and experienced its great schism. No one gave a damn about it prior to the European conquering because the ME had nothing to offer the western world prior to the discovery/need for petroleum.

Nope not kidding. The murdering each other belief is fairly revisionist and largely exaggerated. Most of the ME was nomadic tribes people that fought but mostly over things nomads fight over. When Europe forced them to stay in place is when problems began. Didn't help that instead of developing as a sedentary people they were bombed into it by Europeans (British).

There has been plenty of violence in the ME and there has been plenty of peace too. The turning point is the colonial era and post colonial. Sense then the ME has struggled with sectarian violence. The western powers cultivated the ground that grow Islamic fundamentalism. Before then, Islam had no oppinion on form of government. Now we have vilayeti fiqih in Iran and soon maybe Iraq. If Iraq maintains a state (a failed one) that is, which I don't think it will.

I've read a lot on the ME and learned a lot that ran in the face of what I thought I knew. I'm not an expert on the history and politics yet....but its my goal to be.

Colonial Europe damaged the world more than it gets credit for.

 BrotherGecko wrote:


Colonial Europe damaged the world more than it gets credit for.

This. The US played a big role creating ISIS too. Indirectly, and inadvertently, but they did.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Suicide bombers in Lebanon have struck at Hezbollah strongholds. I feel sorry for the poor victims, but it looks like the chickens have well and truly came home to roost for Hezbollah.

Does Hezbollah make use of suicide bombing themselves? If so, then my give-a-feth-o-meter is barely registering.

I wonder if Hezzbullah did a false flag, to garner sympathy and support.

Yes Hezzbullah does suicide bombs. They killed over 200 US marines with a truck bomb IIRC.

 jhe90 wrote:
Goodbye Jihadi John, US drone strike, in there own words. "Evaporated"

Well press conference coming soon from the US for more details of the attack.

They could have had a Psy-Ops C-130 blaring this.......

Dear John,

What's wrong ?
Why can't you just be anything you want ?
Why not ?
Why not ?

I tried to tell you then.
You didn't understand.
They try and pigeonhole you.
Buddy, they don't even know you.

But hang on my dear, dear, John.
Maybe you're not just like everyone,
So what, so what.

And there's more to live for,
Than some abbreviated encore,
Much more, much more.

You can't define yourself
In terms of someone else.
You can't say what you're thinking ?
But I don't know what you've been drinking.

But don't cry.
'Cause life goes on.
Dear John, you could be anything you want.
Why not ?
Why not ?

Why you could even be an astronaut,
Dear John,
Dear John.

...Whilst hell rained down upon him and his buddies.

Good bye John, enjoy the wrath of whatever God you worship.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It should also be noted that many of the current Middle Eastern countries lived as subjects of one or another European powers until the 20th century, which prevented a lot of sectarian violence.

It should also be noted that there wasn't much sectarian violence until the European powers came and then left. .

You should read more history books.

 LethalShade wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:


Colonial Europe damaged the world more than it gets credit for.

This. The US played a big role creating ISIS too. Indirectly, and inadvertently, but they did.

Oh, I think we played a pretty direct roll in facilitating the creation of ISIS. First there was the Bush doctrine of "Let's get all the terrorists to come to Iraq." Then there was the Obama doctrine of "Let's get out of Iraq." Then there was the terrorist doctrine of "Wheeeee! Iraq!" Obama's cheerleading of the "arab spring" movement and the civil war in Syria, but refusal to bring troops in, help fuel the fire that's burning today. I said it before, the Kurds are the only ones in the whole mess who can claim to be the "good guys".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The COAT campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were connected by GWOT concepts and have been characterised by religious/political/social entanglements involving power groups like Islamic sects, rich Saudis, Iran, Russian post-Soviet clients (Assad). These are not within our power to control.

Some of the bad results of the campaigns were to destabilise the region, and to increase radical Islamic insurgency.

Afghanistan may be a slightly less bad place now than years ago, but that won't survive the resurgent Taleban.

Really? Well I guess no one ever went broke betting on pessimistic outcomes of the Greater Middle East..

One positive thing is though the average Afghan hates the Taliban and doesn't want to see it back. So I don't think we'll see a grassroots Taliban revival. If they simply take over by invading from the Pakistan border area they themselves would have to fight an insurgency. So maybe there will only be perpetual warfare for all time....