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.

Even if Assad stays at this point (and I too think that best for now) there can't be a 'united' Syria under his control. He does not have the capacity to take back all the territory he has lost and the Russians can't commit enough ground troops to take it back for him and you can be sure we won't.

Even if someone did so, it would be a long lasting insurgency which again, Assad does not have the capacity to do more than hold at a stalemate.

If DaIsh disappeared tomorrow there are still enough anti-Assad forces to prolong the civil war. The Kurds are not gonna give back what they have, and the other anti-Assad forces may not be able to defeat Assad but he can't defeat them either.

Yeah. The face of the region is not going to return to how it was. Even if all its enemies eventually defeat ISIS, I don't see the conflict ending. Iraq, or its successor, will attempt to force the Kurds back into line assuming it or a successor exist at all. The anti-Assad rebels might fall out without support, but there will still be plenty enough who want Assad gone to start up again. Who knows how Turkey, Iran, and Lebanon will play this mess out in the end. The pre-ISIS Syrian conflict will continue. New conflicts will spark up. It could easily spread to be even bigger than the one with ISIS.

And that's assuming we can get rid of Isis. There is a possibility that the world might eventually have to buckle under and accept the "Islamic State" as a legitimate political entity, no matter how much we all hate them.

Fun fact : Russians sent bombs with "For our people" and "For Paris" written on it.

 LethalShade wrote:
Fun fact : Russians sent bombs with "For our people" and "For Paris" written on it.

Nothing new.

These ones are recent pic of US ordance:



A WW2 example:

I bet some some archaeologist somewhere once found Roman mangonel shots with "Up yours Hannibal!" etched on them.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. The face of the region is not going to return to how it was. Even if all its enemies eventually defeat ISIS, I don't see the conflict ending. Iraq, or its successor, will attempt to force the Kurds back into line assuming it or a successor exist at all. The anti-Assad rebels might fall out without support, but there will still be plenty enough who want Assad gone to start up again. Who knows how Turkey, Iran, and Lebanon will play this mess out in the end. The pre-ISIS Syrian conflict will continue. New conflicts will spark up. It could easily spread to be even bigger than the one with ISIS.

And that's assuming we can get rid of Isis. There is a possibility that the world might eventually have to buckle under and accept the "Islamic State" as a legitimate political entity, no matter how much we all hate them.

I sincerely hope this is not the eventual outcome. ISIS is the scum of the earth and need to be purged. An organization that kills people of its own creed, robs banks, trains children for jihad, and tortures and maims people because it's fun should never be allowed to exist (not saying you said they should exist, I just have very strong feelings about ISIS).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I bet some some archaeologist somewhere once found Roman mangonel shots with "Up yours Hannibal!" etched on them.

I can't attest to that, but my father did write mine and my sisters names on some ordnance an A-10 delivered to the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. The face of the region is not going to return to how it was. Even if all its enemies eventually defeat ISIS, I don't see the conflict ending. Iraq, or its successor, will attempt to force the Kurds back into line assuming it or a successor exist at all. The anti-Assad rebels might fall out without support, but there will still be plenty enough who want Assad gone to start up again. Who knows how Turkey, Iran, and Lebanon will play this mess out in the end. The pre-ISIS Syrian conflict will continue. New conflicts will spark up. It could easily spread to be even bigger than the one with ISIS.

And that's assuming we can get rid of Isis. There is a possibility that the world might eventually have to buckle under and accept the "Islamic State" as a legitimate political entity, no matter how much we all hate them.

I sincerely hope this is not the eventual outcome. ISIS is the scum of the earth and need to be purged. An organization that kills people of its own creed, robs banks, trains children for jihad, and tortures and maims people because it's fun should never be allowed to exist (not saying you said they should exist, I just have very strong feelings about ISIS).

+1
There can be no future in the ME that involves Islamic State. The only thing you can count on them doing, is to continue playing at 'Gakfest 999AD' and trying to murder everyone in the world that isn't them.
Wipe these motherfethers from the face of the earth, then we can try and deal with the rest of the current clusterfeth.

Mind, what really needs to happen is for Islam as a whole to undergo the same modern renaissance that Christianity underwent in the early to mid 18th century. Until there's a wide spread reformation that discards the more "us vs. them" mentality of the medieval ideologies, Islam is going to continue to be a constant thorn in the side for world democracies everywhere.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Islam is going to continue to be a constant thorn in the side for world democracies everywhere.

Not to mention puppet states and friendly totalitarian dictatorships. And whatever it is that Russia is calling itself atm.

 djones520 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I bet some some archaeologist somewhere once found Roman mangonel shots with "Up yours Hannibal!" etched on them.

I can't attest to that, but my father did write mine and my sisters names on some ordnance an A-10 delivered to the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War.

Well, now you can at least tell your mates that your sister is a bombshell.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I bet some some archaeologist somewhere once found Roman mangonel shots with "Up yours Hannibal!" etched on them.

I can't attest to that, but my father did write mine and my sisters names on some ordnance an A-10 delivered to the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War.

Well, now you can at least tell your mates that your sister is a bombshell.

That joke was a blast. +1.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I bet some some archaeologist somewhere once found Roman mangonel shots with "Up yours Hannibal!" etched on them.

Roman lead sling bullets often had slogans moulded on them. Some examples:

FERI POMP (Strike Pompey)
PET CVLVM OCTAVIA (Attack Octavian's donkey-cave, implying his troops were retreating)
FVGITIVI PERITIS (Perish in Your Flight)
DEXA (Catch!)

(From VCoins.)

Back on topic, it is not inconceivable that Islamic State could be accepted as a legitimate government, the Soviet Union was for example.

For this to happen, they would need to transform themselves into a regime that everyone in the world doesn't want to destroy, and actually inspires a significant population to want to live inside. At the moment, IS is more like a huge pirate army than a functioning regime of any type.

We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

 LordofHats wrote:
We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

It is too much of a giant, barbed, polonium-coated splinter in our civilization's ass to accept it.

People said the same thing about Communism in 1920.

Granted, right now ISIS is totally not going to get that. They'd have to transition to a far less extreme politic to ever get that kind of treatment, and they'd need to stabilize their territory. I'm not saying next year we might have to live with ISIS. I'm saying 20 years from now, they could represent a legitimate polity, and the world might have no choice but to accept it.

The Soviet Union didn't sent suicide bombers to the US, did they ?

ISIS cannot get away with such an extreme, aggressive, extremely aggressive and aggressively extreme policy.

 LethalShade wrote:
The Soviet Union didn't sent suicide bombers to the US, did they ?

No, they sent spies and learnt how to build nuclear weapons.

 LethalShade wrote:
The Soviet Union didn't sent suicide bombers to the US, did they ?

ISIS cannot get away with such an extreme, aggressive, extremely aggressive and aggressively extreme policy.

Yeah. It sucks. But that's politics. It's almost always suck.

 LordofHats wrote:
People said the same thing about Communism in 1920.

Granted, right now ISIS is totally not going to get that. They'd have to transition to a far less extreme politic to ever get that kind of treatment, and they'd need to stabilize their territory. I'm not saying next year we might have to live with ISIS. I'm saying 20 years from now, they could represent a legitimate polity, and the world might have no choice but to accept it.

That can't happen and for good reason.

ISIS is legitimized by holding territory; without it, they can't call themselves caliphate. If they aren't a caliphate, they're nothing. They also have no desire to exist as a political entity recognized by anyone, let alone the West. Their sole purpose for existing to usher in the Apocalypse. They want to meet the armies of the West in the field of battle to begin the countdown to the End of Days in which they will be victorious.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
ISIS is legitimized by holding territory; without it, they can't call themselves caliphate. If they aren't a caliphate, they're nothing. They also have no desire to exist as a political entity recognized by anyone, let alone the West. Their sole purpose for existing to usher in the Apocalypse. They want to meet the armies of the West in the field of battle to begin the countdown to the End of Days in which they will be victorious.

ISIS totally wants legitimacy and does want to be recognized as a state. That's why they're calling themselves the Islamic State. They achieve their goal of beating the west in a holy war by creating a dream kingdom that embodies their religious beliefs. That's why they kill everyone who doesn't get behind them or who isn't a 'proper' Muslim.

I think people are also playing the end of days side of this wrong. ISIS doesn't think the end of the world is coming this year, or even next year. They think it's coming soon (TM). They're preparing for it (and their beliefs seem to extend so far as thinking they can start it), and that's what we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They're trying to build the Islamic kingdom that will fight the heathens when the world ends.

Of course, this has happened in the Middle East before. The Abbasid Caliphate already pulled this stunt, and they eventually achieved political legitimacy. The Ghazi's as well. Neither were dooms day cults, but both were overtly focused on the reformation of a 'proper' Caliphate as a core to prepare themselves to fight future wars. If ISIS in the future manages to build a cohesive state, and maintain their territory in prolonged conflict, options become increasingly limited. Perpetual war is not something anyone on Earth is capable of. If this hypothetical were to occur, it would come with the prerequisite that ISIS, or whatever successor may follow it, be a less extreme organization.

 LordofHats wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
ISIS is legitimized by holding territory; without it, they can't call themselves caliphate. If they aren't a caliphate, they're nothing. They also have no desire to exist as a political entity recognized by anyone, let alone the West. Their sole purpose for existing to usher in the Apocalypse. They want to meet the armies of the West in the field of battle to begin the countdown to the End of Days in which they will be victorious.

ISIS totally wants legitimacy and does want to be recognized as a state. That's why they're calling themselves the Islamic State. They achieve their goal of beating the west in a holy war by creating a dream kingdom that embodies their religious beliefs.

Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom.
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column.


I don't think they can hold their territories. They will eventually go into hiding like the Talibans did in Afghanistan, and will be a pain in everyone's ass for the next fifty years, but not much. At least I hope it will go that well.

Not that I've been super attentive to it, but my understanding is that ISIS has stalled in progress, and has been stalled for quite some time. The NATO were to deploy ground troops, they'd probably be crushed but that depends on the willingness of NATO, Russia, and other states to make a concerted military push against ISIS. Thus far most parties not directly involved on the ground have avoided becoming involved, including regional powers. That reluctance to go right at them seems to be the only thing allowing them to maintain the current stalemate.

I also can't imagine who would supply them weapons long term in a conflict. Their territory certainly can't produce them sufficiently, and they might have jacked a lot of cool toys from Iraq and maybe Syria that won't last them forever.

 LordofHats wrote:
ISIS totally wants legitimacy and does want to be recognized as a state. That's why they're calling themselves the Islamic State. They achieve their goal of beating the west in a holy war by creating a dream kingdom that embodies their religious beliefs. That's why they kill everyone who doesn't get behind them or who isn't a 'proper' Muslim.

No, they call themselves a state to legitimize their claim of being a caliphate. Their end game isn't to establish a "proper" country and open trade with their neighbors or any of that nonsense. To do so would violate their ideological base; no Muslim can lead a country, even the Islamic State, because to do so is to elevate man's law above God's.

I think people are also playing the end of days side of this wrong. ISIS doesn't think the end of the world is coming this year, or even next year. They think it's coming soon (TM). They're preparing for it (and their beliefs seem to extend so far as thinking they can start it), and that's what we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They're trying to build the Islamic kingdom that will fight the heathens when the world ends.

On the contrary, I think people are not playing the End of Days narrative nearly enough. Their leaders legitimately believe that that the Apocalypse isn't just "coming soon," that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the start of it.

Of course, this has happened in the Middle East before. The Abbasid Caliphate already pulled this stunt, and they eventually achieved political legitimacy. The Ghazi's as well. Neither were dooms day cults, but both were overtly focused on the reformation of a 'proper' Caliphate as a core to prepare themselves to fight future wars. If ISIS in the future manages to build a cohesive state, and maintain their territory in prolonged conflict, options become increasingly limited. Perpetual war is not something anyone on Earth is capable of. If this hypothetical were to occur, it would come with the prerequisite that ISIS, or whatever successor may follow it, be a less extreme organization.

Their war isn't perpetual because they know it will end and when it does, they will be victorious.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, they call themselves a state to legitimize their claim of being a caliphate.

That's wanting to be a state...

It's not like peacefully existing with your neighbors and trading with them is the only way to be a state. History is full of kingdoms and powers that rise rapidly for the purpose of conquest.

Their war isn't perpetual because they know it will end and when it does, they will be victorious.

This is why it's a hypothetical (and a very narrow one). I think ISIS is too crazy to actually last long enough to reach such an end state, not to mention I have no idea how they'd manage to hold their territory against a concerted effort made by all their enemies. Kind of the consequence of making everyone your enemy there

 LordofHats wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, they call themselves a state to legitimize their claim of being a caliphate.

That's wanting to be a state...

It's not like peacefully existing with your neighbors and trading with them is the only way to be a state. History is full of kingdoms and powers that rise rapidly for the purpose of conquest.

They don't want to be a state in the modern sense, they want the world. They will never settle for being a tiny slice of land in the Middle East, left content to govern how they see fit.

Their war isn't perpetual because they know it will end and when it does, they will be victorious.

This is why it's a hypothetical (and a very narrow one). I think ISIS is too crazy to actually last long enough to reach such an end state, not to mention I have no idea how they'd manage to hold their territory against a concerted effort made by all their enemies. Kind of the consequence of making everyone your enemy there

I don't think they're going to last either, but not because they're crazy (which is a subjective term, because their ideology is firmly rooted in Islam whether people want to admit or not). They're not going to last because the apocalypse isn't going to happen, the Mahdi isn't going to lead them to victory over the infidels, and Jesus isn't going to return.

Unfortunately, they're going to have to learn all of that the hard way.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, they call themselves a state to legitimize their claim of being a caliphate.

That's wanting to be a state...

It's not like peacefully existing with your neighbors and trading with them is the only way to be a state. History is full of kingdoms and powers that rise rapidly for the purpose of conquest.

They don't want to be a state in the modern sense, they want the world. They will never settle for being a tiny slice of land in the Middle East, left content to govern how they see fit.

Their war isn't perpetual because they know it will end and when it does, they will be victorious.

This is why it's a hypothetical (and a very narrow one). I think ISIS is too crazy to actually last long enough to reach such an end state, not to mention I have no idea how they'd manage to hold their territory against a concerted effort made by all their enemies. Kind of the consequence of making everyone your enemy there

I don't think they're going to last either, but not because they're crazy (which is a subjective term, because their ideology is firmly rooted in Islam whether people want to admit or not). They're not going to last because the apocalypse isn't going to happen, the Mahdi isn't going to lead them to victory over the infidels, and Jesus isn't going to return.

Unfortunately, they're going to have to learn all of that the hard way.

And, more importantly, if the apocalypse actually happens, they'll die like everyone else.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They don't want to be a state in the modern sense, they want the world.

And neither of these preclude wanting to be a state... Just because they're not trying to become the typical "lets all have a national contract and consent of the governed for the betterment of us all" kind of country, doesn't mean they don't want to be a state. I'm not sure what's so hard about this concept. A state is simply a political body (polity) under a single leadership (government). It's very simple.

]I don't think they're going to last either, but not because they're crazy (which is a subjective term, because their ideology is firmly rooted in Islam whether people want to admit or not).

Because all Muslims are crazy... Right. Not even gonna bother this time. Calling a mulligan.

They're not going to last because the apocalypse isn't going to happen, the Mahdi isn't going to lead them to victory over the infidels, and Jesus isn't going to return.

To give an idea, ISIS strikes me as the particular brand of crazy I like to call "Imperial Japan Crazy." This is the kind of crazy where logic, reason, and sound strategy and tactics don't matter. Because we're gonna win anyway. Even if you lose and everyone dies in a glorious charge against the enemy, it don't matter. Because we're gonna win anyway! A real military would probably consider retreating to a better position and reorganizing our force but I ain't gonna do that. I'm gonna win anyway! I can die right here right now, having achieved nothing to realistically harm my enemy and it won't matter. Because We're gonna win anyway! You know what, I'm gonna just go die right now! Cause I'm gonna WIN!

Irony of course being that this is not a mentality that leads to actually winning. It leads to everyone dying pointlessly in complete disconnection from reality because the group is as a whole, utterly convinced they will win anyway to the point reality no longer matters. What it is unfortunately good at, is killing lots of your enemies before you inevitably lose.

I agree with everything scooty posted on this page.

Please... someone hold me!

At this point, it's asinine to really believe that once ISIS has it's "caliphate" state, that they'll behave like other modern countries.

I know we keep saying that the "west" need to do something about it... but, isn't *this* what the UN is for? I don't see the permanent Security Council nations vetoing some Bosian-like actions here...

 LordofHats wrote:
We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

You forgot north korea, who likes to lob missiles over our allies. and they are actually developing nukes. World interest in them: None at all.

 whembly wrote:
I agree with everything scooty posted on this page.

Please... someone hold me!

At this point, it's asinine to really believe that once ISIS has it's "caliphate" state, that they'll behave like other modern countries.

I know we keep saying that the "west" need to do something about it... but, isn't *this* what the UN is for? I don't see the permanent Security Council nations vetoing some Bosian-like actions here...

United Nation
USA....Russia...veto goat roping...
Who's supporting who in Syria?