What should the West do about ISIS ?

imposter2.0

What would Manc33 do..???

debeli

My wife is right about almost everything. In fact, she might even have an issue with my use here of the word 'almost'.

She has made two statements (that I am aware of) about ISIS or ISIL or Caliphatistas or similar. Her thoughts as follows:

1. Any man offering violence to a woman to make her dress in a particular way should be made to dress in the same way himself. And then ignored.

2. ISIS (or ISIL or similar) really just need to get over themselves.

I do not say that she is right in her statements (whose meaning I hope I have conveyed in the above), but that to date I have not known her to be wrong on anything from John Major to wallpaper.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Why is it our problem? Other nations don't get drawn in, so why should we get involved? There must be dozens of western nations who have no involvement and do not suffer as a result.

Not true.
"On a visit to Iraq in December, members of the committee discovered there were only three UK military personnel outside the Kurdish regions of the country, compared with 400 Australians, 280 Italians and 300 Spanish."

"Committee chairman Rory Stewart said IS had contributed to "the displacement of millions, destabilising and threatening neighbouring states, and providing safe haven to an estimated 20,000 foreign fighters, many dedicated to an international terrorist campaign".

"Yet, the role that the UK is playing in combating it, is strikingly modest," he added."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31136504

ben@31

How many from Switzerland or Greenland were there?

Are Switzerland or Greenland being invaded ? The point is many countries don't get involved because there is no realistic threat to their everyday life.

There might only be 3 UK military personnel there but I wonder how many British ""private contractors"" are there ? Today it's cheaper and more politically correct to outsource, if a mercenary gets killed it doesn't make the news and who's laws or rules of engagement are mercs answerable to ?

morstar

Do we owe a debt to the middle east for our contribution to the mess? I have to argue that we do. However, terrible though the situation is, I think the middle east and the muslim world does have to resolve this itself. Our debt will have to repaid when the resulting carnage begins to draw to a close.
We need to be pragmatic and accept that our involvement in fresh conflict is not moving things forward. I'll paraphrase Homeland.
"After 9-11, our kill list had 20 names on it, it's now got over a thousand".
We can't bomb this problem away. Hundreds of thousands are going to die and we have facilitated the environment for that to happen. Unfortunately, the quicker resolution will come from less western involvement as western involvement just pours further fuel on the flames of a raging inferno and will make it last longer.
This is a pragmatic belief, not defeatist.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

How many from Switzerland or Greenland were there?

Are Switzerland or Greenland being invaded ? The point is many countries don't get involved because there is no realistic threat to their everyday life.

There might only be 3 UK military personnel there but I wonder how many British ""private contractors"" are there ? Today it's cheaper and more politically correct to outsource, if a mercenary gets killed it doesn't make the news and who's laws or rules of engagement are mercs answerable to ?

How many Swiss or Greenlandic "private contractors" are there?
We don't know because they are mercenaries and nothing to do with the Countries official stance and involvement.
If history is anything to go by then the mercenaries will be hired by locals, or are you referring to special forces?
How many ISIS attacks have there been in Spain and Italy?
None that I recall but they are involved. I would not be nonchalant if I were Swiss as an aside. What trouble have the Belgians caused? But they are targets.

I guess that you won't be happy until every Country in the World is represented, and probably proportional.
How many should the Fijian army send?

ben@31

Do you not see my point.... How many countries do not get involved and have not been attacked?

Even then, are the Belgium attacks and even the UK ones, isolated attacks by rogue individuals and not the IS army?

mercenaries and nothing to do with the Countries official stance and involvement.
If history is anything to go by then the mercenaries will be hired by locals, or are you referring to special forces?

Do you really not know what Western security contractors are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVYX2dg-cI

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Do you not see my point.... How many countries do not get involved and have not been attacked?

Even then, are the Belgium attacks and even the UK ones, isolated attacks by rogue individuals and not the IS army?

You are not taking my point either then.
ISIS are not organised like Western Countries forces. They have their main body where they are in control and train.
Then some of their forces return to their homeland to cause havoc. Or "rogues" watch their videos and get involved.
Check out their objectives. It does not matter whether we want to get involved or not, they want to destroy our way of life so they are coming whether we like it or not, if they have any power.
Stamp down now, or wait till they are on your doorstep is the choice.
That said, I still maintain that it is down to local forces to deal with them, or publicly invite us for help.

ben@31 wrote:

Do you really not know what Western security contractors are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVYX2dg-cI

I couldn't be bothered watching the whole video but they seem to be thrill seeking, money grabbing mercenaries, paid by locals. As I thought, and far removed from Government policy.

Moontrane

RideOnTime wrote:

Is ISIS, just Islamic State stuttering?

mr_goo

Here is the British Army's solution.

http://news.sky.com/story/1422273/british-army-seeks-to-recruit-more-muslim-troops

Here is my solution.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Why is it our problem? Other nations don't get drawn in, so why should we get involved? There must be dozens of western nations who have no involvement and do not suffer as a result.

It is our problem because it is a humanitarian problem, a stain on humanity. It's a problem that is going to get worse. I agree that too many nations are content to sit on their hands.
As I've said here and in other threads, more moderate Islamic nations need to take the lead. The West can help but the impetus and the major effort must come from the Muslim world.

I agree with bally over this, its a huge humanitarian issue and its about time Europe stepped up to the plate here.

We also need to stop burying our heads in the sand over ISIS, should they form a state, then not only would that be terrible for anyone living there but also a base from which to attack targets in the west, to train supporters and inspire their followers in Europe.
We need to step up our actions, support countries like Jordan that are now going for IS and stop relying on the US all the time for our defence.
"Military contractors" do not have the resources or numbers do jack about IS, they are not some rebel untrained band of killers in a African country out of a Fredrick Forsyth book!

mr_goo

The West should impose more pressure on Saudi, Qatar and Kuwait and insist they step up to the plate and sort out the problem that they have nurtured and financed.

ben@31

PBlakeney wrote:

I couldn't be bothered watching the whole video but they seem to be thrill seeking, money grabbing mercenaries, paid by locals. As I thought, and far removed from Government policy.

No. If you watch even 5 or 10 minutes into the video they are not paid by locals but paid by our government and working for our government.

ballysmate

Mamba wrote

I agree with bally over this

:shock: All this agreement. First Frank and now you. But you are lefties. My world has been turned upside down.

finchy

Don't worry Bally, I'll continue to disagree with everything you say out of habit.

slowmart

Maybe if we re examine the original question from the OP?

Why not let the regional states intervene and resolve their own issues? Militarily the power is with these sovereign states to send these guys to paradise but that would take a sea change on attitude. The inconvenient truth is that ISIS has pockets of support across the arab world and to date most states have chosen containment rather than confrontation and in the event of positive action this is usually funding or arming proxies.

In comparison look at Israel, the polar opposite in their aggressive and assertive regional stance with a projection of not just having the hardware but the political will to deploy and use deadly force with a low trigger point for pre emptive and retalatory strikes.


The problem here is not ISIS but the lack of will from the regional sovereign states to step in to confront a relatively small group of terrorists. A habitual glance at the West for leadership seems to be wasting valuable opportunities for uniting Islamic nations around common concerns and exerting regional leadership.


A definition of madness is to keep repeating the same failing action.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I couldn't be bothered watching the whole video but they seem to be thrill seeking, money grabbing mercenaries, paid by locals. As I thought, and far removed from Government policy.

No. If you watch even 5 or 10 minutes into the video they are not paid by locals but paid by our government and working for our government.

Well, there goes another 10 minutes of my life. Thanks. Plus I scanned through the rest.
No mention of our Government and a tenuous link to an American Embassy. Do I believe these cowboys were hired to protect a U.S embassy? No.
Example - "How many firefights have you been involved in?" "Probably 2, and none that involved killing".
If I were involved in any firefights then I would know precisely how many. And he made the ones was was "involved" in seen fairly inconsequential.
A titillation T.V. documentary filming cowboys. I will watch no more, and get back OT.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

Maybe if we re examine the original question from the OP?

Why not let the regional states intervene and resolve their own issues?
The problem here is not ISIS but the lack of will from the regional sovereign states to step in to confront a relatively small group of terrorists. A habitual glance at the West for leadership seems to be wasting valuable opportunities for uniting Islamic nations around common concerns and exerting regional leadership.


A definition of madness is to keep repeating the same failing action.

In my original question, I never said we should put boots on the ground BUT the regional powers have not yet intervened, to the extent that is required, also as you say ISIS have local support within the region but they also have support in the West too and it is this we have to be wary of.
Do we wait until they have formed their own state within Syria and N Iraq, drawing in fighters from all over Europe? (though that may not be a bad thing) and able to send said guys back into Europe? we might well look back on this time and wish we d been more aggressive.
Today a guy has been jailed for fighting in Syria, faking his death and videoed holding the severed head of a Syrian soldier, he got 8 years, so out in 4, his family knew all about his exploits, he will come out just as militant as he went in.

Intervention in Iraq failed because we went in for the wrong reasons ie some sort of vendetta against Saddam on behalf of G Bush, we then did some horrendous things like disband their army/police, instead of integrating them into a new coherent force. But in Siera Leon it worked and the same with the French in Mali.

ben@31

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, there goes another 10 minutes of my life. Thanks. Plus I scanned through the rest.
No mention of our Government and a tenuous link to an American Embassy. Do I believe these cowboys were hired to protect a U.S embassy? No.
Example - "How many firefights have you been involved in?" "Probably 2, and none that involved killing".
If I were involved in any firefights then I would know precisely how many. And he made the ones was was "involved" in seen fairly inconsequential.
A titillation T.V. documentary filming cowboys. I will watch no more, and get back OT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi#Ir ... nvolvement
Just the first sentence about 19 words long.

It is on-topic as you previously said there were only 3 UK personnel in Iraq, in fact there is considerably more when you take into account private contractors working on behalf of the govt. We are talking about involvement in Iraq.

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Maybe if we re examine the original question from the OP?

Why not let the regional states intervene and resolve their own issues?
The problem here is not ISIS but the lack of will from the regional sovereign states to step in to confront a relatively small group of terrorists. A habitual glance at the West for leadership seems to be wasting valuable opportunities for uniting Islamic nations around common concerns and exerting regional leadership.


A definition of madness is to keep repeating the same failing action.

In my original question, I never said we should put boots on the ground BUT the regional powers have not yet intervened, to the extent that is required, also as you say ISIS have local support within the region but they also have support in the West too and it is this we have to be wary of.
Do we wait until they have formed their own state within Syria and N Iraq, drawing in fighters from all over Europe? (though that may not be a bad thing) and able to send said guys back into Europe? we might well look back on this time and wish we d been more aggressive.
Today a guy has been jailed for fighting in Syria, faking his death and videoed holding the severed head of a Syrian soldier, he got 8 years, so out in 4, his family knew all about his exploits, he will come out just as militant as he went in.

Intervention in Iraq failed because we went in for the wrong reasons ie some sort of vendetta against Saddam on behalf of G Bush, we then did some horrendous things like disband their army/police, instead of integrating them into a new coherent force. But in Siera Leon it worked and the same with the French in Mali.

We already have people drawn to the ideology of ISIS and to that end they will never be codified as a sovereign state. The threat is not territorial, its the ideology that needs to be tackled head on. Let Islamic states using Islamic ideology fight a heretical version of Islam. Otherwise we are just kicking a can down the road for later.

That is not abdicating responsibility its getting other states to stand up and effectively sort their own regional issues.


Of course I have more chance Eva Green is going to phone up for a liaison later this evening…….

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

Of course I have more chance Eva Green is going to phone up for a liaison later this evening…….

...hang on, I think I can hear your phone ringing

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/j ... 21193.html

slowmart

Yeh right. :roll:

Jordan's past track record of deftly and successfully handling Palestinian, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and Salafi extremists will also shape its thinking in the days ahead. The policy so far has been one of containment rather than confrontation. ISIL's obvious expansionist and provocative ambitions, however, do not lend themselves to containment and will force a change of strategy if Jordan is serious about dealing with the threat.

ISIS has put a bounty on the heads of 12 Officers of the Jordanian airforce and the head of the Armed Forces of Jordan is pushing hard for action but King Abdullah has called for resilience so publicly two key players are unaligned which can only suggest what the internal politics wrapped around this are.

The test will be in the sustained political will to face these issues head on. Since no arab star has yet to date acted alone in a military sense a collaborative approach between states is further away

bdu98252

mamba80 wrote:

Having always been a staunch critic of the 2nd Iraq war, I am starting to accept that we cannot idly stand by and let ISIL carryon their murderous ways, they are reeking havoc across Syria and Northern Iraq, should they somehow gain their own state, then god alone knows what could happen.
Has the time come for more direct action against them, either through direct support for the Kurds or even arming Assad? More support for an Arab solution to this? though how we could ever get Iranian Saudi co op I don't know.

Whether it is right to do so or not, I don't believe it is possible for an invasion by US/NATO, though should the 2 remaining western hostages suffer the same fate or worse (one is rumoured to be a woman) as the poor Jordanian, maybe that ll change.

You are right. We can't sit back and let ISIL carry on. You should go and fight, educate or negotiate with them. Let me know ho you get on with that plan. If you mean by direct action the loss of our soldiers lives who many in the UK are happy to send of to meet their emotional hand wringing tendencies then send your own kids as well. I say we let them get on with it and the regional governments address the issue. I would however have an extremely robust system against any individual returning to the UK with a UK passport who has been to any of these regions.

The regions in question are still operating on a feudal tribal style system. How long did it take the UK from this position to the present day? Given their is no logical way to speed up this process in this part of the world the West is wasting its time trying to aggressively change cultures that have no reason to listen. Christ we can't even agree with the French and Germans on the best way to run the EU.

mamba80

bdu98252 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Having always been a staunch critic of the 2nd Iraq war, I am starting to accept that we cannot idly stand by and let ISIL carryon their murderous ways, they are reeking havoc across Syria and Northern Iraq, should they somehow gain their own state, then god alone knows what could happen.
Has the time come for more direct action against them, either through direct support for the Kurds or even arming Assad? More support for an Arab solution to this? though how we could ever get Iranian Saudi co op I don't know.

Whether it is right to do so or not, I don't believe it is possible for an invasion by US/NATO, though should the 2 remaining western hostages suffer the same fate or worse (one is rumoured to be a woman) as the poor Jordanian, maybe that ll change.

You are right. We can't sit back and let ISIL carry on. You should go and fight, educate or negotiate with them. Let me know ho you get on with that plan. If you mean by direct action the loss of our soldiers lives who many in the UK are happy to send of to meet their emotional hand wringing tendencies then send your own kids as well. I say we let them get on with it and the regional governments address the issue. I would however have an extremely robust system against any individual returning to the UK with a UK passport who has been to any of these regions.

The regions in question are still operating on a feudal tribal style system. How long did it take the UK from this position to the present day? Given their is no logical way to speed up this process in this part of the world the West is wasting its time trying to aggressively change cultures that have no reason to listen. Christ we can't even agree with the French and Germans on the best way to run the EU.

where did I ever say send in British troops? you are reading far more into what I wrote than even a politician could twist.

may have escaped your notice but the UK could never retake the Falklands again let alone go it alone in the middle east, ISIS threatens not only British interests but whole lot of other countries too.
Training, weapons etc for the kurds - we (amongst others) are already supplying air support but we ll take that away too shall we???? - and then we can wait until IS threaten or destroy oil supplies, form their own state, attack Israel and or Turkey (nato member) bring in the USA, see Russia get involved, perhaps as their ally Syria is attacked externally, they like Bin Laden, use a failed state to launch attacks on the west OR we can try and get the regional powers to act, in the ways I originally suggested or we can wait for the fallout and like it or not our whole economic system is built on oil supplies form that region.

bdu98252

Much as I like the scare stories of impending doom they are a little far fetched. Let those closest to the problem deal with it as they are likely to be more in tune with how to deal with people with similar backgrounds and mentalities. As for arming the Kurds much as I like your evening of the war and ensuring that both sides have similar weapons however the Kurds as you put it may not be so friendly either. This is the problem with attempting to manipulate the situation to your ends in that it is seen as manipulative. By all means if you think there are war crimes going on then place suitable sanctions against the individuals and their leaders and try to get them in court.

The UK could take Argentina on in a war to retake the Falklands if that was what is required. We have a number of military options. In this case at least the people of the Falklands might actually cheer when we turn up and yes we would be doing it purely for the self interest of the oil & gas within its waters. As they say foreign policy is just a thinly veiled mirror of national interests.

slowmart

ISIS have and will continue to threaten oil supplies but to what effect? Look at the drop in the oil price?

There are multiple factors at play here but ISIS do not have a battlefield capability past a few thousand fighters and in comparison to their geographic neighbours would not last long in a conventional scenario.

The bottom line is the regional focus ISIS provide suits the strategy and interests of their neighbours. Think Turkey and the Kurds and Muslim fighting Muslim. Who benefits? The kurds are taking heavy losses and have little in the way of international access to heavy weapons? Why? Air support is being provided to maintain and support a base level of resistance to ISIS while ensuring those weapons won't be deployed in the future by the Kurds against a NATO ally.

ISIS are a background noise who project power through their barbaric acts, nothing more.

Past the conventional threat comes the aspect of training like minded individuals for terrorist acts abroad and while that can never the fully negated the exposure to such violence is en effect a disabler for future recruitment and goes to the heart of the question. It's the ideology that needs to be addressed and ensuring the regional states take up their responsibility then the solution is self solving until you open up the dimension above for other interests coming into play.

southdownswolf

I see Anonymous have started to attack them now...

http://thehackernews.com/2015/02/anonym ... ttack.html

ballysmate

I see that Turkey has asked for an extraordinary NATO meeting to discuss ISIS and the Kurds. Whist not yet a full call for military assistance, how far away can it be?
Besides, I thought the Kurds were on our side, fighting ISIS on our behalf. :?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/turkey-peace-process-kurds-splinters-car-bomb-kills-soldiers

mr_goo

Politely put, The Middle East is a Buggers Muddle.

Every time there is intervention, it serves to exacerbate the problem. The various militant factions keep morphing and re-appear in another country. If western nations keep tolerating the intolerant extremist muslim nations (Saudi, Qatar, et all) as trading partners then their is no hope. It's now a bit like trying to repair a burst dam with a sticking plaster.
Maybe we have to accept that this is it.

pblakeney

The latest plan appears to be to let them kill each other then go and collect the oil.

Or let Turkey sort it out in turn for EU membership.