It is clear to me that the US and Europe doesn't want to get involved beyond limited humanitarian actions. It is also clear to me the Iran can't act as people expected using their full capabilities. Iran could also be trying to flip the US away from Saudi and to Iran at least politically. So the US can't get greatly involved and Iran can't. So that only leaves one country able to act that is Turkey. However they don't have the Sunni tribal influence Saudi has, also any attempt to weaken ISIL support among the Sunni tribes will have to involve other Islamist fighters in Syria which split with ISIL and are now fighting them. It will also involve talking with Assad about what we are doing, which he could give to ISIL and use against us in other ways. Not forgetting the Kurdistan and Iraq. So what to do? The US must be in overall manipulation of the strategy, that is clear. Iran, Saudi and Turkey couldn't do anything together otherwise. First off get Saudi to stop some of their people and the other Gulf states sending money and supplies to ISIL. Instead get them to send those things to the other Islamist groups fighting ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Get Saudi to use its influence with some of the Sunni tribes to turn them against ISIL, plus get the Iraq government to grant them more freedom from Baghdad, but keep their people in Baghdad, same with Kurdistan. Then you have the political side in place to weaken ISIL. You basically have to realize that Iraq is like a larger Lebanon. While this is happening Turkey should be strengthening its border with Syria and Iraq, stopping western fighters and ISIL fighters using their territory. Use this strengthening of the border to buildup forces for a move clean through the Syria-Iraq border to Jordan, cutting ISIL in two with the support of US and Turkish air strikes. Get the Turkish forces to hold while Iranian, Kurdish, Iraqi and US forces bottle up and destroy ISIL in Iraq. Then Turkish forces leave and political side will be in place to stop ISIL coming back in Iraq. Then we can go back to our Proxy war against Assad. The possible issues are many from ISIL terrorism in Turkey to an Assad-ISIL alliance. However this is the best I can think of.
Personally, I think the best solution might be in a new alliance, akin to the Arab League, but encompassing all of the nations in the region. Akin to NATO, make it open to all Eastern Mediterranean nations, not just the "Arab" ones. And not just the Muslim ones either. A military alliance promoting peace and stability, akin to NATO or the Warsaw Pact. A mutually defensive organization, to work together to promote peace in the region, regardless of religion, form of government, or ethnicity. The Arab League is a good start, but it was primarily founded first to prevent the creation of Israel, then to destroy it afterwards. And it lacks some key members, like Israel. I think that at this point in the 21st century, most of the nations in the region would have no problem cooperating with Israel, they have peaceful relations now, and can even see the advantage of some of the things Israel can offer (not manpower, but intelligence through the Mossad, technology, and other alliances like with the US).
Arab Islamic culture prevents anything like an Arab League along the lines of NATO, and in any case this ISIL group is no different than most other Islamist groups like Hamas and Hexbollah, they just didn't hack off the heads of ass kissing antisemitic 'journalists' and upset the bo boes and Burb Brats of the Media yet, which is the only reason the Obama administration is suddenly in a tizzy over atrocities. As Kissinger has pointed out, Iran is the bigger threat, and that hasn't changed just because this gang with a new name came along. The violent genocidal 'culture' over there is never going to change without somebody sitting on their heads for 3 or 4 decades and completely exterminates Islamic 'culture'; it's a political ideology and 'philosophy', not a religion, no different than Nazism, and the sooner most people in the West finally accept that and deal with it as such, it doesn't matter who we back or don't back over there, it won't change a thing. When they aren't murdering and looting 'infidels', they're murdering and looting each other, and have been for some 1,400 years. It's laughable there are still people who think it's possible to 'reason' with such medieval peoples.
That's where the theory falls apart. The US wants in very badly. Remember last year when they attempted to frame Assad for chemical weapons use? When that failed and the American people decried military action, they needed a better excuse. They now have it.
Iraqi president says, foreign intervention is not needed or wanted: http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/14/iraqi-president-no-need-for-arab-nations-to-strike-isis/ Iraqi President: No Need for Arab Nations to Strike ISIS Iraq Not Happy With US Coalition Partnership by Jason Ditz, September 14, 2014 The Obama Administrations efforts to cobble together a coalition of nations for the new war on ISIS has netted a handful of Sunni Arab nations willing to conduct airstrikes inside Iraq, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and by some accounts Egypt. The big problem is that no one asked the Iraqis if they were okay with this, and President Fuad Massoum today made clear that the Iraqi government considers such nations unnecessary, which is a polite way of saying extremely unwelcome. Its not hard to imagine why, as the Shiite dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran, is not on the best of terms with the Sunni Arab world, and having those nations warplanes looming overhead is going to be problematic for Shiite leaders. President Massoum is a Kurd, however, so it is rather surprising that he would be the one vocalizing government disquiet about the US moves to include such nations in the strikes, without consulting the Iraqi government. Massoums comments came in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, in which he also expressed regret that the US was not allowing Iran, the primary nation currently involved in the fight against ISIS in Iraq, to even attend the coalition meeting in Paris. France had similarly said they wanted to invite Iran to the coalition meeting, though the US insisted it was not appropriate to include them. It was seen at the time as a concession to the Sunni Arab nations which the US has been so desperate to include, but seems to be putting the coalition on a rather sectarian-looking footing to the Iraqis, and an unwelcome one at that. Ever since putting itself on the path to a new war in Iraq, the US has been eager to put on the show of a broad coalition, even if it meant many of those coalition members werent doing anything. Keeping the Iraqi government more or less on board seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of getting more members, which is making the US intervention far less comfortable for all involved.
Wouldn't that lead to the deaths of women and children...as it always does? That certainly isn't clear to me. The US and Europe are saying the don't want to get involved while saying we must get involved. The US always wanted to invade Syria and it did not want to leave Iraq in the first place, it was kicked out. Now comes ISIS and, oh, the key to beating them is to invade Syria and "re-stabilize" Iraq. What a coincidence... The story is kinda the same garbage. A few American somebodies get killed and that's supposed to build up American ire towards Isis. American journalists get killed there...but American journalists and UN workers were killed by Israel when they bombed a school known to be housing them by Israel. American journalist were killed by rebels in Lybia. Many of these rebels are or have links to al'Qaeda, which is supposed to be our enemy. And the supposed self-sustainability of this state-challenging army is due to miscallaneous extortions and kidnappings...or financing? Your suggestion is based on the premise that most of these countries are not working in collusion towards common interests. For one, the US was also beating it's spears trying to get us to invade Iran with that massive rhetoric about nukes or possible nukes and nuclear intentions. Has all this aggression been forgotten? It failed, so it tried general sanctions and bad-mouthing and then went after Syria instead with similar threats. It also used a chemical attack against people as a major rallying cry to a crusade, but that was proven to be, at the very least, based on misinformation and at worst committed by the rebels who are linked to the US. The US was also indicated when it was shown that many of these freedom fighters were actually terrorist organizations wielding American guns from other countries who were brought to Syria to fight the Assad regime. The US tried to backtrack and say that it wasn't supplying all the rebels. Also, the popular rebuff of another American military offensive and the curt political manuever by Putin to quickly diffuse the situation sent the US on the backburner, and now...we suddenly have this state-conquering amalgam of many different terrorist bands posing as an Islamic-led State. They're mean and bad and they're causing chaos and while the US plays coy and pretend like they don't want to go back there, they'll pump stories of Islamic brutality till your ears ring. Oh...and Benghazi. You might not have heard, but there was a little sordid deal between the US and Turkey and another state. called the Rat Line. That might explain some things... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
This is why we are screwed: [video=youtube;j0CuX5zoXXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0CuX5zoXXU[/video]
I think Obama's coalition is going to fall flat on it's face. First, Obama hasn't the first clue in how to put a coalition together. If he did, he would have had all of the hard diplomatic work done before he made his speech last week, instead of making the speech and then trying to get commitments. But what's worse, by explicitly going out of his way to say no boots on the ground, he's telegraphed to ISIS that we don't take this very seriously and are not going to do anything to stop them if it turns out be hard, annoying, or expensive. And of course, how does that look to foreign allies that you're trying to recruit their ground troops but explicitly say that we are not going to put in our ground troops? We'll risk your soldier's lives but not our soldier's lives doesn't sound like the basis of a good partnership. I do have an alternate to Obama's plan here but it's going to be mostly American and will probably require American ground troops.
The Arabs have been freezing their assets, fighting these terrorist groups and putting them in jail... They have also been providing intel to the US for well over a decade. Its not like Obama is starting from scratch to form a coalition.... The US and the European as well as the Arabs have common cause in wanting to crush ISIL and those like them.
Oh I agree that everyone has the same goal, but I doubt we'll be seeing Arab armies on the ground fighting ISIL (except for the Syrian and Iraqi Armies, which are already in the mix). How is that going to play in Arab capitals? The Americans want to use us as cannon fodder, let's do it?
Yes I am. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
Most Arab countries are incapable of long term agreements leading to stability; that's why they have had to rely on Western influence since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They can be rallied momentarily in some scheme against Iran, but if this is left to them it will fall apart pretty easily. They do not trust each other, and never have; it's a product and key feature of their culture. The West will either have to do it, or continue to just let them butcher each other, and then when they tire of that, they go after Israel yet again; if the West just ignores this stuff and pretends it will just go away, this time it will go nuclear.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/17/fbi-us-airstrikes-increasing-support-for-isis/ FBI: US Airstrikes Increasing Support for ISIS Group Using US Attacks to Boost Recruitment by Jason Ditz, September 17, 2014 US airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, far from degrading the organization, are actually giving ISIS a huge shot in the arm, according to FBI Director James Comey, who testified today before Congress. ISIS growing online support intensified following the commencement of US airstrikes in Iraq, Comey confirmed, saying the group was likely to try to pick up its efforts to take more US hostages going forward to get more publicity. The US operation seems to be playing directly into ISIS hands in many ways, with President Obamas high-profile speech last Wednesday, promising to escalate the war on ISIS into neighboring Syria, paying off for ISIS in recruitment as well. According to rebel mouthpiece the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, ISIS secured at least 162 new recruits in Aleppo Province alone in the days following President Obamas speech, a sign people are more interested in the group now that it is in a war against the US. The FBI warned that Western fighters returning to Syria after fighting with ISIS remain a top security threat, though at the same time they have no real way of tracking what people do once they enter Syria, so theres a lot of guesswork on who actually fought for ISIS. Violence begets violence. Therefore, the best solution is to get the hell out of there.
Incapable of long term agreements???? LOLOL According to YOU? - - - Updated - - - The Lebanese army killed the second in command of ISIL ten days ago.
Do this, do that, do it now. Jesus Christ man don't you feel just a little bit bothered by all the string pulling the U.S. will have to be doing? This is still Bush foreign policy in action, and Iraq and Afghanistan were originally Bush's wars. Quite frankly given Afghanistan has finally petered out my opinion is the Americans should completely dis-regard the entire Middle East so that means not taking any military action against Islamic State. Israel is only a country of six million people. Perhaps the entire country could be dispersed and the Israeli's move on to countries such as Germany, France, England and the United States. Israel are only surrounded by countries who want to annihilate them. Then when the Americans are gone, then when Israel is gone, and Jerusalem turned in to something like Vatican City to keep the Christians happy, then there will be reasonable peace and Islam can just be Islam. The fact of the matter is these beheadings, burqas, chopping off of limbs and so on and so forth is just Islam being Islam and if that's the way it generally is then that is the way it probably should stay because intervention such as the intervention people like you and me have witnessed over the last ten years can't seem to change that.
I would like to add too... dire regime change, like charity, begins at home. Root out the crime families whether they be Jew or Italian out of the government establishment of the United States. Senators, congressmen, other government employee's... whether they are all gang connected kick them out so they land on their ass. It will take a president with huge balls to do it and it could be until 2021 now but the mob and the mafia are a problem in the government not a solution. That's why you don't see Gotti's or Gambino's or other rich and powerful criminal bosses on the F.B.I's most wanted because the F.B.I. are probably on their knees to the mob.
We obviously know where the hierarchy for this group of barbarians are located carpet bomb them. Carpet bomb the oil fields they support their army with. Make a sand dune out of their Islamic State then pull completely out of the Middle East lock, stock and barrel there is no help for this bunch of barbarians. They have been fighting for 1400 years and will be fighting for another 1400 years.