"[W]hat are the jihadists' 10-year and 100-year strategies and ..."

[beardownboiler]

"... what should the U.S. be doing to counter those."

Sorry, db. Stole your thunder/words. However, this is an interesting question, because I never really thought all that much about what the long-term goals of IS, etc. are. With Al-Qaeda, you could see that they might go back to hanging around and doing whatever, once they got rid of the U.S. and other "infidels" from the holy land (maybe . .it's conceivable).

With IS(IS/IL), it's hard to really see what realistic plans they have. They have to know that they can't really control all that land for very long. The people running IS are brutal murderers. However, they aren't stupid or crazy. There must be someone among the leadership who can see how unrealistic this idea of forming the Islamic State is for the long term. Sure, they can likely use it as some kind of propaganda machine to generate/steal wealth for other long-term goals (which could be what is happening right now). However, is an Islamic Caliphate really their goal for 10 or 100 years from now? Like db, I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say on this (without it getting political . .and we don't need to bring up Obama or Bush in this thread).

 

[GMM]

An Islamic Caliphate


They're quite clear on their goals. As global of a Caliphate as they can make it no matter how many non-Muslims (or Muslims) they have to murder, no matter how much destruction and mayhem they cause, no matter how much suffering and oppression is necessary.

With Al-Qaeda, you could see that they might go back to hanging around and doing whatever, once they got rid of the U.S. and other "infidels" from the holy land (maybe . .it's conceivable).

Do you really think AQ could end up as harmless as you make it sound "once they got rid of the U.S. and other 'infidels' from the holy land"? They have the same global mission as ISIS which is the same global mission The Perfect Muslim had.

With IS(IS/IL), it's hard to really see what realistic plans they have.

Do you think they care how "realistic" you or others think their plans are? They are fanatical Islamic zealots displaying the same fanatical zealotry The Perfect Muslim did.

They have to know that they can't really control all that land for very long........ There must be someone among the leadership who can see how unrealistic this idea of forming the Islamic State is for the long term.

Really? How long has the Muslim world been "the Muslim world"? How do you think the Muslim world got to be that way?

........ without it getting political........

How can we discuss a political movement without it getting political?



This post was edited on 9/4 11:43 AM by GMM

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: An Islamic Caliphate

Originally posted by GMM:

They're quite clear on their goals. As global of a Caliphate as they can make it no matter how many non-Muslims (or Muslims) they have to murder, no matter how much destruction and mayhem they cause, no matter how much suffering and oppression is necessary.

With Al-Qaeda, you could see that they might go back to hanging around and doing whatever, once they got rid of the U.S. and other "infidels" from the holy land (maybe . .it's conceivable).

Do you really think AQ could end up as harmless as you make it sound "once they got rid of the U.S. and other 'infidels' from the holy land"? They have the same global mission as ISIS which is the same global mission The Perfect Muslim had.

With IS(IS/IL), it's hard to really see what realistic plans they have.

Do you think they care how "realistic" you or others think their plans are? They are fanatical Islamic zealots displaying the same fanatical zealotry The Perfect Muslim did.

They have to know that they can't really control all that land for very long........ There must be someone among the leadership who can see how unrealistic this idea of forming the Islamic State is for the long term.

Really? How long has the Muslim world been "the Muslim world"? How do you think the Muslim world got to be that way?

........ without it getting political........

How can we discuss a political movement without it getting political?


This post was edited on 9/4 11:43 AM by GMM

Nice editing work. You know damned well I meant "political" in the sense that we can leave the Obama and Bush rants out of it. Seriously, some of you . . .

 

[gold89]

Well, I think that

your initial post makes some assumptions about the members and leaders of IS being rational thinkers with political strategy in mind. It appears to me that the members a leaders of IS are nothing less than fanatical, true believing Muslims that don't much care for politics or what any other non-believer thinks. Their goals are what they say they are.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: Well, I think that

Originally posted by gold89:
your initial post makes some assumptions about the members and leaders of IS being rational thinkers with political strategy in mind. It appears to me that the members a leaders of IS are nothing less than fanatical, true believing Muslims that don't much care for politics or what any other non-believer thinks. Their goals are what they say they are.

Their propaganda machine (setting up clinics and community centers in some areas to gain support) would suggest otherwise. If we merely assume all of these people aren't rational, we're downplaying how dangerous they actually are.

 

[BoilerGrad02]

Re: Well, I think that

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by gold89:
your initial post makes some assumptions about the members and leaders of IS being rational thinkers with political strategy in mind. It appears to me that the members a leaders of IS are nothing less than fanatical, true believing Muslims that don't much care for politics or what any other non-believer thinks. Their goals are what they say they are.

Their propaganda machine (setting up clinics and community centers in some areas to gain support) would suggest otherwise. If we merely assume all of these people aren't rational, we're downplaying how dangerous they actually are.

They will murder people simply for not following Islam, if that isn't crazy I don't know what is. When you behead reporters and tape it you are not a rationally sane person.

That isn't to say that they can't be smart and calculating, Hitler was both along with being crazy.

Long term plans don't matter to these people because they've been brainwashed to believe that being sadistic murderers is going to give them eternal paradise because a book told them so. What happens to the world because of their actions doesn't enter into the equation for them.

I've thought for many years that organized religion in general is one of the most destructive forces in history, all organized religion.
This post was edited on 9/4 2:48 PM by BoilerGrad02

 

[qazplm]

depends

on how you define "rational."

If you mean, not crazy, sure I suspect the leaders of IS are to some degree rational.

If you mean, reasonable, realistic, etc, then no they are not.

Their goals aren't reasonable or realistic, but some of the methods they use to try to accomplish the unreasonable are rational such as trying to provide services and otherwise having all of the trappings of a "state."

But that isn't universal. In many places they occupy, government services are minimal, food is running out, and they are more involved with killing and raping and pillaging then they are in drumming up support. That's why they are losing the Iraqi Sunnis. Some of them signed up when they thought "hey these ISIS guys will come in here, give us political relevance again, and we can form a new state." Then they came in and started killing even other Sunnis, not doing things that were anything other than focused on ISIS, etc, and now many Sunni groups are actually helping Iraq fight them, or helping Shia Iraqi Soldiers escape out in underground railroads.

I think they are dangerous precisely because they are not rational in the sense of being reasonable or realistic. They aren't a group you can negotiate with, and they aren't a group that will take half a loaf. They are also dangerous because they are rational in the sense that they do have some ability to use propaganda and identify fault lines to get adherents to their side.

 

[qazplm]

it's more than that

they'll murder other Muslims for not following their highly restricted form of Islam.

I don't think the fact that you behead someone and tape it makes you not rationally sane. Evil? Sure. Amoral? Possibly. Certainly immoral. I do agree with you that they are fanatics and thus negotiating with them is fairly futile. to me they are that rare group that you have only one solution, remove them from the equation.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: depends

Originally posted by qazplm:
on how you define "rational."

If you mean, not crazy, sure I suspect the leaders of IS are to some degree rational.

If you mean, reasonable, realistic, etc, then no they are not.

Their goals aren't reasonable or realistic, but some of the methods they use to try to accomplish the unreasonable are rational such as trying to provide services and otherwise having all of the trappings of a "state."

But that isn't universal. In many places they occupy, government services are minimal, food is running out, and they are more involved with killing and raping and pillaging then they are in drumming up support. That's why they are losing the Iraqi Sunnis. Some of them signed up when they thought "hey these ISIS guys will come in here, give us political relevance again, and we can form a new state." Then they came in and started killing even other Sunnis, not doing things that were anything other than focused on ISIS, etc, and now many Sunni groups are actually helping Iraq fight them, or helping Shia Iraqi Soldiers escape out in underground railroads.

I think they are dangerous precisely because they are not rational in the sense of being reasonable or realistic. They aren't a group you can negotiate with, and they aren't a group that will take half a loaf. They are also dangerous because they are rational in the sense that they do have some ability to use propaganda and identify fault lines to get adherents to their side.

The bolded one. They are not reasonable . . . I think that's fairly obvious.

I agree wholeheartedly with the italicized portion. Though, I would have to think that they know the extent of their own vulnerabilities . . at least those at the top. Being unbending is not the same as not realizing vulnerabilities or being entirely unrealistic. They have a fairly sophisticated propaganda machine, and know that the aura of invincibility works for recruitment. However, I don't think it is wise to assume they are not realistic. They know what they are doing, and that's why they are being so calculated about their steps.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: it's more than that

Originally posted by qazplm:

to me they are that rare group that you have only one solution, remove them from the equation.

Yep.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: Well, I think that

Originally posted by gold89:
your initial post makes some assumptions about the members and leaders of IS being rational thinkers with political strategy in mind. It appears to me that the members a leaders of IS are nothing less than fanatical, true believing Muslims that don't much care for politics or what any other non-believer thinks. Their goals are what they say they are.

Fanatical? Absolutely. True believing? That's a different question.

While I know that there are some Muslims who think killing "infidels" is the way of a "true" Muslim, my own experience indicates that these are the minority. In fact, during the month of Ramadan this year, I had the opportunity to get together several times with the Islamic Society of Greater Lafayette. While there, I engaged in a variety of no-holds barred conversations about terrorism and gender-roles and sexuality.

THE clearest statement anyone made (and it was made repeatedly) in those conversations is that Muslims who kill are *not* living as true Muslims. Moreover, they pointed out that in at least one instance, one of the surahs that is often cited as supporting the killing of infidels actually falls in the middle of a discussion of something different - a discussion in which Muslims are commanded to see to the safety of non-Muslims and escort them to safety.

To answer the OP question, I tend to think that the majority (that's majority, for those of you who will proceed to respond to my post by citing minority extremes) of Muslims want the same thing that the Protestants who left Europe to come to America wanted - the opportunity to live their lives and their faith without interference. And they're willing to fight for it (just like, it seems, the early settlers were willing to fight for it).

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: it's more than that

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by qazplm:

to me they are that rare group that you have only one solution, remove them from the equation.

Yep.

I totally agree. But, I really don't want to see the US get dragged into another ground war.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Link to Charlie Rose with Ryan Crocker & Tom Friedman re: ISIS.

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60440328

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: it's more than that

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by qazplm:

to me they are that rare group that you have only one solution, remove them from the equation.

Yep.

I totally agree. But, I really don't want to see the US get dragged into another ground war.

The real problem is that we didn't finish the first one... or the one after that. John McCain was right. (Oh by the way, I predicted this exact outcome about two years ago on this forum when we were openly announcing when we were pulling out of Iraq, but WTF do I know?)

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: it's more than that

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by qazplm:

to me they are that rare group that you have only one solution, remove them from the equation.

Yep.

I totally agree. But, I really don't want to see the US get dragged into another ground war.

The real problem is that we didn't finish the first one... or the one after that. John McCain was right. (Oh by the way, I predicted this exact outcome about two years ago on this forum when we were openly announcing when we were pulling out of Iraq, but WTF do I know?)

Explain what you mean by "finish", and how "finishing" would lead to regional stability.

The Frontline episode "Losing Iraq" details many in the military & previous administration who agree with you on the timetable.

 

[qazplm]

finish?

come on. That would have meant permanent bases in Iraq FOREVER. There was never going to be a "finish."

And you think ISIS is going to not form because we have ten or twenty thousand troops sitting in Baghdad. Troops that would still be more concerned, legitimately, with self-protection and "training" the Iraqi Army than going into Syria to somehow stop ISIS from forming.

You think ISIS wouldn't love to throw themselves at American troops? That our presence would somehow dissuade them from being? The only real different would be that they might have confined themselves to a smaller portion of Iraq...but sooner or later, you know you actually have to leave. And I'm pretty sure 5, 10, or 20 years is not going to be how long we "wait out" folks like ISIS.

 

[db]

So, finally have time to share my thoughts on this.

I look at it in historical terms. From 50,000 feet:

- Islam is founded, and within a few hundred years has spread (through conquest and submission, in my view) to various faraway lands like Spain
- By the Middle Ages, there are defeats, like the Reconquista, Crusades, and various invasions by non-Muslim warlords from Central Asia into the Arab/Middle East heartland
- Islam regroups to form the Ottoman Empire, a far-reaching one (would it be called a caliphate?) that lasts for something like 400 years
- Relatively recently (100 years ago), the OE crumbles, and the heartland is divided into a patchwork of European-drawn states
- Even more recently, demand for oil gains the area more attention/influence from the West than some (not all) of the locals ever wanted. Example, meddling with Iranian politics in the 1950s. And of course you have an unrelated event (WW II) putting the Zionist movement over the top in what is now Israel. And Russia occupying Afghanistan in the 1980s, producing a new generation of Muslim warriors.

So if you are Muslim (especially Sunni) with some sense of nationalist/religious pride, you are kind of down and out by the 1990s, and forms of Muslim extremism that have been around since before the end of the OE become stronger and more virulent. Organized attacks on the West begin (e.g. the first attempt to take down the WTC happening in 1993).

If you consider Osama bin Laden the face of this movement, as he was for 15-20 years, then you have to pay close attention to his explicitly stated strategy. OBL understood that Western wealth and power would be hard to take down any time soon through any conventional means. So his strategy was to gradually to hurt the West financially, and said so publicly. If you look at the previous decade, this worked spectacularly well. One inexpensive and dramatic operation that took him 10 years to pull off succeeded in drawing the world into an expensive war that could be prolonged using inexpensive means. The loss of human life that ensued (in Iraq) wasn't important to the provocateurs. The dollars were.

The world changes and a little token security slows down the terrorist attacks of 10-15 years ago, but we still have whole countries (Iran) bent on increasing military strength. Now along comes "al Qaeda II" aka ISIS, and what do you you expect their strategy to be?

That's right. One prong would be to try to provoke the Western powers into more expensive warfare in pursuit of their greater goal of achieving a different world balance of power by economic means. What better way to do that than through heinous acts publicized on social media? They don't even need to bother with attacking the West on its own turf, at least not yet.

So that's how I view the recent actions of ISIS. I don't think they lack long-term vision, although I do think they may have made a mistake by expanding so fast, as it reflects 10- or 20-year thinking rather than OBL's 100-year thinking. They are banking on quickly recruiting on a large scale from the world Muslim community to show up physically in their new country and settle it and help them build a big military -- a parallel to Israel maybe, in their minds, if you think about it. That strategy may or may not work. Considering there are 2 billion Muslims, even if most of them wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, it would only take 0.1% of them showing up to be 2 million people.

By the way Hamas' recent actions also fit the narrative of emotional provocation, irrelevant-to-them loss of life, and generation of sympathy/funding/recruits.

Well, I'm interested in what other people think of ISIS' strategic aspirations and capabilities.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: finish?

So let's analyze what we're doing to stop ISIS now:

- Airstrikes. Yep, we were doing that before.
- Sending in troops to *ahem* train forces and *ahem* protect American interests. Yep, we were doing that before.
- Negotiating with Sunni tribal leaders to get them to fight ISIS. Yep, we were doing that before.
- Forming a coalition of the willing to combat ISIS. Yep...

I could go on.

The path this administration is now walking - or should I say back-tracking - on is the same one they inherited. You're right that the only thing that would've stopped ISIS from forming is a permanent base in Iraq... or maybe a more stable, inclusive government in Iraq where everyone had a place at the table would work? Gosh, I don't know.

What I DO know is that by announcing "Hey, e'erbody!!! We're leavin' in 2012!!!" we told AQI (now ISIL, ISIS or whatever... mostly the same folks) that they just needed to lay low long enough and then they'd be able to attack the Shi'a-led government, potentially over throw it, and form their caliphate in short order.

By bailing in 2012 - and telling everyone we were doing it - we set the table for this assault by ISIS. Would it have happened anyway? Maybe. But we sure as hell didn't do the GOI any favors by (1) bailing on them too soon; and (2) telling everyone exactly when we were going to do it.

Sorry, pal, but this current mess is directly related to OA's mishandling of ending the war and trying to keep political promises no matter the cost in the real world. Congratulations on getting us out of the war in 2012 so you could start all over in 2014, Barry!! Well done. Here's your medal.

Yeah, I'm tooting my horn now because I was f---ing right about the stupidity of announcing our exit back two years ago and you know it.

This post was edited on 9/5 8:12 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: it's more than that

Finish the first one: Daddy Bush should've overthrown Saddam in the early 90s.

Finish the second one: give enough support to the GOI that they didn't fall flat on their face within 18 months of US troop pullout. Don't announce to everyone and their mother your military intentions if you DO abandon the country.

We pulled out too soon, IMO. But it's a GD FACT that it was asinine to announce our pullout intentions, and we did that just to win an election. Well done.

 

[kescwi]

Re: it's more than that

I have had too much rum tonight to get into a debate about something I know little about when you are, and I hate the word expert as used today but, experienced at a level none of us on this board are with the ME, but anyway I want to ask, is an all inclusive approach even feasible? It seems the US has fumbled with this concept since the WWII, not just in the ME. Some places are not as advanced as the US and in those places taking out strong leaders and attempting all inclusive leadership leads to big problems.

I have my own "tin foil hat" views on why we seem to keep "bumbling" in the ME, but would be very interested in your far more realistic views on how we get to an all inclusive solution.

BTW, I agree that announcing when we would leave simply told groups how long they needed to wait, kind of like how North Vietnam. after the ass kickings they took in 68 and 70, just waited.. But...I was saying in 03 that Iraq was Vietnam 2.0, not because of quagmires but because it seemed similar in that we are entering a shooting war in a place where the US people will never be able to accept occupation.

 

[TheCainer]

Re: it's more than that

John McCain was right. (Oh by the way, I predicted this exact outcome about two years ago on this forum when we were openly announcing when we were pulling out of Iraq, but WTF do I know?)

That's a good question. What more might you know since it was known before Bush left office in 2008 (I believe that is more than 2 years ago) that we would be leaving Iraq when we did due to their reluctance to agree to our position on the Status of Forces Agreement? By that agreement weren't we obligated that our forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of June, 2009, and that all U.S. forces would be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011?

What more did you know? What was John McCain right about?

McCain's two faces on Iraq

 

[qazplm]

you left out a few details

Are we sending in a few hundred or tens of thousands?

Bit of a difference don't you think? We did airstrikes from almost the beginning. Airstrikes don't require leaving 10K or more troops on the ground. Airstrikes are always a viable option. So citing airstrikes and a few hundred SF/advisers on the ground as somehow backtracking to being equivalent to a permanent force on the ground in the 10s of thousands is a pretty bad comparison.

New terrorists groups are going to spring up. Guess what 20 years from now, another terrorist group will have their turn in the sun, and we'll have to form a coalition then too. Having 10s of thousands of troops sitting in Iraq wouldn't change that fate.

Yeah, it would be great if Iraq became a stable democracy where everyone shared equivalent power. I'd also like to win the lottery, but the chances of both are pretty slim. The Bush admin spent a ton of time trying to establish said result, they failed miserably. Of course, while I blame them for blowing up Iraq's stability, I don't blame them for being unable to solve a millennia old Shia/Sunni divide with Kurds thrown in for good measure.

Permanent US presence wasn't going to make Maliki deal fair with the Sunnis. It wasn't going to make him deal fair with the Kurds. The current government only reluctantly helped out the Kurds even faced with a somewhat existential threat from ISIS.

So your dream of an inclusive, stable government is just that, a dream, it ain't reality. It won't be reality anytime soon, and it wouldn't be a reality if only we'd stayed.

The idea that you think that ISIS is basing their existence and planning on what we did in Iraq is mind-boggling to me. ISIS was not sitting around going, well we would like to start this fanatical sect and grab power in Syria to take advantage of this ongoing conflict, but we just don't know when America is leaving, so I guess we'll just have to sit out this Syrian Civil War.

Darn.

And yeah, the "war" in 2014 with airstrikes and very limited if any ground assets is a LOT better than the war that killed and would have killed a LOT more people, resulted in absolutely nothing gained, and cost tons of money.

The idea that this has to do with us "announcing" our leaving is legitimately silly.

 

[qazplm]

Re: it's more than that

And replaced Saddam with what?

And you've got to be kidding me on the second. We threw billions and billions of dollars, men, lives, heroic efforts into supporting Iraq and their government.

Explain to me how you "secretly" pull out our forces from Iraq. Explain to me how you do that when you have a system where everything, including removing forces has to be budgeted a year out, when you have to spend a year to 18 months planning how you pull out, when everyone with a micro of a brain will know that you are pulling out in that time frame before you do so, even if you specifically say no you are not? Explain to me how leaks wouldn't happen?

And what election are you talking about? 2012? You think the pullout somehow won that election? Are you kidding me?