The ongoing ISIS massacres

[rah]

And rape and pillage. (under the guise of finding wives and removing the competition. )

[Aeson]

perhaps we can restrict their operations somewhat, until of course the west gets tired/forgets and then they come back and do the self-same thing. hence my point about the difference between solving the underlying problems (or if you prefer, changing the circumstances which allow space for groups like ISIS), and merely salving consciences.

Stopping a genocide is not "merely salving consciences". Also, by "restrict their operations somewhat" we're talking about returning to the state of affairs as they were when we were there in force. Which wasn't rosey ... but was far better than what's happening in ISIS controlled territory now.

As for solving the underlying problems, that's not mutually exclusive with stopping ISIS now either. And it certainly is mutually exclusive with ISIS controlling the region. You can't go in and invest, build infrastructure, improve standards of living and build goodwill when ISIS is beheading your male engineers for being heathens and selling your female ones into slavery.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

ISIS loves the US. it gives them something to complain about. gives them a cause to get everyone behind. it gives them a mission statement.

without the US, there may very well be no ISIS

[rah]

Men throughout history would find a reason. Without the US, they'd find another one. For them it's easier. Just another sect of their religion. Really, just how different are the beliefs of the two different sects. If men can kill over such trivial differences, they don't need us as a target.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

maybe... still, a US head to cut off is worth big bucks over there.

[Bereta_Eder]

being poor and hopeless for the future facilitates encompassing outworldy theories of whatever manner
(the savagery I dont understand though, not thats unique to them but still)

[C0ckney]

Stopping a genocide is not "merely salving consciences". Also, by "restrict their operations somewhat" we're talking about returning to the state of affairs as they were when we were there in force. Which wasn't rosey ... but was far better than what's happening in ISIS controlled territory now.

so by "returning to the state of affairs as they were when we were there in force" you mean putting troops on the ground. i wasn't aware that this option was being considered. the public in the west (unsurprisingly) are very unlikely to back anything more than airstrikes, which while salving consciences by satisfying the 'we must do something' crowd, and restricting ISIS operations somewhat for a time, will not ultimately stop them, and may have other unforeseen and unintended consequences.

As for solving the underlying problems, that's not mutually exclusive with stopping ISIS now either. And it certainly is mutually exclusive with ISIS controlling the region. You can't go in and invest, build infrastructure, improve standards of living and build goodwill when ISIS is beheading your male engineers for being heathens and selling your female ones into slavery.

this is meaningless i'm afraid.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

the US has 15000+ (new) troops in iraq within 2 months.

that's the MWHC call.

[rah]

Not with an election coming up.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

still stayin with my call... we'll see.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

and what does Obama care... he's out. no one is going to vote for Hillary - she would just be a Obama 3rd term.

and a GOP winner... will do the same thing, send troops and handle this with heavy response.

[rah]

no one is going to vote for Hillary

Unfortunately I fear you are wrong on that account.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

nothing to worry about. with everyone so Obama-shocked... she is going to have a very high hill to climb.

the GOP will get the white house back.

[C0ckney]

in the interests of clarity i suppose i should explain what i view as the circumstances that have allowed ISIS to flourish and what could be done to change them. none of what follows should be taken as an endorsement of any particular course of action on my part.

the biggest and most obvious one is the syrian civil war. syria has a 3 or 4 (depending on how you view the kurds' position) way civil conflict happening at the moment, and the assad government has lost control of large parts of the country. this has allowed ISIS to make gains and indeed it has made its capital there. it's clear that any solution must address this conflict. This, as onefoot said, essentially means backing assad and helping him to crush the opposition. this would obviously be a very bitter pill to swallow and it's very unlikely that this course of action will be taken. an alternative option might be to encourage russia to step up support for the assad regime, and this has more chance of happening. the west may also abandon its limited aid to the rebels and encourage turkey and others to do the same. it's hard to say what will happen here. what is clear however, is that without some kind of external intervention the syrian civil war will go on and on and ISIS will have a reasonably secure base from which to conduct its operations.

iraq is where ISIS learnt its craft and proved itself adept at resisting superior forces and at playing the long game. there's no reason to doubt their ability to do it again in the fact of another western led operation in iraq. the iraq government is weak and divided, and worse still, it seems that the people are not only not prepared to fight for the government, but also for the iraqi state itself. i talked about this at greater length in another iraq thread, so here i will limit myself to saying that the state's weakness gives space for groups like ISIS and that it's hard to see how it could be strengthened in a meaningful way. there are some palliative measures that are being taken at the moment: a show of force against ISIS; diplomatic and financial support to bolster the iraqi government and; money and weapons to the kurds (i suspect many people in the west are going to be very disappointed when the kurds don't solve the crisis). it's possible that some engagement with iran could help, and there have been signs of a tentative rapprochement between the west and iran. more iranian involvement however, although useful to the iraqi state in the short term is likely to damage it in the long term.

one of the ways the US countered the iraqi insurgents in 2006 was to fund and arm sunni tribes (the so-called sunni awakening) to fight against the insurgents, or in some cases to switch sides. a similar strategy could work now, as many 'ISIS' operations and areas they control are really performed by these tribes and ISIS relies heavily on their co-operation and support in many areas (the similarities with the taliban, and the reporting about them, are quite striking). however, the iraqi government would, for obvious reasons, be totally against such a move, and it may well backfire, as certain factions/tribes may change sides when the wind changes direction. such a move would also certainly weaken the iraqi state.

returning to the general question of iraq it is clear (to me at least) that you cannot have a democratic state where the majority of the demos does not believe in its existence. i think iraq has reached that point and therefore any solution to the crisis must address this fundamental contradiction. perhaps the west will come to accept that the borders imposed by colonial powers nearly a century ago are not sacrosanct and that any solution, that isn't a brutal strongman imposing his will, will probably involve the redrawing of frontiers in the region. i'm not holding my breath though.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think going into Iraq initially was a mistake, and how we handled it after going in was a lot of mistakes. But I don't think it would be a mistake to try to stop what amounts to genocide given our involvement in what lead to the current situation.

This is a, "you broke it, you bought it situation." Pulling out American involvement in Iraq was massively premature. There was no need, (aside from political grandstanding to do so). Now it's going to be more difficult and more expensive then if they had just left them there.