General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo if we pulled out of the Middle East, what would the probabilities be?
Last edited Sat Sep 13, 2014, 04:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Would IS, ISIL, ISIS regain their military advantage?
I believe the answer to that is yes.
What does that mean?
1. They put the Kurds back on the defensive, perhaps conquering their region and either converting or killing them.
2. The U.S. Would lose influence in getting the new Iraqi Government to moderate their policies and become more inclusive of the Sunnis, thus there would be less motivation for moderate Sunnis to splinter away from the radical hardliners.
3. The Saudis and perhaps other Gulf States would be even less inclined to stop funding of IS, ISIL, ISIS and war between them and the Iraqi Shia dominated government would greatly escalate.
4. With Gulf State wealth behind them and no American Air power as a deterrence, the Shia dominated Iraqi Government would call on Iran for military help, with no U.S. presence, Iran would feel free to send troops en-masse.
5. The Gulf States feeling threatened by Iranian gains would send their own armed forces in to the fray.
6. It's probable that Syria; a friend of Iran and Russia would be in even more trouble as well, it's probable that Iran would send resources to and influence sympathetic Hezbollah troops in Lebanon drawing them in to the war as well.
7. There would be mass economic upheaval both here and abroad as the flow of oil would be greatly disrupted, while I'm not a fan of fossil fuels, I recognize that most of the world's present day economies are greatly dependent on it.
8. I believe there are other probable long term negative effects but I can't see them just yet.
I don't have a crystal ball but these seem like logical scenarios to me should the U.S. leave a power vacuum.
There really isn't any good solution to this mess but at this time I believe President Obama is pursuing the best course of action in a bad situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)They have no recent history or experience of fighting.
They would just pull the plug on ISIS.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)as per the plan.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but this monster was created by our allies and not just the ones in the ME.
But IMO the plan was for us to ride to the rescue and the neocons wanted Romney in office for this one.
But that didn't work out, so Obama is doing the best he can with the hand he was dealt and is trying to finesse the situation instead of going all in.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)"switch off" their funding, as the dynamics would be greatly altered for the Iraqi Government, in regards to security, the potential for moderation and inclusive-ty.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Who would pull the plug on ISIS?
How?
What is your reasoning?
I think that the fact that the other countries don't want to fight and have no recent history or experience in fighting would make them easy pickings for ISIS. I don't think the world can afford another aggressive, blood-thirsty group terrorizing innocent people. I wish that ISIS did not exist or that it worked through democratic political processes. But that is not the case. Their cruelty is hard to deal with through pacifism. If you think that it should be dealt with through pacificm, how would you do it?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)that required a lot of nurturing from outside forces to become so powerful.
They are now self-sustaining to a certain extent but I still think we could diminish them through international legal and financial action.
However, I admit there still needs to be some military action.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)There would be a new revolution of ideas and freedoms that would spring forth, you'd see less burkas and more progressives and the hardliners would not be taken seriously just like Christian fundies arent taken seriously in America.
The middle east would look like Turkey (Today), Syria prior to "freedom" being forced fed on it or Afghanistan (during the 1960s)...
Afghanistan in 1960's
but the Military Industrial Complex can't have that.
Military Industrial Complex has to destroy any moderately progressive country in the middle east, commit mass genocide against the indigenous people using ISIS mercenaries then turn around and make a profit off the conquered land and weapons.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)tell who is in it for the money masked by supposed altruistic purposes. Some are interested in helping people, but for some huge profits are made along the way. Some are very obvious, others not. Imagine the economic recession/depression if the MIC went away. None on the take want that to happen, hence, we have a continuing viscous circle.
One can't point their finger at the US, just about all countries fall into this cycle. Sadly, it seems endemic to humans. All of us across earth need to shift from this paradigm, but I certainly have no idea how that will happen. One could say do nothing, I don't think that is the answer either. We've seen where that takes countries with despotic leaders. I like to think Obama knows more about this than I. I wish there were a perfect solution, but the entire mess is a catch 22. My concern is this seems never ending.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)We'd quit making things worse than they already are.
merrily
(45,251 posts)IOW, both courses have some awful results and awful possibiilties. Question is, which set of awful results and awful possibilities do you prefer? (Hint: either course will increase the possiblity of an attack on USians, both on our soil and abroad. We sailed that ship long ago.)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)consequences either way. It's a choice of which "which set of awful results and awful possibilities do you prefer?" I would like to help people, either way, sadly, people will be destroyed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)We could not even be arsed to keep track of Iraqi casualties, let alone the hundreds of thousands who were displaced and resorted to selling their kids to feed the rest of their kids.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)said we couldn't because there would be violence. The answer was, yes, there's going to be violence either way and America participating in the violence isn't going to stop it, just like it wasn't able to stop it for the 8 years we were there.
The message I'm getting from a lot of people here is that the neocons were right and the US should have stayed. Does everyone forget how we were trying to end US involvement in this war for years?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Meanwhile, we have extremely endless serious issues going on here. There are millions upon millions of unhappy/disillusioned people in the US. And, the US is being sold off to the highest bidder, Koch Brothers, etc. It's a horrible recipe for the future of the US.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)want us to keep digging, what's your alternative?" Making something worse is supposed to be better than nothing, because it's at least doing something, even if that something is bad. Eh eh eh...
It's the same mindset behind the war on drugs and no child left behind. "Hey, here are solutions to the problem...they might not work, they might make things worse, but doing nothing isn't an alternative." The world is full of complex situations that don't have simple solutions. At the very least we could stop making things worse, but that seems to bother people who want to feel like we're "doing something".
yuiyoshida
(41,861 posts)Send Right wingers, and tea baggers? Republican Congress people as well...
I know..its just a pipe dream.
cali
(114,904 posts)What if the U.S. continued providing arms and funds to the Peshmerga? How about vigorously pursuing cutting off the trade routes to Turkey from the 4-5 oilfields that ISIS controls, thust severely cutting into their revenue stream?
A couple of other things: The new Iraqi government is essentially the old Iraqi government. Sunnis in Iraq fear and hate the government more than ISIS- and the government has killed more of them.
in any case, I think your scenario is farfetched and dire. What we know from recent history is that actions such as those proposed by the administration have led to great bloodshed, wide antipathy toward the U.S. and massive instability. How about instead of broad bombing we spend that money on the 3 million Syrian refugees (and Iraqi refugees) living in horrendous circumstances?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)brilliant researcher in physics who said ... when you're in a complex situation and nothing you do gets you anywhere, do something outrageous to change the parameters, otherwise, you will be forever in a quagmire. I've often wondered what would happen if something happened as you said, to break the mold, to stop this endless cycle of war. See #28. One difficulty is those on the MIC take would fight it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's a barrier to peace? So, we overcome that barrier by sparing them the trouble of having to fight peace efforts?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)a root problem!
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)Back in the 1960's, I was a young Army lieutenant.
The Best and The Brightest at that time told me about the "Domino Theory" and told me I had to go to Vietnam and kill commies, otherwise, all the dominoes would fall and I'd be fighting the commies in the streets of Honolulu.
So -- I went to Vietnam a couple of times and killed a pile of commies. Then, after 60,000 body bags came home, we looked a little more closely and discovered The Best and The Brightest were full of shit.
And now all our Nikes are made in Vietnam.
A few days ago I used Google Earth to search Vietnam for a couple of old base camps I passed through. Didn't find a trace of them but I did find 4-lane highways and golf courses.
Sounds to me as though you're preaching today's version of the Domino Theory.
How about this time we save 60,000 lives and simply offer to help build some Nike factories, highways, and golf courses?
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
World War I (WWI or WW1 or World War One), also known as the First World War or the Great War, was a global war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. More than 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died as a result of the war, a casualty rate exacerbated by the belligerents' technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical stalemate. It was one of the deadliest conflicts in history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.[5]
The war drew in all the world's economic great powers,[6] which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although Italy had also been a member of the Triple Alliance alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, it did not join the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had taken the offensive against the terms of the alliance.[7] These alliances were reorganised and expanded as more nations entered the war: Italy, Japan and the United States joined the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. Ultimately, more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.[8][9]
The immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[10][11] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world.
On 28 July, the Austro-Hungarians fired the first shots in preparation for the invasion of Serbia.[12][13] As Russia mobilised, Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France, leading Britain to declare war on Germany. After the German march on Paris was halted, what became known as the Western Front settled into a battle of attrition, with a trench line that would change little until 1917. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Russian army was successful against the Austro-Hungarians, but was stopped in its invasion of East Prussia by the Germans. In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire joined the war, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Sinai. Italy and Bulgaria went to war in 1915, Romania in 1916, and the United States in 1917.
coldbeer
(306 posts)I was caught up in the Domino Theory and was saved from
Viet Nam because the OCS (Officer Candidate Schools) over
filled. I joined rejected candidates in Germany. We were prominently
college drop outs.
Too shorten my story the age old bullshit continues and you
are correct. I knew right off the bat that you cannot "blow a
country off the map". Iraq was an easily foreseeable failure. You need
"boots on the ground" in huge numbers and like Viet Nam the souls
(pun) of the boots wear out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)For a humorous take on your sad observations, watch The Mouse That Roared, a comedy about a country that is so desperate for funds that it declares war on the US in order to be able to surrender to the US.
I think Netflix still offers it, but I have not checked.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Either the powers in the region would get their shit together and solve the issue themselves, or the whole area would devolve into a wasteland. Or maybe Europe or an Asian power would step in.
Turkey is right there, for instance. They have a vested interest in not seeing it spread too far, but no incentive to intervene unless there is no other option. The Gulf states seem to like this conflict, as long as we are there to see it not spread. Its a pressure valve for them, they get to dump their malcontents, and we take all the downside. They don't want revolution in their own countries, though, I assure you. If we backed completely out, I rather expect the flow of money from the oil states to the terrorist groups would dry up toot sweet, and there would be a run on hiring mercenaries.
China and Russia both have interests to protect. But why should they bother to use their resources for it, as long as we are there taking the rap for everything that goes wrong? They need that middle east crude more than we do, I suspect. Last I heard there was only a fairly minimal amount that makes its way to our shores.
My analysis says this is a domestic dispute, and should be resolved as such.
And if we are speculating about consequences, perhaps this sort of crisis is what we need to push us toward energy independence, to make use of the solar and wind that are available, to improve our tech and transportation, and to encourage us to conserve our native resources a bit more, while we look inward. Bush put us in a lose lose situation in Iraq. But given a lose lose, I'd rather be the country not now killing thousands of people than the country continually and forever killing thousands of people for some oil.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)but regarding Turkey.
http://www.france24.com/en/20140913-us-opposes-irans-presence-french-hosted-conference-iraq-kerry/
Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil told Reuters some Arab states at talks in Jeddah on Thursday had proposed expanding the campaign to fight other Islamist groups besides Islamic State, a move Turkey would also probably oppose.
Turkey’s support for the rebels fighting Assad, including groups that some Western allies balked at backing, has laid it open to accusations it aided radical Islamists and contributed to Islamic State’s rise, a notion Ankara strongly rejects.
Francis Ricciardone, who was until late June the U.S. ambassador in Turkey, said on Thursday Ankara had supported groups including the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s Syrian branch, in the fight against Assad, much to the dismay of Washington.
“We ultimately had no choice but to agree to disagree,” Ricciardone told a conference call arranged by the Atlantic Council think-tank on Thursday, in comments highlighting the challenges of building a coalition.
“The Turks frankly worked with groups for a period, including al Nusra, whom we finally designated as we’re not willing to work with,” he said.
(REUTERS)
As for your final paragraph, I couldn't agree more, we desperately need to rapidly build sustainable energy sources and wean ourselves off environmental and humanity destroying fossil fuels.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)has no incentive to help out as long as the US will stabilize the situation. The Kurds, who they don't much care for, are being challenged instead of gaining in power, which is helpful. If there is a serious threat of it running out of control, and we are not there to take the heat, that will change. They don't want it on their border, but they have no reason right now to believe it would ever actually reach their border.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)is also at odds with Iran, Assad's ally, do you believe Turkey would stop supporting Al Nusra in their attempts to overthrow Syria's government if the U.S. pulled out?
If they have no incentive to help subject to the U.S. stabilizing the situation, why would they support a group against said stabilization?
How far and how long would they play this card?
It seems to me, they want a Turkey friendly Syrian government whether that government is amiable to the U.S. or not, if that report is true, so even if we leave, they would continue to support the struggle against Assad's Government.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)But I will guarantee you one thing: the leadership of turkey wants to maintain control of turkey more than it wants regime change in other states.
As long as its on the far side of the border, war is great. If it has the potential to effect their homes, you can bet they will be singing a different tune entirely.
Right now, they know they are too valuable as an ally in the area for the US to allow them to come to harm, and they are secure in the knowledge that if things spread and become too dangerous, world police USA will step in to break things up. If they were denied that security blanket, they would be taking an entirely different approach to this situation.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)to insure the flow of oil or we vacate and China and/or Russia can pick their sides.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)And the Middle East had never been stable. It's a fool's errand and we are exceptionally foolish, it would seem.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)FlatStanley
(327 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)A world dominated by China wouldn't necessarily be a walk in the park by any stretch.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)While we dither in the sandbox that is the Middle East, losing our ability to manufacture, losing our ability to produce scientists, refusing to educate our citizens, choosing to crumble our infrastructure, racing to the 12th century, China is quietly, and steadfastly advancing through the 21st century.
Sadly for them, when they reach the 22nd century, we'll all be back in the Stone Age, if not extinct.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)away from fossil fuels.
If we vacate now, China and/or Russia will fill the power vacuum, their currencies will then become the standard not the dollar and with that our economy would take a major hit.
China has the good sense to be pushing renewables but they also know that today oil is still king and that's why they're encroaching on Japanese, Philippine and other South East Asian Nation's territorial waters claiming them as their own because oil is believed to be there along with good fishing stocks.
If we want to keep our edge we should be rapidly instituting a combination Manhattan Project and Marshall Plan here at home researching, developing and building green, renewable energy infrastructures which in turn would allow us much more freedom in our foreign policy commitments but as I stated in my first sentence timing is everything and we're not there yet.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)mentioned the Marshall Plan.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Dubious. The Kurds and IS are operating with an "understanding" - basically a cease-fire, while IS keeps the local Arabs busy, and the kurds watch. The Kurds themselves have a lot of resources to draw off of, and while they may lose a few battles, it's unlikely they will lose the war at this point.
You make it sound as if we have control of those particular knobs in the first place. We don't, and we never did. What the Iraqis will do is, was, and always will be up to the Iraqis. Pretending otherwise is simple delusion, sort of like back in the day when the US imagined that one president or the other could be blamed for "losing China."
A removal of US involvement in the region actually dries up a lot of that funding - it's our gifts of money and weapons to these places that are being repackaged and shipped around to other groups.
Iraq is a sovereign state, and can ask its allies for aid if it wants.
No they won't. None of these states have a capable military.
Hezbollah's already in the war - they're fighting alongside Syrian forces, and have been a pretty important part of Damascus' gains against the insurgency.
Well, given that the major component of your premise - a Sunni / Shia regional ground war - just isn't going to happen (and would be over in a matter of days, if it did) this isn't a big worry. Especially when you figure that the bulk of price fluctuation on oil comes not from supply / demand, but from speculation and collusion / price gouging.
There always are.
No, he's really not. He's using IS as pretext for attacks on Syria and an attempt at regime change in that nation. He fucking outright said so in his address. This is a bad idea. it was a bad idea last year, and it hasn't gotten any better with age. if the president were serious about "taking down" IS, he would involve Syria, he would involve Iran, instead of declaring one to be utterly forfeit and then refusing to even speak with the other.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Let's stop arguing on behalf of war.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)Dubious. The Kurds and IS are operating with an "understanding" - basically a cease-fire, while IS keeps the local Arabs busy, and the kurds watch. The Kurds themselves have a lot of resources to draw off of, and while they may lose a few battles, it's unlikely they will lose the war at this point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraqi-kurds-say-their-fight-is-against-more-than-just-the-islamic-state/2014/08/28/00252fc7-7e88-45d8-9a68-0436b018a9af_story.html
The Kurds suspect area Arabs have backed the militants in battles that have raged in Iraq’s north over the past month, including a stunning advance by the jihadists. The fighting has displaced thousands of families in a region long known as a flash point for Arab-Kurdish violence. Now many Sunni Arab residents are barred from coming home.
“The Arabs here stabbed us in the back, and now they are threatening us” from the villages nearby, a Kurdish intelligence officer, Ahmed Hawleri, said from the front-line district of Gwer.
For however long that "ceasefire" lasts it doesn't change the major point of my OP that being of a much wider war taking place.
You make it sound as if we have control of those particular knobs in the first place. We don't, and we never did. What the Iraqis will do is, was, and always will be up to the Iraqis. Pretending otherwise is simple delusion, sort of like back in the day when the US imagined that one president or the other could be blamed for "losing China."
Logic dictates we have some measure of influence so long as they believe we're defending them, they changed governments because of our strong recommendation, time will tell how much the new government is open to moderation and more inclusion of the Sunni Population.
A removal of US involvement in the region actually dries up a lot of that funding - it's our gifts of money and weapons to these places that are being repackaged and shipped around to other groups.
Oil is money and they can get plenty of weapons without us.
Iraq is a sovereign state, and can ask its allies for aid if it wants.
I never stated that Shia dominated Iraq didn't have a right to ask allies for aid, I just said that they will and their closest ally is Iran. Furthermore, Iran in turn will send their army to assist Iraq in their struggle against IS.
No they won't. None of these states have a capable military.
As my previous two points make, Iraq will ask Iran for military help, Iran will send it, and oil is money the Gulf States can certainly buy, rent and/or develop a military if they felt threatened and with Shia Iran on their border I believe these Sunni dominated nations would feel threatened.
Hezbollah's already in the war - they're fighting alongside Syrian forces, and have been a pretty important part of Damascus' gains against the insurgency.
This only makes the general premise of my OP all the more likely that absent the U.S. a much wider regional will probably take place, the U.S. has stated that Turkey is backing the Nusra Front aimed at overthrowing Assad and this war could spread into Lebanon itself.
Well, given that the major component of your premise - a Sunni / Shia regional ground war - just isn't going to happen (and would be over in a matter of days, if it did) this isn't a big worry. Especially when you figure that the bulk of price fluctuation on oil comes not from supply / demand, but from speculation and collusion / price gouging.
That sentence reminds me of what they said on both sides just before the Civil War, "it will be over in matter of days or weeks," that stretched into fours years with over six hundred thousand deaths, and countless wounded.
There always are.
On this we agree.
No, he's really not. He's using IS as pretext for attacks on Syria and an attempt at regime change in that nation. He fucking outright said so in his address. This is a bad idea. it was a bad idea last year, and it hasn't gotten any better with age. if the president were serious about "taking down" IS, he would involve Syria, he would involve Iran, instead of declaring one to be utterly forfeit and then refusing to even speak with the other.
I also agree with you that Obama should be engaging both Syria and Iran, it's long past due that we develop normal diplomatic relations with Iran. My main point was in regards to Obama's military strategy of primarily using air power versus sending in combat troops.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I believe the Kurds are able to hold their own, actually. The Syrian Kurds have done a good job of it - against IS, against Damascus, against their "fellow rebels" - with no outside backing (unless you count Turkish Kurds from the PKK, whose involvement discounts US aid going to the Syrian Kurds.) You said IS would overrun them. That's not going to happen.
They changed governments because the one they had was failing miserably. we were on board, but it was still the Iraqis' call. And the one they have now isn't particularly different, so it's not as if the US ushered in some sort of sea change with our thumbs-up endorsement. We have 'some influence," sure. This does not translate into any amount of control however - influence and control are very different things.
Yes, but right now they have oil money PLUS the weapons and money we give them as housewarming gifts. Take that away and htye have less.
You framed it as a bad thing, however.
Wow. No, no you actually can't buy or rent a capable military. In fact, besides happiness, that's one of the few things money actually can't buy.
Know what the Saudi Arabian military's combat experience amounts to, Since the kingdom's foundation in 1919?
- Having a small army (~500 men) of irregulars armed with WW1 era arms get their butt kicked by Israel in 1948
- Fifty years of beating up civilians in Saudi Arabia
- Running away from Iraqis in 1991. Then flying sorties against Iraq, in which no bullets were fired, no missiles launched, no bombs dropped.
- twenty-three years of beating up civilians i nSaudi Arabia.
This is without considering the impact of a low population (Saudi Arabia has the same population as the state of Texas, 50% of whim can't go out in public, much less join the military) and the... eccentricities of the Saudi Military (like how only members of the royal family ever become fighter pilots... and don't receive training since implying they don't already know would shame them)
The UAE? Qatar? Kuwait? What, are these nations going to give their Filipino and Bangladeshi slave populations the keys to fighter jets and tanks?
No. of the "Sunni" states out there, only Egypt and Turkey have militaries worth mention. and neither one of them are likely to be involved in the scenario you outline.
Spreading the conflagration around is just as likely with US involvement... I nfact as i mentioned it actually looks like that may be the INTENT of American involvement. So it's not really saying much.
I imagine the confederate army could roll over the Saudi military in three days. And all the confederates have been dead for a hundred and fifty years.
My point is that these gulf states just don't have the power to actually engage in a toe to toe fight with anyone. They have shiny second-hand toys and lots of oil money, but that doesn't actually create ability, it doesn't fix dysfunction, it doesn't create soldiers out of thin air, and it sure as hell doesn't add experience or morale.
if you're worried about the Saudis and the gulf states mobilizing for war, well, you must not know much about them. They point their money at clandestine groups that operate to hinder or assassinate the people they dislike. Toe to toe fights are just outside their ability.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)I believe the Kurds are able to hold their own, actually. The Syrian Kurds have done a good job of it - against IS, against Damascus, against their "fellow rebels" - with no outside backing (unless you count Turkish Kurds from the PKK, whose involvement discounts US aid going to the Syrian Kurds.) You said IS would overrun them. That's not going to happen.
I said IS could (the entire OP being about probabilities) put them on the defensive and "perhaps" overrun them, IS did put them on the defensive until the U.S. started using its air campaign. Personally I admire or like the Kurds but Turkey has no love for them gaining too much power, neither does Iran.
They changed governments because the one they had was failing miserably. we were on board, but it was still the Iraqis' call. And the one they have now isn't particularly different, so it's not as if the US ushered in some sort of sea change with our thumbs-up endorsement. We have 'some influence," sure. This does not translate into any amount of control however - influence and control are very different things.
Iraq's government is already showing some early signs of attempting to moderate Sunni perceptions of it, you even posted on this thread. I don't believe Maliki would've been so concerned about civilian, mostly Sunni deaths from Iraqi artillery. I believe this to be a positive development.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014895329
Iraq PM Orders Halt To Shelling Of Civilian Areas
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister said Saturday he has ordered the army to stop shelling populated areas held by militants in order to spare the lives of "innocent victims" as the armed forces struggle to retake cities and towns seized by the Islamic State extremist group this summer.
"I issued this order two days ago because we do not want to see more innocent victims falling in the places and provinces controlled by Daesh," Haider al-Abadi told a news conference in Baghdad, referring to the Islamic State group by its Arabic acronym.
You framed it as a bad thing, however.
I framed it as a "bad thing" insofar as the Gulf States would be concerned, not to mention Turkey and Afghanistan which have majority Sunni populations.
Wow. No, no you actually can't buy or rent a capable military. In fact, besides happiness, that's one of the few things money actually can't buy.
Know what the Saudi Arabian military's combat experience amounts to, Since the kingdom's foundation in 1919?
- Having a small army (~500 men) of irregulars armed with WW1 era arms get their butt kicked by Israel in 1948
- Fifty years of beating up civilians in Saudi Arabia
- Running away from Iraqis in 1991. Then flying sorties against Iraq, in which no bullets were fired, no missiles launched, no bombs dropped.
- twenty-three years of beating up civilians i nSaudi Arabia.
This is without considering the impact of a low population (Saudi Arabia has the same population as the state of Texas, 50% of whim can't go out in public, much less join the military) and the... eccentricities of the Saudi Military (like how only members of the royal family ever become fighter pilots... and don't receive training since implying they don't already know would shame them)
The UAE? Qatar? Kuwait? What, are these nations going to give their Filipino and Bangladeshi slave populations the keys to fighter jets and tanks?
No. of the "Sunni" states out there, only Egypt and Turkey have militaries worth mention. and neither one of them are likely to be involved in the scenario you outline.
IS and the Sunnis in Iraq already have the makings of a "relatively" strong military, this began with the dismissal of the Iraqi Army under Cheney and Bush, and was further aggravated by the previous Iraqi government's treatment of Sunni veterans.
They have been combat tested in Syria and already captured a fair amount of arms, many of them American which were abandoned with virtually no resistance by the current Shia dominated Iraqi Army.
Turkey is already involved in supporting rebels in attempting to overthrow the Assad Government in Syria, (the U.S. mentions Al Nusra for one,) whether that particular point is true or not, Turkey is involved.
If Iran becomes too involved in the fray, many elements in Turkey and Afghanistan, as I mentioned above will also become tempted to respond, this has the makings of a full blown Shia/Sunni religious/civil war. The Gulf States can fund them if nothing else, not to mention sending at least some of their "shiny toys" in support. What we've being seeing for the past couple of decades has been the pre-game warm-up, should the U.S. pull out at this time and leave a major power vacuum.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Just wondering if you have ever thought otherwise?
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)I give him no slack in regards to dropping universal health care, or at the very least a strong public option, "taking it off the table."
Regarding NSA spying on the American People, I've been extremely critical of that as well.
Regarding appointing the former head of Comcast to the FCC, it thought that was a very bad decision.
I thought he should have prosecuted members of the previous administration for war crimes.
I've criticized him for not pardoning the former Governor of Alabama rotting in prison on an unjust prosecution while war criminals and banksters walk free.
I've been critical of his slow adaption to removing cannabis from being a schedule 1 drug, it should be legalized and the "War on Drugs" in general should be ended.
I've been up all night but that's all I can think of for now, I imagine other criticisms of President Obama's policies or actions will come to mind later after I have slept, I will let you know when they do, or you could just google my name and President Obama and see what pops up?
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's not important, but, fyi, I don't have a lot of luck googling names of posters here, unless someone other you makes a post using your screen name, as I am doing now.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)When we simply go in to 'defend allies', we don't get to steal natural resources. If, on the other hand, we wait until the area is all controlled by enemies, we can 'punish them' by taking resources once we defeat them.
(Is that too cynical of me?)
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)mass violence. McCain said that we had to stay to keep things together. Obama said that our military involvement couldn't solve a political situation, and that the US should leave even if mass violence follows. Many on the left supported the latter view, and fought to end the occupation even as neocons argued against the terrible consequences of pulling out.
Were Obama and those of us on the left advocating for withdrawal wrong? People here are starting to sound like McCain.
Obama:
This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.
You can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun. There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.
McCain:
Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?
the Democratic presidential contenders deny progress and see only gloom and doom. Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq?
rgbecker
(4,834 posts)They either convert to Christianity or get moved onto reservations.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)there will be a bunch of consequences. The region will flare up with fighting among factions. Eventually, those flare-ups will settle down, but it's impossible to predict when that will happen.
If we do pull out of the Middle East, and I believe we should, it will have to include support from other major nations, who will have to do the same. If arms continue to flow into the region, there will be no peace there.
Pulling out of the Middle East would also have to include Israel, which is a major factor affecting our activity in that region. If we do pull out of the Middle East, which I believe we should, we will have to pull out of the entire region. The consequences for Israel are unpredictable, frankly, since Israel has nuclear arms and would use them, I think, if attacked strongly.
If we pull out of the Middle East, and I believe we should, there will be interruptions in the flow of oil from that region, almost certainly. Since less of that oil is being used in the US these days, demand from other areas will increase, but supply will decrease. The result will be a marked rise in the price of crude oil.
All of those things are why I think we will not pull out of the Middle East. In fact, I'm almost certain we will not, although I believe we should.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The disastrous WWI colonial borders would finally dissolve and new states would emerge. The centuries long dream of a Kurdish nation would be realized, a new Sunni state in the region would be established, Iraq would cease to exist as it is now constituted, Syria and Lebanon would also be transformed.
It is what is going to happen anyway.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)1. The Kurds have far more soldiers, far more tanks, and far more artillery than ISIS. The Peshmerga was not mobilized when ISIS left Mosul to advance towards Irbil. Now the Kurds are mobilized and ISIS has pulled back. So no, the Kurds would not be conquered. 31,000 total ISIS fighters versus 300,000 Kurdish fighters with the Kurdish Tank Brigade also mobilized is a losing proposition for ISIS.
2. Nothing we do (short of keeping 50,000 Americans in Iraq) will make the Shia-led government more inclusive to the Sunni's. Moderate Sunni's will cling to the Shia government because the alternative is worse. The Sunni moderates are largely secular and can work with the Shia, they can't do the same with ISIS.
3. The Saudi government and the Gulf state GOVERNMENTS are terrified of ISIS and what it represents to their own system of control. Individuals in those countries however willingly send money to ISIS. The governments do not fund them. ISIS receives funding through the Hawala system. It stuns me that no one EVER talks about this system. When I was in Iraq, we routinely seized Hawala brokers in Iraq who were giving money to Al Qaeda. Money from Europe, North America, all over the place. Hawala is the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala
4. Iran is already sending troops to Iraq. They will continue to do so, and those troops will march freely in the streets whether we do anything or not. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29186506
5. The Gulf states have next to no Armed Forces. Even the Saudis are largely a garrison army. The Gulf State would get destroyed. And by Gulf States we are really talking about the Saudis. Because even if the Gulf States sent HALF their armies into fight, leaving the other half to keep the peace back home, then the Gulf States would send less than 65,000 total soldiers into the fight. Even if the Iranians only committed 25% of their total combat strength, they would still outnumber the Gulf States. AND the Gulf States military forces would have to fight through SHIA controlled areas. Yeah that is so not happening.
Qatar military: 8,500 Man Army Iranian Army: 350,000 Army
UAE military: 21,000 man Army
Kuwait military: 11,000 man Army
Bahrain military: 9,000 man Army
Saudi Military: 75,000 man army
6. Why would Syria be in more trouble?
7. Oil would be just fine as the Gulf States would not get involved in Iraq, unless they are suicidal which they are not. Step 7 of your fantasy is predicated on the Gulf States ignoring all logic and common sense and sending their military's to certain defeat. As always the Arabs would make necessary deals to survive as they always have.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)I like and admire the Kurds but Turkey, Iran and least some Arabs don't or at least they don't want them to have too much power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraqi-kurds-say-their-fight-is-against-more-than-just-the-islamic-state/2014/08/28/00252fc7-7e88-45d8-9a68-0436b018a9af_story.html
GWER, Iraq — Kurdish fighters are struggling to hold on to recent gains against Islamic State militants in Iraq in the face of constant shelling and sniper fire. But Kurds say the jihadists have another weapon: local Arab sympathizers.
(snip)
As he spoke, his unit cranked out round after round of heavy machine-gun fire from the single mounted weapon the fighters use to defend the district, along with a handful of aging assault rifles. “It’s like we are fighting a state,” he said of the Sunni extremists just a mile away who lobbed mortar rounds at his troops in return. “A state with a very strong army.”
The Islamic State militants seized the northern city of Mosul and a broad swath of northern and western Iraq in June, and followed up two months later by moving on Kurdish-controlled territory, threatening Irbil, the capital of the Kurds’ semiautonomous zone. That prompted the U.S. military to launch airstrikes and help push the militants back.
The U.S. government and several European nations have since pledged to arm the Kurds, but most of the weapons have yet to arrive. The Kurdish troops, known as pesh merga, are worried they don’t have enough arms to keep the militants at bay.
Regarding Point #2 This is an early sign of moderation which I don't believe the previous Maliki Government would've adhered to.
Should the U.S. pull out leaving a power vacuum, and Iran "march freely through the streets" of Iraq en masse, I believe even secular Sunnis would be less amiable to a more fundamentalist Shia dominated Iraqi government.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014895329
Iraq PM Orders Halt To Shelling Of Civilian Areas
Source: Associated Press
Sep 13, 6:20 AM EDT
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister said Saturday he has ordered the army to stop shelling populated areas held by militants in order to spare the lives of "innocent victims" as the armed forces struggle to retake cities and towns seized by the Islamic State extremist group this summer.
"I issued this order two days ago because we do not want to see more innocent victims falling in the places and provinces controlled by Daesh," Haider al-Abadi told a news conference in Baghdad, referring to the Islamic State group by its Arabic acronym.
Regarding Points 3 & 4
Whether it's direct funding from the Gulf States or the Hawala System sending in funds from some of the richest nations on the planet, the dynamic is essentially the same.
Should the U.S. pull out and Iran "march freely through the streets" of Iraq, I believe Gulf State fear of IS would be counterbalanced from having a fundamentalist Shia dominated Iran on their borders.
Regarding point #5 & 6 IS has the roots of an effective fighting force, they have been combat tested in Syria and Northern Iraq, they're fanatically committed and no doubt have many former, disenfranchised Sunni veterans of the disbanded Iraqi Army.
Should Iran "march freely through the streets of Iraq," up to the Syrian Border, they would also be in the position to more directly assist their ally Asaad and it wouldn't just be the Gulf States; becoming alarmed, Turkey would most likely join in and increase their participation as well. Not to mention Israel's reaction, Lebanon, and Egypt.
Regarding point 7 The Gulf States wouldn't need to send their armies, funding toward resistance would definitely increase, there is plenty of manpower outside of those nations to form a major human conflagration, Starting with Iraq's Sunni population, fighters/ arms streaming in from all areas of that region and to a lesser degree beyond.
You misuse the word "fantasy" this isn't something I desire to take place, this just seems to be a logical progression of a power vacuum created by a sudden U.S. withdrawal from that region.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Which we are just now dealing with, in Obama's second term. One reason why we need to make sure the GOP stays out of power, they seem to LOVE creating war all over the planet.
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)