Sorry, this is NOT a plan to put down ISIS. ISIS can be put down by Saudi Arabia stop funding them. Saudi Arabia hates three things, their own Shiite Minority who live in the area of their oil wells, Iraqi Shiites who live in the area of Iraqi Oil and Assad, who while NOT a Shiite is allied with the Shiites. ISIS has thus attacked the two of the three groups Saudi Arabia hates, Assad and the Shiites in Iraq.
ISIS does not have the troops to occupy and hold Iraq, but Egypt does. Saudi Arabia has the troops to take Iraq, but not enough population to provide the troops needed to occupy Iraq, but Egypt does. Saudi Arabia greatest fear of the last 50 years, a Shiite takeover of Iraq ended up being the result of the US intervention and withdraw from Iraq. Saudi Arabia wants to undo that "damage" and they know they need Egyptian Troops to do so.
The Turks are the third player in this Circus. Like Egypt they have the population to support a large enough army to occupy Iraq. The Turks main headache for the last 50 years have been the Kurds, and taking over Syria and Iraqi Kurdistan would give them a greater ability to restrict supplies to the Kurdish rebels. On the other hand the Turks do NOT seem willing to send troops to occupy the rest of Iraq. The main reason for this is simple, Turkey shares a long border with Iraq and all Iraq has to do is mass troops on the Turkish Border, so that Turkey has to do the same, and then Turkey no longer has the spare troops to occupy Iraq. Thus Egypt is the first choice of Saudi Arabia and appears to have been for the last 30 years (thus why Saudi Arabia supported the overthrow of Morsi, he appeared to be unwilling to send Egyptian Troops anywhere).
Sidenote: Saudi Arabia was a huge supporters of the rebels against Gaddafi. The reason for this is simple, while Libya does NOT have the population to take and occupy Egypt, an united Libya could attack Egypt to support a group within Egypt. Libya is strong enough, if united, to take Egypt with Egyptian help. Gaddafi was known to be a progressive when it came to Woman's rights and other rights considered un-Islamic. On the other hand he was a strong ally of the Moslem Brotherhood. Thus Gaddafi could attack Egypt and if the Moslem Brotherhood would revolt at the same time, easily take Egypt and put Morsi back in power. Thus Gaddafi had to go, to secure Egypt.
Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011
24th June 2011 Morsi Win the Election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Under_President_Mohamed_Morsi
30th of June 2013, Morsi is overthrow.
8 June 2014, Sisi is sworn in as President.
13 February 2011 start of the Revolution against Gaddafi
March 1st, 2011, Benghazi and the rest of the Eastern 1/4 of the country was under Rebel Control.
Now, from March 1st til March 17th and the start of the No Fly Order, Gaddafi's forces were holding their own and even advancing, till the no fly order came into play.
Libya is one of those few countries where who ever controls the air, controls the country. This is do to the fact Libya has no mountains (There are mountains along the border with Tunsia but not between Benghazi and Tripoli) and almost no trees thus any defence is easy to bomb from the air. Worse, given the nature of the Country, there is only one east west road and it is along the coast. Worse, that road is easily outflank by going through the desert, if you have the air cover AND the tracked vehicles to do so (wheeled vehicles are NOT an option in most situations). What the No Fly rule did was make any defensive position undefendable. A column would go along the road till it hit a line of defense, then pull back and leave the planes bomb it. During the bombing the ground forces outflank it, either by tracked vehicles, or more often by foot and attack it from three sides (the fourth side is the ocean). The Defending forces then face two choice, stay where they are and get bombed, and hit from all sides with no hope of escape, OR retreat to the next defensive position. Gaddafi forces did the later (which is what Rommel did in Libya during WWII when on the retreat).
Thus the Rebels chased Gaddafi's forces from Benghazi to Tripoli from March 17th till the middle of August 2011. The Rebels took Tripoli by August then chased Gaddafi into the deserts. This tended to be into area outside the non-air refuelable range of NATO Jets out of Scilly, thus tactics had to change. That fighting did not end till October 20, 2011 when Gaddafi was killed.
Now, you may be saying, that was the same time period that the Moslem Brotherhood was in power in Egypt and I would agree with you, but that does NOT mean the House of Saud had other plans. Egyptian troops were NOT needed against Gaddafi and given the control of Eastern Libya they was NOT much Morsi and the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood could do to support Gaddafi. It was a lost of an ally to the Moslem Brotherhood, but a loss given the situation in Egypt, the Moslem Brotherhood could do anything about.
The subsequent break down of Libya society shows that the House of Saud did not care who ruled Libya, but that Libya NOT be united. That goal was achieved and with it any possible military intervention to support Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood.
I suspect the cause of the 2011 Libyan Civil War had little to do with actual Saudi Arabian intervention, but once the conflict started, the House of Saud kept throwing money at it. Saudi Arabia when the situation had stabilised in March 2011, managed to convinced NATO and the US to attack Libya. It was a golden opportunity that the House of Saud was NOT going to pass up and did not.
As to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, By the time they were in a position to do anything, (Morsi becoming President), it was clear that Gaddafi was losing in Libya. Given the hostility between the Egyptian Army and the Moslem Brotherhood, the Egyptian Army was NOT going to obey an order to invade Libya so there was nothing the Moslem Brotherhood could do except to offer moral support for Gaddafi.
Now, Gaddafi controlling Libya was NOT a concern for NATO, the House of Saud or the US as long as Egypt was under the rule of the Egyptian Army. Thus NOTHING happened in Libya till Egypt became unsettled. Once Egypt was unsettled, then Gaddafi had to go for Gaddafi could intervene into Egypt and defeat the Egyptian Army mostly through massive desertion of the enlisted ranks from the Egyptian army to Gaddafi's invading army. This was the big fear of the Egyptian Generals and the Ruling House of Saud of Saudi Arabia. Thus Gaddafi had to go. Morsi could wait, as the Egypt judiciary (all holdovers from the rule of Mubarak) kept ruling Morsi's actions unconstitutional and Morsi unwilling to take complete power for he wanted to be a constitutional ruler of Egypt not a dictator.
That brings us back to this new agreement, it is the agreement of the Generals of Egypt and the dictators of the Persian Gulf for Egypt to provide the troops needed in case of a massive upraising against any one of those dictators AND to occupy the Shiite Majority parts of Iraq (and maybe even to attack Iran). Given the situation in Libya and the Sudan, Egypt does NOT fear any foreign invasion (Israel can invade Egypt but is presently allied with Egypt and indirectly allied with Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States against Iran, thus Israel is NOT going to attack Egypt and even if Israel does attack Egypt, Israel does NOT have the troops to occupy Egypt).
As to ISIS, it has done its job and I suspect the House of Saud is about to pull its financing. Assad is on the offensive in Syria and that was the main reason ISIS moved into Iraq. No funding, no ammunition, ISIS will die on the vine. On the other hand, ISIS has done what was expected of it, created a new de facto state in the middle east, a Sunni state south of Kurdistan, but east of Assad's Alawites of coastal Syria (and their historical allies the Christians of Lebanon) and West of Shiite majority Barsa area. Baghdad is today majority Shiite, but it has a sizeable surviving Sunni subgroup (and some Christians). The Shiites are closely allied with Iran.
In many ways the ISIS was a puppet army of Saudi Arabia, independent enough for Saudi Arabia to claim it did not control ISIS, but close enough to be dependent on Saudi Arabia for supplies. ISIS is now boxed in, it can expand in only one direction and the House of Saud will NOT permit ISIS to expand into Saudi Arabia. The Shiites appears to be fighting back (or getting Iran to do the fighting for them, what is going on with the Shiites of Iraq is unclear).
One side note. Egypt's army is a draftee universal Military Service Army. Thus its officers support Sisi, the enlistee ranks are of the class the supported Morsi. When the second revolution occurred, the Army did NOT rely on its enlistee ranks, instead they reinstated the Egyptian police and relied on volunteer elite units to do the work of overthrowing Morsi. This can be seen in the slow putdown of the protests against that takeover. If the enlistee ranks supported the Generals, any of the enlistee units would have been sent against those protesters on the first day of the coup. That the Army had to wait for units to put down those protests, shows that the units used to put down the protests were NOT regular army units, but elite units raised to put down those protesters.
The implication of this is bad, for it means that if someone can convince the enlistee ranks of the Egyptian Army that they officers are traitors to Sunni Islam, they will be ineffective as a fighting force. This is what happened to the US army between 1968 and 1972, as the US went from supporting the War in Vietnam to the majority of Americans opposing the war, that change in position was reflected in the draftee troops fighting in Vietnam. The US Army went from what is considered the best army the US ever produced to the worse army within four years (some say six months). This has happened to other draftee armies when the people came to oppose the war, one of the first recorded example of this is the Third Punic War. In that war the Roman Army, whose grandfathers had defeated Hannibal 44 years before, were almost ineffective in their efforts to take Carthage in 146 BC. Why, the people of Rome actually opposed that war, for they saw no benefit for Rome in that war, while the ruling elite saw the war as a way to get more wealth. This situation became so bad Rome had to switch to a mercenary (What we would call Mercenary) Army in 109 BC to fight the "enemies" of Rome that the people did not see as enemies, but the rich wanted to steal from.
Just a comment as to the Egyptian Army. If it is used in Iraq or Saudi Arabia and the Moslem Brotherhood can get a message to the enlistee rank that the war is wrong, you can see that army become ineffective quickly. It may NOT revolt for the enlistee ranks may NOT have the people within the enlistee ranks to lead such a revolt, but they may go on strike (Which is the report of several US units in Vietnam in the 1968-1972 period). Such troops would defend themselves if attacked, but if bypassed and left alone, they will leave the other side alone and afterward go home. Any attacking army will quickly figure this out and just by pass them (which is what North Vietnamese Units did to American Units in the early 1970s).
= new reply since forum marked as read
