• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

Its looking more and more like the sectarian divide.....even with Yemen going into civil war.

What I don't understand, was the giving of Hellfire Missiles and Heavy Equipment to Lebanon and Hizbollah. To me that is a major mistake. Even with ISIS opening up a front there.
Israel would agree with you..didn't Hez recently launch a few at Israel? I don't recall
( been too busy to follow it as of late....

did you see this?? The Jewish Press » » Syria and Hezbollah Launch Attack on Rebels at Israel’s Golan Border
 
with due respect, ISIS came directly from AQI (a l-Qaeda in Iraq ) Baghdadi was even a part of AQI/AQIS..
I support going after ISIL or Da 'ish to use the derogatory Arabic term - But I find it difficult to pin the Arab Spring on this.
The Arab Spring started the protests in Syria, which "started"the Syrian Civil War, but not Da'ish..

Anyways.. we need another Awakening by the Sunni tribes to combat ISIL,
because they are stuck between Shia militias, and the Iraqi Army ,or giving comfort to ISIL..

Syria? I don't know how to solve it, except getting Iraq straightened out first..
and that looks worse every day - except for the Peshmerga

With respect, it's not. Otherwise ISIS would still have ties to Al Qaeda, which of course that group has publicly disavowed all ties with the organization we now know as ISIS today. While I'm sure that many members of ISIS were former members of AQI and that part isn't debatable, the truth is that the organization at this time is directed from Syria and not from Iraq which is why this is predominantly a Syrian issue.

Also, another Awakening is out of the question. The reason that was even an option in the first place was because the US was there to serve as an intermediary between the ostracized Sunni and the ruling Shia. Without that, the Sunni have no reason to play ball with the Iraqi Government. Those who haven't already joined ISIS, are content to let the situation play out and deal with whomever wins.
 
With respect, it's not. Otherwise ISIS would still have ties to Al Qaeda, which of course that group has publicly disavowed all ties with the organization we now know as ISIS today. While I'm sure that many members of ISIS were former members of AQI and that part isn't debatable, the truth is that the organization at this time is directed from Syria and not from Iraq which is why this is predominantly a Syrian issue.

Also, another Awakening is out of the question. The reason that was even an option in the first place was because the US was there to serve as an intermediary between the ostracized Sunni and the ruling Shia. Without that, the Sunni have no reason to play ball with the Iraqi Government. Those who haven't already joined ISIS, are content to let the situation play out and deal with whomever wins.
with due resect back, AQI is the same as AQIS.
Islamic State is also known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Levant) .
The Levant is the eastern Mediterranean, which includes Lebanon - their immediate goal before any larger caliphate.

Baghdadi succeeded Zarqawi as head of AQIS - you could do an organizational flow chart if you wanted to show the secession.

A god point though on the Awakening - the US did indeed work with the tribes to turn them away from AQI.
The Iraqi army now is really just a bunch of Shia militias, with Iranian forces operating like Badr Brigades incountry, and I think Quds forces
as leadership, but i'm not sure of the relationship between Quds forces, and the Iraqis.

The Tribes still face the same situation, even without US pay outs.
 
with due resect back, AQI is the same as AQIS.
Islamic State is also known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Levant) .
The Levant is the eastern Mediterranean, which includes Lebanon - their immediate goal before any larger caliphate.

Baghdadi succeeded Zarqawi as head of AQIS - you could do an organizational flow chart if you wanted to show the secession.

They stopped being AQI though the moment that AQ proper tried to end the alliance between the Nursa front and AQI. This is no more clearly demonstrated incidentally in where they chose to plant their capital, Ar-Raqqah. In some ways I wish we were still just dealing with AQI.
 
Tribal leader: Iraqi troops in Anbar province could 'collapse within hours'

View attachment 67180492

Exert: An Iraqi tribal leader said Saturday that ISIS militants are gaining ground in Anbar province, predicting a "collapse within hours" of Iraqi army forces there if tribal forces withdraw.

So about all that progress that's been made defeating ISIS that the WH was championing a short while ago...

If a nation with 271,000 active duty members in its military and another 500,000 plus in reserve cannot defend its own country against ragtag force less than 10% of its size, then even if all of ISIS all of a sudden dropped dead of a heart attack right where they stood, it would only be a matter of time before another group of radical Islamists took their place.

Unless we want to maintain a perpetual surge in Iraq with a constant commitment of a 100 billion a year indefinitely, then we might as well accept that corrupt ****hole whose government is nothing but a puppet of Iran is going to end up a failed state. Our best bet is to simply contain it - much like how we had Saddam contained before the previous administration went into Iraq and created this entire mess to begin with.
 
I'll admit, that I doubt that we'd be in this present position with Iran were Saddam to still be in power. But regardless of your opinions of the Iraq conflict, that book was closed when the last combat troops left the country and the future of Iraq was handed over to it's people. Besides, one could easily argue that the Arab Spring has a larger part to play in attributing to ISIS, or even the failure of the Iraqi Government to work with it's Sunni brethren as had they of done so we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. Neither of those situations had one thing to do with American involvement. So you can stop with the American bashing, as it's no longer relevant to this equation.

What would you have had us do? The Iraqis no longer wanted us there. Moreover, if we stayed they insisted our troops be subject to their courts which was entirely unacceptable. So had we stayed we would have had to stay as occupiers in a country that no longer wanted us there. Do you think that would have had a positive result?

We left Iraq with an elected government that benefited from an insane amount of nation building and foreign aid. Moreover, we left them with a large and well armed military. How is it our fault they are so corrupt and inept they can't maintain order and defend their own country?
 
That's ridiculous. Had the US and other Western powers not interfered with president Assad's war on terror from the beginning, he would have crushed the terrorists operating in his country early on.

Western support for the revolution has been modest at best, and is peanuts compared to Russian and Iranian aid to the regime. Most aid to the rebels has come from the Gulf states.
 
If a nation with 271,000 active duty members in its military and another 500,000 plus in reserve cannot defend its own country against ragtag force less than 10% of its size, then even if all of ISIS all of a sudden dropped dead of a heart attack right where they stood, it would only be a matter of time before another group of radical Islamists took their place.

Unless we want to maintain a perpetual surge in Iraq with a constant commitment of a 100 billion a year indefinitely, then we might as well accept that corrupt ****hole whose government is nothing but a puppet of Iran is going to end up a failed state. Our best bet is to simply contain it - much like how we had Saddam contained before the previous administration went into Iraq and created this entire mess to begin with.

If ISIS were strictly an uprising of Sunnis against the corrupt al-Abadi Government, then I'd agree that we'd be wasting our time. The issue at hand, and what we can do, is deal with the issue in Syria and that's all I'm really advocating for at this point. Iraq's a mess and it's going to stay that way so long as they continue to have a sectarian government

What would you have had us do? The Iraqis no longer wanted us there. Moreover, if we stayed they insisted our troops be subject to their courts which was entirely unacceptable. So had we stayed we would have had to stay as occupiers in a country that no longer wanted us there. Do you think that would have had a positive result?

We left Iraq with an elected government that benefited from an insane amount of nation building and foreign aid. Moreover, we left them with a large and well armed military. How is it our fault they are so corrupt and inept they can't maintain order and defend their own country?

I don't believe I've ever made the assertion that the failure in Iraq was our doing. If I did, then that was a mistake.
 
If ISIS were strictly an uprising of Sunnis against the corrupt al-Abadi Government, then I'd agree that we'd be wasting our time. The issue at hand, and what we can do, is deal with the issue in Syria and that's all I'm really advocating for at this point. Iraq's a mess and it's going to stay that way so long as they continue to have a sectarian government



I don't believe I've ever made the assertion that the failure in Iraq was our doing. If I did, then that was a mistake.

At this point all we could do is figure out some kind of Iran-Contra style system for secretly arming the Assad regime.
 
At this point all we could do is figure out some kind of Iran-Contra style system for secretly arming the Assad regime.

Not necessary, the Russians have been handling that part remember? Besides, if we really intend on dealing with the ISIS threat, then we have to go at it's source in Syria. And unless we're cooperating with Assad in the process (if even that just means implanting SOF forces into the Syrian Army to coordinate the air campaign), then we're going to get a lot of backlash from Russia and China as they try and say that we have territorial aspirations in Syria. Incidentally, this is why the Free Syrian Army is also a really bad idea as well.
 
Not necessary, the Russians have been handling that part remember? Besides, if we really intend on dealing with the ISIS threat, then we have to go at it's source in Syria. And unless we're cooperating with Assad in the process (if even that just means implanting SOF forces into the Syrian Army to coordinate the air campaign), then we're going to get a lot of backlash from Russia and China as they try and say that we have territorial aspirations in Syria. Incidentally, this is why the Free Syrian Army is also a really bad idea as well.

I think we screwed up when we said Assad had to go. Strongman dictators are the only way any of those countries have maintained any notion of stability.
 
I think we screwed up when we said Assad had to go. Strongman dictators are the only way any of those countries have maintained any notion of stability.

Wouldn't be the first time we've had to play nice to someone we weren't 100% on board with, but I agree, we made a mistake when we said that. Not because it was with bad intentions; in a perfect world, he'd of been gone and a moderate (or more importantly secular) leader would of taken it's place. But if the middle east has taught us anything over the past decade, it's that secularism isn't something that the Middle East knows very well (outside of Tunisia of course).
 
If a nation with 271,000 active duty members in its military and another 500,000 plus in reserve cannot defend its own country against ragtag force less than 10% of its size, then even if all of ISIS all of a sudden dropped dead of a heart attack right where they stood, it would only be a matter of time before another group of radical Islamists took their place.

Unless we want to maintain a perpetual surge in Iraq with a constant commitment of a 100 billion a year indefinitely, then we might as well accept that corrupt ****hole whose government is nothing but a puppet of Iran is going to end up a failed state. Our best bet is to simply contain it - much like how we had Saddam contained before the previous administration went into Iraq and created this entire mess to begin with.

If we laid waste, absolutely, to the islamofacists, we wouldn't have to permanently occupy the region. To paraphrase Sherman: we should make the islamofacists howl.
 
If we laid waste, absolutely, to the islamofacists, we wouldn't have to permanently occupy the region. To paraphrase Sherman: we should make the islamofacists howl.

I am sure no one has ever thought of that.... How are you going to do that exactly without killing countless innocents in the process and thus inspire the next generation of islamists?
 
I am sure no one has ever thought of that.... How are you going to do that exactly without killing countless innocents in the process and thus inspire the next generation of islamists?

Islamists aren't real Muslims, so who cares if they get killed? Killing all those Islam hijackers would be healthy for Islam, yes?
 
Islamists aren't real Muslims, so who cares if they get killed? Killing all those Islam hijackers would be healthy for Islam, yes?

The point is you cannot just go in and kill them all without inadvertently killing a bunch of innocent people in the process. Thus you anger their families, and inspire the next generation to embrace radical Islam. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
The point is you cannot just go in and kill them all without inadvertently killing a bunch of innocent people in the process. Thus you anger their families, and inspire the next generation to embrace radical Islam. Why is that so hard to understand?

You said that the islamists aren't real Muslims anyway. So, who cares if islamists, even potential islamists get killed?

The families and associates of the terrorists are already terrorists, or will graduate to be terrorists. How hard is that to understand?
 
We've seem this type of sensationalism before. I wouldn't assume that just because "a tribal leader" said something, that it's true.

These people desperately want the US to fight their war for them, and they don't care about American lives or costs to the American taxpayer.

So does anyone know, did anbar province collapse within hours? I looked at news, all they are doing is reporting an updated version (assumibly more accurate_ of the story that was published days ago.
 
You said that the islamists aren't real Muslims anyway. So, who cares if islamists, even potential islamists get killed?

The families and associates of the terrorists are already terrorists, or will graduate to be terrorists. How hard is that to understand?

I am not talking about just their families. 1. Islamists are real Muslims. They are Fundamentalist Muslims. 2. If you go in there and try to kill all the Islamists in a village you will almost certainly end up killing a not of non-Islamists as well and thus radicalize their families.
 
I am not talking about just their families. 1. Islamists are real Muslims. They are Fundamentalist Muslims. 2. If you go in there and try to kill all the Islamists in a village you will almost certainly end up killing a not of non-Islamists as well and thus radicalize their families.

But wait, you claimed earlier in this thread that ISIS troopers aren't real Muslims. Now they are?
 
YOU FOUND MY BLOG!!!!

I don't think I've been able to get a bead on this but do you consider ISIS a long term strategic threat to the US if it continues to exist? And if so, do you really think that the current political actors in the region can accomplish defeating the outfit at this point without US cooperation?

Lol, I know, I thought that was funny, if irrelevant to our discussion, but couldn't resist it. As to your question, I don't know. But I do know this, I'm sick and tired of failed US policy that then requires us have to respond to our own bad policy, and especially with our military. We keep creating crisis' that require a military response. Can we try something new, please?
 
Libya is a "jihadist wonderland" ( Rand Paul) and NATO ( specifically France and Obama) decided on
"Gaddafi must go" which brought the unholy tribal and regional conflicts along with the Islamist, and the current 2 governments,and the
stopping of almost all oil ...etc.. (I won't go on in a longer run on sentence)..

If you want to track Libya -I keep a thread going here Libyan civil war? -the other board I post on
...that shows the constant devolving into that "jihadist wonderland"

Honestly I don't think the western influence in Syria was that great a deal though, in that Syria was going to happen
once the 'al-Nusra types' decide to try and go after Damascus..Hillary's "Friends of Syria" & Obama's "Assad must go" stupidity aside

It's a lot more complex in how it started in Syria then Libya at least.

I don't know if you're denying that regime change in Syria has been a US FP ambition predating Obama or not. But in the interest of stability, we could have provided president Assad with aid as opposed to the militants who are working to overthrow his government. Nothing, NOTHING that the US has done in the Middle East has been positive, constructive or stabilising. And I assure you, had it been China or Russia that had done exactly the same things that America has been doing in the ME the last dozen years, everybody here defending USFP would be screaming how badly they had ruined the region. Only the patrons continue to defend and condone American policy in the ME.
 
I don't know if you're denying that regime change in Syria has been a US FP ambition predating Obama or not. But in the interest of stability, we could have provided president Assad with aid as opposed to the militants who are working to overthrow his government. Nothing, NOTHING that the US has done in the Middle East has been positive, constructive or stabilising. And I assure you, had it been China or Russia that had done exactly the same things that America has been doing in the ME the last dozen years, everybody here defending USFP would be screaming how badly they had ruined the region. Only the patrons continue to defend and condone American policy in the ME.
oh I agree , how are you? Haven't spoken to you in awhile. I'm not too familiar with the Assad's pre-Obama;they were always just kina "there"
 
Western support for the revolution has been modest at best, and is peanuts compared to Russian and Iranian aid to the regime. Most aid to the rebels has come from the Gulf states.

Indubitably, the gulf states are pumping support to the extremists operating in Syria. Who knows if we'll ever know for sure how much effort the US has put into helping Syrian opposition overthrow president Assad? Our CIA has used training camps in Jordan and Turkey to train opposition forces, weapons systems confiscated from Gaddafi's army were smuggled to opposition forces from the Benghazi annex thru Turkey, the Obama administration repeatedly sought a UN resolution for the use of force in Syria, etc. Had the aid and assistance gone to president Assad instead, we wouldn't be worrying about Syria right now. But our fingerprints are on everything in the region, and nothing is the better for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom