Hamster Buddha
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,675
- Reaction score
- 1,237
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
No,
Allied air force attacks combined with local troops can work. See how it worked in the Balkans as an example.
Which is the reason you'd have to take a scorched earth approach to the religion in the region. But even beyond that, Islam has become a danger even to those who practice it. And by that, I mean all the sectarian differences. In the scenario that we go in and acts as a true occupying power (we haven't really done this, instead opting to take a more hands off approach to internal politics). We broke Japan of Shintoism, we can do the same with Islam in the Middle East. They key would be we'd have to show a better way by providing rebuilding effort not seen since the Marshall Plan.
Make no mistake, this will be the costliest endeavor in US History, and one which will have to have the cooperation of not just Europe and the US, but also other world powers affected by Islamic attacks such as Russia, China and even India. (as neither of those powers are going to be willing to sit back and allow NATO to carve up the Middle East without getting a cut). Again this solution isn't something that could be pulled off now of course, but only the worst comes to pass.
But it hasn't worked in an area that wasn't infested with Radical Islam. That is my point.
Touche though, I didn't about that. We're also talking about a society that isn't about hundred or two hundred years behind the time.
Never said it wouldn't. But at a point down the line, the cost of inaction, will be higher.
You mean turn the whole world against the backwardness in the Middle East? That, of course, can work. I mean, even without the rest (especially not Russia), just consider China and India coming in for a cut!
Hmmm, what about Bosnia?
Bosnia was not that behind because of religion, true.
While there I propose removing all other religions as well.
There are terrorist from Morocco, but that comes more from the cancer that is within Islam today than any policies the state is enacting. I actually think that there's is a good model to work off of. The problem is that the infection may run so deep that eventually you have to deal with it.
The problem is that this hasn't worked. I mean say what you will about Iraq, but the moment we took over, we were more than ready to hand over power to the Iraqis. And that just got blown up into a sectarian mess with Islam at the heart of it. Egypt ousted Mubarak, and what do the people do? They install the Muslim Brotherhood. We assist in the ousting in Lybia, and now that's a hot bed for Islamist. And Syria? Well, perhaps if we'd of kept our noses out of that, ISIS wouldn't of been a problem, especially of Saddam was still in power to prevent them from pushing as far in as they did.
It didn't work in Iraq for the same reason ISIS is in Syria-it fills a power vacuum. If we hadn't ceded Iraq to them, we wouldn't be in this mess-do you honestly think if we left our forces in Iraq that we would even need to be having this discussion about ISIS in Iraq?
Honestly, you know why they are doing this? Because they don't have the balls to go all in to solve the problem. And until the problem warrants that level of a solution, they will continue to try and copy of the success of the Afghan Campaign* (by success I mean ousting the Taliban from power.)
It didn't work in Iraq for the same reason ISIS is in Syria-it fills a power vacuum. If we hadn't ceded Iraq to them, we wouldn't be in this mess-do you honestly think if we left our forces in Iraq that we would even need to be having this discussion about ISIS in Iraq?
Yes because I think you still have a power vacuum. Unless the US becomes a colonial power in Iraq, then there was inevitably going to be a vacuum between the political factions. Perhaps ISIS isn't the problem they are right now, but I think you still have civil wars in Iraq and Syria because the causes of those two conflicts remain in place. I mean, the Arab Spring still happens, which ultimately leads to the Syrian Conflict. And you still an ineffectual government in Baghdad that abuses the Sunnis which leads to the conflict there.
Maliki isn't stupid, he knows we couldn't take over Iraq again if we wanted to. So ultimately, the troops that remained would be giant bluff.
If Iraq weren't ****ed with at all we wouldn't be in this situation either. ever think of that? :doh
ISIS wasn't in Iraq (significantly) until we left. There is a variable there you must account for-our withdrawal.
But we did get involved, so the choice became go home and have to come back in 3 years or stay and keep the peace.
For politics, Obama chose to pull out-and its blown up in his face in spectacular fashion-so much so that he's been forced back in.
The problem is that this hasn't worked. I mean say what you will about Iraq, but the moment we took over, we were more than ready to hand over power to the Iraqis. And that just got blown up into a sectarian mess with Islam at the heart of it. Egypt ousted Mubarak, and what do the people do? They install the Muslim Brotherhood. We assist in the ousting in Lybia, and now that's a hot bed for Islamist. And Syria? Well, perhaps if we'd of kept our noses out of that, ISIS wouldn't of been a problem, especially of Saddam was still in power to prevent them from pushing as far in as they did. In every single circumstance we've given freedom to Muslims in the Middle East, it's blown up in our face (with the lone exception of Morocco).
Could it of eventually blown up in our faces down the road? Maybe, but maybe not. Every year we get closer to not having to rely so heavily on ME oil. And once we finally kick that habit, we can seal off the ME and let the whole place burn itself down. At the very least, it wouldn't be our problem anymore, so long as we aren't letting them into Europe.
The saudi's are very totalitarian and they are so terrified of ISIS they are building a heavily fortified and armed wall to keep them out. I dont think that will work. If the house of saud goes down it will be horrifically bloody.
A transparent excuse. What about Obama's military advisors explaining what would happen?What about the status of forces agreement of November of 2008?
Not sure what it had to do with my post?
But I do not think ISIS would venture down with Saudi Arabia.
It is not a done deal. Perhaps it takes longer for it to work.
This has not worked neither,
Isolating our lands and expecting the east to destroy themselves only allows for an all encompassing leader to emerge like: Genghiz Khan, Atill the Hun, Ottoman Empire, etc. Being proactive is better then reactive.
Just that even a totalitarian state is terrified of ISIS.
Not sure what it had to do with my post?
But I do not think ISIS would venture down with Saudi Arabia.
Fair Point. But then again, even though my New York Knicks are 5-36, doesn't their championship hopes are out of the question right?
Don't you think that it would actually be in our strategic interests to allow a central organization to develop from this mess? After all, that'd just provide us a target to blow up after all.
A transparent excuse. What about Obama's military advisors explaining what would happen?
Saudi Arabia and ISIS would never be allies. One's Sunni and the other's Shia with all the baggage that entails. Part of the reason for the Conflict in Iraq is that you have the Sunni ISIS that is pushing through friendly Sunni territory, and not is being resisted by Shia Iraq that will be backed by the Sauds.
Something major would have to shift for these two to work together.
Just that even a totalitarian state is terrified of ISIS.
If the whole world turns against them for instance.
The analogy fails to apply because championships are yearly campaigns, while our involvement in the east may be a lifetime involvement.
Historically, that has been a bad idea. A central organization is too powerful, it becomes a greater factor, and destroying it then can only bring the centralized organization down to the current state of affairs. So dealing with it then would cost more and the result would be to bring it down to this level and then some more. While we are here, why allow it to?
May the most secular anti Assad side win!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?