Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[Blizzard]

^ Not entirely sure I agree with what I read.

This tends to be my current view...

ISIS in many ways is simply the latest manifistation of the long running Sunni vs Shia conflict. They are Sunnis and the reincarnate of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The areas they are having success are Sunni; look at the maps and the areas they control as evidence. ISIS is exploiting past (and current) idiocy of the Iraqi government (as well as ours), and in a great part Maliki specifically. Maliki is Shia and the way he choose to include/exclude Sunnis from the Iraqi government gave (and continues to give) ISIS a position from which to argue and continue to recruit. So far, Al-Abadi doesn't appear to be improving things in this respect. The Iraqi government continues to lock out the Sunnis in any meaningful way, thus allowing ISIS to continue to project a message to Sunnis as being "victims" which aids from a recruiting standpoint. Add to this ISIS' incredibly keen understanding and ability to manipulate the media.

As a result, I tend to think ISIS "success" has more to do with Sunni disillusionment and media manipulation than it does of any particular ideology. I wonder how successful they can truly be reaching outside Sunni regions (which is not to say they aren't dangerous or shouldn't be crushed). There are all kinds of anti-government groups battling in Iraq/Syria and ISIS' ability to work across borders provides a key advantage (provides a safe haven to return). While ISIS leaders may spew some b.s. about some ideology and caliphate, I'm not so sure the bulk of their fighters in Iraq give a shit about ISIS ideology per se as much as they do about making sure Sunnis are not at the bottom of the proverbial totem pole. It's an eye for an eye kind of bullshit and probably explains, in part, why they can't get broader alignment/approval from Al Qaeda. Different objectives. This is also why countries, like Jordan, which is mostly Sunni, are concerned.

 

[Gunz]

... I wonder how successful they can truly be reaching outside Sunni regions...

So far they've been very successful recruiting people who have little or no stake in the Sunni/Shia conflict. I suspect most of the thousands of recruits, foreign or otherwise, streaming to the ranks of ISIS have no idea why the Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other since the mid-seventh century. That's not to say Sunni/Shia differences don't play a part here...I just think for the most part, individual ISIS members are "in it" for any number of reasons.

As far as ISIS vrs Al Qaeda, there's not a whole lot of ideological difference there, it's more like King of the Hill. ISIS claims to be the the one and only true path of Islam. And any Muslim who doesn't believe in their interpretation of Islam is a non-believer. One of the main reasons why jihadists will never unite to present more than regional threats is because they've been fighting each other since the disintegration of the original caliphate.

 

[Blizzard]

So far they've been very successful recruiting people who have little or no stake in the Sunni/Shia conflict. I suspect most of the thousands of recruits, foreign or otherwise, streaming to the ranks of ISIS have no idea why the Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other since the mid-seventh century. That's not to say Sunni/Shia differences don't play a part here...I just think for the most part, individual ISIS members are "in it" for any number of reasons.

ISIS only numbers around 30K accoding to CIA estimates from Sept. Realistically, top end of current estimates 50K - 60K, most of whom are those "local" Sunnis. ISIS plays bigger as a result of their media expertise. ISIS will claim 180K members, yet, they haven't been able to defeat either the Syrian army or the beleagured Iraqi army (which numbers over 250K by comparison).

Are they attracting others to the fight? Sure. But there will always be a core group of fanatics that will jump into the fight. Which is why I don't think ISIS' ideology has the legs to reach further than Sunni regions. Even now, they and other opposition groups end up fighting amongst each other and that's a good thing - let them kill each other off.

 

[CDG]

ISIS only numbers around 30K accoding to CIA estimates from Sept. Realistically, top end of current estimates 50K - 60K, most of whom are those "local" Sunnis. ISIS plays bigger as a result of their media expertise. ISIS will claim 180K members, yet, they haven't been able to defeat either the Syrian army or the beleagured Iraqi army (which numbers over 250K by comparison).

Are they attracting others to the fight? Sure. But there will always be a core group of fanatics that will jump into the fight. Which is why I don't think ISIS' ideology has the legs to reach further than Sunni regions. Even now, they and other opposition groups end up fighting amongst each other and that's a good thing - let them kill each other off.

Nobody knows how many fighters ISIS has. Estimates have ranged from 9K to 200K. Exactly what terror group do you think the attackers in France, Belgium, Denmark, and Canada would most identify with? The ISIS model is one of decentralized control where satellites/cells/nodes/whatever are scattered far and wide and carry out operations as they see fit. To say it is only about Sunni vs Shia is a little ridiculous given the statements the ISIS media arm has put out. They have stated time and again that their goals go FAR beyond eliminating the Shias.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/how-many-fighters-does-the-islamic-state-really-have/

 

[Blizzard]

Nobody knows how many fighters ISIS has. Estimates have ranged from 9K to 200K. Exactly what terror group do you think the attackers in France, Belgium, Denmark, and Canada would most identify with? The ISIS model is one of decentralized control where satellites/cells/nodes/whatever are scattered far and wide and carry out operations as they see fit. To say it is only about Sunni vs Shia is a little ridiculous given the statements the ISIS media arm has put out. They have stated time and again that their goals go FAR beyond eliminating the Shias.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/how-many-fighters-does-the-islamic-state-really-have/

No one knows exact numbers (again, partly due to the media manipulation of ISIS) but there are some reasonable/logical estimates that can be arrived at and the 30-50K number seems to be about right.

Consider the sources claiming numbers and what they have to gain. Ex. the Kurds want aid. They're the ones throwing out the outlier. Which sounds like they need more help - a group fending a few thousand or a couple hundred thousand? Think about it:
* ISIS has not held any ground beyond traditional Sunni areas
* The Iraqi army with all it's challenges is 250K+
* Are those terror attacks in France, Belgium, Canada, etc. from actual ISIS members/cells or are they more likely loose outliers/sympathizers (ie. the lunatic fringe)?

ISIS is able to attract Sunni fighters because they can play they "victim" card. That's giving them the bulk of their force. Would they have been as successful if the Sunnis were given a greater voice in their new government...or at least not smacked down the way they were (some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9314_Iraqi_protests)? Maliki's approach has given ISIS' view an air of legitimacy. In addition, the Sunni/Shia angle is also why Iran has quietly got involved. Iran wants to marginalize Sunni power and will back a "brother" Shia government...and the Iraqi government will quietly allow their assistance.

I'm just sharing my view on ISIS. But to be clear, I think we need to eradicate the motherfuckers.

 

[Theirb123]

http://boston.barstoolsports.com/m/...eyre-into-a-lot-more-gay-sex-than-i-expected/

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Interesting...found an ISIS recruiting vid on Facebook...should go without saying, but this would fall under the category of NSFW -

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=340403982816078

 

[CDG]

No one knows exact numbers (again, partly due to the media manipulation of ISIS) but there are some reasonable/logical estimates that can be arrived at and the 30-50K number seems to be about right. Consider the sources claiming numbers and what they have to gain. Ex. the Kurds want aid. They're the ones throwing out the outlier. Which sounds like they need more help - a group fending a few thousand or a couple hundred thousand?

Seems to be about right based on what? Did you read the article? Chief of Russian General Staff estimated 70K and Middle East based security experts have estimated 100K. So the Kurds have estimated the highest number, but they are not the only ones estimating above 30-50K.

Think about it:
* ISIS has not held any ground beyond traditional Sunni areas
* The Iraqi army with all it's challenges is 250K+
* Are those terror attacks in France, Belgium, Canada, etc. from actual ISIS members/cells or are they more likely loose outliers/sympathizers (ie. the lunatic fringe)?

* How much ground do they need to hold? They've been extremely effective to this point without worrying about what land they hold or don't hold. They've proven they can take large cities.
* What's your point?
* Does it really matter? How many attacks have to happen before you don't consider it the "lunatic fringe"? Whether or not they are considered "official" members of ISIS is beside the point. ISIS isn't built on membership cards. They've said, "Hey, we don't care where you're at. Rise up and kill infidels." That's exactly what's happening. This "well....... they're not REALLY ISIS, it's not REALLY Islamic extremism" approach is short-sighted and dangerous.

ISIS is able to attract Sunni fighters because they can play they "victim" card. That's giving them the bulk of their force. Would they have been as successful if the Sunnis were given a greater voice in their new government...or at least not smacked down the way they were (some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9314_Iraqi_protests)? Maliki's approach has given ISIS' view an air of legitimacy. In addition, the Sunni/Shia angle is also why Iran has quietly got involved. Iran wants to marginalize Sunni power and will back a "brother" Shia government...and the Iraqi government will quietly allow their assistance.

I'm just sharing my view on ISIS. But to be clear, I think we need to eradicate the motherfuckers.

The victim card???? That's hardly what their recruitment is based on. Openly stating you want to establish a new caliphate and usher in the end times doesn't sound like a victim mindset, it sounds like a group with a clear goal.

 

[Blizzard]

Seems to be about right based on what? Did you read the article? Chief of Russian General Staff estimated 70K and Middle East based security experts have estimated 100K. So the Kurds have estimated the highest number, but they are not the only ones estimating above 30-50K.

Yes, I read the article and there was some fair analysis but it lacked critical thinking in other aspects. The Russian General you mentioned was speaking to TASS (a very non-biased source) and quoted 70K while also blaming U.S. for funding. The single ME expert you mention, an Iraqi, said up to 100k. The numbers I mentioned are the most frequently cited and seem most likely based on CIA reports, independent observers/news reports, and perhaps more importantly, associated quantitative and empirical evidence as cited below...

* How much ground do they need to hold? They've been extremely effective to this point without worrying about what land they hold or don't hold. They've proven they can take large cities.

Disagree. ISIS proved they could take a large cities in Arab Sunni areas by surprise last summer. However, more recently, they've also shown they can't take/hold smaller cities (they lost Kobani and surrounding villages). Just yesterday, the Kurds reportedly turned back a "major" attack on Irbil. ISIS' progress appears to stall out. Also, consider this map of enthic regions and compare it to territory controlled by ISIS (yellow area is traditional Arab Sunni - ISIS are Arab Sunnis):

ISIS needs to hold ground to maintain their influence and as a secure base for operations. It's key for any group; having a secure base of operations in Afghanistan was key to Al Qaeda successes. Up until airstrikes began on both sides of the Syrian/Iraqi border, ISIS had safe havens to move between, providing them a big advantage. That is being mitigated:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...aqis-optimistic-2015-2014122483413657350.html

* What's your point?

Very simple. If ISIS is really the steamroller they have some believing they are, why can't they seriously challenge the beleaguered Iraqi army. ISIS took Mosul last June, despite being outnumbered 40:1. But they did so not necessarily because they were great fighters but because the Iraqi army refused to fight. Yet, since then, ISIS progress largely remains consolidated to primarily Arab Sunni regions. What's more, they've actually lost ground to Peshmerga because the Peshmerga will actually fight. Their progress has clearly slowed since their gains last summer and fall and it's having an impact:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1705f00-85e6-11e4-a105-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3SCgMa82G
Why did it stall out? How do you explain that?

* Does it really matter?

Yes...more below.

How many attacks have to happen before you don't consider it the "lunatic fringe"? Whether or not they are considered "official" members of ISIS is beside the point.

No, it's not...

ISIS isn't built on membership cards. They've said, "Hey, we don't care where you're at. Rise up and kill infidels." That's exactly what's happening. This "well....... they're not REALLY ISIS, it's not REALLY Islamic extremism" approach is short-sighted and dangerous.

Who said that? Not me.

Anyone can simply say "we're ISIS" and the media blindly reports it as such. Just because they say they are doesn't make it so. Is Boko Haram ISIS too?

ISIS is one carve out from the greater umbrella of Islamic extremists. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. ISIS' broader threat is in how it inspires other radical extremists, on that we agree, and it has shown innovation in it's ability to manipulate the media and generate funding. Their sensationalism/barbarism has allowed them to play bigger than they are; an effective use of media to drive fear/terror. This is the angle they brought to the table (a reinvention of the stuff al-Zarqawi was doing a decade ago) and that aspect to their threat shouldn't be downplayed.

Defeating ISIS is just one battle in the larger war against Islamic extremism, which includes Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and many smaller groups.

 

[racing_kitty]

* Does it really matter? How many attacks have to happen before you don't consider it the "lunatic fringe"? Whether or not they are considered "official" members of ISIS is beside the point. ISIS isn't built on membership cards. They've said, "Hey, we don't care where you're at. Rise up and kill infidels." That's exactly what's happening. This "well....... they're not REALLY ISIS, it's not REALLY Islamic extremism" approach is short-sighted and dangerous.

Who said that? Not me.

Anyone can simply say "we're ISIS" and the media blindly reports it as such. Just because they say they are doesn't make it so. Is Boko Haram ISIS too?

In a culture that puts a lot of legal weight upon the recitation of a few specific words or sentences at the right time (e.g. recite the Shahada, and BAM you're a Muslim; or look at your wife and say "Talaq, talaq, talaq (sp)," and BAM, you're divorced), all it takes is a spoken declaration for your membership to be valid with that organization. Some of the lone wolf attacks that were planned for the US post-9/11 were reported to have been planned out by someone with mental problems that made them susceptible to Islamic extremist teachings. Without a membership roster, how can you prove whether or not the Charlie Hebdo shooters were ISIS members, especially considering at least one of them had been to Syria in the recent past. And before you start with the "Is X then Y?" argument, remember that Al Shabaab was merely Al Shabaab for a hot minute, then officially aligned themselves as a part of the Al Qaeda network a couple of years ago. What's to stop Boko Haram from actively declaring themselves a part of ISIS if they haven't already? They've already come out in agreement with the concept of an Islamic caliphate, they just want to have their own caliphate for the time being. How long before ISIS makes them a deal that they can't refuse to consolidate their efforts?

 

[pardus]

@Blizzard I'm not going to go through point by point, but you are making some grand assumptions that are not based on the reality of the situation IMO.

 

[racing_kitty]

Bad news, POTUS. When you've lost Vox, you've got issues.

...Balancing these goals would be extraordinarily difficult for any president. George W. Bush struggled with it throughout his administration. But Obama is faltering. He has veered so far into downplaying Islamist extremism that he appears at times to refuse to acknowledge its existence at all, or has referred to it as violent extremism. While he has correctly identified economic and political factors that give rise to extremism, he has appeared to downplay or outright deny an awkward but important fact: religion plays an important role as well...

*snip*

Obama is right to push against Islamophobic conflations of ISIS with all Muslims and to refute jihadist fantasies of a holy war between Islam and the West — both points Bush made repeatedly as well.

Still, it is possible to combat Islamophobia and ISIS's propaganda, while also honestly addressing religion's role in ISIS's ideology.

But Obama, by refusing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Islamist extremism, has tied his own hands; he cannot draw a distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism if he pretends the latter does not exist. That has made it much harder for Americans to see where that line is for themselves. And it has left them to turn to hateful voices who are eager to argue that there is no line at all, or that the extremists represent far more Muslims than they actually do...

Agree or not with Vox's entire view of the situation, even Max Fisher can't discount that religion is playing a role here.

 

[Blizzard]

@Blizzard I'm not going to go through point by point, but you are making some grand assumptions that are not based on the reality of the situation IMO.

@pardus. Fair enough, we can disagree. I'm merely stating my view based on the evidence I see. Curious though to know where you think grand assumptions are being made?

 

[Blizzard]

What's to stop Boko Haram from actively declaring themselves a part of ISIS if they haven't already? They've already come out in agreement with the concept of an Islamic caliphate, they just want to have their own caliphate for the time being. How long before ISIS makes them a deal that they can't refuse to consolidate their efforts?

ISIS has already done so with a number of groups, namely Ansar al-Islam. However, as evidenced even with them, a portion of it's followers reportedly rejected the merger. They have an ongoing disjointedness with Al Qaeda.

While their broad alignment of Islamic extremism may bind them, regional/local differences thus far seem to be key points of disagreement that lead to continued reports of infighting among groups. I'm not sure they have effective leadership to truly control it as evidenced by the reports of disillusionment cited in one of the earlier articles I posted.

Would, say Boko Haram, really pledge allegiance, not merely, alignment to ISIS? That is reportedly what ISIS asking.

One more article, in attempt to support my view:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9410252/the-hype-jihad/

 

[racing_kitty]

I think you're missing my point just a little. Again, it's a culture clash. You're looking at it through the eyes of Western-style organization, i.e. "Yes, they have stated they are a part of Group X, but far too many underlings are disenfranchised/disillusioned/pissed off, which leads to internal conflicts. Since Group X can't effectively control Group W, there is no true merger, meaning Group W is still Group W, but sympathetic to group X."

Whereas in the tribal culture of the ME, it's "We are Group W, we openly declare our allegiance with Group X, therefore we are now Group X. We personally hate Subgroup Y (formerly Group Y), but they are also Group X." In their eyes, it really is that simple, and we here in the West have a really infuriating tendency to overly complicate the simple things, so much so that we are in no way capable of making sense of what really is complicated over there.

You see it your way, and I'll see it mine, which comes from enough years spent in Iraq, working with Iraqis to have picked their minds a time or two about cultural differences

 

[CDG]

Yes, I read the article and there was some fair analysis but it lacked critical thinking in other aspects. The Russian General you mentioned was speaking to TASS (a very non-biased source) and quoted 70K while also blaming U.S. for funding. The single ME expert you mention, an Iraqi, said up to 100k. The numbers I mentioned are the most frequently cited and seem most likely based on CIA reports, independent observers/news reports, and perhaps more importantly, associated quantitative and empirical evidence as cited below...

Seem most likely is not definitive proof. I'm not dismissing the possibility that the CIA estimates may be correct. What I am dismissing is the idea of choosing to randomly pick one set of a range of reported numbers and use to argue as though it's hard truth. You said:

Realistically, top end of current estimates 50K - 60K, most of whom are those "local" Sunnis.

Yet these aren't the top end of current estimates. It's not an argument to continuously point to why the other estimates are wrong based on some inherent bias. Do we not do the same thing? Our President won't even use the words "Islamic extremism". So to counter your argument, maybe the CIAs numbers are being influenced by pressure from the top to downplay the reports in order to help out the administration. The same administration that referred to ISIS as the "JV" squad. To be clear, I don't believe this, but by your own logic it's now a valid argument.

Disagree. ISIS proved they could take a large cities in Arab Sunni areas by surprise last summer. However, more recently, they've also shown they can't take/hold smaller cities (they lost Kobani and surrounding villages). Just yesterday, the Kurds reportedly turned back a "major" attack on Irbil. ISIS' progress appears to stall out. Also, consider this map of enthic regions and compare it to territory controlled by ISIS (yellow area is traditional Arab Sunni - ISIS are Arab Sunnis):


ISIS needs to hold ground to maintain their influence and as a secure base for operations. It's key for any group; having a secure base of operations in Afghanistan was key to Al Qaeda successes. Up until airstrikes began on both sides of the Syrian/Iraqi border, ISIS had safe havens to move between, providing them a big advantage. That is being mitigated:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...aqis-optimistic-2015-2014122483413657350.html

Very simple. If ISIS is really the steamroller they have some believing they are, why can't they seriously challenge the beleaguered Iraqi army. ISIS took Mosul last June, despite being outnumbered 40:1. But they did so not necessarily because they were great fighters but because the Iraqi army refused to fight. Yet, since then, ISIS progress largely remains consolidated to primarily Arab Sunni regions. What's more, they've actually lost ground to Peshmerga because the Peshmerga will actually fight. Their progress has clearly slowed since their gains last summer and fall and it's having an impact:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1705f00-85e6-11e4-a105-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3SCgMa82G
Why did it stall out? How do you explain that?

ISIS currently holds quite a bit of ground: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034
They are being pounded by airstrikes, but no one can seriously argue that is going to be enough on its own to remove them. They are consistently gaining recruits from all over the globe and already can be argued as a more formidable terrorist organization than AQ. How long did it take them to reach that?

They may be in a bit of a stall now, sure. Is that not to be expected considering what they are facing currently? They're hardly on the run. You said it yourself, the Iraqi army wouldn't fight. So does ISIS really need to worry about challenging them at this time? I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional on ISISs part due to them having moles inside the Iraqi Army.

Anyone can simply say "we're ISIS" and the media blindly reports it as such. Just because they say they are doesn't make it so. Is Boko Haram ISIS too?

@racing_kitty already hit the nail on the head with this one. ISIS wants other Muslims to say "we're ISIS" and then go carry out operations. They've been saying it the whole time! Again, what criteria are you using to define one group as ISIS and another as not ISIS within the context of recent attacks?

 

[Brill]

Bad news, POTUS. When you've lost Vox, you've got issues.



Agree or not with Vox's entire view of the situation, even Max Fisher can't discount that religion is playing a role here.

Don't want to piss off the Iranians during nuke treaty discussions.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

 

[racing_kitty]

Don't want to piss off the Iranians during nuke treaty discussions.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

TLDR. I'll have to go over that later on, when I've got time, and I'm not otherwise engaged with a Smallish Child.

 

[Gunz]

Don't want to piss off the Iranians during nuke treaty discussions.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

It's the kumbaya approach to Iran, the carrot instead of the stick. Smother them with affection into giving up any plans for weaponized nukes. I look at this as rationalising a potentially disasterous policy. In my view Iran's primary goal is developing nuclear arms...otherwise why years of secrecy, deception, prevarication? Netanyahu is right, Obama is wrong...appeasement plays into their hands, makes us look weak and only earns their contempt. They respect and fear strength.

 

[Brill]