Iraq Crisis: How to Handle it? - General

Recently with everything that has been going on in Iraq, people have put forth different ways and ideas on how to handle the situation there. A variety of ways to handle the situation have been brought out such as: No intervention Send only Economic Aid and Weaponry to the Iraqi Army and the Kurds Continue Bombing but place no Ground Troops Place boots on the ground Boots on the ground + Bombings etc. My take on this: [B]Strongly for "Boots on the ground as well as Bombing"[/B] I believe bombings alone, while annoying to ISIS, won't stop their advances they are making currently, as they now control 1/3 of Syria and 3/4 of Iraqi territory (who knows if they'll want to expand farther if they succeed?). As successful as they have been, bombings can only do so much. As for only sending weaponry/money to the Kurds/Iraqi Army, while still helpful, it doesn't change the fact that they cannot fight ISIS alone. The Iraqi army has lost swathes of land from the ISIS advance and are getting closer and closer to Baghdad every day. Germany, recently, has sent weaponry to the Kurds who have had more success in fighting ISIS in their regions. But again, it's not enough to break ISIS. And finally as for no intervention, it's (in my opinion) the worst option. Without intervention of any sort, ISIS will go unchallenged and most possibly break the Iraqi army/Kurdish Army and will be able to fully establish themselves as a Caliphate, which frankly no one wants. For arguments AGAINST my viewpoint, I fully understand. Placing boots on the ground will be, yet again, an economic hinderance to the US after fighting and leaving in Iraq just recently, and many people don't want another war there. Unfortunately, it is what is needed to be done to stop an oppressive Caliphate from forming and potentially saving tens of thousands of lives from tyranny. What are your guys' takes on this subject? Should there be boots on the ground? Should the bombings be intensified? What is the next course of action in your guys' opinions?

No intervention. Unless you also support invading North Korea, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, etc. then I don't see how you could honestly or consistently justify anything in Iraq. Why stop there? Just because that conflict is on TV more?

[QUOTE=Explosions;46185688]No intervention. Unless you also support invading North Korea, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, etc. then I don't see how you could honestly or consistently justify anything in Iraq. Why stop there? Just because that conflict is on TV more?[/QUOTE] I don't think that North Korea, the Central African Republic or South Sudan is really an active threat that could cause casualties to American or European civilians in their respective countries. This is why we need to deal with this threat as soon as possible and with as much force as possible.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46185946]I don't think that North Korea, the Central African Republic or South Sudan is really an active threat that could cause casualties to American or European civilians in their respective countries. This is why we need to deal with this threat as soon as possible and with as much force as possible.[/QUOTE] I don't see ISIS sailing a massive invasion fleet to the US any time soon, let alone to Europe. Right now, the only reason why ISIS is seen getting so many victories is due to the crumbled countries they've been expanding in. Iraq and Syria are both massively failed states militarily and politically, due to Syria's civil war and the Second Gulf War in Iraq. The infrastructure, political unity and military force by these two to stop ISIS just isn't there when you have the FSA and Assad fighting each other as much as ISIS and much of the Sunni populace in Iraq feeling disenfranchised by the current Shia government. If ISIS considers and goes with invading a stable country in the region, you're going to see a massive defeat at their hands, save maybe only Jordan and Lebanon. If they attack Turkey, Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia, they're going to get wiped off the earth. Not to mention, any sort of "boots on the ground" to destroy ISIS in these regions will automatically have to deal with the various reasons why ISIS was able to expand so easily in the first place. Any coalition force will have to stabilize both Iraq and Syria, which will cost billions in dollars and potentially lives with it. Not to mention reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the region will most likely benefit the coalition members (which will no doubt be America and Europe) and anger those not participating (such as Russia and China) even though ISIS is not exactly on their friends list. Not only will that just recreate the issue for another time, it's going to lead to wider world divisions.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46185688]No intervention. Unless you also support invading North Korea, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, etc. then I don't see how you could honestly or consistently justify anything in Iraq. Why stop there? Just because that conflict is on TV more?[/QUOTE] I disagree with you. Just because I support placing boots on the ground doesn't mean I also support invading North Korea, etc. Boots on the ground are NEEDED for the Iraqi forces to make a stand against ISIS. Haven't you seen how incompetent the Iraqi army has been against the ISIS forces? Without boots on the ground, we might as well as give Iraq a big ol' "FUCK YOU". Without support, the current Iraqi government WILL fall and ISIS will establish a caliphate, which cannot be allowed to happen as it will oppress hundreds of thousands if not millions of people as well as bring more waves of executions and slaughterings of minorities.

muh merge

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186002]I don't see ISIS sailing a massive invasion fleet to the US any time soon, let alone to Europe. Right now, the only reason why ISIS is seen getting so many victories is due to the crumbled countries they've been expanding in. Iraq and Syria are both massively failed states militarily and politically, due to Syria's civil war and the Second Gulf War in Iraq. The infrastructure, political unity and military force by these two to stop ISIS just isn't there when you have the FSA and Assad fighting each other as much as ISIS and much of the Sunni populace in Iraq feeling disenfranchised by the current Shia government. If ISIS considers and goes with invading a stable country in the region, you're going to see a massive defeat at their hands, save maybe only Jordan and Lebanon. If they attack Turkey, Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia, they're going to get wiped off the earth.[/QUOTE] What about the members of ISIS returning to their home countries and orchestrating terrorist attacks with the experience they've gained? That doesn't concern you?

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46186023]What about the members of ISIS returning to their home countries and orchestrating terrorist attacks with the experience they've gained? That doesn't concern you?[/QUOTE] Honesty, no. Because since 9/11 western countries have significantly upped their national securities. Any successful attack on us will be due more to luck than planning.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186002]I don't see ISIS sailing a massive invasion fleet to the US any time soon, let alone to Europe. [/QUOTE] Yet they've somehow been able to brainwash and convert people to their cause in first world countries. Who knows if these people are just going to head on over to Iraq or if they will work as a POSSIBLE terrorist cell in these countries? I would consider these facts to show that ISIS is already in our front doors.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;46186037]Yet they've somehow been able to brainwash and convert people to their cause in first world countries. Who knows if these people are just going to head on over to Iraq or if they will work as a POSSIBLE terrorist cell in these countries? I would consider these facts to show that ISIS is already in our front doors.[/QUOTE] If they were going to commit terrorist activities in Europe and the US with "brainwashed" cells, they would have done it by now.

Boots/Bombing is what I'd suggest... but at the same time it'd be incredibly costly both with money and people. I was there in Iraq from 2009-10(JSS Ur) and again 2011(COS Kalsu) when we pulled out. So this is just from my own personal account but still... I was at an outpost(JSS Ur) on the northern border of Baghdad and Sadr City where a lot of heavy fighting had taken place the previous years. By that point(both times I was there) the insurgents had no real man power and were relying almost completely on IEDs, hit and run mortar/sniper attacks, with the occasional rocket attack. VBIEDs and suicide attacks were also incredibly rare. If we would have just stayed there or left some kind of force a lot of this could have been prevented and could have kept them from gaining a foothold.

[QUOTE=-Rusty-;46186048] If we would have just stayed there or left some kind of force a lot of this could have been prevented and could have kept them from gaining a foothold.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iraq ask us to leave?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186035]Honesty, no. Because since 9/11 western countries have significantly upped their national securities. Any successful attack on us will be due more to luck than planning.[/QUOTE] Going to have to disagree with you, they'll find ways. We have a false sense of protection that can always be overcome with enough brainwashed determination. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186061]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iraq ask us to leave?[/QUOTE] Yes and never signed a defense treaty because they wouldn't agree to our conditions. This mess was caused mainly from that I'd say.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46186077]Going to have to disagree with you, they'll find ways. We have a false sense of protection that can always be overcome with enough brainwashed determination.[/QUOTE] Determination alone cannot over come extensive security measures. Especially when they haven't much in material. I doubt they are going to put a great deal of money, time and men into attacking the US when they are in a total-war state of expanding into Iraq and Syria, especially when, despite some airstrikes, the US at the moment doesn't pose a threat to their expansionism. [editline]8th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SnakeHead;46186077] Yes and never signed a defense treaty because they wouldn't agree to our conditions. This mess was caused mainly from that I'd say.[/QUOTE] Then another thing to consider with boots on the ground is whether Iraq and Syria would permit coalition aid in that way. Syria would outright reject it, and if we get the offer from the FSA and bluntly deny Assad as the actual government of Syria, it's going to piss off Russia very badly. Though I recently read a news article on CNN that right now America is unconcerned with ISIS expansion in Syria and is focusing entirely only Iraq right now.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186092]Determination alone cannot over come extensive security measures. Especially when they haven't much in material. I doubt they are going to put a great deal of money, time and men into attacking the US when they are in a total-war state of expanding into Iraq and Syria, especially when, despite some airstrikes, the US at the moment doesn't pose a threat to their expansionism.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm saying though. What happens when they become settled and start looking to inflict damage on the countries they view as their true enemies? They need to be attacked and destroyed so that never happens [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186092] Then another thing to consider with boots on the ground is whether Iraq and Syria would permit coalition aid in that way. Syria would outright reject it, and if we get the offer from the FSA and bluntly deny Assad as the actual government of Syria, it's going to piss off Russia very badly. Though I recently read a news article on CNN that right now America is unconcerned with ISIS expansion in Syria and is focusing entirely only Iraq right now.[/QUOTE] Russia and Iran already said they wouldn't stand for air strikes in Syria and they haven't done shit. I dont think they're a danger here. All word and no bite.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186092]Determination alone cannot over come extensive security measures. Especially when they haven't much in material. I doubt they are going to put a great deal of money, time and men into attacking the US when they are in a total-war state of expanding into Iraq and Syria, especially when, despite some airstrikes, the US at the moment doesn't pose a threat to their expansionism. [editline]8th October 2014[/editline] Then another thing to consider with boots on the ground is whether Iraq and Syria would permit coalition aid in that way. Syria would outright reject it, and if we get the offer from the FSA and bluntly deny Assad as the actual government of Syria, it's going to piss off Russia very badly. Though I recently read a news article on CNN that right now America is unconcerned with ISIS expansion in Syria and is focusing entirely only Iraq right now.[/QUOTE] You're right, but remember that ISIS supposedly has over 400+ million dollars at disposal right now as well as control of oil fields which gives them a lot of income at disposal. They may put that money, sometime in the future, to fund terrorist cells in first-world countries to commit acts of terrorism.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46186109]That's what I'm saying though. What happens when they become settled and start looking to inflict damage on the countries they view as their true enemies? They need to be attacked and destroyed so that never happens[/quote] ISIS adheres to an Islamist ideology that basically says their own faith must be "purified" before outright going after non-Muslims. To that extent, this will mean ISIS vs. Iran + Turkey + Saudi Arabia which won't end in their favor. On top of that, even if they do "become settled", they won't be able to do very much given that the only territories they've conquered were already poor and wrecked while their wars are doing even more damage. They aren't going to have much of an infrastructure if they win a lot of land. A example of this is that ISIS's income is considerably funded by kidnapping which isn't a viable income at all for an organization that wants to be a country. As for Russia and Iran, airstrikes are one thing - which are only targeting ISIS, an opponent of Assad and thus them. Boots on the ground [I]will[/I] go against Assad, which is their ally and supporter. You can expect them to flare up when the US starts striking Assad's assets, let alone when they launch ground offenses there. [QUOTE=SnakeHead;46186109]Russia and Iran already said they wouldn't stand for air strikes in Syria and they haven't done shit. I dont think they're a danger here. All word and no bite.[/QUOTE] [editline]8th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;46186119]You're right, but remember that ISIS supposedly has over 400+ million dollars at disposal right now as well as control of oil fields which gives them a lot of income at disposal. They may put that money, sometime in the future, to fund terrorist cells in first-world countries to commit acts of terrorism.[/QUOTE] While this is their most potential threat, I'm not worried about that either because where there's money, there's a money trail and with our increased security, any kind of funds that are transferred over long distances are going to be noticed, especially when it's coming out of ISIS held territory.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46186301] [editline]8th October 2014[/editline] While this is their most potential threat, I'm not worried about that either because where there's money, there's a money trail and with our increased security, any kind of funds that are transferred over long distances are going to be noticed, especially when it's coming out of ISIS held territory.[/QUOTE] There are ways of getting money to terrorist cells without anyone knowing most likely.

While I hate to say that boots on the ground is the only thing to defeat ISIS, it unfortunately is the only precise way. However, I don't believe for a second that ISIS poses a big enough threat to the US for us to even bomb the country. As for boots on the ground, this responsibility should fall only upon the regional leaders, and maybe as far as Italy, but this fight isn't worth even wounding a US soldier. ISIS needs gone fast, but the US shouldn't even step a foot in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Megadave;46240747]While I hate to say that boots on the ground is the only thing to defeat ISIS, it unfortunately is the only precise way. However, I don't believe for a second that ISIS poses a big enough threat to the US for us to even bomb the country. As for boots on the ground, this responsibility should fall only upon the regional leaders, and maybe as far as Italy, but this fight isn't worth even wounding a US soldier. ISIS needs gone fast, but the US shouldn't even step a foot in Iraq.[/QUOTE] Luckily, Baghdad doesn't want any US help other than air support. Even with ISIS just a few miles outside the city.

For interest, here is the blog of Eeben Barlow, who was head of the now defunct famous private military company, Executive Outcomes: [url]http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com.au/[/url] I link this because he goes into a great deal about what exactly an insurgency is, WHY it comes out (in the process destroying a great deal of commonly held misconceptions) and how best to deal with it. Consider EO took a small group of men and not once but twice helped African governments defeat insurgencies and broker peace negotiations, without prolonged conflict and without alienating the local populace, I'd say he knows what hes talking about.

Kill them all I say

[QUOTE=Megadave;46240747]While I hate to say that boots on the ground is the only thing to defeat ISIS, it unfortunately is the only precise way. However, I don't believe for a second that ISIS poses a big enough threat to the US for us to even bomb the country. As for boots on the ground, this responsibility should fall only upon the regional leaders, and maybe as far as Italy, but this fight isn't worth even wounding a US soldier. ISIS needs gone fast, but the US shouldn't even step a foot in Iraq.[/QUOTE] What about the continuous supply and training of Kurdish and Iraqi forces? The Kurds have done a tremendous job so far in fighting ISIS. Putting troops on the ground is a precise way to eliminate the threat, but the Iraqis don't want us there. An Iraqi MP, Mowaffak al-Rubaie said to a news outlet "We will not need any boots on the ground from any country whether the US or Europe or any neighboring country for that matter because we already in Iraq have 1.5 million men and they are armed." The Iraqi regular Army forces aren't doing a good job at stopping ISIS, that was evident from the some 30,000 originally deployed to deal with this, they all ran or got captured. But their Special Forces units are dealing critical blows to ISIS in some of the smaller cities. When ISIS took Mosul, local Sunni's helped them in carrying out their massacres. They have the support of the population. It's been reported that imams there also told their people to help ISIS any way they can. Most of the Sunni provinces under terrorist control wouldn't even appreciate the Iraqi Army coming to liberate them, let alone the U.S.A.

All we need is more dutch bikers to join the fray! Fear us, ISIS! [url]http://www.thelocal.de/20141017/german-motorcycle-gang-joins-kurds-against-isis[/url] But seriously I agree with boots on the ground. ISIS has the potential to fuck up the Middle East even more. Radical Islam is a threat to the West and needs to be stamped out because it shows no signs of slowing down.

This is a problem the the Middle East must solve. We as the Western world shouldn't fight their battles for them, it is their time to stand and it is ours to nothing but help when asked. If they ASK us for boots, we give boots, but if they do not ask, do not give. The problem we face here is that us Westerners do not understand the complexities of Islamic and more broadly, Middle Eastern culture. The borders of Iraq do not matter to them, it is a war of religious alliance than nationalist alliance. Here in the West we swear allegiance to our nations it is alien for us to understand why some of the Iraqi army has turned and ran from the conflict or even joined ISIS, but there you are loyal to your religion and culture, not your nation. This means of course, that if the Kurds ask us for boots, we give the Kurds our boots. We do not give the Iraqi government our boots, they are not the same faction as the Kurds. They live in Iraq, but they do not care any more for Iraq than any other piece of labeled land in the Middle East. It's honestly pretty hard to explain, hopefully I do a decent enough job here.

[QUOTE=draugur;46263579]This is a problem the the Middle East must solve. We as the Western world shouldn't fight their battles for them, it is their time to stand and it is ours to nothing but help when asked. If they ASK us for boots, we give boots, but if they do not ask, do not give. The problem we face here is that us Westerners do not understand the complexities of Islamic and more broadly, Middle Eastern culture. The borders of Iraq do not matter to them, it is a war of religious alliance than nationalist alliance. Here in the West we swear allegiance to our nations it is alien for us to understand why some of the Iraqi army has turned and ran from the conflict or even joined ISIS, but there you are loyal to your religion and culture, not your nation. [B]This means of course, that if the Kurds ask us for boots, we give the Kurds our boots. We do not give the Iraqi government our boots, they are not the same faction as the Kurds. [/B]They live in Iraq, but they do not care any more for Iraq than any other piece of labeled land in the Middle East. It's honestly pretty hard to explain, hopefully I do a decent enough job here.[/QUOTE] Regardless, Iraqis are the sovereign government of Iraq, not the Kurds. If the Kurds ask for boots on the ground, then too bad, they're not the formal, legitimate people to ask for it in that country. [editline]17th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Robsee055;46263491]What about the continuous supply and training of Kurdish and Iraqi forces? The Kurds have done a tremendous job so far in fighting ISIS. Putting troops on the ground is a precise way to eliminate the threat, but the Iraqis don't want us there. An Iraqi MP, Mowaffak al-Rubaie said to a news outlet "We will not need any boots on the ground from any country whether the US or Europe or any neighboring country for that matter because we already in Iraq have 1.5 million men and they are armed." The Iraqi regular Army forces aren't doing a good job at stopping ISIS, that was evident from the some 30,000 originally deployed to deal with this, they all ran or got captured. But their Special Forces units are dealing critical blows to ISIS in some of the smaller cities. When ISIS took Mosul, local Sunni's helped them in carrying out their massacres. They have the support of the population. It's been reported that imams there also told their people to help ISIS any way they can. Most of the Sunni provinces under terrorist control wouldn't even appreciate the Iraqi Army coming to liberate them, let alone the U.S.A.[/QUOTE] We tried to train the Iraqis. We even offered to stay in Iraq and help rebuild their military, but they kicked us out. If they honestly think they can pull this off on their own, they're welcome to try. As for arming and training the Kurds, that can be tricky, especially in Iraq, when they're not the legitimate government of the country. We would essentially be training and arming a paramilitary group outside the legal bounds of that country and its military.

[IMG]http://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/middle-east-problem-solved.jpg[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=draugur;46263579]This is a problem the the Middle East must solve. We as the Western world shouldn't fight their battles for them, it is their time to stand and it is ours to nothing but help when asked. If they ASK us for boots, we give boots, but if they do not ask, do not give..[/QUOTE] The entire reason this is news in the US is because of the threat or "problem" it presents to western interest. If it were a middle eastern problem, or a middle eastern fight then I would be inclined to agree wtih you but your mischaraceriztion is similiar to what several politicans and pudits are saying and its ignorant to the realities of why people are interested. Dead Americans or westerns or the threat of that. [QUOTE] The problem we face here is that us Westerners do not understand the complexities of Islamic and more broadly, Middle Eastern culture.[/QUOTE] Western influence, from culture, to economic, to social, to political to military has natrually and artifically spread to the region. For better or worse their people are accepting of western liberal idealism. This threatens Fundementalist because these ideals directly contridict their ideals. It is not the fault of the Western world their people are accepting of western liberal idealogy. This is normally the part where you bring up us invading their land but ignore the broader implications the fundementalist make when talking about the West, the US in general...is the music, is the womens rights, "that is stain on the islamic holyland" (paraphrased)...but I digress. spelling and grammar is not my first laungage.

boots should only be placed in major population centers to repel any large scale attacks, the local security forces should be the ones who do most of the cleaning up on the ground, other than that the air strikes should. Hell send in the warthogs, if that doesn't get them running nothing will

We should give ISIS money, guns and nuclear weapons. :v: