Militant Islamists

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

We may consider them an illegitimate state, a state which must be destroyed.

But they're a state. They're doing the things a State does. Terrorist groups don't run schools or courts, don't arbitrate land disputes and so on. Hamas in Gaza would be another example of a terrorist group which now has a state; Hezbollah is similar, nominally a political party. They carry out terrorism, they have conventional military capabilities as well, and they run government and social services.

Maybe just a bit of semantics here but I would tend to classify ISIL more as an invading rogue force than an actual State. A State requires borders and to some extent the recognition of other countries neither of which ISIL has. One could argue that as the US/Allies moved into contested areas during WW2 that they set up Government and Social Services on an ad-hoc basis but that would hardly qualify as statehood.

The reason I find the distinction important is more to the precedent than anything else. If the Black Panthers had decided during the Detroit riots to establish an enclave before the National Guard had pushed them out one could argue that for that duration they ran a defacto State but I think such a position gives too much credence. Ie: whereas the Black Panthers would have to worry about the US authorities ISIL has to worry that the Sunni Clans will eventually be offered a deal that makes them turn at which point the so called State becomes nothing more but a fragmented siege.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Actually Tarkus I think Turkey would jump right in if the allies would also go after the Assad regime. At least that is their stand so far.

Yes to go for Assad... no if they in any way saw this as legitimizing the Kurds.

I mean that is the issue with this entire region. The Arabic mantra from which they all live by; me against my brother, my brother and I against our village, our village against the next village.

Essentially they all hate each other so trying to find a commonality in building any strike force is next to impossible. It is part of why Thomas Lawrence was able to achieve some short term gains against the Ottoman Empire in that he recognized that you could not utilize the local Arab forces in the same "King and Country" approach that was typical from his training. Even if you can drill down to the level of "okay so can we at least agree that while you are Sunni and you are Shia the opposition is killing you both" it still fails because the next complaint is "230 years ago his clan called the fourth wife of our leader as having the face of a goat!"

I would tend to call it a Middle East problem but then you look at what is happening through Eastern Europe where cultural differences based on a geographical distance of 75 miles is considered forever irreconcilable I suppose it is more of a generic issue.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Being British, IMO my only duty of loyalty is to my family and friends.

.....and if that's not a recipe for tribalism and clannism, I don't know what is...

[9876543210]

SanteeFats,

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I agree about us jumping in at least with boots on the ground but the opposing ground forces need air and logistics support plus modern training.

But who do you give the arms and training to? We armed and trained the predecessors or the Taliban. Was that a good idea? There are probably at least a hundred similar examples in the area of people we've supported only to have them eventually turn on us.

The only group we seem to be able to trust (the Kurds) can't be overtly supported by us because of the Turks (well explained why in this thread). So who do we support?

IMO it does not matter which radical sect is which. Iran and ISIS are still trying to dominate the area.

Iran and the current Iraqi government (Shia) vs. ISIS/Saudi Arabia/A dozen other Arab countries (Sunni) have been at war for a thousand years. How will our involvement improve things in any way?

I did hear something interesting today. Some people seem to forget that Shia and American conservatives do have a bit in common. It was Shia Iran who took those American hostages in 1979 and good old Ronnie Rayguns who conspired with (some say committed treason) those Shia to not release those hostages until the election was over.

Quite a relationship.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Maybe just a bit of semantics here but I would tend to classify ISIL more as an invading rogue force than an actual State. A State requires borders and to some extent the recognition of other countries neither of which ISIL has. One could argue that as the US/Allies moved into contested areas during WW2 that they set up Government and Social Services on an ad-hoc basis but that would hardly qualify as statehood.

The US/Allies in Germany were an "Army of Occupation".

"Occupation" is a distinct international legal regime, described under the Geneva Conventions, but the Conventions are predicated on the idea that the entity doing the occupying is itself a recognized state.

What isn't described is what happens when an area is occupied by an entity which itself isn't a recognized state.

I agree that ISIS is not a "State" for the purposes of international law, in that they're recognized by no one and have never been. You might analogize, perhaps, to the areas in Colombia that are controlled by FARC, except that FARC's aim is to overthrow the government of Colombia, and to rule it instead of the regime-- they're kind of like the Sandanistas or the Shining Path, before they won.

All that said, ISIS appears to its supporters to be a State, or rather a Caliphate, and to be that now -- it is not an aspiration, its the current situation. In fact, there's reporting that al-Baghdadi was pressured by his supporters to declare that he was Caliph, that this was something he was somewhat hesitant to do.

FWIW, the boundaries of the "State" that ISIS claims, is denoted by the term "Bilad al-Shams", an archaic term meaning "land of the left hand", somewhat like the European term "Levant". This would include Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Palestine . . . and the boundaries of the Caliphate are the Earth itself

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I agree that ISIS is not a "State" for the purposes of international law, in that they're recognized by no one and have never been. You might analogize, perhaps, to the areas in Colombia that are controlled by FARC, except that FARC's aim is to overthrow the government of Colombia, and to rule it instead of the regime-- they're kind of like the Sandanistas or the Shining Path, before they won.

All that said, ISIS appears to its supporters to be a State, or rather a Caliphate, and to be that now -- it is not an aspiration, its the current situation. In fact, there's reporting that al-Baghdadi was pressured by his supporters to declare that he was Caliph, that this was something he was somewhat hesitant to do.

FWIW, the boundaries of the "State" that ISIS claims, is denoted by the term "Bilad al-Shams", an archaic term meaning "land of the left hand", somewhat like the European term "Levant". This would include Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Palestine . . . and the boundaries of the Caliphate are the Earth itself

Well thus why I said maybe this is just semantics.

Maybe the benefit of ending Baghdadi and ending this claimed lineage to Mohammed.

As per the geography it is odd that in fact the effort has created a mirror image of the Levant. The current Levant State is more right handed than left handed.

However as I indicated I have no issue with your position on this. I am just concerned that from an authoritative level that pronouncing a legitimacy in this manner could potentially result in a validation of the State if everything gets bogged down aka WW1 Trench Warfare and we have a defacto state, (much like we eventually had to deal with the Taliban even though they inherently have no standing).

[Nobody1]

'From Pol Pot to ISIS : Anything that flies on everything that moves'

https://wikileaks.org/From-Pol-Pot-t...hing-that.html

Just saying.

[9876543210]

While listening to the radio on my way home today I heard an interesting report (I think this was reported on the Thom Hartmann show). Apparently there is an offensive going on where the Shia Iraqi's and their buddies (the Iranians) are attacking ISIL positions (this doesn't seem to be in dispute). What I found interesting is that there are reports which suggest Shia clerics have joined soldiers at the front lines and are flying Shia flags and exhorting Shia soldiers to eliminate the Sunni heathens.

Haven't been able to confirm that yet but I did find an article suggesting Sunni (ISIL) are destroying Shia holy sites:

http://www.military.com/video/operat...3652133425001/

I'd be real, real careful with that reference as the site has a definite bias in this matter.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

'From Pol Pot to ISIS : Anything that flies on everything that moves'

https://wikileaks.org/From-Pol-Pot-t...hing-that.html

Just saying.

A really terrible pack of lies, error, and misinformation.

Entirely wrong about Cambodia, and wrong about Iraq too.

The left likes to make a bizarre assertion-- that by fighting communists in Cambodia, somehow the Nixon Administration (and Kissinger in particular) are responsible for communists coming to power in Cambodia.

Its just silly, its as silly as it sounds: "By fighting X, you're responsible for the terrible things that X does".

The Khmer Rouge were communists, principally supported by the Chinese. The Lon Nol government, non-communist, was supported by the United States, but unable to defend its territory from incursions by both Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge, and Soviet-supported NVA and Vietcong.

To blame the US for the evil done by the folks we were fighting against is popular in lefty circles, but its profoundly ignorant.

So when you writer says

What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed. Under their bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.

he's just making his readers stupider. Does he mention that North Vietnam had invaded Cambodia, and that that was who we were dropping bombs on? Does it occur to him that its North Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia that might have destabilized the regime? Nope.

Nowhere in this does he mention what actually lead to the victory of the Khmer Rouge-- that the US, profoundly burned by the involvement in Southeast Asia, refused to act on the Lon Nol government's request for military assistance against the Khmer Rouge. Nor does he mention just who did supply the Khmer Rouge, namely China, who sought a balance to the Russian-backed North Vietnam, and whose genocidal "Year Zero" policies are very much a copy of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Pol Pot himself had been in China during the Cultural Revolution, and Mao reportedly gave Pol Pot this praise: "You have achieve with one stroke what we have failed with all our masses"

On Pol Pot's visits to China and relationship with Mao, see
"Creating the New Man: From Enlightenment Ideals to Socialist Realities"
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5564-9780824830748.aspx

Back to Iraq, to the extent that we see the Cambodia example as relevant, the parallel is that when the US is exhausted from a long conflict, terrible things can happen when its unwilling or unable to support those fighting evil.

There are many -- including myself, on occasion-- who, sick of Iraq, would say "leave them to Isis-- and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban".

That is more or less what happened with Cambodia.

As sick as we are of the place, we should understand that there are truly brutal people there, who have plans for murder that must be answered by something more than "we're tired of this".

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Well thus why I said maybe this is just semantics.

Well, its semantics which does have some practical significance.

I've suggested, somewhat snarkily, that we could recognize ISIS and strip the citizenship of all those who traveled there, and make it a big cheap Guantanamo.

Scoundrel has pointed out that this isn't practical, and as fond as I am of the idea, I have to agree.

But there is a real issue with insurgencies, generally, of when and how they become recognized internationally. The Saudis, for example, were the ISIS of the 1920s, and they seized the Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz and Eastern Arabia.

In time, they came to be regarded as legitimate.

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Maybe the benefit of ending Baghdadi and ending this claimed lineage to Mohammed.

As per the geography it is odd that in fact the effort has created a mirror image of the Levant. The current Levant State is more right handed than left handed.

However as I indicated I have no issue with your position on this. I am just concerned that from an authoritative level that pronouncing a legitimacy in this manner could potentially result in a validation of the State if everything gets bogged down aka WW1 Trench Warfare and we have a defacto state, (much like we eventually had to deal with the Taliban even though they inherently have no standing).

You're most likely right on this one.

ISIS seem determined to check the box on every war crime -- today they've taken up the destruction of the greatest archeological treasures of Nimrod.

But as you note, we deal with the Taliban, and they've done quite similar things-- they're the ones who destroyed the great Buddha of Bamiyan with mortars.

But we talk to them, and if they come to power, we'll recognize them (as we did before).