For those supporting the President's plan to fight ISIS: What if....

[cali]

Just a likely hypothetical.

What if, 18 months from now, things are much the same in Iraq and Syria, despite bombing ISIS and training Syrian opposition groups? In other words, ISIS holds onto the territory it's taken or even expands its territory in Iraq and Syria. There are now millions more refugees and thousands more deaths, both from ISIS forces and from U.S. bombing.

Will you still support the mission? Do you believe that the mission should be changed to reflect that it hasn't been effective in curtailing ISIS? What changes would you support? Increased bombing? Boots on the ground?

[karynnj]

1. I would bet that - far earlier than 18 months - if the situation is the same, the WORLD

would opt for a different course. Things could be better or worse, but the hypothetical that things are the same, is the least likely.

I get the temptation to react to this as we did to Bush, but between Friday's UN hearing (led by Kerry) and the articles on the resolution that Obama will personally lead the UN to pass on Wednesday, this seems to be a very different effort. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/world/obama-to-lead-un-effort-to-halt-movement-of-terror-recruits.html?_r=0 What seems clear is the US is genuinely trying to encourage the Middle east to rid itself of these terrorists.

Conversely, if Iraq regains its territory and has a viable government and the Sunni areas are guarded by Sunni "national guards", would you argue that the US giving Iraq the space (speaking of Obama's actions this year not the original invasion) was worth it? Further if through some combination of forces, either there is a new leader in Syria or there is a truce with Assad -- and ISIL gone, would you agree that war was worth it? (Note the Obama administration still says the onbly solution in Syria is diplomatic/Political)

[cali]

3. actually, I think it's the most likely.

I think in terms of specific rather than "better" or "worse".

It's utter pie in the sky to think that within the span of a year (or several) that Iraq will regain its territory and have a viable government. To believe that, one must ignore the past several years. Do you think the Sunni/Sh'ia strife will magically disappear? Do you understand that the "new" Iraqi government is largely the same as the old one?

A truce with Assad is unlikely but it's more likely than a new leader in Syria.

If the fantasy that you lay out happens, sure I'll say I was wrong, but that's about as likely as the problem of climate change being solved in the next year.

Note: The Obama administration is planning to bomb in Syria. That's not a political/diplomatic solution. That's force being utilized to bring about a diplomatic/political solution.

[karynnj]

5. No one thinks that the Shia/Sunni divide will magically disappear

It is possible to think that it will move from terrorism/military to where it was for decades - not allies, not friends, but relatively peaceful.

I realize that many people in the Iraqi government are the same as in Maliki's government. I also think they could well have learned that just because the Shiites are a majority and they have Iran's backing, they are not better off marginalizing the Kurds and Sunnis. The fact that they are speaking of Sunni "national guards" where the government pays for them and they are the primary force in Sunni areas is promising.

I agree with you that a truce with a new leader is more likely than with Assad - even if like you said of Iraq - the government is still fundamentally the same. I think that a truce with Assad is difficult due to his murderous actions - even if they occurred only after people rebelled against him. (The only counter I can think of is that the leader in Sudan is wanted for war crimes and the US dealt with his government and not him in the leadup to the vote that resulted in South Sudan. Both countries still have major major problems.)

As to the US bombing Syria - they are NOT speaking of bombing government installations, but ISIL. I suspect that, in fact, it will not be the US bombing here - but likely Assad - and we will "deconflict". If not Assad, it likely will be a Middleeastern force - and there are some that offered help.

I do think that what Obama is trying to do is both complicated and not easy. Months ago, the NYT printed this oped by Kerry as the administration's position which they balanced with one from McCain/Graham. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-kerry-the-threat-of-isis-demands-a-global-coalition.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

I would assume that this is absolutely not what Obama would have chosen to be the condition of the Middleeast 6 years into his Presidency - but the real question is what happens if he does not lead. I know the American norm is to view everything as fixable and us as the ones best able to do it, but the question is what would really happen in a vacuum where we did not respond?

[cali]

7. Why was it relatively peaceful for decades? One word: Saddam.

that is not debatable.

There is, alas, little evidence to rely on when it comes to those in the Iraqi government having learned from the past several years. I hope they have, but it's less likely than that they'll continue governing in much the same manner.

I don't know of any leader in Syria who commands the allegiance of a significant number of people who could unify that country.

I realize that the bombing will be of ISIS forces, but it will still lead to the deaths of civilians. I hope you're right about it not being the U.S. doing the bombing, but as of now, it looks like it will be. Plans for bombing by the U.S. have been developed

What I think can be stated confidently, is that this is going to be a long drawn out affair, and the longer it is, the more "unforeseen consequences" and the more blowback.

[karynnj]

10. Saddam was a reason in Iraq - however the relative peace was much broader

than just Iraq.

[Scootaloo]

2. Of course they'll still support it

And they'll blame the situation on the left because we didn't "offer enough support."

[cali]

4. what gets me is all the pie in the sky support

magical thinking.

[jeff47]

6. This kind of supposes that the people talking about the intervention aren't lying.

Iraq, Syria and all the rest of the countries in the area are an artificial construction by the French and British at the end of WWI. The only thing holding those countries together was brutal oppression. As that fades, there's going to be chaos as the borders are remade into a more natural state.

Complicating that even further is Israel (for obvious reasons) and Turkey. Turkey's a US ally and NATO member, but a large chunk of "Kurdistan" should be carved out of their territory. And Turkey is not interested in doing that.

So the goal of the bombing and training isn't to utterly annihilate ISIS. Despite what the "I continuously crap my pants" caucus claims, or the media massively oversimplifies.

The goal is to weaken them so that they stop conquering, while trying to strengthen some less brutal group who will be able to represent the Sunnis. That way when the borders get redrawn, they might be somewhat stable.

As a result, ISIS not being destroyed in 18 months really doesn't matter. The problem will be if the Sunnis will not get behind a less brutal group. If the chaos in the not-as-violent Sunni groups continues, there really isn't anything more that can be done. The locals will wash the sand with blood while they fight the war that has been brewing for the last 100 years. US bombs won't particularly matter in that situation.

What will matter is the Turkey problem. Imagine an ISIS that moves into Turkey. Turkey's NATO status obligates us to put boots on the ground to fight off an ISIS invasion. That is the scenario that the current plan is trying to prevent. Since the bombings seem to have already stalled ISIS's advance, it seems pretty unlikely that they will invade Turkey any time soon.

Couple that with hardening resistance from the Kurds and the Iraqis (their government and army actually give a fuck about the Shi'ite areas of Iraq), and it looks like the worst-case scenario is ISIS forms a new country from parts of Iraq and Syria. Not exactly positive from our perspective, but livable in the short-run. And 18 months is probably too short of a timeline for that to occur.

Which is a very long winded way to say I don't support "boots on the ground" despite supporting the bombing/training plan.

[cali]

8. good post.

I don't think I said anything in the OP about "ISIS being destroyed in 18 months".

I think ISIS is smarter than you give it credit for. I doubt that they would do anything more re Turkey than border skirmishes.

As for the Sunnis getting behind a less brutal group, I'm not aware of such a group and it's hard to see the Sunnis getting behind the Iraq government.

I just don't see the bombing/training plan as having a big chance of success.

thanks for your well thought out response

[Skidmore]

9. Frankly, I haved not yet decided what I support in regard to this region.

There are so many groups and fluid allegiances in the area and the overarching umbrella of a religion. Yes, America and the UK have be instrumental in sowing strife in the region to maintain control of oil flow. Any decision currently made is one to ride a tiger.

I don't think that ISIL/ISIS and whatever other group is rumbling around the neighborhood is necessarily a US creation (CIA made out of whole cloth) as some suggest but are more reactionary groups to various grievances at several levels. Dissatisfaction can create some nasty alliances. I do think that there is a danger in letting this horrific group go unchecked. Any state-to-state solution is out of the question right now since this so-called caliphate is not recognized as legitimate by the other nations of the world. To deal with them as anymore than a criminal element gives them legitimacy as a state.

The other thing that is a sticking point for me is what people would see the expected reaction from us to them should one of their agents successfully carry out some violent act in this nation. I don't think that is totally impossible. Probability in this regard is something I don't think I can assess.

ISIS/ISIL has been killing their own peoples and not just western journalists. If hands off is the desired approach, then everyone needs to get comfortable with many more deaths because this is as much about rejecting western cultural influence as well as pol would expect that there be no lamenting lack of action on our part over the bloodshed. A purge of western influences also means that you must make peace with the idea that those who are seeking power will keep the region as firmly rooted in medieval times as possible. They are playing for keeps.

I simply don't know what I would like to see us do. I don't see any clear path that doesn't involve pain for many.