Should the world get involved with Iraq?

[E-Ro]

A lot of innocents are dying right now. Theoretically, would we even need drones? Would we even need airstrikes?

Even more would die. Do you realize how powerful The United States, Russia, and even the European militaries are? If they go in without concern for humans rights violations this would not even be an issue. But the amount of civilian deaths is simply un acceptable to us, and I think that's for the best.

As for needing drones and airstrikes, i don't understand what you mean. Do you mean fight a war without those things? That would be stupid. Our troops depend on those to operate and they are very effective at what they do. Why would we hamstring ourselves like that by not using some of our best weapons? Air superiority is extremely helpful. I cant imagine a scenario in which we decide to only send in troops and armor with no air support. If we did do that the amount of casualties we take would increase, and not using air support might not have as big an affect on the amount of civilian casualties as you think.

Sometimes I think isolationist is the way to go, but what about when a group like ISIL has control of the entire Middle East?

Huh? You lost me man.

[thetitansbastard]

What the fuck are you talking about?

You don't think ISIL is going to plan attacks around the world from their stronghold? They won't try to expand further?

[ThinkerX]

Its harder then it sounds. These guys hide among the people, and getting at them invariably leads to civilian deaths(hence all the bitching about drones). Eradicating this issue completely with military force alone would be ugly and allot of innocents would die. Any one of the countries you listed(barring perhaps the arab league) has more then enough force to take on the terrorists, problem is collateral damage. Another big problem is the cost, but I consider the innocent deaths a bigger issue, it would be a humanitarian nightmare.

Worse, the 'collateral damage' (dead innocent bystanders) creates new foes.

1) Jamal is 'associated' with radical forces.

2) Jamal's friend Said is not associated with radicals, but likes to hang out with Jamal.

3) Said has another friend, with entirely different interest named Abdul.

4) Jamal and Said get killed by terrorist hunters or a drone or whatever - Said being 'collateral damage'.

5) PO'd Abdul joins the radical forces, motivated by revenge for dead Said. Keep in mind that Abdul will have other friends, also inclined to join the radical movement should he get killed.

Something along those lines is what happens pretty much every time the US kills an 'insurgent' or 'radical' or whatever. After a few thousand corpses, a significant amount of the populace is ready to join the holy war against the infidel westerners.

When the Bush II crew invaded Iraq they deliberately ignored this propagation, with utterly predictable results.

[Sivin]

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure

haha!

[E-Ro]

Worse, the 'collateral damage' (dead innocent bystanders) creates new foes.

1) Jamal is 'associated' with radical forces.

2) Jamal's friend Said is not associated with radicals, but likes to hang out with Jamal.

3) Said has another friend, with entirely different interest named Abdul.

4) Jamal and Said get killed by terrorist hunters or a drone or whatever - Said being 'collateral damage'.

5) PO'd Abdul joins the radical forces, motivated by revenge for dead Said. Keep in mind that Abdul will have other friends, also inclined to join the radical movement should he get killed.

Something along those lines is what happens pretty much every time the US kills an 'insurgent' or 'radical' or whatever. After a few thousand corpses, a significant amount of the populace is ready to join the holy war against the infidel westerners.

When the Bush II crew invaded Iraq they deliberately ignored this propagation, with utterly predictable results.

Yeah, you are of course correct. The question here is after you take out that significant portion of the population(which as I said, could very well be done with the tech we have) is there anything left? Allot of the adults would be dead, I suppose kids and perhaps some of the female population might be left to pick up the pieces.

[thetitansbastard]

I suppose it's possible. It's also theoretically possible that my liver could explode so forcefully that pieces of it reach the moon and thanks to the amazing regenerating powers of the liver that these bits of my liver become the basis for life on the Moon and develop into a species of intelligent creatures that are nigh-impossible to kill because the liver, and they expand further and take over Earth.

hmm...so what do you think their end game is?

[Shryke]

hmm...so what do you think their end game is?

The creation of an Islamic state.

[Ramsay Gimp]

What specifically was the cause? I have to assume you mean pre-9/11?

I was mainly referring to the invasion of Iraq, which opened the door for Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in the region. We also don't help matters by sending arms into Syria

[MercenaryChef]

the fucking otter knows his shit here, folks.

[Sturn]

I suppose it's possible. It's also theoretically possible that my liver could explode so forcefully that pieces of it reach the moon and thanks to the amazing regenerating powers of the liver that these bits of my liver become the basis for life on the Moon and develop into a species of intelligent creatures that are nigh-impossible to kill because the liver, and they expand further and take over Earth.

So, you find the idea that a state taken over by a jihadist terrorist organization might lead to increased attacks outside their new borders, far fetched? It's not like radical Muslims are keeping their goals secret.

[thetitansbastard]

I was mainly referring to the invasion of Iraq, which opened the door for Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in the region. We also don't help matters by sending arms into Syria

At that point the "War Against Terrorism" was all the rage due to 9/11. I recall Iraq being sold as merely an element of the "war." It was a good thing that militants were drawn into the front. It just seems like militant Islamic extremism is an ideology that could be defeated given more unity and coordination among world powers. Instead, we went at it half-assed and publicly announced the war was over and we were leaving on X date, allowing the enemy to regroup and gain a foothold once we left.

[Larry of the Lawn]

At that point the "War Against Terrorism" was all the rage due to 9/11. I recall Iraq being sold as merely an element of the "war." It was a good thing that militants were drawn into the front. It just seems like militant Islamic extremism is an ideology that could be defeated given more unity and coordination among world powers. Instead, we went at it half-assed and publicly announced the war was over and we were leaving on X date, allowing the enemy to regroup and gain a foothold once we left.

That is quite possibly the worst summation of the War on Terror I have ever read.

[Shryke]

So, you find the idea that a state taken over by a jihadist terrorist organization might lead to increased attacks outside their new borders, far fetched? It's not like radical Muslims are keeping their goals secret.

How far outside their border? Next door in Syria/Iraq? Yeah, sure. Downtown London? Fucking please.

[Regent]

30ish years of involvement seem to have done little more than wreck the place and kill ~half a million people.

So, no.

[Ramsay Gimp]

At that point the "War Against Terrorism" was all the rage due to 9/11. I recall Iraq being sold as merely an element of the "war." It was a good thing that militants were drawn into the front. It just seems like militant Islamic extremism is an ideology that could be defeated given more unity and coordination among world powers. Instead, we went at it half-assed and publicly announced the war was over and we were leaving on X date, allowing the enemy to regroup and gain a foothold once we left.

The problem with the commonly-made argument that invading Iraq was a smart way to draw the jihadists where we wanted them is that, even if that's true, it also created many more jihadists than there were previously. But hey, if you think "drawing them to that front" is a good thing then congrats, it seems you got your way

Islamic extremism will not be defeated as long as we support the Saudi tyranny, which is the main exporter of Sunni extremism around the world. It also won't be defeated if we keep toppling governments that keep it in check.

As far as objecting to announcing a withdrawal date, I agree it's not an ideal war strategy but what's the alternative? You think we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan forever?

[thetitansbastard]

How far outside their border? Next door in Syria/Iraq? Yeah, sure. Downtown London? Fucking please.

Wait, is that sarcasm?

[TrueMetis]

Small teams of specialists might manage better than drones or full armies for combating terrorists. But that would lead to a lot more military deaths and from what I've seen people hate that even more the civilian casualties.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Iran's on the case!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/12/as-jihadists-take-aim-at-baghdad-iran-steps-in-to-help-historical-foe/

Some 150 fighters from the Revolutionary Guards elite Quds force have already been dispatched by Tehran, and the division's powerful commander, Qassem Suleimani, met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Thursday and pledged to send two notorious Iranian brigades to aid in the defense of Baghdad. That could amount to as many as 10,000 soldiers sent to fight the Sunni group known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

^the article is kind of shit though - the writer seems to confuse actual Iranian "brigades" with proxies like Hezbollah

[thetitansbastard]

The problem with the commonly-made argument that invading Iraq was a smart way to draw the jihadists where we wanted them is that, even if that's true, it also created many more jihadists than there were previously. But hey, if you think "drawing them to that front" is a good thing then congrats, it seems you got your way

Islamic extremism will not be defeated as long as we support the Saudi tyranny, which is the main exporter of Sunni extremism around the world. It also won't be defeated if we keep toppling governments that keep it in check.

As far as objecting to announcing a withdrawal date, I agree it's not an ideal war strategy but what's the alternative? You think we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan forever?

I don't think there's an infinite number of militant Islamic extremists to be "created", maybe that's naive of me. And you may be right about the Saudis, I will look deeper into that. Of course don't want to be there in perpetuity, just until the movement isn't going to simply rise back up. We needed more support from world powers, and definitely more transparency.

[Shryke]

Wait, is that sarcasm?

No. I'm mocking the silliness of these hypotheticals.