ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Still no one answered what the end game is... There are reports now of the Taliban regaining land, killing hundreds (including beheading people). Do we go back to full on war with them too? Send more troops back to Afghanistan to fight the "new evil" post ISIS?
I don't get it...
I don't get it...
Divide and conquer
That was always inevitable. Unfortunately it's up to the Afghan security forces to fight their own battles now. We have to trust in them that they can do this themselves. It was always a given that they would be on their arses once we withdrew, time will tell if they can pick up.
That doesn't really make much sense as they were doing that already. Iraq was splitting in to three and Syria was breaking up. If divide and conquer was what we were really after then leaving them to it would have been a better option.
I wish they would send some of those Apache Helicopter Gunships over there. Ive seen all the Gun Cam footage that there is to be seen and I want Moar! 
I bet a couple of squadrons of those guy's could bring a country to it's knees.
I bet a couple of squadrons of those guy's could bring a country to it's knees.
So if it was always inevitable, why engage these nut jobs in the first place? All it ever ends in is innocents being killed and billions wasted.
I think we can both agree the "War of Terror" has been an absolute disaster thus far. The Taliban is as strong (if not stronger) than ever, as highlighted by that article.
So again, what's the overall game plan here? Do people still believe they can wipe these people from the planet? Has the last 10 years shown us nothing?
The lessons learned in Afghanistan were hard. It was a fight against invisible people. The intention was there to uproot the Taliban, but that never truly materialised. I meant inevitable, but not from the outset, it just materialised to become inevitable as the campaign progressed over too many years. There was nothing much more we could do than to enable the Afghan security forces as much as possible to manage their own campaign in securing their situation. The problem there is so complex on so many different socio-economic and fundamental levels that it's just a nightmare. It's a lost cause scenario regardless. Karzai himself has long declared that Western forces are not needed anymore though, and that Afghanistan must manage it's own problems. They don't want our help anymore, so the comment about getting back in there to fight the "new evil" isn't applicable.
In answer to your question on game plan... well I'd be surprised if anyone had an answer to that. What is the end game? There is no tangible answer to the problem. You can't eradicate an broken ideology if people refuse to give up that ideology. I don't think most people have a choice in the ideology that is pushed on them from the outset. It's a perpetual circle with no resolution. A sad state of affairs in the world, but what is the alternative to doing something? ...Nothing?
The phrase "War on Terror" is just a Bush enabler to rally public opinion. 'MURICA!
I just can't help hearing the Team America theme tune in my head every time I read a comment or post by someone advocating more bombing of Middle Eastern countries in one form or another. It's getting quite surreal.
You'd really think people would look back over the last 10 years and just realize what a fool's errand it is. I guess not
You say that but the Taliban are no longer in control in Afghanistan - hopefully that will remain the case but it's up to the Afghans to secure their own future, all we've done is give them a chance. Al-Queda, who were operating with impunity in Afghanistan in 2001 are a shadow of their former selves, and their talismanic leader Osama bin Laden has been taken out.
I think it's fair to say that Iraq has been a disaster for us, it's given rise to ISIS, diminished the UK's reputation around the world, and massively increased mistrust between the people and the government. I'd also contend it made the job in Afghanistan, which was legal and legitimate, much more difficult.
The Russians learnt that lesson 30+ years ago. There was absolutely no need or reason for us to learn it again too.
It's perfectly applicable. What happens if Afghanistan destabilizes and the Taliban spread into other countries like ISIS and begin posting videos online? Do we bomb whatever countries they have invaded like we are doing with ISIS?
Totally agree. And ironically you are contradicting yourself by making this statement (which you don't seem to get).
But this summary is exactly why a non-intervention foreign policy is best
Which still doesn't support your assertion that the attacks against ISIS are to do with divide and conquer. If divide and conquer was the goal then not attacking ISIS would have more impact.
Except the current campaign against ISIS strengthens Iran rather than weakens it. So how is that helping with "Divide and conquer"?
We were funding and arming the terrorists in Syria...we were ready to send our own military in until Russia interjected.
Iran is not what they are focusing on right now.
Do you honestly believe they will leave Iran alone ?
Iran will be invaded just like Iraq was and then over time they will split it up the same way they are going to do in Syria and Iraq.
keep the countries smaller and weaker....easier to invade.
I just can't help hearing the Team America theme tune in my head every time I read a comment or post by someone advocating more bombing of Middle Eastern countries in one form or another. It's getting quite surreal.
You'd really think people would look back over the last 10 years and just realize what a fool's errand it is. I guess not
well you only have to look at how many terrorists there were before the war on terror and how many there are now.
No, we were ready to send in our own military until Parliament said no. Again though you seem to be deliberately missing the point. If our aim was divide and conquer then leaving ISIS alone would do a better job of that than attacking them.
Do you have a timescale for this invasion of Iran? Just so you can go "Told you so!" when it happens...
Except ISIS have taken over oil fields in Iraq and are beheading westerners.
We were assisting the terrorists in Syria and the terrorists alone without outside assistance would not have managed to gain as much ground as they have.
And? They were selling the oil so it was still making it on to the market and what are a few westerners if you are prepared to bomb whole civilisations back to the stone age for your aims of divide and conquer?
Never attribute to malice what can easily attributed to incompetence, our issues in the middle east aren't some master plan to keep the Muslim down, but more a series of blunders, mistakes and incomplete plans which we seem to be doing again with this latest misadventure.
The argument could be made that if we had assisted opposition in Syria a lot better than we did they ISIS wouldn't have managed to get a foothold. That is the beauty of hindsight, it is always 20/20 (with a bit of bias thrown in of course).
It still stand that if divide and conquer was our aim, leaving ISIS be would be the best way of doing it.
Obviously going "LoL Team America" is the easy way out, so tell me, what is the solution to the problem that is ISIS (and no, you cant use a time machine, you have to deal with it as is)?
I'm aware of the contradiction, please don't assume I don't understand the hopeless situation. I still don't believe that doing just nothing is right though.