Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Do you support Western intervention against ISIS?

POST REPLY

Do you support Western intervention against ISIS?

Yes
16
41%
No
18
46%
Other/Don't know
5
13%
 
Total votes : 39
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 17:16
I guess everyone has heard of what's going in in Iraq and Syria in the territories under the control of the so called Islamic State. Obama recently authorized small scale air-strikes against the terrorist murderers as well as humanitarian aid for civilians trapped by the ISIS.

So do you support a full-on Western intervention there to wipe out the ISIS?

I personally do as it think the US in particular is responsible for the whole Iraqi tragedy, therefore they should help with fighting the terrorists they themselves helped to become this much of a threat.
Wouldn't mind seeing the US Marines step in again and wipe the floor with those ISIS maniacs.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Aug 2014, 17:32
I say no because it would literally have no tasks. The core of ISIS is based in Syria, and if you noticed, all the tanks and humvees they captured in Mosul they took back to Syria to fight Assad. So you can destroy ISIS in Iraq, but without indefinite occupation, they would just come back again in a year or two. Plus, they already survived like 8 years of American occupation, 2003-2011, despite getting almost wiped out in 2004, so they know how to deal with this sort of thing. In addition, it would result in a popularity boost for them as finally, their fighters can fight the "crusaders" and not just other Muslims.

So yeah, it would be dumb and pointless because without a major commitment that would not be made (occupation in the style of 2003-11) it would just be a temporary setback for those guys that could even make them stronger at the core.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 17:44
Quote:
So yeah, it would be dumb and pointless because without a major commitment that would not be made (occupation in the style of 2003-11) it would just be a temporary setback for those guys that could even make them stronger at the core.

Still it might save the minorities that are being genocided by ISIS there and help the Iraqi army deal with them. At least the US could destroy all their heavy equipment in Iraq and employ patrols at the border.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Aug 2014, 18:02
It won't save them because ISIS will just come back later, as the Americans won't stay around forever, and for every American soldier they kill, they would get at least 10 new recruits. And you can't do a limited mission with just patrols at the border for this, it has to be a full-on occupation of the region, otherwise ISIS could actually "win" if they ambush patrols that don't have any reinforcements, and the Americans won't risk putting their soldiers in such a situation because it would be a greater defeat than doing nothing.

So while it would be a nice scenario for American movies where badass marines fly in and restore order in an area taken over by bloodthirsty snackbars, in reality they would just be sent there to die with no long-term objectives. Maybe if al-Maliki carries out a coup, it would make some sense, as he is basically employing ISIS tactics of ethnic cleansing in southern Iraq against Sunnis right now, but that would mean another 8+ years of occupation, this time in a country where both sides of the conflict hate Americans and see no point in siding with them. Plus resources that the Americans once had, like the Awakening Councils organized by US Special Forces for Sunnis on he template of anti-communist militias in South America, are no longer available because ISIS learned that you can get rid of them in about 20 minutes by assassinating their leaders and leaders' families, and the Americans don't have any other ideas on what to do about this.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 12 Aug 2014, 18:35
Yes but only indirectly - i.e. through arming the Iraqi and Kurdish armies. Air strikes are fine too.

US troops on the ground will just provide more propaganda for the jihadists and their recruitment drives. The Kurds seem to be the most progressive force in Iraq at the moment; I hope they get a state out of this.

Yes one could argue that IS was indirectly created by the US, however, the fact of the matter is they exist now and they pose a grave threat. A medieval caliphate who want to kill non-Muslim civilians is never going to be anything other than the most reactionary force in the region.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 12 Aug 2014, 19:00
Maybe if they could evacuate those most immediately threatened with genocide. Some form of military action would then be necessary, if only to secure the perimeter or something. But I don't know if that's even realistic. I suppose it wouldn't be an easy in-and-out affair, otherwise they would have done it already. It's probably not like in the films, where you have a bunch of easily identifiable poor folks getting genocided, and then you jump out of your helicopter and save them.

For the rest, I don't know what they can do or want to do. From what I've understood, the targets they bombed earlier were far away from where the Yazidi were being threatened. The purpose of their actions at the moment is to protect US diplomats in Erbil and dropping supplies.

To "wipe out ISIS" is probably not possible or even on the agenda, seeing as ISIS are the most capable opposition to Assad in Syria. For the US to "wipe out ISIS" would require them to stop being an imperialist power, put in a long-term military effort, no matter how much money and dead US soldiers it costs, and put people in charge who are neither stooges nor sectarians. Only circumstances like that would prevent ISIS or some other Sunni radicalism from simply coming back a few years later. In that case, it should be supported, but this is just a fantasy scenario.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Aug 2014, 20:19
Material support to opposing forces would be ideal. Any direct military action would only make things worse, and attempting to fight a direct war is doomed to catastrophic failure.

US intervention in the area is exactly what A) created the conditions in which ISIS was able to rise to power in the first place and B) gave the Islamists the necessary justification for making their state a viable option. The idea that intervening more or attempting to just kill them all would help the situation any way doesn't make much sense. Even if it did, it would be unfeasible. All ISIS has done is give all of the radical forces that hate the US a place to concentrate their efforts, effectively making any such war unwinnable. To attempt to do so would essentially be commiting the US army to eradicating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Aug 2014, 20:59
Yes, I support. By any means. Even if the US can't bring a political and social solution against ISIS, doing nothing would be the worst thing to do. However I don't like how the West is intervening. They use the old imperialist rhetoric: helping the "Christians". But in Iraq and Syria everyone can be threatened, including Muslims.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:10
Finally OP-B and GRed agree on something. For shame Bagration.

Indigo wrote:
US intervention in the area is exactly what A) created the conditions in which ISIS was able to rise to power in the first place and B) gave the Islamists the necessary justification for making their state a viable option. The idea that intervening more or attempting to just kill them all would help the situation any way doesn't make much sense. Even if it did, it would be unfeasible. All ISIS has done is give all of the radical forces that hate the US a place to concentrate their efforts, effectively making any such war unwinnable. To attempt to do so would essentially be commiting the US army to eradicating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.

This to the max. America created and tried to defeat the Taliban too and look where that has lead, a more entrenched Taliban than ever. But really to me the crux of the issue is that if we rush in to the "rescue" we are crippling the abilities of iraqi/syrian workers to organize themselves along lines of self-defense. The only thing an intervention would do is drive those same working class elements into the arms of ISIS.

Voted emphatically no because unlike some in this thread I'm an anti-imperialist.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:25
When you shoot game, if it's still alive and agonizing, the most human thing to do is to end its suffering. In this situation, it's not relevant to wonder why the US shot, or if they should have done it at first. The question is: will they have the guts to finish the job?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:32
In a fantasy world where they go "Of course, Bashar, here's help with your war thing, no problem, we'll help you stop ISIS from just refocusing on Syria when we kick them out of Iraq
" ?
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:36
I figure the plan is, if intervention could somehow be justified on a political level in America (which it won't takbir), to frag up ISIS in Iraq only.

@OP-B: In your analogy the "game" would be the Iraqi/Syrian working class. America actively created ISIS, and all the conditions for it to flourish, so ISIS is just another American gun.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:41
OP-Bagration wrote:
When you shoot game, if it's still alive and agonizing, the most human thing to do is to end its suffering. In this situation, it's not relevant to wonder why the US shot, or if they should have done it at first. The question is: will they have the guts to finish the job?


That's a bad analogy for several reasons, not the least of which being that comparing war and politics to game hunting is ridiculous.

Assuming that Iraq itself is the game in this analogy, we didn't "shoot" Iraq, we "shot" Saddam Hussein. We shot a wolf stalking the chicken coop and did nothing but pave the way for foxes to join the hunt. Now we're shooting an innumerable bevy of foxes in the dark with not nearly enough bullets, with each shot making the foxes multiply and become even more determined. All of this could have been solved if we had equipped the chickens to kill the wolf in the first place, rather than thinking we could simply shoot until the problem disappeared. it's not a matter of finishing a job, it's realizing that the "job" was making a bad problem worse, and determining whether to learn from that mistake, or commit the sunk cost fallacy to foreign policy.

My God, I felt foolish typing that. I can't write an analogy without going on a theme park ride.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:43
@Dagoth

What do you think about arming the Iraqi army and the Kurds plus support with airstrikes? Nobody here is asking for the US to be involved directly (i.e. troops on the ground). As far as I am aware the US airstrikes have been on IS military targets, not Iraqi civilians.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 21:49
US airstrikes are a very, very, very hated thing. I'd say using them against ISIS gives them and incredible amount of martyrdom potential.

However I would agree with arms supplies. That's as far as I can support. Even if they would be distributed only to America's chosen friends.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Aug 2014, 22:13
It would probably be better to have troops on the ground. Drones bring much suffering to civilian populations. But Obama can't afford that. So they will help their friends and send a few drones. At least the good thing is that Maliki is done, and the US have somewhat improved their relations with Iran. Of course the US can't be trusted. But the region is facing a threat worst than Al Qaeda. In Raqqa they impaled the heads of Syrian soldiers on a fence, and one of the jihadis had his child grab one of those and posted the picture on twitter. This is just too much, and it has to be stopped by any means. Even if this is risky, we don't have much choice.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Aug 2014, 22:20
You say we don't have a choice and I agree. Because choosing to interfere AGAIN is criminal. The people of Iraq would have toppled Saddam on their own eventually, but America shit on that for them, the people of Iraq will topple ISIS and we cannot allow that to be messed with. Self-determination isn't some idea you just toy around with when it is convenient, it is a principal.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Aug 2014, 22:36
If I had lived when my country was under Nazi occupation, my principles would have incited me to support US "liberation", no matter how imperialist and dangerous this "liberation" was, including for self-determination. Because sometimes, some principles are more important than others. Of course, in this situation I would have supported the US "as the hangman's rope support the hanged", as Lenin used to say.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Aug 2014, 22:39
There's a difference between liberating a soverign nation from an invading foreign power and occupying a country to protect it from itself. There's no conflict of principles, just a difference of context.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Aug 2014, 22:48
IS forces are not totally Iraqi. A lot of them come from Syria and many other countries. And what is Iraq anyway? What is Iraq without the Baa'th party and Saddam? If rabid sunni jihadists attack a christian town, does it really matter if they are Iraqi or not?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.