7 ms·

I'm the skeptical type, but my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness. T

I'm the skeptical type, but my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness. There have been indications of this since the bombing campaigns began over a year ago in Iraq, the British flew for weeks without attacking anything, the Kurds reported no help from the air, etc. Add to this all the direct and indirect support IS has been getting in terms of weapon supplies to 'moderates' that end up with them, and particularly the strange ease with which they are able to sell oil and send fighters back and forth across the Turkish border. So I'm inclined to believe that this incident was staged to further put a spanner in the wheel of real concerted attacks on IS - instead we get Russia and the West staring each other down. Note that the Russian jet did not exactly invade Turkish territory - it crossed a tiny finger of land less than a mile wide extending into Syria - a tiny excuse for such a forceful response.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Please explain exactly how you think ISIS is strategically useful to the West.
- sfjailbird 11y ago
  I'm sorry, I assumed this to be apparent. Well the West is fighting Assad, that is what this whole mess has been about from the beginning. IS is one of the pieces in that fight (in fact probably the most effective one, despite their unsavory character but that has never been a problem for the West in choosing allies). I think the only real drawback to IS, in strategic terms, is if their violence spills over too much, like it happened recently, but that hasn't been, and probably still isn't, much of a real concern.
  - jinst8gmi 11y ago
    This sounds like a 'dog ate my homework' level of logic explanation.
    - acqq 11y ago
      There are some direct proofs (cables from the US ambassador) for the long-term intentions: http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planne...
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Can you connect the dots form these cables in 2006 to present-day Syria? I can see a connection between them and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria, but I'm drawing a blank on how this translates into actively supporting ISIS.
        acqq 11y ago
        The arguments here were not the "active support" of ISIS but "that the West has never been serious about hurting IS." The US ambassador cable is the reflection of the long term interests which actually like the instabilities more (including the conflicts between Sunni and Shia) than the presence of Assad. BTW Assad is kind-of-Shia, and Iran full-Shia. The "rebels," Turkey, ISIS and Saudis are Sunni. The "indirect support" is the fact that the weapons procured by the West (over Turkey) ended up by ISIS. Not to mention effectively allowing different kinds of financing ISIS. I agree with all the estimates presented here that now with the events in Europe not everything will continue exactly as it was up to that point.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I don't things are quite so clear cut. Along with the things you mentioned, ISIS gathered much of their materiel from the Iraqi military in its retreat. Whether they are "serious about hurting IS" seems arbitrarily defined by whoever is posing the question. What we do know is that the coalition has conducted ~40,000 sorties over the past year. That seems pretty "serious" to me, but some people might consider "serious" to only mean ground forces.
        11y ago
  - seren 11y ago
    I would say this could be a way of seeing it before last week, but between the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, which is also NATO HQ, being shut down for four days, at this point, the "spilling over" is way worse from an international point of view than Assad (the local syrian population might disagree) And this is why the "West" is getting closer to the Russian position on Syria. And this is not good for Turkey, who want Assad gone. And this is probably why a Russian fighter was downed today. This look like an incident, but this is first and foremost a political or diplomatic statement.
    - sfjailbird 11y ago
      It seems dubious to me that Turkey would take action like this unilaterally - the strategic implications are too high. They have to have the rest of NATO on board, IMHO. I also don't think the ISIS 'spillover' is as much of a concern as indicated, at the higher echelons of Western military and intelligence circles. A cynic might say that it could even have its uses.
      - seren 11y ago
        France, and especially Paris, is going to lose hundreds of millions of tourism revenue next year, plus an increase of military & police spending, which will increase its deficit. Holland is going to Moscow and Washington this week to request Putin's help on Syria and form a coalition. If you think that Hollande would have allowed Turkey to shot down a Russian plane today, this is basically the worst time it could have ever happened. So I don't buy for a second that France would have supported that move, especially this week. On the other hand, if Turkey wanted to prevent NATO getting closer to Russia, this was a perfect timing.
        sfjailbird 11y ago
        What other choice does a French politician have except to declare 'all out war' against ISIS, after Paris. What actually comes of it is another thing, so far any response has been particularly muted. If the overall NATO strategy is that they need ISIS for a bit longer, then France will acquiesce, whether or not Hollande is very upset about it. But of course they will make a spectacle about 'total war', nothing short of that would be acceptable to the public.
  - stevehawk 11y ago
    This is pretty much the correct answer. Let ISIL overtake Syria/remove Assad and then 'free' Syria from ISIL and impose freedom.
    - tim333 11y ago
      Not sure that'd go too smoothly especially part b.
  - MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
    This makes no sense. The IS is not really fighting Assad, they are mainly attacking other minorities and especially the Kurds. Turkey could end IS in a few weeks if they really wanted to. Source are former IS fighters, sorry - its in german & paywalled: https://blendle.com/i/die-zeit/aus-sicht-der-tater/bnl-zeit-20151119-102151_aus_sicht_der_t_ter https://blendle.com/i/die-zeit/aus-sicht-der-tater/bnl-zeit-...
    - acqq 11y ago
      See this map: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_86737733_iraq_syria_air_strikes_624_v49.png http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_... Even if the whole IS is not always just fighting Assad, they are deep in the Assad controlled regions too (Assad is in Damascus look how near they are). A lot of "empty" area are the deserts.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Perhaps not directly to the west unless you count their battles against Syrian government forces. But ISIS is certainly a useful tool in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States proxy war against Iran and Shiites. There's not a terribly wide gap between Salafism and Wahhabism. Obviously something strange is going on with the Western projection of power in the area. I am a firm believer in the incompetence of the CIA, but surely they wouldn't accidentally let ISIS receive weapons that many times in a row? And in one month of bombing, Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces. The same moderates who always seem to funnel Western arms to ISIS. So either there is just a tragic level of incompetence by the US, or there is something very strange going on with the US and ISIS.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    >Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces. Do you have a source for this? The coalition has supposedly flown more than 8,000 strikes(40,000 sorties), hit more than 16,000 targets and spent north of $5bn. I have a very, very tough time believing Russia has quadrupled this effort in the handful of months they've been flying sorties.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the US says 116 tankers. And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. They only have ~30,000 soldiers, and maybe a few thousand military vehicles. 16,000 military targets would have ground them into proverbial dust. There would be no command centers, no military vehicles, a huge reduction in combat soldiers. So maybe 16,000 bombs (or leaflet canisters) have been dropped, but they certainly haven't hit 16,000 important targets. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian-air-force-destroys-dozens-isis-oil-trucks http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian... http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-ira...
- tomp 11y ago
  ISIS is anti-Iran, anti-Hezbollah/Palestine, and anti-Kurds. This, in turn, pleases Saudi Arabia, Israel/US, and Turkey, in that order.
  - IanDrake 11y ago
    Please tell me the people in charge aren't that stupid. We've been down this road before. The enemy or our enemy is not our friend. Anti-Hezbollah (etc...) sounds great until you realize what they want to replace it with.
    - tomp 11y ago
      I think the reality is far more banal. The people in charge simply don't care. Until it starts affecting them personally, that is (by killing their friends or threatening their political/financial power).
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      They aren't. Reality also isn't as simple as a movie plot, unlike what some of the comments here speaking with an assured tone about what's "really" going on would have you believe.
- romanovcode 11y ago
  Selling oil at cheap price
josefresco 11y ago
a tiny excuse for such a forceful response Not exactly. Russian/Syrian jets have been flying sorties in the region for weeks/months. Violating a nation's airspace is a serious offense, even if they just "crossed a tiny finger". The aircraft has also been previously warned about intrusions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- DonaldFisk 11y ago
  http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece-military-airspace/ http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece...
- lenkite 11y ago
  No, it is not a 'serious' offence demanding payback. It happens all the time between nations. WW3 would have started a long time ago if civilized nations started shooting down each others aircraft that inadvertently or deliberately crossed borders for short periods. Besides Turkish aircraft violate Greek air space all the time - so it extra-ordinarily hypocritical of them to state that they are guarding their sovereignty. Turkey had deliberately planned this operation with the F16's in the air and even a media team ready to capture the 'action'. The only reason Turkey does this is because they are a member of NATO. If they weren't, Erdogan wouldn't have the guts to go anywhere near the Russians. Though the Obama administration officially supports Turkey, I don't think the NATO brass is happy about this. Chinese aircraft violate Indian air space on a regular basis. Our fighter aircraft just gently escort them back, record the violation and sends the same to their designated military contact. It doesn't even make the official news. No civilized air force shoots down another air force's jets for minor border violations. Ask any air force officer.
biggio 11y ago
What I remember from the past news Turkey gave few notices to Russia about their planes violating the Turkish airspace. So Russia had it coming for a long time.
knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Do you have any sources for this? You don't sound so much like the "skeptical" type as the "pre-drawn anti-west conclusions" type. It's important to clear up what "making a show of it" means. If you want to look like you're doing something big and important to the layperson, you distribute dozens of videos of air-launched cruise missiles and massive volleys of dumb bombs from high altitude, like the Russians have. If you want to actually degrade ISIS's capabilities, you make literally thousands of precision airstrikes over the course of months.
- ihsw 11y ago
  The Isil-Turkish border has been open and porous for a very long time, at the behest of Turkey. They have insisted that the Isil-Turkey border remain under control of Isil or Turkey, and that any interference with that arrangement be regarded as a "crossing a red line." Turkey has been a very important ally for Isil, despite the Turkish authorities clamping down on homegrown anti-government terror cells. Degrading and ultimately destroying Isil should begin with closing all of its borders with neighbouring nations, an action which the West has been hesitant to do -- a hesitation borne of Turkish intransigence. This is why the West's response to Isil has been slow and wrought with contradictions and failures.
  - Bud 11y ago
    Simplistic. How precisely do you suggest that Turkey "close" its border? To my knowledge, there is not a magic 30-foot motorized wall, hundreds of miles long, that can simply be winched up into place. Turkey's military certainly isn't large enough to patrol it sufficiently.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      1) turkey hates kurds, meaning strong motivation to silently support enemy of them (not calling them outright allies). let them bleed so they are weak and don't dream about kurdistan covering turkish soil. 2) US-led precision strikes achieved next to nothing, ISIL was strong as before. At one point US boasted that they spend 9 millions of USD daily for these strikes. That means an attempt to bring down organization of a size of state with few plane flights a day and couple of bombs? Not working. Of course I am not a fan of cluster bombing vietnam-style either. 3) it seems to me, and in this I might be wrong that US has higher priority in bringing down Asad rather than ISIL. So similar approach as 1) 4) the simple fact that ISIL is daily trading oil using big oil convoys means either US is completely incompetent to see this & take action (not believing for a second, ac-130/a-10 would squash them in no time), or that russians are much much better than US at surveillance from above (not a chance) and one could go on and on...
dagw 11y ago
my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness. I agree with the first half of that, but not the second. I think the more likely reason is that there is simply not the political will to pay the necessary price it would cost (mainly in political capital).

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Please explain exactly how you think ISIS is strategically useful to the West.

sfjailbird 11y ago
I'm sorry, I assumed this to be apparent. Well the West is fighting Assad, that is what this whole mess has been about from the beginning. IS is one of the pieces in that fight (in fact probably the most effective one, despite their unsavory character but that has never been a problem for the West in choosing allies). I think the only real drawback to IS, in strategic terms, is if their violence spills over too much, like it happened recently, but that hasn't been, and probably still isn't, much of a real concern.
- jinst8gmi 11y ago
  This sounds like a 'dog ate my homework' level of logic explanation.
  - acqq 11y ago
    There are some direct proofs (cables from the US ambassador) for the long-term intentions: http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planne...
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      Can you connect the dots form these cables in 2006 to present-day Syria? I can see a connection between them and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria, but I'm drawing a blank on how this translates into actively supporting ISIS.
      - acqq 11y ago
        The arguments here were not the "active support" of ISIS but "that the West has never been serious about hurting IS." The US ambassador cable is the reflection of the long term interests which actually like the instabilities more (including the conflicts between Sunni and Shia) than the presence of Assad. BTW Assad is kind-of-Shia, and Iran full-Shia. The "rebels," Turkey, ISIS and Saudis are Sunni. The "indirect support" is the fact that the weapons procured by the West (over Turkey) ended up by ISIS. Not to mention effectively allowing different kinds of financing ISIS. I agree with all the estimates presented here that now with the events in Europe not everything will continue exactly as it was up to that point.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I don't things are quite so clear cut. Along with the things you mentioned, ISIS gathered much of their materiel from the Iraqi military in its retreat. Whether they are "serious about hurting IS" seems arbitrarily defined by whoever is posing the question. What we do know is that the coalition has conducted ~40,000 sorties over the past year. That seems pretty "serious" to me, but some people might consider "serious" to only mean ground forces.
        11y ago
- seren 11y ago
  I would say this could be a way of seeing it before last week, but between the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, which is also NATO HQ, being shut down for four days, at this point, the "spilling over" is way worse from an international point of view than Assad (the local syrian population might disagree) And this is why the "West" is getting closer to the Russian position on Syria. And this is not good for Turkey, who want Assad gone. And this is probably why a Russian fighter was downed today. This look like an incident, but this is first and foremost a political or diplomatic statement.
  - sfjailbird 11y ago
    It seems dubious to me that Turkey would take action like this unilaterally - the strategic implications are too high. They have to have the rest of NATO on board, IMHO. I also don't think the ISIS 'spillover' is as much of a concern as indicated, at the higher echelons of Western military and intelligence circles. A cynic might say that it could even have its uses.
    - seren 11y ago
      France, and especially Paris, is going to lose hundreds of millions of tourism revenue next year, plus an increase of military & police spending, which will increase its deficit. Holland is going to Moscow and Washington this week to request Putin's help on Syria and form a coalition. If you think that Hollande would have allowed Turkey to shot down a Russian plane today, this is basically the worst time it could have ever happened. So I don't buy for a second that France would have supported that move, especially this week. On the other hand, if Turkey wanted to prevent NATO getting closer to Russia, this was a perfect timing.
      - sfjailbird 11y ago
        What other choice does a French politician have except to declare 'all out war' against ISIS, after Paris. What actually comes of it is another thing, so far any response has been particularly muted. If the overall NATO strategy is that they need ISIS for a bit longer, then France will acquiesce, whether or not Hollande is very upset about it. But of course they will make a spectacle about 'total war', nothing short of that would be acceptable to the public.
- stevehawk 11y ago
  This is pretty much the correct answer. Let ISIL overtake Syria/remove Assad and then 'free' Syria from ISIL and impose freedom.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Not sure that'd go too smoothly especially part b.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  This makes no sense. The IS is not really fighting Assad, they are mainly attacking other minorities and especially the Kurds. Turkey could end IS in a few weeks if they really wanted to. Source are former IS fighters, sorry - its in german & paywalled: https://blendle.com/i/die-zeit/aus-sicht-der-tater/bnl-zeit-20151119-102151_aus_sicht_der_t_ter https://blendle.com/i/die-zeit/aus-sicht-der-tater/bnl-zeit-...
  - acqq 11y ago
    See this map: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_86737733_iraq_syria_air_strikes_624_v49.png http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_... Even if the whole IS is not always just fighting Assad, they are deep in the Assad controlled regions too (Assad is in Damascus look how near they are). A lot of "empty" area are the deserts.
merpnderp 11y ago
Perhaps not directly to the west unless you count their battles against Syrian government forces. But ISIS is certainly a useful tool in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States proxy war against Iran and Shiites. There's not a terribly wide gap between Salafism and Wahhabism. Obviously something strange is going on with the Western projection of power in the area. I am a firm believer in the incompetence of the CIA, but surely they wouldn't accidentally let ISIS receive weapons that many times in a row? And in one month of bombing, Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces. The same moderates who always seem to funnel Western arms to ISIS. So either there is just a tragic level of incompetence by the US, or there is something very strange going on with the US and ISIS.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  >Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces. Do you have a source for this? The coalition has supposedly flown more than 8,000 strikes(40,000 sorties), hit more than 16,000 targets and spent north of $5bn. I have a very, very tough time believing Russia has quadrupled this effort in the handful of months they've been flying sorties.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the US says 116 tankers. And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. They only have ~30,000 soldiers, and maybe a few thousand military vehicles. 16,000 military targets would have ground them into proverbial dust. There would be no command centers, no military vehicles, a huge reduction in combat soldiers. So maybe 16,000 bombs (or leaflet canisters) have been dropped, but they certainly haven't hit 16,000 important targets. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian-air-force-destroys-dozens-isis-oil-trucks http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian... http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-ira...
tomp 11y ago
ISIS is anti-Iran, anti-Hezbollah/Palestine, and anti-Kurds. This, in turn, pleases Saudi Arabia, Israel/US, and Turkey, in that order.
- IanDrake 11y ago
  Please tell me the people in charge aren't that stupid. We've been down this road before. The enemy or our enemy is not our friend. Anti-Hezbollah (etc...) sounds great until you realize what they want to replace it with.
  - tomp 11y ago
    I think the reality is far more banal. The people in charge simply don't care. Until it starts affecting them personally, that is (by killing their friends or threatening their political/financial power).
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    They aren't. Reality also isn't as simple as a movie plot, unlike what some of the comments here speaking with an assured tone about what's "really" going on would have you believe.
romanovcode 11y ago
Selling oil at cheap price

josefresco 11y ago

a tiny excuse for such a forceful response Not exactly. Russian/Syrian jets have been flying sorties in the region for weeks/months. Violating a nation's airspace is a serious offense, even if they just "crossed a tiny finger". The aircraft has also been previously warned about intrusions.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DonaldFisk 11y ago
http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece-military-airspace/ http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece...
lenkite 11y ago
No, it is not a 'serious' offence demanding payback. It happens all the time between nations. WW3 would have started a long time ago if civilized nations started shooting down each others aircraft that inadvertently or deliberately crossed borders for short periods. Besides Turkish aircraft violate Greek air space all the time - so it extra-ordinarily hypocritical of them to state that they are guarding their sovereignty. Turkey had deliberately planned this operation with the F16's in the air and even a media team ready to capture the 'action'. The only reason Turkey does this is because they are a member of NATO. If they weren't, Erdogan wouldn't have the guts to go anywhere near the Russians. Though the Obama administration officially supports Turkey, I don't think the NATO brass is happy about this. Chinese aircraft violate Indian air space on a regular basis. Our fighter aircraft just gently escort them back, record the violation and sends the same to their designated military contact. It doesn't even make the official news. No civilized air force shoots down another air force's jets for minor border violations. Ask any air force officer.

biggio 11y ago

What I remember from the past news Turkey gave few notices to Russia about their planes violating the Turkish airspace. So Russia had it coming for a long time.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

Do you have any sources for this? You don't sound so much like the "skeptical" type as the "pre-drawn anti-west conclusions" type. It's important to clear up what "making a show of it" means. If you want to look like you're doing something big and important to the layperson, you distribute dozens of videos of air-launched cruise missiles and massive volleys of dumb bombs from high altitude, like the Russians have. If you want to actually degrade ISIS's capabilities, you make literally thousands of precision airstrikes over the course of months.

ihsw 11y ago
The Isil-Turkish border has been open and porous for a very long time, at the behest of Turkey. They have insisted that the Isil-Turkey border remain under control of Isil or Turkey, and that any interference with that arrangement be regarded as a "crossing a red line." Turkey has been a very important ally for Isil, despite the Turkish authorities clamping down on homegrown anti-government terror cells. Degrading and ultimately destroying Isil should begin with closing all of its borders with neighbouring nations, an action which the West has been hesitant to do -- a hesitation borne of Turkish intransigence. This is why the West's response to Isil has been slow and wrought with contradictions and failures.
- Bud 11y ago
  Simplistic. How precisely do you suggest that Turkey "close" its border? To my knowledge, there is not a magic 30-foot motorized wall, hundreds of miles long, that can simply be winched up into place. Turkey's military certainly isn't large enough to patrol it sufficiently.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    1) turkey hates kurds, meaning strong motivation to silently support enemy of them (not calling them outright allies). let them bleed so they are weak and don't dream about kurdistan covering turkish soil. 2) US-led precision strikes achieved next to nothing, ISIL was strong as before. At one point US boasted that they spend 9 millions of USD daily for these strikes. That means an attempt to bring down organization of a size of state with few plane flights a day and couple of bombs? Not working. Of course I am not a fan of cluster bombing vietnam-style either. 3) it seems to me, and in this I might be wrong that US has higher priority in bringing down Asad rather than ISIL. So similar approach as 1) 4) the simple fact that ISIL is daily trading oil using big oil convoys means either US is completely incompetent to see this & take action (not believing for a second, ac-130/a-10 would squash them in no time), or that russians are much much better than US at surveillance from above (not a chance) and one could go on and on...

dagw 11y ago

my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness. I agree with the first half of that, but not the second. I think the more likely reason is that there is simply not the political will to pay the necessary price it would cost (mainly in political capital).