7 ms·

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.
        acqq 11y ago
        I fully agree with the "during the Iraqi forces retreat" part. Who fired Saddam's soldiers and built these new Iraqi forces? Do you know when the economic sanctions against ISIS where introduced, and when against Assad? Against ISIS, I can find the "Sept. 29, 2015." Isn't it strangely recent? The bomb strikes are also a good way to show that "something" is done ("we must do something, this is something.") All politicians ordering them like them.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#3_December_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_... Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.
        acqq 11y ago
        Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).
- 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

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.
        acqq 11y ago
        I fully agree with the "during the Iraqi forces retreat" part. Who fired Saddam's soldiers and built these new Iraqi forces? Do you know when the economic sanctions against ISIS where introduced, and when against Assad? Against ISIS, I can find the "Sept. 29, 2015." Isn't it strangely recent? The bomb strikes are also a good way to show that "something" is done ("we must do something, this is something.") All politicians ordering them like them.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#3_December_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_... Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.
        acqq 11y ago
        Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).
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