3 ms·

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 con

by 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...

by ihsw 11y ago

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...