General News What is happening in Iraq is horrifying!

Any organization that believes genocide is an acceptable practice is deplorable. ISIS is an essentially a powerful murderous cult (they believe they have lordship over all the world's Muslims, a megalomaniacal belief in itself) and it's frightening how much power they seem to have.

 

If there is a god, I think burning in hell is, ironically, exactly the sentence it would pass on ISIS. Imo this is almost certainly not about religion or ideology but purely power for the sake of power. It's the same reason they deny education and behead journalists, so people won't be able to weaken their grip.

After all, if it really was about a selfless, benevolent attempt to roll back the years to a purer, West-free time, why does the caliph feel the need to have expensive Western bling (The ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Wears The Same Watch As James Bond (It Seems)?

 

They're giving us muslimeen a bad name

 

... you notice this now? This has mostly been made public since the beginning of the World Cup.

ISIS boast of slaughtering 1,700 soldiers after posting beheading video of Iraqi policeman | Mail Online

And that is exactly why I think Machiavelli's manifesto was true - getting rid of Saddam just resulted in what I like to call a ''Lord of the Flies syndrome''. Saddam ruled by instilling fear in those who opposed him, having them killed if it was required. This would not be happening if he was still in power.

Libya is the same situation. It's already far worse than when Gaddafi was in power, and it will erupt eventually, perhaps in a year.

These militants need to be killed. Not arrested, not detained or question, but simply shot in the head ASAP, Osama Bin Laden style. Not out of spite, or out of revenge but simply for the sake that they can never be around other people - they destroy everything and everyone around them. They're deranged, psychotic and brainwashed. No amount of jail time is going to lead to any remorse. Even locked-up, the fact that they are alive further influences others with similar mind-set.

ISIS have even been known to cut small children in half. That's just beyond any form of sick. The fact that they even boast of their atrocities on social media is just crazy.

 

Unfortunate, but true. There is no redemption nor is there any route to a just punishment. They are simply too dangerous to be left alive. The Islamic State is one of the greatest threats the civilized world faces, because if they are not contained and defeated they will continue to spread. And as they spread they will butcher and massacre everyone who does not subject themselves to their mass murdering death cult.

There is no mercy in the world for people like this - it's one of those rare cases where Western society needs to realize it has to get it's hands dirty and sometimes that means you have to do awful things for the right reasons. No one wants to see lots of people die, but systematically hunting down and killing every member of this group to the last as well as all it's sympathizers? It may be necessary. If they are not utterly wiped out they will simply spread again - like a cancerous tumor that is not fully removed.

Meanwhile, as we do this, we need to find people who share our values. We need to invest in schools that teach our values, and we need to empower them to create societies in that region of the world that will hold these backward religious nutjobs in check - through force, if necessary.

This is probably a war that we'll be fighting for the next seventy-five to one hundred years - depending on how quickly we can educate and spread western values in that region of the world. Hopefully, though, in the end the people who grow up in the aftermath will be able to live in peace, prosperity, safety, and with dignity.

 

Wait, are you saying you have the neoconservative view that we should be fighting in a war for 75 to 100 years, and that we should attempt to spread "western values" in that area? That's a terrible, idealistic, highly expensive, and deadly idea that should not even be attempted.

When is America going to learn that not everything around the world can be fixed if we can just somehow spread our values, and that attempting to do so can often make the situation even worse? The sooner people realize (including certain politicians in both parties: Clinton, Graham, McCain) that we can't and shouldn't be policing the world the much better off we'll be. We might as well be in 2003 again.

Ugh.

 

No, not for neoconservative reasons. For practical and pragmatic reasons. The reality is that there are two conflicting sets of values in existence that cannot peacefully co-exist. It's no different than my stance against social authoritarians in the United States, minus the violence and death aspects.

The reality of the situation is that we're fighting a violent culture war. That's just the horrible truth of the matter. These people are religious extremists who seek to impose their world view on others through violence and death. They are willing to engage in genocide to accomplish their goals. My stance would be the same if the social authoritarians in the United States were to engage in violence - they should be met with violence and put down.

And the reality is that in order to win a culture war you have to change a culture. This requires massive amounts of re-education of an entire population. It takes so long because it will take multiple generations for the old ideas and values to die out as people naturally age.

I'd hold a different stance if we were talking about a group such as the Taliban. They are focused on their little region of the world, and while they are equally horrific and should be exterminated from the face of the Earth that's not the job of the United States. The Islamic State is different because they have a positive agenda. They are actively seeking to establish a legitimate state, and they've made it very clear that they intend to attack Western targets. We have every reason to believe those threats are serious, and every reason to believe that they will attempt to carry it out.

This is not George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's bullshit excuse to invade countries. This is an actual legitimate threat. It's ridiculous to constantly spend our time fighting the last war, and to see everything through the lens of what happened in Iraq under Bush and Cheney. They were idiots. They had no serious plan, and believed that simply "liberating" the Iraqi's would lead to them throwing roses at the feet of the American Soldiers and they'd quickly move to establish a Jeffersonian Democracy.

Westerners were equally stupid to believe that the Arab Spring would lead to a flourishing of secular and liberal democracies across the Middle East. The only thing that kept the lid on these religious nutjobs were their oppressive dictators - that's just a fact. Unfortunately, we didn't listen to those who knew the region better than we did, and merely sympathized with those standing up to obvious oppressive regimes. Those we sympathized with and supported were then quickly swallowed whole by Islamic fundamentalists, who were more numerous, better positioned, and better prepared to take advantage of the situation.

If I had it my way, I'd work closely with the Kurds and help them establish their own independent state. I'd be willing to support their independence under certain conditions, and I'd make sure those conditions were met and enshrined into law before I met my half of the deal. The Kurds are pro-Western, pro-American, are stable, and have a legitimate democracy. I'd plan ahead and basically set things up in such a way that Kurds will be our hand in the region. We will supply them with weapons, training, and funds. We will supply them with any additional military aid required, but they will be the tip of the spear. They will do WHATEVER is necessary to completely cleanse the region of the Islamic State, its sympathizers, and other Islamic Militant groups. They will establish a pro-Western, secular, pseudo-democratic state in the territory that they conquer. They will incorporate pro-secularist, pro-Western, pro-democratic groups into their nation as full and equal citizens. They will actively suppress all other groups - through violence, if necessary, particularly Islamic militant groups. We will build schools in the region, and all children will be mandated to attend these schools where we will actively break the cultural grip that the Islamists hold - instilling secular, democratic, individualist, and multi-cultural values in it's place. Parents who refuse will face punishment, and militant parents will risk losing their children all together.

Is this horrible? Yes. It's horrible. However, short of doing this we will be dragged back into this region again and again. You think seventy-five years or a hundred years is a long time? If we do not shift the culture of this region we will NEVER fully escape from being drawn back in repeatedly - again and again, forever, and we would be actively condemning every future child born in this region to live in a fundamentalist Islamic shit hole.

After a few generations they will hopefully have a culture that can play nice with the rest of the world, and they will be able to transition into a full democratic republic. The necessary civil and social institutions will have been constructed, and the old ones dismantled and crushed. The people there will be able to live there in peace, safety, freedom, and with dignity.

However, in the end what we are really fighting is a culture war. A culture war is a result of two opposing sets of values that cannot co-exist. The Islamic State and other Islamic militant groups of the region do not have values that play nice with the rest of the world. In some cases, this is not a direct threat to the rest of the world, but in the case of the Islamic State - due to their stated objectives and desires - they are a threat to the rest of the world. Therefore, we do not have the luxury of ignoring them and letting them simply brutalize the local population. We are forced to actively engage them, and half measures are not acceptable. If you're going in, you have to go all in. As Napoleon Bonaparte said, "When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna."

This is the mistake I believe President Obama is making, which is the mistaken belief that we can and should limit ourselves to merely containing the Islamic State to it's already conquered territory, perhaps only going so far as to pushing it back into Syria.

---------- Post added 20th Aug 2014 at 02:45 PM ----------

And just to be clear, I'm not cheering what I wrote above. I think it's disgusting and revolting. I don't relish having to take those types of thoughts into consideration. The only problem is, I don't see a viable alternative that solves the problems we keep having to face in the Middle East.

I don't see anyone else offering a legitimate solution that will bring the seemingly endless wars we are forced to fight to an end. If there is a better alternative that I simply don't see, then I'm happy to learn about it. Sitting back and doing nothing, however, is not a viable alternative.

 

Agree with a lot of things you're saying, but I don't believe it's pragmatic or practical to think we can be in a war for 75-100 years. That's insanity. I also don't think it's possible to change or win the "culture war" that is occurring in the Middle East. That place is a fucking disaster that cannot be fixed, thanks in large part to Bush and Cheney. The cost of war is just far to great in money and lives for this country, not to mention it will give the hawkish politicians more reason to continue our massive military spending. All around it's a bad idea to be in a war again. Air strikes I guess I'm OK with, but not boots on the ground in yet another war. I tend to agree more with Obama's strategy (even if the results aren't great) than going into another full blown war as Clinton or McCain would probably do. There really is no viable option for the Middle East, but not getting balls deep into another massive war for decades is certainly better than spending billions of dollars, and losing thousands of American lives for a battle that really isn't winnable.

This whole mess is another reason why 2016 is so important. We desperately need to avoid a war friendly president like Clinton or Jeb Bush.

 

Damn. Definitely a realistic way of thinking here. The trick though would be the funding of such schooling and to infiltrate you would need to engage in a war to take control of their society and to make use of their own funds. Causes of death being starvation and innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire would take out most the people and history would have to be skewed for the ones left behind. Just analyzing the steps and hardships needed to be brought about.

 

Below a certain depth of depravity, ironically the only solution to their existence is to genocide them right back. Exterminate them all or they will just keep going. It makes me wonder if humans are meant to suffer.

 

It is abhorrent indeed. Genocide is evil and malicious no matter how one words it. These people from ISIS just make me sick :/.

 

My gut wants to be right there with you. I don't want to be back in the Middle East either, but can we really risk sitting back and letting a group like the Islamic State spread? Do we want them establishing a "legitimate" state, gaining control over oil fields (and thus revenue to fund their horrific ambitions), and almost certainly being a base from which they can launch terrorist attacks on the West?

This is a horrific situation. I basically see our options as follows:

1. Sit back and do nothing. We go totally isolationist. I don't think this is a viable option, because we open up ourselves to an empowered terrorist state which will launch strikes against Western countries. They have not hidden their intentions in this regard at all. They're different than the Taliban, as the Taliban really only wants to control their little region of the world. It sucks for the people who live there, but it doesn't really hurt us here in the West. The Islamic State fully intends to spread like a cancer, conquering as much land and territory as possible, massacring everyone who stands in their way, and launching attacks on the West. Sitting back and letting them get into a position to actually carry out their threats just isn't a viable option.

2. Low level containment strategy. I think this is Obama's plan right now. Basically, we do what we can to keep Northern Iraq where the Kurds are stable. It's one of the few prospering and stable regions of Iraq. (Not coincidentally, it's also the most liberal, open, secular, and democratic places in Iraq.) We do what we can to help the Kurds, and try and keep the Islamic State from collapsing the Iraqi government - which basically means trying to prevent Baghdad from falling.

3. Moderate level containment strategy. I think this would be what Obama would consider his ideal plan. In addition to everything covered in number two, try and come up with a political solution between Sunnis and Shiites. This involves getting the Shiite majority to fairly incorporate the Sunni minority into the government, and cease their oppressive crackdowns. With Nouri al-Maliki gone this becomes a possibility, but there will be internal resistance against this... the relationship between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is long and complicated. The reality is that things could break down at any moment, and this is a political solution. Even if initially successful, there is no guarantee that it will hold over the long term. This is certainly something that should be pursued, but I am not optimistic about long term success. The most ideal end goal is that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites work together to force the Islamic State out of Iraq. This would effectively only push them back to their base in Syria. What do we do then? Do we contain them there by trying to seal the Syrian border? What happens if they manage to conquer all of Syria and become the "legitimate" government there?

4. We go the route that I put forward. That's all in. Basically, it means we come to terms with the reality of what we face in the Middle East. We realize that we cannot keep being drawn into these conflicts, and that we're fighting a culture war. We're either going to keep fighting these conflicts over and over - an "endless war on terror" - or we're going to commit ourselves to solving it once and for all. If we're going to commit ourselves to solving this problem in a permanent fashion, it's going to mean that we're going to have to do things that really would not be acceptable under normal circumstances. It becomes the end justifies the means. This is a Harry Truman decision, do you drop the bomb to end the war and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, or do you allow the war to continue to rage on and perhaps cost both sides even more in terms of lives and treasure by the end?

It doesn't really matter what Bush did in the past. We can't go back and change it. We can only deal with the fucking mess he left behind. The question is how - what are we supposed to do? How do we manage this crisis? Are we doomed to do this forever, or are we going to find a permanent solution to the problem?

I don't want to fight this war forever - I don't want to condemn future generations to this endless conflict. I want peace, but that simply isn't a realistic possibility when dealing with a group like the Islamic State. So, really, what true alternative do we have?

---------- Post added 20th Aug 2014 at 05:42 PM ----------

I think if we can implement the proper reforms needed among the Kurds, and get them on board we can use them as the tip of the spear. Basically, that means pushing them as an invasion force to start conquering territory city by city, town by town. Once there, they find other pro-Western, pro-Democratic, pro-Secularists. They join the Kurds. The rest of the population is occupied. All who violently resist are executed.

Money then flows into the region to build infrastructure or re-enforce existing infrastructure. As part of that rebuilding plan schools are established. Life is normalized for the average person living under occupation. So long as they obey the laws, they are given a large degree of personal freedom. The only discrimination we promote are those who are opposed to the pro-secular, pro-western, pro-democratic state. Such individuals are arrested and put on trial privately as enemies of the state. Children of militant families are taken away, and placed in homes with pro-government forces. They are told their parents were killed by the Islamic State or some other Islamic Militant group.

The media is moderately controlled. Legitimate reporting is allowed, but anything that shows pro-Islamist angles is forbidden.

Radical Islamic Clerics are arrested. There is heavy surveillance of every citizen. There is a constant and endless hunt for militants, terrorists, and other anti-government forces.

Everyone under occupation has the right to apply for citizenship. There would be a lengthy process, but it would get easier with each passing generation. Eventually, by roughly the 4th or 5th generation it would become automatic on birth as it is here in the United States. The application process is a screening process to make sure that anti-democratic, pro-islamist, pro-militant, and anti-secular forces are screened out.

There is a similar screening process for all candidates running for elected office and political parties. Any citizen can run for elected office or establish a political party, provided they are not engaged in an agenda that promotes anti-democratic, pro-islamist, pro-militant, or anti-secular values or policies. There would also be strong institutions in place to protect against government corruption.

So, basically in short, a lot of people will effectively be second class citizens. However, so long as they do not engage in pro-islamic, pro-militant, anti-government, anti-democratic, or anti-secular activities they will be largely fine. They won't face discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc.

I believe that this is a significant improvement over the current situation of most lives people lead, especially if we establish the infrastructure and help facilitate economic growth. You get people employed, you treat them decently, you provide them with security and most of them will likely go along. Those that don't will quickly and easily make themselves known, and will be dealt with as swiftly as possible.

In a few generations the region should hopefully be stable and fully integrated into the global community. Eventually everyone will have full citizenship rights, and the lives of those living in those societies will be significantly improved over their current prospects. The endless conflict will have ended, and we will finally have peace.

 

You know... that's all very nice in theory. But I do think such a far-reaching plan would collapse under its own hypocrisy.
Why even pretend to call it a democracy, if you only allow people one (or very few) options to pick? If you're essentially going to tell them "you are all stupid children and only when you have matured to the level of us, enlightened westerners, can you truly be trusted with freedom!"

Also, you'd create an elite that will spend decades enforcing this system by secret killings, secret courts, suppression of dissent, wholesale lying to the population.
Are you really going to be able to create "elevated" people by testing them for democratic values, openness, etc. and then incorporating them into a system that's essentially the spanish inquisition? Are they expected to remain pure inside and hate themselves for what they need to do for the good cause?

It's nothing that hasn't been tried before. As a Belgian, I know all too well that's how we tried to do it in the Congo. It has elements of Apartheid. It's remarkably similar to the inner workings of the Soviet union. All systems that failed, and failed spectacularly. They looked strong for almost a hundred years, then the first cracks appeared and they collapsed in months.


In the end, all we can do is believe in our values. Act against wholesale trampling of human rights, yes, but keeping true to our values and treating the people as adults who are allowed to make their own decisions, even if they seem like mistakes to us.
Those systems we live under (and don't get me wrong: I like my country's system a lot) were built on decades of our own ancestors messing up and having bloody revolutions and building a new system over and over again until they found something that worked for them. We owe it to all other people to give them the same shot at inventing and reinventing their system.

 

Oh, I have no doubt that it will create an elite exactly like you describe. I'm not under any illusion that it will work out perfectly, but as you point out these problems (and the fact that similar things have been attempted in the past) - we have the advantage of learning from the mistakes of others. We can anticipate some of the things that will go wrong, and try to craft a system upfront that will deal with the obvious challenges.

The problem with the suggestion isn't what we know will go wrong - it's all the things that we don't know and can't anticipate that will go wrong.

I don't think they're children, nor do I have a paternalistic view. I see a region of the world that is in chaos, it's people suffering under brutality after brutality, and it's most worst actors threatening those of us who live outside of the region. Even if those of us in the West overlooked ethical and moral obligations to try and save people from genocidal slaughter, as we so often do, we cannot overlook the threat that is posed to us by the Islamic State. That isn't a viable option.

So, what is your suggestion? It's easy to shoot down an idea, but it's much more difficult to offer a solution. It seems to me that you're suggesting that we basically sit back and do nothing and allow the Islamic State to spread. Or perhaps, minimally, attempt to halt wholesale attempts at genocide whenever possible, but otherwise sit back and do nothing to tackle the root cause.

What are values worth if we are not prepared to defend them? It's easy to sit here in our secure part of the world, from the comfort and privilege of our First World Status. We have the luxury of having this debate, meanwhile the people living in this region of the world suffer endlessly. They live in poverty, they are brutalized again and again, and some terrorist group pops up and then we send in drones to massacre and kill them again and again. Is that the life we want them to lead - forever? Where are the values and ethics in that? If we do nothing but what we're doing right now, playing whack-a-mole with this regions problems, that's what we're condemning them too.

It isn't like some magical secular pixie is going to show up, wave it's wand, and suddenly wipe away harmful and destructive cultural values and religious fundamentalism. It isn't like their eyes are suddenly going to magically be opened one day, and they're going to realize how essential secularism is to a democratic society - for example. They're going to keep killing each other, trying to kill us, and we're going to keep killing them - endlessly, forever. Generation after generation will be condemned by nothing more than the misfortune of being born in the wrong part of the world.

I'll ask again, what alternative solutions are there aside from sitting back and doing nothing?

 

Isis is cancer to the muslim community I cry every night someone good dies and I cry for the Palestinians

 

But that's my point, the bolded part is just not possible, and thus is not worth the exorbitant resources both financially and casualties it would take to even attempt to do it, which would end in failure. Thinking we can be successful in a war like you're proposing is what threatens America the most, and nothing even comes close. We can't keep acting as an empire and getting into numerous bullshit wars we can't win. Fighting in another massive war would add trillions to the debt, and would really destroy the little confidence Americans have left in government. To a certain extent, you have to sell going to war to the people before you can do it (see Bush and Cheney's masterful selling of the wars). How can you even begin to explain to troops, their families, and the American people that going to battle yet again in a war that isn't winnable is a good idea? It's not happening.

To answer your question, we really don't have any good alternative; they're all shitty. But doing what Obama is doing is definitely better than taking a Bush Doctrine approach and thinking we can spread democracy around the world. Trying to implement a one size fits all form of government and values to an area that has very different circumstances, context, and culture than us is just a really asinine idea. I'm not at all convinced that our values and/or form of government will somehow magically make the Middle East more peaceful and America safer. In fact, trying to force our values and form of government on the Middle East could make the situation even worse. Context and circumstances matter.

 

Let's also take a good hard look at ourselves. Australia supported the U.S. in it's original invasion of Iraq, I feel ashamed to to say. And despite large anti-invasion protests (which I took part in), our government went ahead anyway, on what was later shown to be false evidence (of WMD's there). So I will just say (sarcasm intended), "Mission accomplished: we have managed to turn Iraq into a complete basket case".

 

James foley was a teacher at my school sadly I never met him but my teachers always talked about this great man his death is a sad and cruel reminder about the stuff going on in Iraq. My condolences to his family and RIP James foley :tears:

 

Lately, a lot of America's decisions seem to follow this logic:

"We're American. We don't quit just because we're wrong. We keep doing the wrong thing until it turns out right.”