War on ISIS: Can we even win?

[jaysabi]

Some very interesting ideas in this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/isis-transforming-into-functioning-state-that-uses-terror-as-tool/ar-AAdgIOq?ocid=DELLDHP

Here are some highlights I found most interesting, though I recommend the whole article.

ISIS Transforming Into Functioning State That Uses Terror as Tool

...

While no one is predicting that the Islamic State will become steward of an accountable, functioning state anytime soon, the group is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governance: issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies.

That transition may demand that the West rethink its military-first approach to combating the group.

“I think that there is no question that the way to look at it is as a revolutionary state-building organization,” said Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He is one of a small but growing group of experts who are challenging the conventional wisdom about the Islamic State: that its evil ensures its eventual destruction.

In a recent essay in Foreign Policy magazine — “What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins?” — Mr. Walt argued that the Islamic State could indeed prevail in the face of a modest, American-led military campaign that has been going for almost a year and still left the group in control of large areas of Iraq and Syria.

He wrote, “an Islamic State victory would mean that the group retained power in the areas it now controls and successfully defied outside efforts to ‘degrade and destroy’ it.”

He added that now, after almost a year of American airstrikes on the group, it is becoming clear that “only a large-scale foreign intervention is likely to roll back and ultimately eliminate the Islamic State.”

...

Under the Islamic State, he said, life can be brutal, but at least it seems more stable for those who can avoid crossing the group’s leaders. “Here they are implementing God’s regulations,” he said. “The killer is killed. The adulterer is stoned. The thief’s hands are cut.”

A similar sentiment helped the Taliban consolidate power two decades ago in Afghanistan: While the Taliban were feared, and their justice was often brutal, they were also respected by many Afghans for standing against corruption and chaos — and they remained firmly in control until the American invasion in 2001.

John E. McLaughlin, who was deputy director of the C.I.A. from 2000 to 2004, said he was recently at a dinner party in Washington at the home of an Australian diplomat when the discussion turned to the threat of the Islamic State.

“It suddenly just occurred to me, if you add everything up, that these guys could win,” he said. It was a controversial notion, he explained, because the group’s graphic brutality, which it showcases to the world in gory videos released through social media, has fed a sense that its demise is inevitable because it is so evil.

“Evil isn’t always defeated,” he said.


...

Drawing on parallels from history, experts say, the group’s violence can be seen in a different light. Mr. Walt mentioned the guillotine of the French Revolution, and the atrocities of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Communist one in China — imperfect analogies, to be sure, but ones that underscored the violence and oppression that can precede creation of a revolutionary state.

“At the time, these movements were regarded as completely beyond the pale and a threat to international order,” he said.

Mr. McLaughlin pointed to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization seen as a terrorist group in the eyes of the West and now a legitimate political player, and also reached back centuries to the brutality of English royalty.

“If you look at what the English kings did to consolidate their territories in the 14th and 15th centuries,” he said, “they were not only beheading people but disemboweling them.”

William McCants, the director of the Project on U.S. Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and an expert on the evolution of the Islamic State, said the historical analogies are accurate.

“We in the West have bought into this idea that insurgency and counterinsurgency is a battle for hearts and minds,” he said. “We forget how many states have been established through brutality.”

...

Inside Islamic State territory, the group’s violence is regarded differently than it is in the West. In the communities it controls, citizens have already grown inured to violence. In Iraq, citizens have lived with war for more than a decade, including the days of sectarian civil war when a signature act of some Shiite militias was to drill the heads of Sunnis. And before that, they lived under the police state thuggery and corruption of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

Now there is a limited sense of order, and cleaner streets, a low bar, perhaps, but a reality amid years of war and anarchy. Hassan Hassan, an analyst who has studied the Islamic State and a co-author of a book on the group, said that on the ground there is “a logic of savagery.” If people avoid any sign of dissent, he said, they can largely go about their lives.

“Not happily,” he said, “but they can live at peace.”

He added, “They feel like there is a functioning state.”

I think this article was so interesting to me because it challenges some notions on the topic which I held as invariably true:

1. Because ISIS is so brutal, their defeat is inevitable because the world will not tolerate their evil.

2. Due to the brutal nature of ISIS, their rule cannot be an improvement over the previous governments in the minds of the people, even if those government were hopelessly corrupt.

3. ISIS rule cannot provide stability or peace for the populace.

4. ISIS brutality is unprecedented in the attempted establishment of a state.

[Spendulus]

Some very interesting ideas in this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/isis-transforming-into-functioning-state-that-uses-terror-as-tool/ar-AAdgIOq?ocid=DELLDHP

Here are some highlights I found most interesting....

Well, maybe you should go back and look at the history of terror groups in the area in question.  Just one long string of them, one after another.

And given that the public gets conditioned to one level of atrocity, to achieve the perceived level of "terror" the perp has to go that much further each time.  That is why the atrocities get worse and worse.  ISIS is just a part of this continuum.

They are nothing new or special whatsoever.  Bin Laden's goal was to destabilize and take over Saudi Arabia.  Hezbola wants to kill all the Jews and take over their land.  Same old shit, one more time.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

There is no brutality that is unprecedented, sir.  I beg to differ with you on that point.

[Spendulus]

There is no brutality that is unprecedented, sir.  I beg to differ with you on that point.

+1

But yea,there is always a new generation to whom the brutality is unprecedented.

[OmegaStarScream]

I'am telling you when ISIS will dissapaear , It will dissapear when CIA and mossad take their backup off . it will dissapear when goverments stop and cut the crap when a muslim kill anyone it's called "Terrorism" and anything else is not .
We can wait couple of years and you will end up by finding Terrorism is the synonym of being muslim . they just want to screw this religion off. shitload of leaked files says that Baghdadi was trained by CIA and othe rintelligence agencies but does any says a shit ? McCain have pictures with ISIS leader but no body says a shit . Leaders of ISIS (who left) says that they was making deals with USA but no body says a shit either.
Nukes are the solution of all issues . for the moment Russia is the only country who really s tanding on USA face wondering what would they do if Putin wasen't a real man . Yes #Conspiracy theories

[panju1]

There is no brutality that is unprecedented, sir.  I beg to differ with you on that point.

Brutality captured on 24x7 news channels is unprecedented.
That is what has really changed.

[RodeoX]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

[jaysabi]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

I have to disagree the some of the characterizations here. I don't think Al-Qaida's goal was all the aftermath of 9/11 (wrecked economy, alliance strain, etc.) but was a nice bonus for them. Their goal was just to kill as many people as possible and to do so as dramatically as possible.

And ISIS certainly does not fight conventional battles. Every time they try, they are routinely routed by militarily superior forces that oppose them. They fight with guerrilla tactics: car bombs, suicide bombs, anything that allows surprise attacks on heavy civilian areas before they shrink back into the surroundings. When the terror they bring forces people and government forces to flee an area, they take control of it. But in no sense is that a conventional battle.

Because of this, I question whether we could beat them right now. If we put troops on the ground again, I view it more likely we will radicalize more to their cause than defeat them first.

[BlitzandBitz]

we should just stop wasting time and money on them and just let the bastards kill each other.

[pureelite]

Some very interesting ideas in this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/isis-transforming-into-functioning-state-that-uses-terror-as-tool/ar-AAdgIOq?ocid=DELLDHP

Here are some highlights I found most interesting, though I recommend the whole article.

ISIS Transforming Into Functioning State That Uses Terror as Tool

...

While no one is predicting that the Islamic State will become steward of an accountable, functioning state anytime soon, the group is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governance: issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies.

That transition may demand that the West rethink its military-first approach to combating the group.

“I think that there is no question that the way to look at it is as a revolutionary state-building organization,” said Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He is one of a small but growing group of experts who are challenging the conventional wisdom about the Islamic State: that its evil ensures its eventual destruction.

In a recent essay in Foreign Policy magazine — “What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins?” — Mr. Walt argued that the Islamic State could indeed prevail in the face of a modest, American-led military campaign that has been going for almost a year and still left the group in control of large areas of Iraq and Syria.

He wrote, “an Islamic State victory would mean that the group retained power in the areas it now controls and successfully defied outside efforts to ‘degrade and destroy’ it.”

He added that now, after almost a year of American airstrikes on the group, it is becoming clear that “only a large-scale foreign intervention is likely to roll back and ultimately eliminate the Islamic State.”

...

Under the Islamic State, he said, life can be brutal, but at least it seems more stable for those who can avoid crossing the group’s leaders. “Here they are implementing God’s regulations,” he said. “The killer is killed. The adulterer is stoned. The thief’s hands are cut.”

A similar sentiment helped the Taliban consolidate power two decades ago in Afghanistan: While the Taliban were feared, and their justice was often brutal, they were also respected by many Afghans for standing against corruption and chaos — and they remained firmly in control until the American invasion in 2001.

John E. McLaughlin, who was deputy director of the C.I.A. from 2000 to 2004, said he was recently at a dinner party in Washington at the home of an Australian diplomat when the discussion turned to the threat of the Islamic State.

“It suddenly just occurred to me, if you add everything up, that these guys could win,” he said. It was a controversial notion, he explained, because the group’s graphic brutality, which it showcases to the world in gory videos released through social media, has fed a sense that its demise is inevitable because it is so evil.

“Evil isn’t always defeated,” he said.


...

Drawing on parallels from history, experts say, the group’s violence can be seen in a different light. Mr. Walt mentioned the guillotine of the French Revolution, and the atrocities of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Communist one in China — imperfect analogies, to be sure, but ones that underscored the violence and oppression that can precede creation of a revolutionary state.

“At the time, these movements were regarded as completely beyond the pale and a threat to international order,” he said.

Mr. McLaughlin pointed to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization seen as a terrorist group in the eyes of the West and now a legitimate political player, and also reached back centuries to the brutality of English royalty.

“If you look at what the English kings did to consolidate their territories in the 14th and 15th centuries,” he said, “they were not only beheading people but disemboweling them.”

William McCants, the director of the Project on U.S. Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and an expert on the evolution of the Islamic State, said the historical analogies are accurate.

“We in the West have bought into this idea that insurgency and counterinsurgency is a battle for hearts and minds,” he said. “We forget how many states have been established through brutality.”

...

Inside Islamic State territory, the group’s violence is regarded differently than it is in the West. In the communities it controls, citizens have already grown inured to violence. In Iraq, citizens have lived with war for more than a decade, including the days of sectarian civil war when a signature act of some Shiite militias was to drill the heads of Sunnis. And before that, they lived under the police state thuggery and corruption of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

Now there is a limited sense of order, and cleaner streets, a low bar, perhaps, but a reality amid years of war and anarchy. Hassan Hassan, an analyst who has studied the Islamic State and a co-author of a book on the group, said that on the ground there is “a logic of savagery.” If people avoid any sign of dissent, he said, they can largely go about their lives.

“Not happily,” he said, “but they can live at peace.”

He added, “They feel like there is a functioning state.”

I think this article was so interesting to me because it challenges some notions on the topic which I held as invariably true:

1. Because ISIS is so brutal, their defeat is inevitable because the world will not tolerate their evil.

2. Due to the brutal nature of ISIS, their rule cannot be an improvement over the previous governments in the minds of the people, even if those government were hopelessly corrupt.

3. ISIS rule cannot provide stability or peace for the populace.

4. ISIS brutality is unprecedented in the attempted establishment of a state.

ISIS is trying to expand its activity in all parts of the world. They are very important in Europe nations have their activists to carry out their actions in this area. More people are killed, and everything becomes more dangerous and more dangerous.

[Spendulus]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

I have to disagree the some of the characterizations here. I don't think Al-Qaida's goal was all the aftermath of 9/11 (wrecked economy, alliance strain, etc.) but was a nice bonus for them. Their goal was just to kill as many people as possible and to do so as dramatically as possible.

And ISIS certainly does not fight conventional battles. Every time they try, they are routinely routed by militarily superior forces that oppose them. They fight with guerrilla tactics: car bombs, suicide bombs, anything that allows surprise attacks on heavy civilian areas before they shrink back into the surroundings. When the terror they bring forces people and government forces to flee an area, they take control of it. But in no sense is that a conventional battle.

Because of this, I question whether we could beat them right now. If we put troops on the ground again, I view it more likely we will radicalize more to their cause than defeat them first.

I don't like the shape of the world I see evolving as a result of Muslims, and the worlds response to Muslims.  It makes zero practical difference if this is the result of 33% of muslims or 0.1%, the result is equally nasty, and equally the responsibility of Muslims, in either case.  It makes zero practical difference if some Muslims want to chatter about "They are not True Islam," that's exactly the sectarian divides that have made the Middle East such a ridiculous back and forth battleground for centuries.  Rather than the solution, that's the problem.

What we are really talking about at the core here, is the exporting of the basic Crazy of the middle east to the rest of the world.

[Daniel91]

War against ISIS is also an ideological war, ie. war for hearts and minds of young Muslims from that area and the entire Western world.
It's a great test of multiculturalism and openness of Western, Christian world to the east and Muslims.
ISIS wants just that, destroying of the very foundations of Western civilization, and it is multiculturalism, tolerance and acceptance of other faiths and nations.
If Isis succeeds in making Western societies become hostile towards Muslims, then ISIS, regardless of the military situation in Iraq and Syria, achieved its main ideological goal, sowed the seed of conflict between Muslims and Christians, a clash of civilizations.

[Ingatqhvq]

Sure, we will win the war to against IS. Is is so evil, and most people don't like it.

[Snail2]

Empires were built on the same way for thousands of years. Nowadays openly practising these ways are a bit out of fashion, but only a few decades ago "going there, kicking their ass, grabbing their stuff and shooting everyone who complaining" was the natural way to enforce a country's interest or for territorial expansion. To be honest this is still the natural way but nowadays we calling it as "exporting democracy" or "spreading civilization" maybe "helping the victims of dictators".

...and yes they are building a working state what will look like a strong, pure, independent, unified and maybe prosperous alternative for all people who got tired with corrupt authoritarian systems around. The retards in the western governments should wake up and eradicate IS until we can, or in a decade or two we will find them banging on our own doors and then we will have to fight them here on our streets.

[RodeoX]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

I have to disagree the some of the characterizations here. I don't think Al-Qaida's goal was all the aftermath of 9/11 (wrecked economy, alliance strain, etc.) but was a nice bonus for them. Their goal was just to kill as many people as possible and to do so as dramatically as possible.

And ISIS certainly does not fight conventional battles. Every time they try, they are routinely routed by militarily superior forces that oppose them. They fight with guerrilla tactics: car bombs, suicide bombs, anything that allows surprise attacks on heavy civilian areas before they shrink back into the surroundings. When the terror they bring forces people and government forces to flee an area, they take control of it. But in no sense is that a conventional battle.

Because of this, I question whether we could beat them right now. If we put troops on the ground again, I view it more likely we will radicalize more to their cause than defeat them first.

Disagreement and discussion is how we move forward. 
But I do think there is some confusion about terrorism. You are correct that DAESH (ISIS) often use guerrilla tactics. However these tactics are a standard part of modern conventional warfare. Guerrillas fight in uniform and are structured into conventional units. Terrorists work in cells or even alone, do not wear uniforms, do not hold ground, and are primarily interested in pushing events to a tipping point that allows for open guerrilla warfare. I realize that this is on a spectrum and DAESH's earlier iterations used terrorism. But now they are fighting open battles and I don't see where they are losing overall.
By comparison Al-Qaeda (the base) members mostly hide in cities under fake names and focus on traditional terror tactics. I think they did expect that the U.S. would over-react and hurt themselves. That is what Bin Laden was saying as far back as the early 1990's.
Why just two days before 9/11 Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by Al-Qaeda in preparation for America's expected war in Afghanistan.  These guys are no dummies. The attackers on 9/11 were doctors and engineers. They study political science and history and have vision for what they want to do. It would be great if they were just crazy and foolishly delusional. 

[spazzdla]

Sure, we will win the war to against IS. Is is so evil, and most people don't like it.

LMAO, just no. so much no.

Never, don't stand a single fucking chance.

1 person causes france to drop 100 billion on secuirty..  don't stand a single chance our nations are full of a bunch of big pussies.


HOWEVER.. they are pretty much a 0% threat to the average person.. the media just makes you think they actually are.  Again pussies massive massive pussies.

[jaysabi]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

I have to disagree the some of the characterizations here. I don't think Al-Qaida's goal was all the aftermath of 9/11 (wrecked economy, alliance strain, etc.) but was a nice bonus for them. Their goal was just to kill as many people as possible and to do so as dramatically as possible.

And ISIS certainly does not fight conventional battles. Every time they try, they are routinely routed by militarily superior forces that oppose them. They fight with guerrilla tactics: car bombs, suicide bombs, anything that allows surprise attacks on heavy civilian areas before they shrink back into the surroundings. When the terror they bring forces people and government forces to flee an area, they take control of it. But in no sense is that a conventional battle.

Because of this, I question whether we could beat them right now. If we put troops on the ground again, I view it more likely we will radicalize more to their cause than defeat them first.

I don't like the shape of the world I see evolving as a result of Muslims, and the worlds response to Muslims.  It makes zero practical difference if this is the result of 33% of muslims or 0.1%, the result is equally nasty, and equally the responsibility of Muslims, in either case.  It makes zero practical difference if some Muslims want to chatter about "They are not True Islam," that's exactly the sectarian divides that have made the Middle East such a ridiculous back and forth battleground for centuries.  Rather than the solution, that's the problem.

What we are really talking about at the core here, is the exporting of the basic Crazy of the middle east to the rest of the world.

I agree fully with the first part of your statement ("I don't like the shape of the world I see evolving as a result of Muslims, and the worlds response to Muslims.  It makes zero practical difference if this is the result of 33% of muslims or 0.1%"), but I'm still not convinced that the peaceful Muslims necessarily share the burden of the violent ones just by association. (One of the reasons I asked initially was to see if anyone had any good arguments to support the notion that I haven't heard.)

We are essentially having the same debate in America right now: Dylan Roof's murder of 9 black church members has made guilty by association any person who wants to display the Confederate Flag. Because Roof came from southern culture and used the flag in his hate propaganda, anyone displaying that flag is now judged to be guilty of the same hate by association. The question at hand then is do you think 'southern culture' as it is represented by those who find the Confederate Flag to be a symbol of heritage should bear the burden of Roof's violent actions as well?

[jaysabi]

This is a growing question in intelligence circles. It has really become incorrect to refer to these guys as terrorists. They do practice terror, but so do a lot of nation-states. True terrorism is practiced in an asymmetric warfare environment. When you can't win a battle you try to get the enemy to make stupid moves by making them fearful. Al-Qaeda works this way. Look at how successful they were on 9/11. We lost a few buildings and a few thousand people. It was bad, but the reaction we launched has cost us trillions, wrecked our economy, ruined some of our key alliances, and created hundreds of thousands of new Jihadis.  
We foolishly played the hand they dealt us.    

Is this what DAESH is like? Not anymore anyway. They fight conventional battles, they have nation level weapons, they have their own currencies, medical services, oil refineries, they control huge areas of land. These things are putting them on a path to statehood and in 100 years it is possible that there will still be a Caliphate in the region.

We could beat them right now, however we (USA) are not willing to do the work. It will take a draft and a force of at least 300K (500K would be better). Are you ready to go to war. Not the kid stuff we have been doing so far, but a real war with losses in the tens of thousands.

I have to disagree the some of the characterizations here. I don't think Al-Qaida's goal was all the aftermath of 9/11 (wrecked economy, alliance strain, etc.) but was a nice bonus for them. Their goal was just to kill as many people as possible and to do so as dramatically as possible.

And ISIS certainly does not fight conventional battles. Every time they try, they are routinely routed by militarily superior forces that oppose them. They fight with guerrilla tactics: car bombs, suicide bombs, anything that allows surprise attacks on heavy civilian areas before they shrink back into the surroundings. When the terror they bring forces people and government forces to flee an area, they take control of it. But in no sense is that a conventional battle.

Because of this, I question whether we could beat them right now. If we put troops on the ground again, I view it more likely we will radicalize more to their cause than defeat them first.

Disagreement and discussion is how we move forward. 
But I do think there is some confusion about terrorism. You are correct that DAESH (ISIS) often use guerrilla tactics. However these tactics are a standard part of modern conventional warfare. Guerrillas fight in uniform and are structured into conventional units. Terrorists work in cells or even alone, do not wear uniforms, do not hold ground, and are primarily interested in pushing events to a tipping point that allows for open guerrilla warfare. I realize that this is on a spectrum and DAESH's earlier iterations used terrorism. But now they are fighting open battles and I don't see where they are losing overall.
By comparison Al-Qaeda (the base) members mostly hide in cities under fake names and focus on traditional terror tactics. I think they did expect that the U.S. would over-react and hurt themselves. That is what Bin Laden was saying as far back as the early 1990's.
Why just two days before 9/11 Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by Al-Qaeda in preparation for America's expected war in Afghanistan.  These guys are no dummies. The attackers on 9/11 were doctors and engineers. They study political science and history and have vision for what they want to do. It would be great if they were just crazy and foolishly delusional. 

You can't say that guerrilla tactics are conventional. Guerilla warfare by definition is unconventional and irregular fighting. My question at this point is where are you finding information about them fighting open battles? Every time they come out in the open, they are bombed into oblivion by all the air forces targeting them. Their only asset is to remain unknown and not easily identifiable, otherwise they will be obliterated by the superior militaries targeting them. I can't imagine they have "uniforms," because if we could easily identify who is ISIS from who is a regular civilian, we wouldn't have such a hard time engaging them. There are stories of them dressing in Kurish uniforms to infiltrate an area undetected before they start fighting, but as soon as they come up against superior forces, they disintegrate out of necessity. That's not conventional fighting at all, even if it's the norm for insurgencies (which is nothing new, that's how America colonials were effective against the militarily superior British in the Revolutionary War).

[Spendulus]

You can't say that guerrilla tactics are conventional. Guerilla warfare by definition is unconventional and irregular fighting. ...

not any more...

....It makes zero practical difference if some Muslims want to chatter about "They are not True Islam," that's exactly the sectarian divides that have made the Middle East such a ridiculous back and forth battleground for centuries.  Rather than the solution, that's the problem.

What we are really talking about at the core here, is the exporting of the basic Crazy of the middle east to the rest of the world.

I agree fully with the first part of your statement ("I don't like the shape of the world I see evolving as a result of Muslims, and the worlds response to Muslims.  It makes zero practical difference if this is the result of 33% of muslims or 0.1%"), but I'm still not convinced that the peaceful Muslims necessarily share the burden of the violent ones just by association. (One of the reasons I asked initially was to see if anyone had any good arguments to support the notion that I haven't heard.)

We are essentially having the same debate in America right now: Dylan Roof's murder of 9 black church members has made guilty by association any person who wants to display the Confederate Flag. Because Roof came from southern culture and used the flag in his hate propaganda, anyone displaying that flag is now judged to be guilty of the same hate by association. The question at hand then is do you think 'southern culture' as it is represented by those who find the Confederate Flag to be a symbol of heritage should bear the burden of Roof's violent actions as well?

Re "peaceful Muslims" I think it's just total BS.  Look back at these threads for the evidence.  What you'll find is the likes of "Islam is peace and Love" then on questioning "Well of course except for Evil Zion" or "Except for stoning adulterers that's GOOD" and "Except for punishing gays" and "Except for cutting off hands and feet" and "Evil Jews did 911", or "Except for Great Satan, the USA."  You'll find so much totally contradictory crap it makes your head spin.  There is zero uniform and internally consistent message of "peace and love."  Zero.

Internal inconsistency lays the lie to your question of which you seek to be convinced (bolded) as a false overly broad generalization of the premise of a logical argument.


Re Confederate Flag.

No, you are parroting the top down disseminated liberal mis framing of the issue.

Who owns the Confederate Flag and it's heritage is the Democratic party and it's members.  Notice they NEVER ADMIT THIS.  NEVER.  Rather they push the lie it's the Eeeevvvoolll REupblicans.  Yeah, bullshit.

Confess up to it, please.

[RodeoX]

You can't say that guerrilla tactics are conventional. Guerilla warfare by definition is unconventional and irregular fighting. My question at this point is where are you finding information about them fighting open battles? Every time they come out in the open, they are bombed into oblivion by all the air forces targeting them. Their only asset is to remain unknown and not easily identifiable, otherwise they will be obliterated by the superior militaries targeting them. I can't imagine they have "uniforms," because if we could easily identify who is ISIS from who is a regular civilian, we wouldn't have such a hard time engaging them. There are stories of them dressing in Kurish uniforms to infiltrate an area undetected before they start fighting, but as soon as they come up against superior forces, they disintegrate out of necessity. That's not conventional fighting at all, even if it's the norm for insurgencies (which is nothing new, that's how America colonials were effective against the militarily superior British in the Revolutionary War).

I see what your saying. In the past guerrilla warfare was characterized as special warfare or even unconventional warfare. But modern warfare tends to draw the line at who they targeting and if they fight in uniform.  Special forces are our equivalent irregular forces. DAESH forces do wear uniforms and primarily target military targets. They also practice terror by distributing horrifying videos to scare the population. Although they have now stopped this practice and no longer will show decapitations.

But they do fight open battles from fixed positions in uniform. They use artillery, anti-air missiles, light and heavy armor, etc. These things are even beyond guerrilla fighting Their forces are arguably the most competent in the regional fighting. They know how to hide and when to move in a way that we can do little about.
For example there is a lot of talk about air-strikes. Well, that window has closed a lot. 75% of the air sorties now return without dropping any ordinance. We really have few actionable targets. Even though you can see them walking around everywhere, we can't hit most of them because they are in civilian areas or the targets are not cost effective. We would go broke trying to kill all 100,000 of them with $10,000 hellfire missiles.

The time has now come for ground forces to fight, but it is not clear who that will be. The YPG is often seen as the group who will fight. However they are only interested in defending the country of Kurdistan, and frankly the Peshmerga are overrated. The next most effective force is Iran. However they are interested in controlling Iraqi territory and spreading their influence. That leaves the U.S. and the Iraqi army. I don't see how that is going to work. The U.S. is not going to commit the hundreds of thousands of ground forces needed to win and the Iraqis don't have the fighters. Forget about training them, we have been doing that for like 11 years and have about 2600 reliable fighters. At that rate it will take a century. I really don't see how we are going to do this.