Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth

[Rigon]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

No idea regarding Turkey, but I have to imagine Israel isn't liking the Iranian involvement or our acceptance of it. They may just be waiting to see what happens.

[zolace]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

[sana8410]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

I think the US is being smart with a tactic of limited engagement. Having some support staff on the ground can help the ISF where it is the weakest: intelligence and logistics. Since the Sunnis hate the Maliki government the ISF has been fighting blind in the northwest and has had to resort to mass bombing campaigns which has only pissed the Sunni civilians off even more. Anymore involvement from the US and it would strongly play into the rather sophisticated PR machine of the ISIS and likely delay the internal decay of their alliance network.

[Rigon]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

[Charlie Prime]

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

[zolace]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

[Rigon]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

[noviapriani]

Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!!

http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/

[sana8410]

Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.

Just as importantly the British parliament voted against it as well which cost us the multilateral support we were depending on for the operations in Syria.

[zolace]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

[sana8410]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!!

http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/

Yemen was a rather poor example for you to choose. AQAP in Yemen right now is hurting pretty badly due to the Spring / summer offensive that we helped the Yemeni army launch against them. The largest current threat to stability in Yemen at the moment, and where the heaviest fighting is, isn't AQAP at all, but with the northern Houthi insurgency.

[sana8410]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I had to say that this part epitomizes...sometimes shit just works out. And in this case, it would be difficult to see how it could have worked out better. The aftermath, maybe. But the series of events were pretty smooth.

[noviapriani]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

You're giving Obama credit for gaddafi's killing?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

[zolace]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

You're giving Obama credit for gaddafi's killing?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

More so with his removal from power in which we built the international coalition that played a very active role in doing so. If you feel that is incorrect feel free to provide a counter argument.

[sana8410]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

[zolace]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

[umair127]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.