ISIS - Prospect of a new western invasion in the region?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Surprised there isn't much on this on revleft. David Cameron and his ilk have just been talking up the prospect of military intervention in the region, as was Obama on his phoney visit to Estonia. Wondering if and when we will enter into another direct global conflict.

[Sasha]

What direct global conflict? unless they neglect to buy of the Sunni nationalists first it would be little more than taking out some adventurist snotbrains with the full blessing of the Iraqi, Irani, Kurdish, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish and maybe even Syrian (regime and rebel) leadership etc etc.
By the time IS is yesterdays flash in the pan we probably should give them the fucking Nobel peace price for bringing the bourgeois national leaderships across the region together.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think NATO will eventually reintroduce ground troops to Iraq at least, I'm just not sure how. For once in my life I'm surrounded by an American population thats actually against starting another war, or continuing an old one. Unfortunately it feels more like they don't want Obama to start a war, they would probably be open to it if it were sold by someone else instead. This crisis seems like a perfect opportunity to reassert control over Baghdad and to begin air strikes in Syria, I don't think they'll let this go to waste, they may just take their time on it.

[The Feral Underclass]

What direct global conflict? unless they neglect to buy of the Sunni nationalists first it would be little more than taking out some adventurist snotbrains with the full blessing of the Iraqi, Irani, Kurdish, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish and maybe even Syrian (regime and rebel) leadership etc etc.
By the time IS is yesterdays flash in the pan we probably should give them the fucking Nobel peace price for bringing the bourgeois national leaderships across the region together.

:lol:

I do wonder though how much of this is a flash in the pan though and how easy it will be to dislodge IS from their objectives. It's not easy to put down insurgencies, as history can confirm.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

What direct global conflict? unless they neglect to buy of the Sunni nationalists first it would be little more than taking out some adventurist snotbrains with the full blessing of the Iraqi, Irani, Kurdish, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish and maybe even Syrian (regime and rebel) leadership etc etc.
By the time IS is yesterdays flash in the pan we probably should give them the fucking Nobel peace price for bringing the bourgeois national leaderships across the region together.

do you really think its that simple? perhaps i'm at the mercy of the mainstream media here but to me, it seems that isis represent a pretty significant threat to the region which goes beyond taking out some adventurists. they have a lot of economic, military and also cultural capacity which makes al-qaeda look tame in comparison. listening to government people on the bbc earlier say things like 'we want arab nations to deal with the problem for once so we don't get the blame' and then 'i don't think we should rule out boots on the ground' makes me think that there is a big PR move to spin up the notion that we have to 'take responsibility' for the region, as the great world police. they're also talking about air-strikes and supporting arab countries in their own efforts. of course, under pinning all of this is the geopolitics and, certainly, the US and Britain don't want to see the islamic state really become an islamic state. also, the way they're spinning the whole beheading thing here is interesting: 1) there is an emphasis on british accents, drumming up the notion that isis represent a direct threat to britain. 2) the next journo to be beheaded is in fact british. 3) they are using this to curb even more civil liberties just as they did after 9/11. even if isis are more ineffectual than they are making out, the narrative seems to suggest that something is going to happen and many of us are worried about another war in which proles are sent to die over the concerns of various imperialist actors (be they jihadists or western nations).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

:lol:

I do wonder though how much of this is a flash in the pan though and how easy it will be to dislodge IS from their objectives. It's not easy to put down insurgencies, as history can confirm.

There is a cool vice documentary where they travel to IS and basically take an extended tour. Of the people they talk to, there's like a 50/50 split between die hard supporters, and normal people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time trying desperately to not look suspicious to their new rulers. Pretty interesting/terrifying

[Sasha]

do you really think its that simple? perhaps i'm at the mercy of the mainstream media here but to me, it seems that isis represent a pretty significant threat to the region which goes beyond taking out some adventurists. they have a lot of economic, military and also cultural capacity which makes al-qaeda look tame in comparison. listening to government people on the bbc earlier say things like 'we want arab nations to deal with the problem for once so we don't get the blame' and then 'i don't think we should rule out boots on the ground' makes me think that there is a big PR move to spin up the notion that we have to 'take responsibility' for the region, as the great world police. they're also talking about air-strikes and supporting arab countries in their own efforts. of course, under pinning all of this is the geopolitics and, certainly, the US and Britain don't want to see the islamic state really become an islamic state. also, the way they're spinning the whole beheading thing here is interesting: 1) there is an emphasis on british accents, drumming up the notion that isis represent a direct threat to britain. 2) the next journo to be beheaded is in fact british. 3) they are using this to curb even more civil liberties just as they did after 9/11. even if isis are more ineffectual than they are making out, the narrative seems to suggest that something is going to happen and many of us are worried about another war in which proles are sent to die over the concerns of various imperialist actors (be they jihadists or western nations).

Like said, I think their presence (at least in Iraq) depends completely on their alliance with the ex-baathist/sunni nationalist tribes, previous experience have shown that they, even during complete Sunni - Shia sectarian warfare (which for now is not happening on a scale remotely on the same level as then) that their loyalty/aligance can be bought by the Americans/Iraqi government.
As soon as that happens their presence in Iraq will crumble again just like last time.
Which will leave Syria but since Assad clearly has come back from his tactical fostering of the extremist insurgance to undermine the more moderate opposition combined with the fact IS managed to really piss off the west which means they will now get more involved above Syria now too they will probably not last for more than a few years there either.

[Rottenfruit]

Surprised there isn't much on this on revleft. David Cameron and his ilk have just been talking up the prospect of military intervention in the region, as was Obama on his phoney visit to Estonia. Wondering if and when we will enter into another direct global conflict.
isis is engaging in genocide, the world should not stand aside and let genocide happend, another rawanda should never be allowed to happend

[Devrim]

I agree that ISIS is a flash in the pan that will be over pretty quickly.

Devrim

[Atsumari]

isis is engaging in genocide, the world should not stand aside and let genocide happend, another rawanda should never be allowed to happend
In that case, advocate for the arming of the Kurds or some other third party faction that has a better idea of what to do in their territory than America which seems to fuck up everything everywhere they go by destroying the state and causing a power vacuum.
In regard to preventing genocide, the PKK has done a decent job in saving the Yazidis

[Devrim]

In that case, advocate for the arming of the Kurds or some other third party faction that has a better idea of what to do in their territory than America which seems to fuck up everything everywhere they go by destroying the state and causing a power vacuum.
In regard to preventing genocide, the PKK has done a decent job in saving the Yazidis

I think that communists should advocate that 'their countries' stop interfering in the Middle East either by sending in troops or dropping bombs on people or arming this or that state or faction.

Devrim

[Atsumari]

I think that communists should advocate that 'their countries' stop interfering in the Middle East either by sending in troops or dropping bombs on people or arming this or that state or faction.

Devrim
Hey man, I was just talking to a guy who obviously wants to interfere and giving a piece of my mind of what would be a really horrible idea.
And while you are at it, you should address the legitimate questions regarding Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing rather than simply saying hands off because I cannot take such a position seriously even though it is a view I have sympathies towards, especially regarding the legacy of Iraq and Libya.

[Devrim]

And while you are at it, you should address the legitimate questions regarding Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing rather than simply saying hands off because I cannot take such a position seriously even though it is a view I have sympathies towards, especially regarding the legacy of Iraq and Libya.

What legitimate questions about Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing?

If we are talking about the recent upsurge of ISIS in Iraq, we should remember that they were a group that the West was arming until very recently. Now they are planning to arm other groups to oppose them. Do you think they are doing this for the good of the inhabitants of the region or for their own imperial interests?

Devrim

[Atsumari]

What legitimate questions about Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing?

If we are talking about the recent upsurge of ISIS in Iraq, we should remember that they were a group that the West was arming until very recently. Now they are planning to arm other groups to oppose them. Do you think they are doing this for the good of the inhabitants of the region or for their own imperial interests?

Devrim
Damn, what a way to dodge the question. Of course they are not doing it out moral duty and please give me a source that is not from a conspiracy theory site that the US was arming ISIS.
And by legitimate questions about Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing, I am talking about the complete regulation of people's lives in their interpretation of Sharia and Takfirists wiping out religious minorities which is something that cannot be answered by simply saying "hands off." Such an answer really makes me think that such people only care about limiting the power of the U.S. and nothing else or are willing to allow atrocities to happen in the name of limiting imperial power.
Fortunately, there is no need for any intervention given that this situation is nothing like Rwanda. The Yazidi population has faced persecution in the past and and survived and will survive now and the Kurds seem capable of preventing a genocide from spiraling out of control unlike Paul Kagame.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The point was that imperialism led to Islamism and that imperialism sustains Islamism. As communists, of course we are for the workers of these regions driving ISIS out and placing their heads on pikes if need be, but if imperialist or imperialist-backed forces drive ISIS out, in a couple of years (at best) there will be another ISIS or two, three such organisations. Why do you think we oppose imperialism in general, because we like the various regimes in the regions of belated capitalist development? No. We can feel nothing but disgust for them. But imperialism doesn't help, imperialism just makes everything much worse. Just look at free Iraq.

[Devrim]

please give me a source that is not from a conspiracy theory site that the US was arming ISIS.

I didn't say that the US had been arming them. I said that the West was. ISIS was armed until recently by Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey with the Turkish-Syrian border used as the conduit. Saudi and Qatar have acted as the West's proxies throughout the entire Syrian affair, but even if you think that this is disputable, Turkey is an actual member of NATO. I think that a NATO state arming them counts as them being armed by the West. Of course through all of the events in Syria when the leaders of the major Western powers were encouraging these states to arm Syrian rebels, there was very little attention paid to where the money and guns were going.


And by legitimate questions about Islamic totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing, I am talking about the complete regulation of people's lives in their interpretation of Sharia and Takfirists wiping out religious minorities which is something that cannot be answered by simply saying "hands off." Such an answer really makes me think that such people only care about limiting the power of the U.S. and nothing else or are willing to allow atrocities to happen in the name of limiting imperial power.

I don't advocate "allow[ing] atrocities to happen in the name of limiting imperial power". I say that it is the interventions of imperial power in the region that are the root cause of these atrocities. ISIS has seized power in parts of two states, one severely weakened by over three years of civil war sponsored by the West, and the other after two US invasions and years of resulting civil war. Hasn't the US directly caused the situation, which allowed these events to come about?

Obama recently admitted that the US has no clear strategy for dealing with the current problem. Yet you suggest that we trust these people to solve the very problems that they have created. Who knows what horrors this latest intervention will cause a few years down the line. If you remember the situation that we have now was ultimately caused by the US overthrowing a terrible genocidal dictator. Then as now there are good intentions.

The point is that pumping arms into the region makes it more unstable. The point is that every intervention by the West, even the humanitarian ones, brings more recruits to Islamicist groups. It is directly creating the conditions for the next round of ethnic cleansing.

Socialists in the West should argue that their states should keep out of the Middle East, and stand against all intervention.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree that ISIS is a flash in the pan that will be over pretty quickly.

Devrim


Yeah, that's what they said about the Taliban and the NVA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hrafn]

NVA and Taliban are/were both popularly supported grassroot movements, though.

[Devrim]

I agree that ISIS is a flash in the pan that will be over pretty quickly. Yeah, that's what they said about the Taliban and the NVA.

Well that is a stunning proof. People said something about an organisation that emerged two decades ago and under completely different circumstances, so it proves something about this organisation now*. I'm not sure what people said about the NVA, but as it was the army of an existing state, I'd presume that most people assumed it would have some staying power.

ISIS will, in my opinion, not last as an organisation controlling territory, more than two years, and will have lost most of its power within the years.

Over the least two weeks the tide seems to have turned significantly against them in a military sense, and their opponents are receiving more support from the imperialist powers.

Devrim

*Actually, I can remember writing an article at the time saying that the Taliban was here for the long term anyway.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well that is a stunning proof.

I was neither attempting to stun nor prove anything, except, I suppose, that you're not a fortune teller. Which is correct, is it not?


People said something about an organisation that emerged two decades ago and under completely different circumstances, so it proves something about this organisation now*. I'm not sure what people said about the NVA, but as it was the army of an existing state, I'd presume that most people assumed it would have some staying power.

People say a lot of things, including you. And as history has shown in both cases, they're not always right.


in my opinion

Well, I'd say that means very little, and thankfully, not all we have to go on.

Have a nice day :)

[The Feral Underclass]

NVA and Taliban are/were both popularly supported grassroot movements, though.

Whether IS is a flash-in-the-pan or a long-term thing is of absolutely no interest to me. I was merely suggesting that insurgencies are notoriously difficult to defeat and the "we'll be home by Christmas" rhetoric is often proven misplaced.

[Hrafn]

Well, you're quite obviously wrong. ;)

I feel the attitude in this thread is a bit too heated.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whether IS is a flash in the pan or a long-term thing is of absolutely no interest to me. I was merely suggesting that insurgencies are notoriously difficult to defeat and the "we'll be home by Christmas" rhetoric is often proven misplaced.

ISIS collapsing does not mean that the imperialist troops will be "home by Christmas"; more likely, by Christmastime they will be fighting some other group similar to but distinct from ISIS, possibly one they sponsored themselves. Which is great for the imperialist powers, but a bit less than optimal for the workers of the region.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, you're quite obviously wrong. ;)

As shocking as it may seem, it does happens from time-to-time :tongue_smilie:

[Os Cangaceiros]

ISIS can probably be beaten in a conventional war pretty easily. What caused ISIS to prosper in Iraq (disillusioned Sunnis) is a more vexing problem that won't be so easily solved, though. The USA managed to pay off the Sunni insurgency last go-around but obviously that didn't solve matters because now they have this current headache, and until matters get solved it'll only be a matter of time before another convoy of assholes with guns goes rolling through the desert.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I will say though that if ISIS disintegrates from a semi-conventional armed force into an insurgency, it'll probably be pretty bloody...didn't they seize almost half a billion dollars when they were in Mosul? I'd imagine that kind of seed money can fund a lot of chaos.

[Comrade Strong]

This is why the International Brigades need to be refounded. Uncomplicated participation in the struggle against ultra-reactionaries like ISIS by a series of voluntary and revolutionary soldiers.

By acting independently of any state or bourgeois institution the Brigades could demonstrate to the masses that libertarian communism could act faster, more compassionately and with more organisation than the capitalists. We would inspire autonomy across the world!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is why the International Brigades need to be refounded. Uncomplicated participation in the struggle against ultra-reactionaries like ISIS by a series of voluntary and revolutionary soldiers.

By acting independently of any state or bourgeois institution the Brigades could demonstrate to the masses that libertarian communism could act faster, more compassionately and with more organisation than the capitalists. We would inspire autonomy across the world!

If you think anything in an era of decaying capitalism can be "uncomplicated"...

Would your "International Brigades" just fight ISIS, or would they fight the Iraqi, Syrian, Kurdish governments, whatever remains of "the Free Syrian Army", and so on? If not, they would be nothing more than another sectarian militia in an area that has seen quite a few sectarian militias. So much in fact, they don't need people from the West coming there and forming another one to act out their romantic fantasies about the Spanish Civil War.

[Devrim]

This is why the International Brigades need to be refounded. Uncomplicated participation in the struggle against ultra-reactionaries like ISIS by a series of voluntary and revolutionary soldiers.

By acting independently of any state or bourgeois institution the Brigades could demonstrate to the masses that libertarian communism could act faster, more compassionately and with more organisation than the capitalists. We would inspire autonomy across the world!

Please think about what you are suggesting, and what it implies seriously.

Devrim

[The Intransigent Faction]

Harper has sent Canadian military "advisers" to Iraq. Meanwhile, the public reacts...

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/09/07/majority_support_canadian_troop_deployment_in_iraq _poll_shows.html


Fifty-four per cent of Canadians support sending the troops to support the 10-nation NATO effort to combat the Islamic State, even though more than 80 per cent expect there will be casualties, according to a poll conducted by Forum Research.

:mad:

[ckaihatsu]

The point was that imperialism led to Islamism and that imperialism sustains Islamism.


Yes, historically.





As communists, of course we are for the workers of these regions driving ISIS out and placing their heads on pikes if need be, but if imperialist or imperialist-backed forces drive ISIS out, in a couple of years (at best) there will be another ISIS or two, three such organisations.


Perhaps.





Why do you think we oppose imperialism in general, because we like the various regimes in the regions of belated capitalist development? No. We can feel nothing but disgust for them. But imperialism doesn't help, imperialism just makes everything much worse. Just look at free Iraq.


But -- I'd rather see the Western countries *opposing* the Islamic State rather than indirectly *arming* ISIS, Al Nusra, etc., as has been the case until recently. There's also the secularist argument to be made here, that even dictator-like Middle East proxy states of the U.S. are *preferable* to the unchecked growth of fascist-like Islamic fundamentalist regions imposing Sharia law on all, regardless.

Plus it seems like the West should clean up its own mess, and play nice with Syria, if only to re-stabilize things until the people / workers can once again reassert themselves in a non-militarized context, to pick up where they left off, circa 2011.

[John Nada]

But -- I'd rather see the Western countries *opposing* the Islamic State rather than indirectly *arming* ISIS, Al Nusra, etc., as has been the case until recently. There's also the secularist argument to be made here, that even dictator-like Middle East proxy states of the U.S. are *preferable* to the unchecked growth of fascist-like Islamic fundamentalist regions imposing Sharia law on all, regardless.The US would support a fascist Islamic theocracy in a heartbeat if it made them more money.
Plus it seems like the West should clean up its own mess, and play nice with Syria, if only to re-stabilize things until the people / workers can once again reassert themselves in a non-militarized context, to pick up where they left off, circa 2011.I hope you're sarcastic.

[ckaihatsu]

The US would support a fascist Islamic theocracy in a heartbeat if it made them more money.


And also for geopolitical reasons:





Arguably the best-known mujahideen outside the Islamic world, various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups initially rebelled against the government of the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) during the late 1970s. At the DRA's request, the Soviet Union brought forces into the country to aid the government from 1979. The mujahideen fought against Soviet and DRA troops during the Soviet War in Afghanistan (1979-1989); to which the United States provided assistance, aiding the mujahideen's cause.[37]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan





But -- I'd rather see the Western countries *opposing* the Islamic State rather than indirectly *arming* ISIS, Al Nusra, etc., as has been the case until recently. There's also the secularist argument to be made here, that even dictator-like Middle East proxy states of the U.S. are *preferable* to the unchecked growth of fascist-like Islamic fundamentalist regions imposing Sharia law on all, regardless.

Plus it seems like the West should clean up its own mess, and play nice with Syria, if only to re-stabilize things until the people / workers can once again reassert themselves in a non-militarized context, to pick up where they left off, circa 2011.





I hope you're sarcastic.


I don't think that the U.S. is going to *want* to respect Syrian sovereignty, but, I gotta admit, if it winds up only targeting the Islamic State without affecting Syria or Iraq proper, that would be a *positive* thing, however perverse that sounds.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]f [the U.S.] winds up only targeting the Islamic State without affecting Syria or Iraq proper, that would be a *positive* thing, however perverse that sounds.


Also, it has to be said that an implication of this position is that all of those who are currently *anti-war* about this situation regarding the Islamic State and its blanket imposition of Sharia law, are being *ultraleft*, due to 'political negligence'.

[Devrim]

I don't think that the U.S. is going to *want* to respect Syrian sovereignty, but, I gotta admit, if it winds up only targeting the Islamic State without affecting Syria or Iraq proper, that would be a *positive* thing, however perverse that sounds.

Do you think that their won't be a whole host of 'collateral damage', i.e. Murdered civilians?

Don't you think that every bomb that the US drops in the region creates more Islamic militants for the years to come?

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Also, it has to be said that an implication of this position is that all of those who are currently *anti-war* about this situation regarding the Islamic State and its blanket imposition of Sharia law, are being *ultraleft*, due to 'political negligence'.

Lol

[ckaihatsu]

Do you think that their won't be a whole host of 'collateral damage', i.e. Murdered civilians?

Don't you think that every bomb that the US drops in the region creates more Islamic militants for the years to come?

Devrim


I hear ya.

(See post #31.)