How to defeat ISIS.

[boneyard bill]

their behavior does represent some kind of weird Machiavellian maneuver that is, in all likelihood, too clever by half.

The primary parts of Iraq they have attacked were the areas where China got the oil contracts. ISIS stepped out of bounds when they attacked Kurdish oil spots so the US bombed them to keep them in check. And of course ISIS is attacking Syria which the US is openly hostile against.

Notice that ISIS hasn't attacked Jordan so there goes the idea these are simply radical Muslims trying to conquer lands for Allah. The rank and file believe they're on a mission from God but the leadership acts in accordance with Machiavellian US goals.

They haven't attacked Jordan nor have they attacked Israel which is the Holy Grail of Muslim targets. So you could be right. I wouldn't rule it out at all even though the strategy seems to contradict itself.

The main point of my article is that, as usual, the media spin on this is worthless. It is what they are fed from the state department with little effort analyze the situation critically. Who's funding Isis? That's the really crucial question and the media isn't asking it.

- - - Updated - - -

Every time the US touches something in the Middle East, they break it worse than when they started.

Not just the Middle East. Look what we're doing in Ukraine. By why are we doing it? We always end up losing.

 

[boneyard bill]

The French Revolutionary army lived off the land.

Disrupting ISIS' supplies isn't a viable tactic IMO.

The French Revolution didn't have an army. When Austria attacked, they opposed it with regular troops from the French army. (Although there was, of course, a purge of the officer corps).

 

[boneyard bill]

Yeah, plus ISIS got shitload of cash and gold when they captured banks.

$400 million dollars, but that doesn't last long when you're feeding an army. If that's all they have we don't need to bomb them. We can just wait until they run out of money.

 

[boneyard bill]

The primary parts of Iraq they have attacked were the areas where China got the oil contracts. ISIS stepped out of bounds when they attacked Kurdish oil spots so the US bombed them to keep them in check. And of course ISIS is attacking Syria which the US is openly hostile against.

Notice that ISIS hasn't attacked Jordan so there goes the idea these are simply radical Muslims trying to conquer lands for Allah. The rank and file believe they're on a mission from God but the leadership acts in accordance with Machiavellian US goals.

Why would "radical Muslims trying to conquer lands for Allah" not go for the easy targets first? Iraq and Syria where already quite destabilised when ISIS entered the scene, Jordan wasn't and isn't. That's a plausible enough reason why they'd - at least momentarily - restrict their actions to the former two countries without having to invoke "Machiavellian US goals".

I agree that the picture is more complex and that blaming it all on religious fundamentalism as the sole driver isn't helpful, but that doesn't mean we have to fall for conspiracy theories either.

What conspiracy theories. Rarely has an insurgent army one without outside funding. It happened all the time during the Cold War. It is foolish to believe that Isis isn't funded by somebody, and if the US really wanted to stop Isis, they'd go after the funding source.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The French Revolutionary army lived off the land.

Disrupting ISIS' supplies isn't a viable tactic IMO.

The French Revolution didn't have an army. When Austria attacked, they opposed it with regular troops from the French army. (Although there was, of course, a purge of the officer corps).

The French army in the revolutionary era is referred to as the Revolutionary army. Sheesh.

And the French forces opposing the Austrians and Prussians were a mix of revolutionary volunteers and ancient regime soldiers.

 

[boneyard bill]

Surely someone will be bombed.

I say wait and see if the new Iraqi govt is better received in Sunniland. If so, The ISIS problem will solve itself. We will still need some pretty explosions however to show we're Serious People Tough on Terror.

Is there something that triggered this new expansion of U.S. violence in the middle east Obama is pushing? YES. It was the publicity surrounding the beheadings of a couple of journalists by these characters (ISES). Actually, beheadings are common weekend events in Saudi Arabia and we rarely hear any complaints about that. Listen to the reverberating voice of the recently deceased Gore Vidal...."It's the oil stupid." You ask why. There is your answer.

It is the uproar and the violence associated with taking resources that has pumped huge amounts of armaments etc. into these countries and they all are overflowing with the tools of violence. The beheader's knife is only a small part of the picture. The violence we are seeing, chaotic as it is, has at its root the strategic expression of greedy oil seekers and arms salesmen. The U.S. just concluded the largest international arms sale in history to...Saudi Arabia....you know, the place where the heads are chopped off without any publicity at all.

We simply do not have the means to enforce the peaceful exploitation of middle eastern oil without paying off corrupt regimes. We send them arms and then they are used against our "interests." The problem is that those with power in the U.S. are defining our "interests" for us and these "interests" do not include the necessity for the people of the middle east to live in peace with each other. We are culpable. So are the Russians. There is only one game actually being played there and it is CARBON ENERGY EXPLOITATION....in lands that have oil. It is ironic that this region could also easily be a major player in solar energy...but our oil potentates will not have it. This kind of conflict is what you get when you consider nature a sub-system of our economy rather than the reality that we are a sub-system of nature. The sooner we start to make peace with nature, the sooner we will make peace with each other.
The sheer brutality of this conflict just seems to push our attention away from the real cause of the problem.

People fighting for the oil aren't fighting for it because they want to leave it in the ground. They want it because they want to sell it. So our national security interests are not at stake because someone else owns the oil fields. For BP, Exxon, Shell, etc. It's another story. They want the wells.

Sorry but solar energy is not a solution to our energy problems. A small part of the solution perhaps, but not THE solution. At the moment, thorium looks like the best bet and we have more of that than anybody.

 

[boneyard bill]

And let's not forget Syria is a long time friend to the Soviet Union Russians. This flavors the response.

It doesn't just "flavor" the response, it vastly increases the risks.

 

[boneyard bill]

Yes, ISIS may want to "liberate" Chechnya, the Central Asian republics and other assorted Muslim areas, before turning its attention to N Africa Andalucia and Granada, liberating those last two from Spanish yoke. Drunk with religion, dreams, and power, not afraid of death, they, unlike the West do not seem to need drugs. Or are they using hasheesh as in the good old days when their ancestors fought the Crusaders? (And that was a few years before anyone needed great quantities of oil) As nice and glib as that catchphrase is, it could even be said that there is more to world history than oil, stupid.

And there is a whole lot less to ISIS than meets the eye. How do you the Mossad isn't the group sponsoring ISIS? There's something fishy going on with this out-of-the-blue group, but I can't say what.

 

[boneyard bill]

The French Revolution didn't have an army. When Austria attacked, they opposed it with regular troops from the French army. (Although there was, of course, a purge of the officer corps).

The French army in the revolutionary era is referred to as the Revolutionary army. Sheesh.

And the French forces opposing the Austrians and Prussians were a mix of revolutionary volunteers and ancient regime soldiers.

Of course they recruited soldiers when the Austrians attacked. But those soldiers were supplied from the rear like any other army.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, tonight Obama is supposed to give a speech on ISIS. Here is how I plan to play the game.

My Fellow Americans - one shot
Let me be clear - put alcohol on this one at your own risk.
coalition, strategy, or airstrike - two shots
ISIS is a perversion of Islam (or some variant) - one beer
reference to NATO intervention in Libya - one glass of wine
Worry about regional stability - one shot
Syrian rebels - one shot
threat to the homeland - two shots
9/11 - two beers, chug, in honor of the two towers
Executive authority - one glass of wine
criticizing the pundits - one shot
Worry about sectarianism in Iraqi government - one shot
Blames Bush or references Bush's mistake in Iraq - two shots
Defeating ISIS will take some time - one wine cooler

I don't plan on being very coherent tomorrow.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The French army in the revolutionary era is referred to as the Revolutionary army. Sheesh.

And the French forces opposing the Austrians and Prussians were a mix of revolutionary volunteers and ancient regime soldiers.

Of course they recruited soldiers when the Austrians attacked. But those soldiers were supplied from the rear like any other army.

They were supplied with ammunition perhaps, but not food:

Many factors contributed to Napoleon's ability to perform these flexible movements, from the division of his army into an independent corps system, to the avoidance of slow- moving, lengthy supply lines. Instead, Napoleon's army looked to live off the land, acquiring the motto, "The war must feed the war." Napoleon sought to acquire food from his surrounding environment, whether that meant paying friendly countries or simply foraging.

And

Where conventional wisdom held that one was dependent upon one's supply lines, the divisional structure, coupled with the chaotic supply system during the revolution, saw a reversion to "living off the land." Divisions would move along separate routes, de-conflicting foraging areas. This created an efficiency to living off the land unheard of in the past by a large army. Further, by traveling light (i.e., without the cumbersome logistics train), the Republican Army achieved a dramatic advantage in mobility over its adversaries.

 

[barbos]

I think ISIS is a little more than FAD at this time. They appeared on the scene fast and I expect them to disappear pretty soon (with the help of US bombing), and we'll all get back to good old Al Qaeda.

 

[4321lynx]

I think ISIS is a little more than FAD at this time. They appeared on the scene fast and I expect them to disappear pretty soon (with the help of US bombing), and we'll all get back to good old Al Qaeda.

You should mark this opinion of yours and tell us about it six months, a year, two years, five years from now. Date is the eve 0f 9/11 in the year of the Xtian "Lord" 2014. (

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, tonight Obama is supposed to give a speech on ISIS. Here is how I plan to play the game.

My Fellow Americans - one shot
Let me be clear - put alcohol on this one at your own risk.
coalition, strategy, or airstrike - two shots
ISIS is a perversion of Islam (or some variant) - one beer
reference to NATO intervention in Libya - one glass of wine
Worry about regional stability - one shot
Syrian rebels - one shot
threat to the homeland - two shots
9/11 - two beers, chug, in honor of the two towers
Executive authority - one glass of wine
criticizing the pundits - one shot
Worry about sectarianism in Iraqi government - one shot
Blames Bush or references Bush's mistake in Iraq - two shots
Defeating ISIS will take some time - one wine cooler

I don't plan on being very coherent tomorrow.

Oh my head...

 

[Malintent]

Why do they need to be defeated by the US. Are they a credible threat to the US?

I don't think so, but the US will be involved one way or another. As much as I'd like to see the US military revert to a defensive role, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. We spent a lot of lives and treasure securing the Iraqi oil fields for Big Oil and their Big Government Contracts buddies. We have a huge investment in Israel and Jordan. And if Turkey gets involved that will open up a can of worms for NATO. So we'll be there fighting ISIS, or at least blasting their bases with drone strikes and missiles.

I look forward to the US pulling out and taking a defensive military stance, oil prices in the us to exceed $10 per gallon, and drive energy technology forward.

 

[barbos]

I think ISIS is a little more than FAD at this time. They appeared on the scene fast and I expect them to disappear pretty soon (with the help of US bombing), and we'll all get back to good old Al Qaeda.

You should mark this opinion of yours and tell us about it six months, a year, two years, five years from now. Date is the eve 0f 9/11 in the year of the Xtian "Lord" 2014. (

I can't determine whether you agree or disagree with me here.
ISIS is not pure terrorist organization but an attempt to build actual islamic state. If anything conventional army such as US military good at it is destroying states. So US will bomb them, new Iraqi government became more inclusive of sunni and Qatar or whoever started this bullshit will come to their senses. I am looking forward to having Al Qaeda back in the news

 

[arkirk]

You should mark this opinion of yours and tell us about it six months, a year, two years, five years from now. Date is the eve 0f 9/11 in the year of the Xtian "Lord" 2014. (

I can't determine whether you agree or disagree with me here.
ISIS is not pure terrorist organization but an attempt to build actual islamic state. If anything conventional army such as US military good at it is destroying states. So US will bomb them, new Iraqi government became more inclusive of sunni and Qatar or whoever started this bullshit will come to their senses. I am looking forward to having Al Qaeda back in the news

Yes, Virginia, there is an ISES. an ISIL, an Al Queda! And every December, there appears another incarnation of Santa Claus. What there is that doesn't have to reincarnate itself is greed for oil, money, and political power. Granted, it is not a state greed but a private one. Unless we start talking about the real problem here, we will just keep killing people and getting killed.

We just got some encouraging news about Ozone Depletion. We got somewhere on THAT PROBLEM, not by bombing, but by cooperation. The solution to this problem is FABIAN ACTIONS, not military actions. Martin Luther King had the answer and nobody listened...study war no more. Somehow, the human brain seems impermeable to the idea of peace and always gravitates against it. It is no accident. The news we get is designed to push us into consuming oil, consuming war materiel, and consuming our future. Corporate America is run by very rich and powerful people who actually believe that they can build a security structure that can protect them from the everything from climate change to Islam to angry American citizens. Chris Hedges has it right on this score. Our actual rulers are blind to the fact that there is no way even they can protect themselves from the consequences of continuing on this path of escalating technological domination of the world.

Obama, true to form, appeared last night with his flags flanking him with the same tired political litany of reasons to pull out our heavy machinery and whip these infidels into the shape the oil corporations want. Wake up people! Our current political leadership is killing us!

 

[barbos]

Boy, don't we all wish Saddam was alive and well?

 

[funinspace]

Boy, don't we all wish Saddam was alive and well?

Is that the 1970’s Saddam, whom we hated, so we aided the Kurds in their violent rebellion?
Or is that the 1980’s Saddam, whom we befriended as he gassed his way around the Kurds and Iranians?
Or is that the 1990’s pariah Saddam who dared to attack/invade another nation without a UN mandate?

 

[arkirk]

Boy, don't we all wish Saddam was alive and well?

Is that the 1970’s Saddam, whom we hated, so we aided the Kurds in their violent rebellion?
Or is that the 1980’s Saddam, whom we befriended as he gassed his way around the Kurds and Iranians?
Or is that the 1990’s pariah Saddam who dared to attack/invade another nation without a UN mandate?

The war mongers always have to have a Saddam to keep the flow of war materiel moving off the assembly line. He was just a period piece. The format Obama is using is exactly the same for starting up this adventure as all the other ones. Flags flying, and a serious looking character (our current leader) telling us we are not alone and have a coalition of the willing to go after evil. We will pump more war materiel into these countries and that will power the next generation of evil....The Grand Caliphate of Evil for the next Republican President to oppose...with troops on the ground.

We have been through countless cycles of this repeating phenomenon. The military industrial complex makes money their way and the oil people just wait for the job to get done, while they power the military industrial complex. This is OLD STUFF. Saudi Arabia, when it falls apart will probably be when we learn this approach is wrong and I fear that will be too late. We need to stop being a party to this madness and tend to our own affairs. If we are not there bombing and droning and scheming, there will be a period of disorder in the middle east, but the weaponry will dry up and so will the Islamic passion. They feed each other...weapons and Islamic passion.