Islamic State...What would you do?
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Bachelors Hall
Conditional
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 763
Head of which government? In the case of most countries, I wouldn't touch that mess with a bargepole.
If I had surplus capacity and/or influence then whatever move is made would have to be a multilateral one which involves regional governments. Even if one has to sup with the devil so to speak. I'd also be looking at how they're being funded and pay attention to the Saudi and Qatari benefactors.
But yeah, in most circumstances, I would do whatever I could to keep my country out of it. Maybe send humanitarian aid but definitely stay out of it politically and militarily.
If I had surplus capacity and/or influence then whatever move is made would have to be a multilateral one which involves regional governments. Even if one has to sup with the devil so to speak. I'd also be looking at how they're being funded and pay attention to the Saudi and Qatari benefactors.
But yeah, in most circumstances, I would do whatever I could to keep my country out of it. Maybe send humanitarian aid but definitely stay out of it politically and militarily.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Fight them now, it's not a moment too soon.
Because we will have to fight them at some future time anyway. Better to eliminate them now before they grow even stronger, and of course before they murder thousands of more innocent people.
No need to fear what their reaction would be if we agressively confront them. They do not hate you because of what you might do; they hate you because of what you are.
_______________________________________
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
1. A pan-Islamic conference should be established, with a remit to tackle extremism; both domestically within each State, and in wider regional/global contexts. The point at which Islamic states can ignore this issue has now passed, and it is in their own best-interest to grasp the nettle.
2. A genuine global coalition needs to be put together. China should be encouraged to participate (Uighur problem as motivation), as indeed should Russia (Chechen, Turkmen problems as motivation), plus all of the regional players (including Assad and Iran). This coalition should execute a Blitzkreig operation against Islamic State, attacking it on all fronts, and with a remit that the number of body-bags should out-weigh the number of trials by a factor of 1000:1. I personally have no interest in bringing these people before justice - terminate them, and let their God judge them (it's what they want anyway).
3. Said coalition should move into Africa once the Levant issue has been resolved - or if strategically possible, open fronts there in parallel.
Doing nothig is NOT an option, Kotki. It only kicks the can a bit further down the road, and will strengthen IS resolve, make it difficult to contain any further expansion, and enhance their capability to launch attacks on the West.
2. A genuine global coalition needs to be put together. China should be encouraged to participate (Uighur problem as motivation), as indeed should Russia (Chechen, Turkmen problems as motivation), plus all of the regional players (including Assad and Iran). This coalition should execute a Blitzkreig operation against Islamic State, attacking it on all fronts, and with a remit that the number of body-bags should out-weigh the number of trials by a factor of 1000:1. I personally have no interest in bringing these people before justice - terminate them, and let their God judge them (it's what they want anyway).
3. Said coalition should move into Africa once the Levant issue has been resolved - or if strategically possible, open fronts there in parallel.
Doing nothig is NOT an option, Kotki. It only kicks the can a bit further down the road, and will strengthen IS resolve, make it difficult to contain any further expansion, and enhance their capability to launch attacks on the West.
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
You wouldn't want to know what I would do to these animals if I was Obama but you might want to call me Chancellor afterwards
I would agree with this
Doing nothing is endorsing IMO. Aside from some political extremes who rather admire the authoritarian streak of the islamist agenda and the worst of Islam itself, there should be some rare unity on this
Frankly if you can't take a stance on this then you can't take a stance on anything. T
To say "not get involved at all" clearly indicates that applies to the action taken so far and a relaxed attitude to that likely slaughter of 40000 Christians
Last edited:
I think there's a number of things that Grasshopper raises which are actually fair calls.
I think there is a dismal scenario here which I'm increasingly becoming an adherent of, and this concerns the inevitability of a slide into a third world war. We could even be there. The history books might tell us that world war 2 started in September 1939, but for all intents and purposes it really began in July 1936. I don't think wars necessarily have to start with a formal state on state declaration. I think one day you can wake up and realise that this is what you're involved in. This war isn't going to be fought over bordered territory. It's going to be more fluid. With that in mind, there is a bit of me thinking that if we're going to have to take this war at some point in the future, then should we perhaps look to do so sooner rather than later when we hold the advantage
Following on from that though we need to understand who 'we' is, and most certainly who 'they' are too
There are only three countries in the world capable of projecting military might on the scale envisaged in terms of their hardware and man power. India is likely to become a fourth by the end of this century when their own aircraft carrier fleet reaches five. The US has about 20, which is more than the rest of the world combined. China and India clearly have massive standing armies, and the Russians still have a sizeable force.
If we're to go down this road though we undoubtedly need a much more convicted global alliance, and participants will need a substantive incentive beyond that which exists today. David Cameron continuing to try and fight silly 20th century dogmatic battles needs to be muzzled. Basically the American's need to tell him that he's out of his depth and to shut the feck up as despite what he might think, he's actually of no consequence. He's only got one aircraft carrier (which he tried to cancel the building of). The UK is only going to contribute a bit of logistical support and special forces at best. This is where some home truths need facing up to.
All of the European countries, are going to have to concentrate on reinforcing their domestic defences which will be where we can easily see a second front opening up on our own streets. Don't lose sight of how many soldiers, police, intelligence service operatives, it took to introduce a controlled order of sorts in Northern Ireland against an Irish Republican Army that isn't likely to be as big or as concentrated in one area, as a radicalised population of British muslims might be. I think anyone who seriously thinks the UK could entertain an international role could be deluded. Both our police and army are currently being slashed to buggery by the Tories, if we're going to commit to this kind of an action, we're going to need private security firms, selective national service, and possibly even people's militia (albeit we'll call them home guard). If just a dozen muslims in London with Kalishnikovs and hand grenades dispersed themselves across the capital and went on a synchronised shooting spree on Monday (aka Mumbai) how many people do you think they could kill before they were over powered? I suspect they'd run out of ammunition first. In fact why London, where there is an armed response present. Try Bristol. You'd be looking at thousands. That's how unprepared we are.
Another area we're going to have to get on top of is stockpiling immunisation treatments for germ warfare suicide attacks. Infecting someone with contagious airborne disease and sending them onto congested transport networks before they die is an attack waiting to happen. Could we innoculate a population under pressure? Could we control the movement and panic that will set in? I very much doubt it. It'll only take 20 suicide cases to cause pandomonium
So continuing with 'we' I'm curious how Clive can agree with Grasshoppers thesis yet continues to advocate sanctions against Russia. Get sensible, get strategic and get pragmatic Clive. The Ukraine is of no strategic value to us, they aren't worth making a stand over. Every country we try and promote as being a fledgling democracy lets you down anyway. I think you'll need to do a deal with China too. Is Taiwan that important? I'd consider them a price worth paying in return for the sheer manpower that the PLA could mobilise. It's staggering
Then there's the issue of the 'them'.
So far enemy identification has been nothing short of abysmally embarrassing. We've systematically been wiping out some of the very best bulwarks that had previously been used to check the spread of Islamic radicalism. Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak. Hell we would have done the same to Assad too, but luckily the Tories couldn't manage their party whip. I'll tell you now, if we'd deposed Assad about this time last year, ISIS would have taken over Syria by the spring. They'd have swept Cameron's imaginary moderates away (like they did in Iraq, Libya and Egypt) and they'd be fight for Lebanon against Hezbollah. The irony is that the only thing stopping an advance on Israel's borders would be Hezbollah
So again I'd call Grasshoppers meeting and also make it clear that non attendants, non contributors, will be held to be on the other side. Countries who pledge support but then start making excuses and failing to deliver, will also be held to be hostile and attacked
Ultimately the combination of US and Russian hardware, with Chinese and Indian manpower should overwhelm the region
Easy hey?
Well no, and there is the issue of Pakistan to overcome somehow, and possibly Saudi Arabia who I don't trust.
I'd love to find another way of resolving this, but sadly its rooted in a primative religion and it isn't going to go away or be capable of being mollified through sensible coercion. Religion might frame the boundaries, but it's really about lifestyle and choices. I don't want to live under Sharia law thankyou. I really don't see anything about this society that appeals to me. How far are we prepared to go.
I think there is a dismal scenario here which I'm increasingly becoming an adherent of, and this concerns the inevitability of a slide into a third world war. We could even be there. The history books might tell us that world war 2 started in September 1939, but for all intents and purposes it really began in July 1936. I don't think wars necessarily have to start with a formal state on state declaration. I think one day you can wake up and realise that this is what you're involved in. This war isn't going to be fought over bordered territory. It's going to be more fluid. With that in mind, there is a bit of me thinking that if we're going to have to take this war at some point in the future, then should we perhaps look to do so sooner rather than later when we hold the advantage
Following on from that though we need to understand who 'we' is, and most certainly who 'they' are too
There are only three countries in the world capable of projecting military might on the scale envisaged in terms of their hardware and man power. India is likely to become a fourth by the end of this century when their own aircraft carrier fleet reaches five. The US has about 20, which is more than the rest of the world combined. China and India clearly have massive standing armies, and the Russians still have a sizeable force.
If we're to go down this road though we undoubtedly need a much more convicted global alliance, and participants will need a substantive incentive beyond that which exists today. David Cameron continuing to try and fight silly 20th century dogmatic battles needs to be muzzled. Basically the American's need to tell him that he's out of his depth and to shut the feck up as despite what he might think, he's actually of no consequence. He's only got one aircraft carrier (which he tried to cancel the building of). The UK is only going to contribute a bit of logistical support and special forces at best. This is where some home truths need facing up to.
All of the European countries, are going to have to concentrate on reinforcing their domestic defences which will be where we can easily see a second front opening up on our own streets. Don't lose sight of how many soldiers, police, intelligence service operatives, it took to introduce a controlled order of sorts in Northern Ireland against an Irish Republican Army that isn't likely to be as big or as concentrated in one area, as a radicalised population of British muslims might be. I think anyone who seriously thinks the UK could entertain an international role could be deluded. Both our police and army are currently being slashed to buggery by the Tories, if we're going to commit to this kind of an action, we're going to need private security firms, selective national service, and possibly even people's militia (albeit we'll call them home guard). If just a dozen muslims in London with Kalishnikovs and hand grenades dispersed themselves across the capital and went on a synchronised shooting spree on Monday (aka Mumbai) how many people do you think they could kill before they were over powered? I suspect they'd run out of ammunition first. In fact why London, where there is an armed response present. Try Bristol. You'd be looking at thousands. That's how unprepared we are.
Another area we're going to have to get on top of is stockpiling immunisation treatments for germ warfare suicide attacks. Infecting someone with contagious airborne disease and sending them onto congested transport networks before they die is an attack waiting to happen. Could we innoculate a population under pressure? Could we control the movement and panic that will set in? I very much doubt it. It'll only take 20 suicide cases to cause pandomonium
So continuing with 'we' I'm curious how Clive can agree with Grasshoppers thesis yet continues to advocate sanctions against Russia. Get sensible, get strategic and get pragmatic Clive. The Ukraine is of no strategic value to us, they aren't worth making a stand over. Every country we try and promote as being a fledgling democracy lets you down anyway. I think you'll need to do a deal with China too. Is Taiwan that important? I'd consider them a price worth paying in return for the sheer manpower that the PLA could mobilise. It's staggering
Then there's the issue of the 'them'.
So far enemy identification has been nothing short of abysmally embarrassing. We've systematically been wiping out some of the very best bulwarks that had previously been used to check the spread of Islamic radicalism. Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak. Hell we would have done the same to Assad too, but luckily the Tories couldn't manage their party whip. I'll tell you now, if we'd deposed Assad about this time last year, ISIS would have taken over Syria by the spring. They'd have swept Cameron's imaginary moderates away (like they did in Iraq, Libya and Egypt) and they'd be fight for Lebanon against Hezbollah. The irony is that the only thing stopping an advance on Israel's borders would be Hezbollah
So again I'd call Grasshoppers meeting and also make it clear that non attendants, non contributors, will be held to be on the other side. Countries who pledge support but then start making excuses and failing to deliver, will also be held to be hostile and attacked
Ultimately the combination of US and Russian hardware, with Chinese and Indian manpower should overwhelm the region
Easy hey?
Well no, and there is the issue of Pakistan to overcome somehow, and possibly Saudi Arabia who I don't trust.
I'd love to find another way of resolving this, but sadly its rooted in a primative religion and it isn't going to go away or be capable of being mollified through sensible coercion. Religion might frame the boundaries, but it's really about lifestyle and choices. I don't want to live under Sharia law thankyou. I really don't see anything about this society that appeals to me. How far are we prepared to go.
Great post Warbler.
Aircraft Carriers can't attack suicide squads on a street. Two men attacking Lee Rigby caused more pandemonium than the Gulf War for a week or so.
We are in a World War against extreme Islam and they've sneaked in through our back door.
USA are safe as usual because they wouldn't let the C.UNTS in!!
Aircraft Carriers can't attack suicide squads on a street. Two men attacking Lee Rigby caused more pandemonium than the Gulf War for a week or so.
We are in a World War against extreme Islam and they've sneaked in through our back door.
USA are safe as usual because they wouldn't let the C.UNTS in!!
Well the thing there is they used a machette and waited to confront the police. If they were in a semi rural location with an automatic weapon, it would take an armed police unit about 45 mins to arrive. Hell they could shoot up about 100 people and be away before the bill turned up
The USA are a long way from being safe incidentally. They have significant populations of their own as the Boston marathon showed, they also have a heavily weaponised society, as well as an armed police force with a reputation for making their own rules up as they go along. Throw in a national guard, neighbourhood watch patrols who double as vigilantes, and a whole host of right wing militas training in Montana and you've got a much more potent mix
I think the big difference with the US is that they could get weapons out to civilians who know how to handle them much more quickly then we could
The USA are a long way from being safe incidentally. They have significant populations of their own as the Boston marathon showed, they also have a heavily weaponised society, as well as an armed police force with a reputation for making their own rules up as they go along. Throw in a national guard, neighbourhood watch patrols who double as vigilantes, and a whole host of right wing militas training in Montana and you've got a much more potent mix
I think the big difference with the US is that they could get weapons out to civilians who know how to handle them much more quickly then we could
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
This is absolutely absurd.
Whilst there is no doubt that 'eliminating' IS would require an enormous military and financial commitment (a point those proposing doing so seem to be in denial about), the idea that they will at some point in the near or distant future 'hold the advantage' is ridiculous.
The rest of the post is bordering on deluded scare-mongering, IMO. As horrific as terrorist attacks are for all involved, in relative terms both the US and the UK are extremely safe places to live (this is a fact, not an opinion by the way).
IS are scum of the lowest order, but the idea that the world is under imminent threat from them is just bollocks, in my opinion.
Not all, sponsoring states could get hold of severe weapons (hence the reference to Pakistan and the distrust of Saudi Arabia). That's before we talk about Iran and how they might emerge.
Terrorists could also start using germ warfare.
I don't think I said that they'd hold the advantage, I don't think I even said they'd achieve parity, but they can start to narrow the gap and cause us a greater loss than they presently can
You might like to look at the fall of Rome, there are a surprising number of similarities
You've completely missed the point about ISIS too
Terrorists could also start using germ warfare.
I don't think I said that they'd hold the advantage, I don't think I even said they'd achieve parity, but they can start to narrow the gap and cause us a greater loss than they presently can
You might like to look at the fall of Rome, there are a surprising number of similarities
You've completely missed the point about ISIS too
Last edited:
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Pakistan: no links so to speak. The danger of rogue elements in Pakistan getting hold of 'severe' weapons has not increased since IS came on the scene.
Saudi Arabia: consider IS a threat and may well be forced to act should they consider them a plausible regional threat. They may not be one trust I agree, but the notion that they will go into league with IS is absurd.
Iran: a Shiite country actively opposed to IS. No chance of collaboration.
The fact that British and US citizens are fighting with IS (albeit a small number) is very troubling, but the idea that this somehow puts the West under imminent threat just doesn't hold any water for me. As for germ warfare, they could, but have the chances increased that much since IS came on the scene; have they uncovered Saddam's stockpile of WMD?? (Sorry... had to).
The only plausible 'World War' scenario I could involves assuming that the Muslim religion is somehow on a collision course with 'the West'. And I just think that is a dangerous (and deeply counter-productive) assumption to make.
Saudi Arabia: consider IS a threat and may well be forced to act should they consider them a plausible regional threat. They may not be one trust I agree, but the notion that they will go into league with IS is absurd.
Iran: a Shiite country actively opposed to IS. No chance of collaboration.
The fact that British and US citizens are fighting with IS (albeit a small number) is very troubling, but the idea that this somehow puts the West under imminent threat just doesn't hold any water for me. As for germ warfare, they could, but have the chances increased that much since IS came on the scene; have they uncovered Saddam's stockpile of WMD?? (Sorry... had to).
The only plausible 'World War' scenario I could involves assuming that the Muslim religion is somehow on a collision course with 'the West'. And I just think that is a dangerous (and deeply counter-productive) assumption to make.
Last edited:
Well I'm sorry, that's the collision course I see. It's a clear direction of travel, which is why I raise the issue of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (I strongly suspect the latter is a lot more weaponsied than we are probably led to believe). I didn't necessarily frame my description of it as religious, even though that is the root. I suspect there's a lot other influences not the least of which will be lifestyles. There's numerous threads that define the two sides, so it might dangerous to view as religious, race, territorial, political philosophy. It's broadly us and them, but i reckon most people would be able to identify with one side over the other instinctively without needing to think it out or be told. It's quite lucid
At the moment we need to see the IS for what is. It's now a state. It has inherited weaponary, it's started levying taxes on its population (less than those asked for by the Iraqi government) it has a functioning capital city, it's introducing its own education programmes, welfare, and even banking system etc
It's all very well saying let the arabs sort it out, that would be ideal in many respects if they could, but lets not forget we've spent 10 years arming and training the Iraqis to do this, and the first time they were put to the test they ran away leaving all sorts of American kit behind them.
Syria's got a border with Israel.
The only thing that's stopping this becoming major league serious at the moment is Assad. The very same Assad who the likes of Cameron, Hague, and Clive were advocating we try and topple only 12 months ago (sorry to bracket you with such dilatory company Clive). It's a mad world
We make Assad destroy weapons capable of stopping ISIS, and then allow ISIS to run off with all that the American's supply the Iraqis with
We lob an embargo on Assad so he has to buy oil off the IS who he in turn is selling weapons to in order to get the money to buy their oil.
Its real Milo Minderbinder stuff
At the moment we need to see the IS for what is. It's now a state. It has inherited weaponary, it's started levying taxes on its population (less than those asked for by the Iraqi government) it has a functioning capital city, it's introducing its own education programmes, welfare, and even banking system etc
It's all very well saying let the arabs sort it out, that would be ideal in many respects if they could, but lets not forget we've spent 10 years arming and training the Iraqis to do this, and the first time they were put to the test they ran away leaving all sorts of American kit behind them.
Syria's got a border with Israel.
The only thing that's stopping this becoming major league serious at the moment is Assad. The very same Assad who the likes of Cameron, Hague, and Clive were advocating we try and topple only 12 months ago (sorry to bracket you with such dilatory company Clive). It's a mad world
We make Assad destroy weapons capable of stopping ISIS, and then allow ISIS to run off with all that the American's supply the Iraqis with
We lob an embargo on Assad so he has to buy oil off the IS who he in turn is selling weapons to in order to get the money to buy their oil.
Its real Milo Minderbinder stuff
Last edited:
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
I don't agree it's a clear 'collision course', and I don't think that would be a useful prism through which to view the regional situation. I don't see how it has much basis in facts.
As for Assad, this is a tricky balancing act (or nightmare situation). If the US and EU etc abandon the rebels and tack to Assad, the moderate Sunnis will see it as a gross betrayal (which it would actually be) and very possibly be more inclined to see IS as a legitimate outlet. Obama is being very careful to point out that if the US does get involved targeting IS in Syria (which it will), it will not collaborate with Assad at all.
In terms of hindsight, I was quick to point out the pitfalls of arming the rebels in Syria (primarily because we didn't know who the hell they were). I'm now thinking that view was wrong. If we had supplied weapons to what the US knew to be elements of the FSA a couple of years back (ie opposed Assad stronger and sooner), perhaps we would be in a slightly less troubling place than today.
As for Assad, this is a tricky balancing act (or nightmare situation). If the US and EU etc abandon the rebels and tack to Assad, the moderate Sunnis will see it as a gross betrayal (which it would actually be) and very possibly be more inclined to see IS as a legitimate outlet. Obama is being very careful to point out that if the US does get involved targeting IS in Syria (which it will), it will not collaborate with Assad at all.
In terms of hindsight, I was quick to point out the pitfalls of arming the rebels in Syria (primarily because we didn't know who the hell they were). I'm now thinking that view was wrong. If we had supplied weapons to what the US knew to be elements of the FSA a couple of years back (ie opposed Assad stronger and sooner), perhaps we would be in a slightly less troubling place than today.
If we'd supplied the rebels with weapons 12 months they'd have lost and those weapons would have fallen into the hands of ISIS. It's that straight forward. In addition there would have to be a good chance that the disposessd soldiers of the regime, who would be among the better trained and capable, would join ISIS like the one time Saddamists have. If we had armed the moderate rebels 12 months ago, the front line today would be in Beirut with Hezbollah being the only thing stopping an advance on Israel. In fact since Syria has a land border with Israel they needn't have to go through Lebanon.
Who knows? in the fluid world of pan arab politics they'd be a huge swell of support from all round the globe if the muslim world actually thought they were on the cusp of reclaiming Jerusalem. I could easily see Sunni and shia tensions being put to one side for that onslaught and then they'd fight it out again at a later date. Money would flow from sponsoring states, as indeed would volunteer fighters. We've seen before how Saddam and Iran entered an alliance in 1991 despite them being in complete opposition to each other. If they greater goal, or the greater enemy is deemed the superior calling these types of dangerous alliances are possible. I personally wouldn't like to rely on the sunni/ shia discourse forever to guarantee they'll never be a fusing
Returning to the idea that the moderate rebels would have won though, lets not forget we had 10 years to supply and train the Iraqi army and they were defeated. We supplied the so called moderates in Libya and they're in the process of losing. In fact so degraded are the TNC now that you might say they've already lost. The only thing stopping lIbya's descent into an islamic state are tribal militas and those with criminal aspirations. Libya and eastern Algeria could very easily form a second caliphate state within the next 12 months.
The simple fact is (and I think this is a massive hole in the Cameron, Hague, Blair and Hillary assumption) there hasn't been a single instance where a moderate muslim army from the streets has defeated a radicalised one in combat
The only instances where radicalism has been checked has come from when the country's military (that which has been left in tact) has been able to intervene and reverse the tide of war. We saw this in Egypt when the army said enough is enough and overthrew (the democratically elected lets not forget Mr Hague) Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, Gadaffi was in the process of stopping the advance of the radicals until David 'Jihadist' Cameron intervened on the side of the Islamists. The Algerians have had do likewise, as indeed the Pakistanis do periodically. If Saddam had been recognised as one of the most naturally inclined allies in the region (and Assad too) we wouldn't be in this mess
In seems to me that there's been a whole wave of populist right wing movements spring up. They're rooted in a mixture of religion and nationalism, but declare themselves to have democratic aspirations as they know that's the ticket that the west responds without seemingly doing the due dilligence. The original Syrian uprising was based on the ancient state of Aleppo, not dissimilar in context to a religious group living within the province asserting its right to national self-determination and using a mixture of religion, economics, and nationalism to rally people to their cause (call it Ireland if you want).
The same thing happened in Benghazi. 500 people form a mob after having been whipped up by an incendiary iman at Friday prayers who implores them to storm a barracks and seize the arsenal. They start making progress until eventually the order comes from Tripoli to fire on them. On doing this Cameron denounces them as killing their own people. What would he do in the same situation.
The final piece in the jigsaw then is to get some London based academics to form an observatory pressure group that politicians can engage with. Despite having been no where near the country for decades these people push themselves forward as quasi ambassadors for this movement and agree that its democratic in its nature and should be supported. The west blidnly interveens and throws back the only thing blocking the advance of the islamists and thus creates a massive vacuum which the numerically greater and more vicious and capable fighters then fill
Who knows? in the fluid world of pan arab politics they'd be a huge swell of support from all round the globe if the muslim world actually thought they were on the cusp of reclaiming Jerusalem. I could easily see Sunni and shia tensions being put to one side for that onslaught and then they'd fight it out again at a later date. Money would flow from sponsoring states, as indeed would volunteer fighters. We've seen before how Saddam and Iran entered an alliance in 1991 despite them being in complete opposition to each other. If they greater goal, or the greater enemy is deemed the superior calling these types of dangerous alliances are possible. I personally wouldn't like to rely on the sunni/ shia discourse forever to guarantee they'll never be a fusing
Returning to the idea that the moderate rebels would have won though, lets not forget we had 10 years to supply and train the Iraqi army and they were defeated. We supplied the so called moderates in Libya and they're in the process of losing. In fact so degraded are the TNC now that you might say they've already lost. The only thing stopping lIbya's descent into an islamic state are tribal militas and those with criminal aspirations. Libya and eastern Algeria could very easily form a second caliphate state within the next 12 months.
The simple fact is (and I think this is a massive hole in the Cameron, Hague, Blair and Hillary assumption) there hasn't been a single instance where a moderate muslim army from the streets has defeated a radicalised one in combat
The only instances where radicalism has been checked has come from when the country's military (that which has been left in tact) has been able to intervene and reverse the tide of war. We saw this in Egypt when the army said enough is enough and overthrew (the democratically elected lets not forget Mr Hague) Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, Gadaffi was in the process of stopping the advance of the radicals until David 'Jihadist' Cameron intervened on the side of the Islamists. The Algerians have had do likewise, as indeed the Pakistanis do periodically. If Saddam had been recognised as one of the most naturally inclined allies in the region (and Assad too) we wouldn't be in this mess
In seems to me that there's been a whole wave of populist right wing movements spring up. They're rooted in a mixture of religion and nationalism, but declare themselves to have democratic aspirations as they know that's the ticket that the west responds without seemingly doing the due dilligence. The original Syrian uprising was based on the ancient state of Aleppo, not dissimilar in context to a religious group living within the province asserting its right to national self-determination and using a mixture of religion, economics, and nationalism to rally people to their cause (call it Ireland if you want).
The same thing happened in Benghazi. 500 people form a mob after having been whipped up by an incendiary iman at Friday prayers who implores them to storm a barracks and seize the arsenal. They start making progress until eventually the order comes from Tripoli to fire on them. On doing this Cameron denounces them as killing their own people. What would he do in the same situation.
The final piece in the jigsaw then is to get some London based academics to form an observatory pressure group that politicians can engage with. Despite having been no where near the country for decades these people push themselves forward as quasi ambassadors for this movement and agree that its democratic in its nature and should be supported. The west blidnly interveens and throws back the only thing blocking the advance of the islamists and thus creates a massive vacuum which the numerically greater and more vicious and capable fighters then fill
It added that participants had "discussed a strategy to destroy Isil wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria".
In addition to Saudi Arabia, Arab states taking part were Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Nato member Turkey was also represented, but did not sign the statement.
(so that's 3 funders, a sympathiser, and a supply route)
Speaking on Wednesday, Mr Obama said any group that threatened America would "find no safe haven". He also announced that 475 US military personnel would be sent to Iraq but would not have a combat role.
(urm... well clearly 10 years of training didn't work last time, perhaps they need to send over some cheerleaders)
In addition to Saudi Arabia, Arab states taking part were Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Nato member Turkey was also represented, but did not sign the statement.
(so that's 3 funders, a sympathiser, and a supply route)
Speaking on Wednesday, Mr Obama said any group that threatened America would "find no safe haven". He also announced that 475 US military personnel would be sent to Iraq but would not have a combat role.
(urm... well clearly 10 years of training didn't work last time, perhaps they need to send over some cheerleaders)
