Rukmini Callimachi - NYT reporter, incredibly informative tweets tonight regarding ISIL

[Justice]

Really insightful set of tweets providing confirmation and context. ?@rcallimachi

Confirmed: "Obama has done his homework when he says ISIS wants us to start a ground war, and will use our occupation of a foreign land to recruit" Our fighting them in a town in Syria - Dabiq, - very symbolic as ISIL believes the battle there "sets the stage for the end of times."

Confirms: Really should be fought on the group by local groups, Kurdish (YPG, Peshmarga, PKK) all are very effective against ISIS. But these groups will not fight outside of their historical lands. Very effective so long as US provides air support - would not be successful if we left.

Problem is there is no Sunni force like the Kurdish force. Mosul, Raqqa are mostly Sunni, not Kurdish, and the U.S. has yet to find a Sunni force to fight on the ground.

[patsimp]

1. okay - so arm the Kurds and support them with all our intelligence and air force

so far, we have done a shameful job of arming the Kurds and protecting the other minority groups there.

I thought isil were Sunni's

[politicman]

2. You need to understand the following:

Why is it so hard for most people to understand that this war can never be won.

The Sunni's will not put up an effective fighting force against ISIS simply to be ruled again by Shiite/Alawi or foreign governments gain.
The Kurds are not as strong as everyone makes them out to be, yes they have experience in fighting but so does nearly every major group in that region.

I used to come here to read insightful posts from people who could understand nuanced situations, but these days most of the posts on here are either just cheerleading because they believe any claim made by any government with no sceptic thought process, or posts that just demonize a couple of governments (turkey and Saudi) as though these countries interests should be less than everyone else's in the region.


Where are all the posts that can discuss how ISIS is only as strong as it is and holds as much territory as it does because of how the Sunni's in the region are either fighting with it or tacitly supporting it? And how the Sunni's are siding with ISIS because they don't want Iran and the Shiite's to have control over them in the region.

Where are the posts that discuss that Turkey and Saudi have as much right as Iran, Russia, America and others to meddle in this quagmire to serve their own interests they way that those latter countries are serving their own interests.

ISIS are the bad guys, we all know this, but for Sunni's and some governments in the region, letting the Shiites/Alawites and other foreign governments gain control of the region by eliminating ISIS and allowing a Shiite crescent, is just as bad as letting ISIS exist.


The moment that people like you on here realise that this war can never be won, is the moment that we can have a proper discussion on the way to de-escalate this war and try and negotiate a way out of it.

[flamingdem]

3. I think the brutality of Isis has turned many Sunnis against them

This is the group of 70000 that are claimed to be recruitable and most likely well paid to fight against Isis. This all came out in articles over the last month but haven't seen much solid evidence. I think that Kerry has been in there working on a settlement to convince all parties including Russia that they can resolve things.

[politicman]

4. it's more complicated than what you are saying.

Again, just because it makes you feel better to believe that doesn't make it true.

Sunni's will never allow the Shiite's/Alawites and foreign governments to have control over them, and they are faced with either fighting ISIS and allowing those parties to control the region, or supporting ISIS as a way to stop those parties from controlling the region.

How do you think such a small group like ISIS was able to conquer as much land as it did, and why all that land is land that is populated by Sunni people?


Sunni's might not like ISIS, but they are faced with a choice of letting ISIS have the power or allowing the Shiites/Alawi's to have the power, and clearly we can see that the Sunni's have decided that ISIS is the better option for them.


As we saw in Iraqi for a decade, force won't resolve the problem of ISIS, in fact it will only make it stronger the way that force against the Iraqi resistance made them stronger over the years.

Like I said, the only way to end this is to de-escalate the war and give the Sunni's something to support other than ISIS, because as long as Sunni's can't see a way to avoid Shiite control of the region the Sunni's will continue to support ISIS.

[flamingdem]

5. That's what I was pointing to - Kerry presented a plan

that included elections and I presume it means that the Alawite/Shite is not the only choice. Plus, they can pay (bribe) the Sunnis since many have joined Isis simply to survive financially. I believe, reading between the lines, that this is what is happening. The reactions to Obama's speech, Richard Engel's comments, what your wrote all seem to be about impatience. It's going to be a long and grinding process I believe. Do you think Kerry is up to the job?

[politicman]

7. This is the only thing that will work in my opinion.

It's not that I don't believe Kerry is up to the job and it's not that I don't think the plan that you explained is on the wrong track, its just that I don't believe that it will work.

The only solution I see is allowing the Sunni areas (which ISIS mostly hold) to form their own recognised country.

Only something like that will give the Sunni's in that area sufficient motivation to form their own fighting force against ISIS and remove them.


Anything short of that will simply keep resulting in the Sunni's in the region being more fearful and more worried about a Shiite crescent from Iran to Syria (including big chunks of Lebanon) and thus supporting ISIS as a counterweight to allowing this Shiite crescent.

Paying off or bribing the Sunni's wont work, the U.S tried that in Iraq during the Iraqi resistance, and although a false narrative emerged of it working with the Sunni awakening, it was exactly that, a false narrative as we saw with our one eyes how the Iraqi resistance to first the U.S occupation and then the Iraqi Shiite government kept getting stronger over the years and not weaker.

And ISIS is real time proof of that statement.

[flamingdem]

9. This brings to mind Joe Biden's proposal for Iraq

but I am too tired to google it. Of course the Kurds would like something similar.

[politicman]

11. Yes Biden did suggest this, but no one paid attention.

The Kurds already have something a little similar and they have had it for 2 decades.

They have their own regional government and own fighting force for decades, and they don't have Shiite or Sunni governments controlling them and foisting unjust policies on them from a central government.

After Bush ruined the stability in Iraq, the only answer is to do the same for the Sunni's that span the area that ISIS currently holds inside Iraq and Syria, either by giving them autonomy like the Kurds or by giving them their own country and having it recognised by the world.

No other solution will work as the only way to defeat ISIS is for the Sunni's to abandon them and remove them themselves, and like I said, the Sunni's will not do that at the moment simply to allow themselves to be controlled by the Shiites in Iraq and Syria again with directives from Iran.

[Justice]

15. what you mean is the GOP paid no attention

[Yorktown]

6. Yes, the situation is a multi-actor quagmire. What do you suggest?

Because at the end of the day,

it's hard to see what to do differently than what Obama is currently doing.

[politicman]

8. I suggest the following:

The best course of action is to allow the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria to form their own recognised country and that there will give sufficient motivation for the Sunni's to abandon ISIS and form their own fighting force to defeat ISIS.

This will give the Sunni's the reassurance that they won't put their lives on the line to fight ISIS only to be subjected to Shiite control and rule after they do that.

But for this strategy to work, a few smaller things have to be done to aid this strategy.

America needs to be an impartial broker between Israel and the Palestinians, to stop the narrative that has spread throughout the region for decades that anything sponsored or supported by America is simply a way to help Israel in the region.

And stopping the bombing that results in collateral damage that just fuels the Sunni outrage and gives ISIS new recruits from families that seek revenge over deaths of their innocent family members.

[Yorktown]

10. I suppose you yourself know your solution won't fly

1- Redrawing borders is an exercise which never happens without a war.
Besides, can you imagine Iran's Shias (who control those in Iraq) agree to empower Sunnis?
The Iranians will be happy to see the Sunni area stay in turmoil for generations.

2- In the context of the Arab Spring, deeply unsettling to all the regimes of the region, which regional leader would be foolish enough to brave the proverbial Arab street -whose economic discontent has been rechanneled as hate of Israel for decades- and offer guarantees to Israel supposing the US umbrella was to be removed?

3- As for drones, I agree they might be doing lasting damage to support for anything American in the region.

[politicman]

12. My solution will fly, I am certain of this.

1) Whether Iran's Shiites agree or not is irrelevant, they have been backing the Iraqi government and the Assad government for years now and have actually watched their influence wane in the form of Sunni areas being lost to a group like ISIS.
If the Sunni's are allowed their own country in the areas that ISIS holds in Iraq and Syria, Iran can try but won't be able to keep those areas in turmoil unless they use direct military actions in those areas.

And yes, I don't think things will die down immediately, there will be skirmishes between the Sunni and Shiites areas, probably both sides will devise ways to disrupt and defeat the other, but it will be a hell of a lot easier for the world powers to handle and negotiate a solution than it is now where chaos rules and there is no defined parties to negotiate with.

2) That's the problem that many in the west don't understand, yes the regional leaders are constantly rechanneling the discontent in their own countries towards Israel, but the only reason this strategy succeeds is because it is plain as daylight for everyone to see how America always favours Israel no matter what.

Remove that bias and the regional leaders won't be able to succeed with this strategy, they will have to start addressing the problems they face in their won countries for fear of being toppled.


3) I'm glad we agree on this, because as much as we in the west can easily dismiss the collateral damage from these drones (and lately air strikes) as necessary, those that are affected by these drones through family members being blown to bits don't and that results in them seeking to inflict revenge by joining a group like ISIS that gives them a way to enact this revenge.

[Yorktown]

13. No, I still think 1 and 2 don't fly

1- you know KSA+Qatar have been fighting proxy wars with Iran all over the place.
IF there was creation of a Sunni state astride Iraq+Syria, its natural borders would be Sunni Iraq + Syria minus its Alawite coastal region. You can see why Bachar wouldn't like it. And Bachar is Iran's pawn. The ideal solution for Iran is to leave the Sunni Iraq in a mess and wait for the fall of the KSA regime.

2- Yes, the US attitude siding Israel annoys the Arab street. But it annoys it because the Arab street has been sold for decades a radical version of Islam to distract it from its economic woes. And because the KSA and Qatar thought it would buy their survival to push radical Islam elsewhere. So, as things stand, remove the US umbrella and there would be plenty of incentive in the region to try and attack Israel (after the ISIS situation calms down or snowballs)

[politicman]

14. Open your eyes and look at the long term picture of my solution

1) Like I said, Iran has been backing the Iraqi and Syrian governments for years now, and has actually watched as its control of the Sunni areas has been lost to groups like ISIS.
Give the Sunni's their own country and the motivation to get rid of ISIS, and then you have a single power at the negotiating table rather than countless groups that is impossible to bring under one umbrella to seat at a negotiating table.

Again as I said earlier, things wont quiet down immediately, Sunnis and Shiites will disrupt each other and devise ways to defeat each other with their help of their respective backers in Iran and KSA, but this will be so much easier for the world's powers to resolve and find a solution than it is now where ISIS is not a party that can be negotiated with and chose reigns through the areas.

It will take time, but pressure from world powers can push both Iran and KSA to accept a negotiated solution that takes into account each others interests, otherwise without this, then the status quo will just continue with Sunni's supporting ISIS as a counterweight to a Shiite crescent spanning Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon which will give them the upper hand in the region.


2) No, the reason the Arab street is so easily distracted from the economic distress by their own leaders, is because the bias in favour of Israel by the U.S can be seen as plain as daylight and it boil the blood of the Arab street when they see this.

Why is it so hard to see that when you give an excuse for regional leaders to be able to distract their populace with, then they will use it.
Remove this bias in favour of Israel, act as an unbiased broker and show the people of the region that they can look towards you as a noble idea to emulate rather than seeing you as the big Satan that their leaders are more than happy to encourage to distract from their own performance.
If a regional leader tells his people that they need to support him otherwise America will use their discontent to serve the interests of Israel (which they have seen happen for decades), then all you are doing is handing these regional leaders the ability to do so by so blatantly continuing to always favour Israel no matter how wrong Israel is.

At the very least, being an impartial broker in the mod-east can't hurt the situation and at best can improve it drastically.