IS crisis in Iraq and Syria

[Simon_Jester]

Just caught this:

So is humanitarian health aid to injured and dying foreign/enemy combatants is not allowed now? By that logic the red cross is a terrorist organization.

The key concept here is of neutrality. If Army A and Army B are fighting each other, and I live in nearby Country C...

Suppose some Army A soldiers come into my land and seek medical care. I patch them up, they go back into the fight. In that case, I am taking Army A's side against Army B. If I do this while declaring that I am 'neutral' in the A-B war, then I am being hypocritical.

There's a procedure for this under international law: the combatants from A who come into Country C are interned, forced to sit out the war in (hopefully comfortable) captivity. That way, they can get the humanitarian medical treatment they need, without being allowed to go back and join the fight and thus give Army A an unfair advantage over Army B.

Cosmicalstorm is arguing that the Turks aren't doing this with ISIL fighters who seek medical attention in Turkey. In which case they are actively taking ISIL's side in the conflict, even if they fire no bullets.

Yeah, Turkey is a logical first responder I guess, geographically speaking... but the US has military bases throughout the GCC area, and could probably more effectively (or at least as effectively) deploy troops into Northeast Syria than Turkey could on short notice.

Debateable. The US could deploy a small number of troops quickly, but Turkey is far better equipped to put a hundred thousand men into the field- and to do so in a cost-effective way.

I sympathize with what ArmorPierce is saying... the US refuses to commit ground troops for domestic political reasons - I mean we need to worry about Hillary and 2016 after all - don't wanna compromise Democrat voter turnout with too much overseas warring, you know - and I guess the Obama administration is hoping some local military (Kurds/Turks, etc.) will get their hands dirty and cleanup ISIL. So far only the Kurds are really putting their money where their mouth is - (I just can't stop respecting these guys enough...)

Well, the US can reasonably argue that it doesn't have a big enough dog in this fight to justify putting troops on the ground.

And that to do so would be to repeat the mistake the US made in Iraq (the second time), and in Vietnam. We'd be committing to a long-term campaign that has the potential to devolve into an endless guerilla war in an area where it is NOT in the US's advantage to do so.

In short, intense ground intervention of this kind, by a nation that is highly foreign to and relatively ignorant of the region, is just NOT a good idea.

If anyone in NATO is involved, the Turks should be involved. The Turks would have a right to ask other NATO members (including the US) for help, but they should be involved. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that any NATO member should deploy ground troops in this war.

Regardless, I'm pretty confident the Kurds and Syrians can handle this with foreign air support - it's just sad and hypocritical that nobody will help them on the ground.

Debateable, because a foreign ground commitment that doesn't translate into an occupation will do very little good to break ISIL's military power, while one that does is almost certain to cause more harm than good.

[ArmorPierce]

Turkey has set up refugee camps so it is providing humanitarian aid to each side. The red cross does not require sitting out of the duration of the war, when treating enemy combatants, but as far as I know that's usually on the field. Here are a few lines that I picked out of the Geneva convention regarding internment:

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in whose hands he may be.

My interpretation seems to suggest that you cannot intern them unless absolutely necessary.

Yes, Erdogen is probably very happy about the current turn of events, but do you feel like if there were no Kurds that he would still lift a finger to prop up Assad's government? Why poke the hornet's nest? Yes Turkey would be able to crush them as a military force but then they'd have to deal with the threat of non-conventional attacks.

Being in close proximity to effected countries make the adjacent countries less likely to desire to intervene, not more likely. Countries sharing borders do not have the luxury of an ocean or a continent of space between them and the conflict, as been stated, ISIS is able to just drive into Turkey. See the European countries who were dragging their feet regarding any sort of economic sanctions against Russia when it was obvious that Russia was aiding Ukranian rebels with weapons.

[ArmorPierce]

I do realize that there is the argument that the Geneva convention does not apply in this case do to these not being nation state actors, non-occupied territory, and non-signers of the geneva convention. But it does set precedent for the behavior.

[Simon_Jester]

Turkey has set up refugee camps so it is providing humanitarian aid to each side. The red cross does not require sitting out of the duration of the war, when treating enemy combatants, but as far as I know that's usually on the field. Here are a few lines that I picked out of the Geneva convention regarding internment:

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in whose hands he may be.

Protected persons include children, noncombatant civilians, POWs, and so on.

They do NOT include the actual fighting men of an armed faction.

The point here is that there is nothing in the laws or customs of war that says that a neutral power can or should provide free medical care to for one belligerent side's troops during a war. Doing that is a violation of neutrality and an act of support for that side.

[ArmorPierce]

According to this, it seems it does apply to enemy combatants:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

So if the spirit of the geneva convention is being followed, it can be argued that, yes there is precedent for just that.

As I mentioned before however, it can be argued that they are not official state actors so letter of the law does not apply...

[Simon_Jester]

Uh, that's not the article that defines "protected persons." Article Four does that. And it applies to people who find themselves in the hands of one of the warring powers- not in the hands of neutrals.

Article 42 is meant to apply to an occupying army, limiting its ability to imprison protected persons. It has nothing to do with the longstanding custom that if soldiers belonging to a belligerent power wander into the territory of a neutral state, those soldiers are interned for the duration of the conflict. By all means, treat their wounds and take proper care of them... but they cannot just return to resume fighting.

[ArmorPierce]

According to the book "Crimes of War":

A combatant can acquire the status of a protected person under a number of circumstances—for example, if captured or wounded.

I don't see netural country treatment mentioned but I would assume that if the country that is involved in the war, and if international health organizations are not allowed to 'intern' them, that sets precedent for neutral countries.

I am not surprised that there isn't mention of neutral countries by the way because the geneva convention applies to signor countries.

[ArmorPierce]

Not a neutral country but a neutral entity.

The red cross who has a mandate of neutrality interprets this neutrality as meaning that they treat all people from both sides of the conflict

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... s.taliban/

But an ICRC spokesman in Geneva said the practice is consistent with its obligation of neutrality and its mandate to provide assistance to all sides in conflict.

There was talk about the red cross committing treason by helping the Taliban too.

[Simon_Jester]

According to the book "Crimes of War":

A combatant can acquire the status of a protected person under a number of circumstances—for example, if captured or wounded.

I don't see netural country treatment mentioned but I would assume that if the country that is involved in the war, and if international health organizations are not allowed to 'intern' them, that sets precedent for neutral countries.

The norm would be for the wounded soldier to be 'interned' (as in, not allowed to leave) as soon as they cross the border. The interning country can then set up the wounded soldier with whatever medical care they see fit... but the wounded soldier can't leave. Even after they get better. They are, in effect, a POW.

This actually happened in cases in World War Two when two sides were fighting over territory near the border of a neutral country- wounded pilots or soldiers might end up having to crash in Switzerland or Sweden or Spain or wherever. And they would be held in (fairly nice) captivity for the duration.

Also notice that the clauses about allowing "protected persons" to be released have exceptions for the security of your own state. Which is why you don't have to automatically release POWs from your care, and can in fact hold them prisoner behind your lines. There's nothing in the rules that says you must let enemy soldiers go after treating their wounds. There's nothing that says a neutral power CAN let belligerent soldiers go after treating their wounds, not if they wish to remain neutral.

I am not surprised that there isn't mention of neutral countries by the way because the geneva convention applies to signor countries.

Uh, that makes NO sense.

The Geneva Convention applies to belligerents. It defines the rights and responsibilities of belligerents- that is, countries that are fighting. It does NOT define the rights and responsibilities of neutral states in a war; those are mostly established by much older laws and customs.

Now, if a neutral country decides to join a war, the Geneva Convention applies to it. But if that doesn't happen, then the neutral country is following a different set of rules. Among them, the principle of interning soldiers who are party to the conflict, because otherwise they're taking sides.

Not a neutral country but a neutral entity.

The red cross who has a mandate of neutrality interprets this neutrality as meaning that they treat all people from both sides of the conflict

The Red Cross's obligation to treat wounded ISIL fighters has nothing to do with Turkey's obligation to intern wounded ISIL fighters on their soil.

There was talk about the red cross committing treason by helping the Taliban too.

Treason against who?

Anyway, that is not related to the question of ISIL soldiers getting treatment in Turkish hospitals (after which they should be interned and not allowed to fight again). It IS related to the question of noncombat aid shipments motoring into ISIL-held territory, but if we want to talk about that, by all means do so.

[Channel72]

There are plenty of photos of IS member waving happily from their hospital beds in Turkey. Turkeys inaction and silent support with regards to IS is obvious. Turkey is run by a man who is in love with Islam and would love nothing more than to have the hateful Kurds and Alawites exterminated and get a nice little Caliphate as it's next door neighbor. It was a true pity that the secular generals did not seize proper power over Turkey, a military dictatorship would have been better. I wonder when Turkey has a civil war.

I'm not sure how Islamist Erdogan really is. He's more of a fascist than a theocrat. Turkey's erratic behavior with regards to ISIL is probably more about reluctance to support the Kurds, and hatred for Assad, than being pro-ISIL. I mean the PKK carries out terror attacks inside Turkey, so Erdogan is way more concerned about them than ISIL, whereas so far ISIL has not directly threatened Turkey (although really, given the power it's obvious ISIL would absorb Turkey, or anything else, into their stupid Borg collective Caliphate)

[Thanas]

Thanas - isn't turkey currently buying oil off the Kurds?

Yes, so?

[Kane Starkiller]

As I understand it the main reason that US and Turkey went against Assad is to eliminate Syria as Iran's main ally. So, from that perspective, even fragmented and chaotic Syria is "mission accomplished" I guess.

[Thanas]

Erdogan doesn't hate Assad. Heck, Erdogan and Assad were vacationing together. Syria is a bit more complex - I am sure Turkey would love the days back when Syria was a vassal state. In this case, IS is great as it reduces Syria's capability to cause trouble elsewhere and makes them more dependent on Turkey.

He hates the Kurds and Iran and currently ISIS occupies both. It is in Turkey's best interests to keep the conflict going on as long as possible. I mean, they just now approved the use of airbases in Turkey for US strikes. After much bellyaching and hesitation, of course.

[Channel72]

Erdogan doesn't hate Assad. Heck, Erdogan and Assad were vacationing together. Syria is a bit more complex - I am sure Turkey would love the days back when Syria was a vassal state. In this case, IS is great as it reduces Syria's capability to cause trouble elsewhere and makes them more dependent on Turkey.

Erdogan asked the US to remove Assad from power - he pretty much wants Assad out of the picture.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... rds-kobani

[Thanas]

Yeah, which doesn't really contradict anything I said, but rather reinforces the notion that Turkey wants to get control of its southern neighbours.

[ArmorPierce]

Can't provide a indepth response right now so I'll keep t short.

According to the book "Crimes of War":

A combatant can acquire the status of a protected person under a number of circumstances—for example, if captured or wounded.

I don't see netural country treatment mentioned but I would assume that if the country that is involved in the war, and if international health organizations are not allowed to 'intern' them, that sets precedent for neutral countries.

The norm would be for the wounded soldier to be 'interned' (as in, not allowed to leave) as soon as they cross the border. The interning country can then set up the wounded soldier with whatever medical care they see fit... but the wounded soldier can't leave. Even after they get better. They are, in effect, a POW.

This actually happened in cases in World War Two when two sides were fighting over territory near the border of a neutral country- wounded pilots or soldiers might end up having to crash in Switzerland or Sweden or Spain or wherever. And they would be held in (fairly nice) captivity for the duration.

Also notice that the clauses about allowing "protected persons" to be released have exceptions for the security of your own state. Which is why you don't have to automatically release POWs from your care, and can in fact hold them prisoner behind your lines. There's nothing in the rules that says you must let enemy soldiers go after treating their wounds. There's nothing that says a neutral power CAN let belligerent soldiers go after treating their wounds, not if they wish to remain neutral.

You keep saying it's the norm. Just because some nations practice it does not mean it's the norm, other states have different practises throughout history. Yes, exception for security of your own state, Turkey feels that security of its state as aneutral state is not threatened thus no reason to keep them. If it is the norm, the Geneva convention would have had something about neutral states treating wounded combatants. The lack of the existence of anything in the Geneva convention referring to participation of netural countries in medical aid is not evidence of your assertion being the norm, it's evidence against it.

you state that during world war 2 neutral countries such as Switzerland interned combatants that sought medical aid. My understanding from sources I have seen is that Switzerland regularly treated German soldiers and they returned to battle shortly after. I haven't done enough research but I suspect the differenece laid in whether the forces were conducting military operations within their territory.

I am not surprised that there isn't mention of neutral countries by the way because the geneva convention applies to signor countries.

Uh, that makes NO sense.

The Geneva Convention applies to belligerents. It defines the rights and responsibilities of belligerents- that is, countries that are fighting. It does NOT define the rights and responsibilities of neutral states in a war; those are mostly established by much older laws and customs.

Now, if a neutral country decides to join a war, the Geneva Convention applies to it. But if that doesn't happen, then the neutral country is following a different set of rules. Among them, the principle of interning soldiers who are party to the conflict, because otherwise they're taking sides.

It is the argument that the United States repeatedly made regarding Guantanamo bay and Iraq. I'm not enough of a scholar of the Geneva convention to be able to tell, but it looks like they have point in at least some of the cases.

Not a neutral country but a neutral entity.

The red cross who has a mandate of neutrality interprets this neutrality as meaning that they treat all people from both sides of the conflict

The Red Cross's obligation to treat wounded ISIL fighters has nothing to do with Turkey's obligation to intern wounded ISIL fighters on their soil.

It establishes a precedent of neutral entities providing medical aid which goes against your assertion that neutral countries are no longer neutral doing so.

There was talk about the red cross committing treason by helping the Taliban too.

Treason against who?

Against the USA. I disagree, of course.

Anyway, that is not related to the question of ISIL soldiers getting treatment in Turkish hospitals (after which they should be interned and not allowed to fight again). It IS related to the question of noncombat aid shipments motoring into ISIL-held territory, but if we want to talk about that, by all means do so.

source of this occuring recently please.

[jwl]

Can you provide evidence that Turkey is currently funding and helping ISIS as opposed to supporting them in the past when the US was supporting the overthrow of Assad? I see lots of rumors being thrown around but little in the way of facts.

What do you mean by allowing to cross the border? Has Turkey done anything to make special accommodations or support to ISIS supporters crossing the border?

When did the US stop supporting the overthrow of assad?

[Channel72]

So anyway, the effectiveness of the airstrikes right now is pretty mixed.

On the one hand (and I think this is pretty important), ISIL's oil revenue has been seriously compromised. They no longer are bringing in anything close to their former 3 million USD per day. This is because the air strikes have basically destroyed a lot of their oil infrastructure:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... cent#r=rss

Islamic State Loses Its Oil Business

It’s been a month since President Obama announced that the U.S. would engage in a sustained campaign of airstrikes against Islamic State, the militant Sunni rebellion in Syria and Iraq. The idea was to bomb Islamic State into nonexistence, which has proved difficult. Not only is the movement well-armed, battle-hardened, and deeply entrenched in much of Syria and northern Iraq, it’s also very well-financed, thanks to oil wells and refineries it’s been able to capture. By late June, Islamic State was raising as much as $2 million a day refining and smuggling oil, making it one of history’s wealthiest terrorist groups.

Though the airstrikes have failed to keep Islamic State from advancing in the field, they have apparently succeeded in dismantling its sophisticated oil network, reducing the movement’s ability to make gasoline and diesel for its tanks and trucks and cutting off a vital source of funding. A report from the International Energy Agency in Paris has just estimated that Islamic State controls only about 20,000 barrels of daily oil production, down from about 70,000 as of August. Most of it remains in Iraq.

Islamic State's oil empire is slowly being dismantled

In early August, Islamic State controlled sections of Syria and Iraq that together are about the size of Wyoming. At that point, its territory included seven oil fields and a refinery in northern Iraq, as well as six of the 10 oil fields in eastern Syria. Although the movement was able to produce only about half the potential output under its control, it had no problem tapping the region’s well-established oil smuggling network.

Most of the group’s oil flows through local middlemen and is paid for almost entirely in cash, making transactions extremely difficult to track and shut down. This has insulated Islamic State from traditional methods the West has used to dry up terrorist funds in the past, such as international banking sanctions and anti-money laundering laws.

A straight-up bombing campaign does seem to be doing a lot of that work. According to the IEA report, U.S.-led sorties over northern Iraq and Syria are “frustrating the jihadists’ ability to operate oil fields and refineries.” At its peak, most of the oil smuggled from Iraq was loaded from the Ajeel oil field near Tikrit on tanker trucks and routed toward Kurdistan. The IEA, citing Iraqi oil industry sources, estimates that Islamic State was loading about 120 tanker trucks with about 20,000 barrels a day from Ajeel. Sustained airstrikes, including ones targeting convoys, have cut that traffic to about 10 trucks a day, or about 2,000 barrels, according to the IEA’s report.

In Syria, the IEA estimates that Islamic State’s oil output is down to about 10,000 barrels a day. Airstrikes by the U.S., the Saudis, and the UAE have wiped out “dozens of teapot refineries” in Syria, depriving the movement’s war machine of a key source of gasoline. Turkey and the Kurds have also cracked down on its smuggling operation. In late September, the Kurds reportedly seized four militant tanker trucks from the Ajeel field and detained the drivers.

There is still a lot of work to do. The Islamists retain control of Syria’s largest oil field, the Omar field in the Deir Az-Zour region of the country. The squeeze on finances has made Islamic State even more desperate to control oil fields and refineries. Its fighters have turned Iraq’s largest refinery into a battleground—forcing it off-line and sharply reducing output. With most of its refining capacity in Syria destroyed, Islamic State might go after two big refineries, closer to Lebanon in the west of Syria, that are under the Assad government’s control, opening up a much broader two-front war and potentially limiting the movement’s ability to wage war to the east, in Iraq.

So... that's good. But on the other hand, the air strikes haven't prevented ISIL from advancing in certain directions. They've overtaken additional cities in Iraq and Syria, and were just barely held off from taking Kobane. Republicans of course are criticizing the air strikes as ineffective.

Obama Regroups With Allies as Airstrikes Fail to Stop Gains by Islamist Terrorists

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will receive an update today on the effectiveness of airstrikes in the fight against the Islamic State in a meeting with defense ministers from coalition member nations. Bloomberg’s Peter Cook reports in today’s “Global Outlook” on “In The Loop.”
President Barack Obama will try to shore up a coalition against Islamic State forces today as airstrikes have failed to stop the extremist Sunni group from gaining territory in Iraq and Syria.

With questions growing about a plan that lacks effective ground forces, Obama and the top U.S. military officer will meet with defense ministers from more than 20 allied countries to bolster support for a strategy that even former administration officials say is foundering.

Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, is the target of frequent attacks, and the airport is under grave risk. Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will host the meeting, told ABC television that the U.S. had to call in Apache attack helicopters to prevent Islamic State forces from overrunning Iraqi troops and seizing the airport.

Al-Qaeda's Heirs

The towns of Hit and Kubaisa were captured last week and Haditha could fall within days, said Faleh al-Issawi, the deputy head of Anbar’s provincial council, in a phone interview.

“This is a very, very serious threat,” said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq under Obama who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Time isn’t on our side. We’re going to start losing coalition members.”

Jeffrey said the administration’s steadfast opposition to U.S. ground combat troops is making it harder to reassure allies of an American commitment to the battle.

“Constantly whining about how we’re never going to put ground troops in there is simply not going over well,” he said.

Anbar Imperiled

The meeting outside Washington at Joint Base Andrews comes as the Obama administration has little to show for the thousands of flights and hundreds of airstrikes it has waged over the last two months with European and Arab partners.

Even with some initial success at forcing a retreat from Iraq’s largest dam and a town populated by the minority Yezidis, the airstrikes and Iraqi troops haven’t stopped Islamic State from advancing.

The group, which declared an Islamic caliphate and has beheaded American and European aid workers and journalists, came closer to gaining full control of Iraq’s Anbar Province after seizing a military base west of Baghdad.

The problem in Syria is even worse. The U.S. and allies are conducting airstrikes without any ground forces to help them spot targets and conduct the kind of urban warfare needed to dislodge extremists from cities.

Kurds just across the border in neighboring Turkey have watched with alarm as Islamic State forces move toward the Syrian town of Kobani, whose fall would give the extremist group control of territory stretching from the Turkish border to the outskirts of Baghdad.

‘Plainly Failing’

“President Obama’s pledge to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, is plainly failing,” said John Nagl, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq, in a column for Politico. “Today, the barbarians are literally at the gates of Baghdad.”

The effort is further complicated by U.S. reluctance to attack the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which opposes Islamic State but is also battling the moderate rebels the U.S. seeks to train.

While the administration doesn’t want to go after Assad’s forces, “I think they may be pushed to do that because the Sunni states and Turkey are absolutely committed to fighting Assad,” Jeffrey said.

Too Soon

Administration officials say it’s too soon to condemn a campaign that will require many months to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels who can fight Islamic State in Syria, and bolster a demoralized Iraqi army that has sometimes fled from the fight.

“This is very early days of the strategy,” National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. “The strategy’s very clear. We will do what we can from the air. We will support the Iraqi security forces, the Kurds and ultimately, over time, the moderate opposition in Syria to be able to control territory and take the fight to ISIL.”

Yet as weeks of strikes turn to months and Islamic State grows stronger, pressure is building on the administration -- from both critics and sympathizers -- to take more aggressive action, including the introduction of ground combat troops.

‘They’re Winning’

“They’re winning and we’re not,” Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said on CNN over the weekend, in calling for U.S. special forces on the ground, and a buffer zone and no-fly zone inside Syria.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who left office last year, criticized Obama for ruling out ground troops and not showing enough passion in leading a military offensive.

“I don’t mind presidents who have the quality of a law professor in looking at the issues and determining just exactly, you know, what needs to be done,” he said of his former boss on CBS on Sunday. “But presidents need to also have the heart of a warrior. That’s the way you get things done, is you engage in the fight.”

Obama, who won office by pledging to get the U.S. out of Iraq, has been adamant that American troops won’t return to ground combat there since leaving the country in 2011.

Frederic Hof, who served as the State Department’s special representative on Syria in 2012, said the administration should use today’s meeting with allies to consider revising its strategy against Islamic State.

‘Textbook Example’

“What we’re witnessing is a textbook example of the shortcomings of air power minus a ground component, versus a mobile enemy,” Hof said by e-mail.

Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the Kurdish Peshmerga need arms, the Iraqi army needs training and the administration’s yearlong plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels “seems leisurely” in the face of Islamic State’s onslaught.

“Obviously, there needs to be a crash program in both countries to develop ground components,” Hof said. “That, or members of the coalition may have to put some boots on the ground.”

Nagl, the retired Army officer who is now headmaster at the Haverford School in Pennsylvania, said the U.S. probably needs to put about 15,000 military advisers on the ground to work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

“The Iraqi forces without American advisers are incapable of defeating ISIS,” Nagl said in an interview, using another acronym for Islamic State. “And airstrikes without Americans to call them in are insufficient.”

To defeat Islamic State in Syria, he said, “you’re talking about an American occupation, an Iraq 2007,” referring to the surge of troops the U.S. sent at the time. “It’s a real mess.”

A willingness to use American ground troops will be a test for Obama at today’s meeting, said Nagl, author of “Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War,” to be published this week.

“The big question allies will have for him is: Is America serious or not?”

Despite Republican whining, as far as I'm concerned the air strikes are effective enough if they've seriously impaired ISIL's ability to generate revenue. It doesn't matter in the long run if ISIL temporarily captures a city here or there when their funding is being slowly cut off. Destroying them economically is directly linked to reducing them to a regional nuisance as opposed to a serious military/proto-state.

They can't move around in large convoys, and they're slowly losing the ability to fuel all of their vehicles. Soon they really won't be able to engage in any sort of large-scale military operations. But the problem is that they'll continue to infest the cities, and I don't see any realistic way to stamp them out without serious urban warfare (meaning somebody has to put troops on the ground...). I'm hoping a combination of Turkish, Kurdish and Syrian forces is capable of doing it, but I doubt the Kurds will go on the offensive.

In all likelihood, ISIL will end up pretty splintered - they're basically fighting a war on two fronts here - against the FSA in the west, and the Kurds and (later Turks likely) in the northeast, and the Iraqis in the east/southeast.

[Thanas]

you state that during world war 2 neutral countries such as Switzerland interned combatants that sought medical aid. My understanding from sources I have seen is that Switzerland regularly treated German soldiers and they returned to battle shortly after. I haven't done enough research but I suspect the differenece laid in whether the forces were conducting military operations within their territory.

This is news to me, what are your sources?

Anyway, that is not related to the question of ISIL soldiers getting treatment in Turkish hospitals (after which they should be interned and not allowed to fight again). It IS related to the question of noncombat aid shipments motoring into ISIL-held territory, but if we want to talk about that, by all means do so.

source of this occuring recently please.

Here is a link about this, quotes from a deputy speaker of the German parliament Link

[General Brock]

...

If you think Assad cares about a fair election under any circumstances you're a fool.

Dead man walking will do whatever it takes to delay the inevitable, including hold elections generally recognized as fair. His ruling circle may be more of a problem, but anyone inclined to defect has possibly already done so.

With most of the religious extremist opposition revolted and absent from the polls, and secular opposition likewise gone or discredited for destroying the country, its ironically safe and even necessary to be democratic with the loyalists in the territory he has left.

Since 2011 Assad has had so cede autonomy to the Kurds, and pay serious attention to Loyalist concerns such that he can sack high-ranking well-connected persons for incompetence where before such people could count on impunity regardless of opposition from the masses.

[K. A. Pital]

Brock...

1. Daring moderators after being warned is a bad idea.
2. When the most anti-American person on the board splits your posts and puts them into Hall of Shame as conspiracy bullshit, even crying 'bias' cannot help you.

...

3. Daring me again will result in all your prior contributions to the IS(IS) thread being flushed.

[Simon_Jester]

EDIT:

To summarize:

Brock, I have not advanced a warmongering argument, so I cannot sanely be asked to 'complete' my argument by advancing such an argument.

I restrict myself solely to the observation that your claim that the US is behind ISIL is a conspiracy theory, and a nonsensical one. You have not provided evidence for the idea, only blustered and demanded that I present evidence for a claim I don't even seriously believe instead. What it boils down to is...

Reality will back most if not all of my claims as time passes.

Your ridiculous standards of proof are comparable to myself citing news reports of daeshi attacking Baghdad airport and you demanding I back those with DAESH's order of battle rather than take journalists' word for it.

Reality is bearing out that supporting Syrian rebels/DAESH while fighting daeshi is not workable...

And here I thought you were at least trying in good faith to pass the Turing Test on this issue.

My standard of evidence is high because you are asserting a highly unexpected and improbable claim (the US is to a large degree supporting ISIL, with the apparent intention that this state of affairs become permanent). Some of your claims are quantitative, too- and yet you have never provided any of the quantitative evidence that supposedly convinced you.

The reason that concerns me so much is... well, what did it take to convince you that this was happening?

You haven't presented a lot of quantitative evidence for your quantitative claims. So either you're not engaged in evidence-based reasoning (in which case just shut up), or you're very gullible and built up this whole elaborate network of reasoning on the strength of very insufficient evidence.

Either way, it speaks ill for the idea that your conspiracy theory is worthy of our time.

In any case, the O-Blam-aaa regime has stopped supporting the old Syrian rebels.

I love how you keep using this infantile nickname.

...
So, one more chance. Explain why, taken as a math problem, you expect the US 'cutting support' to have a meaningful impact on ISIL. Why you think ISIL would be unable to survive and function without this support, even if the US doesn't do anything else to weaken ISIL.

And delineate precisely what "cutting support" means. Does cutting support to ISIL mean, for example, stopping weapon sales to places like Saudi Arabia? If so, fine, but you should SAY that is the case, because Saudi Arabia is hundreds and hundreds of miles from ISIL's territory.

How white of you. I'll never understand why whites embace whiteness any more than Cosby understands why blacks embrace gangsta culture.

...Is expecting you to be able to count somehow 'white' of me?

Is expecting you to define your own terms 'white' of me?

Because if so, that's the most anti-black racist thing I can remember hearing in a long time.

[General Brock]

Brock...

1. Daring moderators after being warned is a bad idea.
2. When the most anti-American person on the board splits your posts and puts them into Hall of Shame as conspiracy bullshit, even crying 'bias' cannot help you.

...

3. Daring me again will result in all your prior contributions to the IS(IS) thread being flushed.

I apologize for daring you. It won't happen again.

[General Brock]

Damn; got my directions scrambled; Camp Taji is located northwest of Baghdad and Bismayah is to the southeast. Meh, it was late here.

My standard of evidence is high because you are asserting a highly unexpected and improbable claim (the US is to a large degree supporting ISIL, with the apparent intention that this state of affairs become permanent). Some of your claims are quantitative, too- and yet you have never provided any of the quantitative evidence that supposedly convinced you.

The reason that concerns me so much is... well, what did it take to convince you that this was happening?

What, I need to go into the history of the client-state system?

You haven't presented a lot of quantitative evidence for your quantitative claims. So either you're not engaged in evidence-based reasoning (in which case just shut up), or you're very gullible and built up this whole elaborate network of reasoning on the strength of very insufficient evidence.

Either way, it speaks ill for the idea that your conspiracy theory is worthy of our time.

From my perspective it looks like an explanation as to why I was right and you were wrong was presented, and you countered with why I was wrong... and that's all; you didn't try to explain why you were right beyond that.

So, if you question the journalism, and my interpretation of it, that's fine, but you're not questioning it so much as dismissing and smearing, which is not fine.

There is enough evidence circulating in the news to suggest the jump from 'it strongly appears the United States may be supporting DAESH' to 'the United States is supporting Daesh' is (or rather, was in the immediate past) valid. There is no reason, based on your rebuttals, to up the standard of information beyond 'net journalism from reliable sources.

The only one of your arguments I even bother to engage anymore is your claim that ISIL is heavily supported by the US. Because if you can't divest yourself of one conspiracy theory after half a dozen people tell you it's full of shit, you're really not worth talking to on anything else.

And the qualifications of those telling me where to go on this matter are what compared to the journalists I was able to link to? At best, all you could argue is that the evidence is not conclusive and leave it at that; instead you tried to smear it all as conspiracy theory. A respectful response to that was not going to be forthcoming.

No I don't. Even if nonintervention is the right strategy, that doesn't mean you personally are an intellectually competent person who understands the situation well enough to be worth talking to.

I came here to test those ideas against those I recognized as more intellectually skilled. Yet, such understanding doesn't seem much better than my own. So, while it would be easier to concede the evidence is not conclusive, it won't be conceded.

There's enough evidence to warrant treating the allegations as sufficiently factual to assume validity at a general information level of knowledge and not dismiss them as unsubstantiated at this time.

You're under the delusion that I actually care about promoting the pro-intervention argument. I don't. I disagree with you because you made a specific false claim, a claim very important to your thesis, and which you keep returning to over and over as though you just can't resist the urge to mark that tree again.

Well, I already know you don't care about non-intervention.

You are an interventionist, and have been promoting and protecting interventionism from scrutiny. Where there's smoke there's fire. An answer, no, its just smoke and any allusion to fire is a conspiracy theory doesn't cut it.

And yet you remain a conspiracy theorist who cannot muster the intellectual honesty to say "yeah, I goofed and I can't prove this conspiracy theory of mine BUT the rest of my arguments are still true."

Still over-reliant on the conspiracy theory meme. Shaming me into shutting up seems like a lazy way out.

I've asked you to put up or shut up; you've done neither.

And you still won't explain why armed intervention is the best thing since sliced bread this time around.

See? There you go again- the assumption that this specific process "made" ISIL.

You can explain how it didn't? Oh, right, there wasn't a process it just happened all by itself needing no explanation.

If one buys weapons for the police, and the police sometimes lose gunfights to MS-13 and some of the guns get captured, no you would NOT get charged as a straw buyer for the gang.

Buying guns to kill someone with is not the same as buying guns for them to use.

The Syrian rebels are somehow police? The official Syrian government didn't commission them to be so. If I bought guns for vigilantes and other vigilantes used them to rob banks, no honest court of law is going to let that go.

Provide quantitative evidence, however, that the flow of stolen US aid is actually a primary source of ISIL's supplies... and THEN I will change my tune.

I'm not sure if 'stolen' best describes that flow of materiale if DAESHI were ment to have it anyway.

If you have the answer, you volunteer it. I'm not going any further than commonly available information sources most people rely upon for news and information.

I didn't provide evidence for it because I never asserted it. Why can't you get your head around that?

Well... apart from claiming my arguments are junk, what are you asserting?

You are the very model of a strawmanning hack; I do not make a warmongering argument. You want me to, but I'm not; I'm making a "Brock is full of shit" argument. You have steadily reinforced this with each post in this thread.

Oh, that's what you were doing. So, what is your position on warmongering? For it, neutral? The character of your initial posts certainly suggested a pro-war, pro-interventionist position.

[O-Blam-aaa regime] I love how you keep using this infantile nickname.

When O-blam-aaa stops the drone wars, a rather intellectually and morally bankrupt foreign policy tactic, maybe he'll deserve a respectful name.

You have never demonstrated the scale of these defections or diversions; you simply asserted that they happened and it was all the US's fault somehow.

And I'll keep asserting it till its proven there's no fire behind the smoke..

...
So, one more chance. Explain why, taken as a math problem, you expect the US 'cutting support' to have a meaningful impact on ISIL. Why you think ISIL would be unable to survive and function without this support, even if the US doesn't do anything else to weaken ISIL.

I already have. Not to your satisfaction or to some on this board.

...
And delineate precisely what "cutting support" means. Does cutting support to ISIL mean, for example, stopping weapon sales to places like Saudi Arabia? If so, fine, but you should SAY that is the case, because Saudi Arabia is hundreds and hundreds of miles from ISIL's territory.

That depends on whether you recognize Iraq's Anbar province, the one along the Saudi northeast border, as belonging to DAESH or Iraqi Sunni resistance fighters.

......Is expecting you to be able to count somehow 'white' of me?

It is when the numbers aren't publicly available (unless I missed that story) and not relevant to the claim that the U.S. is supporting DAESH. Moving the standard of information above news reportage is not a call you can make.

...Is expecting you to define your own terms 'white' of me?

No, you do a pretty good job yourself.

.
Because if so, that's the most anti-black racist thing I can remember hearing in a long time.

Its too bad I have to self-censor my response.

As far as I'm concerned, you haven't explained why the evidence of American involvement isn't damning, or explained why intervention is good. Either you are pro-intervention or you don't know. The character of your posts appear to favour intervention and interference in the affairs of foreigners and acted upon as such.

From my perspective all you can do is hide behind arguments that don't appear to have any real substance to match their technical sophistication; mere evasions; nothing to see, move along and don't look any closer.

So no, there's no obligation here to a forensic accounting of American aid to DAESH. Such information would certainly be very useful, but only back up the evidence of American intervention already presented.

Intellectual dishonesty is the abuse of intellectual powers. You've made it pretty clear you don't think I have any such powers to abuse. But so what?

If you can't refute the journalists and intellectuals presented, stick the claim that my interpretation of the sum of their findings is taken too far out of context to be plausible, and explain why yours is superior, then its yourself and your supporters who are being intellectually dishonest, moreso for resorting to the HOS to deal with my reaction to this dishonesty since the context of my actions is then obscured.

(Except where Stas elected on his own to send me to the HOS with cause).

You're incapable of answering and putting to rest in meaningful terms, concerns that America was indeed engaged in the support of DAESH, which can be taken to be factual general knowledge as far as can be gleaned from internet news services.

[Simon_Jester]

So, basically...

1) You're still bullshitting about my actual opinions. I don't agree with you, so I must be a warmonger!

2) You construct your ideas by taking random passages from Internet articles and selectively building a narrative in which they form a support for a proposition none of the articles claim. Like "article A says the US shipped weapons to Syrian rebels in 2012, article B says that ISIL stole various weapons in Syria in 2012, therefore ISIL must be armed with the US weapons! All of them! It's a CIA plot!"

3) Since your position is the product of taking several patchwork bits out of various news aarticles and stitching them together with your own paranoid delusions, it is in your mind "unassailable." The news articles don't say what you think they say, and there's literally zero evidence supporting the stitching parts, but that doesn't matter. Clearly I must refute the journalism of the articles (AND make a compelling case for boots on the ground in Syria, I gather), before you will even consider that you might be mistaken in considering ISIL to be dependent on US-supplied weapons 'laundered' by way of giving the weapons to groups actively in combat with ISIL.

4) You persistently refuse to provide quantitative estimates of the scale of this arms-laundering operation, while simultaneously asserting that it must be large and important.

5) You assert that it's so "white" of me to ask you to support your claims with evidence and define your own terms. If I adhered to your standards of debate I'd call you a white supremacist who clearly believes that the ability to think clearly and logically is somehow "white." But I don't think you're like that. I think you're just throwing shit at the wall in hopes that it'll stick, like all the other poo-flinging idiots.

Since none of this has changed in the past several posts, I figure you're done in this conversation. Sorry I mistook you for something capable of passing the Turing Test; I'd forgotten the Churchill definition of fanaticism* I quoted two weeks ago, and for that matter quoted two years ago when you were a raving Ron Paul fanboy.

[Whatever happened to that, by the way? Are you still an anarcho-libertarian? Or did that get boring?]

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."