You have to lower the bar for giving the Muslim diaspora hip hop contracts.
The exact nature of the relationship between the Turkish intelligence services and Isis and al-Nusra remains cloudy but there is strong evidence for a degree of collaboration. When Syrian rebels led by al-Nusra captured the Armenian town of Kassab in Syrian government-held territory early this year, it seemed that the Turks had allowed them to operate from inside Turkish territory. Also mysterious was the case of the 49 members of the Turkish Consulate in Mosul who stayed in the city as it was taken by Isis; they were held hostage in Raqqa, the Islamic State's Syrian capital, then unexpectedly released after four months in exchange for Isis prisoners held in Turkey.
I'm not fan of assassination as policy, but killing the caliph seems like it might have an impact. People wondering whether or not this endeavor has divine sanction may be drawing an inference from his continuation in the position.
People I talk to in Iraq -- I don't ask, but they seem Sunni from context -- suggest that a fairer settlement with the Sunni tribes is an important step as well.
It's not about what Japan is going to do, but what Turkey is going to do. Shutting down flow of supplies and people would probably have an impact, and may be within their capability (even if not 100%, enough to make a real difference).
Turkey definitely supports them now. When this came up previously, someone mentioned that the wealthy Qataris who are the most generous financial supporters of ISIS were publicly named somewhere, but couldn't say where they were named. Here's something suggestive
I thought that the leaders of Daech overlapped considerably with Sunni generals who worked for Saddam. Probably if there were someone well-organized who was an alternative, they'd lose support. Right now, the alternatives are Assad and the shambolic Shia-dominated Iraqi government.
So, poof, imagine their missiles disappear, now what improves?
There's no way Japan is going to send troops into offensive combat in the Middle East just yet, much as Abe might wish he could. Constitutional revision to give Japan a "normal" military has been on his agenda for years, but he doesn't have the numbers in either the Diet or public opinion to push it through (Komeito, the junior coalition party, is very strongly against it), and is now talking about a possible referendum after the next Upper House elections in 2016. Last summer the Diet did pass a reinterpretation of the Constitution to permit collective self-defense by coming to the aid of allies if they are attacked, but with both Komeito and public opinion firmly against military operations overeas and the legal framework not yet in place, any military cooperation with the US in that part of the world isn't going to be more than logistical support for at least a few more years. Even that would be horribly contentious domestically.
Maybe we can photoshop ISIS members holding a bunch of Ukrainian flags and let Russia handle it.
Russia is kind of handling it-- they are keeping Assad armed in order to assure access to the port they control. Syria's air force is Russian jets.
a fairer settlement with the Sunni tribes is an important step as well.
This cannot be said too often. It would be nice to think that whoever is handling the Iranian negotiations on the ground is pounding the point, because as I understand it the Sunni tribes don't actually like Daesh, they've just abandoned hope in Baghdad.
I understand the rationale behind the name change to Daesh but it's a little personally disappointing given that Daesh/Daeshi is the real-life nickname I call Mara most of the time, especially since she's asked us not to use the Daeda that's Selah's version of it. On the other hand, she's definitely my child most likely to find personal satisfaction as a terrorist, so maybe I can just keep using it and not feel awkward.
To the OP, though, I really have no idea. seems as good a guess as any.
I certainly think our current plan of pulling "the full Paloatine" and funding, directly or indirectly, every side of every civil war in the area is going to work out great.
Maybe we could train the Iraqi Army to do better while sending a lot of weapons to "the good guys" in Syria. And maybe paint some schools while we are at it.
The difficulty as I understand it is Turkey. And Assad. I mean, Assad is not getting bombed out hindered by the west, which the Sunni tribes want as a sign that we hate Isis, rather than all Sunnis. Erdogan wants Assad out, in a personal way. The Turks also do not want a strong Kurdish entity. The Iraqi army is a useless demoralised shambles. The effective bits are the Iranians, who are on Assad's side, really, and the so it militia, who frighten Sunni Iraqis worse than Isis does.
Presumably the calculation is that if Assad goes, he will be replaced by a very hard line Sunni regime. If, that is, the us is calculating at all.
In any case, it won't be settled by the west. Saudi, Qatar, Iran and Turkey will have to work out a peace settlement and impose it. We could be looking at s thirty years war here.
.
More seriously...
Facilitate peace talks between Syria and the rebels. Support independence for Kurdistan. Stop trying to make the Iraqi Shia accept the Sunni, who formerly dominated them, and recognize that they are all better off as being different countries. Normalize relations with Iran. Advise Turkey that if they go down the Islamist path, they are no longer welcome in NATO, while pressing Europe not to be such dicks toward them, and maybe we will recognize Northern Cyprus if things start going better. Advise Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, UAE and Bahrain that we are no longer their bitches because we have our own oil now. Stop giving money to both Egypt and Israel. Signal our long-term withdrawal from hard-power-based engagement in the region, with the understanding that its going to be the responsibility of the regions own powers to contain the likes of ISIS and whatever godforsaken landlocked hellhole Sunni state emerges in its wake.
That would cut the war down to 29 years.
Then its only 15 more years to go!
We could be looking at s thirty years war here.
But will it be as cool as the original?
Who could of guessed starting/keeping civil wars going in two contiguous countries would be a disaster.
I'm no fan of fracking and cheap gas, but its possible that $20 oil could actually make a huge difference here. The funders of ISIS/Syria/al Queda/et. al. will suddenly have much less money, and will be put into a position where they must make a choice between funding militants and keeping up with the payments on that penthouse in Soho.
It also means that the United States really doesn't have any strategic reason to make war for oil anymore. For years we've been hearing about the importance of "energy independence" and not being reliant on Middle East oil. Mind you, I've always suspected that was bullshit, but, thanks to North Dakota Frack Oil, the day of energy independence is now here.
So, where's our energy independence dividend? We should be free to disengage from the Middle East now, right? That was the whole point of trying to achieve energy independence, RIGHT?
OK, so lets make it happen. Get the US out of the Middle East.... we're not wanted there anyway.
You have to develop an understanding of the conflict, and an understanding of the antagonists, that then lets you intelligently define what you think is a successful outcome - what constitutes "victory" for you and "defeat" for the other fellow. And then you look at what gets you to that state of affairs. The reflexive response: "these guys are a problem, and I want them gone!" doesn't fix anything in the long run. The dominant voices in the US military and government planned for a "victory" that was going to be achieved by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, even though it was hazily understood that the actual desired end-state was more complicated than "topple Saddam, waltz on out of there."
Do you want to kill some specific fuckers and then go home? Do you want to deliver a crushing military defeat that makes them all give up and go back to peaceful life? Do you want to end the possibility of sectarian rebellion in Iraq?
Dear Woodrow, I see you haven't changed much since 1919. Still faithful to the idea of ethno-religious nations as the tidy and natural division of the world. But just how much more ethnic cleansing would be needed to divide Iraq "tidily" into Sunni and Shia? Where would the Christians go? How does this solve the Sunni/Shia problem in the Gulf? How are you going to get Assad and his enemies to the negotiating table and -- if you do -- are you proposing to partition Syria as well?
Also, as an American, have you checked your plans with the Israeli embassy? I don't mean that they run your foreign policy, but they do have a certain influence on it, and quite strong views on "normalising relations with Iran". That may be surmountable, but it does to me suggest limits to the otherwise admirable plan of getting the hell out and letting them sort out their own mess.
But will it be as cool as the original?
Nah, the catering won't be up to the same level.
A thirty years war between Sunni and Shia would have been better than what we have now. For a start it would have been over five years ago. (Measuring from the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980).
But just how much more ethnic cleansing would be needed to divide Iraq "tidily" into Sunni and Shia?
Not much more, I hope. A lot of the ethnic cleansing project is already fait accomplis, having played out around 2003-2006, and burning itself out around the time the Surge came around to take credit. I would envision a Shiite state in Bagdhad/southern Iraq, with a Sunni minority thats going to have to accept being on the outs as far as political power. That sucks for them, but I would hope that they view this as a superior option for Sunnis than living in the ISIS-controlled areas.
Where would the Christians go?
Well, they could either stay where they are, where they have lived as minorities for centuries, or, I don't know.... Detroit?
How does this solve the Sunni/Shia problem in the Gulf?
It doesn't. But it does enable the United States to no longer have a dog in that fight.
How are you going to get Assad and his enemies to the negotiating table and -- if you do -- are you proposing to partition Syria as well?
I expect that Assad is likely to win, and there is little that can be done to avoid it. On the other hand, he can see that his Russian sponsors have an economy that is on the ropes right now, and he may come around to the view that its time to wrap things up. He may be willing to make political concessions to reach a peace agreement, short of stepping down and without a partition, which would give him room to focus on ISIS. The rebels should take whatever they can get, at this point, because the crash in oil prices means that their funding pipeline is about to dry up. And its probable that some portion of the rebels will choose to join ISIS.
Also, as an American, have you checked your plans with the Israeli embassy? I don't mean that they run your foreign policy, but they do have a certain influence on it, and quite strong views on "normalising relations with Iran". That may be surmountable, but it does to me suggest limits to the otherwise admirable plan of getting the hell out and letting them sort out their own mess.
Yeah, that's probably the biggest domestic hurdle. (Or perhaps the second biggest, after overcoming the objections of the military-industrial complex.) I certainly favor regime change in Israel, though I don't honestly know what, if anything, is going to be different after the upcoming elections. But Obama does have a couple more lame duck years in which he will have a bit more freedom to operate in that regard. Certainly, that is not going to be true of Hillary. A good start would be to land a solid nuclear deal with Iran.
Of course I ended up not being able to be online very much on the day this was posted, but thanks for all the info and perspectives.
My questions are idle and driven by the simplistic, "Can't someone just bomb the living fuck out of them so they can't keep slaughtering people by the hundreds?" I quite realize the answer is "no" and endlessly complicated and that this isn't the only place in the world where mass executions are taking place and the consequences of anything anybody does will roll on for years, and, and, and, and.
Still, can't someone just bomb the living fuck out of them so they can't keep slaughtering people by the hundreds?