Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

2
4

I thought ISIS was dead in Syria

By Tim Aurora follow Tim Aurora   2019 Jan 18, 10:06am 1,254 views   24 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-services-members-killed-in-suicide-blast-near-syria-us-led-coalition-patrol-officials-say

Four Americans were among several people killed by a suicide blast that struck near a U.S.-led coalition patrol in Syria on Wednesday. Some Q-Anon are claiming that this was carried by the deep state ( not sure if ISIS calls themselves deep state) http://patrick.net/post/1321613/2019-01-18-deep-state-military-industrial-complex-takes-out-us-personnel-in-syria

Listen, I want our troops out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan but the way is not through a tweet but through a good strategy, otherwise we leave a vacuum for terrorism to fester
1   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 18, 10:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Listen, I want our troops out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan but the way is not through a tweet but through a good strategy, otherwise we leave a vacuum for terrorism to fester

Correct way would have been to never have troops in any of these countries. Furthermore, Afghanistan is much more a problem for India, Russia, and China. Pull out NOW and let them deal with it.
The only issue I see is that US made promises to Kurds, which have to be kept. Otherwise no one will go to war for US any more.
2   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2019 Jan 18, 10:16am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

But the Deep State isn't.

Remember every time Trump tries to pull out of somewhere we get bombs and bodies.

Kerry went to Iran and negotiated an open ended check to kill on Khomand.
3   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2019 Jan 18, 10:20am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Trump is going to pull out and let Obama's traitorous operatives get dispatched by Russia, it's easier this way.
Better than having them sneak back in across Mexico killing and maiming people along the way. You know how they are!
4   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 18, 10:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Listen, I want our troops out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan but the way is not through a tweet but through a good strategy, otherwise we leave a vacuum for terrorism to fester


There is no Vacuum. ISIS no longer controls one location of consequence. The Kurds, Syrians, IRGC, Hezbollah, various Anti-Regime rebels, etc.

We can go.
5   The_Weeping_Ayatollah   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 18, 10:46am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For all practical purposes it is dead. Remember the hysteria several years ago? The "OMG ISIS IS GOING TO TAKE OVER ALL COUNTRIES, CUT OFF ALL OUR HEADS AND/OR BURN EVERYBODY IN A CAGE?" What happened to that prediction?
6   MrMagic   ignore (12)   2019 Jan 18, 10:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
I thought ISIS was dead in Syria


They are Tim, please keep up!

The big picture: “ISIS has largely been eliminated as a terrain-holding organization," according to Chris Kozak, senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.

Where the U.S. is bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria

This graphic, based on data released by the Department of Defense, shows how the U.S. military's focus has shifted over more than three years of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

For 11 straight months — from December 2016 to October 2017 — areas near Raqqa, Syria, were the primary target for U.S. airstrikes. After ISIS was forced out of Raqqa, U.S. military focus on the region swiftly shifted.
The focus of airstrikes has recently shifted to one of the last remaining pockets of ISIS fighters along the Iraq and Syria border, near Abu Kamal.

https://www.axios.com/where-the-us-is-bombing-isis-in-iraq-and-syria-9187d0a9-edea-4d4a-8a36-628636e7f752.html
7   The_Weeping_Ayatollah   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 18, 11:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
Tim Aurora says
I thought ISIS was dead in Syria


They are Tim, please keep up!

The big picture: “ISIS has largely been eliminated as a terrain-holding organization," according to Chris Kozak, senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.


Bbbbbbut they managed to kill FOUR our soldiers in as many years!
8   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2019 Jan 18, 11:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says

Correct way would have been to never have troops in any of these countries. Furthermore, Afghanistan is much more a problem for India, Russia, and China. Pull out NOW and let them deal with it.
The only issue I see is that US made promises to Kurds, which have to be kept. Otherwise no one will go to war for US any more.


Too bad that so many aren't capable of understanding this.
Can you make it simpler.
9   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2019 Jan 18, 12:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says

The big picture: “ISIS has largely been eliminated as a terrain-holding organization," according to Chris Kozak, senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.


This guy is a genius. How much territory did the Wahhabi Saudis hold here to slap Americans' faces on 9/11?
Brilliant military strategy. Airplanes count as territory?
Socialist warmongers & Republicans can pay for their wars.
How much govt. money does his Institute receive?

"U.S. military spending dwarfs the budget of the #2 country – China. For every dollar China spends on its military, the U.S. spends $2.77."

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

"The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined."

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

It's amazing what one can find on the internet.
10   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 4:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

3 Tenpoundbass ignore (13) 2019 Jan 18, 10:20am ↑ like (0) ↓ dislike (0) quote flag

Trump is going to pull out and let Obama's traitorous operatives get dispatched by Russia, it's easier this way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of the full withdrawal the president promised, the United States will leave several hundred troops in Syria.

John Bolton, the U.S. national security advisor and longtime Iran hawk, has won a crucial victory with the partial reversal of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria.

In an apparent softening of Trump’s abrupt announcement last December that the United States would pull out completely from Syria—a move that blindsided U.S. allies and prompted the resignation of his defense secretary, James Mattis—the administration now concedes that a small force of roughly 400 troops will remain in the country.

That number includes a “peace keeping group” of about 200 troops in northeastern Syria, where the U.S.- and coalition-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are still fighting the remnants of the Islamic State, and another 200 stationed at the al Tanf garrison, a remote base in southeastern Syria near the border with Jordan, according to a senior administration official.

The decision, which was initially announced in a late Feb. 21 statement from White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, came just hours after a phone call between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The two leaders agreed to continue coordinating the creation of a potential safe zone on Turkey’s border with Syria, according to the White House. It’s the second time in recent months that a major decision on Syria followed a phone call between Trump and Erdogan.

During a meeting with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar at the Pentagon on Friday afternoon, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said the mission in Syria remains unchanged: the defeat of the Islamic State. The U.S. troops that remain in the country will be focused on “stabilization and enhancing the “security capability of local security forces,” he noted.

“We will do that as strategic partners,” Shanahan said.

Maintaining a presence in Syria, particularly at Tanf, which straddles a potential Iranian supply route through Iraq to Syria, has been a goal of Bolton’s for months. During a January trip to the region aimed at reassuring allies that the United States was not backing down from its strategy to counter Iranian aggression, Bolton reportedly discussed with Israeli officials the plan to leave forces at the base as a way to diminish Tehran’s influence in the region.

Tanf was originally a U.S. outpost to train local Syrian fighters. But as the Islamic State has steadily crumbled, Tanf has become a crucial buttress against Iranian influence. Officials in 2017 established an “exclusion zone” about 34 miles around the garrison, which allows U.S. troops to claim self-defense in striking Iranian or other forces moving through that area.

But a continued U.S. presence at Tanf, which is far from the fight against the Islamic State in northeastern Syria, poses major risks. An incident at the garrison in 2017 involving the transport of an Iranian port-a-potty nearly led to a confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces, illustrating just how quickly even minor events could escalate on the complex battlefield there.

Furthermore, leaving small forces in both Syria and Iraq to “watch Iran” rather than fight the Islamic State raises legal questions. U.S. troops are able to fight nonstate militants, such as the Islamic State or al Qaeda, under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a response to 9/11. But U.S. military forces are not authorized to target state actors—such as Iranian, Russian, Syrian, or proxy regime forces in Syria—unless they are attacked and are responding in self-defense.

“Congress hasn’t authorized an anti-Iran mission in Syria. The truth is the legal basis for the U.S. military presence in Syria, the 2001 AUMF, is pretty shaky and needs to be revisited,” an aide for Sen. Bernie Sanders told FP in early February. “Any move by the Trump administration to expand that authorization even more to include operations against Iran will definitely draw a response from Congress.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/22/how-john-bolton-won-the-beltway-battle-over-syria/
11   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 4:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

One previously unreported incident from 2017 illustrates the risks of Trump’s latest plan. How U.S. Mission Creep in Syria and Iraq Could Trigger War With Iran.

n incident in Syria two years ago involving the transport of an Iranian port-a-potty nearly led to a confrontation between American and Iranian forces, underscoring just how quickly even minor events could escalate there.

The episode, told here for the first time, is particularly instructive as the Trump administration signals it might leave behind a small force in both Syria and Iraq to monitor Iranian activities.

Some analysts and U.S. officials believe that the change of mission for those forces could raise the chances of a war between the United States and Iran—and that it may even be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

President Donald Trump announced in December 2018 that he’s withdrawing all U.S. troops from Syria, but administration sources told Foreign Policy last month that he’s considering keeping a small force at a remote base in southeastern Syria, far from the last remnants of the Islamic State, to counter Iran. And yesterday, Trump said he wants to maintain some troops in Iraq for the same purpose.

“I want to be able to watch Iran,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation. “We’re going to keep watching and we’re going to keep seeing,” he said.

In both countries, the strategy would constitute a core operational change, raising broad questions about the mission. Then-President Barack Obama completed a drawdown of all U.S. forces in Iraq in 2011, bringing an end to the 2003 Iraq War. But the Islamic State’s sweep of broad territories in Iraq and Syria in 2014 prompted the United States to intervene militarily in both countries, alongside a coalition of other militaries, to fight the militant group.

“What is the strategy? What would be the rules of engagement? How would we avoid being sucked into a regional war not of our making?” said Kelly Magsamen, the vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress. “If I’m a service member in Syria, I would want to know what the heck I was doing there and how my mission fit into a strategy.”

The port-a-potty incident, described here for the first time, took place at a small U.S. outpost called al-Tanf, which sits along a potential Iranian supply route through Iraq to Syria in the southeast part of the country, in May 2017—at a time of heightened tensions across the region. Just weeks earlier, the United States had launched cruise missiles at the Syrian regime’s Shayrat air base in response to a chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun. The night after the missile strike, on the evening of April 8, al-Tanf itself came under attack from Islamic State fighters. The ensuing battle left three U.S.-backed Syrian fighters dead.

The situation remained tense throughout the next few weeks. On the night of May 9, Russia conducted airstrikes just 14 miles from al-Tanf—close enough that the soldiers could hear the aircraft, according to a U.S. defense official who requested anonymity in discussing internal deliberations. Alarmed, U.S. officials quickly negotiated an agreement with Moscow for advance notice whenever Russian planes strike within a 55-kilometer (34-mile) radius around the garrison to ensure they did not endanger coalition forces.

“The agreement was about airstrikes. But it quickly became our narrative that this is our territory,” the official said about the 55-kilometer exclusion zone.

Days later, a group of pro-regime forces believed to be affiliated with Iran or Lebanese Hezbollah told U.S. commanders, through Russian intermediaries, that they intended to pass through al-Tanf to meet up with a group of Iranian-backed forces in Iraq, who were moving toward the border. The headquarters for the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve—the name of the joint task force established by the U.S.-led international coalition against the Islamic State to coordinate military efforts against the group—declined to answer the message, a silence Russia apparently took as consent, the official said.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/04/how-u-s-mission-creep-in-syria-and-iraq-could-trigger-war-with-iran/
12   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Feb 23, 7:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ha, Foreign Policy. The magazine that wanted to invade Iran when Bush and Obama were President, talking about how about a thousand troops hanging around the Syria-Iraq border is too much.

And quoting Bernie Sanders Aide in conclusion, what a laugh riot.

The same magazine that is militantly against withdrawal from Afghanistan 17 years on.
13   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 8:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Leaving 200 "peacekeepers" there gives us a ready to excuse to dive back in to protect our "assets".

That is all Bolton needs to convince Trump - sacrifice a % of those "peace keepers" and he gets his war so he can die happy.
14   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 8:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
ISIS has largely been eliminated as a terrain-holding organization


That is a far cry from ISIS/ISIL is defeated....they will be back sooner than anyone thinks, the Ideology is quite alive and they live to fight another day - many more days.

Much better to lose a battle than the war - pull back, regroup and wait.

Might have some street cred if Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi and his top aides were taken out but this is not the case.
15   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2019 Feb 23, 8:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For any military confrontation between any two countries or entities, "defeated" in the 21st century means "contained, with possible isolated confrotations"
No one ever gets the German japanese Italian version anymore.
Kakistocracy says
That is a far cry from ISIS/ISIL is defeated...
16   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2019 Feb 23, 9:03am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Who held a standard?
We are not fighting midevil wars
17   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 9:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Actually we are and we are not using the correct tactics but that is not sinking in, hasn't since Vietnam
18   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Feb 23, 9:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
Leaving 200 "peacekeepers" there gives us a ready to excuse to dive back in to protect our "assets".


And monitor Iraq-Syrian traffic.

You may remember that ISIS was born in Iraq when Obama pulled out in a hurry, then spread rapidly to Syria.
19   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 9:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MisterLearnToCode says
You may remember that ISIS was born in Iraq when Obama pulled out in a hurry, then spread rapidly to Syria.


And that has what to do with the claim that ISIS/ISIL is defeated which they are not.

Can we roll in Benghazi now ?
20   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Feb 23, 9:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MisterLearnToCode says
And monitor Iraq-Syrian traffic.


And when a given % gets offed by whoever, even if the U.S. has to pay someone to do it - Bolton gets his war, cums and dies happy.

Kind of think satellites an drones could get the job done - just sayin. No need for boots on the ground when we can asses everything that is happening in North Korea and Google can provide photos clear enough to read license plates and see facial features clearly.
21   Shaman   ignore (2)   2019 Feb 23, 11:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Islam isn’t gone yet.
Thus we have terrorists.
What’s your plan for getting rid of Islam?
I hear the Chinese are working hard at ridding their Uighur population of that terrible affliction.
22   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 5, 6:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The Erasure of the Islamic State's Caliphate Won't Ensure Its Defeat

◾The Islamic State core is losing the final sliver of its self-declared caliphate.

◾State sponsorship, sectarian violence and a power vacuum had allowed the Islamic State to flourish.

◾Unless these external factors are addressed, the Islamic State core could re-emerge as a serious threat, especially as the United States turns its attention elsewhere.

The U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) launched an operation March 1 backed by U.S. artillery and air support in an effort to defeat the remnant core fighters of the Islamic State in the last sliver of the militant group's self-declared "caliphate," the term it used to describe the territory in Syria and Iraq it conquered and governed under its austere interpretation of Sharia.

With the destruction of the so-called caliphate imminent, many have begun to wonder if the jihadist group could ever recover.

But this is the wrong question.

Instead of asking whether the Islamic State core can recover as many — including Stratfor — did when the group was on the ropes in Iraq in 2010, the proper question is whether the Islamic State core will be permitted to recover again.

The difference between these two questions is subtle, but vitally important.

History has shown the dangers of underestimating the ability of jihadist groups to rebound from devastating losses. They have done so repeatedly in places like Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Mali and, of course, Iraq. This resilience is not solely due to the jihadist groups' perseverance, willingness to suffer casualties and long-war approach to fighting insurgencies: External factors including state sponsorship, sectarian violence and a power vacuum were more important to the Islamic State in Iraq's recovery and dramatic expansion in the group's strategy and tactics. Many of these external factors still work in favor of jihadist insurgents in the Levant, meaning the Islamic State may again rise from the ashes.

The Remain and Expand Strategy

A core tenet of the Islamic State's organizational philosophy is its oft-repeated mantra, baqiya wa tatamaddad, Arabic for "remain and expand." The concept has helped the group withstand a series of significant losses, including the death of its founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike, and deaths of subsequent leaders of the Islamic State in Iraq's Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Masri. Its persistence is rooted in its firm belief that God favors, although sometimes tests, the group. It is also rooted in writings that influenced its founders, such as Abu Bakr Naji's "The Management of Savagery" and Abu Musab al-Suri's "Call to Global Jihad." This narrative serves the important pragmatic purpose of boosting the group's morale in the face of much more powerful opponents.

The Islamic State has spun past battlefield losses by couching them in apocalyptic terms, claiming its numbers needed to be reduced to demonstrate divine power and that only the purest at heart would survive to fight and win the ultimate battle, to bolster the courage of its dwindling ranks.

But in addition to these apocalyptic pronouncements, the group's leaders have also taken a series of pragmatic steps to disperse some of their fighters, arms and riches, positioning the Islamic State to resume terrorist and insurgent operations after the caliphate's collapse. This campaign has been on display in Iraq, where the group continues to conduct operations despite having lost control of vast territories.

The Islamic State is again conducting assassinations, bombings and other operations in Iraq designed to shape the battlefield to its advantage, much as it did from 2010 to 2014. Brian Fishman's book "The Master Plan: ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Jihadi Strategy for Final Victory" does a great job outlining the group's efforts during this time. But these efforts to shape the battlefield did not occur in a vacuum: A number of external factors greatly aided the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and facilitated its expansion into the larger and more expansive Islamic State.

State Sponsorship Was a Key

Support from the government of Saddam Hussein in the form of weapons, money and training was one of the biggest factors fueling the jihadist insurgency in Iraq. Hussein's military planners understood from the experience of Operation Desert Storm and the example of the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that they stood no chance if they stood toe-to-toe with the superior U.S. forces. So in the prelude to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, his military planners decided a prolonged guerrilla struggle was the better course. To this end, they cached quantities of weapons and materiel throughout the country for use during an insurgent campaign against U.S. forces. Highly trained Iraqi troops became the backbone of the insurgency, and former Iraqi intelligence officers its brains, eyes and ears. Without weapons from government caches and without the Iraqi military and intelligence personnel that flocked to the insurgency, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid wa al-Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad) group would never have grown so large and powerful so rapidly.

Syria also greatly aided al Qaeda in Iraq/the Islamic State in Iraq by facilitating the flow of fighters, money and logistics through Syria to support the jihadist insurgency fighting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Later, the Syrian government released large numbers of jihadists from prison in 2011 to bolster President Bashar al Assad's claims that the rebels were terrorists and to sow confusion and dissension in rebel ranks. Certainly, the emergence of the al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, and the Islamic State's later entrance as a combatant in the Syrian civil war, helped accomplish both goals.

Taking Advantage of Sectarian Tensions

Jihadists managed to gain so much traction among Iraq's Sunni population in part because the process of debaathification significantly disenfranchised Iraqi Sunnis. Progress to reverse Sunni marginalization during the Anbar Awakening occurred but was promptly squandered by the government of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Many Sunni leaders came to believe that with the United States gone and their Awakening gains eroded, the jihadists were the only clout they still held with the central government. But this proved a dangerous calculation, and like Frankenstein's monster, the jihadists quickly turned on their Sunni master.

With the training and firepower that the Shiite Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have amassed in Iraq in the wake of the Islamic State's seizure of Mosul, and the close connections that many of them have to Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), sectarian tensions will continue to simmer in Iraq, and Sunnis will continue to be wary of Shiite power. This, in turn, will provide Sunni jihadists some breathing room in Iraq's Sunni triangle. Meanwhile, the survival of the Assad regime in Syria due to ample help from Iranian and Hezbollah ground forces means sectarianism is also primed to continue in Syria.

Thriving in a Power Vacuum

The Syrian civil war created a power vacuum that swelled the power of jihadist militias. They used this strength to take over a large portion of Iraq and sizable chunks of Syria. The Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra (now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) and other jihadist groups stepped in to provide governance, justice, security and services in areas left without them due to the civil war. This was similar to the way that jihadists in Iraq flourished amid the implosion of the Iraqi government, and before that, flourished amid the gray areas created by the autonomous Kurdish region and the no-fly zone in northern Iraq enforced by the U.S.-led coalition. With some ambiguity in who governs in northern Iraq remaining, and given the way Syria is currently partitioned, plenty spaces exist in Iraq and Syria that are not sufficiently goverened, granting Islamic State militants space to set up operations and regroup.

The Lessons of a U.S. Withdrawal

The example of how the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 greatly aided the recovery of the Islamic State of Iraq and allowed its metamorphosis into the powerful Islamic State has fostered speculation that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Syria could produce similar results, in this case via a chain reaction of events such as a Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria that gives rise to chaos and a power vacuum in eastern Syria. A free-for-all that results in battles among the Turkish military, Kurdish forces from the SDF, plus others like the Syrian military, Iranian forces and Shiite militias could well once again push Syrian Sunnis into the arms of jihadists such as the Islamic State.

U.S. military planners appear to be taking this possibility into account and have pushed back on the concept of a complete withdrawal from Syria in favor of allowing a residual force to remain to help stabilize the situation and assist in ensuring that Islamic State is not allowed to swell again. The initiative to maintain a stabilizing force in Syria, however, is under pressure from larger global dynamics causing the U.S. military to shift its focus — and its finite resources — from counterinsurgency efforts to potential conflicts with near-peer powers like Russia and China. This same pressure extends beyond Syria and Iraq to other theaters, driving everything from U.S. peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the scaling back of U.S. engagement in West Africa.

The Islamic State core is just one branch of a global insurgency, a problem the world cannot simply kill its way out of. Combatting a global insurgency requires a global counterinsurgency effort, which means efforts to defeat jihadist groups must persist after the "clear" phase to the "hold" and "build" phases of counterinsurgency. And this must happen in every area where the jihadist insurgency is manifesting itself.

From 2010 to now, state sponsorship, sectarian violence and a power vacuum have all persisted to the Islamic State's advantage. Unless these factors are taken out of the equation, the Islamic State will have the opportunity to re-emerge as a formidable challenge to the region and the world.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/erasure-islamic-states-caliphate-wont-ensure-its-defeat
23   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 5, 6:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The Big Picture - Part 1

The Jihadist Wars

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars in the jihadist wars and has deployed thousands of conventional and special operations forces to dozens of countries to counter jihadist insurgencies. Despite the massive commitment of resources, the jihadist threat persists, and there is no end in sight.

Like communism, jihadism is a global phenomenon, and it is manifesting itself in a number of local insurgencies stretching from West Africa to the Philippines. (Moi has been telling everyone this for sometime now, has covered it on numerous threads and comments however the "base" continues to believe otherwise).

Combatting these insurgencies requires a global counterinsurgency effort, but with global dynamics drawing U.S. attention to the threats posed by near-peer competitors such as Russia and China, the focus of the U.S. military is being shifted elsewhere — meaning the Islamic State core might well be able to recover.

It’s tempting the think of jihadism as monolithic, but nothing could be further from the truth. The movement may be dominated by just two groups, al Qaeda and the Islamic State, but they have ideological differences that cannot be reconciled. Each of these groups, moreover, comprise a core organization, franchise groups and grassroots supporters, all of which present a distinct threat to their enemies. And though the coalition this threat has galvanized against it has had its fair share of victories, it has struggled to defeat jihadism as an ideology. And until it does, jihadists will be able to recruit and train new adherents to their cause. But the persistence of jihadism cuts both ways: The longer it lasts, the more the movement will crack under the weight of personal disputes, doctrinal differences and conflicting objectives.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/themes/jihadist-wars
24   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Mar 5, 6:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The Big Picture - Part 2

The Fight Against the Islamic State

The Islamic State is in decline. Under pressure from all the enemies it has made in its rise to power, the group continues to lose territory in Iraq and Syria — and thus its claim as a legitimate caliphate. But for all its losses on the battlefield, it has lost none of its potency as a terrorist group, one that will continue to attack its foes in the Middle East and beyond. The Islamic State’s degradation, meanwhile, is fueling a competition for the lands it used to control, pitting the Iranians, Turks and Kurds against one another for influence in the absence of another authority.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/topic/fight-against-islamic-state

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions