ISIS / IS / ISIL / The Islamic State

Let's say the great powers, including Russia, all just backed off and left Daesh alone. What would you expect to happen?

ISIS would start to organise itself better, as it would be able to move people, materials, fuel and equipment more easily without fear of airstrikes. It would develop an infrastructure, an economy, and trade with it's neighbours would increase. Places like Saudi Arabia would begin to openly recognise ISIS as a state. I personally don't think we would be any safer.

Let's also say the west backed off and Russia didn't. What would you expect to happen then?

As above, but the Russian economy is fucked, and when they lose the war Putin is replaced by someone more isolationist.

Western agression definitely aids the recruitment of western Muslims to ISIS, but they would continue to grow without this.

Thanks all for engaging with the question seriously. I'm genuinely curious to know people's views.

For a bit of context on my part - I marched against the war in 2002-3, I'm not so sure I would march against a war now. Invading Iraq seemed a very bad idea, because destabilising the place might have led to shit like we have now. Now we have the shit we have now, I'm less sure of what I think we should do.

I respect the idea we should have UN blessing to intervene. Some think we do. I think that if we tried to get more of a blessing than we have Russian vetos might become an issue.

I don't think bombing is a panacea. I don't think think working with the local tribes always works out well. But neither did western boots on the ground. I'd like to see anyone come up with a decent plan. For the moment, is degrading their ability to hurt us such a bad thing?

Final point. Oliver - much respect generally, but your shit about oil prices just doesn't make any sense.

Not selling weapons to and rescinding the uk's relationship with the Saudi regime would be a grand start.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-could-be-prosecuted-for-war-crimes-over-missiles-sold-to-saudi-arabia-that-were-used-to-kill-a6752166.html

So as another hypothetical scenario, what would happen if everyone stopped selling weapons? If there was some serious international attempt to reduce the significance of the arms trade? Could that ever happen?
I know we're not the only country that does it, but it makes me feel sick in my stomach...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VXOciOnoxlU

I was working on the Al Yamamah 1 Project in late 80s. British Aerospace sold Tornando planes with support and facility buildings for two Saudi airbases in exchange for oil. Buildings included prayer rooms, libraries, dormitories, maintenance and repair workshops and hangers as well as bunkers for storing weapons.

This was a contract between governments, which ended when Iraq invaded Kuwait and Skud missiles were landing in the Saudi capital Riyadh, first gulf war. Our contract ended with BAe because the company I worked for previously designed and built Baghdad International Airport for Saddam Hussain's regime. Also a contract between governments.

Ironically Al Yamamah translates as peace, it was intended as a deterrent, which then becomes aggressive against neighbouring countries such as Yemen, which had an amazing history in terms of culture and architecture.

Of course I'm not proud of the fact that aged 20 I was an architect of destruction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

I also don't quite know what type of intervention I would back but am very much in favour of them being downgraded/got rid of. I just have an issue with the publicly stated goal of doing that being out of kilter with the privately stated geopolitical stuff. If it's genuinely about doing away with them then work with who is most able to fight them on the ground (this may include the Syrian state), working with natural allies like Iran, putting real pressure on allies like Turkey to stop enabling them, be alert to the fact that sunnis in the two countries most effected by this are totally unrepresented, don't treat the conflict as another 'sphere' to fuck with Russia and it's interests, and essentially don't use this horrendous tragedy as a means to carve the region into something that policy makers think suits their respective interests. These guys are fucking hideous and I will back any well thought out comprehensive diplomatic as well as military policy that genuinely focuses on getting rid of them, saving lives and increasing regional stability. If that includes British military assets so be it. I haven't seen that plan yet and won't be backing anything that favours zero sum geopolitical gains over these objectives.

zero sum geopolitical gains

What does this mean? (Genuine question)

There's a school of thought that holds that one person's advantage must mean another's detriment - which means the net change for the system is zero (ie, zero sum).

If my enemy is losing I am winning. In a geopolitical context Britain's 'enemies' are states like Russia, Iran, Syria.

what a miserable ideology :(

To be honest, i never hear anyone talk about zero sum games except to say its a miserable way looking at things. I'm not sure anyone thinks 'oh what a wonderful idea'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5z5e1GidGq4

Final point. Oliver - much respect generally, but your shit about oil prices just doesn't make any sense.

Why not?

@DR, Some interesting and perhaps salient points in that interview but O'Keefe strays right into unapologetic monolithic international Jewish conspiracy theory territory. Whilst the Israeli lobbying of media and governmental apparatus in the west may be powerful and have influence O'Keefe's view seems to be that they are "the hidden hand" behind all global geopolitical moves and I'm not believing that.

Moving on, the tiresome rhetoric from Hamfacedcorporategoonbot & Co is the usual "nail meet hammer" shite probably mostly designed to boost further the British arms industry and assuage the electorate's fear & anger by presenting a simple solution, the repeat presentation of a solution that has singularly and completely failed to achieve its aims in the past, has certainly further exacerbated and enflamed a very complex sets of situations, helping to bring us to where we are now.

I tell you what though, if it ever comes to putting "boots on the ground" I might support it if it's done the ancient Spartan way. The Kings of Sparta could declare war on who they liked but they then had to be in the front line. I'd pay good money to see Pig Fucker and co. on the front line.

But I somehow doubt there would be much stomach for the fight then....

Anyway, from earlier in the year, Chomsky on Daesh & other Middle East topics:

https://youtu.be/ZW_5WmusqY0

And a more recent interview:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/noam-chomsky-interview-isis-syria-intervention-nato/

Not selling weapons to and rescinding the uk's relationship with the Saudi regime would be a grand start.

I'm not sure if I follow.

You think ending relations with a relatively stable and powerful regime in a region that is totally fucked because it lacks powerful stable regimes will help how?

Zero sum theories have been proven wrong time and time again. Where would all the development that has occured in the Western world have come from if it all had to be 'stolen' from elsewhere? Two countries can have a mutual relationship where they both gain from each other (OPEC/ASEAN etc)

Because your assertion that western governments want war in Syria/northern Iraq to keep oil prices low makes no sense.

Let's say that productivity hasn't been lost at oilfields under Daesh control (it most likely has). The oil would be coming to market anyway through formal channels. It doesn't change the global supply-demand balance much to have war in Syria/northwest Iraq

Most of Iraq's production is in the south, around Basra, for the record.

Oil prices are low because OPEC has no quotas at the moment because they're trying to force US shale drillers to scale back production. Which they're gradually doing, but everyone I talk to (I'm an energy journalist) reckons oil's going to stay below $70/bl for a good few years yet.

Basically what's going on in Syria has very little impact on the oil price.

Well, yes. Like I said, I'm not aware of anyone who actually subscribes to the idea these days.

for starters, it's kinda hard to be morally objective in a war against a brutal enemy that beheads people when you're allied with a country that brutally beheads people.

Can we start referring to them as daesh now?

That guy is mental. Deash do attack Israel.

I still don't follow how that will actually have any impact on combating Deash.

Possibly by reducing funding / sources of funds. Possibly by reducing the influence of wahabism.

by reducing the influence of wahabism.

Yes, I'd definitely say that's an argument that makes more sense.

I think it can be taken as a given that Saudi Arabia is a pretty horrific state. I'm obviously not going to advocate otherwise, but I think people make too much of the notion that we loose some sort of moral high ground when we support despotic states / leaders.

From a pure political perspective (as opposed to an HR one) I think that supporting Islamic extremists is flawed. So it would make more sense to ally with more states with a relatively more moderate theological view.

That said I think it's naieve not to weigh that against the consequences of loosing one of the stable and friendly regimes in the region.

I think that there is a big difference between "recognise as a positive in the region" and "support by selling them fighter-bomber jets etc etc", and we're on the wrong side of that line.

The Saudi's are horrific, medieval cunts who also happen to be a capable of a stable albeit despotic government.

I wouldn't want to be Saudi and a) female b) gay c) given to speaking my mind, or any combination thereof, but as a Forrin I'd probably be fairly relaxed at having to go there for work for a few days.

That's in marked contrast to having to pop over to Raqqa for a couple of days - I'd call in sick for that one.