The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's a shitty situation but I don't think paying ransoms is a way forward. Although it is hard to justify saying no while inadvertently funding terrorism on a much larger scale through relationships with the Saudis.

Edited September 8, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[TrentVilla]

America believes ransom payments create a vicious cycle by rewarding bad behaviour. According to David Cohen, a Treasury official who deals with terrorist finances, "Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments. And it all builds the capacity of terrorist organisations to conduct attacks." Many governments pay lip service to this view. Indeed, in 2013 the countries of the G8 announced in a joint statement that they "unequivocally reject the payment of ransom to terrorists". But when faced with the agonising choice between paying kidnappers or watching citizens die, many countries cough up the cash—often through intermediaries, allowing them to deny the payments. American officials say France, Germany, Italy and Spain all pay ransoms, which have netted al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups as much as $165m since 2008. Al-Qaeda has turned kidnapping into an industry of sorts—one operative has even written a how-to guide. Ransom payments, which have substantially increased over the past decade, now provide most of the group's finances, say counterterrorism officials. As the New York Times puts it, "Europe has become an inadvertent underwriter of Al Qaeda."

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-18#sthash.qtVYa5tY.dpuf

[TrentVilla]

Just what Iraq needs, more weapons from the UK lets hope that these don't fall into the wrong hands or end up arming those who are our friends only later to become the enemy.

[Awol]

Just what Iraq needs, more weapons from the UK lets hope that these don't fall into the wrong hands or end up arming those who are our friends only later to become the enemy.

Better to have that problem down the road when today's friends have killed today's enemies - for which they need guns, and lot's of 'em.

[TrentVilla]

 

Just what Iraq needs, more weapons from the UK lets hope that these don't fall into the wrong hands or end up arming those who are our friends only later to become the enemy.

Better to have that problem down the road when today's friends have killed today's enemies - for which they need guns, and lot's of 'em.

 

 

Agreed but in the bigger picture of things, more weapons into the region isn't going to solve anything but I agree IS need dealing with by any means possible.

 

But one of the reasons that IS is so well armed is that they have a lot of the weapons we/the US gave the Iraqi army.

[chrisp65]

 

Just what Iraq needs, more weapons from the UK lets hope that these don't fall into the wrong hands or end up arming those who are our friends only later to become the enemy.

Better to have that problem down the road when today's friends have killed today's enemies - for which they need guns, and lot's of 'em.

 

 

Rock solid proven U.S. policy for the last 70 years, I see no need to change.

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

So the way I understand it is that Sadam was toppled by the west and a Shia Goverment was put in place? The Shia Goverment and minority Shia people then begin to persecute the majority Sunni. An almost role reversal of when Sadam was in charge. This along with the Syria conflict led to the creation of an extremist Sunni Muslim organisation which is IS?

So the west created a 'monster' and now are trying to destroy it? So what will be created next?

Is any of the above accurate albeit very simplistic?

[chrisp65]

it's ok, but you didn't quite go back far enough

 

I think Peter O'Toole started the problem

 

[AVFCforever1991]

[Ads]

No, Iraq has a Shia majority.

 

IS essentially started life out as AQI 10 years ago and has had a powerbase, of varying sorts, in al-Anbar province, conveniently located across the border from The Kingom.

 

The West didn't create the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, but it did provide conditions for it by removing Saddam who kept a lid on the sectarian tensions, albeit via brutal suppression. It’s a murky business. The Sunni insurgency spent a long time trying to kill Americans in Iraq, with Sunni's then brought onside in order the facilitate the US leaving Iraq*.

 

The lack of post-war plan, the tolerance and facilitation of Shia focused sectarian governmental institutions, the administrative destruction of the Iraqi Army are all long term causes of the current IS problem. That and of course the size of the Jihad in Syria that has allowed IS to grow and form a base in al Raqqa, with those other regional actors in KSA dipping their beak to get at Iran and vice-versa all factored into it.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ads

[Awol]

....with those other regional actors in KSA dipping their beak to get at Iran and vice-versa all factored into it.

Not just them mate, the Qataris and Kuwaitis are in up to their necks in terms of directly funding IS(IS), with some very handy covert support provided by the Turks - before IS took their campaign to Northern Iraq.

Unless they take a decisive battlefield kicking in the near future the phenomenon will spread for sure, they are already getting their feet under the table in Yemen and some Afghan anti-government groups are reportedly considering pledging their allegiance too. Western - Iranian relations are going to improve very quickly now...

Edited September 9, 2014 by Awol

[Vive_La_Villa]

Ok I think I got confused. But the Sunni Muslim population of the world far far exceeds the Shia population right? Which I where I guess Iran comes in?

[AVFCforever1991]

Ok I think I got confused. But the Sunni Muslim population of the world far far exceeds the Shia population right? Which I where I guess Iran comes in?

 

Yeah I think Shia makes up a about 10-13%?

[Guest]

Not sure if this is off topic. 

 

Can't believe 9/11 was 13 years ago. How did time go so quickly?   

[chrisp65]

Think how much simpler life would be now if Saddam hadn't organised that terrorist attack.

[Guest]

Think how much simpler life would be now if Saddam hadn't organised that terrorist attack.

 

haha! Yes, the cause of our invasion of Iraq.

[snowychap]

The lack of post-war plan...

A familiar tale.

Is there one this time around?

[chrisp65]

 

The lack of post-war plan...

A familiar tale.

Is there one this time around?

 

 

oh, we don't need one apparently, you just give bigger guns to the lesser enemy

 

it's a plan that's worked a treat so far

[Ads]

Arming the Peshmerga is definitely in order, sending in a few MEU's to tackle IS head on and cripple their ability to manoeuvre is also necessary. But it gets tricky as they're dug in around al Raqqa.

I am not in favour of a long counter insurgency operation and agree somewhat that the long term solution has to come from within. The Iraqi government made the same mistake Bremer did when he disbanded the Iraqi Army, when they stopped paying the Sunni Awakening Groups. Tooled up and out of work; the devil makes work for idle hands and makes easy recruiting for IS.

Bringing Iran back in has to help, but the US hasn't got the solution to the never ending tit for tat between Sunni and Shia. The facts are though, that if we do nothing, IS will move into Southern Syria and shorten their supply line for working into Jordan. Not takin them head on mind, but whipping up enough beards and disaffected youths to create a big problem. Knocking off one of the kingdoms is their ultimate aim in my opinion. Dangerous times lie ahead.

[LockStockVilla]

I've always been very wary of Iran, but linking up with them in order to restore a bit more stability seems one of the better options. However, then you get into a mess because Iran backs Hezbollah, who the US is firmly opposed to and also Assad, and it's been fairly clear the US does not want to openly take sides in the Syrian conflict. I don't envy those who have to make these decisions one bit.