Originally Posted by VDKMS

The insurgents were defeated after the surge.

If Obama didn't withdraw all US military this would not have happend. The job was not finished (Maliki also is to blame). The same will happen again when they leave Afghanistan.

I am afraid you are missing the contradiction in your argument, if they were defeated then it could never have happened with or without the presence of US troops.

And yes it will happen in Afghanistan primarily because no solution to the Taliban has been found.

My personal belief is that these nations for whatever reason do not have a national identity or at least their nationalism is overshadowed by either tribal or sectarian preferences and as such the only answer is either a split along tribal/cultural/sectarian lines or a return to dictatorships.

.
This happened after Tito died the strongman in Yugoslavia. Numerous small wars and the forming of various smaller ethnic states that were only held together by Tito’s strong arm regime.

As for the US and Iraq. After desert storm the Coalition - US army stopped at Bagdad, this was the last chance the US had to actually do something with a force large enough to take control. They also enjoyed a high degree of popular support at this time. Many Iraqi's were happy to see the Americans and be rid of the tyrant.
For political reason the American presence was greatly reduced. They were forced to behave as more of a fire brigade and were limited to approved operations “which were often politically motivated" which is why they returned after making raids on insurgent strongholds. “Much like Vietnam.” One they weren't allowed to stay and two they were spread too thin to “stay” over the entire country of Iraq. As the country destabilized further the situation grew worse and the control over which the even greater reduced US forces could exercise was minimized. However one on one they always outfought the insurgents without fail.
Whether this ISIS takes control or becomes another warring entity amongst many in Iraq remains to be seen. The people of Iraq immediate future appear cloudy. The problem is Iraq has a lot of people who want nothing to do with any of this nonsense and may suffer more now than they did even under Saddams terror regime.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am afraid you are missing the contradiction in your argument, if they were defeated then it could never have happened with or without the presence of US troops.

And yes it will happen in Afghanistan primarily because no solution to the Taliban has been found.

My personal belief is that these nations for whatever reason do not have a national identity or at least their nationalism is overshadowed by either tribal or sectarian preferences and as such the only answer is either a split along tribal/cultural/sectarian lines or a return to dictatorships.

I agree without some cement to glue the nation together it takes little for it to become unglued. Often diverse and antagonist groups were - are thrown together. This can be seen in some African nations as well.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Precisely,... the insurgents were never "beaten", the coalition forces only ever "controlled" the land they were standing on, at any given time, the moment they moved elsewhere the land immediately reverted to the control by the insurgents. They would mount a mission on some little village, go in and kill a handful of insurgents then hightail it for home before dark. Within 10 minutes of their leaving the area it was back in control of the insurgents. You see, it's vastly different to the computer games you get your experience from.

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

It would have been no different had the coalition forces stayed there forever, That's why the coalition forces were run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs.

They didn't leave with their tails between their legs. Obama was unable (unwilling?) to pressure Maliki to accept coalition forces in Iraq on their terms.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

That does not mean that it was in trouble though, my guess is that once they realised that the coalition was pulling out they decided it wasn't worth risking lives when they would have easier pickings in a few months.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

The insurgents listen to the News too, they knew that they had the coalition forces beaten and that they were leaving, then they could do pretty much as they wanted, that is what we are seeing now.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

They didn't leave with their tails between their legs. Obama was unable (unwilling?) to pressure Maliki to accept coalition forces in Iraq on their terms.

Dream on, Pinocchio. The coalition knew they were never going to succeed even before Maliki was installed.

The insurgents may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. The coalition forces were totally out of their element when combating a guerrilla force, just as they were in Vietnam, Central America and a dozen other small wars they have been involved in. Their strength is in technology as we saw in Kuwait where they had a resounding success.

Originally Posted by JOC

Its a bit ironic though isn't it that people who will be willing to be used as human bombers - martyrs would wait for easier pickings. Although their leadership likely did just that seeing as they would not be the actual bombers - martyrs.

I think the assumption that these people are just a collection of human bombers waiting to go off is a dangerous underestimation of them.

I think the groups we are seeing here are much smarter than that.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think the assumption that these people are just a collection of human bombers waiting to go off is a dangerous underestimation of them.

I think the groups we are seeing here are much smarter than that.

That's basically what I meant by the irony of the situation. The leaders are dangerous in how they use the rank and file who will carry out the bombing and martyrdom.

This ISIS is bad news willing to kill anyone who doesn't share their belief. Many thousands of people: Assyrian Christians, Shiites have been indiscriminately killed by the Sunni ISIS who have just captured oil rich Mosul. With the collapse of the Iraqi army (mainly due too poor leadership) and the lack of any real central government Iraq has fallen into a state of hopeless sectarian warfare. Their is little evidence of any political solution in the cards. I think that ISIS could act as a destabilizing agent on the larger region via terrorism, etc. even on some of it's own benefactors.

As for the coalition - US which left for political reasons, the war became unpopular, Obama had made campaign promises to bring the troops home. Even when down to 50000 they still provided a strong stabilizing influence and keep the insurgents at bay. However with only 50000 troops and having to operate under all their political limitations it was impossible to completely control Iraq. They remained undefeated. Unfortunately the elected government replaced many capable Iraqi military commanders and governments officials with inexperienced new personal which helped lead to a breakdown of the military and the central government.

Originally Posted by JOC

That's basically what I meant by the irony of the situation. The leaders are dangerous in how they use the rank and file who will carry out the bombing and martyrdom.

This ISIS is bad news willing to kill anyone who doesn't share their belief. Many thousands of people: Assyrian Christians, Shiites have been indiscriminately killed by the Sunni ISIS who have just captured oil rich Mosul. With the collapse of the Iraqi army (mainly due too poor leadership) and the lack of any real central government Iraq has fallen into a state of hopeless sectarian warfare. Their is little evidence of any political solution in the cards. I think that ISIS could act as a destabilizing agent on the larger region via terrorism, etc. even on some of it's own benefactors.

As for the coalition - US which left for political reasons, the war became unpopular, Obama had made campaign promises to bring the troops home. Even when down to 50000 they still provided a strong stabilizing influence and keep the insurgents at bay. However with only 50000 troops and having to operate under all their political limitations it was impossible to completely control Iraq. They remained undefeated. Unfortunately the elected government replaced many capable Iraqi military commanders and governments officials with inexperienced new personal which helped lead to a breakdown of the military and the central government.

I agree that you will never reach a political solution with groups like ISIS the only solution is kill enough of them to render them ineffective as a fighting force, I still think though you are focusing too much on the suicide element and neglecting the fact that they have achieved almost all of their gains so far fighting in a relatively conventional way.

I notice Turkey has given up on the Iraqi government and suggested that it would support the idea of three states emerging from Iraq but I am not sure even that would help as the Sunni area would still be an unstable mess.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I agree that you will never reach a political solution with groups like ISIS the only solution is kill enough of them to render them ineffective as a fighting force, I still think though you are focusing too much on the suicide element and neglecting the fact that they have achieved almost all of their gains so far fighting in a relatively conventional way.

I notice Turkey has given up on the Iraqi government and suggested that it would support the idea of three states emerging from Iraq but I am not sure even that would help as the Sunni area would still be an unstable mess.

True they have made most of gains in Iraq as a convention fighting force. However as per their long term goals they would perhaps start using martyr's as destabilizing agents in nearby stronger - stable neighbors. After all they desire an new empire. This somewhat ragtag army made a lot of gains in environments like Syria and Iraq using conventional style forces, but many of the countries in the neighborhood are more prepared for conventional war. So further advances by the ISIS would likely start from within. This is where the role of the terrorist comes in.

According to their stated goals the ISIS would likely not be satisfied with that goal, that is the ISIS controlling just the Sunni area of Iraq.