After an hysterical overstatement of the Yazidi refugee crisis at Mount Sinjar, the Pentagon has been very public about looking for a new humanitarian pretext on which to base a major escalation of the Iraq War.
They may have found a new one with the Shi’ite Turkmen minority, along the region adjacent to Iraqi Kurdistan. ISIS has been focusing on taking those Turkmen villages, leading many of them to flee.
The narrative is pretty similar, with the Turkmen fleeing into the mountains to try to escape the fighting, and once again “trapped,” fueling calls for a “rescue operation.”
The Yazidi “rescue” provides a template for how that is likely to go, with the Pentagon using it as an excuse to dramatically pick up the pace of airstrikes not even tangentially related to the situation, while offering some token air drops to keep the increasingly aggressive war couched, at least nominally, as a “humanitarian intervention.”
Meanwhile, the US excoriates the Russians for trying to do the exact same thing in the Eastern oblasts in Ukraine. Makes sense to me…
They are the new Gazans, except in Gaza there is no escape,because we don't care about those kids.
I like this site because it has very good coverage of the war going on in Iraq.
But I have a few disagreements with the style of reporting.
1. I agree with the basic ideological premise of the contributors such as Jason Ditz that this conflict, the fight against ISIS, is a result of US war in Iraq.
2. That being said, phrases such as "Pentagon has been very public about looking for a new humanitarian pretext on which to base a major escalation of the Iraq War." Seem to be disingenuous. We don't need a pretext to increase our support and involvement in Iraq, ISIS does pose an existential threat to the whole world. Saddam did not. The very continued existence of ISIS gives us reason to get further involved.
3. I see this current conflict in light of a phrase "You broke it you buy it". We messed up big time big going in 2003, now our duty is to support by any means necessary those factions which are fighting against ISIS.
Jason, keep posting as these stories need to get out, but I highly recommend changing some of the phrases you use, like it or not we are linked to this war in Iraq. One would wonder why it seems you don't care about people facing mass executions. So what if some claims are over exaggerated?
God forgive me for saying this but,
We will only have peace with ISIS when we kill them all, and reform the political structures in those countries so people will not feel inclined to support groups like these.
"ISIS does pose an existential threat to the whole world. Saddam did not."
That's a strange claim.
I don't see that Saddam posed an existential threat to the world, but as of 1990 he DID have the world's sixth largest army, including armored components capable of regional conquest, and he DID have chemical weapons that, etc.
ISIS doesn't seem to be, or to be likely to become, anything like the level of threat represented by Saddam. So if he was not an existential threat, how are they?
ISIS are an opportunistic, parasitical movement. They pop up in places that the US has weakened, not in places where local political infrastructure isn't already under strain. If Saddam was a mosquito, ISIS is a gnat.
Yes, as you point out Saddam did have all that capability, and granted ISIS is a tiny "gnat" compared to him.
But it seems that dictators of his ilk, are more concerned with perpetuating their position of power in their own country RATHER than declaring holy war on every country in the world and every person that does not agree with their world view. They might talk big about fighting the "western" world, any other enemies and might sponsor attacks/groups but in the grand scheme these are acts that would seem as political posturing.
ISIS while probably having a fraction of the military strength, has the will and intention to put us all to the sword if they got the chance.
If you think I am blowing hot air go watch VICE NEWS on Youtube, the series they did about the Islamic Caliphate, where the foreign press officer, Abu Mossar (i think i have his name right) clearly states that they want to raise the black flag of Jihad in the white house.
While I agree with you that they are "are an opportunistic, parasitical movement", and they do seem to be on the defensive.
In general their type of ideology will always pose an existential threat to the world, because of what they preach and that their are people willing to put words into action. Also lone wolf types or cells which would carry out terrorist attacks in the countries in which they reside.
Remember that revolutions are launched by small militant groups committed to their cause that tap into a segment in wider society that are willing to fight and die for their cause.
The American Revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Chinese revolution, vietnam etc etc
We can only hope that our allies in the region and other ISIS opposed forces will consign them to the dustbin of history, where they deserve to reside, face down with a bullet in their heads.