As Trump Ponders 50,000 Troops In Syria, Here’s A Little Perspective On ISIS
Let's just be clear about one thing: the idea that retaking Raqqa from Islamic State is some kind of monumental task that the US army and its regional allies in Riyadh and Doha couldn't accomplish in short order if it were absolutely necessary is just silly.
The same thing goes for the Russians and Iranians on the other side of this equation.
Clearly this is an oversimplification (on all kinds of levels), but if for some reason it became imperative to rout ISIS in Raqqa tomorrow, lest the ent
Thanks, George.
Trump/Dumsh*t is walking right into the stupid/ignorant trap where generals thinks war is the answer until it’s isn’t. Don’t these guys get it, we will ALWAYS BE THE ENEMY in the Middle East no matter what we do because of BUSH, they will NEVER trust US, never. Wake the FU*k up. Boots on the ground. You have got to be KIDDING. How about putting a gigantic neon sign with the word STUPID in the middle of the Syrian desert.
seems we all agree on what we do not want to do….any ideas on what would be a good idea for what we could or should do??
FUBAR
Seriously, guys…you don’t ask for an additional $84B for your already disproportionately large military and put three SEASONED war veterans in your cabinet if you don’t intend to use your military…just sayin’
ISIS isn’t Wahhabi…They’re Takfir or Kharijites (little difference between the two)
there’s very little that distinguishes ISIS for Wahhabism. Period.
That’s not true. Wahhabism even has different teachings. Qatari Wahhabism differs greatly from Saudi Wahhabism. Much of original Wahhabism have been changed over the last 100 years to strengthen the al Saud family’s religious legitimacy. The state is placed as equal in importance as God and Muhammed in Saudi Wahabbism.
ISIS derives much of their ideology from al Zarqawi, a takfiri, who was definitely not a fan of Saudi Wahhabism.
Both are bad, but there are differences
Right. But in the context of this post (i.e. something designed for mass consumption and thus written to help people with limited understanding of the sectarian divide comprehend who’s fighting who and why it’s hypocritical for the West to support Riyadh while simultaneously decrying ISIS and al-Qaeda), that’s largely immaterial.
100% agree with that. Macro view is largely the same.
I understand its splitting hairs and, as you said, its written to help people with limited understanding of the divide comprehend the conflict. But this line -“At the end of the day, it was probably wrong to call ISIS a “JV team” — as Barack Obama infamously did — but hey, they are what they are. And that’s a ragtag group of Wahhabi desert bandits. That’s it.”- could be read as ISIS being an offshoot of Saudi Arabia or supporters of Saudi Arabia since that’s what comes to mind when Wahhabism is mentioned. Tagging them with the Wahhabi designation adds a potential misunderstanding to the people with the limited knowledge on this that you mentioned.
Not trying to be confrontational, just think that it’s still important to distinguish between the differences is Sunni sects. Bin Laden was considered a Sunni and was very accepting of Shi’a. He strongly opposed violence against them. That isn’t to take away from the broader Sunni/Shi’a conflict that has caused huge problems in the region, but the divides in Sunnism are still important to note IMO
thanks for the comments. great discussion topic for sure
Definitely…appreciate that you write on it regularly. Always enjoy the information you bring to the table
Definitely…I appreciate that you write about it regularly. Really enjoy the information you bring to the table
I would like to thank Anonymous and Heisenberg the insight into Wahhabism is very appreciated. Also Anonymous you should consider a handle your comments merit greater recognition