Republicans Undermine Obama on Iran

[Kane]

Kurdistan is like the Kashmir of the ME.

[Jean Dubois]

[Kane]

I think that largely depends on which state actors will step up to the plate to take them down. That they've been allowed to do as much as they have in the region speaks to the inability of the surrounding states to cohesively address the group. Iraq and Syria are as much about ISIS' power as the power of the states in the region.

Every single NATO member isn't meeting goals/projections.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31688929

The UK is actually downsizing.

[exploited]

I think ISIS is here to stay, and that they'll play an important role in the region for years, even decades, to come.

The reason I think this is because fighting them successfully requires two things:

1. Long-term Western intervention, at the bare minimum we need to sustain airstrikes indefinitely.

2. An effective, nonsectarian military force that can be the boots on the ground.

The second point being the hard part. We can sustain our side of things forever, but there is ZERO chance we'll occupy, which makes us reliant upon ME forces, whether they are Syrian, Jordan, Iranian, etc.

The problem is that there is no way for any country to establish control over Iraq/Syria on their own, without help from either militias (hotbeds of sectarian hatred), or by using a force that will throw the region into chaos. For instance, Iran could get this done, but there is zero chance Saudi Arabia will allow a real occupation. The Kurds can fight, but Western leaders are unwilling to abandon the Iraqi National Government, and so we won't be able to support their independence, and consequently, they won't be willing to fight outside their territory.

Even assuming a force magically appears that can handle these problems, guess what? Then they just revert to insurgency mode, and they are damned good at it.

So... Yeah. I'm thinking twenty years from now we'll still be dealing with this.