Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
ISIS vs. Russia?
Yesterday, CNN reported that US intelligence believes ISIS brought down Kogalymavia Flight 9268 — the Russian airline out of Egypt — with a bomb. This morning, the WSJ reports that the United Kingdom has come to the same conclusion and has grounded all flights out of Sharm El Sheikh, where the flight originated (there are thousands of Brits there currently on holiday). Several people on Ricochet have previously speculated that the plane was taken out by a bomb near its tail and the Islamic State has already claimed credit for this deed.
My question is this: what does it all mean? Is this the beginning of a broader campaign by ISIS against Russia? Will Chechnya once again explode in violence and terrorism? Will Russia become more involved against battling ISIS, at least to save face?
On a cynical note, I wonder if this is all a good sign. ISIS is striking Russia, which means they must fear them. Does that mean they’re going to ignore us? Can ISIS wage an effective terror campaign against the Russians and should we actually passively encourage it just to spite them? Or perhaps we can try to make common cause with the Russians against ISIS, using this terrorism as a pretext for joint action. After all, we must ensure the safety of intercontinental airline travel, an attack on one passenger plane is an attack on all passenger planes, etc., etc. I’m sure the irony of this would not be lost on the Russians.
So, is this the beginning of a concerted effort by Russia to eliminate ISIS, or just further proof that the world is spinning into chaos while Obama fiddles away on his global warming fiddle?
Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism
Useful analysis, only I believe that the ‘socialist’ Kurds are those affiliated with Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds are not, I believe, and don’t even get along great with former. So, that leaves open the question about the Syrian Kurds.
Did we have an old plan? Basically to me it seems we have abandoned all pretext at settling this fight. Now the question is do we let the Russians settle it?
Which is what I am struggling with. Is chaos in Syria going to hurt the Russians enough that it is worth the collateral damage for us to let it stay that way?
Of course there is the third posibility which is that ISIS is way tougher than anyone realizes and Russia and Assad can’t dislodge them. Then we get stuck with Assad, Russia, and ISIS. Is that then the worst scenario?
Isn’t the worst scenario a victorious and ascendant Islamic state?
Agree. Russia and Assad and Shia axis will most likely be strong enough to maintain control of the coast. Kurds, with our help, can probably hold the line. Iraq, with Iran and our help, likewise. Question is, does ISIS mutate over time under this containment, and if so into what? Will it try and move into Jordan if stymied elsewhere? Will it work hard to morph into anti-Saudi element to try and bring down the House of Saud, furthering its Caliphate dreams that way? And do FSA / AQS groups remain a fighting force for long? Does Assad manage to exterminate that threat altogether, or can these groups hang around as a guerrilla force, maybe even striking a deal with Assad for control of a small portion of Syria?
Does Turkey escalate war with Syrian and Turkish Kurds? Does it try and sustain ISIS to keep pressure on Assad and Kurds, using it as leverage to exert influence on all groups including Shia Iraq? Etc.?
Who are the Saudi’s supporting these days – the FSA/AQS groups?
Where is Ms. Berlinski to clarify these questions and handicap the scenarios?
Isn’t the worst scenario a nuclear Iran?
Well that is bad too. I was focused just on the Syria situation.
I don’t know if ISIS will be strong enough to beat Assad if he is backed by Russia. Thus you could get a coastal Assad nation including Damascus and Aleppo, with ISIS ruling the desert Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria.
It is a good question if contained ISIS will morph into a more conventional nation. They do seem inclined to doing basic social upkeep in their regions of control. But, it is hard to imagine that they could maintain themselves given their ideology if they run out of people to kill and fight. Without victory I’m not sure they can maintain their Islamist legitimacy. So if we do contain them they may just strike out towards other Sunni regions. If they attack Jordan do we not then have to go in? If they can take and hold any parts of other nations then containment will have proven useless.
I’d like to go on the record as disagreeing with this. Constantinople was an amazing city. Istanbul is, likewise, an amazing one. For all one might otherwise say of the Ottomans, they built something very real and very alive on the Bosphorus. It’s (technically) the biggest city in Europe and it very much feels like it when you’re there.
Also, as we are speaking, restoration is going on in Hagia Sophia and Chora Church; there are Christian mosaics in those places that have only been uncovered recently, after having been plastered over. That stuff could have been destroyed but wasn’t.
This thread is quite interesting – thank you to all who have added knowledge and insight!
For my part, I think the US would be OK by continuing to arm the Kurds. Their politics may not be translatable into our terms, but we know they are tough and capable and keenly interested in building a stable nation in the heart of a very interesting region.
Ideally, the US would parlay material support for a very big and capable air base (move Incirlik over the border), giving us substantial land-based strike capability throughout the Gulf. Kurdistan is hundreds of miles closer to Tehran…. But this won’t happen under Obama.
Couple nice kernels of goodness here. Let me embellish a bit. First, if Michael Totten is any guide, there are more than one class of Kurds, and the Iraqi Kurds are very much our kind of folks:
(Totten: ” The Kurds are by far the most pro-American people over there, more so even than the Israelis”)
This seems to be a well written, comprehensive expose on all things Kurdish:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/no-friends-mountains-fate-kurds
I have always thought placing a military base, especially with missile defense, at the border between (Iraqi) Kurdistan and Iran would greatly augment our ability to defend Europe and US from Iranian missile threat – as well as sober Iranians up.
But we need bases that could support that one. My suggestion is to step in for British on Cyprus: “British MinistryofDefence drew up controversial plans to withdraw the UK 3,000 strong garrison from Cyprus”. Very strategic location.