I respectfully (and partially) disagree.

The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form.

I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war.

Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences.

This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to only respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action.

Yours is a false dichotomy.

I dare to go OT and possibly in bad HN form, but I want to mention that I found your two comments to be an excellent example of good etiquette.

You made a strong point without being harsh, and answered a more heated rebuttal with an even stronger but nevertheless respectful comment.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but thanks sincerely for contributing a point of view in this manner.

Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France?

USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very people they drop bombs on.

How will France do all of that with a) much more limited resources b) while being uniformly disliked by almost all Muslim nations due to historical reasons and c) while being a boat ride away from tens of millions of agitated Muslims?

I believe, with this attack, France is pulled into this already extremely messy situation by the powers that be. And I am afraid things will escalate to a much worse situation.

The Islamic State are different from AQ in that they have territorial ambitions, the clue is in the name. Their PR success is buoyed by their successes. France has the expeditionary capability to assist in driving the IS out of the territory it currently occupies.

If France doesn't care about who takes control of the territory afterwards, as long as they aren't terrorist supporting Islamists then it does have the capacity to seriously damage IS. Will it lead to world peace and happiness, no. Will it lead to an awful lot of Syrians continuing to die, yes. Will it marginally improve the lives of those suffering under IS rule, I believe so. Will it degrade IS' ability to recruit and inspire terror attacks abroad in the long run, yes.

Given a lot of poor choices you need to find the best one. Doing nothing is a conscious choice that may not be the best option.

I think the west needs to think long and hard about nation-building, not just fighting wars. They also need to have frank discussions with their nominal 'allies' in the ME who are driving a lot of the instability.

I have no doubts France has the capability to "seriously damage" Daesh, but what about Daesh's successor - which is likely to be just as bad (or worse)? Unfortunately, it seems like democracy (with it's 4-/5-year election cycles) is incompatible with long term planning. It's a mirror-image of the modern-day corporate world, with CxOs who damage the organisations they lead in the pursuit of short-term gains (and the resulting bonuses), except that election stakes are higher (keep/lose the job).

IS' successor would not be a territory holding aspirant state, it would have to be more like AQ - which we have already significantly degraded.

Now there is the interesting concept of the rise of the "lone wolf" or individual cells that don't really have central co-ordination. Would Western intervention in Syria cause more of them? Would their rise be countered by reducing or removing the ability of IS to generate attacks? There's a debate to be had.

I am afraid the answer to all of those questions is NOPE. ISIS did grow and will continue to grow as long as there is foreign military existence on Middle-east soil. It is extremely easy to recruit people to do anything while their national/religious pride is being pissed on by their historical enemy.

IS grew out of the vacuum of a civil war in Syria and is predicated on creating a Caliphate. They cannot physically grow if they are not able to gain ground. Their recruitment message is likely to be significantly weakened if they lose territory and battles. Unlike AQ or even the Taliban of recent years they are not able to avoid pitched battles, they can't melt into the background - they would have to stand and fight for their territory - thus they can be defeated.

They can definitely hide in the population. Rakka still have 200,000 people living there. I have no idea which part of that population are hardcore isis member : 40-50k maximum maybe. Assuming you could take Rakka, you can't just execute or deport every one with a weird accent. Mosul is even bigger.

How many ground troop would it take to occupy all these cities ? This would be a repeat of the second Irak war, or Afghanistan, with the endless terrorist attacks, IEDs, etc.

Even if you have contributions from Kurds, Irak regular army, or Hezbollah, they would not be welcome as savior in Sunni's territory.

Like in most conflict, the military option can be used to create conditions for a political resolution, but you have to provide some sort of long term plan for Sunni population : you can't just tell them they will go back under Assad rule they despise in the first place. Currently, I don't believe there is a clear political solution. In this condition, the military option is doomed to fail.

My earlier post posited not caring, let the civil war continue, hand it over to the "nicest" Sunni group we can live with, give it to Assad - none of those outcomes involve a terror exporting aspirant state controlling territory. If we temporarily control a swathe of territory it puts in a position to make a bargain with someone.

I'm not saying it is good, but is it better than a pretty shitty situation. Do the other groups regularly crucify civilians and hurl homosexuals off buildings? If we acknowledge we can't impose a new government can we create a new normal whereby we smack groups which get out of line but otherwise stay out of the way. It's actually fairly similar to the old Roman system on the outskirts, and the same approach the British initially adopted in the early days of Empire. It's what the Americans sort of did in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq effectively dragged them into a civil war.

In some sense, France already does this type of thing in Africa. Most recently in Mali.

Not sure in which way Syria would be significantly different.

Also, Russia is being pulled even more into Syria. So a truly international force may materialise at some point. Not that I'm advocating that's a good thing.

Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly.

As person who LIVES in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt - but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society should grow.

PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they see Islam against West.

Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding me, mojahidin ? Those fucking traitors, no way.

Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR.

Give them internet , provide them satellite , facebook/twitter/youtube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion.

Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will revive. and turn to into secular place.

and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am saying double standard.

p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something HUGE wrong with west policy in middle east.

The post is interesting for many reasons. One in particular is worth discussing:

I have seen shia militant from very close

Most in the West have absolutely NO IDEA what the difference between Shiite, Sunni, etc sects are. We think they look the same, act the same, adhere to the same general doctrines. Most Westerners are barely aware of a difference, if at all, with no idea which is which. I mention this because it seems there is, indeed, a deep difference between the two causing a great deal of the regional conflict ... and when well-meaning outsiders seek to intervene (yes, got it, not our war, but that's not how we see it) we're likely to take action without regard to the Shiite/Sunni split - which of course doesn't help.

Those of us trying to decide how to respond to the Paris & other attacks are desperately trying to draw a line between the "bad" responsible for such atrocities, vs the "good" we want to protect. We need help drawing that line. Clarifying the difference between Shiite and Sunni would probably help.

And BTW: those who do not make clear which side of the conflict they're on are likely to be assigned a side, much to their dismay.

I certainly don't feel insulted, and I can only imagine your immense frustration.

I must, however, disagree with the notion that this isn't our war. When my countrymen get slaughtered in the streets, it is de facto my war. And to be clear, there are elements of Western foreign policy that I condemn as harshly as you, if not more.

Where I do agree with you is with regards to the fact that military action is a short-term stopgap and not a long-term solution. I think you're very lucid in your analysis: this is a cultural war, not of East vs West, but of obscurantism vs enlightenment. I'm well aware -- and indeed very reassured -- to know that most Persians and Arabs are on my side, and I on theirs.

>I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ?

There are no words to describe how enraged I am by the state of global politics. I wouldn't dare suggest that military action fixes the larger problem, but I'm fairly convinced that killing jihadis is necessary, albeit insufficient.

In any case, I really hope to visit Iran someday (as a civilian, obviously). It's by far the Middle Eastern country that fascinates me the most. :)

The middle east is politically undeveloped and unstable so wars would be inevitable, with or without western involvement. It is unfortunate, but "great powers" were involved in the nation building of many many different countries. They seem to fail in middle east - so far. But that doesn't mean that it would all be peaceful of the westerners stopped being involved.

The problem is, as your comment shows, the idea of a nation is far less appealing than the idea of religion in middleeastern countries. You need to first have people willing to fight for their country more than they are for their religion.

About first part of your comment that is a simple false, that is simple lie western politician's they keep telling you . I can see personally what it will turns when it implemented in real world.Personally ,in my personal life.But about involvement , You should read my comment again carefully, I did say west should involve vigorously , but with what? with changing mindset of people, providing them Internet, free flow of information.It is so funny for me , USA keeps spending unlimited amount of money for fighting Iran , the one of the most important thing they should do is to figure out a way for providing free internet and better proxies and these kind of things(Generally free flow of information), they are not working on that . You may haven't seen what internet do with people life in middle east, I have seen it , personally , with my own eye. It turn fundamental religious idiots to people's who spend life time behind the desk reading/watching in internet.

p.s. about the part about country and religious.That was my whole point. YOU simply should show them your religion is wrong, people can fuck and have sex like haven (maybe better than that) in L.A. Without killing people.

Believe me , does not matter how much you are going to try and push. I will guarantee you , there will not any nation in middle east with these people.maybe a nation will be stabilize , but it will not democracy , it will be Saddam Hussein like leader and guess what , there is another generation of terrorist who will grow in Hussein like dictatorship.

Do you want nation. like you have in Scandinavia (in long term) ? keep working on their mind with free information flow.

The idea that the west set out to bring stability to the middle east is heart-warming but the accumulated evidence seems to suggest the exact opposite. To a neutral observer, the evidence rather suggests that the west is actively trying to destabilize the region. Consistent with that narrative, one of the most stable countries (Iran) makes the US most uncomfortable. However, even if we take a more charitable view of the west's intentions, we'd have to conclude that the west's agenda is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that the middle east lingers in a pre-modern state that is bound to be eventually replaced by western-style modernity.

Thank you for an informed and passionate point of view.

I'm proud of the work I and others have done to make Internet ubiquitous to fight ignorance.

^ This rocks. I always wondered why I don't hear from liberals from Middle East on the forums on these sensitive topics. Ask your friends to come out here and comment. Talking openly like this will do a lot of good

- People here will realize you are normal too

-People here will understand your perspective

Don't bottle it up and 'splode once, cause that confirms their world view.

More and more of the West are wanting to just pull out and "let them all kill each other", but that seems a little cruel doesn't it? Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Personally I think cruelty or compassion don't have place in this kind of calculation. We are calculation about faith of maybe million's of million's people.What is best for all of us ? What is best for humanity ? fucking around in middle east and randomly bombing some dude's which may or may not thinking about attacking west or end this non sense and let middle east to fight for himself.

Of all the things that he said you chose to respond to that? I think you don't realize how serious things are for some people.

We're discussing international politics on HN. Gotta take it easy. Beside that, in the face of the morbid reality and impending doom in Middle-east one has the need to laugh some times.

> This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born.

ISIS was born out of the Salafist/Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi state has been exporting from the beginning of its existence. This is why terrorism is almost the exclusive domain of this one sect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism...

As another poster said, if every disenfranchised person in the world turned to terrorism, we'd have complete and utter chaos. But most don't.

As for you argument, Mali was in the grips of an Islamist army. They aren't any more. Thanks to French intervention.

> The government of Mali asked for foreign military help to re-take the north. [1]

Intervening and waging proxy wars in the middle-east sent the message that sovereignty is relative and only applies to countries with "appropriate" views, hence the hate against west.

Still I wouldn't call Mali a stable country as they are constantly plagued by terrorist attacks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict

Of course, ISIS is not a one variable function.

I think the point you and @chappi42 miss is that being a jobless individual with no prospects in a war torn country with no end in sight is a whole different psychology than just being a jobless guy. Add this mix some religious agitation and you have the easiest job of all times as the HR manager of ISIS. I think this is the biggest contributing factor. Not the religion itself.

There are a lot of jobless people in the world. If all of them became militants we had the full chaos. Bye bye open society, here comes the surveillance society.

If you read e.g. what happened in Palmyra, the (sometimes foreign) radical muslim terrorists attacked/killed the citizians and a liberation is very much needed.

'Only' maybe the 'state-building' has to be done longer than before in Afghanistan, Irak... And a UN administratered government is needed for some time. I don't talk about 'the west' but also about the 'moderate muslim community'.

It's no good now to stand on the side and watch the atrocities. If I read correctly also countries like the Lebanon suffer from the influx of radical maslims foreigners.