The True Threat of ISIS

[PhantomWolf]

Daily, if not more often, we are being told how dangerous IS is and how big a threat it is to us.

I am left wondering... How?

While IS has a small army, it has a maybe 50 thousand men at best. Surrounding it, to the south it has Saudi Arabia with 150,000 active troops, and US backing. To the north it has Turkey with over half a million active troops, and another half a million in reserve, plus NATO backing. To the west it has Lebanon over (130,000 active, nearly 400k reserve plus with up to another 65k with Hezbollah joining in as they are already fighting IS), Jordan (110k active, 65 reserve) and Israel (175k active, nearly 500k reserve). To the East they have Iran (550,000 active troops, over 2 million reserve.)

So let's say that ISIS did take over all of Iraq and Syria (highly unlikely) what could they actually do then? They still wouldn't even have the numbers or resources to invade their stable neighbours, let alone the numbers and resources required to invade any western country.

Based on that, the likelihood of IS being a direct threat to any Western Country by direct invasion would be pretty close to zero.

So that leaves the possibility of small terrorist type strikes. While devastating to families that lose loved ones this one, in the 13 years since 9/11 there is exactly zero evidence that such tactics, even one that killed nearly 3000 people, has not had any major long term effect in destabilizing or toppling the western world.

Based on this, the over all threat to the Western World to terrorism strikes is again zero (note here this is the threat level to the existence western world as an entity not that there is zero chance of being killed or hurt in a terrorist attack against the west, rather that such an attack would have no overall effect on the continued existence of the Western World.)

Given this, I have to ask the question. Exactly what threat is IS to the Western World's existence and to our freedoms?

Feel free to answer why you voted as you did below.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I voted Planet X because the options seemed incomplete. Between #3 and #4 is a vast gulf of possibilities. If they turn terrorists loose they could end up anywhere - not just Europe but US, Australia, Indonesia, Africa, you name it.

But!

Because these guys are playing a different game than AQ was ("piss off America because reasons") so they're harder to predict. In comparison with previous events they're more like the Khmer Rouge or Sendero Luminoso than other Islam extremist groups who have come before them. At the moment they're trying to capture and hold terrain, which the War on Terror hasn't really faced. They may get too busy playing State and/or holding on to their tenuous empire of fear, and not have time to sponsor formal attacks. Then the risk is returning fighters staging "lone wolf" attacks in home countries. The longer this goes on the greater the risk of eventually someone will get through.

Hardly the end of civilization as we know it, in any event.

 

[bit_pattern]

The Australian government seems to think they're a BIGGER threat than climate change (which of course they don't actually believe). Indeed, the Attorney-General has claimed that they're a bigger threat than the USSR at the height of the cold war!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-faces-security-threat-greater-than-cold-war

“It is very timely that this bill should be before the Senate for consideration at this time,” Brandis said.

“It is a lamentable fact but an unavoidable truth that Australia at the moment needs the protection of its intelligence services, perhaps as never before. Certainly there has been no time since the cold war, or perhaps even no time including the cold war, when the domestic threat posed by those who would do us harm has been so immediate, so acute, so present in the minds of our people. Tragically we saw that illustrated as recently as overnight in Melbourne.”

So much derp.

But, I guess when you are trying to use the "threat" as an excuse to pass a massive expansion of secretive security laws, including provisions that allow for the jailing of journalists that report on "special operations" (defined, without any kind of oversight, by the Attorney-General) then it is in your interest to make the perceived threat as wild and fantastical as humanly possible.

 

[angrysoba]

I would say that they are to the Middle East what the Taliban were to Afghanistan. Which is to say, an extremely bigoted bunch of head-choppers with a taste for massacres. I don't think they represent a threat much wider than parts of the Middle East. We shouldn't be complacent about the kind of havoc they could do there. But if the West engages in the region it should really be trying to forge alliances with even the Assad government and the Iranian government. I don't see any point or coherence in trying to incite insurrection against those regimes while trying to keep a lid on the type of forces that such a policy inevitably unleashes.

 

[McHrozni]

Daily, if not more often, we are being told how dangerous IS is and how big a threat it is to us.

I am left wondering... How?

While IS has a small army, it has a maybe 50 thousand men at best. Surrounding it, to the south it has Saudi Arabia with 150,000 active troops, and US backing. To the north it has Turkey with over half a million active troops, and another half a million in reserve, plus NATO backing. To the west it has Lebanon over (130,000 active, nearly 400k reserve plus with up to another 65k with Hezbollah joining in as they are already fighting IS), Jordan (110k active, 65 reserve) and Israel (175k active, nearly 500k reserve). To the East they have Iran (550,000 active troops, over 2 million reserve.)

So let's say that ISIS did take over all of Iraq and Syria (highly unlikely) what could they actually do then? They still wouldn't even have the numbers or resources to invade their stable neighbours, let alone the numbers and resources required to invade any western country.

Based on that, the likelihood of IS being a direct threat to any Western Country by direct invasion would be pretty close to zero.

So that leaves the possibility of small terrorist type strikes. While devastating to families that lose loved ones this one, in the 13 years since 9/11 there is exactly zero evidence that such tactics, even one that killed nearly 3000 people, has not had any major long term effect in destabilizing or toppling the western world.

Based on this, the over all threat to the Western World to terrorism strikes is again zero (note here this is the threat level to the existence western world as an entity not that there is zero chance of being killed or hurt in a terrorist attack against the west, rather that such an attack would have no overall effect on the continued existence of the Western World.)

Given this, I have to ask the question. Exactly what threat is IS to the Western World's existence and to our freedoms?

Feel free to answer why you voted as you did below.

As you point out, they aren't a military threat to many countries (save perhaps Iraq at the moment). Even all those forces you mentioned combined wouldn't be able to mount a military occupation threat to Europe, due to logistics alone.

They are a terrorist threat eventually though. They won't be happy by holding a swath of desert between Iraq and Syria, and they certainly can't hope to take and hold much more than that. Once the disillusioned come home, they're bound to get ideas, and lone wolf attacks are a real possibility.

McHrozni

 

[Arcade22]

It's not even close to being anything vaguely resembling an "existential threat" to any so called western country. One major problem is that, like the Taliban, it might permit or even encourage foreign/local Islamist terrorist cells and organizations to train for and launch terrorist attacks against other countries, even western countries far away from Syria and Iraq.

Such attacks, although potentially spectacular, do not have the ability to collapse any state bureaucracy. In fact they tend to be directly counterproductive, as Al-qaida and the Taliban demonstrate, and bring a heavy counter attack.

 

[LSSBB]

I voted Planet X because the options seemed incomplete. Between #3 and #4 is a vast gulf of possibilities. If they turn terrorists loose they could end up anywhere - not just Europe but US, Australia, Indonesia, Africa, you name it.

But!

Because these guys are playing a different game than AQ was ("piss off America because reasons") so they're harder to predict. In comparison with previous events they're more like the Khmer Rouge or Sendero Luminoso than other Islam extremist groups who have come before them. At the moment they're trying to capture and hold terrain, which the War on Terror hasn't really faced. They may get too busy playing State and/or holding on to their tenuous empire of fear, and not have time to sponsor formal attacks. Then the risk is returning fighters staging "lone wolf" attacks in home countries. The longer this goes on the greater the risk of eventually someone will get through.

Hardly the end of civilization as we know it, in any event.

+1

 

[PhantomWolf]

As you point out, they aren't a military threat to many countries (save perhaps Iraq at the moment). Even all those forces you mentioned combined wouldn't be able to mount a military occupation threat to Europe, due to logistics alone.

This is why I don't see them as a threat, and also because even if they did try and expand, they simply wouldn't have the local support that they have in the areas they already took over. With little local support, no easy supply lines, and only a handful of fighters, they're pretty much stuck exactly where they are now. Also, like the Taliban, they have excelled at growing in an area where there is turmoil, a lot of anti-government feeling, and civil unrest and war, were people want some form of stability. Against well established and stable governments where the populations are mostly content, they don't stand a show of making inroads.

They are a terrorist threat eventually though. They won't be happy by holding a swath of desert between Iraq and Syria, and they certainly can't hope to take and hold much more than that. Once the disillusioned come home, they're bound to get ideas, and lone wolf attacks are a real possibility.

While I agree that this is where any danger from them is, I also think that we have learned a lot of lessons from the likes of 9/11 and London, and that our security forces are operating better, talking to each other, and watching those that could do such things a lot closer. While they still might slip up, or a particular attacker be sneaky enough to get through, one off attacks, regardless of how spectacular, are never going to topple any Western Society (they might prompt a change in Governing party, but in 99% of cases, one party is pretty much the same as the others in their core policies when in Government.) Consider the likes of the US after JFK or 9/11, if anything those sorts of attacks make us stronger and more determined than anything else.

Question for those that have voted that they are a serious threat to us and our way of life. You seem rather outnumbered by the folks that believe that they are little to no threat outside of the Middle East, care to explain why you believe them to be such a huge danger?

 

[angrysoba]

Now, if this is not ridiculous scaremongering...

Isis could acquire nuclear and biological weapons to launch attacks on Britain, the Home Secretary warned today as she set out new measures to clamp down on extremist groups.

...

“We will see the risk, often prophesied but thank God not yet fulfilled, that with the capability of a state behind them, the terrorists will acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to attack us.

“We must not flinch. We must not shy away from our responsibility. We must not drift towards danger and insecurity. While we still have the chance, we must act to destroy them.”

 

[PhantomWolf]

Now, if this is not ridiculous scaremongering...

The obvious questions is.... From who? Unlike in the Ton Clancy novels, there isn't some shadowy group running about willing to sell WMDs to the highest bidder, and ISIS doesn't have the technical knowledge to even get in the gate to building these by themselves. What a total joke. It was a joke when it was suggested of Al Qaeda, and it's a bigger one now.

 

[Craig B]

In the UK the main governing party is under effective and damaging attack from the ultra-rightist xenophobes of the UK Independence Party, who have quite a lot of support within Conservative Party ranks, and among Conservative voters. We may therefore expect lots of robust rhetoric and, unfortunately, precipitate and irresponsible action from the mainstream parties as they strive to show that they are every bit as reactionary as UKIP.

 

[McHrozni]

The obvious questions is.... From who? Unlike in the Ton Clancy novels, there isn't some shadowy group running about willing to sell WMDs to the highest bidder, and ISIS doesn't have the technical knowledge to even get in the gate to building these by themselves. What a total joke. It was a joke when it was suggested of Al Qaeda, and it's a bigger one now.

The difference is that it's not all that shady. I'm quite sure North Korea is quite willing to sell them stuff for dollars. Not nukes maybe, but chemical weapons for terrorist attacks against US and UK are rather likely. I have my reservations about Putin and his goons as well, although it's just in the realm of possibility, far from certainty.

McHrozni

 

[Minoosh]

Unlike in the Ton Clancy novels, there isn't some shadowy group running about willing to sell WMDs to the highest bidder ...

I want to agree yet I wonder how people can be so sure of this.

Agreed that the U.S. does not seem like a huge priority for IS, but surely there is intelligence kept from the general public.

The movie "Captain Phillips" made it a point of showing pirates unnerved by the information the U.S. had dug up on them personally. I wonder if anything similar is going on in Iraq.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The difference is that it's not all that shady. I'm quite sure North Korea is quite willing to sell them stuff for dollars. Not nukes maybe, but chemical weapons for terrorist attacks against US and UK are rather likely. I have my reservations about Putin and his goons as well, although it's just in the realm of possibility, far from certainty.

McHrozni

Rubbish, Kim Jong-un isn't that stupid. He works up the whole threat thing to get given money and supplies to keep his country at a semi functioning level, but he knows that if he ever really stepped over the line, his country would cease to exist.

Putin isn't that stupid either. He has enough issues with Muslim extremists in his own backyard that he knows anything he was to sell would ultimately come back to bite him in the rear end.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I want to agree yet I wonder how people can be so sure of this.

Well the obvious answer is that if there was then Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and others all would have had them. Also groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas would have them. That they don't shows pretty clearly that they aren't easy to access.

 

[McHrozni]

Rubbish, Kim Jong-un isn't that stupid. He works up the whole threat thing to get given money and supplies to keep his country at a semi functioning level, but he knows that if he ever really stepped over the line, his country would cease to exist.

Assad has been stepping over the lines for three years straight, and there were few consequences for that. Putin has been stepping over the lines since March, and the consequences weren't all that dire.

Sure, we could end North Korea. But would we? Would we, knowing they would cause mass casualties in Seoul? Maybe. That could be good enough for Kim Jong-un.

Putin isn't that stupid either. He has enough issues with Muslim extremists in his own backyard that he knows anything he was to sell would ultimately come back to bite him in the rear end.

Putin is murkier, but potentially far more dangerous. On the other hand, a substantial terrorist disaster at home would cement his throne as protector of everything Russian for a decade or so - similar to what Bush was accused of after 9/11. A few hundred would die, a few thousand would be grievously injured, and the sanctions against Russia are now irrelevant due to increased patriotic zeal and xenophobia. He could easily consider it a win-win situation if it did "bite Russia right back". In fact, I'm almost certain he would.

He probably wouldn't sell (or donate) them suitcase nukes, but Sarine gas is untraceable enough, especially in Syria and Iraq. How do you know it came from Russia anyway - maybe they uncovered a hitherto unknown stash from Saddam's days? Maybe they captured a Syrian army depot that was thought to be destroyed?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Well the obvious answer is that if there was then Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and others all would have had them.

Syria and Iraq both had chemical weapons. Iran may have nuclear weapons. You're left only with Libya, who surrendered their weapons prior to the civil war, likely due to Iraq war.

Also groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas would have them. That they don't shows pretty clearly that they aren't easy to access.

Maybe. That's the best argument in your favor.

Then again, would usage of such weapons be in line with their operating principles? In other words, what is their goal? We can strike off Hamas and Hezbollah, since their goals aren't to kill as many Jews as possible, but rather to kill just enough to provoke just enough response to excuse their continued existence.

You're left with Al-Queda, a group that killed over 3000 (mostly) Americans utilizing box cutters and fake bombs and hasn't been left off the hook since.

All in all, you can't say much, can you. Food for thought - Ebola should be surprisingly easy to obtain now. You don't actually need a shadowy group, you need a martyr.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Then again, would usage of such weapons be in line with their operating principles? In other words, what is their goal? We can strike off Hamas and Hezbollah, since their goals aren't to kill as many Jews as possible, but rather to kill just enough to provoke just enough response to excuse their continued existence.

They certainly aren't perpetrating "Lone Wolf" attacks on random Jewish citizens of the EU or USA. ISIS, on the other hand, is said to be encouraging Muslims in the West to murder random non-Muslims. That is an insane as well as a criminal idea. It would galvanise the whole of society against them, including Muslim communities; and although such murders would be atrocious crimes and personal tragedies, they would in no way impair the security or reduce the strength of the countries attacked in this way.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Syria and Iraq both had chemical weapons. Iran may have nuclear weapons. You're left only with Libya, who surrendered their weapons prior to the civil war, likely due to Iraq war.

All of which they had to create via their own programs, they didn't buy them from a shadowy black market

Maybe. That's the best argument in your favor.

Then again, would usage of such weapons be in line with their operating principles? In other words, what is their goal? We can strike off Hamas and Hezbollah, since their goals aren't to kill as many Jews as possible, but rather to kill just enough to provoke just enough response to excuse their continued existence.

Hamas and Hezbollah's objective as written in their charters is to wipe Israel from the map. If they had access to chemical or biological weapons, they'd use them.

You're left with Al-Queda, a group that killed over 3000 (mostly) Americans utilizing box cutters and fake bombs and hasn't been left off the hook since.

And was a one off that occurred because of engineering issues with the buildings that no one considered, along with poor evacuation techniques that meant the south tower wasn't evacuated early enough. 9/11 will never happen again, no matter how hard terrorists try. Even Bin Laden was surprised when the towers collapsed.

All in all, you can't say much, can you. Food for thought - Ebola should be surprisingly easy to obtain now. You don't actually need a shadowy group, you need a martyr.

McHrozni

Ebola is useless as a terror weapon. It kills the carrier too fast, and the only way to pass it on is via bodily fluids.

 

[McHrozni]

They certainly aren't perpetrating "Lone Wolf" attacks on random Jewish citizens of the EU or USA. ISIS, on the other hand, is said to be encouraging Muslims in the West to murder random non-Muslims. That is an insane as well as a criminal idea. It would galvanise the whole of society against them, including Muslim communities; and although such murders would be atrocious crimes and personal tragedies, they would in no way impair the security or reduce the strength of the countries attacked in this way.

Wait, mass murder wouldn't impair security?

It would reduce the military strength in any substantial way, but I do think preventing mass murder falls under "security".

McHrozni