Successful ISIS campaigns ?

Dude_guy

This is quite recent As we all know, ISIS have risen in 2014, reached it’s zenith in 2015/2016 and then it’s decline in 2017/2018.

But what if ISIS was more successful ?
Like if ISIS have successfully taken Baghdad and Kobane, and was driving the regime to defeat, ISIS came very close to that.

How would this effect the Middle East and world politics ?

Things that might help this timeline are the U.S. doesn’t intervene for whatever reason, Russia never intervene to help the regime because of western sanctions to the previous Crimea crisis.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Iraq would have defeated ISIS evetually. Iran would have stepped in. Possibly Iraq would have also asked for airpower support from larger and powerful Musim countries like S Arabia or maybe Pakistan. Iraq would have gotten Air suppport from the Saudis and at least initially the later. Pakistan would have also attempted to build up the Iraqi AF, perhaps transferring a sqdrn of JF17 armed with PGM and Shahpar/Burraq armed drone. Along with "training personnel".

Syria is properly fucked.
 

Arkenfolm

ISIS could never have taken Baghdad. There are far too many Shia there, and they have Muqtada al-Sadr who is a formidable leader against them. Iran will go into overdrive in their efforts against ISIS if Baghdad is in serious danger.

The ISIS atrocities would probably have sparked Western intervention before long. The best ISIS could hope is if they discouraged the spread of their ideology into Europe (and the US) and made sure local Islamist terrorists weren't claiming to be ISIS fighters. I doubt that's possible though, especially given the lofty ambitions of the ISIS caliphate (remember that Victoria 2 map where some ISIS member displayed their vision of what their "caliphate" would conquer?).
 

Mightyboosh5

attacking baghdad at its very best would have resulted in a stalingrad like clash against militias/soldiers with their backs against the wall resulting in eventual defeat of isis' troops.
 

lionhead

This should be in the future history forum i think.

ISIS was never in it for the territory, just the room to cause death and destruction in the name of a death cult. They just wanted to feel the power, their atrocities and way of working clearly showed they didn't expect to last long as a caliphate.
 
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Gone Fishin'
Dude_guy said:
This is quite recent As we all know, ISIS have risen in 2014, reached it’s zenith in 2015/2016 and then it’s decline in 2017/2018.

But what if ISIS was more successful ?
Like if ISIS have successfully taken Baghdad and Kobane, and was driving the regime to defeat, ISIS came very close to that.

How would this effect the Middle East and world politics ?

Things that might help this timeline are the U.S. doesn’t intervene for whatever reason, Russia never intervene to help the regime because of western sanctions to the previous Crimea crisis.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi Army was retreating from almost entire Northern Iraq. I have no clue why as they were numerically superior and had the best quality compared with ISIS. I can see ISIS enter Baghdad and Baghdad turning into a war thorn City on Aleppo levels in which the Defense is lead by the Shia militias, whoever is active in town, in this case Moqtada al Sadr. But... that is about it in Iraq. Most likely Diyala would fall as well or will need Iranian support. Iran will be the first to fight in Iraq. But that might piss off the Sunni Arabs even more.

Kobane was likely to fall. Too likely. But it didn't thanks to the US aid and Turkey giving in on International Pressure. As far as I can think off, Turkey could have shut down any movement on Kobane. The US will have to send aid from Air and the Peshmerga cannot come to aid. All it takes is holding out a bit longer by Turkey, standing behind the stance that the YPG is an extension of the PKK and thus can not be helped by Turkey. Keeping the border closed will help. At some point ISIS held 66% of Kobane so it isn't that hard. This will delay or prevent an YPG advance on Tel Abyad and ISIS has more men to send to Hasekeh.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha said:
The Iraqi Army was retreating from almost entire Northern Iraq. I have no clue why as they were numerically superior and had the best quality compared with ISIS. I can see ISIS enter Baghdad and Baghdad turning into a war thorn City on Aleppo levels in which the Defense is lead by the Shia militias, whoever is active in town, in this case Moqtada al Sadr. But... that is about it in Iraq. Most likely Diyala would fall as well or will need Iranian support. Iran will be the first to fight in Iraq. But that might piss off the Sunni Arabs even more.

Kobane was likely to fall. Too likely. But it didn't thanks to the US aid and Turkey giving in on International Pressure. As far as I can think off, Turkey could have shut down any movement on Kobane. The US will have to send aid from Air and the Peshmerga cannot come to aid. All it takes is holding out a bit longer by Turkey, standing behind the stance that the YPG is an extension of the PKK and thus can not be helped by Turkey. Keeping the border closed will help. At some point ISIS held 66% of Kobane so it isn't that hard. This will delay or prevent an YPG advance on Tel Abyad and ISIS has more men to send to Hasekeh.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi army disintegrated before IS because in war the moral is to the physical as three is to one, to quote some short Corsican guy. This mean IS had lots of loot, which made them even more enthusiastic and helped them get more recruits and be more effective in combat and so on.

As an aside, the PKK types who defended Kobane did the same on the road to Erbil/Hewler, which looked like it was going to follow Mosul and fall.

Regarding Kobane, the US were perfectly capable of providing supply solely by air to Kobane, and in fact did so (it wasnt a lot, but it crossed the line of providing lethal aid to the PKK-linked YPG). US air support was also a key for the defence, as it provided a hard counter to the tanks and artillery that IS had and the defenders of Kobane did not.

At the end of the day, however, Kobane doesnt matter that much - someone would have advanced on Tel Abayed and DEZ once IS had stopped it's cycle of battlefield victories -> loot -> high morale, better armament and more recruitment -> battlefield victories.

The key is the politics that will happen from Iran committing regular military forces to save Ali's Tomb, and therefore putting into high relief that it's Shi'a versus Sunni.
 
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Gone Fishin'
Ian_W said:
The Iraqi army disintegrated before IS because in war the moral is to the physical as three is to one, to quote some short Corsican guy. This mean IS had lots of loot, which made them even more enthusiastic and helped them get more recruits and be more effective in combat and so on.

As an aside, the PKK types who defended Kobane did the same on the road to Erbil/Hewler, which looked like it was going to follow Mosul and fall.

Regarding Kobane, the US were perfectly capable of providing supply solely by air to Kobane, and in fact did so (it wasnt a lot, but it crossed the line of providing lethal aid to the PKK-linked YPG). US air support was also a key for the defence, as it provided a hard counter to the tanks and artillery that IS had and the defenders of Kobane did not.

At the end of the day, however, Kobane doesnt matter that much - someone would have advanced on Tel Abayed and DEZ once IS had stopped it's cycle of battlefield victories -> loot -> high morale, better armament and more recruitment -> battlefield victories.

The key is the politics that will happen from Iran committing regular military forces to save Ali's Tomb, and therefore putting into high relief that it's Shi'a versus Sunni.
Click to expand...

Meh... I guess I can agree with the most of it. It is interesting that Barzani prepared to send 2000 of his own Peshmerga to Kobane but was not accepted by the PYD due to the fear of popularity of Barzani and his Ideological allies among Syrian Kurds.

All of that, there is no chance ISIS could attack Karbala. It is Shia and much bigger than an encircled Amirli. Iran would already sent the first divisions of the Revolutionary Guards if ISIS even moved there. No chance.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha said:
Meh... I guess I can agree with the most of it. It is interesting that Barzani prepared to send 2000 of his own Peshmerga to Kobane but was not accepted by the PYD due to the fear of popularity of Barzani and his Ideological allies among Syrian Kurds.

All of that, there is no chance ISIS could attack Karbala. It is Shia and much bigger than an encircled Amirli. Iran would already sent the first divisions of the Revolutionary Guards if ISIS even moved there. No chance.
Click to expand...

Note that they were the KPD Peshmerga that did such a bad job at Mosul and Shingal, and did not have the anti-armor and anti-artillery that the defenders of Kobane needed. At the end, some PUK Peshmerga went to Kobane, and weren't particularly useful (*).

Bluntly, the TSK had done a great job of killing all the crap PKK over the years, so that everyone who was left was useful against IS :)

al-Sistiani didnt agree with you about Karbala by the way. I can certainly see it as being attacked if the Western powers are more cautious about supporting the PKK and Erbil, Shingal and Kobane all fall.


(*) For those of you not up on the politics ... Iraqi Kurdistan is divided into three factions, Barziani's KPD, the opposition PUK and the Gorran movement, which is supported by the PKK. The PKK are mostly from the Kurdish part of Turkey, and have been fighting the Turkish armed forces, the TSK, for about the last 30 years and are mostly based in the Qandil Mountains at the border of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Peshmerga is the Kurdish word for 'fighters', and the Peshmerga are the militia of Iraqi Kurdistan, which is a semi-independent part of Iraq.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
Dude_guy said:
This is quite recent As we all know, ISIS have risen in 2014, reached it’s zenith in 2015/2016 and then it’s decline in 2017/2018.

But what if ISIS was more successful ?
Like if ISIS have successfully taken Baghdad and Kobane, and was driving the regime to defeat, ISIS came very close to that.

How would this effect the Middle East and world politics ?

Things that might help this timeline are the U.S. doesn’t intervene for whatever reason, Russia never intervene to help the regime because of western sanctions to the previous Crimea crisis.
Click to expand...
Other posters properly mentioned the IS never had a great chance to capture Iraq. Nonetheless, If IS would be very successful, it will imminently pit the IS against Iran - the current regional leader. Reshuffling of regional alliances is likely then, with even more strain of US/Saudi alliance in particular.
 

Francisco Cojuanco

lionhead said:
This should be in the future history forum i think.

ISIS was never in it for the territory, just the room to cause death and destruction in the name of a death cult. They just wanted to feel the power, their atrocities and way of working clearly showed they didn't expect to last long as a caliphate.
Click to expand...
Well, they literally wanted to bring about an apocalyptic battle in Syria, to bring about the end of the world, involving, at several points, Jesus, Greece, Turkey and the Pope.
 

thatsbunkers

Banned
I think ISIS' best strategy would be to not make big news or declare any caliphates so the US doesn't get involved and focus on overthrowing Assad, after Syria has completely fallen apart they could easily mop up the disunited rebel groups.
 
Histor32

Histor32

Mosshadow said:
I've never heard that one before... Why Pluto?
Click to expand...
drugs mainly I assume .. lots of premium poppy flows from, said region...

to another post .. I would say the primary reason Iraqi soldiers folded was because they just didn't have the fight in them. there nation has been torn apart during the 80's, not well rebuilt after, the US and allies kept hitting them, then outright flattened them. yeah, that moral is brimming with confidence when yo go from paper tiger to meh faster than the titanic sinking.

ISIS wanted the fight, the rest of the region has been destabilized, the USA isn't doing anyone any favors, nor is Iran, Syria is well . uh. having internal issues, turkey wants to get involved.. the PKK is making issues. who is fighting whom? no one knows.

whole region is off its kilter
 

lionhead

thatsbunkers said:
I think ISIS' best strategy would be to not make big news or declare any caliphates so the US doesn't get involved and focus on overthrowing Assad, after Syria has completely fallen apart they could easily mop up the disunited rebel groups.
Click to expand...

and the Kurds? They were actually very successful against Daesh.
 

lionhead

thatsbunkers said:
If ISIS kept a low international profile until later on I doubt the kurds would get much international aid or US airstrikes.
Click to expand...

But the rise of the Kurds(SDF, Rojava) was thanks to the Syrian Civil war, and the Syrian civil war caused the rise of Daesh only later(like 2 years?). So the Kurds were fighting and gaining territory before ISIS was formally formed. You can talk about disunited rebel groups but the Kurds are far from disunited. I'd say if Daesh would focus on dfeating Assad the Kurds would get more and more territory.
 

thatsbunkers

Banned
lionhead said:
But the rise of the Kurds(SDF, Rojava) was thanks to the Syrian Civil war, and the Syrian civil war caused the rise of Daesh only later(like 2 years?). So the Kurds were fighting and gaining territory before ISIS was formally formed. You can talk about disunited rebel groups but the Kurds are far from disunited. I'd say if Daesh would focus on dfeating Assad the Kurds would get more and more territory.
Click to expand...
The kurds would never be able to take the Arab majority areas they have now without US airstrikes and support
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top