What if Obama decide to invade ISIS occupied territories in 2014?

Let's say that then-President Barack Obama, after seeing the mass slaughter of Yazidis and Iraqi Army members at the hands of ISIS, had a change of heart and somehow managed to convince Congress that putting active troops in the ground in Iraq was a good idea. How would the military situation in the Middle East unfold and how quickly would ISIS be defeated? What would be some strategic consequences to the invasion?
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
The first key question is whether the Turks are willing to cooperate, or if - as OTL - they want to wait until ISIS has destroyed the PKK-aligned YPG enclaves in northern Syria.

The second key question is how willing the US is to cooperate with the Iran-allied Shi'a militias that are supplementing the Iraqi army. In OTL, there was a fair amount of the Iranians looking the other way as the Americans provided air support, and a fair amount of the Americans looking the other way as Shi'a militia members talked with other members of the IRGC.

The third key question is how willing is the US to cooperate with the Assad regime in Syria.
 
The first key question is whether the Turks are willing to cooperate, or if - as OTL - they want to wait until ISIS has destroyed the PKK-aligned YPG enclaves in northern Syria..

The big price that the Turks would want is Kurds

The second key question is how willing the US is to cooperate with the Iran-allied Shi'a militias that are supplementing the Iraqi army. In OTL, there was a fair amount of the Iranians looking the other way as the Americans provided air support, and a fair amount of the Americans looking the other way as Shi'a militia members talked with other members of the IRGC.
.


If allied the Shi'a militia and its brutality would cost Obama politically much.

The third key question is how willing is the US to cooperate with the Assad regime in Syria.

Assad would offer nothing to the US.

At that time, I saw a report by the Australian government that looked into the matter and came to the blunt conclusion that the major conflict was a useless conflict from the West view and should not be seen as a war between goodies and baddies but between baddies and they wanted no part of it. Later I read a summary report of a report by the Israel government that came to a similar conclusion.

Then the Syrian refugees started and suddenly ....
 

Ian_W

Banned
At that time, I saw a report by the Australian government that looked into the matter and came to the blunt conclusion that the major conflict was a useless conflict from the West view and should not be seen as a war between goodies and baddies but between baddies and they wanted no part of it.

This might be true.

If it is true, then I'd like to know which air force - which given what you say certainly wouldn't have been the RAAF - was flying Hercules aircraft on biscuit bombing runs onto the PKK/YPG/HPS on the top of Mt Sinjar.

Apparently 60% of the "humanitarian aid" landed either went *bang* or was loaded into things that went *bang*.

And all those small sized carbines ? Definitely not specifically bought in the Balkans so the HPS had weapons suitable for girls who really didn't want to be sex slaves who might have needed to fight their way off said mountain.

Word is they were all even given back afterwards, as Qandil had made it clear this was a one-shot operation by a group who definitely wasn't recruiting child soldiers any more, in the same way Western countries weren't arming child soldiers.

Now, going to the specifics.

Various PKK-aligned groups were the ones actually shooting at ISIS with some success in 2014. If you back the Turks, then you are going to need to get them to not be holding the passes against ISIS in Qandil, on the road to Erbil, in Sinjar and so on. Also note a decent chunk of Kurds are pro-ISIS. As are a fair chunk of Turks.

No one cares about the brutality of the Shi'a militias in the war against ISIS. Really. No one cares.

The hardcore Sunnis in Riyadh and so on will refuse to believe any stories of the Party of Ali not behaving with brutality.

Likewise, the mass of people in Iraq will refuse to believe any stories about their militias conducting atrocities.

Thus, it doesn't matter. No one can tell truth from propaganda.

Also, this is post-Speicher. Just saying. And if you dont know what happened at Camp Speicher, then you really shouldnt talk about ISIS.

Next, Assad. Similar to PKK, he has armed forces who will shoot at ISIS. Some of them better than others, to be fair, but the US will need to figure out if they are shooting at ISIS' forces, or if they are shooting at Assad's forces.
 
This might be true.

If it is true, then I'd like to know which air force

At best it would be ground forces but Australia alone was certainly not going into Syria.


Now, going to the specifics.

Various PKK-aligned groups were the ones actually shooting at ISIS with some success in 2014. If you back the Turks, then you are going to need to get them to not be holding the passes against ISIS in Qandil, on the road to Erbil, in Sinjar and so on. Also note a decent chunk of Kurds are pro-ISIS. As are a fair chunk of Turks.

The big point for Turkey is the PKKK is seen as a terrorist organization directed at them.


No one cares about the brutality of the Shi'a militias in the war against ISIS. Really. No one cares.

The hardcore Sunnis in Riyadh and so on will refuse to believe any stories of the Party of Ali not behaving with brutality.

Likewise, the mass of people in Iraq will refuse to believe any stories about their militias conducting atrocities.

Thus, it doesn't matter. No one can tell truth from propaganda.

Also, this is post-Speicher. Just saying. And if you dont know what happened at Camp Speicher, then you really shouldnt talk about ISIS.

The Sunnis know the truth, part of the reason many supported ISIS was just for this reason. More importantly for Obama, the Republicans know it and will make sure that the world press knows it.


Next, Assad. Similar to PKK, he has armed forces who will shoot at ISIS. Some of them better than others, to be fair, but the US will need to figure out if they are shooting at ISIS' forces, or if they are shooting at Assad's forces.

That part is not that hard but after a few gas attacks by Assad no American president could support him.[/QUOTE]
 
In 2014 the rebels were not yet defeated. I don't see Obama backing Assad against ISIS. Hell, the fight between Assad and ISIS is almost non existent in most of 2014.

Getting Turkey is one thing but for that Obama has to close his eyes for the YPG. If the YPG is defeated in Qamshili and Kobane then Turkey has nothing left to stop joining.

Ofcourse Obama can use just US forces but collusion with the Syrian Army or Shia Militias will happen.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Obama falls into ISIS's trap since their end goal was a US invasion to help usher in the end times.

Well, there is *this*.

The US military is also going to smash the alleged Caliphate established by the King of Mosul, which is going to make main-line Al Qaeda say 'Told you going too early was a bad idea' (as in OTL).

But for an American intervention to happen, it needs to pick between

1. Being based out of the ports of southern Iraq, effectively backing the Shi'a in their war against IS.

2. Being based out of KRG, effectively backing KRG in their war against IS.

3. Being based out of Qandil (or even a new set of air bases near Haseke), effectively backing PKK in their war against IS.

4. Being based out of Damascus, effectively backing the Syrian State in their war against IS, or

5. Being based out of Turkey, which means you have convinced Turkey to join the war against IS.
 
Top