WI: ISIS primarily a force in Syria

What if, for example, the US left about 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. These forces stamp out ISIS in the early days, or at least, consistently have the upper hand.

Given the lack of US involvement in Syria OTL, ISIS in Syria would be "left alone" by the US. Would this lead to the OTL situation in Syria, but a ALT timeline in Iraq, where ISIS isn't so powerful?
 
What if, for example, the US left about 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. These forces stamp out ISIS in the early days, or at least, consistently have the upper hand.

Given the lack of US involvement in Syria OTL, ISIS in Syria would be "left alone" by the US. Would this lead to the OTL situation in Syria, but a ALT timeline in Iraq, where ISIS isn't so powerful?

ISIS won't grow as much as a force in Syria without the oppourtinities it had in Iraq. If the US mantain a significant military presence in Iraq, ISIS may either:
a) not pick a fight with them, and leave Iraq well alone for time being
b) try to revive an anti-US insurgency (as opposed to the conventional military campaign they could manage against Iraqi forces) with probably much less impressive results.

Also, if ISIS is primarily engaged in Syria, the US won't view it as a major threat. They'll remain focused on Asad as the local bad guy. Add to it the effect of a continued military presence in Iraq by itself, and you'll get a much more confrontational attitude in the Washington-Tehran relations, that would likely reflect on Russia as well, since Russia is a major supporter of Asad. Also, there will be more strategic convergence of the American and Turkish view on the regional problems. It will be more difficult for the US to stay out of Syria if they are still in Iraq en force, but they'll also have much more trouble in building up anti-ISIS relations as many in the "Shia" camp will have a much more hostile apporach to them.
 
What if, for example, the US left about 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. These forces stamp out ISIS in the early days, or at least, consistently have the upper hand.

Given the lack of US involvement in Syria OTL, ISIS in Syria would be "left alone" by the US. Would this lead to the OTL situation in Syria, but a ALT timeline in Iraq, where ISIS isn't so powerful?

ISIS really gained a lot of strength by raiding the abandoned equipment from the Iraqi army. Not having Abrams and APCs is going to weaken their capability to fight off Assad.
 
Assad is in deep shit because his main method of support and resupply from the air from Tehran to Damascus is cut off. His armed forces start crumbling a fair bit earlier.

As for the U.S. it can restart its raids in Eastern Syria against their members that it was doing in 2008 and then stopped for many years and restarted in 2015. The kind of raid below (from 2008) if we kept doing it in the years after would have kept them from rebuilding and reconstituting there when they were only a bunch of terror cells number in the hundreds.

U.S. Calls Raid a Warning to Syria

U.S. troops in helicopters flew four miles into Syrian territory over the weekend to target the leader of a network that channels foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq, killing or wounding him and shooting dead several armed men, U.S. officials said Monday.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem called the operation Sunday a "criminal and terrorist aggression" that killed seven civilians.

In the raid, four helicopters carrying U.S. troops flew into an isolated area of scattered residences and buildings in search of an Iraqi insurgent whom the U.S. Treasury designated in February as a key facilitator of the transfer of weapons, money and fighters into Iraq.

Treasury officials gave his full name as Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih and his nickname as Abu Ghadiyah, and said that the founder of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had named him the organization's commander for Syrian logistics in 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700511.html

I have trouble seeing them take over Eastern Syria in such a circumstance. We would have been able to keep them off balance and support their Sunni opponents in Eastern Syria as well via Sunni tribes in Iraq that operate on both sides of the border.

ISIS really gained a lot of strength by raiding the abandoned equipment from the Iraqi army. Not having Abrams and APCs is going to weaken their capability to fight off Assad.

No, they took over Eastern Syria and then re-invaded Iraq, by the time they re-invaded Iraq they really weren't fighting Assad at that point in time as they had already conquered the Sunni areas of Eastern Syria.

2012 was their growth year from a bunch of terror cells in mainly Eastern Syria back into an insurgency in Eastern Syria. 2013 was their transition phase into conventional conquest across Eastern Syria and gaining massive supplies from Assad's bases and stockpiles and coming in from foreign supporters and 2014 was their re-invasion of Iraq phase.

isis.gif~original
 
Last edited:
Assad is in deep shit because his main method of support and resupply from the air from Tehran to Damascus is cut off. His armed forces start crumbling a fair bit earlier.

How is that any different then now? The daesh view Assad as a pro-Shi'ia Alawite heretic and they have hardly been interested in helping him arm. And in any case, Assad's main arms supplier by this point is Russia.

No, they took over Eastern Syria and then re-invaded Iraq, by the time they re-invaded Iraq they really weren't fighting Assad at that point in time as they had already conquered the Sunni areas of Eastern Syria.
There were numerous Assad and non-daesh strongholds in Eastern and Central Syria that the Islamic State proceeded to flat out smash with equipment looted from the Iraqi arsenals they captured. For example, in late-July 2014 they wiped out a battalion worth of Assad troops in Homs and ganked all of the leftover gear for good measure. And that was the first example I found in less then first 5 minutes of searching.

An ISIS which fails to smash into Iraq like they did is going to be reduced to the level of one of those other generic terrorist groups that are fighting in Syria, like Al-Nusra. The lack of having to face such a capable fighting force with advanced heavy arms slows down Assad's collapse bothin the region and (by extension) overall.
 
Last edited:
This is flat out wrong. There were numerous Assad and non-daesh strongholds in Eastern Syria that the Islamic State proceeded to flat out smash with equipment looted from the Iraqi arsenals they captured. For example, they wiped out a battalion worth of Assad troops in Homs and ganked all of the leftover gear for good measure

An ISIS which fails to smash into Iraq like they did is going to be simply reduced one of those other generic terrorist groups that are fighting in Syria, like Al-Nusra. The lack of having to face such a capable fighting force with advanced heavy arms slows down Assad's collapse bothin the region and (by extension) overall.

The 93rd's Brigade headquarters of the 17th Division fell in July of 2014 and the air base in the north were screwed anyway. All of them were going to go that year or early the next to ISIS as ISIS was kicking ass across Eastern Syria before they got supplies and momentum from taking Mosul.

But, don't pretend they weren't kicking ass across Eastern Syria before June of 2014.

They were the strongest anti-Assad group in Syria by far before the fall of Mosul. In fact al-Nusra simply was an AQI/Islamic State of Iraq front group for them before they roped them back in and some still loyal to AQ in Pakistan refused to go.

They were so successful because they already had roots in Eastern Syria, they already knew how to wage an insurgent war from years fighting the U.S. and Iraqi Army, they were the most fanatical group, and they knew how to do maneuver warfare using suicide bombers as their vanguard of finding the weakest spots in the enemy's line and breaking a much larger military force something that most armies in the region aren't even good at.
 
Last edited:

PsihoKekec

Banned
ISIS really gained a lot of strength by raiding the abandoned equipment from the Iraqi army. Not having Abrams and APCs is going to weaken their capability to fight off Assad.
There is no indication they are using Abramses, the burned the few they captured in Anbar ambushes and there were none in Mosul.

The senior leadership of ISIL is Iraqi and they saw Syria as sort of feeding ground where their forces would grow strong for the conflict in Iraq. If American troops remained active in Iraq they would still funnel men and material into Iraq but for guerilla war instead of outright conquest. They would still attack and overcome isolated government garrisons in Syria, using the captured weapons and supplies to conquer more of the country.
 
There is no indication they are using Abramses, the burned the few they captured in Anbar ambushes and there were none in Mosul.

The senior leadership of ISIL is Iraqi and they saw Syria as sort of feeding ground where their forces would grow strong for the conflict in Iraq. If American troops remained active in Iraq they would still funnel men and material into Iraq but for guerilla war instead of outright conquest. They would still attack and overcome isolated government garrisons in Syria, using the captured weapons and supplies to conquer more of the country.

Well yes if they still took over Eastern Syria because we were hands off on SF raids and supporting the tribes and rebels in Eastern Syria against them then the border still would be very hot like it was in 2003.

It was so hot by mid 2013 you would have lightening ISIS attacks numbering into the hundreds into Western Iraq before they would flee. This caused Maliki in a panic to go to Washington to grovel for help from drones and American advisers.

esd.jpg~original


We didn't give him drone help, but we gave him three Cessna planes that could drop Hellfire missiles one of which broke down almost immediately. It didn't do much good against a conventional IS assault.

We also sent 100 troops back mid 2013 to help advise and assist Iraqi forces, but they were restricted up the wazoo and very small in number. The 900 advisers and F16s we sent to Jordan at the same time would have made a much bigger difference, though we probably needed closer to what we have there now to both train and un#($* the logistical situation the Iraqi Army was in at the time.

01008582975de0aa9bfbae17f9eaa5a4.jpg~original
 
Have the United States give Kobanî the same amount of air support as Ramadi was given a few weeks ago, resulting in Kobanî falling to ISIS in late November of 2014. ISIS's position in Syria is strengthened relative to OTL, while the US would (hopefully) understand the implications of providing too little air support and resolves to support the Kurds and Iraq with more air cover in the future. As a result, ISIS fails to capture Ramadi this May, and Iraq (with ample US air support) manages to expel ISIS from Anbar in a series of bloody engagements over the remainder of 2015, while the siege of Mosul begins in early 2016 and is resolved a few months later. By this point in 2016, it is at the height of the American election season and the Democrats are unwilling to press into Syria for fear of political ramifications.

ISIS has largely been expelled from Iraq (though they are still launching attacks), but remains stronger than ever in Eastern Syria. Raqqa and Deir Ez Zor Governorates are completely under ISIS control. Al-Hasakah Governorate remains a stalemate between the YPG and ISIS, with the situation there remaining about identical to what it was at the close of 2014. ISIS owns half of Aleppo Governorate, and is fighting the FSA in an apocalyptic battle for Aleppo proper (Assad having to withdraw under pressure from both sides). Nearly 75% of Homs Governorate is under ISIS control (though the city itself might still be held by Assad in face of ISIS attack), with all of its major energy resources under ISIS control.
 
It was so hot by mid 2013 you would have lightening ISIS attacks numbering into the hundreds into Western Iraq before they would flee. This caused Maliki in a panic to go to Washington to grovel for help from drones and American advisers.

esd.jpg~original

Since you brought him up, would Maliki stay as PM if ISIS was defeated or didn't blob up and stayed a generic terrorist group?
 
If it's defeated in Iraq would ISIS even exist in Syria, remember ISI send it's Syrian contingent in Syria where it became Jabhat Nusra, only after Al-Nusras succes did ISI move in Syria, if it's defeated in Iraq it would mean the al-Nusra has the upper hand with regards to those which will into Syria.
 
Since you brought him up, would Maliki stay as PM if ISIS was defeated or didn't blob up and stayed a generic terrorist group?

Entirely possible, but by the same token the other political parties were sick of him so he would have a very hard time cobbling together a majority and if he can't eventually his own party will dump him for someone else in his party as happened OTL, it just would have been a slower process without the IS crisis.

If it's defeated in Iraq would ISIS even exist in Syria, remember ISI send it's Syrian contingent in Syria where it became Jabhat Nusra, only after Al-Nusras succes did ISI move in Syria, if it's defeated in Iraq it would mean the al-Nusra has the upper hand with regards to those which will into Syria.

These guys existed in desert cells on either side of the border, totally defeating all of them means killing them all or them giving up all hope neither of which was not going to happen. The few hundred die hards even in the best of situations would probably have taken a generation to completely get rid of.
 
Last edited:
If the US leaves troops in Iraq, I can see ISIS trying to topple the Assad government. I see them able to capture Damascus and cause Assad to flee into exile in Europe. Once ISIS is able to conduct significant numbers of terrorist attacks across, the region there probably are regional airstrikes to shut them down.
 
Top