Very good retort. You showed exactly how my posts are illogical.
I guess I’m the only one who views ISIS as quite a bit different than other terrorist groups. That’s fine, I’m often far ahead of the curve.
Feel free to enlighten us with why such a distinction actually matters from a strictly practical perspective. ISIS will have largely disintegrated in a few years. Wouldn’t be shocked if they lost Mosul within the next 12 months.
^You can make a really big impact in a really short period of time.
Yes, but the major distinction between the Taliban / Al Qaeda partnership and considering ISIS a sovereign state is just one of nomenclature. Both effectively controlled territory, ran the politics of their region and collected taxes. More importantly, the TalibanAQ partnership, while weaker militarily, had more allies throughou the region and was not simultaneously at war with multiple counterparties so they were free to turn their focus elsewhere.
scarred in a good way?
The author of this article disagrees and given his background, I’m inclined to put a bit more weight on his opinion than yours.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimates the U.S.-led fight against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria will last up to four years. Recent history suggests that an estimate of 4 years means it will actually take at least 10.
I’m sure you can find a bunch of articles that cite qualified sources indicating that ISIS will be wiped out much sooner, but that just shows that no one really knows.
WRT comparisons to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, ISIS is clearly more similar to the Taliban. As you likely recall, the Taliban started as a militia and ended up ruling Afghanistan for 5 years. They were only ousted by a full-fledged US invasion (something that will not happen against ISIS under current US policy). Had they not supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban would still be in control of Afghanistan. There really is no comparison between ISIS and Al-Qaeda. ISIS openly controls territory and seeks a defined state. Al-Qaeda controls the official leaders in many areas, but none of those leaders openly proclaim their membership in Al-Qaeda. In that regard, they’re kind of like the KKK in the south in the mid-1900’s.
So basically you’re picking and choosing, you’ll take a journalist over me on “qualifications” which I’m pretty sure you don’t know me, but a second later you’ll dismiss the statements of the Joint Chief of Staff who I’m pretty sure is more qualified than everybody. Sounds logical. Keep on keepin on, right?
To your point about 4 years turning into 10 years, the US led occupation lasted a decade, but the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan was short lived, so there are some caveats to the timetable creep that happened in the past.
That being said, you STILL have not made a single attempt at pointing out why that distinction of self proclaimed sovereignty actually matters. I also pointed out that the Taliban while it held Afghanistan was also in partnership rather than open conflict with its neighbors.