That swelled the ranks of Zarqawi's AQI after we dismantled the Iraq government and military by essentially firing/ousting Baathist's from their former jobs/careers. This gave Zarqawi the opening he needed to swell his organization, which was fundamentally different than AQ.
That said, my point is simply that we have demonstrated that the fight can be taken to insurgents and they can be destroyed. Events unfolded after AQI's demise that led to the rise of ISIS.
My disagreement is that this does not appear to be ISIS' strategy. They have claimed territory larger than that of Israel. Baghdadi is trying to establish a real Muslim state, which I believe leads to a large scale conflict/war not small drawn out skirmishes. That was essentially my point. AQ and ISIS align enough that long term I don't necessarily disagree, but the organizations act differently and their goals are not completely aligned.
Bin Laden and Zarqawi didn't agree. Baghdadi and Zawahiri didn't agree either. This is my point. The organizations are different. The leadership is different. The strategy is different. The end game is similar, though.
Right, but ISIS kills Shiite Muslim's as much as they kill everyone else. Hell, they even kill Sunni's at times.
That is a point where the two organizations differ greatly.
My understanding is that AQI was Al-Qaeda in name only. Zarqawi's intentions have always been different than AQ's and reached out to Bin Laden for name recognition and financing only. Yes, his organization started under AQ, but it morphed pretty quickly into something else.
Not touching this. It's been debate plenty before. My point simply is that we have and can once again hunt down and destroy an insurgrncy. It was done before and there is no reason was can't do it again.
Appoint General McChrystal to take care of it and it will be taken care of.
I disagree. I think you're underplaying the revolutionary changes that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa during the Arab Spring. If those events don't happen the Iraq government might have had the time and opportunity to better establish and secure governance over Iraq and Al-Assad, while a piece of shit, might have maintain relatively peaceful control over Syria. If the Arab Spring doesn't occur I don't think we'd even know who Baghdadi and I don't think we have ISIS. At least not to the degree that they exist now.
You're free to your opinion. I don't think it is wise to let a tumor grow. Eventually it has to be dealt with. Should we wait until ISIS has more Syrian chemical weapons or worst case Pakistan's nuclear weapons? I think that's a very dangerous idea.
You're essentially arguing for the exact same strategy that led to the situation we are in. We, for whatever reason, want to and did crush Saddam Hussein's conventional army. This occurred after years of allowing Saddam to maintain/solidify his power after the Iran/Iraq war, desert storm, etc... Yes, it was easy, as you said we're good at it, but many of the Iraq fighters, military personnel, etc... that remained created or joined guerrilla forces in the aftermath. Why would the same thing not happen in 50 years?
I don't believe ISIS has popular support, though. It's not impossible if you let them do their job. It's been done before it can be done again.