i dispute both of your opinions here.
They aren't a threat? how are they not a threat? they easily have at least 1/3 of iraq under their control and have billions in the bank, military hardware and they're battle hardened versus a fledgling army who's already largely collapsed in most of the north and west of iraq. they're allied with the remnants of the baath party and sunni militias bolster their numbers further. they're disrupting oil production on a large scale in the north as well.
maybe the south of iraq (basra etc) and iraqi kurdistan is doing alright but the rest isn't.
Again, I never said they weren't a threat or aren't as bad morally, that aren't as big a threat as Saddam was, relatively speaking. They don't actually control 1/3 of Iraq or have it under their control, the map doesn't show the more sporadic and fragmented nature of their territory, nor the fact that their small numbers are insufficient to actually control the area with millions of people in it (in full force, they'd have about 1 person per 1000 people in these areas, at best). Billions of dollars is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and they rely predominately on extortion and theft to fund their operations, which are mostly just guys with guns.
They don't have tanks, aircraft, or anything like that, so it's primarily just firearms and home made explosives.
The Kurdish individuals have taken over the oil fields and are trying to make their own country, but ISIS isn't really responsible for or even connected to that.
As for allying with the old party, or trying to, the remnants of the shattered Baath party numbers in the thousands at best, meaning they aren't that formidable of a force.
ISIS has about 3000 members, according to the largest realistic estimates; the highest estimate is around 6000. They've been cut off from the primary group, making them a smaller sub sect of an already failing organization, a consequence of sectarian internal conflict. The casualties they've inflicted measure in a few thousand, as terrible as it is for anyone to die, and that's cost them a large chunk of their troops in suicidal attacks. They maybe are responsible for 2% of the casualties in Iraq, with criminal homicide, that is just random people committing crimes, being higher than them.
It's not nice, but they're not quite as powerful as they're being portrayed as.
They have 2 billion dollars. Most of which can't be used to purchase regular goods, meaning it will only be good on the black market, which has limited goods available. Not only have their primary forces cut them off (such as Al Qeada), but they now conflict with other groups who are fighting the same enemies, such as the Islamic Front and the Free Syrian Army, whilst simultaneously fighting the Syrian government and Iraq government. Iran is getting involved in directly fighting them, as well, and Hezbollah already fights them; they're being attacked from virtually all sides. Even the Russians are showing some support for the new Iraq government. They mostly use ex soviet weapons and possess a handful of captured U.S. weapons, most of which they don't even know how to use, as they've demonstrated in their videos and general combat.
Their biggest victory in terms of finances came from robbing a single bank, and now they act in desperation in a final move to try to take over territory. They've released large amounts of propaganda, executed civilians, and are increasingly hostile, but even so, it's mostly just posturing. As terrible as it is for anyone to die, they practically have a 1 to 1 kill ratio against unarmed civilians, meaning against a real army they're not going to do too well. The Iraq Army is really not in shambles. They possess some of the better equipment of 2nd world countries, including both U.S. M1 abram tanks and Russian upgraded T-72's, and while a 10-20% absentee rate might seem bad (as in, they can only gather about 80-90% of their forces at any given time), Mexico has about 1/16th to 1/8th of it's forces deserting a year, and America saw that high of an Absentee rate when we entered the Iraq war. They have one of the largest military's in the world, with advisory support (which provides generals, up to date satellite and CIA intelligence, and so on) by the U.S. and multiple country's, in addition to our direct support still in their country. Combined with this is the fact that they've successfully launched operations without our assistance at all, meaning they're still a fairly well standing army. Desertion rates are low, and they have support practically from the whole world, a force numbering hundreds of thousands vs. a unit of a few thousand, said broken off unit possessing enemies from almost all sides. They only get by, by sheer ruthlessness and suicidal attacks, with reluctance to attack largely in fear of a civilian response if the Iraq military were to mobilize on them (and we've already seen some kurdish movements), which may be waning soon given the support they're receiving. Basically meaning ISIS doesn't even compare.
Edited by Manoka, 24 June 2014 - 05:09 PM.
