Regional forces outnumber ISIS 100 to 1, so...

[icehorse]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

 

[nazz]

Why fight your own battles when you can get someone else to do it for you?

 

[Godobeyer]

Why fight your own battles when you can get someone else to do it for you?

that's right

in 1991 Gulf battle , The Kings of Oil lent the Westerns armies to fight for them against Sadam .

Bashar Assad did not request Western armies to fight ISIS for him . He asked to stop supporting indirectly the ISIS by supporting rebels by weapons. who listened to him before 3 years ago ?

 

[Augustus]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

Almost certainly significantly larger than 20,000.

But the reasons:

Because the Shia government of Iraq doesn't want to be invaded by Sunni forces.
Because Iran doesn't want Iraq to be invaded by Sunni forces.
Because regional armies tend to be corrupt, complacent 'jobs for the boys' type organisations more concerned with profiting from corrupt activities rather than being disciplined fighting forces (as you saw in Iraq).
Because most of the countries in the region are highly suspicious of each other and highly incapable of coordinated actions.
Because they would suffer heavy losses.
Because there are significant minorities that support ISIS in the region.
Because regional governments don't rule through a popular mandate so aren't going to take risks that might blow up in their face.
etc.

 

[suncowiam]

Have you played risk?

The weakest never attacks but fortifies. You let the strongest attack so to save against casualties and keep yourself strong for future operations.

 

[Faybull]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

The Middle East has military superiority? Numbers mean nothing in guerrilla warfare. Besides, ISIS provides a substantial buffer. If they are effective in recruitment, it will only get worse before it gets better.

 

[morphesium]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

The income of ISIS is around a billion us dollar a year (possibly more; i am not sure of the true statistics). They have advanced arms and telecommunication systems- much better than the local government.They have vast supporters among the "peaceful" Muslim population. It is they who hide them and support those ISIS people. They bribe local government (especially deeply religious Muslim officials and other corrupt officials) so that they can take actions rendering any actions done by the local government futile. more than the numbers, it is their tactics and local support that makes and keep them going on.

Almost all countries have policemen/armies counting to millions - but they are quite ineffective in suppressing internal terrorism even though these extreme terrorist number just a fraction in 10's or 1000's. and they have a huge back up from their population. For each terrorist gone, there are much more awaiting their turn.

 

[morphesium]

Why fight your own battles when you can get someone else to do it for you?

Actually,it is the politicians who determine who should fight - should their own army do the job or should they get some external help. In either case, the politicians themselves won’t go for the war. So this doesn't make any difference from their perspective - it is always someone else doing the job.

If ones army is incapable of fighting, the only option remaining is to get some external help. Armies with good training skills and equipped with modern facilities could perform the job a 1000 times better, with least possible causalities than that is possible with their local armies.

Now, this kind of terrorism is a global threat – if it is them who are facing the trouble now, it will be us later. It is only a matter of time.

 

[ShivaFan]

One dirty bomb can ruin your whole day.
One freak holding a gun to your children's heads can stop an army.
There is more places to hide and then hit then you imagine.
There are always those moral equivalency sympathy brokers out there, too, that really sort of give them shelter.
Because in this type of war, it's going to be long, long, long and ugly and long, and everyone wants things fast today. But this won't be fast. They will be defeated in the end. But this isn't the war folks think of when saying the word. It is elephants against rats.

 

[shawn001]

ISIS by the numbers: How big, strong and rich the militant organization may be

ISIS by the numbers: How big, strong and rich the militant organization may be - World - CBC News

 

[Smart_Guy]

Lets see...

I don't think is it confirmed yet what I S I S is there for yet. If any of those countries around attack them, they might do it in a considerable force leaving internal security vulnerable giving enemies the chance to attack.

What if someone is using I S I S as pawn for such a thing?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Lets see...

I don't think is it confirmed yet what I S I S is there for yet. If any of those countries around attack them, they might do it in a considerable force leaving internal security vulnerable giving enemies the chance to attack.

What if someone is using I S I S as pawn for such a thing?

isis Not as a pawn says
But Islam original Pencchth without Tekaya
They follow the messenger Muhammad and obey his orders
The Islamic rule in your law

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Actually,it is the politicians who determine who should fight - should their own army do the job or should they get some external help. In either case, the politicians themselves won’t go for the war. So this doesn't make any difference from their perspective - it is always someone else doing the job.

If ones army is incapable of fighting, the only option remaining is to get some external help. Armies with good training skills and equipped with modern facilities could perform the job a 1000 times better, with least possible causalities than that is possible with their local armies.

Now, this kind of terrorism is a global threat – if it is them who are facing the trouble now, it will be us later. It is only a matter of time.

You should not fight isis
Should be allowed to isis life
War with isis only if it declares war on neighboring countries
Yes, I'm with sisi model of governance
It's the perfect model for the dreams of Muslims in an Islamic state that rules according to Islam and Sharia Law

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The income of ISIS is around a billion us dollar a year (possibly more; i am not sure of the true statistics). They have advanced arms and telecommunication systems- much better than the local government.They have vast supporters among the "peaceful" Muslim population. It is they who hide them and support those ISIS people. They bribe local government (especially deeply religious Muslim officials and other corrupt officials) so that they can take actions rendering any actions done by the local government futile. more than the numbers, it is their tactics and local support that makes and keep them going on.

Almost all countries have policemen/armies counting to millions - but they are quite ineffective in suppressing internal terrorism even though these extreme terrorist number just a fraction in 10's or 1000's. and they have a huge back up from their population. For each terrorist gone, there are much more awaiting their turn.

isis controlled territory in which a quarter of Iraq's oil stocks
And also controls the important part of the pipeline transporting oil from Iraq to the Turkish port of Ceyhan
The so-called Alastrteja line , which was built during the rule of Saddam Hussein

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

that's right

in 1991 Gulf battle , The Kings of Oil lent the Westerns armies to fight for them against Sadam .

Bashar Assad did not request Western armies to fight ISIS for him . He asked to stop supporting indirectly the ISIS by supporting rebels by weapons. who listened to him before 3 years ago ?

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and Turkey through providing support to isis money , gear and weapons

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

The West must leave sisi control as you want
And not to declare war upon it from domestic issues
Is a struggle between Sunni and Shiite school school
In Syria and Iraq
In one case, which the West the right to intervene if he suffered an attack of isis only

 

[Godobeyer]

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and Turkey through providing support to isis money , gear and weapons

this is another story .

no one can deny that Kings of Oil are toys in hand of the West , and West also supply the indirectly rebels which suppose rebels Jabhat Nusrah and ISIS by weapons in Syria , by the money of Kings of Oil .
EDITED:
Turkey is NATO member so it's follow what West want , and to Kings of Oil are allie to West "be more honest they surrender to West ."

destroying Syria and Iraq and Libya (why not Egypt ) is in benefit of Israel regime .

 

[Shad]

(I wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps political debates would have been better. I put it here because my guess is that the answer to this seeming anomaly has to do with religion...)

ISIS's army is about 20,000 strong. Taken together, the various countries' armies in the ME amount to several million. Given this military superiority, why is it that the region's stable governments won't deal with ISIS once and for all? Why would anyone call on the West for support?

You are overestimating the abilities of these nation's military. The track record for military success of these nations in the area is very poor. As Faybull put it IS does not fight a conventional war. Even the two greatest military forces, USA and USSR, fared poorly against such tactics for the last few decades.

 

[Flankerl]

Long story short: It's Israels fault.

As always. Gotta love Arabs...

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm glad someone says it is not Islam's/Muslims' fault for once

isis Not as a pawn says

Oh yes it is!