No one’s writing about it so I don’t have a quote with which to open this post. What interest of ours are we defending in bombing ISIS or, heavens forfend, sending troops to oppose it?
I can see the Saudis’ interest and I understand Jordan’s interest. Is an attack on the KSA or Jordan an attack on the United States? I think there are interests there but they are conditional and far removed.
If it’s the “Pottery Barn Rule”, that’s a pretty fair argument for never having withdrawn our troops from Iraq in the first place and occupying the country on an indefinite basis. Surely that isn’t what’s meant.
I honestly don’t see any threat that wouldn’t exist with or without ISIS/ISIL as long as we continue our present principles of operation.
However, equally, it’s hard for me to follow the argument that, once having identified an interest worth going to war over and, let’s face it, bombing is war, that interest should be conditional on what the Saudis or the Iraqis or the Turks are willing to do. There’s either a mortal interest or there isn’t.
I think this is what comes of trying to pretend that war is clean and sanitary and scientific and precise and can be waged freely on the basis of cost-benefit analysis.
The interest it to prevent another 9/11. The policy is what we like to think we had implemented in 1994 in Afthanistan had we prescience.
Somebody, somewhere has the power to blast these suckers to oblivion, and it should be done pronto. Something like 50,000 warriors to the cause are holding 6 billion people hostage, and that’s absurd on its face.
Call it operation Clearisil.
So who is eager for that little concession to stay open? Do the Bush gentlemen have any ideas? They have close ties in that quarter of the world.
As PD said, preventing another 9/11 is the big one. Unfortunately that plays into the domestic political angle where the appearance of being aggressive and decisive is the supposed key to security. If you’re not aggressive and an attack does occur, then the narrative will be that the lack of aggression in dealing with ISIS was the cause. We haven’t really got past that to a point where we can really analyze risk and respond to threats with coherent, effective policies.
It doesn’t help that news cycles seem to drive this administration which makes the lack of consistent policy worse. So what we end up with is a political necessity to “do something” even if doing nothing or exercising a bit of strategic patience would be more effective. Additionally, we can’t “go it alone” so we have to conduct this war by committee and about the only thing the various players agree on is that ISIS is “bad” and something should be done about them.
As far as other interests go, we shouldn’t forget our own national Ego. We are the indispensable nation and we have to “lead” particularly against a threat. We also have to support the good countries against the bad countries – so any policy we have should support democracy freedom fry loving friends like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iraq and opposed the evil Syrian, Iranian and Russian governments, even if that policy makes absolutely no sense.
1) I think we have a moral obligation to the Kurds. We have made promises, or at least implied them, that we have not always kept.
2) I think we have some obligations to the Iraqi people, but none to its government. This is a real problem. The govt has excluded everyone except for the Shia majority. We could, maybe, help them by re-invading and getting rid of ISIS. However, when we leave, the same dynamics are likely to exist. A better approach, I think, is to offer our air support if they are willing to fight. In order to fight effectively they will need to also govern more inclusively. If they aren’t willing to do that, then we withdraw our air support (and intel and logistics).
3) You are pushing for a much cleaner resolution than I think is possible. While I don’t see ISIS as a direct threat to us, it is a threat to some of our interests in the area. Instability in this area is always a problem. You cannot, much as you might want, ignore our domestic politics. Half the country thinks Israel is our BFF. Half the country is terrified of Muslims. I don’t think a zero response is possible so I hope for what can be done. A minimalist campaign is the most realistic.
Steve
The more Americans and Brits who are savaged by these filthy beasts, the colder my blood runs.
I am developing a viperous hatred for the mutherf**ckers.
And their enablers.
Oh, goody, TB.
Steve Riley and the Mamou Playboys’ CD, Grand Isle, just came from Amazon.
It’s really good. I know this sounds like a long-running joke, but the band sho ’nuff ain’t. It’s just fun. Not funny.
I just keep coming back to the fact that the last five presidents have ended up screwing around in Iraq, and the outcomes appear to be getting worse instead of better.
Our foreign policy establishment is more uniform than the parties let on, and these two things together indicate that the US doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing there. Given that the policy responses are roughly the same as what we’ve done in the past, I don’t expect then to work either.
Given all that, I think doing nothing is best. Especially since our highest officials say that it isn’t a war one day, and then say it is war the next day. If they can’t even decide what to call it, how can we expect them to make the difficult decisions that matter?
“let’s face it, bombing is war…”
…and, that’s one of many conundrums involved in this ME controversy! Because, some in the administration define our targeted bombing as war, while others see it in softer terms, as a counter terrorist military action. It’s the same kind of confusion that’s prevailed in our prosecution of war-like crimes as being workplace ones, like what was done in the Ft. Hood case.
IMO, this lack of clarity, regarding our goals/strategies, identifying enemies, a clear end game, staying the course, has distorted and muddied not only the perception of people here, but also allies and those who threaten us abroad. One minute there is a “not to worry” theme abounding in DC, and then all of a sudden there’s a STAT order delivered from the Oval Office indicating high security risks are imminent. This is coupled by our own ambiguous border security, fraught with whispers of Quran Books being found on the Mexican border, which tend to augment border patrol claims of middle eastern people commingling with the much publicized run of Latino children illegally crossing our southern borders.
There are just too many loose ends, dangling questions , unidentified weaknesses not being fully addressed, causing a national environment of unease — one seemingly just waiting for the “unexpected” to erupt into our faces.
For 13 years, there has been a failed state on the southern US border. Many of the Mexican drug gangs make the terrorists look like the Girl Scouts, and they have infiltrated many US cities. During these 13 years, the US borders have been purposefully unsecured by both parties.
General Bush, Colonel Cheney, Major McCain, and Captain Graham put business first and security second. Now, I am supposed to get all worked up that they let the terrorists into the country, but now, they are going to secure the country by bombing people halfway around the world.
Nineteen guys, a few hundred thousand dollars, a little ingenuity, a few tankers full of gasoline, a truck of fertilizer, or other chemicals moved up from Mexico could do a lot of damage. You do not need tanks or land.
The Mexican drug gangs are already here, but closing the border would be bad for business.