I find American foreign policy increasingly baffling. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen we’re killing people who aren’t our enemies on behalf of governments that aren’t our friends. In Libya and Egypt we brought down dictators on behalf of people who weren’t our friends and there are some in the Congress and, presumably, the White House who want to do the same thing in Syria.
Relax. I’m told by some that everything is going swell. And the President says we are going to redouble our vigilance and determination. 2x swell is really swell, and I think its better than drawing a red line.
So we got that going for us.
There’s no sign that this Administration, or the several that came before it, have any clue about what they’re doing in that part of the world. That’s why I don’t vwant the US to get involved in the ISIS mess.
We brought down Mubarak? Wow! Anyway, calm down. The GOP should win the election and these half measures will go away. We will have full scale war instead. Much better.
Steve
Saw the NYTs doing a story on ISIS crucifying children & burying them Alice, etc. Suddenly it feels like 1990 all over again. I think if ISIS doesn’t collapse on its own we will be sending in whatever ground troops we can scrounge up over there again really soon.
WTF did my phone stick an Alice in that comment?
Over at Pat Lang’s place he’s been covering this story extensively. His opinion is that the U. S. should put “boots on the ground” and cobble together a force consisting of, in essence, anybody who will actually fight from the region to oppose DAESH.
I think that, barring some terrorist attack on U. S. soil that can be pinned on DAESH, the odds of our committing troops are vanishingly small.
Why would it? It’s actually doing quite well. It’s attracting new soldiers faster than they’re being killed. It has plenty of money. It’s got plenty of weapons and ammo. We spent four months trying to push them out of one Syrian town or, more precisely, we spent four months supporting the Kurds while they pushed DAESH out of one Syrian town.
They’re not just a military or terrorist outfit anymore, they’re also a governing body. The desert* isn’t just a few people riding around on camels any more, but a rather populated area. They’re going to have to manage that, and I’m not sure they’ll succeed in creating a government and in learning to govern while fighting several wars at once.
* Not completely sure of the climate across IS , but I doubt it’s as pleasant as hospitable as, say, North Carolina.
I am not sure why they burned to death the Jordanian pilot, but ISIS just lost. You can piss off, on, and all over the West, but they should know the ME does not play by the same rules.
Assad now has a free hand to deal with them, and he will likely get support from unlikely places. Iran just became top dog. They do not need nukes.
The Jordanians executed 2 ISIS terrorists with no world consensus. I suspect more will be summarily executed as they are found, and I expect that a feeding tube shoved up the ass will be the least of their worries.
More concisely, I’m not sure they’ll succeed at running their new country.
I believe Steve and/or Andy have made this point as well.
Feeding tube up the ass for the win!
I strongly suspect that DAESH’s notions of management aren’t what most Westerners would consider managing a country. They’ll probably govern like perfectly reasonable 8th century Muslims. There’s no need for them to sustain a modern economy. They can buy or steal anything they need.
Burning the pilot has the potential for unifying the rest of the ME against them. It may be serious enough to cut off funding from the Gulf states. Anyone seen any response on this from the Turks?
Steve
My point is that the population densities in that area can only be sustained with a lot of effort, and with considerably more advanced technology (and the ability to manage that technology) than available in the Eighth Century. Or even the Eighteenth Century, and possibly even the Nineteenth. IS may be content if a majority of the populace dies, but the populace won’t appreciate it.
I am sure that the pilot is thankful that he does not have to endure the horrors of Gitmo or having his head dunked under water. No, I am sure he prefered a nice slow roasting.
I realize that it might be difficult to tell the difference when you are sitting on your nice comfy sofa in your safe living room, but everybody else in the world does not have that problem.
” In Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen we’re killing people who aren’t our enemies on behalf of governments that aren’t our friends.”
AQ in Pakistan and AQAP in Yemen aren’t our enemies? As for the Taliban they’ve said we are their enemies so….
“Over at Pat Lang’s place he’s been covering this story extensively. His opinion is that the U. S. should put “boots on the ground†and cobble together a force consisting of, in essence, anybody who will actually fight from the region to oppose DAESH.”
We already have “boots on the ground” – that term is really vague. Lang is more specific and he says we need a “conventional US ground component” which is much different – he’s calling for a ground maneuver force which, to put it simply, is an force that would conduct independent operations. This is much different from what we currently have which is defense of US facilities and a few specialists embedded with local forces to facilitate fire support.
While I think a ground component could be tactically decisive, I don’t think it can do much to resolve the root contradictions inherent in the “state” of Iraq. So, we clear out Anbar again, and clear Mosul for the Kurds – what then?
What then?
Later, rinse, & repeat, of course.
Time to admit we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing & get out.
Andy- What then indeed. (And I still can’t figure out how we overthrew Mubarak.) The pilot’s death should cement Jordan in opposition, the real question is whether you get any action from the other countries in the area. They are the ones threatened by IS, not the US.
Steve
As you know better than I, Andy, most of the activity in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan has been against the enemies of the regimes there. Because the Taliban is a home-grown movement it will persist forever, long after we’ve lost interest. Yemen’s government, such as it was, has already fallen. If the present Afghan regime is to survive it will be by coming to an accommodation with the Afghan Taliban as Pakistan’s government will come to an arrangement with the Pakistani Taliban.
That’s the point I’ve made. I think the practical alternatives we have are actually fairly few. We can become a severely repressive occupying power, we can end our present meddling in the region’s politics and just tolerate a couple of major terrorist attacks every decade as an acceptable risk, or we can similarly pull back, stop romanticizing immigration, and greatly restrict who comes into the country and how long they stay.
My preference would be the last option but I think the middle one is more likely.
Genghis Khan didn’t unify them. I doubt that DAESH will, either.
Steve,
“And I still can’t figure out how we overthrew Mubarak”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/world/la-fg-egypt-obama-strategy-20110213