Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, September 2. 2014

What to do about ISIS: Constructing Strategy, Weighing Options

My friend, strategist Mark Safranski, also known as the ZenPundit, offers a masterful review of What To Do About ISIS: Constructing Strategy, Weighing Options, from nothing to full-out annihilation. It really is a must read summary of the paths the US might take, having already allowed the threat to multiply manyfold by the Obama administration's ignoring it although briefed about ISIS for a year.


Now for the Obama administration, late to wake up even a little, as Safranski puts it:


Attempting to find the strategy with no risks and no hard choices is a policy to engage primarily in ineffectual military gesticulations insufficient to actually change the status quo in Iraq and Syria ( and the eternal default strategy of domestic political consultants and career bureaucrats playing at foreign policy)....

The Obama administration faces a difficult dilemma in pondering the problem presented by ISIS. I don’t envy them but their task will grow easier and a resultant strategy more likely successful if they are willing to make ruthless choices in pursuit of bottom-line, clearly-defined American interests.



Posted by Bruce Kesler at 16:05 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

A disclaimer up front: this is not a joke, it is genuine cynicism.

Why don't we just do nothing, except for operations like the current one to rescue Christians and (I hope) move them somewhere out of the war zone?

Think about it. There are several good reasons for us not to become involved. One is that if we fight ISIS, then like it or not we are effectively allying with our once and future enemy Iran, and maybe helping them hurt Israel (our only real friends in the region).

Second, if we stay out, several quite nasty jihadist groups, including not only ISIS and Iran but also Hamas and others, will spend years beating up on each other, who deserve it. If we come in, they will forget about fighting each other, because in their ideologies we are enemy #1 to all of them.

Third, chances are the only way the millennia of fighting in the Middle East will ever end is by one side being wiped out, or at least conquered and deprogrammed for generations as we did the Nazis. It's unfortunate but true, and fighting there when we're not willing to go that far and stay that long is a waste of our country's blood and treasure.

So why jump into a muddle like the present situation, where there's no way we'd be allowed to do that? Once either Iran or ISIS has conquered pretty much all of Arabia, it'll be down to us and Israel (or just Israel) against that one big enemy. Then we'll have a free hand to conquer them and deprogram them.

And fourth, the US no longer needs Middle East oil. Europe, China, and Japan do. Why not let some or all of them butt in, and bear the cost, if somebody needs to?
#1 jdgalt on 2014-09-02 22:33 (Reply)
If the linked post is read, your scenarios are addressed.
#1.1 Bruce Kesler on 2014-09-03 09:01 (Reply)
The answer is to be found on the golf course. We are so lucky that during this international crisis our president is over qualified to put in the time and effort on the links working tirelessly even interrupting his vacation to golf and ponder. I for one think in a few years he willcome up with a strategy. Hint: Bush's fault.
#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-09-03 10:13 (Reply)
a. Block ISIS' internet access. b. Block western journalists' access to ISIS. Same for Hamas, Boko Haram et al.
#3 BillH on 2014-09-03 10:24 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.