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
Thursday, September 11. 2014
And this: Obama's Broad Coalition Cracks - UK, Germany Won't Support Airstrikes In Syria
Also, Top Senate Democrats on ISIS Threat: 'It's Fear-Mongering'
Here, an old quote from Bin Ladin:
It's a tar baby, Mr. President. There are no good guys. Let's just help protect the Kurds from genocide.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Actually Bruce Fein (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/bruce-fein/) via Don Boudreaux. Not sure on this personally. Preemption doesn't work nor does R2P. Sucking up to Iran maybe?
Why protect the Kurds when there are no good guys?
Kurds wouldn't mind seeing a little ethnic cleansing if it is to their advantage. Recall how they failed to protect Yazidis and Christians in Northern Iraq a few weeks back?
There are no good guys. It is a witch's cauldron and we need to stay out.
That was a bit of a one-sided piece, although I don't think the Kurds would be above using a situation like that to their advantage, it is the way that part of the world works.
What I don't understand is the US continuing to allow Turkey to influence the way we deal with the Kurds while Turkey continues to fuck us over at every turn. The Kurds appear to be our best hope for a dependable, decent ally in that region and we should be promoting that possibility.
Enough aide and influence and I have little doubt they could be persuaded to cooperate and protect Yazidis and Christians and other allies in northern Iraq.
I would support a permanent US base and more autonomy for the Kurds, piss on Turkey.
we should not tarry in attacking Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, the Mexican drug cartels
Ah, what would argument be without straw men? There may be a thought somewhere under that pile of manure, but I'm not going to spend much time looking.
So ISIS came to power in a power vacuum in Syria and in Sunni-populated Iraq.
Knock them down and the power vacuum returns.
What do WE need to see fill that power vacuum? Assad? Iraq? The Kurds?
Someone give me a hint!
The only reason to fight anyone in the Middle East is to control our and the EU's oil supply. The West did just that in WW I, WW II, Persian Gulf I and Persian Gulf II. Blood for oil is rational.
So, fight ISIS if they threaten the oil supplies. Otherwise, let them alone. Fighting them to their destruction would require a large land army and large air forces in Iraq and Syria, and no one has the stomach for that. Moreover, ISIS would only be replaced by someone else unless we did the genocide thing.
It would appear that everyone, including Obama, wants containment. That results in the partition of Syria and Iraq, but that is no loss. It requires cooperation with Iran, and that means a nuclear Iran, which might or might not be a problem.
Meanwhile, Egypt, Turkey and the Saudi's have other things to worry about other than Israel, and the Palestinians go on the back burner.
All in all, not a bad strategy. I give Obama (whom I despise) an A on this one.
"So before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel."
Leon Uris, The Haj
This is large scale tribal warfare where all alliances are tactical and ephemeral. Nobody understands what is going on, not even the participants.
Cordon the oil fields and ports and let them sort it out.
ISIS is already in control of oil fields pumping $2 million a day.
This is the big ambition of the islamists - to control the oil because that is the threshold to real power. AQ had their eyes on the Saudi fields. Saddam wanted Kuwait.
If they can be contained WITHOUT oil, maybe. But with oil their aggression will be enhanced and fortified.
What don't we give it all back to the Turks? They could have a new Ottoman Empire!
It is a tar baby. But then so is protecting the Kurds or the Christians who are being killed by muslims in a couple dozen countries around the world. Just as it was a tar baby to get into WW II or WW I. Sooner or later the terrorists/radical islamist will nuke a U.S. city or two and then everyone who thought it was stupid fighting them over there will suddenly decide we need to fight them but by then the war will be over here. That we have brought into this country over 1 million muslim immigrants since 9/11 will come back to bite us but it is likely that those who today do not want to fight the terror threat also don't think these "moderate" muslims will harm us. The real question is will this war that radical islam is in with us reach a point where it finally breaks through into our awareness happen before or after it is too late for us to win it. I predict that it will take a nuclear attack on the homeland to wake us up. 9/11 didn't do it,well it did for a few months to years but we quickly became more interested in free stuff and birth control. Oh well, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately those who did learn from history will be forced to repeat it right along with those who did not learn.
Would anyone here at home mind if we began demanding that our high school aged men/women were taught the techniques necessary to protect their local communities? I am thinking that these young people need good gun training courses, strategy courses, self defense practice, etc., etc. Most importantly they need to be made to memorize the absolute freedoms guaranteed to them via our Constitution and Bof Rights. Perhaps, if we demand that they like their Swiss counterparts are prepared to defend the home ground they will better appreciate just exactly what it is. In other words, if they won't sign up for the military, maybe we can prepare them to defend their neighborhood. Because, I truly believe they and that understanding is our best hope.
I see this as a 30-50 year war. (We are already into it 10 years.) It's a war paradigm as old as history. Now in war you capture the enemies territory, crush his assets and kill his army. These guys don't care so much about territory, they will just set up somewhere else. They don't have munition plants or an industrial base. So what is left is killing their army. We should push to concentrate their forces and then annihilate that group. We may pull off the battle field to wait for another grouping. We are not in the business of nation building or peace building, we kill soldiers where ever we find them. We don't kill them 5 or 10 at a time in Afghanistan' that's inefficient. We wait for the best target, declare a new battle field there, and completely take it out. War on and off for 50 years. Based on the deaths per capita in histories long wars, this may cost 2-4 million lives. I bet many of them would be American.
So we let ISIS take over the entire region, consolidate their rule into one Caliphate, gather all existing weapons together, finish developing and acquiring nuclear weapons, and then - and only then - we try to head off a now-modernized powerful force at our border?
They have declared explicitly that their goal is world domination of the Caliphate. Holding the middle east is only step one of their already-declared aim of world domination.
So, certainly, let's just lie back and watch while they grow and strengthen and become more emboldened.
- - -
This new outlook on Maggie's Farm is, at best, dismaying, and at worst, suicidally stupid.
When they come for your kids with the beheading knives, perhaps the rest of us will stand across the street watching the killings and agreeing with each other that it's not our fight, that they're not on OUR side of the street.
And I won't feel bad about it, because you've already announced that that's how you'd act if it was MY kids.
You have overstated your point to dramatize your conclusion. We of course should fight the battles in the most efficient way possible. I am also not sure nuclear weapons should be ruled out. The devastation would be terrible, but the war might be much shorter resulting in the same cost. If we are fighting a nuclear Iran or a dirty bomb ISIL we have to use what it takes to win. This is a stupid messy war like most others. But if you vote to Not go to war and the other side goes to war anyway, you've got war.
My fear is that any first use of nuclear weapons will be unforgivable and that once either side uses nukes it may well escalate beyond the Middle East or whatever specific target you have in mind. The two very small nuclear bombs used against Japan undoubtedly saved far more lives then they took. Japan's own assessment of what the toll of an invasion would be was 20 million Japanese mostly civilians. Our best estimates of what an invasion would cost the allied forces ranged from 1 million killed to 4 million soldiers killed. I do think the answer to this dilemma is different for Israel. That is if they choose to use nukes first against a nuclear Iran it could well save the entire population if Israel. Having said that I think the rule still applies that once nukes are used no one can predict what happens next and where else nukes would be used, perhaps against us.