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 18. 2014
What for? I think this is senseless. Note this: Syrian rebels openly admit: We’re going to use America’s money to fight Assad, not just ISIS
As I see it, the US has no dog in this fight, no allies, no friends, no goals. And don't tell me "stability in the Middle East." That's a joke.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Not sure who they are polling, but this conservative, with 3 immediate family members currently serving - is completely against sending ground troops to the ME. And for what it's worth... against sending troops to Africa to fight Ebola. And anywhere else Obama needs to verify his manhood creds.
Assad's people are he only "moderate Muslims" in Syria. Of the rest of the benighted residents of that pestilential region, only the Israelis and Kurds are worth supporting. The rest should be encouraged to become glorious martyrs.
Let's see why attacking ISIL on its home turf is the best of several bad alternatives: Bombing of the World Trade Center in '93; Khobar Towers bombing (I know a guy injured there); attack on USS Cole in '00 (I worked a while with the shipyard that repaired her); 9-11, etc. Then a Wikipedia article lists 27 attempted (known) attacks on the US [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11/url Islamic leaders have called, as they have for the past 1400 or so years, for the establishment of a world-wide caliphate. That's their goal, and many don't mind dying or killing to further that "Holy" cause. We can't stop their attempts, but we can take the fight to them on our terms, versus hoping they'll soon see things our way and leave us alone. They'll never do that. Irregardless of mistakes and errors we've made along the way, nothing we have done, other than exist as a Christian (non-Muslem) country has precipitated these attacks. As a pilot friend told me: "You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish you are."
I agree with your conclusion, NJ, but not fully with how you got there. Doing anything has costs, but doing nothing also has costs in the ME. I think we seldom have as much to gain as we do to lose on any of these involvements. But even a bad deal is sometimes the only deal, as Mark notes.
This time, not so much. But a lack of decent allies is not the only consideration.
You say, once again, "As I see it, the US has no dog in this fight, no allies, no friends, no goals. And don't tell me "stability in the Middle East." That's a joke." Well, just repeating yourself, over and over, is contrary to almost every expert, the majority of the US Congress, and contrary to every country in the area except Iran and Quatar, who are cozy with the most extreme terrorists. -- Preventing the terrorists to use their captured fortunes and weapons to attack us at home is the "stability" we seek. The point made by Mark above is it: better fight them there than be attacked here. Staying home will not stop their attacks or allow you to avoid them if in a major metropolis or experience the pain and costs if elsewhere. -- You can run but you can't hide, especially behind ignorant rants.
So what would be the plan to fight them over there Bruce? And how long do we stay? 5 years, 10 years 100 years? How has Afghanistan worked out after 12 years? Like Viet Nam and Iraq, eventually we will come home and they will be free to resume their ambitions. Using decisive weapons to actually win is off the table no matter which political party is in power. Winning hearts and minds is BS and would take generations of intense effort. We are not going to do that. In the USA the North hasn't won the hearts and minds of the South after 150 years.
In addition, whose side do we take? They are all Muslims and they hate our guts and want to kill us. Or do we just head over and fight the lot of them?
Spengler says this will be a 30 years war. So why not let the fire burn itself out? Let them use up their resources killing each other. I like that outcome rather than printing money to fund another middle eastern adventure that will squander American lives.
Meanwhile, they can cross over our southern border and hit us anytime they want regardless of what happens in Syria and Iraq.
Our country's leadership is not competent conducting foreign policy or war and they have no interest in defending our borders. Their track record has been to make things worse everywhere they have tried their hand. What makes you think a new expedition can turn out differently?
You say, "In the USA the North hasn't won the hearts and minds of the South after 150 years." That level of exaggeration is evident in your argument. The Obama approach is, indeed, weaker than needed or appropriate. However, even then, it is not a matter of all-in or nothing, although a more forceful and less self-limiting approach would be preferable. It is a matter of reducing the risk. -- You posit that you expect that the US will bug-out of the current situation just like we did in Vietnam and Iraq. That assumes that, like in Vietnam after 1973 and Iraq after 2009 the US will have an overwhelmingly leftist President and Congress. Otherwise, your assertion of an analogy does not hold. -- No one of any sense or expertience is comfortable with the weak Obam way, but it is still backed by most as at least buying time by reducing risk until we have better leadership. Otherwise, throwing one's hands up in the air and burying our heads is worse.
No worries, Zero promised no boots on the ground. Of course he also promised we could keep our health care plans.
"So what would be the plan to fight them over there Bruce? And how long do we stay?"
- - - -
How about this:
Fight to win.
No more of this "symmetric warfare" garbage.
No more "limited engagements." No war of attrition. If we see a big bunch gathered, we don't shoot at the edges or go for their hearts and minds. We take out the big group. Boom.
In short, no more Vietnams. We cannot "win" by merely inflicting enough discomfort so that they lose interest and wander away. We "win" by killing their army and its leaders.
How long do we stay? Til they're dead. Tell the military "you can't come home until they're dead."
They'll be dead soon thereafter.
bobby b never said or inferred that. Your reply of that demonstrates either a failure to read, to reason, or to study (or serve in) waging war.
My Libertarian side makes me want to agree. Why should we expend our energies and risk our own peoples lives over somene else's fight. Don't we have enough problems at home? Our economy, social structure and future right here in the U.S. needs some major attention. But then the very same people who say don't go around the world trying to save lives insit that we go around the world trying to save lives when it fits their agenda. Why are we feeding starving kids in Africa or fighting ebola or building schools in Central America etc.? That isn't our fight?
The point is doing nothing is a decision with consequences just as doing something is. If we do choose to not fight ISIS then people will die; Americans will die. Yet the arguement against fightng ISIS is Americans will die. I am not opposed to a do nothing strategy but don't try to convince me it is a good idea or we will do it to save American lives because that simply is not true. Unless and until the terrorists hit us here and hit us hard a substantial minority of people will believe that what goes on "over there" is not our business. They will also continue to believe that anyone who connects the dots and can see that eventually ignoring the problem "over there" will allow it to get stronger and become the problem over here is a hawk or war monger. One of the theories about the attack on Pearl Harbor is that FDR knew about the attack ahead of time but knew it would galvanize support from Americans to join the war before all was lost. Did FDR allow that horrific attack in an attempt to prevent something far worse? Will we need a horrific attack on the homeland before Americans will put their support behind a war on terroism/radical islam?