Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS

[karynnj]

- instead focusing on a "Who lost Syria?" or "who lost Iraq?" story when in fact we never "had" either of them.

Think back to the speech Obama gave to the country when he spoke of the seriousness of the situation. At that point, ISIS was taking city after city and was threatening Baghdad itself. In addition, the Iraqis had failed to even start the process of selecting a government based on the then recent elections. Additionally, the existing government had essentially given no power at all to either the Sunnis or Kurds - something that had made ISIS progress easier.

I have to admit that, at that point, though I agreed that there could be no US military strategy that would "fix" this, I really did not think diplomacy could work either - though I have immense respect for both Obama and John Kerry, who Obama sent to try to work with the Iraqis to get them to form an inclusive government without supporting ANY potential Prime Minister.

Since then:
- US air strikes provided cover to break the seize of those stranded on the mountain by letting them safely escape with help of Kurds and the Iraqi forces. The US also dropped humanitarian goods from the US and allies that were desperately needed.
- Again, with US air cover, the Iraqis and Kurds prevented ISIS from controlling the area including the Mosul Dam.
- The Iraqi President named a man to be Prime Minister and asked him to start to form a government. Al Maliki, who most thought would not voluntarily step down, did just that.

These three achievements were significant and, given where we were when Obama spoke, were better than I would have expected. (Yes, the government is not formed and when it is even under the best intentions, it will take time to show real reforms. Yes, ISIS still commands a huge area and they are a threat.) Yet, the media was more concerned that the President, who did lead this, was on Martha's Vineyard for two weeks.

Then the story became James Foley. I have wondered why I have not seen anyone speculate whether it was ISIS's real defeats, the first after an amazing string of successes for them, that might have led them to brutally execute a man they had held for over a year. I wonder if it was done to 1) change the story - which it instantly did and 2) to make the Sunnis tribes who allied with them reconsider any possible turning against them if it looked like the tide was turning and that there could be a more inclusive Iraqi government. (both because of potential brutal consequences and stemming any story that the US was meeting with any success.)

Yesterday, the same combination of US air cover and the Kurds and Iraqis succeeded in saving another small town. Again US and allied countries' humanitarian goods were dropped. Yet, the coverage on the Sunday shows was all about Obama not doing enough. Feinstein, though a Democrat, was really NOT a balance on this. (Former Governor Richardson was - I think - the only one speaking in defense of Obama and in some coverage of his comments they mostly spoke of him as having supported Obama in 2008 as if this was politics!) In the print media, things were better. The NYT had both a McCain/Graham oped (predictably still arguing for aiding the moderate rebels in Syria and being more aggressive.) and an oped by Kerry explaining conceptually the administration's goals. (On the NYT site, the comments on McCain were devastatingly negative, where Kerry's were mostly cautiously positive or politely disagreeing.)

This morning, Alarabiya, a Saudi Arabian paper, had an interesting article that speaks of both the impact the US has had AND the problems likely to be faced. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/08/31/As-ISIS-fighters-begin-to-blend-in-defeating-them-no-easy-matter.html One point made was that, due to US airstrikes, ISIS was abandoning the Humvees they got when they looted military bases they overran. If this is true, while it could, as the article points out, make them harder to find, but common sense also says that not using them will make it harder for them to expand their area. ( Please consider the source, but the content is pretty interesting.)

Obama is taking a very rational, thoughtful approach here - and one that does not play well in the instant gratification world we live in. If you look at the three victories on the ground, they all completely follow what Obama spoke of as what we were willing to do. I hope that Obama and his administration have the courage and vision to act, when they see they could help, ignoring America's clear desire to withdraw internationally and, on the other side, the courage to ignore the McCains, Grahams and apparently, the Feinsteins, call for more aggressive military action. It is a brave path, which lacks the passionate followers on either extreme on this issue.

[MADem]

1. It irritates me a bit, but I'm so used to being a "news digger" that I expect it.

There's a vocal club here who probably believe the weak POTUS slants, who, at the same time, would be screaming for HIS head if he pulled a McCain and threw ground forces at the issue.

The man can't win for losing....I mean, after all, instead of talking about the matters you've raised, we get treated to YES WE TAN and Audacity of TAUPE--because the media is determined to try and marginalize this guy and there are plenty of complicit allies in that effort across the political spectrum.

[freshwest]

20. I cannot see it as anything but racism. PBO will always be illegimate for not obeying them.

It's apparent that if blacks don't go along and meet every white fantasy, they are attacked. It proves some never gave two minutes of thought to the meaning of Equality.

If one doesn't want to be used as a tool, one does not try to turn someone else into one, and when done, discard them. They have tried to discard him since he announced his run for the presidency that cold day in Illinois.

They didn't acknowledge the man was well known in the invisible part of America, that never gets fair play in media. I am so sick of this BS.

Too many don't believe in Equality or they would give the man a chance to work this out, instead they want him to do what and when they want it, and for them and no one else, period.

They demand he fit their narrative for good or evil. Facts don't matter. Policy doesn't matter. He did not behave as they said he should. He can't, as he is the president of the left and right and the invisible and highly visible, so he is going to crapped upon.

I've learned a lot since he took office about how petty and dishonest some are on online. Thank goodness, no Democrats I know in real life swim in the media and online cesspools. Because it does not change anything and people IRL don't spend time on things that don't give any results.

I came here to hone my mind with different points of view, and 'have fun,' and it has fulfilled that on occasion. But if we get to feeling good about the changes we can make, the mealy mouth, always dismissive voices take over every thread - JUST LIKE THE MEDIA.

He's not the socialist I would liked, but I won't spit venom all day and night over it. Because most of the USA does not agree with me. Why in the world should he, as he's having to deal with worse actors than most of us deal with daily?

[MADem]

21. Oh, hell yes, that too! Yes We Tan! Who's that on the GOLF course?

Why is that man on VACATION?

It's the Work Twice As Hard to get HALF THE CREDIT theme.

Was it ever thus!

[flamingdem]

2. Good analysis of the last couple of weeks

and I mostly agree. I think the administration is not necessarily wanting a lot of MSM exposure for several reasons. One is that the US mandate is limited. The decision to help in Amerli was fraught with issues - it's not part of the Yazidi issue, it means that the US is indirectly working with Iranians and Shiite militia - very politically messy considering the history of Shiite militia attacks on US forces and of course Iran. Iranian advisors were seen at Amerli apparently and the biggest Shiite militia group is controlled by Tehran.

Going forward things don't look easy. The Iraqi troops and others including Peshmerga and those mentioned above took on Amerli because the city is majority Shiite. The big problems come in with Mosul and Faluja etc that have more Sunnis and more Isis soldiers in place. Those will be massive battles and the local Sunnis may or may not switch sides.

My point here is that it's going to be difficult to get victories going forward.

Also, I saw a lot of coverage of the Amerli victory on CNN yesterday. They had footage and a report from Erbili.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Any announcement made of a successful mission is mostly met with silence.

Nobody is proud of the military's accomplishments any more, I guess, if the President isn't a neocon and the neocon agenda (permanent ground troops in Iraq, getting rid of Assad and installing a new regime) isn't being fulfilled. Yet they continue to perform admirably.

[former9thward]

13. Wasn't Obama who said "Assad must go"?

I thought it was.

[TwilightGardener]

14. He did, and that was his fault for listening to the dumbasses in

his administration: Hillary, Petraeus, Panetta, and the other assorted neocons he didn't clean out. He never took serious action to pull off a regime change, you notice, and the Washington Post and MSNBC and Richard Engel are still squawking about it to this day.

[former9thward]

27. Well I agree (I think) with you that we should not intervene in Syria.

But I would go farther in that we need to remove ourselves from the ME including campaigns against ISIS.

[YvonneCa]

41. If Assad were to go...

...who would take his place? Thoughts?

[former9thward]

46. I have been to Syria three times.

Beautiful country -- or was ... That said it is an artificial country held together by dictatorship. I don't know who would take over but we must stay out of it.

[YvonneCa]

47. One, of many, skills GWB lacked was...

...long term thinking and planning, especially when getting us into Iraq.
OTOH, President Obama is very good at thinking longterm. It seems to me that...even though the US may voice support for Assad to go, as we have, our President should be looking down the road to who likely would replace Assad. Would that person be a better US ally? Hopefully President Obama has a good answer to my question.

[wercal]

4. First of all I don't have alot of original ideas of my own to stop Isis....

....but your post pre-supposes an organized siuation or structure that just flat does not exist. It really doesn't matter if Iraq appoints a prime minister, etc.

The bottom line is at least three nations (Syria, Jordan, Iraq) no longer have control of vast areas within their borders....controlled now by a very brutal force.

Just last week I saw terrible photos of Isis killing 159 Syrians after overtaking an air base. It struck me that the men had been stripped down to their underwear prior to execution ....Isis now possesses 150 Syrian uniforms.....as well as all sorts of military equipment that may be found after siezing an entire air base.

They are well funded....they are brutal. And they don't lead the movement from a cave in Afghanistan. They seem to have many more links tilo the western world than Al Quaeda ever did - which means their mwmbers can easily travel between the west and the batttlefield - hauling technology, knowledge, and money east....and potentially hauling terror west.

And to speak of them in terms of how the president has handled them misses the point entirely. These guys just altered the map of the middle east - that won't be addressed in any 3 year remainder In a term. These guys have destroyed religious buildings that have stood for ten centuries.....again there's is a long term strategy.

We have to have bipartisan agreement on how to contain Isis in this country - and Everything should be on the table....southern border for instance....no matter how this affects domestic political positions. Then we need international cooperation....this means cooperating with shady characters like Putin.

Isis is just as devastating as Al Quaeda. Only difference is they haven't killed thousands of Americans.....yet. But its certainly their intention.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Putin and Assad let them flourish. It was their strategy to defeat the "good" rebels

(the ones with US/Arab backing) by constantly ignoring, and then pointing to, the "bad" rebels. Any clean-up we do will NOT involve Putin or empower Assad, if we're smart. In fact, we could consider using this situation to pressure Assad militarily so that he steps down.

[CJCRANE]

8. It's Putin's fault!

So we supported the "good" rebels but Putin caused the problem by ignoring the "bad" rebels.

Where did the "bad" rebels come from?

(FWIW I know where this is all going but I still have to point out the absurdities).

[TwilightGardener]

9. Actually, since Putin has been propping up, supplying, and advising the

Assad regime, he very much has a role in this. It's all inter-tangled, and Obama's initiative with Iran is also in the mix. He may have to give up the nuclear deal in order to have nothing that Iran and Russia could hold over our heads that prevents us from doing what we need to do elsewhere (Syria, Ukraine).

[CJCRANE]

11. But who supported the rebels in the first place?

[TwilightGardener]

12. Sunni Arabs, mostly. But I noticed a while back that the same hysterical Russian

propaganda pushers who screech about nazis in Ukraine are the ones who constantly churned out info about how BAD the rebels were in Syria and how the US shouldn't back ANY of them, often conflating them with the Free Syrian Army as a matter of accepted fact.

[CJCRANE]

15. But even the official reports say that other rebel groups joined ISIS.

That's not Putinista propaganda that's a matter of public record.

Even McCain was allegedly photographed with some of the "bad" rebels.

If we don't accept the truth we're just going to end up in another big mess.

[TwilightGardener]

17. ISIS served the purposes of Assad, Putin, and Iran (friend of Assad). To a point.

It (and AQ's Al Nusra) did keep us from pursuing more vigorous backing of the FSA once Obama's new cabinet formed, and wisely so. Now, however, my view is that if we have to strike targets in Syria, we might at well put some pressure on Assad at the same time.

[CJCRANE]

18. It wasn't even called ISIS back then.

It was still Al Qaeda and associated groups.

[TwilightGardener]

19. Assorted bad guys, left over from the good old days of AQ in Iraq, who saw

an opening and went for it.

[Peacetrain]

34. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[truedelphi]

31. Great post Twilight Gardener. n/t

[Rhinodawg]

6. "yet" ??

Ive noticed any discussion of possible ISIS attacts in the US is met with derision and ridicule.

I don't understand why.

[Wellstone ruled]

7. Our chicken sh*t media has a ton of

poop on their faces from going all in with Bush/Cheney. They know full well it didn't work out to well. Reporters captured or killed,ginned up stories that were debunked,fake interviews or interviews with armchair military types or lobbyists of the Military Industrial Complex. Mr. Obama has cut their f--ggin knees off as of late on their false narratives and false equivalencies.

Most of these so called corporate owned media outlets,know we here or on discussion web sites,are able to debunk their so called reports and with the big egos of the press,it has to hurt. Bullshit ain't going to cut it anymore. And all of the Krotch Brothers owned companies advertising on their networks,isn't cutting it either. People are finding the truth for the most part,yes I know,there are a goodly number that haven't a clue. But,with each passing day,that group is getting a bit smaller. I call them the Undertaker crowd,it seems harsh but true.

[CJCRANE]

10. Today's MSM is almost worse than it was in the Bush era.

Even with all the Tea Party BS in Obama's first term, I at least felt like we'd outgrown the neocon era.

Now, in his second term it's like the MSM flicked a switch and we're back in bizarroworld.

[Doctor_J]

16. One reason I don't care that much is that

one or two or three years from now they'll no doubt be our "ally" again, and my tax money will be going to them instead of...whoever it is it's going to now. Or, maybe (probably) both.

[heaven05]

26. ------

[Doctor_J]

28. is that good or bad?

[Mr.Bill]

22. They get better ratings

promoting the idea that ISIS will soon be invading the US. No premise could be more ridiculous but still believed by a sizable segment of the population.

[Voice for Peace]

23. a thousand recs for this OP.

not much to add. Thank you.

[cantbeserious]

24. Progress And The Middle East Is An Oxymoron

eom

[heaven05]

25. thank you for the sanity

the knee jerk around here gets tiring. And for Feinsteins knee jerk, that was inexcusable.

[Doctor_J]

30. DiFi's reaction was not knee-jerk

It was entirely predictable, and cleared for take-off by the lobbyists she works for. She is war profiteer and DC lifer who hasn't had an original thought since she was SF mayor.

[heaven05]

33. can't disagree

with those words. Knee jerk was my attempt at not saying what I wanted to say, which probably had me hidden or banned.

[truedelphi]

29. In your post, you claim that "We never had Iraq." ??:??

We spent two to six trillions of dollars on our "endeavor"
over there, with the loss of 4,500 service people, and a cost to Iraq of close to one million civilians.

If all of that energy only helped Blackwater, and Dick Cheney's bank acounts, then our nation really needs a moratorium on its wars until we get some officals in government and some generals in charge of operations who can actually win one of them!

[karynnj]

37. I know that and it is poor wording - I meant they were not ours to lose - they were independent

I agree that it is highly likely that the world would be better now had the US not invaded. Unless you posit the US staying there forever - like McCain did, there has to be a time when we leave and we did.

There is no doubt we "won" a military victory. We did that by 2002.

[MisterP]

32. are you really so smitten the you accuse the media of *siding with ISIS*?

[karynnj]

35. Of course not, where did you get that insane idea?

Nothing I said could remotely be interpreted that way.

[Cha]

53. And are you so against reality.. that you accuse karyn of that?

[YvonneCa]

36. I think the President and SOS Kerry...

...have just concluded that the media is mostly useless (very contrived conflict oriented) and just decided to get the job done despite them. They use the media as a tool as needed...like Kerry's OpEd...but expect media to set up conflict. Personally, I don't get angry at the media too much any more... I just find other ways to get real information and turn off the TV crap.

The options in the ME...post GWB...have always been difficult. Every situation/decision requires choosing the least bad option. There is no 'good' way to restabilize Iraq and it's neighbors. I believe they are in the midst of a Sunni/Shia civil war. I am SO glad the President brought our troops out when he did. And I am confident he will remain a minimalist where boots are concerned.

I am very glad we have Obama, Biden, Kerry and Hagel making the judgements required.

[karynnj]

38. Agreed

[YvonneCa]

39. And...

...DU friends who understand really help.

[War Horse]

40. I agree with you

PBO is rational regarding this. It's an impossible situation.

[YvonneCa]

43. And amazingly, it's one of many...

...impossible situations our President has had to deal with during his tenure. Simultaneously. We Americans should be grateful for his service.

[Veilex]

42. "Who lost Syria?" or "who lost Iraq?"

How about this; They were never "Ours" in the first place?
So, they weren't "Ours" to lose...
Just a thought.

[YvonneCa]

44. You might want to reread the OP...

...using comprehension skills.

[Veilex]

55. Just reacting to the title...

I suppose I should have added that... aaaaand you're right of course.
Bad idea to post without reading the article... I had little time when I posted... but that's hardly an excuse

[YvonneCa]

57. I have done that myself...

...once or twice. You are a nice person to admit that. And I apologize for the snarkiness.

[Veilex]

60. No worries... I may have deserved it. At least a little. This time. ;)

[YvonneCa]

63. ...

...

[karynnj]

50. That was my point

It is also a historical reference to "Who lost China" etc - where the Democrats and Republicans blamed each other - as if the US really controlled anything there. (We were pretty insignificant)

[Veilex]

56. Noted... pardon me while I go read

[YvonneCa]

58. ...

...

[cheapdate]

45. It's not just the media, pundits and politicians carry on

as if the United States is doing nothing. It's absurd and maddening. Do these people not know the facts or are they deliberately lying? Either way, they need to STFU.

[YvonneCa]

48. Deliberately lying. Side of given issue...

...determined by ownership/interests of media conglomerate and advantage of political spin for a given politician/party.

Sad, isn't it?

[karynnj]

54. I do think some of the cheap shots are clearly dishonest

The biggest one is that they jumped on Obama's comment of "no strategy" -- that was said after he had recently given a pretty strong speech and said top national security people in his administration were going to work with other countries to define how they could stop ISIS. It is reasonable to assume that input from all those discussions will lead Obama and others to define a strategy.

McCain's taking this at face value and ignoring that Obama was actually doing things was completely disingenuous. (Even worse was when he went ballistic on what Obama did in Russia and then recommended EXACTLY what Obama was already doing!)

[freshwest]

49. This should be Trending on the Home Page and high on the Great Page. XP'd it to get more K&R's.

[tazkcmo]

51. yes

but not me.

[Cha]

52. The "media"'s MO has only gotten exponentially worse since I dropped it in 2002.. Thank

you for pointing out what is going on, karyn.

[YvonneCa]

59. Great thread, karynnj! Thank you. n/t

[karynnj]

62. Thank you and others who joined the discussion nt

[sendero]

61. You can't be serious...

... the MSM abdicated any responsibility for dealing in the truth decades ago. I would not waste time expecting them to change, because they are not going to.

If you want to know what is going on in the world you will have to find another way, because the MSM is only interested in entertaining or propagandizing you.

[The Blue Flower]

64. Excellent post, thank you

nt

[hopemountain]

65. thank you for your spot on perspective

and for taking the time to share it here

[egduj]

66. I'm sure the parents of Steven Sotloff are very happy with the real progress that has been made.

[karynnj]

67. Idiotic cheap shot

Do you honestly think that anything the US did could have stopped this murder of a man They already held? Not to mention, can you completely rule out that they killed him the same day they killed Foley? You might remember that there were at least two similar beheadings - Pearl (Pakistan) and Berg (Iraq) - at the time when President Bush had American troops on the ground in two countries.

The stated demand of ISIS was that the US stop bombing them. However, if the US did, what would the result be? At the point that we engaged, they were threatening Baghdad. Not to mention, would you even trust ISIS to keep their word after completely altering American foreign policy or would he likely have been killed some time down the road for some other thing they disliked?

There is likely no one in the country who does not feel repulsed, horrified and angered by the killing. No one - including me - suggested that what had been done was anything more than first baby steps to deal with ISIS. It seems obvious that developing a diplomatic, regional coalition takes time and considerable thought as to how to do it. Obama is doing this AND he is using carefully controlled use of American air power to help the Kurds and Iraqis win back territory, which they will then have the responsibility to fight to retain.

It is true, that any US President could order massive strikes that would happen within days. It is far easier than the political/diplomatic work that Obama is doing now. However, people wanting the US to simply use massive fire power against ISIS - uncoordinated with those in the region wanting to push back ISIS are ignoring that our military leaders have said there is no way to a military victory using just air power. Not to mention, that would very likely have led to the same beheading - one thing controlled almost entirely by ISIS. (After the first rescue attempt failed, it may be that we have not had a viable chance to rescue them.)

These steps ARE the beginning of a thoughtful plan to aid the region in dealing its extremists. Are you implying that a stronger American response - as many very vaguely demanded - would have prevented the killing? No one - including McCain - has called for American combat troops to have been used. In fact, what McCain after sarcastically lambasting President Obama recommends is exactly what Obama is already doing .... and to also arm the moderate Syrians. The problem is that some of his previous "moderate" Syrians have ended up in terrorist groups!

Are you suggesting that had there been a President McCain and had we given powerful weapons to his "vetted" rebels in Syria, ISIS would never have gotten to where it is now? You never know where an option not taken leads you, but it is very hard to believe that this could have worked. It is only the very American "we can fix it" mentality that gives this any weight at all.

Do you honestly think that anything the US did could have stopped this murder of a man They already held? Not to mention, can you completely rule out that they killed him the same day they killed Foley? You might remember that there were at least two similar beheadings - Pearl (Pakistan) and Berg (Iraq) - at the time when President Bush had American troops on the ground in two countries.

[BKH70041]

68. True

Foreign policy is at epic clusterfuck proportions.

[karynnj]

69. What would you recommend Obama do in the Middle East?

The world is a complicated mess. There are no easy answers. Every answer - from completely withdrawing from what is an interconnected global world to bombing every country John McCain ever considered bombing - has down sides.

What is the policy that would do the least damage and the most good in your opinion?

[BKH70041]

70. Something other than what's he's doing now.

Because at this point he's looking really, really, really, really weak. Well, at least out in the real world. At this site he's too brilliant for words.

The beheadings will continue because the free world's leader just doesn't get it.

Short time window today. Will have to address further should/when time permits.

[karynnj]

71. Note that the same "he's too weak" was NOT made of GWB when beheadings happened then

Instead the anger was focused on those doing it.

As to this site having a majority opinion that Obama is "too brilliant for words", stay around and read more. It is definitely not that monolithic. In addition, it is clear that even as the Republicans are uniformly against Obama, the official Democrats have, in the second term, felt freer to speak and legislate against the Obama policies. Here, it is not blind following of Obama that means that more of us side with Obama against - say Menendez leading an effort to increase sanctions on Iran while we are negotiating with them - it is dominantly anti war DU position has always had.

What Obama is doing in Iran and Ukraine is pretty close to what many Democrats wanted in the 8 Bush years. It is a policy that really does form real coalitions and uses diplomacy or economic means to try to avoid war. With ISIS, the goal is to get a comprehensive, coordinated response from the region, backed by international powers. The reason the countries in the region have to be the main part of a solution is that this is first and foremost their problem - even if western powers share major blame for how we got to this point because of the Bush wars or colonial mistakes (and offenses).

When Obama has considered military options, especially a tactical strike on Syria in response to using chemical weapons, the response here was thunderous and very negative. Many have still not forgiven Obama (or even more so Kerry) for even considering it and are loathe to give any credit to them that it led to the removal of chemical weapons, which by now, could have been in ISIS hands. There are many here who would prefer that the US withdraw from most or all issues in this area - including for various posters some combinations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Israel. These are sincere, long held positions that these posters have advocated since they joined DU - and they deserve credit for not accepting under Obama what they hated under Bush.

I think few would disagree with your view of the state of the world. It is clear that the world is in turmoil and lashing out against those who are in power because they failed to make things safe is entirely understandable. It does ignore that the roots of every one of these problems was there long before Obama. It also ignores that there may not have been any set of actions by the US that would have led to better results.

[Cha]

72. Thanks for explaining "the real world" to him, karyn. "Obama is weak" is a republicon meme

and bullshit.