Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'

[wyldwolf]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.
Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance....

... Warren called the recent beheadings of American journalists "an act of savagery" and said it was an "assault on all of our humanity."

Asked about the dozens of Americans who have reportedly joined ISIS, Warren noted that the U.S. should be "stepping up our efforts to track where people go when they leave the United States."

"The terrorists have moved, and we have to move in response," she said, adding part of that "means we're going to have to change in fundamental ways how we monitor our citizens when they go abroad."

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025487584

[Hari Seldon]

1. Move over Fonzie

Elizabeth Warren is going water skiing...

[SidDithers]

4. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. more like ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Good one

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I don't think there is any foundation to your assertion

....get it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. I am sure it is.....outwardly we are being told that they are just part of the terrorism we have

been up against for over 2 decades now......I think there is quietly a coalition being formed because I think those guys threaten quite a lot of folks in the area. This should not just be a U.S. problem.....I think that is how Pres. Obama is playing this....he is much too deliberate and decisive not to have something up his sleeve....as he has shown us time and time again. We have been surprised by this man over and over with what he can achieve...my grandmother always said..."be careful around the quiet ones". Remember this guy was stoic about going after Bin Laden while at the yearly Press Awards dinner. And boy weren't we surprised THEN?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. Your post reminds me of a line from one of the Babylon 5 TV movies:

"The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe.....The loud ones only take the credit."- Londo Mollari

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. Its true....my Grandmother was a very wise woman.....

she was astute and pulled NO punches....she told it like it T.I. Is!

[freshwest]

65. I like that somewhat better than '...Beware the fury of a patient man.' ~ John Dryden.

[n2doc]

3. Ok. Then we need to destroy their funding sources first.

Otherwise they will just come back with more guns and people.

But I can't imagine ANY US politician daring to broach that subject.


Sigh. Together with HRC's love of Kissinger, a bad week for dems.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. exactly. n/t

[randys1]

30. HELLO yes, and who is funding them?

Exactly who is it?

Could it be the same people who funded Bin Laden's attack on 9/11?

Damn, people...follow the money

[Thinkingabout]

40. A lot of their funding is coming from ransom paid for the release of prisioners.

[randys1]

42. I thought certain folks in Saudi Arabia would be as with 9/11

[Thinkingabout]

47. They probably are some of the same and now some US citizens have joined.

Perhaps rather than Islamic State their big move would be Islamic World. Now there seems to be concern in many of the Middle East this is a dangerous group. They want to plant their flag over the WH.

[Duppers]

48. yep, there are some good online sources

exploring and explaining that very question.
Yet, it's not address in our tv media (mentioned only because that's where most folks get their "news&quot .

[AnalystInParadise]

43. Destroying their funding

involves doing too things we will never do. Destroy oil wells and attacks banks or banking systems. Huwala is a difficult financial system to destroy, I found that out leading a TeT (Tactical Engagement Team) of intelligence analysts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody wants to blame the Saudis (they are douchebags) but most of ISIS's funding comes from black market oil and Huwala transactions.

[YoungDemCA]

103. Attacking Saudi Arabia (which I presume is what you meant) would be the worst thing the US could do

For one thing, it's not like Islam's holiest cities are there...

Oh wait.

[grahamhgreen]

5. How does it get paid for?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Looks like she got on the War on Terra bandwagon.

[AgingAmerican]

113. My first thought was

"She was fun while she lasted."

[TwilightGardener]

9. I take her seriously. She has a lot of credibility with me, so if she's worried,

I'm worried.

[whatchamacallit]

10. What a fucking joke

Our perpetual neocon nightmare, and Elizbeth Warren, both.

[sub.theory]

11. As usual, Warren nails it

I think she is absolutely right that we need to take ISIS deadly serious, and they need to be our number one priority. I completely agree. These sociopaths must be stopped.

I really hope Warren runs for President. I think she's a national treasure.

[NightWatcher]

17. Poverty, Jobs, Healthcare, Election reform.....?

No, we need to be scared of yet another boogie man and throw money and our young men and women at it.

Warren is showing that she can play the game and serve the Masters that pick the leaders.

[sub.theory]

19. ISIS isn't a boogeyman

ISIS is a deadly real threat. Believing that they are a local problem is wishful thinking at its worst. It's as dangerous as thinking that if Nazi Germany is appeased, war can be prevented. War is here whether we want it or not. ISIS has openly stated their desire to drown us in blood. They have openly claimed they will create a global caliphate. They have said they will raise their black flag over the White House. Why can't you take them at their word? Even if they are talking bigger than they can currently punch, why shouldn't we take them deadly serious? Should we wait until they are even better funded, trained, numerous, organized, and equipped before we find out for certain if they mean what they say?

I know some of you hate war and are loath to see the US military return to the Middle East. I am too. I recognize, however, that we do not have a choice. We can allow this group to continue to leave an ocean of blood in their wake until they are strong enough to confront us directly, or we take the fight to them now. Either way, war is coming like it or not.

[Chathamization]

20. Yah, I remember hearing the same thing 12 years ago. The more things change... N/T

[sub.theory]

22. The danger of crying wolf

I understand your cynicism. That's the dangers of crying wolf - no one believes you when the threat is real. The 2003 Iraq War was a complete and utter sham. This is widely recognized today. Even at the time it was fairly clear that things didn't add up. Bush's war will be remembered as one of the worst decisions in US history. It does have a significant role in the situation we now face.

However, that doesn't mean the wolf isn't real this time. There is unmistakeable proof, provided by ISIS itself, that they are a threat to the region and to the wider world - especially the US and Western Europe. That is an unsettling and regrettable reality, but it is indeed reality. Nothing of the sort existed about Iraq in 2003. Obama, Warren, Al Frankton - these are not warmongers. They are saying that we must take this seriously, and we cannot repeat what we failed to do with Al Qaeda before 9/11 when they openly said they will attack us. This is for real.

[Chathamization]

27. Of course, "this time the threat is unmistakably real" is said every time. Keep in mind that this

is the same fight we've been fighting since the fall of Saddam. The same areas of Iraq revolting against a sectarian government that's oppressed them, the same fundamentalists that are taking part in that revolt and cutting off heads. Of course, our support of the fragmentation of Syria has added a new dimension, and each phase of a battle is different, but this is a continuation of a fight we've been having on and off for 11 years. Some of us thought it was a good idea to stop fighting that war. Others, apparently, disagree.

9/11 might have been prevented if the CIA hadn't hidden from the FBI the fact that al Qaeda operatives had entered the US. I'm not sure why people are now acting like the lesson from 9/11 is that if only Bush had bombed more countries when he first came into office the thing could have been prevented.

[sub.theory]

37. I agree in part

I agree with you that bombing ISIS isn't going to solve the problem. I do think it is necessary to degrade their capability, however. They are an army, unlike Al Qaeda, and they can be attacked as an army. They have artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, bases, and training camps - and these can and should be targeted. I think you are right that bombing someone (Afghanistan) wouldn't have prevented 9/11. Al Qaeda has a very different structure than ISIS. The loose network of largely independent cells required a much different set of tactics to confront and failure to share intelligence significantly contributed to our failure to stop 9/11.

I also agree with you that in many ways this is a continuation of the Iraq War begun in 2003. ISIS is a direct continuation of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Unfortunately, removing our troops has not stopped the problem. In fact, it likely exasperated it. I fully supported Obama in removing our troops. I too hoped it would provide less justification to target the US. Unfortunately, that failed. Would we have been better off to have never invaded Iraq? Almost certainly. But we can't take it back now. The damage is done and we have to deal with that.

[Scootaloo]

53. There are three armies in the region to face them

Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

Let's give these three states access to intelligence relevant to their own fight against ISIS, and keep our trillions of dollars at home so we can build a school or something, hmm?

[TwilightGardener]

54. Syria knows where ISIS is.

And we don't need to help Iran with anything. But Iraq is still our business.

[sub.theory]

57. Only Iran can confront them

Assad helped to build ISIS. He ignored them, because they were a useful tool to attack and divide the other rebel groups. It also boosted his narrative that he was fighting terrorists, which he's had since day one. He is now having no success at dislodging the monster he allowed to grow. He's praying for intervention to defeat ISIS and save him.

The Iraqi army couldn't flee fast enough in the face of ISIS. In fact they abandoned all of their American made equipment for ISIS to conveniently appropriate. The Iraqi army has shown itself to be incapable of any serious resistance to ISIS. The Shia militias are more of a threat to ISIS, but they are concerned with protecting Baghdad and Karbala.

The Kurds have had success against ISIS, but only with significant US air support. Who knows how much US special forces have assisted them either ("military advisors&quot .

That leaves Iran as the only serious army capable of opposing ISIS. I doubt the US will ever allow Iran to openly control Iraq, however. That's just never going to happen.

The best strategy is the one Obama is likely following. The utilization of significant American air power and intelligence, and the building of an international coalition to be the boots on the ground. It's very important that other Arab states participate in this, and I'm sure there is serious US carrot and stick negotiating with them behind the scenes as we speak. If this can happen, the US can likely avoid boots on the ground ourselves, except for targeted special forces operations which will certainly continue.

[Chathamization]

64. What gets called ISIS is an assortment of armed Sunni groups, a small minority of whom seem to be in

ISIS proper. Most of the Sunni groups are getting labeled ISIS now, just as there was a time many years ago when they were all labeled al Qaeda. Several groups have shown a willingness to append other names to their groups in exchange for support and money, like when they called themselves awakening groups in exchange for US money and support.

Keep in mind we're talking about taking sides, yet again, in a sectarian conflict* where there are relatively nasty forces that walk amongst all groups. When the previous administration was trying to gin up anger against Iran, we heard a lot more about how horrible the Shiite armed groups were. Bombing Sunni areas is going to have what result, exactly? Infrastructure tends to get destroyed leaving a huge toll on the populace, command and control tends to break down which gives the most militant factions free reign, and degrading the strength of Sunni groups runs the risk of opening the door to Shiite and Kurdish reprisals. It wouldn't end the sectarian conflict, but it might drag things out much longer.

Would we fight the Iraqi government's death squads? Because in the past we just turned a blind eye to them. How about the expansionist Kurdish policy? Despite the fear being spread about ISIL, they've mostly operated within Sunni areas (I doubt they ever planned on conquering Irbil). If you've noticed, the Kurds took advantage of this situation to achieve their long stated goal of annexing Kirkuk.

There's a ton of very important issues we should be discussing and addressing if we treated the bombing of another nation and the destabilization it causes seriously. But these aren't being discussed, and the population treats the whole thing like a cartoon where we run in, shoot the bad guy, and then ride off into the sunset. That kind of foreign policy has been, and will continue to be, disastrous.

*Not everything is sectarian, but that's a large component.

[Vattel]

73. wow, real discussion! thx

I don't think you should downplay too how much damage to ISIS as a military threat can be done through bombing. But your remark about the toll such bombing would have on the populace due to the destruction of infrastructure is a big worry of mine. I hae found it hard to find a serious discussion of that anywhere. Our "leaders" don't like to talk about the costs of war when they are trying to sell war. Do you know where to find relevant information about this?

[Chathamization]

110. I haven’t really found one source that’s good. If I had to choose one I’d probably choose Wikipedia,

since it collects the claims of numerous different sources (of course, you need to check where each claim is coming from), and is also edited over time, so you get older information (and you can notice conspicuous gaps). I’ve found older information in general to be invaluable – whenever there’s suddenly excitement about issue X, I’ve found it’s useful to do a search for news articles some weeks/months/years prior to the excitement. It definitely helps provide perspective as well as avoiding the hot topic group think that’s so pervasive in the media (and as a result, in the country at large).

Source documents are also great, and it’s a good habit to read them directly when one can (if I read an article that says “according to report XYZ”, I try to do a search for report XYZ when I get the chance).

We on the Left should be aware of how useless the mainstream media is. One only has to remember the daily reports about how Obamacare was “failing” last winter and the absence of reports now about it’s success. Or the way the media reported that the IRS was targeting conservative groups when the report they were basing it on said that other groups were also targeted.

As for the ability of bombs to degrade the operational capability of the militants – I think the issue is that it works to some extent, but you won’t be able to bomb the groups into submission (which is why years of employing these tactics haven’t led to the defeat of the militant groups in Iraq or Afghanistan). It probably disrupts their ability to become a centralized, cohesive force and leads to the groups splintering and going underground. But I imagine true peace will need to come through the political process (though it may also include military actions). We ultimately ended up negotiating with the militants in Iraq and Afghanistan after years of dismissing the idea and trying to bomb them into submission. Our stubbornness only seems to have brought about more death and devastation.

Of course, one problem is that certain states would rather have perpetual bombed out wastelands in some areas of their country than compromise with “the enemy”.

[Vattel]

76. how is ISIS a threat to the US?

[sub.theory]

90. As I see it

I've gotten into it a little up thread. Please see post 19.

Most fundamentally, we should treat ISIS as a threat to our nation, because they have openly told us they are a threat to us. They have threatened to "drown all of you [the US] in blood". They have vowed to raise the black flag of ISIS above the White House. They have said that Sharia will one day be the rule of law in the UK. They have openly stated their goal to establish a global caliphate and to put to death all the unbelievers and apostates that won't convert and repent (i.e. believe exactly what they believe and pledge allegiance to them). This is very important, because Al Qaeda also issued direct warnings - including a declaration of war - to the US, and it was not taken seriously. Or, at least, not seriously enough. Even if ISIS does not currently have the capability to attack us, as most analysts seem to believe, we must take their rhetoric seriously.

ISIS and Al Qaeda, despite very similar ideology, do share different priorities. Al Qaeda has long been obsessed with attacking the West and has structured their organization and strategy in order to pursue that goal. ISIS, however, is far more concerned with the establishment of a caliphate, and with settling ancient scores in the Middle East. ISIS therefore is structured more like a state in possession of an army, while Al Qaeda remains a loose network of largely independent cells. The result is that Al Qaeda remains more of an immediate threat to the US (and West), although their capabities have been severely curtailed since 9/11, while ISIS is a far more significant longer term threat.

ISIS is well run in terms of organization. They have reestablished order and services in the areas they have conquered and this, along with general Sunni disenfranchisement, has garnered them considerably sympathy from the Sunni public in Iraq and Syria. They have significant financial resources - at minimum $2 billion cash. That's a speck to the US, but obviously considerably money for a terrorist organization. They are making millions a day selling oil far below market value, ransoming hostages, selling captured women and girls, trading antiquities, levying taxes, running protection rackets, and general looting and pillaging. They have perhaps 40,000 fighters with some estimations I've seen of up to 80,000. Mostly light infantry, but now in possession of some armor, artillery, and even airplanes. The reason this matters is because the nightmare situation for the US is if they become an incubator for attacks against us. Sort of like Afghanistan pre-9/11. ISIS has far, far more personnel and resources to invest in this than Al Qaeda ever has had.

I think this is very much the thinking of Obama, his administration, the DOD, and people like Elizabeth Warren.

[Vattel]

93. Thanks for the response.

I am still skeptical that an organization that is organized like a state with an army, but is small and poorly armed (by nation-state standards), can pose much of a threat. Their ideology limits their popular appeal, and their army is no match for Iran's, let alone Israel's or the UK's.

[AgingAmerican]

115. We shouldn't spend billions

Because of some bellicose rhetoric. And yes, it is just rhetoric.

[AgingAmerican]

114. "Why can't you take them at their word?"

Um, because they are just a band of criminals and they have very little actual power.

[steelsmith]

41. Totally

This is a huge threat to both the area and the US/UK

[AnalystInParadise]

44. Not really

Boko Haram is far more dangerous than ISIS. ISIS are just the ones talking the loudest.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Explain that.

[AnalystInParadise]

46. What needs to be explained?

Not being a smartass, just curious what you want to hear.

[TwilightGardener]

49. In terms of the threat to the US and its interests--why is Boko Haram worse?

[AnalystInParadise]

56. Geography

Oil and global reach of Boko Haram. ISIS is loud and a long way from having the same influence. Syria/N. Iraq does not equal Nigeria.

Unfortunately our perception bias is a play and we seem to think Syria/N. Iraq is more important than West Africa.

[TwilightGardener]

58. You are aware that ISIS is taking in oil revenue, as it controls oil fields?

And has attracted fighters from all over the world? I'm not saying Boko Haram isn't bad news, and we're already watching them in Africa (and setting up a new drone base in Niger). But I still don't see how they directly threaten US interests the way ISIS does.

[Vattel]

75. what vital US interests are threatened by ISIS? (sincere question: I am trying to get more informed)

[TwilightGardener]

89. Allies in the region, oil, military bases and assets, diplomatic personnel, American

or multinational companies and contract workers--basically, anything we have going on in the region. My assumption is, if they were spawned by AQ, and we fought them in Iraq, they will eventually attack us (well, they said so). I don't think they planned to yet--they were more focused on gaining territory and carving out a little mini-state. But I guess we decided we weren't going to sit and watch them strengthen.

[Vattel]

94. They could try to attack us, but I am still not seeing any potential military threat.

I guess they could adopt Al Qaeda's strategy of terrorist attacks carried out by small groups willing to martyr themselves. Does that level of threat warrant war to destroy them? It depends on how many innocents would die in virtue of the war. Speculative benefits (like preventing successful terrorist strikes) rarely justify the certain and large costs of war.

Edited to add: of course also important to the equation is how many innocents they will kill if we do not dismantle them.

[TwilightGardener]

95. Three areas of concern: Iraq itself, where we do bear some responsibility for their

security, since we knocked them off their feet ten years ago and built a Frankensteinish dysfunctional "government" that no one but the Shia and Iran liked. Then American interests in the region (definitely don't want more Benghazi, USS Cole, Khobar Towers type attacks), then US mainland. Look at it all from Obama's perspective: as soon as there's an attack from this crowd, he wouldn't be able to say, as Bush and Clinton did, "We just didn't see it coming, who knew?" He has to get busy targeting them, setting them back, weakening them, making them busy just defending what they grabbed so far.

[Vattel]

96. Thanks for your response. I need to think more about this.

[L0oniX]

112. This may be why we have no war criminals. If we did then we would be totally responsible...

for restoration of Iraq ...except for the bringing Saddam back part.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Looks like Warren wants more NSA surveillance against Americans traveling abroad.

Interesting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. at least now I hope people realize how foolhardy it was to back the Syrian opposition and try to

destabilize the Assad regime. Now we are reaping the whirlwind from what happens when power vacuums are encouraged by utterly misguided policy.

[sub.theory]

18. Plus the 2003 Iraq War

The 2003 Iraq War created an equally dangerous power vacuum. There's no question that the US and the West in general have made some very serious messes in the region. We do share blame.

However, the beating heart of ISIS is home grown. It was born and bred in Saudi Arabia. Wahabbist/Salafist hate from Saudi Arabia is the engine behind ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al. It's this exporting of hate that we must confront to truly defeat Salafist jihadi terrorism. The close second is the enormous funding these groups receive from Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc.).

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. the funding issue of ISIS is a bit complicated as this BBC article points out

this is a very informative article worth reading

So has Qatar funded Islamic State? Directly, the answer is no. Indirectly, a combination of shoddy policy and naivety has led to Qatar-funded weapons and money making their way into the hands of IS.

Saudi Arabia likewise is innocent of a direct state policy to fund the group, but as with Qatar its determination to remove Mr. Assad has led to serious mistakes in its choice of allies.

Both countries must undertake some soul searching at this point, although it is doubtful that any such introspection will be admitted in public.

Light years ahead

But there are deeper issues here; religious ties and sympathy for a group that both acts explicitly against Shia Iran's interests in the region and has the tacit support of more people in the Gulf than many would care to admit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253

I absolutely 100% agree that ISIS is a real threat. But support for it from other Sunni interest has to be understood in the context of a tendency to support anyone countering Shia/Iranian influence. Support within Syria has to be understood in the context of dependency that has been created by the economic interest they have seized coupled with decades of resentment against minority Alawite rule.

[sub.theory]

25. Good points

Good article and good points. The funding issue is indeed complex and, as I understand it, largely driven through wealthy individuals rather than official state support. That must be cut off, of course. The West needs to take steps to stop those funds and insist the Gulf states do the same.

The 1400 year rivalry between Shia and Sunni Islam is another deeply complex situation and one the West can't resolve. That will have to be resolved among Muslims themselves. It does create sympathy for armed Sunni (ISIS) and Shia (Hezbollah) terrorist groups to oppose the other, as you said. The US and West have to protect ourselves, though. Currently, Sunni Salafist Islam is a far greater threat to us than Shia terrorism (although we have certainly been targeted by such before). The core ideology and funding have to dealt with to really resolve the problem. Military force can degrade capability, but not resolve the issue. The Obama Administration seems to get this.

[loyalsister]

59. Not just a power vacuum

A generation of ready recruits.

The young people in Iraq and other countries have heard the the story an Iraqi man who I met here told me. "Sadam was a tyrant, but we had a place to work and your siblings had a school, libraries, and lived a not quite comfortable, but at least we had a relatively safe home...... then came the Americans." Then came ISIS. They had the perfect situation to grow their ranks. They could do some damage. We tell the story of why they are there and how we want to help. ISIS turns their vengeance on us, and they see that they can do damage to the original actors.

It's difficult to imagine what it feels like to know what we took from them, opportunities, the lives and happiness of their families, actual people..... From that perspective, how does it feel to know this also happened to every single one of their friends and neighbors over 3000 people who nobody from their country killed? Not minimizing the trauma or losses here, just trying to look at the context that forms the world view of people who are vulnerable to the leaders of these terrorists. Can we really with a straight face now ask, "why do they hate us?"

Nothing justifies the terror ISIS is inflicting. But, I think it's reasonable to step back and ask if we did anything that would give them convincing talking points when they are looking for people to do their bidding. I think that there is some merit to the argument that ISIS is as dangerous as Warren claims. So many of them have known nothing but war and they see us living quite comfortably. There are people who were born into war with no choice but to live in fear, while we basically have an option to not have our lives at risk. If this is the only story they hear about us for years to come, it will only grow more powerful and resolved. We won't be able to do anything right in that region for a very long time. Anything we did or didn't do in Syria would have stoked those fires. If those talking points can be used to get people here cheering for war despite the losses we have felt, imagine how easy it is to manipulate people have been living at risk and in misery.

[sub.theory]

100. War is hell

I agree with you very much that the suffering of the Iraqi people has been immense, and no doubt millions of Iraqis have been traumatized by it. War is indeed hell. That is why war should never be entered into lightly or falsely. It should only be when absolutely necessary.

I suppose the problem with ISIS is: how else can we stop them? I don't see any other option except the use of force. We don't have any good options.

[loyalsister]

107. "war should never be entered into lightly or falsely" - Absolutely!

I think ISIS or a group like them was inevitable when we did that. In fact, it was one of the things I argued when I talked with people who supported the war resolution.

And, I agree that there doesn't seem to be any other option. The hawkish leadership of our country put us in the position of having to deal with this predictable situation. We know that ISIS has stated goals making the results of not stopping them predictable, as well.

Violence begets violence and it's hard to see where it ends. I can only hope that in 2016, we elect someone who is as thoughtful and cautious when it comes to world affairs as Obama has been.
I think it must really suck to be POTUS.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. i agree

This was easy to see coming.

[shaayecanaan]

77. I backed them

with my own money. I thought if no one backed the moderate elements of the FSA then the wahhabists would take over and the whole thing would devolve into an essentially sectarian dispute. Well bugger me, look what happened.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I would that all tyrants be disposed - but in some cases - particularly in the Middle East

the only opposition that really would be capable of consolidating power is much worse than the devil we already know. Everybody bashes the Saudi Royal family and imagines things would be wonderful if they would be overthrown. But, realistically, who would actually have the capability of consolidating power if that were to happen? I cannot imagine Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria being in a position where it was plausible that more enlightened elements would have actually taken power. I would doubt that was ever a plausible outcome.

[shaayecanaan]

87. If you'd heard the screams coming out of one of Assad's police stations, you might think differently

Assad has tortured and killed plenty of people, he just has the sense not to post it on youtube. The fact is that IS has support inland because the Sunnis prefer to be governed by IS rather than Assad.

It is inevitable that Syria will face some sort of de facto partition, between a Alawi/Shia/Christian coastal rump state and a Sunni interior. Frankly, I hope it reaches that endgame as soon as possible.

It is also inevitable that the latter state will be Islamic in character. Fill in the rest.

The US cannot "destroy" the Islamic state any more than Israel could destroy Hezbollah. IS is providing better governance than Assad did in many of the Sunni towns and is extorting less from them in terms of fees.

I agree that the US should act to save Iraqi Kurdistan, it is definitely the best of a bad lot. I am all for the United States helping other people throw off their dictators (I supported the intervention in Libya). But the US cannot do the heavy lifting itself and it cannot build a functioning democracy from scratch in the middle of the near-Eastern desert.

[ucrdem]

16. Foreign policy has never been her strong suit.

To her credit, she's been consistently bellicose, as has Mrs Clinton, who declared herself ready to bomb Iran in 2008. I think they're both sincere, and mean what they say, but I also think that's one reason Barack Obama is president and Mrs Clinton isn't.

[Chathamization]

35. Yeah, she's very good on some issues and I'm glad she's in the senate, but I wish people would

look at her a bit more closely before deciding that she's the liberal standard bearer. Or we might get another case of ignore persons policies, fight to get them elected, then upon becoming aware of the persons policies complain about being duped.

[ucrdem]

83. Back in 2000, Bush and Cheney ran to the left of Gore on Middle East policy

by pretending to be fiscal conservatives who deplored "nation building." I remember when it came up in the debates. Gore came across as an earnest interventionist ready for any quagmire, and Junior looked dim but at least tight enough to stay out of ME entanglements. Here's a snip from the first presidential debate:

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-3-2000-transcript

He and Cheney were lying of course, and while many suspected it, there was really no way of knowing what ghastly events would transpire. Likewise with Jebster vs Mrs Clinton or Warren: Jeb will probably claim to be an isolationist while Mrs Clinton or Warren will promise what they've been promising all along, and we saw how that turned out in 2000. It's worrisome because basically foreign policy is a US president's job one, per the Constitution and practically speaking.

[Chathamization]

91. Eh, not really. Bush said that we needed a stronger military and should get tougher on Iraq. He was

fine with the US blowing up places, he just wasn't against us hanging around afterwards to try to put things back together. That's not really running to the left.

(This debate also highlights where the two stood on foreign policy.)

[ucrdem]

92. The 2nd one too, especially. Bush played the cautious isolationist

and called out Clinton for being too quick to send troops. Lehrer went through 8 deployments of the previous 20 years, including Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo. Gore said he supported all but Lebanon. Bush on the other hand said he wouldn't have supported Haiti or Somalia, and criticized the other Clinton missions as having gone overboard. Here's his Somalia answer:

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

So at the end of the debates you had a choice between Gore and Lieberman intervening everywhere or Bush and Cheney staying home except when absolutely necessary. It didn't turn out that way, but that was the carefully crafted impression viewers got and the US electorate is not inclined to go to war without cause or even with it. And Gore had a foreign policy record to check and Bush didn't, and that's exactly the position Jeb and Mrs Clinton will be in.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate-transcript
...................

p.s. to add: this is just my impression of course, but it occurred to me at the time that Junior was exploiting his own lack of experience in a very devious way.

[Chathamization]

109. I’m not sure how anyone could view Bush’s stance as “cautious isolationist”

His two areas of criticism with the prior administration are that 1. The US military should be used for fighting wars, not peacekeeping and 2. That the military has to be strengthened and needs to be tougher on foes like Saddam Hussein (he specifically mentions rebuilding a coalition opposed to Hussein and getting tougher on him). The quote you mentioned does a good job reflecting that mentality – use troops to overthrow the dictator, have other people clean things up.
In many ways this was the mentality of the early Bush administration, which is why there wasn’t much of a plan in Iraq and Afghanistan past “kick out the bad guys” (and even then, the plan was pretty poor). But seriously, I don’t see how anyone can view that mindset as being a “cautious isolationist”.

[ucrdem]

116. Bush's shtick was to promise to "make sure the return is good."

We know now what he actually had in mind, and it wasn't frugality, but in the debates he stuck to the script his handlers wrote, which was to contrast his prudent persona with Clinton-Gore's profligate record. Hussein comes up only once in the 2nd debate, which was technically the FP debate, and Bush doesn't mention him -- Lehrer does -- to which Bush just says that the coalition has weakened and needed shoring up, suggesting that Clinton and Gore were spending US treasure too freely and he would do a better job of dunning our deadbeat allies.

[Chathamization]

118. Bush brings up Iraq number of times, and again, being tougher was one of the main differences he was

pushing.

Here:

(Gore had mentioned him previously, Bush mentions him while talking about the Middle East)

BUSH: ...and that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resolute in your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace to be able to say to the Saddam Hussein’s of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends.

Later, after being asked if there's any difference policy-wise between himself and Gore, Bush bring up being tougher on Iraq:

MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

Here he's asked about the sanctions, and mentions again that he wants them to be tougher. Then segues into how it was a good thing to join the bombing of Serbia and that Congress shouldn't have limited the president's military options:

MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?

BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher.

MODERATOR: Let's go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?

BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom took hold in that part of the world, but there's a lot of work left to be done, however.

Not isolationist stuff. Sure, Bush says we should be prudent, and so does Gore (see his remarks on Somalia); that's pretty much boilerplate stuff.

[ucrdem]

119. Bush mentions Iraq and Hussein each twice. Gore mentions Hussein three times, Lehrer once.

Seems the search on my portable isn't working right, not that it changes a lot. But yes I'd agree that in retrospect, Bush seems to have his beady eye on Hussein, inasmuch as he appears to have actually thought about him and not just learned the name in a prep session with Condi. But the fact remains that in these debates, Bush comes off as more moderate than Gore -- less ideological, more interested in acting through coalitions, more cautious in committing US troops and anxious not to overextend missions. Yes it was a dishonest performance, in typical GOP fashion aiming to neutralize his opponent's strength, but he pulled it off, and comes across as less likely to get stuck in a quagmire than Gore. Putting Lieberman on his ticket didn't exactly give Gore credibility as a moderate and he doesn't seem to get what's going on in the debates. But I remember them well and frankly I was pretty sure by the last one that Gore was going to get clobbered in November, one way or another. The full horror though I did not begin to suspect.

p.s. the reason I mention any of this is to point out that if Warren has presidential ambitions and finds herself facing Jebster, she's going to wish she'd been less hyperbolic in her pronouncements.

[Hugin]

21. I somewhat disagree.

Although, the containment of the IS is important and of international interest.

Personally, I believe that dealing with the Ebola outbreak is of more importance at the present time.

[BeyondGeography]

26. You had no fun posting this at all

Rec'd.

[wyldwolf]

28. it actually makes me like her more... even though she seemed to be making it up as she went along

[BeyondGeography]

32. Yup, pretty political response

But she is a politician. All she needs is to be seen as a softie, something else happens in Boston and she's playing defense.

[randys1]

31. p.s. Who thinks Warren is different from Obama and Clinton? if so on what exactly?

[djean111]

38. TPP.

[ZombieHorde]

33. We hear the same thing over and over again.

This time is different. This time there really is a threat. Evil!!!111!!!

Every time we just make things worse.

[stevenleser]

117. No, we really don't. Saddam and his regime were saying they werent a threat and didnt have WMD.

ISIS is going out of their way to say they are a threat and will attack us and our interests.

As of 2003, it had been 12 years since Saddam/Iraq had invaded anyone and were not in any posture to do so anymore.

ISIS has their troops out in the field attempting to grab more territory.

I have no idea why otherwise thinking people are equating the two situations.

[Initech]

34. So we can throw another trillion at the military industrial complex for another stalemate?

We've got so many problems here at home we could be addressing:

- De-militarizing our out of control police force
- Ending Citizens United
- Fixing our crumbling infrastructure
- Equal rights for everyone
- Re regulating Wall Street

But no let's throw another trillion at the military industrial complex and get into another 12 year war.

[wyldwolf]

36. we could send the Ferguson police dept. to fight ISIS.

[JI7]

39. no wonder she supports hillary

[MohRokTah]

50. .

[JoePhilly]

51. Clearly, TPTB got to her.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Is that sarcasm, or sincere?

[JoePhilly]

63. Fair question on DU.

It's

[MannyGoldstein]

52. "with other countries"

Agreed.

[Nye Bevan]

60. A "Coalition of the Willing", if you will.

And whatever you do, don't forget Poland.

[GeorgeGist]

61. oooga boooga

Next

[RandiFan1290]

62. Another Reagan-crat joins the Generals?

Not a surprise.

She forgot to encourage our children to enlist!
We need more bodies, right?

http://todaysmilitary.com/contact-a-recruiter

[eridani]

66. Too bad that arming them was the number 1 priority a year ago n/t

[Major Hogwash]

67. She turned it up to 11.

10 wasn't quite loud enough for her, so she turned it up all the way.

[nilesobek]

68. Certainly, the heroic IDF can handle this ragtag group.

Let our proxy do the fighting.

[oberliner]

71. You think Israel should attack ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria?

Is that an actual suggestion?

[nilesobek]

72. ISIS has claimed they will raise their flag over Jerusalem.

They are a lot closer to that location than to the WH. And the IDF and their great air force is right there. No need for expensive military projection 10,000 miles away. If ISIS gets anywhere close to the border they are toast.

[oberliner]

86. Not sure how the governments of Syria and Iraq would respond

I don't think either recognizes Israel nor would like kindly on having IDF troops on their soil.

[nilesobek]

97. The Caliphate marches on, ra, ra, ra.

ISIS is not a seriously organized nation state like Israel. Almost mandatory conscription, land, sea and air based nuclear weapons platforms, and a modern air force that some call number one in the world, make Israel a superpower. It probably wouldn't matter what Syria or Iraq said if Israel felt threatened.

ISIS is only a threat to some distant oil exploration and exploitation outposts, and the Kurds and Christians. I'm not sure how I feel about intervention. I believe in the humanitarian side but it might be a cover for just defending oil rigs. Sorta surprised to see Warren suddenly sounding the alarm on this.

[oberliner]

98. "ISIS is only a threat to some distant oil exploration and exploitation outposts..."

Clearly they also a threat to any American journalists who attempt to cover the region.

[nilesobek]

106. Its a dumb move really

and just quickly turned the whole world against them. They could have used the journalists as an outlet to voice their causes but instead went for the fast sensationalism and brutality. They will reap the whirlwind for their methods. Serial kidnappers and war criminals they all are.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Gee, for someone who is "absolutely, positively, no-way no-how running"

it's kind of interesting that she's weighing in on Foreign Policy to that degree, isn't it?

[loyalsister]

84. Since she has credibility with the more liberal Dems,

she was probably asked to speak out by Dem leadership. I think that having a visible supporter, who is generally more liberal, is an opportunity to try to quell and comfort opposition.

[B Calm]

74. My wife (who is not political) saw Elizabeth Warren this week on Letterman and said

I hope she runs for president.

She would have a better chance of winning than Hillary!

[djean111]

79. I am starting to think there might be something to that, seeing as how Hillary supporters are

the ones who keep posting what they think are things that will somehow turn Warren supporters into Hillary supporters, of get Warren supporters to think hey! Warren is just like Hillary! And they are BFFs!! So I should love Hillary too!.
Doesn't work, really. TPP comes to mind. I am sure we will be reading about how GOOD the TPP and other "trade" agreements are, if Hillary is the candidate. At which point, I will have to leave the party, methinks.

Warren supporters, IMO, are not so much about Warren herself, but the idea that there is a better way for Democrats then the Third Way. So attempting to get Warren thrown under the bus is a bit misguided. It is what the idea of a Warren represents.

I actually had more respect for Third Wayers when they just sneered and said who the fuck else are ya gonna vote for.
IMO there is absolutely no way to gin up any more enthusiasm for Hillary than there is right now. And that is a big problem. All the smug assertions in the world that Hillary has all but a few of the Democratic base just swooning over her won't change that. If they are so sure about Hillary, why do they bother posting things about Warren that they feel will disenchant Warren supporters?

After all, I have been told "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" many many times. There just is not going to be a consensus on who is "the good".

[Orsino]

78. Disappointing.

I had hoped that we would be her first priority.

[Cha]

99. Maybe she sees that as us being her first priority?

[Orsino]

108. Then she is not as smart, or maybe not as well-intentioned, as I'd thought.

I'm not convinced ISIS should be on our list at all.

[shaayecanaan]

80. what does she propose to replace the Islamic state with

after she destroys it? Will she be inviting bashar al Assad back to slaughter everyone or will this be another one of those "nation building" exercises?

[sub.theory]

105. This is a good question

I think that's why the Obama Administration has been adamant that the Iraqi government in Baghdad must be more inclusive and representative. Maliki turned the government into a Shia enclave and made bitter enemies with Iraq's Sunnis. I do think that that the Obama Administration is well aware that these power vacuums cannot continue to exist. It is going to be a difficult struggle to get the Iraqi Shia and Sunni to function together. I may turn out to be impossible and partitioning necessary. Obviously extreme care will need to be exercised to prevent a repeat of ISIS in the emerging states, should this occur.

I don't think anyone knows what to do about Syria. I think the Obama Administration may be begrudgingly accepting that Assad is the better choice than ISIS, but only by a matter of degrees. A partitioning of Syria may be necessary as well.

It is indeed a mess the artificial borders that have been created in the region coupled with long raging sectarian feuds. There are no great options. That's for sure. It's a choice of bad options.

[TBF]

82. "It's the economy stupid" -

The one thing Bill Clinton understood very well is what Americans worry about. When I saw the little town in Little Rock where he was born I knew he understood how we all live. If anything we should be cutting military spending and putting that money towards retraining, jobs, services for those who need help.

Butter vs. Guns is an old argument and it is one I will never waver on. I am really quite disgusted to see Elizabeth go in this direction.

[Autumn]

85. I'm pretty sure Obama and Hillary agree with her on this.

[JEB]

88. The number one priority should be NOT CREATING terrorists.

[RedCappedBandit]

101. Bombing the middle east hasn't seemed to work yet.

I don't trust anyone who acts like it will be the solution THIS time.

[Jester Messiah]

102. Reminds me of a Klingon bit from Star Trek DS9.

Worf and another Klingon general were trying to convince the Klingon high chancellor of a course of action. "If an ally and an enemy tell him the same thing, he has no choice but to listen."

That's how I feel with this whole ISIS situation. McCain and the usual warhawks are all for going to war, but that's nothing new. But now, people I actually respect are telling me the same thing. My own instinct is to stay the hell out of it and try to fix our own issues on this side of the world. But I guess if so many people see this as something in which we should intervene, well, maybe they're right.

[factsarenotfair]

104. Has she said who will pay for this? n/t

[L0oniX]

111. "assault on all of our humanity." like folks torturing folks is?