General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome serious questions for those of you supporting the President's plan
for destroying ISIS:
Questions:
Who will mount a ground campaign to retake Mosul which is now an ISIS stronghold and is a densely populated city of over 2 million? As is well known, neither Iraqi or Peshmerga forces have anything close to the capability. We can't just bomb the shit out of Mosul. think Israel's bombing of Gaza regarding the kinds of civilian casualties which would result. Same goes for the much smaller but still sizable city of Tikrit.
In Syria, how do you turn the supposed moderate opposition forces, who are at least as committed to deposing Assad as they are to fighting ISIS, from a divided bunch of groups with their own history of atrocities, blurred allegiances and extremism, into an effective force directed at ISIS? How do you avoid increasing the already massive number of refugees?
How do you work with the new Iraqi government which is perceived by the large Sunni minority with mistrust if not loathing by the Sunnis? (the new government is much the same as the old one). Here's a quote from an L.A. Times article from yesterday:
Sunni outrage runs deep: Sunni leaders routinely label the Shiite-run army and militias as more of a terrorist threat than Islamic State.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-islamists-analysis-20140912-story.html#page=1
How do you successfully wage this campaign against ISIS without robust support from Arab "allies"?
From the NYT:
As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.
“As a student of terrorism for the last 30 years, I am afraid of that formula of ‘supporting the American effort,’ ” said Diaa Rashwan, a scholar at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in Cairo. “It is very dangerous.”
<snip>
Others were less than forthcoming.(others outside of the Syrian government which Obama has made clear we will not coordinate with at all) The foreign minister of Egypt — already at odds with Mr. Obama over the American decision to withhold some aid after the Egyptian military’s ouster last year of the elected president — complained that Egypt’s hands were full with its own fight against “terrorism,” referring to the Islamist opposition.
In Jordan, the state news agency reported that in a meeting about the extremists on Wednesday, King Abdullah II had told Secretary of State John Kerry “that the Palestinian cause remains the core of the conflict in the region” and that Jordan was focusing on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.
Turkey, which Mr. Kerry will visit on Friday, is concerned about attacks across its long border with ISIS-controlled Syria, and also about 49 Turkish government employees captured by the group in Iraq. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, an official advised not to expect public support for the American effort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/arabs-give-tepid-support-to-us-fight-against-isis.html
How can the U.S. possibly succeed going it alone? And that's what's happening.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)what you fail to realize is that "Air Strikes" are easy, clean, launch from far away, require no major support effort, no ground troops, and they always hit the right targets so these "Air Strikes" will surgically remove ISIS and it's members with razor precision.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)“It’s great we’re not putting any boots on the ground.” With bombs we don’t have to hear about American victims, and the civilians that get torn apart beneath our bombs disappear into occasional paragraphs in the back of newspapers (who’s talking about the 11 civilians we just blew up in Pakistan? Anyone?).
brush
(53,776 posts)This president's ISIS policy should not be a surprise, and to dems, noted for its restraint. And I say that realizing and acknowledging — unlike some who seem to overlook this or have yet to accept it — the President of the United States is head of the most rapacious, blood-stained, military-industrial-complex-dominated empire in the history of the world, i repeat, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and the forces that wield power within it, even beyond the power of the president, will not be denied yet again a profit-making opportunity. Obama has denied them repeatedly.
Criticize his foreign policy all you want but he has shown remarkable restraint, and courage, in the face of those aforementioned forces, in keeping us out of war in Syria; he played his cards right and got rid of Kaddaffi without sending troops; he let the Egypt Arab Spring play out to get rid of Mubarak without troop intervention, and he openly stated we're not sending troops to the Ukraine.
He has constantly shown his anti-war bona fides and even with this ISIS crisis his reluctance to get into a war is obvious to those who take the time to look and access the situation instead of repeating the far right and/or far left talking points against whatever he does or does not do.
I said all that to say that the President of the United States, and all that that title entails, could hardly keep out of this ISIS crisis and survive. That's right, I said SURVIVE — and I'm not talking about impeachment (this is America after all — see Ferguson, MO).
If Barack Obama had went on national TV the other night and said we will do nothing in regard to the current ISIS crisis as it is a matter for Syria and Iraq to solve he would, IMO, be either assassinated or perish in an Air Force One crash or some other "accident" within 6 months.
The MIC and its bought-and-paid-for sycophants (repug and blue dog dem politicians and/or their agents in the field) would see to that. Empire and humongous, humongous profits not gained previously in Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Ukraine are at stake (that's really what it's all about — cries of liberty and justice and threats to the US notwithstanding), and no reluctant-to-go-to-war president will be allowed to stand in the way of yet another oligarchic, coffer-stuffing cash bonanza, especially a black president.
Matter a fact, better make that dead in 3 months instead of 6 because of the black factor.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)I'm kidding, but what's the over/under on how long one of the Obama obsessives on DU trots this trope out without irony or sarcasm?
cali
(114,904 posts)this will respond to the questions I posed.
vi5
(13,305 posts)All I've seen in defense of this is spin. No rationale. No reasoning. No awareness as to their own hypocricy.
cali
(114,904 posts)"don't second guess the president", "ISIS is evil and must be dealt with", etc.
I think I'll just kick away at this thread.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Air strikes can only do so much. Without competent ground troops, it's a temporary fix. And there are no competent ground troops that can sustain victory over ISIS forces.
His presidency has been discussed extensively among the group of us who are major donors to the Party, especially in the last 3 years. The discussions and conclusions are miles apart from what you read at this site. It's like two different worlds really.
Short and to the point: He's buying time. That's all he's doing. Sometimes when you buy time the problem solves itself. But what's the chance of that being the case now?
littlemissmartypants
(22,652 posts)And you can't ...something... that you don't acknowledge.
Oh, yeah...change.
Now, that sounds familiar.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I would be honored if you would describe the differences that you have observed between discussion of Obama amongst major donors, like yourself, and what we see here on DU. Any insight you can give would be most appreciated.
-Laelth
Response to Laelth (Reply #11)
Laelth This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)This doesn't seem to be buying time to me- which implies, it seems, that he's maintaining the status quo. His plan doesn't do that.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Knowing that would help me in satisfactorily answering your question. This could be a matter of saying essentially the same thing but in different ways.
cali
(114,904 posts)further destabilization resulting, both in Iraq and Syria. More refugees, possible growth of ISIS, outrage over civilian deaths from bombing.
BKH70041
(961 posts)That's why I said he's buying time.
We're coming into midterms. Polls say the public wants something done. This is something.
Is it meant to work? As you insinuated, no doubt he would like for it to happen. Will it? My magic 8 ball says it is unlikely. And if things go wrong.....
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)when they know they can’t do anything. The establishment has been pushing for Obama to bomb the Assad regime and give weapons to ISIS nice people who swear to us that they’re not ISIS for years, and are now saying the current problems are the result of him not doing that (if only we took out the people fighting ISIS and gave ISIS weapons they would have been destroyed…what?).
Obama’s resisted this, and that (as well as various comments he’s made) suggests that he realizes nothing good will come of it. The US can’t bomb warring factions to peace. The strikes will be enough to look like were doing something (since doing something is all a lot of people seem to care about), and the three year timeframe is long enough to dump the rest on the next administration.
The troublesome part is the establishment in general seems to be more hawkish than Obama, and it seems unlikely that we’ll have a president less hawkish than him anytime soon.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)stops the advances of the war machine. IS Sunnis' live in Mosul and have returned home from Syria.
Removing gas and chemical weapons while IS was in Syria was the first step. Air strikes of Western and Arab origins should have started long ago on the border, paid for by the owners of the stolen weapons, and the Iraqi government.
How did Turkey control the pending flood of IS? Air strikes much sooner. Are foreign weapons numbers at a low in Syria now? A policy of rearming Syria will lead to a ground war in my opinion. Making the same mistake twice is ludicrous.
And how about the Shiite government of Baghdad? Why did they not stop the weapons at the border between Iraq and Syria. They knew that if they granted oil field leases again after several years of none, to Big Oil, the oil business would have to be protected by America.
NeoCon Business is simply coming in, around oil, and in the back door now that the US deficient is back down. Hopefully, Obama will not rearm Syria. We need solar and other renewable energy sources, not oil.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)#1. We plan to use the FSA as the primary "muscle" against ISIS in Syria
#2. The FSA is first and foremost dedicated to eliminating the Assad regime
#3. We can't conduct airstrikes in Syria against ISIS without explicit coordination with the Assad regime
...then I would love to hear it!
littlemissmartypants
(22,652 posts)Although some of us are asking, we are getting few replies. That doesn't mean that we are not pondering.
My question is this:
Why? And I would like a lengthy list of it, the why.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ littlemissmartypants
littlemissmartypants
(22,652 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)which would make them a long-term threat to the Kurds, Iraqi Shiites and minority religions, and even Iraqi Sunnis who don't agree with their violent fundamentalism. It might also mean they defeat Assad, and thus control all of Syria; they already make incursions into Lebanon, and would happily attack the Shia Hezbollah there too, if they have the capacity and territory to launch it from. They have an openly-stated desire to force their fundamentalism on the whole region; and would inevitably fight Iran too.
Hurting them now, with air strikes, will weaken them. Trying to isolate them is important too - any factions in Sunni regimes that are supporting them need to be stopped too. No, Mosul won't fall easily, and it will probably take time for the inhabitants that are left to decide IS is more painful to live under than the Iraqi government is - but Obama's actions may stop IS taking further territory, or intercept some weapons supplies to them. Air superiority allows you to stop the other side moving around. Eventually, Iraqis and Syrians will be able to match them (there have been some successes already, with American air support).
cali
(114,904 posts)seems to have become "we can't do nothing". That is NOT a cogent answer to the questions posed.
In fact, you don't answer any of the questions in my OP.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)"Eventually, Iraqis and Syrians will be able to match them"
How do you work with the new Iraqi government which is perceived by the large Sunni minority with mistrust if not loathing by the Sunnis?
"it will probably take time for the inhabitants that are left to decide IS is more painful to live under than the Iraqi government is"
How do you successfully wage this campaign against ISIS without robust support from Arab "allies"?
How can the U.S. possibly succeed going it alone?
I take those as rhetorical questions, because it's just your interpretation that the US is 'alone', or that the support is not robust enough.
I admit I can't answer the 2 questions in the paragraph about Syria. It's a disaster there, with or without US involvement.
I was taking your questions seriously - more seriously, I think, than your glib answer to me above. My answer is not just "we can't do nothing". I say that isolating IS, both physically from the air, and in terms of flows of arms and money, is important; and that is what the president is doing.
cali
(114,904 posts)detail is given as to why.
It is most certainly not merely my opinion that the U.S. is essentially going it alone. It is the opinion of many experts both within the region and outside of it. Again, read the articles.
It appears to me that your hopes are based on few facts. I've provided solid evidence and you discount it because of what you wish for.
We have plenty of recent history to look at. For instance, the U.S. had over a decade to forge a functional Iraqi military. It threw a lot of money, spent a lot of time and failed miserably, so your claim that eventually the Iraqi military will be able to defeat ISIS with the help of bombing (which simply is NOT feasible in Mosel) is a claim that can't bear serious examination.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)They point out the support is 'tepid'. That is not solid evidence that the US is in it alone. It's evidence that the other countries, like Obama, are cautious.
What is the alternative you propose? What do you think the most likely outcome of that course would be?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Supporters seem to be pretty much exactly what the Bush Administration and it's supporters did-- hope for the best, expect the best, depend on the best.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)The weapons that they possess are weapons captured from the worthless Iraqi military that were provided by the U.S. It would seem to me that their avenues for rearming and maintaining these weapons could be controlled. The conditions that they face take a major toll on the equipment as we found out. The maintenance of these weapons is huge financial burden and when coupled with the expertise to required may prove to be a serious challenge. The ISIS forces which are made up of volunteers were not met with any effective resistance and mostly walked in unopposed. When the bombs start falling and reality sets in their enthusiasm and dedication may quickly evaporate.
They have been able to take control of the area by brutal intimidation and slaughter of hundreds if not thousands of "enemies". Those who were murdered have relatives and can only wait for their revenge. Family and tribe are powerful elements in these areas and not something that can be dismissed. These lesson was not lost on our forces. An example is what transpired in Afghanistan when the fundamentalists were challenged and the people were able to rebel. It appears evident that the vast majority of people don't want to live under these stark conditions. I am not dismissing the challenge, but I do question just how much of a permanent treat ISIS presents.
I would welcome any thoughts about the situation.
louis-t
(23,292 posts)Any Congressperson or other right-wing loudmouth who wants boots on the ground should send their children and grand-children first. Put them right at the head of the line.
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)ISIL isn't our problem, Iraq was never our problem, Afghanistan was never our problem. We made them our problem and it destroyed all that it means to be an American.
Let them fight themselves or be absorbed by the neighboring countries. Take every last cnt that would have been spent there and spend it on the technologies that will make the entire region something we never even need to concern ourselves with. If the people there need help let them ask the UN.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Both Iraq and Syria were relatively non secularized Arab states prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq. There are large numbers of Muslims in both who had attitudes toward their religion more in line with how most in Turkey Egypt and Iran view theirs. Obviously there are fundamentalist Islamic extremists in all three of those nations also, but the Sunni majority nations of Egypt and Turkey, for example, are not very fertile ground for the ISIS world view today..
If Mosul is freed from ISIS control it will be because the majority of Mosul residents coordinate a revolt against their extremist current rulers with Iraq Government forces and Sunni tribe leaders, with logistic support from the U.S. and Iran etc. This is conceivable if the new Iraq government is more pragmatic in their choices than the last one was. Maliki thought he could get away with ruling Iraq with little regard for the Sunni minority. The new leader might have done the same had he been PM then instead of Maliki. The difference now though is that it has become obvious to most of the Shiite leadership inside Iraq that Maliki blew it and that the entire state of Iraq was on the verge of dissolving as a result with not even the capital safe from conquest. Faced with those disastrous results Iraq's Shiite leadership MAY now accept the fact that they will need to be more inclusive in order to have a country to rule.
All of this is still an open question, but ISIS has a way of alienating those who are subject to their rule outside of a fanatical base or those who have cut deals with them for reasons not related to theocracy. The majority of Sunni's in Iraq will ultimately have to decide whether they are better off with ISIS rulers or with a newly somewhat chastened Shiite led Iraq government assuming they are granted some vestiges of local rule in Sunni provinces. ISIS can be routed in Mosul by the people of Mosul themselves, with outside help, if that is the path they ultimately choose.
In Syria however, I see only chaos ahead for years to come. Some day it will be sorted out when people ultimately work through which long term options ultimately are less hopeless than the others, and when they decide they would rather die seeking to obtain those hopes than live on in bleak despair.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)With chips to listen and thus know more about who they are.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I launched a thread yesterday, HERE, in which I defended the President's limited escalation of the use of military force against IS, so I am one of the people to whom this thread is directed. I note that the OP demonstrates a solid knowledge of the "facts on the ground" in the Middle East, and that makes it much easier for me to respond as we start off this discussion with a similar understanding of the reality of the situation.
Let me caveat my response by saying that I know nothing about what the President, his advisers, the Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff really think about these matters. My response is purely speculative and is based solely upon my own, admittedly-limited observations. So, here goes.
First - Mosul and Tikrit. The OP rightly notes that Mosul and Tikrit can not be "conquered" by any military force currently available in the area. These cities were Sunni Baathist strongholds in the old Iraq, and they remain Sunni strongholds today. Neither the Iraqi military nor the Kurdish Peshmerga have the power to capture and control these cities today. These cities were centers of money and power under Saddam's rule. When we forced Iraq to adopt democracy, the majority Shiites in the South took power, and those same monied interests from the North were left with nowhere to go. They lost all political representation, and, as a result, they joined up with IS. IS filled the vacuum that we created when we turned Iraq into a democracy. Iraq's Sunnis now control IS. Many of them, it appears, have no love for Islamic fundamentalism, but, because IS was the only game in town, they played along.
The problem is that IS has failed. It had a chance to become the caliphate its leaders hoped for, but that chance has evaporated. Once Saudi Arabia withdrew its support for IS, and once the other gulf states in Saudi Arabia's orbit abandoned IS, the movement to create a Pan-Islamic state collapsed. Now, IS is little more than a Sunni Iraqi faction with little funding and little hope of accomplishing its broader goals.
They still control Mosul and Tikrit, however. I don't think we have any desire, nor any need, to dislodge them from these cities. I think the purpose of the President's plan is pure containment--cripple IS and prevent IS from encroaching upon Kurdish oil and natural gas fields that have the possibility of breaking the Russian near-monopoly on the sale of energy to Western Europe. That's all I think we're shooting for, and that's all that I think limited airstrikes can achieve.
Wiping out IS is not the real goal, as far as I can tell. Containing IS and protecting the Kurds will be plenty. Whether Iraq's Sunnis can ever be reunited with Iraq's Shiites is another question--one that does not appear to concern us very much. As it stands, Shiite Iraq is a failure. It's little more than an Iranian satellite state at present. Their military stinks--in part because we disastrously disbanded the Iraqi military shortly after we conquered them. All their military's institutional knowledge was lost. Their officer corps was decimated. Many of Iraq's competent military leaders are now working for IS. That makes sense because they were Baathists and supporters of Saddam Hussein. They were stripped of power in Shiite Iraq, and now they are working for their own, Sunni people as leaders of IS. Shiite Iraq's military is so bad, in fact, that an Iranian had to be brought in to lead Iraq's brand-new military. There's no way that the Iraqi military could defeat IS at the moment, but this may change as IS becomes depleted of arms, war machines, and ammunition now that their major backers have abandoned them. Either way, it appears to me that the President's plan has nothing to do with conquering either Mosul or Tikrit. Ultimately, we don't need to conquer either of those cities in order to achieve our goals.
Second - Syria. I don't think we care much about what happens in Syria. Assad has proven himself fully capable of defending his regime, and it's clear that none of the Syrian rebels has enough power to topple his regime. IS will be even less capable of overthrowing Assad after the punishment the US is likely to visit upon them. Frankly, from a human rights perspective, we're better off with Assad in charge. It appears that in this area of the world, at least, a minority population can rule over a majority population and more-or-less do an adequate job of protecting the rights of the subjugated majority. That was the case when Saddam Hussein (a minority Sunni) ruled Iraq (which has a Shiite majority). Saddam was no saint, but he kept the peace and liberalized Iraq. The same applies to Syria where a minority Alawite (Assad) rules over a majority Sunni population. As American history shows, it takes a long time for minority rights to be respected and protected when said country is ruled by its majority. How long did it take majority American whites to grant full citizenship and rights to minority Blacks? Hundreds of years? And we might not have even achieved that goal yet? How we ever expected the majority Shiites in Iraq to respect the rights of the minority Sunnis is beyond me. History shows that the tyranny of the majority in a democracy will seriously harm minority rights. Syria and Iraq, on the other hand, show that a minority population in control of government can adequately (if not perfectly) protect the rights of an out-of-power majority. As such, I don't think we care what happens in Syria--not much, in any event. It appears that Assad will hold on to the reins of power, and we're probably fine with that.
Third - We have the support of Arab allies for our campaign against IS. The Saudis have abandoned IS, as have Saudi Arabia's gulf state satellites, so I don't see the problem here.
Fourth - We're not going it alone. France will probably help. SA will help. Besides which, I think you mistake our goals. While it's true that the rhetoric coming out of the President and the Vice President calls for the utter destruction and elimination of IS, I don't think that's what we're really shooting for. What we want to do is relieve the Russian near-monopoly on energy sales to Western Europe. Kurdistan now has a working pipeline (through Turkey) to do just that. All we need to do is contain IS and protect the Kurds. That's it, and I think the President's plan to use limited military force against IS can achieve that goal.
-Laelth
cali
(114,904 posts)You say the President's goal is pure containment- but that isn't what he's articulated. the phrase he has used repeatedly is degrade and destroy.
Regarding Syria, I disagree. The evidence that this administration cares about what happens in Syria is on the record and it is strong evidence. And Syria has, over the past couple of years been a very destabilizing factor in the region. 3 million refugees will do that. Ongoing bloody civil war will do that.
I have posted evidence that your claim that we have strong backing from Arab allies is just not accurate. It's there in the OP. Just follow the links- or do your own research. There can be little doubt that the coalition is a particularly weak one, leaving the U.S. essentially so far out in front of its purported allies that is operating largely on its own.
And one of the problems with rhetoric is that actions often follow the kind of rhetoric issuing from the administration. Not to mention that you're saying the administration is lying through its teeth about their objectives.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)drove back ISIS forces. No help from Syrian rebels or reluctant Arab governments, just Kurds.
The Iraqi's got rid of the Maliki government. That might give the Iraqi army a reason to defend Iraq.
This all took place in a few weeks.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Thank you for this.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)request for serious responses by not responding for I am too furious about what we are about to do to respond.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)You say - in bold - Sunni outrage runs deep: Sunni leaders routinely label the Shiite-run army and militias as more of a terrorist threat than Islamic State. One of the things I have read in many articles is that Sec Kerry is working quietly on exactly that. He is working to get the Sunni countries to see the danger of ISIS and to push them to neither fund them or allow their media (which in most of those countries is state controlled or at least strongly "influenced"
to glorify the jihadists.
I think that this would have been far better done a few years ago - however without ISIS being seen as a threat to them as well as the world, there might not have been enough leverage to do this. It may be that at this time, it is too little and too late. However, if there is any significant success on this - no matter what it does with respect to the current effort, it is a step in the right direction.
It is possible that the US backing Israel to the degree that it has is a reason the US is not trusted as much as it otherwise would be. However, I suspect that that is minor compared to the negatives due the Iraq war. I don't think it is lost on the region, that the US did - for the first time in a few decades - challenge what Israel was doing. Though, to you, there might not have been all that much daylight between the two, to Israel, it was a massive difference and they made their displeasure known. Here, I am not surprised that Jordan, which is on the other side of the Jordan river from the West Bank, thinks the issue most critical to them is Palestine. However, I don't see that comment as meaning they are not concerned with both.
What I see is that the US is trying to lead a major effort that seems designed not just to drum up support for this effort, but to get the region itself to work together to stop doing things that have helped various radical groups thrive and grow. I don't think the US is the best suited leader on something like that, but I haven't seen any other organization or country try to lead on that -- and it is something Secretary Kerry has spoken of for around a decade.
From all sources, including any comments from the State Department, they know this diplomatic, political effort will be very very difficult. However, it is also clear that what they are doing is very necessary -- even if no military action were in the planning. There is no way to keep various areas there from becoming failed states with terrorists unless they themselves work against it. ( That the destabalization was caused by things like the US attacking Iraq does not change that ultimately they need to decide what they in their area - and nearby failed states hurts them more than anyone else. )
I think it would be good to wait until the UN sessions later this month that will be chaired by the Secretary one day and the President a week later. What we know now is that there is a very serious effort to make this an international effort. It will be interesting to see what happens at the UN. In particular, it is clear that while not planning jointly with Iran, information is obviously being passed as the US says that they are working to avoid any inadvertent getting in each other's way. (The wording here leads me to wonder if it depends on the meaning of words - it is impolitical for Obama to say is working with Iran, even if we are both working for the same aim.)
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)I discount politicos' rhetoric and focus on actions taken. Right now, it's too soon to tell.
I also say that we can not afford to assume we are getting anything like complete, objective information on ISIL or anything else connected with this action. I do assume that Obama is NOT "Bush-like", so I will grant him doubt's benefit until I see a good reason not to do so.
cali
(114,904 posts)pose formidable obstacles to success, and I do think recent history points to likely failure.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Will the US intervene to stop the killing of Sunni Arabs? There has been mass violence against all groups in Iraq including Sunni Arabs. Now some of the militants we’re providing air support to have beheaded some of their captives. To what extent would we be willing to intervene to protect Sunni Arabs – are we willing to go to war with the Iraqi government and send in soldiers? Or after destroying Sunni Arab armed forces would we just sit back and watch as other factions take their revenge?
Likewise, are we willing to intervene while the Kurdish militants we arm and provide air support for decide that they are going to use the opportunity to conquer Sunni Arab land?
We destroyed Fallujah to take it back from Sunni Arab militants in 2004. It fell back into the hands of Sunni Arab militants at the beginning of this year. Are we going to be destroying any other cities to “save” them? Will we keep destroying them as long as their populace decides it doesn’t want to be under the control of the sectarian government in Baghdad?
McCain was in favor of staying in Iraq until all the militant groups we disliked were killed. Is that our plan? If not, what’s our endgame? If “ISIS” survives another decade of US airstrikes just like it survived the prior decade, when do we call it quits? Or do we take the McCain approach, and stay there until the end of time?
Are we really prepared to go to war with these militant groups, or are we bombing them with the expectation that they’ll never attack us back?
Running into war without actually think things through seems insane to me. It’s what led us into this mess in the first place.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Last I heard the Saudis were joining in.
That's pretty much "game over".
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Bringing the Saudis to a fight is like bringing cats to a dog show.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)J_J_
(1,213 posts)Tell the nation and the world that he has decided to bomb Iraq.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025525265#post5
But we'll get it right this time right?
We don't need help from other countries, except to file a lawsuit to bring our war criminals to the Hague.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Which is to put money into defense contractors pockets and to maintain a bullying military presence in the Middle East.
Strategies and plans are way down on the list of priorities, they are simply invented as sales points. The people in the Middle East don't matter 1 f-ing bit to the America military empire. The people in the U.S. don't matter to them either, which is why any outrageous and contradictory information put forth by them as reasons for war don't have to make any sense at all, they simply don't care.
People like us who ask questions about perma-war and slaughtering civilians and torture camps are like gnats to them, all they hear is some buzzing noise around their murderous and scheming mindsets. They hire some PR people to deal with us and then herd us into prison buses if we protest.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Why are we not discovering and punishing those who are funding and supporting ISIS? As someone mentioned up-thread, ISIS cannot have long-term viability without solid funding sources.
ISIS is a symptom. Those who fund them are the REAL problem - what are we doing about that?
cali
(114,904 posts)there was an excellent article published yesterday- think it was reuters. ISIS controls 5 oil fields in Iraq and even selling at discount prices of approximately 40 to 65 bucks a barrel, they bring in about 1.5 million a day. In addition they tax individuals and businesses in those areas they control and they have looted banks in areas they've taken over. Private funding through wealthy individuals has evidently largely dried up.
edited to add link:
ww.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/oil-extortion-crime-where-isis-gets-its-money-n200991
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's concerning that a big chunk of their funding relies on oil trades through Turkey, a NATO ally.
I think clamping down on the oil trade would be more effective, long term, than air strikes.
cali
(114,904 posts)Destroy their oil trade. Here's where someone will jump in and tell us that oil is fungible blah blah blah- as if trade routes can't be disrupted and traders shut down.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are unhappy with their inability to lash out at the perceived tormentors in their own lives, so they take solace and a measure of transitive revenge from the destruction and death wrought on The Other. Thus, any solution that thwarts the catharsis of American military action must be discredited and subverted.
