General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAgain... From The New York Times Sept. 10, 2014...
But as President Obama prepares to send the United States on what could be a yearslong military campaign against the militant group, American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.
Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Departments top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obamas first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a farce, with members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.
Its hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems all on the basis of no corroborated information, said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.
Mr. Obama has spent years urging caution about the perils of wading into the Syrian civil war, a position that has led critics to argue that his inaction has contributed to the death and chaos there. Now, he faces criticism that he has become caught up in a rush to war with no clear vision for how the fighting will end.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=0
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Either Obama is being lied to by his Intelligence Team and Pentagon....through Rogue Operation conspiring with the Media...and he doesn't realize it...or he knows and can do nothing about it.
Any other thoughts? I've wondered "Why Now?" If he didn't go along with bombing Syria last year...then why do it now based on information which is a much an untruth about Khorasan as it was about Assad gassing his own people?
And...if we can't get help from our usual Coalition of the Willing to bomb in Syria then what did they know that we didn't about getting involved in Syria. They are helping in Iraq but not Syria because they know it is violation of International Law? Is this a break with the USA because of our foreign policy? A desertion by the COTW on Syrian policy while still helping us in Iraq for old times sake?
What are the other possibilities?
leftstreet
(40,590 posts)Or that he can do nothing about the situation?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)What happened between then and now?
Does the SS Fiasco have something to do with it, i.e. threats? Did the Gaza Bombings have something to do with it when Bibi was over here addressing Joint Session of Congress? Was there worry that Palestinians uniting and possibly getting seat on UN Security Council meant that public opinion was becoming unfavorable when the pictures of Gaza bombing victims (disproportionally children) were shown? The ISIS Crisis showed up on the scene shortly after the Cease Fire Agreement went into place which took attention away from what went on there and the aftermath effects on Gazan people. And, now, we have Diane Feinstein all upset over Khurasan and ISIS immediate threat/danger to USA as they kill children and rape and torture women and now Khurasan could be coming over here with explosives on planes if something isn't done, immediately?
Is this part of the Plan to Remap the ME which dictates Assad must leave Syria and Iran must be isolated? BiBi gave a speech yesterday (or over the weekend) calling for Iran to be dealt with. Sergei Lavrof, Russian Ambassador to UN, was interviewed on Bloomberg Business, yesterday, (he speaks English) talking about how Iran should be a partner in any negotiations in dealing with ISIS but he complained that Kerry left them out of a crucial strategy meeting. He said that negotiations with Assad should be done through the UN. Is this something that's going on in the background? A tug of war between Iran, Israel, USA over how and when Assad must be removed?
Is Obama caught up in a struggle he can't win because the MIC interests in the Middle East/Ukraine are now too powerful for him to be able to pull back from.
Any other possibilities?
leftstreet
(40,590 posts)Although I doubt anyone's lying to Obama
The MIC interests have been, are, and will be the same no matter who's in office
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Pacifism usually results in a lot more death.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
JEB
(4,748 posts)Yep, peace is death, honor is weakness, truth is lies. We Americans loves us a big pile of bloody money.
randome
(34,845 posts)We could wait until ISIS becomes more powerful. Ignore the warnings and do nothing because it's too messy. Kind of what Bush, Junior and Condoleeza Rice did.
Or we could do something to stop ISIS' murderous rampage.
I'm fine with Option #2. It's not at all the same thing as invading a sovereign country for no reason at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
JEB
(4,748 posts)Ain't America great?