Grayson on ISIS: “If Iraq Won’t Defend its Own Territory, Why Should We?”

[Alan Grayson]

Recently, before the U.S. announced and launched air attacks in Syria to destroy oil refineries in ISIS-controlled territory, Rep. Alan Grayson was invited onto Thom Hartmann's national TV show, to discuss alternatives. Thom Hartmann's view is that the United States is being baited into war. To support that view, Thom began the segment with testimony from an unusual witness: Osama Bin Laden, in a recording from ten years ago.

Osama Bin Laden : "[It's] easy to bait this administration.... All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written "Al Qaeda," in order to make generals race there, [and] to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.... We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.... Every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.... It is true that this shows that Al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush Administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush Administration-linked mega-corporations like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced [of]. And it all shows that the real loser is you, it is the American economy."

Thom Hartmann: Flash forward ten years, and it looks like ISIS is the exact same script as Bin Laden did a decade ago. With the video beheading of another American journalist, the group is practically begging the Obama Administration to get involved in a two-front war in Iraq and Syria. After all, there is nothing better for a terrorist group to cut its chops in global jihad than duking it out with America, in the heart of the Middle East. So does this mean it is time to rethink America's role in fighting ISIS? And why aren't other Arab countries in the region taking on a bigger role, in the fight against a group that is more extreme even for Al Qaeda? Joining now for more on this is Congressman Alan Grayson, Representative of Florida's 9th District, a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Grayson. Welcome back, it's always great to see you. You've sent letters to the U.S. Ambassadors of a number of Arab nations asking them to commit 5,000 troops as part of a multilateral force to fight ISIS. Do you want to walk us through this plan?

CongressmanAlan Grayson: Sure, I think that this is a regional problem that needs a regional solution. I don't [agree with those who] think that every time we see something bad in the world, we should bomb it. This is a problem that is rooted in the Sunni/Shiite warfare in the Middle East. I've called upon the Sunni leaders in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco, all of them that have forces at their command, to attack ISIS and end the threat of Sunni fundamentalism, with their own forces.

Thom: Have you received any responses from governments to say yes or no?

Alan: Actually I haven't yet. . . . [Since this interview, three Arab countries have said yes - Ed.] I think that these countries need to be prodded into defending themselves. I think Iraq had done an appallingly poor job of it. Their forces outnumber ISIS forces [by 100 to 1, and [yet] they constantly abandon the battlefield.] We'll see if the same thing is true [of Arab soldiers from] elsewhere. I'm hoping that these countries will go ahead, band together, and eliminate these Sunni fundamentalist threats, but if Iraq won't defend its own territory, if these countries won't eliminate these radicals in their midst, then you have to wonder, Tom, why should we?

Thom: One of the countries, in fact, that you have asked to be a part of that multilateral coalition is Saudi Arabia, which according to many sources has been a major source of funding for ISIS. How can it be a reliable partner in a coalition?

Alan: Well, it's time [for them] to put up or shut up. We need to determine if these countries have any fight in them, and that still remains to be seen. We're giving them an opportunity to step up, and do the job that they're supposed to do. I'm concerned that what we're seeing in the Middle East is what the Right Wing here in America calls a "culture of dependence." They've developed a dependence upon the [American military-industrial complex to defend them] , when in fact they should be defending themselves. Iraq alone has $100 billion in oil money at its disposal every year. They have some of the best-equipped troops in the entire world. They should be defending themselves, and not relying on our money and our blood to defend them.

Thom: Last year, all the hawks were calling for us to bomb President Assad in Syria; now they're calling us to bomb ISIS in Syria, which is fighting Assad in Syria. How does that make any sense?

Alan: It just doesn't. This is a situation where we have few friends (if any) in the region. [We can't just] jump ahead to go to war, and essentially become the Shiite Air Force -- which would be what we would be doing if we attacked ISIS on a consistent basis. This makes no sense. When I was on national TV last year arguing that we should not militarily intervene in Syria, one of the announcers asked me, "Shouldn't we be helping the opposition in Syria?" I said: "Which ones? The anti-Semites or the Al Qaeda graduates?" Well now we see, a year later, that we have the Al Qaeda graduates taking the lead. That was ISIS.

Thom: I mentioned in my intro that ISIS is following the Bin Laden playbook with beheadings, and trying to drag America -- or draw us -- into a war. Do you think it is a fair analysis?

Alan: Yes, and a simple question is, what is best for America? It doesn't make sense for us at all to be involved in another land war in the Middle East -- our third one in a short period of time -- when we haven't even disengaged ourselves from the remaining two. Does that make any sense? Do we spend another $4 trillion? Do we have another quarter of a million US troops return [from the Middle East with permanent brain abnormalities? Should we spill the blood, and kill, another 4,000 of our troops -- again? Does that make any sense? ]

Thom: Not to me. The U.S. has a longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists (even though we did negotiate with terrorists to free Bowe Bergdahl). Do you think given these killings with Sotloff and Foley, and the other countries getting their hostages out by actually negotiating and paying ransoms, that we should rethink that negotiating policy?

Alan: No, I don't think we need to rethink it. I understand the urge that people have right now, including the President and including most Americans, for revenge against ISIS. But revenge is one thing, and war is quite another. I don't think we should be putting our money and our blood on the line in a situation where we have no friends and no strategic advantage. The fact is that this intervention, if it does take place, would violate every single rule in the rulebook of warfare (or at least [how] Colin Powell has expressed it). We have no strategic interest, we have no strategic advantage, we would not be using a force that would essentially obliterate the enemy, [because such obliteration would require] everything short of nuclear weapons, I imagine. And additionally, we have no exit strategy. My goodness, we're in our thirteen year of war in Afghanistan. Don't we know the simple rule [by now] that if we're going to go in, we should know how we're going to get out?

Thom: What should that tell us about America's ability to nation-build, in that the countries that we have intervened in [during] the last 13 years -- Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan -- they're all spiraling into chaos?

Alan: Well, what it should tell us is that these countries would be better off if they turned to their neighbors [for help], and that is exactly what I'm suggesting. If you have an American soldier that goes to fight ISIS in the Middle East, what he's doing is becoming a target for an IED, a target for a sniper, whatever. If you have a Saudi soldier doing that, a Saudi soldier understands the local terrain, understands the local culture, understands the language and the religious practices, and he looks like the people he is trying to protect. That's the obvious solution to the problem , and we have to pull together and make it happen. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the UAE, and even the Iraqis don't want to shed their own blood, as long as they're confident that we will shed ours. That has to change.

Thom: I'm wondering if you've talked to anyone in the Administration, State, Defense? Any feedback on this?

Alan: No, they concede that they have no strategy [that would defeat ISIS]. What I am trying to do is create one.

Thom: That's brilliant. Congressman Grayson, it's great to have you in Congress. Thanks for joining us tonight.

The November election now is less than six weeks away. With both Republicans and Democrats enthralled by the military-industrial complex, and forever war now the "conventional wisdom," it's more important than ever that a strong voice for peace remain in Congress. If peace matters to you, then it's time that you support your real representative in Congress, Rep.Alan Grayson. Alan Grayson is saying what you're thinking, and no one else has the courage to say. That's why we need him in Congress, and why you need to contribute to his campaign, our campaign, your campaign - today.

[Politicalboi]

1. Because WE destroyed their country in an illegal war

If we think we're tired of war, try living in Iraq. We got rid of their only leader who NEVER would have let ISIS take over. It's ALL our fault. We should send them Bush/Cheney to do as they see fit. It might help calm things down. And the pay per view would be entertaining to say the least.

[flamingdem]

7. Thanks

People want to forget, but we owe them big time. The Kurds as well of course.

[former9thward]

11. BS

Iraq was not "destroyed". And I am glad a brutal dictator is no longer walking around even though I opposed U.S. intervention. Do you propose we stay in Iraq forever? What is the end?

[NanceGreggs]

13. Of course, Iraq was not "destroyed".

It was just mildly inconvenienced.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Well, Mr. Grayson, if you remember recent history, Bush/Cheney were advised by a very wise SOS....

that "if you break it, you own it", and we broke it. That's why.

[former9thward]

12. And Powell was wrong.

Countries are not China shops.

[NanceGreggs]

14. No, they're not.

Because when china shops are obliterated, they just submit a claim to their insurance company and are compensated for the damage to their inventory. Countries that are obliterated? Not so much.

Minds that have been obliterated by RW talking points - no compensation available. Sorry for your loss.

[karynnj]

3. Each link goes to fund raising for Grayson

What a narcissist! He called on a list of Sunni countries and told them to act on t his? .... and they didn't call him back?


Maybe because those countries were already meeting with each other and our Secretary of State, who was charged by the President with forming a regional coalition -- a coalition that DOES exits and is working with us. Maybe Grayson thinks he should be leading this, but he is simply a junior Congressman with absolutely no power to do this. Maybe he really does not know that Obama got a resolution passed unanimously to deal with some aspects of this and the Obama administration is already doing what he is only talking of doing.

[Sancho]

4. We need to get out of Iraq.

[NanceGreggs]

5. I realized quite a while ago ...

... that you speak in a unique form of English, where random phrases have built-in links to a "Give Grayson Money" websites.

Until reading this transcript, I didn't know that Thom Hartmann is also fluent in "Give Grayson Money". Live and learn.

I, too, think the Iraqis have some damned nerve expecting the country that destroyed theirs to feel any responsibility towards them. What kind of lazy, no-account folks watch their nation blown to bits - everything from homes, to schools, to hospitals, to previously in-place vital infra-structures - and then can't get off their asses and rebuild everything from scratch without incessant whining?

"We need to determine if these countries have any fight in them, and that still remains to be seen." Right on, Alan! Is having one's way of life obliterated REALLY an excuse for not having any "fight in them"? They should put up or shut up.

"The fact is that this intervention, if it does take place, would violate every single rule in the rulebook of warfare (or at least Colin Powell has expressed it)."

Well, there ya go! That's the same Colin Powell who "expressed" his support for the last administration by lying to the American people right along with them, right? Well, you can't go wrong with a guy like that, can you?

"With both Republicans and Democrats enthralled by the military-industrial complex ..." Yes, that's on-the-money, Alan. Democrats are "enthralled by the military-industrial complex". Do you actually KNOW any Democrats? I get the feeling you don't. But, hey, accusing your fellow Dems of being "enthralled" with the MIC is a fantastic way to get them to fill your campaign coffers - I'm sure.

In the meantime, maybe you should set up some classes in how to speak "Give Grayson Money" to educate the people of the Middle East. I'm sure if they all issued statements that linked-back to your campaign fundraising efforts, you'd see them in a much more sympathetic light.

Normally, I would not log-onto a "democratic" website in order to malign a fellow Democrat. But this is a website where calling President Obama a "piece of shit used car salesman" is not only permitted - but applauded. In keeping with that currently accepted policy, I have no qualms in calling you what you are: a self-serving idiot who once ran ads that edited a video mid-sentence to make a political opponent appear to be saying things he did not say. It was a typical RW trick - and you had no hesitation in using it to your advantage.

You, sir, are a disgrace.

[dionysus]

6. I see you've met Alan's wall of blue donatation links...

[NanceGreggs]

9. Welcome to Graysonland ...

... where every statement is just another blue-link brick in the wall.

[dionysus]

30. all in all it's just a, another link in the wall...

[rhett o rick]

8. The conservatives in DU are always ready to disparage honest progressives. They

support the status quo.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Which "honest progressive" did I disparage?

The one who said, "I'm concerned that what we're seeing in the Middle East is what the Right Wing here in America calls a "culture of dependence," and then goes on to explain how he agrees with the RW's assessment?

There, there - I know that anyone who doesn't agree with your ramblings is a conservative who supports the status quo, or a Conservadem, or a Third Wayer, or a DINO - or all of the other labels you regularly apply to anyone who doesn't take your illogical and incoherent nonsense seriously.

It's late - perhaps you should be abed. Surely after a good night's sleep, you'll wake up in the morning in-vinegar-ated, sourly at-the-ready to rattle off your usual series of epithets at those who really don't give a flyin' fuck about your opinion of anything.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Why, Nance, you old "authoritarian", you!

[dionysus]

31. ouch. that'll hurt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Ouch! That's bound to leave a mark.

[karynnj]

20. Fantastic post nt

[great white snark]

24. I'll never tire of reading this.

Absoulutely refreshing!

[awoke_in_2003]

29. "built-in links to a "Give Grayson Money" "

Those are a bit off putting, aren't they? Good to see you around, Nance

[Sunlei]

15. Same thing I called for "these countries would be better off if they turned to their neighbors"

"I've called upon the Sunni leaders in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco, all of them that have forces at their command, to attack ISIS" Grayson 2014

I think it's good that many ME countries have recently stepped up with their Air power. Most of the strikes are from them.

Now the ME countries need to get together with their best ground force, the "Kurdish fighters/IRAQ gov team" and assist them. Assist them with money or troops.

I hope we never have to have our American troops fight and die on the ground again, in any part of the world.

[karynnj]

21. Maybe Grayson needs to suggest the President send the SoS to meet with these countries in Jetta.

-- except the President and SoS started that effort in June and have been more successful than most here or anyone in the media wrote as possible.

Why did Grayson not praise them for their efforts and any success they had? Could it be that that would not get as many to click through and give Grayson money. Do you think Grayson might offend some who click on specific things expecting that the link might take them to real information?

[Sunlei]

22. Kerry has had diplomatic contacts in that area for more than a decade. Grayson doesn't have to

write a dissertation, every week to 'give credit' to hundreds of people. He is one of our 'good guys' in my book & his work is good enough for me. I wish other Ds had someone to take the time to post a weekly on DU, Mr. Grayson is the only one who does that.

Most of us have read about many of the diplomatic contacts, foreign work, & meetings with other countries Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have done for American interests.

All their 'work' including Mr. Graysons calls- added up to the ME countries stepping up to take care of some of their IS problem, on their own.

That is something the bush admins were never able to do.

[karynnj]

23. However Grayson writes as if he is doing something unigue and in particular NOT what Obama is doing

In fact, while his contacts were, per what he wrote, ignored. Obama and Kerry were not. Likely because they have credibility that he does not.

I disagree with you on Grayson - and while it is true that he posts often here, it is always a post and run post -- always with links to give him money. Note that this is about as detailed as he gets - and all he did was to post an interview he did - highlighting statements.

Had those highlights linked to studies, articles, fuller statements on his Congressional site, it would have been informative and - even if I disagreed - I would admit that it did respect the DU audience. Instead, all links lead to give me money -- and he never responds to a single comment. It may well be that these are posted by his staff. After all, they are never fresh pieces of writing - just a copy of his email already written as such or things like this. This is why these posts do not impress me as respectful to us as people, just as potential sources of dollars.

Here's an example of what did impress me. In 2005 or 2006, both Kerry and Kennedy used Daily Kos to ask for help in getting a successful filibuster of Alito. Though the filibuster failed, their use of DK did help generate some support. In addition to things written by the Senators (or written for them that they authorized as being from them), there were questions answered by Kennedy's staff - labeled as exactly that providing information people requested.

I do think it would be good if more leaders - in the Senate or the administration did communicate with people. I think that Daily Kos has had more success in getting Senators and others to post - maybe because their format of a substantial diary works better. Kerry, as Senator, was one who did this multiple times and it is clear he at least had staff view the responses as he often answers many good questions with detailed responses. As SoS, I don't think he has done this, but he has done a few "google hangouts".

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. !!!

[OilemFirchen]

25. STC* with my LOL.

* Scared the cats.

[L0oniX]

27. Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT Explanation:Use extra strength Troll Begone everyday to keep the mind sane

[OilemFirchen]

28. Okay.

[mgcgulfcoast]

26. he is right.

[sendero]

32. I'm pretty sure...

.... the armies that are "abandoning the battlefield" do so because they are not the sect in power and are, for sectarian reasons, nominally on the side of ISIS.

Grayson is engaging in a gross over-simplification here.