ISIS is a problem for the US and many of our partners, that is
obvious. But it is not an acute problem, nor the only problem facing our
civilization (you wouldn't know it after listening to many in DC
though). And let's be clear; Obama and company didn't decide to
intervene militarily to save some poor religious minority stuck on a
mountain (that very few of us even knew existed before the summer). ISIS
was getting the upper hand against the best Kurdish troops, and the
Kurds are the only reasonably trustworthy/capable/secular petro-ally we
have left in Mesopotamia. So something had to be done.
Just
because we've pretty much marginalized groups like Al Qaeda (and its
affiliates such as AQAP) through cyber warfare and drones, and we're
washing our hands of the Taliban (pretty much raised the white flag
there), we need a new Islamist bogeyman to fixate on. ISIS has shown
some impressive strategy and execution (and atrocious behavior/beliefs)
in seizing/holding Arab lands, but of course they exploited a lot of
favorable conditions in the region to do so. It is a whole different
matter to mount a major attack on a Western power. But that is exactly
what everyone is predicting they are up to (and capable of). Heck, they
could be already here!
This is what the
former director of the Nat'l Counterterrorism Center (Matt Olson) said
about ISIS' capability to attack the US: “There is no credible
information that [Isis] is planning to attack
the United States”. He added there was “no indication at this point of a
cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop”.
[Olson] said said it was “spot on” to
conclude that Isis is significantly more limited than al-Qaida was, for
example, in the run-up to 9/11, when it had underground cells across
Europe and the US. “We certainly aren’t there,” Olsen said. “[Isis] is
not al-Qaida pre-9/11”.
Yet
this is what Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Senate Armed
Svcs. Cmte., said about ISIS: "They are coming here. It is about our
homeland."
I
can't begin to comment how grossly irresponsible and misleading this is
from someone who has access to actual intel and expert opinion (and
helps craft defense policy as well). And Boehner wants to try to impeach
Obama for misconduct? Shitheads like Graham are just repeating the same
garbage that led the public to believe Saddam had WMDs. Because when
your family and your home are in perceived jeopardy, your better
judgment weakens and you may become more susceptible to suggestion.
So
why did Obama and company go from a "wait and see" approach with Syria
to forming a "coalition" to "destroy" ISIS (without risking any US
troops of course)? Cynics would say because public opinion rapidly
shifted from 70% against intervention to 60% pro, but they have a point.
Why did opinion shift so much? Because of 2 videos of journalists being
executed. That shows you how stupid this country is (incl. Obama on
down). While those deaths were barbaric and tragic, I'm sorry to say
that worse shit is occurring every damn day in many places across the
globe (ISIS is doing much worse stuff to non-Americans too - where are
those videos?). But those are places that we don't care about (Central
Africa, Latin America) or don't have the stomach/chutzpah to really
intervene (China, Palestine). More Americans died in Benghazi, and while
the GOP had a shitfit about it, no one was calling for war against the
parties responsible. Islamic Jihad bombed and killed over 200 servicemen
in 1983, and Reagan not only failed to respond, but pulled us out of
Lebanon! Very rarely (if ever) do sound decisions result from vengeful,
fearful sentiment.
Air power alone will
not stop an insurgency - we've seen that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and
other places. Maybe it will slow ISIS down and take out some leaders
(but of course it may also motivate them to try harder to attack our
homeland - ironically the very threat that we're working to avoid). So
what do we do about the inevitable escalation decision? Remember that
Islamists have "home field advantage" and want to provoke the infidel
powers into a protracted quagmire. Maybe that's why they released the
videos? Will we take the bait again?
Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/
Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/
It's
also an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that the
neocon-leaning pundits and politicians, who are vociferously calling for
military action, are also funded by America's major defense companies.
As overall defense budgets are getting scrutinized and spending in
Iraq/Afghanistan is winding down, the death dealers need a new conflict
theater to peddle and exploit.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/
PS
- did you wonder why Obama and others in DC refer to ISIS as ISIL, and
don't use the official name of Islamic State either? Obviously they
don't want to use the word "Islamic" if they can avoid it, which
suggests that this is another Crusade or anti-Islam conquest. But the
ISIL acronym avoids the hot-button word of Syria. The US is more
comfortable with bombing Iraq - we've been doing it for decades and we
have relations with the various groups. But with Syria (the conflict
that Obama has avoided for 3+ years), it's a total cluster F and we
obviously can't tell a moderate rebel from a crazy one. So ISIL allows
Obama and company the official excuse/cover to avoid the Syrian portion
of the war. This is just a hypothesis of course.http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
