How to defeat ISIS? First, don't fall into the 9/11 trap

Maybe you saw Obama-Hollande's joint speech today about ISIS?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/24/457224374/trying-to-build-robust-coalition-against-isis-hollande-arrives-in-washington

I think a recent poll showed that like 23% of Americans approve of how Obama has been handling ISIS so far. But his "don't do stupid shit" (aka don't make things worse) strategy takes a while to bear fruit, and most Americans lack the patience/long view to appreciate that. I think that's preferable to the alternative (the Bush way), and most in the media/politics never consider the lives and treasure saved (and diplomatic crises avoided) by Obama not engaging in a knee-jerk aggressive action. The French are all on board for whatever forceful response Hollande has in the works (they've already flown like 800 sorties against ISIS since 11/13), because like the US after 9/11, I guess people need the catharsis of knowing that you've swiftly hit back at the enemies who just surprised and hurt you.

Kerry seems optimistic that a "ceasefire" can be reached between the Assad gov't and the "moderate" resistance groups, if global powers can apply pressure on the Syrian players that they influence. NATO is reaching out to Russia to help, but I don't think Iran is at the table. If an agreement can be forged, then all parties can "unite" to take down ISIS. While that would be superior to the status quo, and would probably somewhat reduce suffering and the refugee crisis in the region, beating ISIS militarily is not the endgame. New ISIS'es will spring up even after we're all dead. It's just a matter of when/where the conditions are right for them to rise up (and it's in no short supply: corrupt gov'ts, wealth inequality, uneducated Muslim populace, marginalized Muslim immigrants, Islamophobia, provocative/aggressive Western foreign policies, etc.).

How about we consider other ways to beat ISIS? Whether or not it's true, there was an idea circulating that Osama wanted to use 9/11 to draw the US into a protracted Crusader-vs-Jihadist ground conflict in the Middle East that would serve as a great recruiting beacon and a means of sapping US power/influence in the region. Regardless of his grand plans, that is what happened anyway. Leaders like Bush and Blair fell into the trap - well "fell" sounds like an accident, they more like proudly leapt into the trap.

Terrorists can't beat conventional forces/gov'ts straight up - that's why they're terrorists. They win by provocation and propaganda: magnifying their influence/impact/perception from the victims' response to isolated terror attacks. Even 100 coordinated 9/11s would not bring down the US regime. It would be painful, but we would eventually recover. What Al Qaeda did on 9/11 had a huge multiplier effect for them. It triggered an increased dislike of Muslims by many Western peoples, which marginalized Muslim immigrants and drove thousands of them to militancy (more in Europe and Asia than the Americas). It triggered the US/NATO to invade or increase military presence in several Muslim nations, which upset the local populace and gave Jihadists the opportunity to launch thousands of new attacks on Crusader targets. We tortured and brutally killed thousands of Muslims (many innocent) - which was a gift-wrapped Xmas present to Osama.

So one historic terror attack (9/11) spawned thousands of other terror events, trillions of Western dollars wasted, and thousands of Westerners dead (and the creation of new terror groups like ISIS). Talk about ROI for Osama. Yes, Al Qaeda was decimated in the process, but that is compatible with their nihilist-martyr worldview, and their ranks will be replenished as long as the prevailing Crusader-Jihadist entrenched global hostility remains. It's now harder to execute new attacks against the US, but there are no shortage of Western soft targets to go after in less secure parts of the world like Africa and Turkey.

A successful terror movement depends on the terrorized power to freak out, overreact, and shoot themselves in the foot. We should learn from last decade and not grant ISIS the same benefit. ISIS wants us to be meaner to Muslims living in the West (pushing them away from our values and closer to ISIS types), to block the escape of moderate Muslims and desperate refugees from the Mideast, and of course to put vulnerable Crusader boots on the ground that they can launch new attacks against. Basically, ISIS loves the GOP agenda in response to the 11/13 attacks. This is when we need to think with our brains and not our balls (or our panic/fears). Yes, inaction is frustrating as ISIS gloats, but a short-term pain is worth a long-term victory - especially when you consider the alternative that I've just described.

Western reactions to the ISIS Paris attacks

And so we have to, each of us, do our part [for the refugee crisis]. And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution -- that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. 


-President Obama


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey


http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/congress-fights-over-refugees-isis-strategy/


The predictable right wing knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks is still upsetting. Increase gov't surveillance powers, shut down mosques, close Schengen borders, block Muslims and/or Syrians from getting refugee status. And then there's all the discussion about how to crush ISIS.


Let's remember that MOST of the attackers from 11/13 were already on European security watch lists, because they went to the Middle East (allegedly to fight for ISIS) and then returned to Europe. That should have been a red flag, like "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." But like with 9/11, info was not shared effectively across nations and agencies. So while we do have to blame the attackers, we also shouldn't forget that the security infrastructure that was supposed to protect the French seemed to fail. They don't need extra powers and fewer Muslims, they just need to better monitor the high-risk persons that have already been flagged by normal methods.


Even "liberal" Senator Feinstein and others have called for tech companies to give the gov't backdoor keys into their encrypted systems. I thought Snowden convinced us that such access will not make us safer - many false positives and civil rights violation risks, and no evidence that attacks were prevented. Also, if the gov't warehouses backdoors into all major web services, then that is a huge gold mine for hackers to focus on (and the gov't doesn't have a great track record of preventing thefts). If we need a police-security state in order to be/feel "safe", then maybe we have to question whether this is the right society to live in.


But the worst reaction relates to the demonizing of refugees, IMO. Just because one major attack occurred directly from the Syrian and Iraq conflicts (which have gone on for over 10 years combined), now all of a sudden the refugees are the problem? The US has settled about 2K Syrian refugees in total. Even if they were all bad apples and killed 10 Americans each, that would still be less that the yearly pre-existing gun violence in America (or auto deaths). Where is the furor and urgency over the gun and car makers (and their lax regulators) - the real mass murderers?


So after one Paris attack (assuming other major attacks are not imminent or fairly mature in their planning), now the refugees are public enemy #1? But that is the bogeyman politics of xenophobia and intolerance. And let's remember that while the casualties in Paris were horrific, that number of people die at the hands of ISIS about every day in Iraq-Syria. Yet our outrage and hysteria are more muted (or nonexistent) when it's Mideast towns getting bombed and Muslims getting senselessly murdered.


Lastly, ISIS attacked Russian and French targets partly because those nations attacked them first. I'm fairly sure that Russian and NATO air strikes killed some ISIS "innocents" who were not combatants too (maybe the families of ISIS fighters, locals who unfortunately live in ISIS territory, or whatnot). ISIS is not attacking Burma or Chile. While we can't let them intimidate us into isolationism and denial of their threat, we have to acknowledge that if we choose to wage war on them, they will not appreciate that and try to hurt us back. If our societies don't want to pay that price, then we shouldn't get involved. Or do we expect that just because we're the "good guys" that we should be able to easily wipe our our enemies abroad and not incur any pains in the process?


Maybe since the Iranian Revolution, this "clash of civilizations" between "Jihadists and Crusaders" feels more and more like an irrational blood feud than a traditional strategic geopolitical conflict. As as we know from history, blood feuds are messier, protracted, and with more senseless losses on both sides.

"Why would ISIS attack Paris?"

http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/14/9735512/paris-attacks-isis-why

Obviously the events in Paris are sickening, and our thoughts are with those affected.

If you happened to read this thread from Feb (wow, time flies and I think most Western leaders believed ISIS would be finished by now), G Woods felt that ISIS was not that concerned with attacking the West vs. solidifying their caliphate in the Mideast and carrying out their apocalyptic vision. However, recent events may have motivated ISIS to change their tune, or Woods was wrong from the start.

One factor could be ISIS' "competition" with Al-Qaeda for recruiting and waging violence against "the enemies of Islam". While many have come to Iraq/Syria for the allure of joining ISIS ranks and fighting enemies on Muslim lands, maybe it is a sexier recruiting tool if ISIS brazenly attacks the homelands of its enemies or other soft targets - to a lot of media coverage (they are recently implicated in the Russia plane bombing and suicide attacks in Lebanon). While their focus is still fighting enemies in Iraq and Syria, it seems plausible that they would allocate some attn/resources towards overseas plots.

Which leads to the second point - maybe ISIS has found that "victory" in Iraq-Syria is not within its grasp, and it's getting harder and harder to hold onto land and withstand constant coalition air attacks (especially with Russia now directly supporting Assad, although it has not targeted ISIS much if at all until the Egypt bombing). But now that ISIS has supposedly maddened the bear, they might be in for a tough slog with NATO and Russian air forces gunning for them. They are believed to desire a face-to-face showdown with Crusaders on their home turf (like the Mujahadeen/Taliban in Afghanistan), but it's possible that they bit off more than they can chew. Though as we already know from several past wars, bombing alone won't defeat a foreign army (but it might bring them to the bargaining table, as in the case of Serbia), and I doubt that we will see boots on the ground even after the Paris attack. Even if we do successfully invade a-la-9/11, it may not "defeat" ISIS. Their key members will melt into the populace, just like the Ba'athists and AQI leaders did last decade. We will eventually leave, the gov't we put in place will be a mess, and an ISIS-type movement will rise up again in the chaos. "Defeating ISIS" is just a GOP campaign slogan at this point, though of course I hope I am wrong.

The most tragic part of this is that one of the Paris attackers seems to have had a Syrian passport that was stamped in Greece as part of refugee asylum. Yes, there were concerns earlier that terrorists were infiltrating the West as refugees. But one known example out of millions of deserving refugees does not make the security junkies right. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, but we didn't do anything to that country. We made immigration/visas tougher, and maybe that is a valid thing to do with Syrians now, but we didn't close our doors to them 100%. I hope we remember it is possible to be humane and give help to refugees, while also maintaining tight security re: who we grant asylum and how they are monitored once accepted.

Sure, conservative leaders on both sides of the pond are predictably "blaming" the EU's open door policy (it is hardly that), or the refugees themselves, for the Paris attacks, but they're missing the bigger point. ISIS wants Europe to close its doors, so that the masses have nowhere to flee to. It makes ISIS stronger and scarier - is that what we want to enable? I'm not saying we should accept our current policies and feel that everything is fine (e.g. better internal monitoring of at least fighting age male refugees is needed), but we shouldn't play into ISIS' hand either. Remember that 99.99% of the refugees hate ISIS and are fleeing from them. Do we want to cut them off, and force them into potentially serving or supporting ISIS against their will at home? Do we want to risk their families getting radicalized and recruited because they were unable to flee?

"What ISIS really wants"

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201502251000

This Yale prof and Atlantic editor, Grame Woods, studied comms from ISIS and interviewed experts to try to understand the group better in order to recommend the best strategy to defeat them.

As before with the communists and the Axis of Evil, the US gov't and mainstream media (mostly FNC) have totally mischaracterized what ISIS is (and the actual threat they pose), which has led to some calls for stupid escalations. Fortunately we haven't gone off the deep end like with the 2003 Iraq invasion, but who knows what the future will hold?

I am not knowledgeable enough to really vet the author's conclusions, but from his interview he came off as extremely cogent and fair-minded on the issue. Basically, for Obama and some Muslim groups to dismiss ISIS as "un-Islamic" is a disservice to the cause of defeating them. In fact they are fanatically Islamic, and their playbook almost perfectly follows some Koranic verses about the end of times (or course they practice extremely militant/strict interpretations of Islam that most Muslims have eschewed). It's like if a fundamentalist Christian cult took over some land in Israel to try to bring about the events in Revelations. By trying to be PC and un-bigoted, these voices are ignoring a strategic opportunity that we can use against ISIS: if we know what they want and how they propose to get it according to their dogma, we can better deprive them of it.

It's also wrong to dismiss ISIS as just a bunch of murder and torture junkies who believe in nothing more than that. Yes they engage in those crimes, but that is not what motivates them (they are means to an end). Those atrocities are part of their larger vision for how to deal with the enemies of Islam (including "bad Muslims") and bring about the Apocalypse and afterlife rewards. Purge the Middle East, topple Rome, and bring about the end of days when the Crusaders fight back (and I guess Allah intervenes, vanquishes them, and rewards his loyal jihadists).

ISIS is not really a state (they don't care about land and political power), but more like a prolonged jihad (similar to the early days of Islam, historically). In fact they govern horribly (like most regimes in that region), and have promised recruits/residents a righteous welfare state that they can't possibly hope to deliver. The Taliban govern much better than them. They succeed through propaganda and battlefield exploits. As long as they are advancing, scaring the heretics, and struggling heroically, they look good. In fact the author compares them most similarly to the Nazis of the 1930s (the righteous chosen people are suffering due to the treachery of evil inferior oppressors, so they must rise up and settle the score). Western societies dangle the promise of freedom and a good life (but in order for some to have that life, many other poorer people in the world must suffer). Reactionary groups like the Nazis and ISIS sell the righteous struggle instead. They romanticize the hard life because it is worth it to fight the Crusaders/Zionists/apostates, and your reward for your sacrifice will be eternal glory. For marginalized, frustrated, and impoverished people in the Middle East (and some in the West), they are more likely to embrace that goal versus the democratic capitalist ideal that seems more foreign and unattainable to them than Star Trek.

So how do you beat them? Let their hollow and fragile marketing pitch blow up in their faces, and eventually their subjects and recruits will see through them and shun them. Take away their true strength, which is their propaganda built on their blitzkrieg victories and "mein kampf" narrative of righteous struggle against evil. "Contain, degrade, and wait it out" may be the best we can do. Halt their expansion, cut off their funding, and diminish their war capacity, similar to Obama's initial military response. It's even better if we help local moderate Muslim forces defeat them (well, if you can call the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi regimes moderate). The worst thing we can do is fight conventionally, as that plays into their narrative of resistance against Crusader oppression. They can't wait to die fighting against Americans and Jews, as that could be used as glorious recruiting material.

America is not that good at waiting patiently, and unfortunately many innocents could die within ISIS lands while we wait for them to fail. But it is the least bad option of the ones we have in front of us. Or does anyone have a better idea? Clearly we could bomb their forces to the Stone Age if we wanted, but then what? We'd leave a vacuum in 2 nations facing civil war and lack of governance. The traces of ISIS would just return later, even more motivated because of our violent campaign against their predecessors. Remember that ISIS more or less emerged out of the ashes of the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They waited years for their chance, and they took it. We can't afford to give them another.

#MuslimLivesMatter

https://news.vice.com/article/three-muslim-students-shot-dead-in-north-carolina?utm_source=vicenewsfb

On Tues a lone gunman killed 3 Muslim university students in NC (all from the same family). Vice reported that the killings were possibly a hate crime because the alleged shooter had posted atheist, anti-religious commentary on social media. The shooter also turned himself in, so maybe we will get to hear his motives. FYI he was white and was not killed by the police.

There was some online criticism that major Western media outlets were not following this tragedy with as much concern (if at all) as they showed for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the ISIS executions. So the #MuslimLivesMatter theme emerged to counter this potential bias. And let's not forget that the vast majority of victims of Islamic terrorism (plus the innocents killed during Western anti-terror ops) have been Muslims.

It's not like the NC victims were vocally Islamic and critical of America. AFAIK, they were just dental students who actually helped a nonprofit that tries to provide dental care to the 100K's of Syrian refugees from their civil war. As usual, violent cowards target totally unconnected victims. This event is unusual though, because we haven't seen many incidents of "violent atheism" before. I am not sure if the shooter was opposed to Islam specifically, or all faiths.

The foolish drumbeat for war against ISIS

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”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/isis-militants-al-qaida-911-intelligence-officials

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."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266144/speedreads-watch-sen-lindsey-graham-blast-obamas-response-to-isis

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/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

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/2014/09/17/whos-paying-the-pro-war-pundits/

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://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

Some interesting links

Kinda sad, but by no means particular to the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup

Though I wonder if dom. violence rates are actually rising over time, or if reporting is just increasing (the latter being a positive change I suppose).

Hyundai has a different take on the emotional effects of a big football win on a culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7v5pf0aN2Q 

And the narrative seems to be backed by some science at least! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2526937/Sporting-success-DOES-trigger-baby-booms-Spains-birth-rate-rose-16-Barcelonas-2009-Champions-League-victory.html

---

Also about the ISIS stuff: the CIA has been training "non-extremist, non-jihadist" Syrian rebels in Jordan in unconventional war tactics to fight the Assad regime. Some folks (ironically both on the far left and far right) are accusing our gov't of not screening those folks very well (a hard task) and inadvertently training fighters who later joined ISIS, J. Al-Nusra, and other extremist groups.

Granted I couldn't find reputable news sources that covered this story, but I can imagine that it's been hard to verify claims and apply journalistic rigor. However, it wouldn't be the first time (Viet Minh, Mujahadeen, Contras, right wing Cubans, etc.).

http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mi6-the-cia-and-turkeys-rogue-game-in-syria-9256551.html

----

Yet another red flag associated with fracking: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00026&segmentID=2

In the Marcellus Shale in the East, fracking is surfacing radioactive rock material from deep underground, and wastewater is showing very high levels of radium-226 (associated with bone cancers, half-life of 5K years). Fortunately for the drillers, they got an environmental exception, because for everyone else - radioactive water needs special disposal. But in PA, it's treated the same as household sewage.

Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.