Here’s a new CNN New “bulletin,” one of the few services I get by email:
Coalition aircraft made one airstrike in Syria and four in Iraq overnight, a U.S. official says.
The Syria strike, involving U.S. and other coalition aircraft, hit an ISIS staging area near the Iraq border, damaging eight ISIS vehicles, the official says.
Imagine how much money it cost to mount a multiple-plane airstrike that “damaged eight ISIS vehicles.” Is that worth it? I doubt it.
Today’s editorial (by the editorial board) in the New York Times, “Wrong turn on Syria: No convincing plan“, criticizes the willy-nilly approach of Obama toward ISIS:
President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.
He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?
There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.
Yesterday on the evening news, a U.S. Army general said that the military campaign against ISIS could take years. Years??? And despite the talk of coalition, the U.S. is doing most of the work. Yet it is the other countries who will suffer the most harm from ISIS as that brutal gang continues its plan to establish the caliphate throughout the region. The damage to us is the threat of terrorism, far less severe than the imminent slaughter of thousands in the Middle East. Oh yes, and there’s oil, of course. . .
Another headline from today’s Times (click the screenshot to go to the article):
As I suspected, the “coalition” is largely composed of the U.S., with some token help from the five other nations. The Times notes:
In disclosing the identities of the five Sunni Arab nations that joined or supported the attacks in Syria — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan and Qatar — the Obama administration sought to paint a picture of an international coalition resolute in its determination to take on the Sunni militant group.
Jordan said that “a number of Royal Jordanian Air Force fighters destroyed” several targets but did not specify where; the Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the air force “launched its first strikes against ISIL targets” on Monday evening, using another acronym for the Islamic State. American officials said that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain also took active part in the strikes, and that Qatar played a “supporting” role.
But Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., the director of operations with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the majority of strikes were carried out by American warplanes and cruise missiles, with the aim of hindering the ability of the Islamic State to cross the border into Iraq and attack Iraqi forces.
Yes, the Saudis, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan did send some planes, but how much of the effort now and in the future will be conducted by the U.S. rather than our “allies” in this endeavor? Were I in the press, I’d demand to know exactly how much the other nations are helping (they can’t, of course, specify the behind-the-scenes financial stuff, but I want to know how many planes and other military stuff is involved from each nation).
And yet another bulletin from CNN has just this moment arrived in my inbox:
Defeating ISIS in Iraq will take time, in part because the Iraqi military needs to be reconstituted, and because it will take time to arrange the kind of local support like the Sunni Awakening years ago, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says.
U.S. airstrikes aren’t designed to defeat ISIS by themselves, he said. “You and others should not be looking for some massive retreat in the next week or two,” he tells CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.
The fight against ISIS not only will include ongoing strikes, but also foreign fighters, cutting off financing, and a major effort to “reclaim Islam by Muslims,” he says.
Yes, it will take “time.” We’re in it for the long haul, and, as in Iraq, the long haul doesn’t look propitious. Cutting off financing won’t be effective, given the sources of money that ISIS undoubtedly has, and really, “reclaiming Islam by Muslims”? ISIS members are Muslims. Even if they weren’t, how does Kerry propose to do that? How does he propose to turn extremist Muslims into peaceful and moderate ones?
The more I think about it, the more I feel that the U.S. doesn’t know what it is doing in this fight, has no long-term plan, and perhaps should consider getting the hell out of the ISIS business. For if we really wanted to defeat them, we’d have to go to war with ground troops, and the U.S. public doesn’t have the stomach for that.
So, a question: If you were Obama, what would you do?
Down US plane + captured pilot + seal team rescue attempt + failed attempt = boots on ground.
May the FSM prevent such – but it or similar is possible/likely.
Is the US the only nation in history that fights with one hand tied behind its back? I suppose Israel and Russia also use strategic restraint in their adventures, but the US does it consistently and to a much greater extent. We do not have unlimited resources, technically, but the limits on our resources are such that we could wipe out a group like ISIS in fairly short order if we chose to – the problem of course is that there is another ISIS right behind them. We seem to approach military engagements like a Clint Eastwood film, where the “hero” tolerates the “bad guys” to a point where he is “justified” in taking decisive bloody action. Clint Eastwood movies suck as policy. I’m against military interventions but if the determination is that a cause is not worth the effective use of troops and tanks, smarter people might conclude the cause is not worth fighting at all. I hope you’re wrong at that there is no Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, etc, waiting to suck us in – I fear both sides would like nothing better. I hope the punks don’t feel lucky.
That’s a problem of all democracies, they all have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, as they have to account to their electorate. Dictatorships of any sort can conduct any sort of war they like.
I think that’s only a problem when the government wants to fight a war that the people don’t.
True enough, but there is also the consideration of international opinion: read, not doing anything to hurt the bottom lines of corporations and sheikhs. You know, the real electorate …
I think this is misleading. Congress abdicated its responsibility to provide the “public debate” that they are obligated to do. The President didn’t prevent this debate.
I tend to agree. Since WWII or maybe Korea, Congress has been more than happy to allow the executive branch to decide, for the most part, when we go to war, how much effort to put into it, and so on.
And in the current political climate, I can’t imagine the President waiting on Congress to act to be a good thing. They can’t even pass a budget, and the more right-leaning members’ goal seems to be to stymie any successful policy, any action, for fear that the president or democrats could get some credit for running an effective government if any succesful policy gets passed. Just imagine the president waiting on such people to decide on foreign policy.
Good point. The debate wasn’t prevented so much as it just simply didn’t take place. The fact is, congress has almost completely abdicated their role declaring war, especially the bit about public debate. We’ve effectively created a not all that constitutional system in which the Executive Branch has almost unilateral authority on decisions regarding military enagagements.
Yeah, I LOLed when I read that. That’s the way it is supposed to work, and wouldn’t it be wonderful if it did. Unfortunately I don’t think more than half of “the people’s representatives” would even know what the word “assertion” means without someone on their staff trying to explain it to them, or are more competent than a 3rd grader to test and examine one.
If you have doubts just watch some footage of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology questioning White House Science Director, John Holdren, about Obama’s carbon emissions reduction initiative. It will make you weep realizing just how deep in shit we are.
And of course the typical “people’s representative” never had any intention or desire to represent the interests of the general populations of their districts.
Rather than misleading, it is false. The president has asked Congress to authorize action in Syria and, this month, the White House said: “[President Obama] reiterated his belief that the nation is stronger and our efforts more effective when the President and Congress work together to combat a national security threat like ISIL.”
Somewhere in the NYT editorial, the question, what specific actions has the president taken to disallow public debate on how to deal with ISIS/ISIL, should have been answered and if not, then the claim he disallowed public debate should have been withdrawn.
Yes, “false” would have been a better word choice.
Congress actually doesn’t want this debate ahead of the elections because they are concerned about supporting a war the voters might not like. They could have brought it up before the summer recess, but sessions were managed to deliberately make sure they ran out of time. There’s a limit to how much should be discussed in public too – transmitting the strategy to the enemy is not a good idea for obvious reasons.
As for how much the five Sunni Arab nations contributed (and the fact we saw Sunni vs Sunni is a remarkable achievement by Obama/Kerry in itself):
Jordan – 4 F-16 fighters
Bahrain – 2 F-16 fighters
UAE – 4 F-16 fighters
Saudi Arabia – 4 F-15 fighters
Qatar – Mirage 2000 fighters providing air cover in case the Syrian Air Force turn up.
The raids on the first night apparently had no civilian casualties. They are still assessing the second night.
There’s a lot of information available via the Pentagon and CENTCOM. The media doesn’t report it all, especially the stuff that doesn’t fit their agenda. If any of you were subjected to the spin on this story on Fox, you’ll know what I mean. Limited time also affects what they report.
France will help the “moderate opposition,” but this will be akin to throwing sandbags at Hurricane Jihad.
I would consult my advisors, draw up a plan that did not consist of stupid stuff, and ask for support from Congress…
Politically it is impossible to do nothing in the face of this powerful, militarized group that kills people for not converting to Islam, and that chops off the heads of American or British hostages to get its way.
Another thing I would do is to set a policy for energy independence.
Um, I guess Obama is doing what I would do.
But if the President doesn’t “do something” it will hurt Demos’ chances in the upcoming election. So, obviously…
The sensible option would be to stand back and let them all destroy each other. It’s the Gulf states that are threatened militarily, not the US.
But if ISIL gets control of all that oil…
My book recommendation for the week: Morris Berman, “The Twilight of American Culture.”
On Rachel Maddow, they showed the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles from two US warships. If I understood her correctly, these two ships launched a total of 40 of these missiles.
Curious, I Googled “Tomahawk missile cost” and according to Wikipedia they set us back $1.59 million each. So that makes the missile strike cost over $60 million just for the cost of the ammunition. One has to wonder then if $60 million of damage was done to ISIS.
Not that this is an exhaustive survey, but the piece did say that they damaged eight ISIS vehicles. I think that unless those ISIS vehicles were a fleet of Bugatti Veyrons mixed in with a few priceless classic collectibles, I’m gonna guess no, it wasn’t a cost effective strike.
Let’s be fair here though. Material costs are an important metric in assessing military actions, but there is legitimately a lot more to it than direct monetary value comparison.
Those vehicles may be worth more to ISIS than the ordinance is to the US.
If people where killed or injured severly enough they can no longer fight, that is of value too. Harder, perhaps, to quantify but no less real, and often more effective at reducing the opposition’s ability to continue. Killing people also can affect morale which is very often a key factor.
Well yes, of course things are more complicated than that, I didn’t mean to oversimplify, I just felt that the original comment spoke specifically to the exorbitant costs of military hardware and to the luke warm results missiles and smart-bombs have produced when applied in such a manner.
Well, if we’re going to be fair here, then we need to evaluate the opportunity cost of using the ordinance. I.e., if we’d spent $60million in a different manner, could we have “bought” more “success” against ISIS?
Hard to say, but I think $60 million spent on arming and supporting the Kurdish ground troops might have accomplished more than the destruction of 6 ISIS vehicles (and nearby ISIS fighters).
False choice, of course.
They have very few tanks, most pinched from the Iraqi army, but these tanks have a big strategic value. Destroying them makes the job of the Kurds much easier. The first night, several buildings were destroyed – training centres, bomb making factories, arsenals etc. It takes time and intelligence.
The sad thing is the US military machine is massive because the US defence budget has been massive and there have been many “toys” delivered that no one needs. It’s a make work project at this point.
When you have all the toys, you really do want to use them and if not you, than others that would like you to use your toys on their behalf.
Unfortunately, sometimes reality doesn’t actually afford us any “good” solutions, only varying degrees of lousy solutions, such that you’re forced to try to pick the least lousy one. I think Obama’s perceived indecisiveness is simply a function of this reality.
Do nothing, air strikes and boots on the ground seem to be the only options — all of which seem lousy to me. We can all argue about which is the least lousy.
Every time I hear about the cost of these weapons I do a mental “R01 equivalence” conversion. It’s scary how much better off we could be by putting resources into research than simply blowing things up.
Obama is reacting to histrionics – which is a sad but understandable political reality. I have no idea what I’d do in his situation. However whatever happens if it’s bad we know it will be “his fault”.
Go back nearly 100 years and prevent the Sykes–Picot carve up?
Or go back 11 years and not invade Iraq and destabilize the region? Or at least have a better plan to do so.
It was the Sykes-Picot Agreement that is at the guts of all the ME issues ( and that includes the foundation of Israel 30 or so years after) since it chopped up the old Ottoman Empire into new countries that were supposedly within the French and British Empires “spheres of influence”. Artificial boundaries were imposed upon new countries such as Iraq (1919) without taking into consideration the ethnic and religious make up of the new state. Pretty well everything since has been a consequence of that agreement.
All borders are artficial, and the mixing of ethnic/religious groups means that there could not have been a division based on human geography anyway. The breakup of large states nearly always causes violence, however you try to divide it up afterwards, and whoever does so for whatever reasons.
If the British had not supported the Ottoman Empire for so long, and let Napoleon conquer it in 1798, maybe the aftershocks would be over by now.
“…have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress.”
Well congress is responsible for getting us into Iraq in the first place. They have been dying to do so since the 80s and George Bush.. sorry Dick Cheney granted their wish.
So no, I don’t think Congress should have say in much.. since their track record is so fantastic.
I would make foreign aid in the region contingent on sending troops to punish groups that violate international law.
I would drop food, water, medicine, science books, and musical instruments (orchestral instruments, guitars, lutes, mandolins, etc.).
ISIS would eat the food, drink the water, use the medicine to treat its wounded fighters and burn all the rest of the stuff.
A group that takes pleasure in decapitating defenceless hostages and releasing the videos as jihadist snuff porn is not going to be dissuaded or deterred by your proposed “hearts and minds” approach. We obviously have no way of knowing how effective these recent airstrikes were, but I think the depressing reality is that the only way to defeat ISIS is by the application of extreme violence, preferably involving the death of as many of them as possible. They claim to be fighting a holy war, that god is on their side, and that he will ensure their victory. Showing them the utter emptiness of their beliefs might go some way to lancing the boil of militant Islam once and for all.
Compromise then, leave all the normal medicines (Ibuprophen, Tylenol, antibiotics) safe, but make the bottles of Viagra tainted with Po-210. Ah, the sharp end of irony.
With ideas like that, you could get recruited by CIA.
Well, you can drop it in Kurd-controlled territory, so it goes to help the folks fighting ISIS rather than ISIS.
But you bring up a general problem, which is that it is very difficult to help the civilian population in an occupied region without helping the occupiers. You have to do a clear-eyed calculation: if you think the help you’re giving the occupiers is a cost worth the benefit of giving (some, perhaps marginal) help to the civilians, do it. If you think not, don’t do it. Its the same issue we’ve struggled with in the past when doing things like giving food to Somalia.
If I were Obama,
1) No US ground troop mobilization. Perhaps small groups of “advisors” and or “instructors” depending on circumstances.
2)No military action at all without a strong diversified coalition like Kosovo, in which the US does not dominate.
But, I don’t know what Obama knows, and I’d sure as hell be searching diligently for better ideas.
Continue the air strikes, create a true coalition and commit to sending ground troops for specific missions. Understand missions before going in by speaking to Iraqi troops.
A commenter mentioned this yesterday – address the humanitarian crises as they arise – have ground units whose mission is just this. Get Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s category 2 Muslims (the moderates)on our side and help them not live in fear of category 1. Remove preacher teachers and bring back the moderate clerics (are there any?).
That’s all I’ve got and who knows what the solution is, if any. I’m sure it’s 10,000x more complex than this.
It seems clear that until Iraq gets its armed forces sufficiently capable to fight ISIS on the ground, bombing ISIS is a stop-gap measure that might impede ISIS a bit, and assist the Kurds. I vacillate in my thinking about the wisdom of our involvement. I suspect that the crackpot Republicans would make noises if Obama did not do something and if they control the white house and congress will have American boots ion the ground in no time.
I agree with your post, but the crackpot Republicans would make noises if Obama has a waldorf salad with lunch.
There seems to be a great deal of agreement that military strikes are not cost effective and blowing things up is usually futile and I completely agree with the idea that the reality of foreign policy is that leaders are often faced with only poor choices. But I think there is another option besides a ground assault, fruitless air strikes and doing nothing and that is mobilizing a massive relief effort for the refugee crisis that has been created by ISIS and the Syrian civil war. It’s likely the best way of reducing the harm caused by ISIS without wreaking destruction in the process. A lot of refugees could be given food, water and medical care for a fraction of what it costs to prosecute a protracted military engagement.
On the first night the first round of strikes hit the Khorasan Group near Aleppo. The imminent attacks they were planning on planes from Europe to the US were prevented as a result. This isn’t fruitless.
Perhaps fruitless may not apply to that particular strike, and I’m not opposed to military engagement. However, there is near consensus amongst the readers here and most military experts I’ve seen speak on the subject and the Secretary of State that airstrikes alone will not subdue ISIS. If the Pentagon could make a compelling case that they could send troops and equipment into Raqqa and it wouldn’t turn into a morass, I’d be all for it. I’m just not convinced at this point. And I’m also unconvinced that ISIS will be significantly damaged by airstrikes. I hope like hell I’m wrong about that. It would be an unexpectedly positive outcome if ISIS gave in after a bombing campaign, I just doubt it’s gonna happen.
It would appear as though you were right as NPR reported airstrikes that destroyed ISIS tanks last night. I still think there is merit in helping with the refugee crisis, but my assessment of the futility of the bombing campaign was mistaken. I can’t imagine ISIS has the ability to easily replace tanks.
With all this “handwringing” about the scarcity of “moderate muslims” I would think it would occur to someone what the irony of a moderate muslims is.
If I were Obama I would:
1) Isolate the region financially. No global monetary transactions.
2) Continue to erode equipment capability in spite of the whack a mole nature of the effort.
3) Remove all US Embassies and personnel.
4) Let those “in the region” live with the consequences of their tinkering.
5) Abandon the idea of replacing Bashir Al Assad. Plan for the long game, elicit support from Russia who has islam problems of their own.
Russia has come out against this effort. Of all the foreign fighters with ISIL, the country that has the most of its citizens there is Russia.
France is second, but they have had the courage to stand up and be counted and will be taking part in air strikes, although they haven’t yet.
Funny, I thought Russia initially supported the attacks against ISIL but I suspect this blah blah from them is just Russia being angry at the West. Spankings. Everyone needs spankings. It’s silly anyway since Syria was okay with it (at least that was what was reported on CBC).
This is not America’s war. The extremist throughout the Muslim world is ultimately their problem and only they can fix it. We proved that very well with our little dance into Iraq in 2003.
However, we cannot sit back and do nothing and should help as we can with the air power. But Obama should make it very clear to the middle east nations that the ISIS element is their problem and only they can eliminate this one and all the others out there. I am not exactly sure that he did that in the speech just awhile ago at the UN but he did try. Watch the speech and judge for yourself but certainly the Republican ideas will solve nothing.
To paraphrase Andy Borowitz: “White House not forthcoming enough with plans for military action, complains ISIS.”
I’m glad you pointed this out. ISIL are media savvy and keep a close watch. We really don’t need them to know in advance what’s happening.
Plans? I look at facts on the ground. They don’t seem to be at all consistent with the idea that Obama is in practice anti-ISIS.
I agree with GBJames above about congress taking up debate whenever they want. They could have authorized funding for arming troops or bombing back in January, if they wanted. I assume they have that power.
I am somewhat more optimistic about the bombing (that sounds like a ridiculous statement). ISIS seemed to have a bunch of armored cars and trucks and would load them up, drive across the desert and besiege or take over another town. Bombing should make that harder to do, perhaps impossible if our intelligence and satellites are good enough. Furthermore, they are trying to set up a state, which should be more easy to destroy through bombing than terrorists holed up somewhere or the Taliban mounting raids across mountainous Afghanistan.
What would I do to achieve an enduring, peaceful equilibrium among a collection of several sovereign countries and countless tribes bound together by geography and yet torn apart by the intricate interactions of myriad religious, social, political, military, historical, and economic forces?
C’mon, give us a hard one.
Many of the commenters here seem to assume that attacking ISIL militarily was the right thing to do. Despite the fact that it’s obviously what ISIL has been attempting to provoke the US to do all along. Why do you suppose they would do that?
I would recommend that the President
pay more attention to Daniel Larison
http://tinyurl.com/mmg5wg9 than to his neocon advisers.
Despite the fact that it’s obviously what ISIL has been attempting to provoke the US to do all along
Huh? That’s not obvious to me. I see no reason to reject their stated motivation – they want to estiblish a new islamic state.
And they’ll do it by the time tested method of demonstrating once again that US threats and US weapons can not impose the US’ will on the Middle East.
Your position still makes no sense to me. Are you really saying that ISIS wants to be bombed by the US, that they would prefer to have US bombs raining down on them than have the US stay out of it?
Professor Coyne, what’s your plan? And how is your plan superior to the president’s?
Invest in renewable (or at least non-fossil) fuels, so that we stop caring about oil and can ignore the ME.
I’m all for investing in renewables and kicking the fossil fuel habit. But we still can’t ignore the Middle East. It turns out that we share a very small rock in space with those folk and as long as Islam in its current form dominates the region ignoring it is not really a good option.
Well, I usually find that the best approach to problems is to ignore them and hope that they go away.
It didn’t work when I broke my leg, I’ll admit that.
Well, the US isn’t going to phase out the use of petroleum and non-renewables or invest in renewables because that would cost the people who *own* this country money. And those people don’t buy their politicians in order to have them pass legislation that will cost their owners money. Do you really not understand that yet?
Is your tongue in your cheek or…?
No. Is yours?
I had wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you weren’t simply being rude.
You’ve denied me that option.
That is a good idea, but keeping one eye open for 50kT weapons with Allah’s name on them is not a bad strategy. The very good news is that surveillance is almost exclusively brains (science) and very little brawns (military).
The U.S has gotten themselves stuck in an endless cycle now of destroying Islamic extremist groups, then trying to set up a new democratic government in the region which then turns out to be weak and/or corrupt. If we do actually end up destroying ISIS, does anyone really believe that there will be peace afterwards? The U.S will just end up right back where we started with another extremist group popping up. If I were Obama I would do nothing. Yes there are a million reasons to do something, but I think the U.S needs to stop this cycle.
It’s not going to solve the problem of SA-exported sunni extremism or make the Palestinians find peace with the Israelis, if that’s what you mean. But I see no reason why we should expect an equivalent replacement to pop up. I don’t think there’s much historical evidence that such a thing is inevitable or even likely. In many historical instances, the destruction or peaceful disarmament of a terrorist organization has not lead to its replacement by a similarly effectve or powerful group. It very often leads to splinter groups, but those are not generally as powerful or as threatening as the parent group.
The IRA disarmament didn’t spawn anything as powerful as the IRA, though it did spawn splinter groups. Taking out Peru’s Shining Path didn’t lead to any equvalently powerful Shining Path II. The taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan suffered a massive loss of power and they haven’t got it back to anywhere near the level they had before. If we wipe ISIS off the map, there certainly may be some group that claims to be ISIS II. But they very likely won’t have the size, resources, or pose the threat that the current group does.
Define “equivalent replacement”. Because it seems to me that there are “equivalent replacements” all over the Muslim world. Boko Harum in West Africa comes to mind as does al-Shabaab in East Africa.
Leave them alone, get out of the Middle East, and let them resume killing each other. They’re good at that.
“If I were Obama I would do nothing. Yes there are a million reasons to do something, but I think the U.S needs to stop this cycle.”
What I would do, too.
Non-participation in world affairs simply isn’t an option. There is no way to “do nothing”. Whether we like it or not, we are entangled in the affairs of all the other people on this little rock in space. The time for hiding behind borders passed long ago, if it ever existed at all.
The appropriate answers to this problem is not a lot of arm chair generals throwing out old tired and over-used strategies mostly revolving around one thing….what the United States can do. Those days are long gone for these types of answers. Let them do this on FOX TV or even CNN.
The U.S. cannot and should not solve any of this alone. What we do should be paid for with an increase in our taxes. How many do you hear asking for this? Certainly not any Republicans who seem to be for going all in with someone else’s kids and borrowed money.
Let’s pretend there is a true draft in place and we are going to all pay for whatever we do. We haven’t tried that for a long time. Then let’s really see who will do what.
Ten other Western nations are helping besides the US: Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. However, America has the biggest budget and the most toys….
Whenever I see the word success used in connection with a military operation, I am reminded by the words of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands at the conclusion of Operation Market Garden:
“My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success.”
Do they have a scapegoat lined up? Monty tried to blame it on the Poles led by General Sosabowski. Gene Hackman played him in “A Bridge Too Far”.
I would first advocate a program of spending move the United States off of non-renewable carbon-based fuels and fully modernizing/repairing/bringing up to code the infrastructure of the United States. Then an offer to accept any/many/most of the refugees in the Middle East as immigrants – the basic offer of the US and its allies is that if you want to get out of the madness you can. Followed by as much of a ‘North Korea-style’ isolation of the atavistic groups in the region as possible.
1. Launch a coordinated ground assault involving both Iraqi Kurdish and American forces to take back Mosul.
2. Pick a side in the Syrian Civil War and let it win, already [Alawite and Druze states should be spun off if it’s the rebels], with airstrikes, military advisors, and military assistance. As America gets to pick the winners, the winners can’t complain about future American interference.
3.Allow the Iraqi government to take back the rest by American air strikes actually being coordinated with Iraqi army attacks.
4. Both Syrian and Iraqi Kurds get independence as separate states.
5. Libya and Eritrea get occupied by U.S. military forces as soon as possible. Libya becomes equivalent to South Korea in terms of U.S. priorities. We broke it; we bought it.
I firmly believe that the Islamic State can be destroyed as a territorial entity in less than three days. As a terrorist entity, however, it might take a few years of continuous intervention to beat. But it can be beaten; c.f., the Iraq War, esp. from 2006-8.
I don’t know what I would do if I were in Obama’s place. I can say that he seems like the type of person who would consult others and weigh the consequences and he isn’t a “hawk”. I don’t want to be all Brittany Spears but maybe this is the only call in the short term.
Oh good grief, I didn’t sub.
If there is any silver lining to this fiasco, I would hope energy independence can finally be seriously debated. Though I won’t hold my breath…especially if Republidumbs maintain their majority.
I also heard Obama during his speech to the United Nations today state that ISIS was not Islamic. Stop with the bullshit already!
“I also heard Obama during his speech to the United Nations today state that ISIS was not Islamic. Stop with the bullshit already!”
Would you rather have Obama say ISIS _is_ Islamic, and have all those good patriotic Americans slaughtering American Muslims in the street, in their homes, and in their places of worship?
Of course not, but it is Islamic, according to the members themselves. I also don’t think equating ISIS to Islam would have “good patriotic Americans slaughtering American Muslims in the street”. Do you really think that would happen? I guess I have more faith in the American people’s common sense; plus there would be punishment. “Slaughter” is a strong word…even 9/11 didn’t bring out any Muslim slaughtering that I remember. There were horrible incidences of racism and xenophobia, but nothing as onerous as slaughtering.
I’m just tired of the apologetic stance of world leaders when it comes to marginalizing people’s actions based on the “true” religion any said group adheres to. Can’t we grow up and have an honest debate about how religion is a major root of evil? I guess not.
False choice, Jennifer.
What to do: Start by sincere apologizing to effectively the planet on behalf of the US for smashing it up so many times. Start removing US military bases and troops from around the world. Assist in restructuring *humanely* the US itself and the countries smashed. Never do any smashing again. Support educational standards and economic democracy at home and via treaty abroad. Ramp up support for basic research in electrochemistry and nuclear physics and create insentives for the respective technologies while also reducing those for petroleum.
And everyone gets a pony!
You mean against the host countries’ wishes? Isn’t that just imposing our will any time it runs counter to local policy again?
We seek to do that with every election. Unless you are proposing a nondemocratic restructuring?
Gotta go with GBJames here, your suggestions seem a bit ‘everyone gets a pony.’
But I haven’t made one myself, and its somewhat low to poke holes in other people’s suggestions if you have none yourself, so I will now. I’m a bit more hawkish than most commenters I think: put boots on the ground in northern and northwestern Iraq. Perform a hammer and anvil manouver where the US/Iraqi militaries push ISIS troops into Syrian and Jordanian military forces. Remain for the mopping up, years if need be. I’m okay with being in a country for years or decades, if we have the right support policies. As much as we have failed in the mideast in recent decades, we have Japan and Germany as success stories, too. Let’s not forget that. Our long-term goal of remaining in the region should be another democratic economic powerhouse like Japan. If a long-term military presence produces that, it’s an investment well made.
It is vital to distinguish between what the *people* want and what their (putative, in some cases) representatives want. People around the world are opposed to US military bases. If it happens that the people *actually* want it, find out from the people who don’t *why not* and make a point of listening to them too. Some places might be deeply divided.
The problem with Japan / Germany as analogies is that it isn’t *just* a military presence there. It is all matter of things, moreover, the state (at least in Japan) was itself not destroyed, but simply restructured, and with some degree of local sensibility (e.g., the emperor was allowed to live) understood.
As for “everyone gets a pony”, nobody said the matter was *easy*; simply doing *some* of those things would be a start. I might add there are many more … (and a list of similar character for many of the most powerful countries; the US is by no means the only one.)
True. And nobody said your prescription was realistic, either.
Of course it’s a success, and it was Mission Accomplished back in Iraq some time during the Dubbyah era. Government leaders live in bizarro world.
There’s so much factional infighting in the Iraq government that they can’t even get their shit together when faced by ISIS. We’ve now made enemies with every faction within the Iraq government because we’re arming the Kurds (and I’m betting that we’ll eventually have to partition Iraq and support a Kurdish state) and of course some people in Turkey aren’t happy with that either. ISIS isn’t going away because the politicians in Iraq will never get their shit together and work to improve their country; everyone wants their own ethnic group to prosper and wishes to subjugate all others. The Shia want to lord it over the Sunni and Kurds, the Sunni are understandably scared and angry – so much so that they’re even joining ISIS by scores. I think Oliver Hardy said it best.