ISIS

backslashbaby · Sep 4, 2014

I've been scouring the internet to try to see what is being done on a global scale, and there isn't much more info about the ongoing NATO summit than there was this morning. Putting together a coalition is very difficult for Obama, and I hope this post will help to explain why.

It looks as if the US (and the UK) are pursuing the NATO route instead of expecting France, the UK, and most others in Europe to commit to much intervention under their own names (they are talking about arms only, for the most part).

Australia and Denmark are the only Western nations I can find who are pretty pro-active about taking actual part in the conflict, although the UK's message is leaning more and more in that direction. Considering the UK still hasn't gotten around to even directly arming the Kurds yet, the message shift might not mean that the UK is running on a very helpful timetable.

France's current message is quite disappointing, imho. Apparently they got burned too badly by their public for their courageous lead against Syria, when the US let them down on that (after the UK did first, with Obama using the same tactic quite on purpose, imho). Now they need a silver platter first, so that's not very helpful, imho.

So Denmark has 55 men in, Australia is open to sending in actual special forces, and NATO chief Rasmussen is gung-ho as he usually is. The US will have over 1000 troops in with the new 350 being discussed. The US will continue airstrikes, probably with the Aussie's help fairly soon, and maybe with the UK's eventually (or not). No idea whether France is up to the task this time.

The European and Commonwealth leaders are all very vocal about QSIS needing to be stopped, mind you. The French even made a snide remark about Obama being on vacation a bit back. But the actual moves toward stopping QSIS seem much harder to come by than the strong talk about the need [for someone else] to stop them.

The NATO plan may be a cover for all of that, however. It's quite possible that France, etc, are willing to join a NATO offensive that they wouldn't join if it were just a coalition being formed by the US as a nation.

http://www.news.com.au/national/raa...-on-isis-in-iraq/story-fncynjr2-1227036362169
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/u...equipment-erbil-us-iraqi-governments-request/
http://www.iraqinews.com/features/urgent-nato-ready-intervene-militarily-help-iraq/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/uk-prepared-military-isis-cameron-iraq
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nato-would-consider-any-iraq-request-help-1786756841

I lost the France link, but this article on France's weapons dealings in Lebanon is actually quite related, and this is the source where I read about their US coalition plans (or lack thereof):
http://www.france24.com/en/20140903-france-saudi-arabia-weapons-lebanon-hollande-salman/

backslashbaby · Sep 4, 2014

I swear I'll hush for a while after this post, but it is important to note that Iran is helping with the ongoing mission and may have helped re-secure Amerli:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykt2Ux2qvUQ

Up to 1500-2000 Iranian troops are fighting with the mainly Shia Iraqi government, the Kurds, and the US.

Yes, the US is now aiding in military campaigns alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp's Qods, led by the ever-lovable General Qassem Suleimani. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm incredibly hesitant to get involved in Iraq, but when things line up to form a sectarian nightmare, there's just not much choice, imho.

http://eaworldview.com/2014/09/iraq-feature-irans-military-advisors-helped-lift-siege-amerli/

c.e.lawson · Sep 5, 2014

U.S. and Allies Form Coalition With Intent to Destroy ISIS

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/world/europe/nato-summit.html?_r=0

nighttimer · Sep 5, 2014

"Do Something" just to do something is not leadership.

c.e.lawson said:
The horrors ISIS is committing are just...I have no words. They are gaining in membership and funding. And I hear Obama is going to a fundraiser this weekend. It's actually sad. I JUST WANT SOME DECISIVE LEADERSHIP FROM MY PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE!

c.e.lawson said:
I've been troubled by the president's apparent lack of leadership here.

*more alarm bells*

"Do something!" is neither decisive leadership nor wise strategy.

The threat ISIS poses to this country and its citizens is minimal. Despite their bluster about flying their flag from the White House and the barbaric beheadings, ISIS remains a regional menace, not an imminent threat, no matter how shrill the cries from conservative talking heads or many times Olympus Has Fallen is airing this month.

Frank Rich gets it:

I have my share of quarrels with President Obama. And, like most other Americans, I find the beheadings of Foley and Sotloff so savage on so many different levels that I fully concede there is an ugly part of me that would like to bomb any country that harbors ISIS terrorists back into the Stone Age, as the American general Curtis LeMay, the prototype for General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, once proposed for NorthVietnam. But Obama’s deliberateness in the face of ISIS’s provocations as well as Putin’s — his refusal to follow the trigger-happy foreign policy of the Bush-Cheney era — is to be applauded.

You will notice that the crowd of pundits and (mostly Republican) politicians insisting that Obama “do something” about these horrors never actually say what that “something” is. They offer no strategy of their own beyond an inchoate bellicosity expressed in constructions along the lines of “we must more forcefully do whatever it is that Obama is doing.” That’s becauseObama is already doing the things that can be done (and that some of his critics redundantly suggest): bombing ISIS positions wherever it is feasible; searching for allies to join action that might defeat them on the ground; trying to rally Europe to tighten the economic noose on Putin and Russia. There will surely be more actions to come when America’s ducks are in a row, and if the president were to delineate them, you can be certain he’d be condemned for tipping off our enemies in advance.

Contrast his deliberateness with his critics, most of whom have in common that they were completely wrong in endorsing the disastrous Iraq War that precipitated the current crisis. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has gone on record of late saying that she, unlike Obama, would have armed moderate forces in Syria to bring down Assad. But as Thomas Friedman, these days a much-chastened Iraq War enabler, has pointed out, there’s a reason why even Israel didn’t take up that tactic: Those “moderate” forces, to the extent they could be identified, were doomed to fail, and chances are that whatever arms we got to them would have fallen into ISIS’s hands.(As indeed has been the case with armaments we bestowed upon Maliki’s Iraq government.)As John McCain chastised Obama for not doing enough to fight ISIS last month,he had the gall to brag on CNN that he had “predicted what was going to happen in Iraq.” He had indeed predicted that Iraq might be destabilized by the withdrawal of American troops, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and, besides, McCain is always in favor of more American troops as a one-size-fits-all panacea for international conflicts. His earlier predictions were that we would win the Iraq War “easily,” and that the Sunnis and Shia would “probably get along” in post-Saddam Iraq because there was “not a history of clashes” between them. Why in God’s name should Obama listen to him or Clinton now? Why, for that matter, do Sunday talk shows repeatedly book McCain and repeatedly fail to challenge his long record of wrong calls on the Middle East?

This guy gets it too.

Americans live under the delusion the world bends the knee to our power and will, but that's not true if it ever was. Despite what Sen. McCain might believe, every uppity revolutionary movement can't be subjugated with a liberal application of Tomahawk missiles. Starting yet another ground war in yet another Middle East is a horrible idea only a neo-con could love.

The military option should always be among the cards the Commander-in-Chief has to play, but it's not always the first one he should throw on the table. The hair-on-fire punditry will disagree, but they don't have Obama's job so they can say whatever they like secure in the knowledge they won't be held accountable if their advice is bad.

Presidents don't have the luxury.

Amadan · Sep 5, 2014

I can't disagree much with that editorial. However, I do look at ISIS and see something as evil as anything we've faced in the modern era.

Do they directly threaten the U.S.? Probably not. But turning away from them seems like turning away from Rwanda - which we did.

c.e.lawson · Sep 5, 2014

"Do something!" is neither decisive leadership nor wise strategy.

Neither is "Don't do anything stupid.".

The threat ISIS poses to this country and its citizens is minimal. Despite their bluster about flying their flag from the White House and the barbaric beheadings, ISIS remains a regional menace, not an imminent threat, no matter how shrill the cries from conservative talking heads or many times Olympus Has Fallen is airing this month.

Minimal? You're writing as if ISIS will stay exactly the way it is right now, not growing stronger and increasing territory as it has continuously for years, not increasing in funding, not gaining hold of stronger weapons or WMDs, not recruiting Americans with passports.

If I didn't have to run to work right now, I'd leave links, but it certainly is no longer simply "shrill" conservatives crying about threat. Take a look at Senator Warren's recent comments, Hilary Clinton's, look at John Kerry's recent statements, I already posted Frankel's letter, oh -- and here:

Obama Takes Friendly Fire from Democrats on ISIS

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obama-takes-friendly-fire-democrats-isis-n195731

This is no longer partisan. And it's no longer someone else's problem. People can keep their heads in the sand, or they can deal with it. Looks like Obama is starting to deal with it. Thank goodness.

Vince524 · Sep 5, 2014

I don't know that ISIS isn't a threat to the US. First off, they can continue to kidnap anyone overseas if they're in the are. Plus, if they have the $ which I think ISIS does, they can travel here and wreak havok. It wouldn't take many of them to stage another 9-11 here. They already have recruited Americans.

nighttimer · Sep 5, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
Neither is "Don't do anything stupid."

Beg to differ. Doing something stupid is how the U.S. ended up mired in Iraq. Nobody but John McCain and his buddies believes that's worth repeating.

c.e. lawson said:
Minimal? You're writing as if ISIS will stay exactly the way it is right now, not growing stronger and increasing territory as it has continuously for years, not increasing in funding, not gaining hold of stronger weapons or WMDs, not recruiting Americans with passports.

The bigger they are the harder they far. Or do you doubt in the capacity of the United States to eradicate ISIS from the face of the earth should it become necessary?

c.e. Lawson said:
If I didn't have to run to work right now, I'd leave links, but it certainly is no longer simply "shrill" conservatives crying about threat. Take a look at Senator Warren's recent comments, Hilary Clinton's, look at John Kerry's recent statements, I already posted Frankel's letter, oh -- and here:

Obama Takes Friendly Fire from Democrats on ISIS

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obama-takes-friendly-fire-democrats-isis-n195731

This is no longer partisan. And it's no longer someone else's problem. People can keep their heads in the sand, or they can deal with it. Looks like Obama is starting to deal with it. Thank goodness.

That's because President Obama doesn't have his head in the sand. He's just not as eager as some to pull the trigger without knowing who's being shot or what for.

Amadan · Sep 5, 2014

nighttimer said:
The bigger they are the harder they far. Or do you doubt in the capacity of the United States to eradicate ISIS from the face of the earth should it become necessary?

We have the capacity to eradicate anyone from the face of the earth. I doubt our will.

backslashbaby · Sep 5, 2014

nighttimer said:
...
The bigger they are the harder they far. Or do you doubt in the capacity of the United States to eradicate ISIS from the face of the earth should it become necessary?
...

I'm glad that we didn't jump in with a half-assed plan or so early that the danger wasn't defined enough. But the question is: at what point is it necessary?

That wall o'text I posted explains why I think it's necessary now (leaving out the slaughter of innocents, which is a given). The Kurds are cool enough, but when the recently-abusive Shia government of Iraq is fighting with the head of the uber-shia Qods from Iran, while Shia Assad continues his slaughter in Syria, that alliance may need to be broken up by offering another option for help in the region.

Or are we just going to let Iran be the war machine again to take care of the Sunnis in Iraq? Along with Assad this time! Maybe we'd all be smart enough not to arm them this time, but the end result threatens to go the same way it did last time, while encompassing nearly the entire Levant. I wonder how Jordon feels about that, for an example of the overspill problem?

And the craziest, most destructive terrorists are on the side that we'd be on. They get kind of angry about the West never helping the Sunnis. Cue Saudi Arabian citizens, and all that talk from Bin Laden about why 9-11 happened.

If we don't help, the options of what will happen are pretty horrifying. And that's not even talking about the current atrocities against the innocent Iraqi people.

I am glad to see that we and the UK are carving out a NATO option for it. Maybe now member nations will actually start spending their required minimum military budget and at least begin to give the impression of a deterrent force against all these crazy leaders and groups.

c.e.lawson · Sep 6, 2014

Well, here's another reason to take care of ISIS sooner rather than later:

ISIS Teaches Children How to Behead in Training Camps

Those living in the eastern city say ISIS has instituted rules banning traditional children's games and forcibly conscripting children to ISIS. They say ISIS is recruiting children under 15 to special ISIS camps established to introduce minors to the foundations of their brand of Islam.

Some of the male children are then transferred to an adult military camp, where they are trained to use arms and fight. Sources familiar with activity inside the camp say in order to teach the children how to use knives, ISIS has distributed dolls with blond hair and blue eyes, like many Europeans and Americans, dressed in orange prison uniforms like those worn by prisoners in Guantanamo. The children are given large knives and told to decapitate the dolls.

Mohammed said that older kids were asked to show the rest of the group how to decapitate dolls. Anyone who failed to perform the task was punished.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-teaches-children-behead-training-camps/story?id=25303940

cornflake · Sep 6, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
Well, here's another reason to take care of ISIS sooner rather than later:

ISIS Teaches Children How to Behead in Training Camps

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-teaches-children-behead-training-camps/story?id=25303940

Ok, so should I presume you're a proponent of 'taking care of' every organization that uses child soldiers sooner rather than later?

If not, then, uhm, sorry but... so?

Amadan · Sep 6, 2014

cornflake said:
Ok, so should I presume you're a proponent of 'taking care of' every organization that uses child soldiers sooner rather than later?

If not, then, uhm, sorry but... so?

Obviously, we can't go after every group of Bad Guys on Earth.

ISIS has gone beyond being merely another group of violent extremists who do awful things, though. There are valid geopolitical reasons to treat them as a serious problem.

There are valid arguments to be made against missiles, air strikes, troops, whatever - but "We aren't going after every other organization in the world that beheads people and recruits child soldiers" isn't one of them.

c.e.lawson · Sep 6, 2014

cornflake said:
Ok, so should I presume you're a proponent of 'taking care of' every organization that uses child soldiers sooner rather than later?

If not, then, uhm, sorry but... so?

It's one thing to teach children to fight as soldiers (which is horrible), but it's another level of horrible to run a radical jihadist factory and brainwash a new generation in the ideology of ISIS, part of which is to behead Westerners. And the longer this continues, the more difficult it will be to stop this movement.

cornflake · Sep 6, 2014

Amadan said:
Obviously, we can't go after every group of Bad Guys on Earth.

ISIS has gone beyond being merely another group of violent extremists who do awful things, though. There are valid geopolitical reasons to treat them as a serious problem.

There are valid arguments to be made against missiles, air strikes, troops, whatever - but "We aren't going after every other organization in the world that beheads people and recruits child soldiers" isn't one of them.

I agree there are valid arguments to be made about various things about ISIS. 'They've got child soldiers,' I don't get as one of them, same as some of the other arguments I've seen put forth in the thread that apply to dozens of groups or etc.

c.e.lawson said:
It's one thing to teach children to fight as soldiers (which is horrible), but it's another level of horrible to run a radical jihadist factory and brainwash a new generation in the ideology of ISIS, part of which is to behead Westerners. And the longer this continues, the more difficult it will be to stop this movement.

It's one thing to teach children to dismember, say, the Sudanese, another to teach them to behead westerners? I don't understand how you're setting up these lines.

There are many groups that use child soldiers, that kidnap and indoctrinate children to commit terrible acts. This isn't new or news. Why is this suddenly a big problem because ISIS is doing it?

Taylor Harbin · Sep 6, 2014

The mentality of the Islamic State reminds me of the Imperial Japanese in the 1930s. Fanatical. Well-equipped. Merciless.

Make no mistake, they will attack our homeland when they get the chance. It might not be "in a month," like the king of Saudi Arabia would have us believe. It might not be for another decade. I feel it is very unwise to think they don't already have their sights set on New York, Chicago, St. Louis, what have you.

The Islamic State is now the most powerful non-state entity in the world. They have dissolved the borders of sovereign nations and are slaughtering indiscriminately. I firmly believe it is in our best interests to wipe them out, line and column, as soon as possible.

How? That's another issue...

Amadan · Sep 6, 2014

cornflake said:
There are many groups that use child soldiers, that kidnap and indoctrinate children to commit terrible acts. This isn't new or news. Why is this suddenly a big problem because ISIS is doing it?

ISIS seems more inclined to export it, for one thing. And specifically targets foreigners. And is threatening a strategically important region that has the potential to blow up even further.

Most other groups that use child soldiers are fighting in internal conflicts. Which sucks, and I wish we did more (or could do more) in those places too. But in terms of both self-interest and likelihood to spill over into other countries, ISIS is clearly a bigger problem.

c.e.lawson · Sep 6, 2014

cornflake said:
I agree there are valid arguments to be made about various things about ISIS. 'They've got child soldiers,' I don't get as one of them, same as some of the other arguments I've seen put forth in the thread that apply to dozens of groups or etc.

It's one thing to teach children to dismember, say, the Sudanese, another to teach them to behead westerners? I don't understand how you're setting up these lines.

There are many groups that use child soldiers, that kidnap and indoctrinate children to commit terrible acts. This isn't new or news. Why is this suddenly a big problem because ISIS is doing it?

What Amadan said.

We've already discussed reasons over the last weeks why ISIS needs to be stopped. My post above simply showed another reason why it would be better to do it sooner rather than later. We really don't want another generation of ISIS mentality being nurtured, do we? Well, at least I don't want scores of non-violent children torn from their homes and turned into monsters with knives and a burning desire to form a world-wide caliphate and destroy Western democracy. You might feel differently.

ISIS

backslashbaby

*

backslashbaby

*

c.e.lawson

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Amadan

c.e.lawson

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Amadan

backslashbaby

*

c.e.lawson

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Amadan

c.e.lawson

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Taylor Harbin

Power to the pen!

Amadan

c.e.lawson

ISIS

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

No Gods No Masters

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

No Gods No Masters

~~~~*~~~~

practical experience, FTW

practical experience, FTW

Power to the pen!

*

*

*