XT: I’m pretty sure we agree that members of ISIS may commit acts of violence in Italy, but that they are unlikely to gain or hold territory there. Where we disagree is simply over whether the CNN headline was designed to imply the latter, thereby inflating the real threat from ISIS. Since divining the possible meanings of a CNN headline seems barely worth one post, much less five, I think I’ll just leave it here.
Where we probably disagree over something more substantive is the degree to which we, USAmericans and Europeans, should be concerned about attacks from ISIS. I am in the camp that thinks that since I am ten times more likely to slip and die in my bathtub as to be killed in a terrorist incident, and indeed as likely to be killed by non-Islamic terrorists as Islamic ones, the best thing we could do would be to address ISIS as the regional problem that it is, instead of inflating it into the big bad spooky that certain interests (not least of all ISIS) want it to be.
Sure, and don’t get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from on this stuff and why you don’t perhaps think it’s as big a deal as I do wrt threat. I think it’s an area where there is room for disagreement yet dialogue on both sides. I’m not advocating we send in the ground troops and fight them in the streets and on the beaches, we shall nevah surrendah…er, sorry was channeling old Winny there. In any case, I think that our current level of involvement is consummate with the situation and I’m good with it and with the current level of European participation as well. This is a fight that the locals need a stake in and have to do for themselves, by and large, and I think they are doing that with our collective help (including Iranian ‘advisers’ which is ok by me, though I don’t know if everyone realizes the medium and possible long term ramifications of that or the ramifications of the Shi’ia militias doing what they are doing).
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate, then knock down my stickman. (Stickmen are stronger than strawmen, though neither have been advocated by anyone as yet.)
Stalin was worse than ISIS. North Korea is worse than ISIS (though Saudi Arabia and esophagus cancer are better!) We are managing North Korea. Why couldn’t we make peace with ISIS?
Well we could, but it makes little sense. Firstly ISIS is in an expansionary phase unlike NK. Secondly, ISIS is weak as nation states go. They get an A for insurgency against weak armies, but a D+ for nation building (better than Somalia!) If they captured parts of Syria and Iraq and held on to them, well we could manage that, though frankly we might not want to given their weaknesses. Better to side with Iran/Iraq. But ISIS has a policy of perpetual expansion. So it’s a deal with them now or deal with them later situation. So we address them while they’re weaker. Not because they currently pose an existential risk. But because we can pursue our national interests best in that manner.
The nice thing is that we don’t have to second guess DAESH’s intent, like we did with the Soviets. Their broad agenda is pretty transparent.
I keep wondering about what our board’s veterans think about a military that will send thousands of trainers and special ops folk in harm’s way for 2nd order US interests, so that 1st order US interests never arise. But then again during WWII, I’m guessing most deaths didn’t involve especially cinematic heroism.
No one is suggesting peace with ISIS. The question is 1) whether there is any great hurry to get rid of it, since it does not appear to be growing any bigger or stronger, and does not appear likely to, and will almost certainly collapse eventually if effectively contained and degraded; and 2) whether American ground troops are necessary to get rid of it, when several local forces appear eager to do the job.
Well, it’s not growing much bigger or stronger because, you know, it’s being fought…hard. Their logistics are under assault from allied air. On the ground the Kurd’s, the Iraqi military (and in Syria Assad and his merry men), Sunni and Shi’a tribesmen and militia and Iranian ‘advisers’ are battling them tooth and nail (when not stabbing each other in the back of course :p). So, yeah, they aren’t really growing a lot bigger or stronger right now (though there is Libya…), but there are reasons for that…reasons that could change if we decided we weren’t going to help out anymore.
I don’t think that American (or European) ground forces are necessary to combat ISIS/ISIL…but I think they need to be combated and destroyed, which was the original subject of this OP. They are vile and they do truly heinous things. Hell, those assholes in Boko Haram have signed up, which should be enough evidence that they need to be destroyed root and branch…I mean, when you get these guys on your side it kind of is a good indication of where your organization is on the evil/good continuum.
Well, there you go: I have no desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization. I’ve got plenty of civilization right here; bombing and pulverizing and wiping clean and so on over there means we can declare victory without putting our young men in that mud.
Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist. But I know that You sometimes like to stack reality so it plays like a bad Hollywood movie. So, I’m thinking how about a bunch of Iranians save a band of our brave American heroes from ISIS? That would be cool. K tx bye.
That’s typically the way the issue is framed. But I’m saying that’s papering over the reality. The reality is more like, “We have to manage an international system. But frankly there are few existential threats. We like it that way. We want to keep it that way. And we want to invest at least a couple of hundred American lives per decade so that we don’t have to face existential threats decades down the road.”
Usually war advocates try to argue that soldiers in Vietnam, Korea or Iraq were protecting the homeland in some way. But they weren’t or to the extent they were the link was pretty tenuous. My take is that such security challenges are worth dozens or low hundreds of American lives, but not thousands. I can only think that some military men find such calculations and characterizations offensive. I don’t exactly blame them.
I guess, as the Germans learned in Stalingrad, it is very difficult to take a city if the defenders are willing to make a house-to-house ratfight of it.
Which means Mosul will be an even tougher nut to crack.
I don’t know, if a few dozen Boko Haram fighters with their bamboo sticks met ISIS in Libya, they could load a few pontoons, cross the Med, and conquer Italy. Then the rest of Europe would follow. Asia’s pretty much already on board. Then, with Europe’s resources, they can motorize their pontoons and cross the Atlantic and Pacific for a dual assault on the coasts of North America. Or Greta Van Susteren would tell you if allowed by the Fox Censors. She stops just short.
Unsurprisingly, the anti-ISIS offensive is already all over YouTube and the interwebz at large.
Some clips (I won’t link to them) show atrocities: A supposed ISIS child soldier being beaten and shot. Two bloodied men in civilian clothing denying any connection to ISIS, and yet shot anyway. A village being burnt to the ground.
On the other hand, this clip simply shows trash-talk between a Shia militiaman and an ISIS fighter over a captured walkie talkie. The Shia fellow laughs and jeers; the ISIS guy breaks into tears.
This clip is interesting. A local Sunni child shows up at a Shia militia outpost, and says that his grandfather has told him to “go beg the dogs [Shia militiamen] for food.” There’s some banter back and forth, but they end up giving the kid some food and ask him to “tell your grandpa this offering comes from our faith and our humanity.”
