So your argument is since no other country is acting, that is the smart position?
Come back when have something that isn’t a classic logical fallacy.
Nope. Your argument is that mine is “dumb”. Your argument is that we can help the Kurds and so we must help the Kurds. We can help any number of groups around the world, and yet we don’t. What’s so special about the Kurds? I have nothing against them, but I see no reason to help them when we don’t help anyone else, and when we’ve seen that such “help” has always backfired in the region. There’s a reason so many folks over there hate us-- we keep bombing them. Perhaps we should consider NOT bombing for a change.
We don’t have that many friends around the world. Abandoning the few we have is a great recipe for insuring we’ll have even fewer.
So your argument is we don’t help anyone else? Also–is it your opinion ISIS is not going to hate us because we don’t bomb them? ISIS is our enemy. Do you not know how to tell who our enemies and our friends are? I’m standing by my “dumb” statement, the more you talk the less intelligent you sound on the topic of America’s foreign relations. And any broad “duhhh if we use bombs they will HATE US!!!” argument in and of itself shows such a paucity of critical thinking and understanding that it’s embarrassing you’ve resorted to it.
Yes, and what’s worth noting is as unpopular as the United States is in the Middle East, almost anyone who isn’t part of ISIS hates ISIS. This includes both hard line Sunnis and Shiites, not to mention basically everyone from the smaller Christian/Islamic sects scattered throughout the region. It’s hilarious people somehow think this is similar to us just blowing up Baghdad like we did in 2003.
And friends aside, unless one has decided that we’re not going to fight the armed members of the ideology that declared war on us and attacked us on 9/11, these are exactly the people we are supposed to be waging war against. Sometimes that will mean drones, sometimes police work, sometimes international cooperation. But ISIS is an army. It’s a bunch of the bad guys with guns concentrated in the same place. Couldn’t ask for a more obvious situation where we should be directly opposing them with force.
Pffft. You sound like the guy whose only tool is a hammer and so every problem looks like a nail. Worse, you’re like the guy with a hammer stuck in his hand, and so everything (problem or not) looks like nail. ISIL is not our enemy unless we make them our enemy. They’re a local force, and the enemy of the local powers. They are more of a threat to Europe than they are to the US.
But the larger issue is that these guys need to have their civil war. It’s going to happen with us or without us. I’d prefer it happened without us.
You are confusing insurgency with an army. It is true that the ISIS insurgency operating within Sunni territory would be difficult for the US to defeat, even with thousands of ground troops.
But ISIS is operating away from the cities with US artillery equipment captured from the Iraqi army. ISTM that we can helpfully bomb them when they are in the open and destroy their high tech American equipment. Then they are back to being insurgents.
Still, it helps to be aware of mission creep. A key sign would be when pundits allege that US authority turns on the defeat of ISIS. No it doesn’t and no it shouldn’t. This isn’t our battle. Geopolitics shouldn’t be a pissing contest.
I’m told here on the Dope that an independent Kurdistan is problematic for realpolitik reasons, but an independent Sunni-stan would be a real mess. Al Qaeda and its sub factions hate IS and who knows how many Sunni factions of various types would hate them both. I’d love to see an independent Kurdistan and once Maliki is gone (we can count his days on one hand perhaps) Sunni Iraqis probably aren’t going to stick with IS for long at all.
Only after declaring victory.
Most countries haven’t had a recent military presence in Iraq, right? Gulf War II was much more of a go it alone affair than Gulf War I, fig leaves notwithstanding. So the parallel is inexact.
What’s your position on air drops of humanitarian supplies? Are you against that? It involves US military craft.
Vox briefing: Obama isn’t trying to destroy ISIS. He’s trying to contain it. [INDENT]“Ultimately, there’s not going to be an American military solution to this problem,” President Obama said in his press conference on the Iraq crisis on Saturday. “There’s going to have to be an Iraqi solution.” This is the key line to understand if you want to grasp the administration’s approach to Iraq — and why the goals of the US military campaign are more narrow than you might think.
The American objectives for Obama’s airstrikes in Iraq are very clear, and very limited. American airpower will protect Iraqi Kurdistan from the advance of militants from Islamic State (ISIS), and will attempt to break the ISIS siege that’s starving up to 40,000 members of the Yazidi minority on an isolated mountain.
So why is the US stopping there? ISIS controls a huge swath of land about the size of Belgium in Iraq and Syria. The group poses a serious threat to the Iraqi government and possibly even the stability of the entire region. If the United States can beat ISIS back in Kurdistan, why not elsewhere?
That line about an Iraqi solution is the administration’s answer. In fact, the Obama administration has been consistent on this question since June, when ISIS first took control of big chunks of Iraq. They see ISIS as, at its heart, a political problem — one that can’t be solved solely with force. But the march on Kurdistan and the siege on Sinjar are narrow military problems, and thus merit military solutions. This distinction between military and political problems is at the heart of the Obama administration’s thinking on Iraq.[/INDENT]
Not the sane ones, no, not the ones who want to get back to business as normal. So long as they aren’t afraid of IS, they are mostly pretty sane.
But those of you who are pissing and moaning about the lack of a cohesive strategy, tell us what strategy works best for a situation where there are few, if any, rational actors? What, we are reactive, we haven’t got a plan? How can you have a plan when the other guys are nuts? Just about the only contingency we need not prepare for is IS abject surrender and mass conversion to Unitarianism. We can safely ignore that one.
Obama says we’re not trying to defeat ISIL, we’re trying to “contain” them. But the containment area is something like 50% of Iraq. Even his most ardent supporters among the Sunday pundits are rolling their eyes at the claim that our intelligence “underestimated” how quickly ISIL would advance towards Erbil. I’m not sure where the OP is getting the idea that we’re trying to take down ISIL. We are not. One might argue that we should be doing that, but one cannot argue that we are.
What do you want Obama to do?
We really have entered an entirely new universe of stupid, then. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Saddam Hussein wasn’t imposed upon Iraq by the Soviet Union. Here’s some other news that might shock you: he wasn’t a communist either. You might want to look into what the Ba’ath Party is about before you make yourself look even more like an idiot. Other news that might shock you:
Do you happen to remember the USS Stark? It was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 in 1987. Oddly, I don’t seem to recall the USSR being the manufacturer of either the Exocet or the Mirage F1. That’s because France was the second greatest supplier of arms to Iraq at the time.
So what? ISIS operates in Sunni areas. They have a the strategic ability to fall back to Syria when fighting in Iraq and visa versa. They have a tax system set up in the areas they control.
That doesn’t make US efforts futile, especially when they have limited objectives.
A peg, John, a peg.
And I don’t know why you’re watching Sunday talk shows anyway. I find the claim that our intelligence sucks to be entirely unsurprising, even mundane.
Did it surprise you (a rapid advance by ISIL)? They’ve been doing this sort of thing for months. That is not to say we can predict this, but it should have been on everyone’s radar.
That’s Adaher. One keeps hoping that he’ll learn something, but it’s in vain. His fact-free devotion to his favorite team, and corresponding irrational hatred of the opposing side, will brook no argument from the reality-based world.
That’s politics. One might wish such demagoguery would wane with the information age, but no such luck.
In terms of the situation in Iraq, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument (that’s not Captain Hindsight obvious) as to how Obama or the USA could have handled the situation more effectively.
As always with such operations, escalation is a legitimate fear. So far I trust Obama to not drag the USA into another quagmire.
Er - but the original claim involved prediction, right? I mean the Obama admin wasn’t exactly caught flat-footed, so presumably they had contingency plans in place.
You said this far better than I could.
And #1, by far, was the Soviet Union. But sure, if you want to blame France too, that’s fine.