You said they should be allowed to decide whether the US can take action against ISIS and that we would be a “rogue state” if we did not follow their orders.
I’m not suggesting ISIL is not a potential terrorist threat to Russia and China. I’m suggesting that China and Russia do not treat that threat in the same manner or with the same strategy as the west (US).
That COULD be because whenever there’s some bad acting group in the world, nobody’s in Russia or China’s face asking “what are you gonna do about it?”, the way they always do with western countries. If those leaders would tell to press to fuck off once in a while when they ask those questions, we’d be in a lot better shape.
I would really like to know what Obama can/should say with respect to Syria specifically, which seems to be the biggest question mark over this whole thing. I’d say the following are NOT options:
- Do nothing wrt ISIS in Syria
- Hurt ISIS in a way that can be seen as directly helping Assad
Obama tried to skirt the issue altogether by basically saying Syria’s TBD, but that invited a shitstorm of criticism from almost everybody. So, what can he say? For that matter, what should our objective be in Syria?
ISTM he could stake out a position something like this: as long as ISIS is only Assad’s problem, we’ll consider them adequately contained; but the moment they set foot in Iraq or anywhere outside Syria, we’ll go after them with airstrikes or our proxies on the ground.
On the other hand, Obama already said the goal was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS, so maybe even the above is not a possible course for him to take.
US is the police force of the international structure, as there is no legit authority over any country, it’s just a matter of perception. The realist theory of international relations proposes that international ties are in an environment of chaos, with no superior force over them, of course that is false.
IS (formerly called ISIS) is now a caliphate and a terrorist state, acting as a safe haven to terrorists Jihadis from all over the World, just as Taliban did once. Iraq, which has been very volatile after the insurgency, has suffered a lot of civilian casualties, property loss and financial damages (Central Bank of Mosul now owned by the IS).
US has prominent regional interest in Iraq, the most predominant one being energy (especially oil, fresh gulf oil) and starting from 2003 and ending in 2011, astable Iraq has been the biggest achievement by foreign policy means the US has ever achieved. It is now, unfortunately, US’s job to clean after terrorist even in foreign nations, due to the fact that it has been the major contributor to prolonged extraterritorial operations (sometimes called invasions).
Moreover, the fact that US is currently (and in the foreseeable future too) the World’s most powerful military power adds to the notion that she needs to assume the responsibility of leading these operations and “helping” people in a worldwide scale. US has firmly stated that they would not be sending any troops to Iraq, instead they believed in the war-hardened regional soldiers coming from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran (any deals on this subject on Iran is highly conjectural and no public disclosure has been made on it). Although a main problem is that the Saudi private fundraisers are IS’s biggest donors and Turkey is ruled by an Islamic Party -AKP- who let IS use it’s borders to cross to Syria until recently “toughening” its border controls.
US, in the first time in history, leaves the dominant leading position to regional leaders, as she tries to avoid any further conflict, which is none of her business, and supplies these countries with advisors and artillery instead. Any large scaled coalition would be unnecessary if Turkey and other Gulf countries would co-ordinate security measures and co-operate with each other in order to eradicate the fanatic Jihadis in the region.
As when it comes to the subject of sovereignty, right now in Syria, none of the “governing” or “occupying” powers can be classified as a sovereign entity, due to the fact that a civil war is taking place and there are thousands of reported human right abuses and war crimes towards civilians. When the situation is like this, something, a greater power has to intervene before the situation gets exacerbated by other external factors (in this case the IS joining the civil war, fighting against the al-Assad Government, Kurdish Peshmerga and Moderately Muslim Sunni rebels.) This again brings us to the point of assuming responsibility and if we look close enough we can see that besides regional interests, US is actually pursuing to save lives of tens of thousands of civilians… Sometimes this is confused with “imperialism”, which is a very arrogant thing to say after all US has done for us.
I never said I considered them the voice of reason. I don’t know why you claimed I did.
What I stated about acting w/o UNSC authority is simple fact, based on the treaty we are a party to. Iraq invited us in, but Syria has not. If they do, then we’re cool.
I’m surprise to hear you say that. I’d have thought you’d argue that the US should decline the invitation.
And anyway, Assad is unlikely to extend that courtesy. Is the FSA in a position to invite US intervention?
Of course it is – to beg for it, in fact.
The context was whether we were acting as a rogue state or not. “Cool” just means not acting as a rouge state. I
would decline the invitation.
Let the regional powers deal with it. The Golf states pretty much kick-started ISIS and the vast majority of foreign recruits are Arabs. They’re uneasy now that they see the dragon they fostered and suddenly wants the West to step in. They can do it themselves. They could start by stopping financing the propagation of fascist wahhabist teaching that is at the root of much of the trouble with Islam.
Besides Iran and Turkey are just on the other side of the border. And they’ve both got enough military force to deal with it if they had the will. And if the closest neighbours don’t have the will, why should we ten thousand miles away?
Bomb the shit out of them for a few days, just to show them that they can’t go around murdering US citizens for free, and then let it be.
I’m fairly certain Obama is going to be announcing our nation’s capitualtion to the desires of many in the Islamic world with our formally conversion to Islam as a nation. Unfortunately for ISIL we will be converting to Kharijism and annoucing a jihad ( possibly in alliance with Oman ) to cleanse the world of this false Caliphate.
That he’s resigning.
Obama looks older by the day, sheesh.
Wait, what?
ALL Presidents do by their sixth year in office
Sounds like he’s going to do the right thing, including putting more boots on the ground in Iraq.
This was an awesome speech. I am glad he gave it. We need to have a coalition like George Bush.
Hope and Change.
Not in 2003, but this year. They (the government) solicited our help.
Damn, I missed the speech. Stopped at my favorite tasting room after work, and thought I would get home by 6:00 but I opted for one more glass of wine. Oh, well.
He is going to let congress decide whether or not to arm the FSA and groups that are fighting both Assad and ISIS. Smart move, politically.
My guess is that congress will either not decide or decide against it.
Either way, very little in the way of weapons is likely to pass into the wrong hands and America’s involvement in the actual civil war in Syria will be minimized. Which is a good thing.
That’s a shame. He specifically mentioned you by name. 