Paris is Burning

[AK84]

@Broomstick

The point is, appeasing the Nazis in 1938 did not stop them from invading more countries and killing more people.

Attempting to appease ISIS in 2015 is not going to stop them from invading more countries and killing more people.

So we can add pre-World War 2 history to the long list of things you know nothing about.You do realise that “appeasement” brigade like Chamberlain actively pursued rearmament

Rearmament entailed major problems for the British economy. The huge increase in military spending in the late 1930s threatened the balance of payments, reserves of American dollars and gold, inflation, and ultimately the government’s creditworthiness.[9] Because of a lack of indigenous sources, much of the steel, instruments, aircraft, and machine tools needed for rearmament had to be purchased abroad while at the same time, increased military production reduced the number of factories devoted to exports, leading to a serious balance of payments problem.[10] Moreover, the increased taxes to pay for rearmament hampered economic growth, while heavy borrowing to pay for rearmament damaged perceptions of British credit, leading to strong pressure being put on the pound sterling.[10] By 1939 Chamberlain’s government was devoting well over half of its revenues to defence.[11] Chamberlain’s policy of rearmament faced much domestic opposition from the Labour Party, which favoured a policy of disarmament and until late 1938 always voted against increases in the defence budget (afterwards Labour merely switched towards a policy of abstention on defence votes).[12] Labour repeatedly condemned Chamberlain for engaging in an arms race with Germany, and instead urged that Britain simply be disarmed out of the expectation that this example would inspire all of the other powers to do likewise.[12] Throughout the 1930s, Labour frequently disparaged Chamberlain as a crazed war-monger who preferred high levels of military spending to high levels of social spending.[13]

Appeasement is not going to defeat ISIS. Neither is acting in such ways that writes their propaganda for them.

[Donald_Rump]

@adaher

Cutting back on our war effort in the hopes they won’t be mad enough to attack us is appeasement.

This formulation really serves more to obscure than to clarify the real issue, which is that terrorist blowback seems to be a tradeoff of having an interventionist and meddlesome foreign policy in the Middle East. So that leaves us a choice among three options:

1. Assume a dramatically less active ME policy
2. Maintain the status quo, including the current whack-a-mole approach to counterterrorism
3. Dramatically step up our presence in the ME to implement some kind of final solution with respect to Islamic terrorism; I assume this will involve US-led occupation, as our “regional partners” seem to have neither the will nor the capacity to deal with this scourge themselves.

So, you tell me which of those strikes you as a better idea. If history is any guide, #3 cannot be done at anything like a reasonable cost commensurate with the problem at hand (deaths due to Islamic terrorism in the West), assuming it can be done successfully at all; and that’s forgetting about collateral damage and unintended consequences. But by all means, spell out what military solution to this problem you have in mind.

My own preference is for #1, although I also think that #2 can be sustained pretty much indefinitely and hence is tolerable as a distant second-best option.

[Donald_Rump]

@Broomstick

The point is, appeasing the Nazis in 1938 did not stop them from invading more countries and killing more people.

Attempting to appease ISIS in 2015 is not going to stop them from invading more countries and killing more people.

What will stop ISIS from invading more countries is local geography and balance of power. ISIS has laid claim to a bunch of desert land straddling two quasi-failed states. But is ISIS going to invade Jordan? Turkey? Iran?

Germany in 1938 had both the intent and (for a time) the capacity to invade lots more countries, which meant that the Munich agreement at best delayed the inevitable showdown. I don’t see how the situation with ISIS is analogous to that.

[Magiver]

@Donald_Rump

What will stop ISIS from invading more countries is local geography and balance of power. ISIS has laid claim to a bunch of desert land straddling two quasi-failed states. But is ISIS going to invade Jordan? Turkey? Iran?

Germany in 1938 had both the intent and (for a time) the capacity to invade lots more countries, which meant that the Munich agreement at best delayed the inevitable showdown. I don’t see how the situation with ISIS is analogous to that.

They recently attacked Beirut and Paris. I don’t understand your argument at all. And their kill ratios are substantial. Obama called them the junior varsity and refuses to engage them with boots on the ground.

[Ramira]

Your president is being smarter than the other one. Sending your soldiers plays into the DAESH hands and will achieve nothing any more than your Iraqi occuptoin that actually generated the DAESH.

The more intelligent approach is already discussed, in backing the proxies and taking careful action to not give the DAESH propaganda wins.

[Donald_Rump]

@Magiver

They recently attacked Beirut and Paris. I don’t understand your argument at all. And their kill ratios are substantial. Obama called them the junior varsity and refuses to engage them with boots on the ground.

Attack =/= invade

ISIS has the capacity to undermine the safety of lots of countries, especially immediate neighbors. “Invading” them? Not so much.

[adaher]

@Donald_Rump

This formulation really serves more to obscure than to clarify the real issue, which is that terrorist blowback seems to be a tradeoff of having an interventionist and meddlesome foreign policy in the Middle East. So that leaves us a choice among three options:

1. Assume a dramatically less active ME policy
2. Maintain the status quo, including the current whack-a-mole approach to counterterrorism
3. Dramatically step up our presence in the ME to implement some kind of final solution with respect to Islamic terrorism; I assume this will involve US-led occupation, as our “regional partners” seem to have neither the will nor the capacity to deal with this scourge themselves.

So, you tell me which of those strikes you as a better idea. If history is any guide, #3 cannot be done at anything like a reasonable cost commensurate with the problem at hand (deaths due to Islamic terrorism in the West), assuming it can be done successfully at all; and that’s forgetting about collateral damage and unintended consequences. But by all means, spell out what military solution to this problem you have in mind.

My own preference is for #1, although I also think that #2 can be sustained pretty much indefinitely and hence is tolerable as a distant second-best option.

My solution is closest to #3, but I wouldn’t call it a final solution so much as defeating the immediate enemy. We are at war with ISIS, they control territory, we need to take that territory away.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Cutting back on our war effort in the hopes they won’t be mad enough to attack us is appeasement.

There was no air support for the Iraqis and Kurds when ISIS came, the Air campaign against ISIS has been ongoing since 15 June 2014. No one has talked about cutting back and as the reports tell us ISIS/DAESH was/is losing territory. It is more likely that just with a few increases and more European involvement ISIS will lose whatever territory they have.

[Magiver]

@Donald_Rump

Attack =/= invade

ISIS has the capacity to undermine the safety of lots of countries, especially immediate neighbors. “Invading” them? Not so much.

you’re speaking in terms of conventional warfare. That is not what ISIS is doing. They’re attacking from the inside-out and they’re attacking civilians. There are no uniforms or methods of easily identifying the enemy.

[Magiver]

@Ramira

Your president is being smarter than the other one. Sending your soldiers plays into the DAESH hands and will achieve nothing any more than your Iraqi occuptoin that actually generated the DAESH.

The more intelligent approach is already discussed, in backing the proxies and taking careful action to not give the DAESH propaganda wins.

We’re not backing proxies. We unseated Hussein, then Qaddafi and now we’re trying to remove Assad.

[Ramira]

??

The Americans are backing both the various Kurdish groups against the DAESH and the Iraqi central government.

This is the very definition of the proxies.

Qadhdhafi has no thing to do with this…

[carnivorousplant]

@John_Mace

The fact is, European nations are much more likely to be the target of such attacks. France, in particular has a large, disaffected Muslim population and they (France) are a major player in the battle against Da-esh. The US, while clearly the leader in the are against Islamists in the M.E still has a relatively assaulted Muslim population compared to European countries. We got mostly the educated classes, and Europe has been getting a large portion of the less educated. The 1st generation is simply glad to be in a liberal democracy, but the 2nd generation often feels disaffected and alienated.

Thank you, John.

[Ludovic]

@Ramira

Your president is being smarter than the other one. Sending your soldiers plays into the DAESH hands and will achieve nothing any more than your Iraqi occuptoin that actually generated the DAESH.

I think this is true with regards to Syria: there are undoubtedly some moderate rebels and/or other people (or even Syrian government fighters such as happened in Iraq) who would become radicalized from a Western invasion. However, with regard to ISIS in Iraq, I assume that anyone who could have become radicalized already has.

[carnivorousplant]

@Magiver

We’re not backing proxies. We unseated Hussein, then Qaddafi and now we’re trying to remove Assad.

Once a leader is removed, how is it that radicals take over rather than the country becoming a Democracy?

[Ramira]

ETA replying to Ludovic

I do not think so.

In the Iraq there is the problem of the central government having become grossly discriminatory to the Sunni.

There are of course the Sunni who are sitting aside, neither supporting the DAESH nor the government. Sending again the American troops and the inevitable perception of the Americans taking the sides of the bad behaving Shia militias can indeed drive those who are sitting aside to turn insurgent against the foreign troops.

It is one thing not to want to fight your countrymen. It is another to take up the arms against the foreigners.

It is for that a great mistake to send in anything but the trainers like to train how to call in the air support and the similar.

[Ramira]

@carnivorousplant

Once a leader is removed, how is it that radicals take over rather than the country becoming a Democracy?

It is a lesson from the past century, and with such movements as the Bolshevik, that the armed and highly motivated even a minority can sieze power frequently.

this should not be a surprise.

But the Americans seem to not be able to understand the rest of the world is not exactly like them, and cannot seem to let go of their instinct to try to make the world little Americas. However admirable the American system can be, it is also particular.

[Magiver]

@Ramira

??

The Americans are backing both the various Kurdish groups against the DAESH and the Iraqi central government.

This is the very definition of the proxies.

Qadhdhafi has no thing to do with this…

They’re not proxy leaders. We’re backing civilians not actual leaders. If it’s a problem visualizing what I’ve said imagine if we did that in France and sent arms in to rival civilian groups.

[Ramira]

@Magiver

They’re not proxy leaders.

I wrote proxies.

Proxy leaders is your strange invention (not that I can say this strange invention is correct, as of course the Kurdish groups are organized, and in the case of the Region, a proper government, and have leadership, as is the Iraqi government…).

[carnivorousplant]

@Ramira

It is for that a great mistake to send in anything but the trainers like to train how to call in the air support and the similar.

But the guys we train apparently flee as soon as they come under fire.

[GIGObuster]

@carnivorousplant

But the guys we train apparently flee as soon as they come under fire.

What I understood was that the ones that flee were mostly Sunni, as in not wanting to fight for the current regime in Iraq, Kurds and Shiites are not fleeing but making DAESH run away now.

Of course then one should see where is this headed, I can foresee a lot of Sunnis being the ones executed or expelled for even appearing to support DAESH once the territory is liberated from them.