Obama is trying to authorize having boots on the ground to fight ISIS. They have done nothing to harm the USA or our allies. It is not our job to police the world. I understand protecting South Korea, or the rest of NATO, because we have a lot of trade with them, but really, what is Syria going to do for us if we get rid of ISIS? There are a lot of issues here in the US and IMO fixing those is far more important than stopping ISIS. Let’s rebuild our infrastructure, fix our economy, and overhaul our healthcare system before we think about policing the world.
I, too, would like the US to stop being the World Police, mostly because we seem bad at it and we clearly only do it to facilitate trade that is in our economic interest. But.
ISIS has kidnapped and killed Americans, which is harm.
ISIS is a threat to Turkey, which is a NATO ally. NATO requires that we defend them, not because it’s good for us, but because we agreed to do so.
Further, the rise of ISIS can pretty demonstrably be laid at the doorstep of American policy-makers in the years 1990–2015. We’re not alone in the responsibility: pretty much everyone who’s been in the region since the demise of the Ottoman Empire has a share of the responsibility, but the botched invasion of, occupation of, and withdrawal from Iraq are why ISIS even has a de facto country to be medieval in.
The thing to do is move the UN out of New York, take away the five permanent seats on the Security Council, and give it teeth. Until that happens, I think we’re stuck policing, and particularly for attempting to throw a paper towel or two at our mess.
Err… that would put the UN in the hands of the biggest tyrants in the world. And You might not find their policing much to your liking, either.
So those journalists and aid volunteers are all still alive, then?
How so?
The current non-permanent members of the Security Council are Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Nigeria, Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain, and Venezuela.
Do you suppose the Nigerians will do a better job at policing the world?
Non-permanent means “not permanent,” so it’s not like the Nigerians would set the agenda forever. At any rate, I don’t suppose the Nigerians (or anyone) would, on their own, but as part of a committee that also includes Malaysia, New Zealand, and Spain, I suspect they might. Ten countries with a diverse set of interests: I suspect the compromise position would be more beneficial to the world than the status quo, which is “so long as it doesn’t upset any of the Permanent Security Council Members.”
Edit: The New Zealanders might be surprised to find themselves listed as one of the biggest tyrants in the world.
ISIS is the one example since the First Gulf War in which demonstrable American military endeavor is warranted.
This debate should have stopped us from waging wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, but the spread of ISIS represents a huge problem for the Middle East and our allies.
I tend to agree. We look at history in hind-site but ISIS appears to be an especially clear-cut case. You can argue that the second Gulf War was a bad idea and I would probably agree to some extent looking at it in hindsite. Afghanistan was more justified but still somewhat questionable. All of that is done though and the worst thing we can do is retreat in the face of a true guilt just because of some hand-wringing.
I am sure that the first Gulf War was justified. Iraq had the 4th largest military at the time and just marched straight into neighboring Kuwait with no provocation other than Saddam Hussein’s own delusions of grandeur and aggressive tendencies. The Iraq army fell right away with relatively little loss of U.S. life or even undo destruction of Iraq itself. I would say that policing the world was the right thing to do at least in the case of Gulf War I. It wasn’t technically a U.S. action either. Many countries participated as they should have and the coalition victory was a good example of the effective use of such forces.
The ISIS threat is much closer, and perhaps even worse, than the circumstances that led up to Gulf War I. They are true evil in every sense (you know that is true when Al Qaeda dissociates itself from them for being too extreme). Their numbers aren’t very large right now either and they can be destroyed very quickly by any reasonably sized U.S. of coalition ground forces combined with the ongoing air strikes.
There is a huge middle ground between isolationism and jumping into every conflict that hits the U.S. news. WWII, Gulf War I and some of the Korean War are examples of conflicts that were both justified and made good use of the overwhelming U.S. military superiority. A few like Vietnam don’t look so good in hindsight while a few others like Somalia and Yugoslavia are more ambiguous. The choice aren’t just choosing between isolationism and policing every possible conflict. There are always going to be some of the latter going on. The real problem is choosing effectively and wisely which ones have both an excellent chance of success with the lowest amount of collateral damage on both sides as well as the highest return on investment.
Considering it’s a *result *of American military endeavour in the first place… I’m not sure “moar American-caused chaos ! MOAR !” is the answer to the root issue, yanno ?
Is “do nothing and hope ISIS goes away on its own” a preferable alternative?
That is true but it is mostly irrelevant at this point and may even be an argument for further intervention. I don’t think that many people, myself included, are itching for any type of direct conflict in the Middle-East right now but you have to work with the hand that you have been dealt. ISIS is a true threat to U.S. allies and other U.S. interests. They will proudly tell you that themselves.
They have to be defeated one way or another. There are various ways to do that but letting allies like Jordan, Iraqi Kurds or Kuwait to deal with it mostly on their own isn’t the most responsible thing to do either ethically or practically. ISIS forces only number in the tens of thousands right now but they are an unusually aggressive and dedicated group and their numbers are growing quickly. One fast push by the U.S. military and coalition forces could take them down in days or weeks but the problem will get much worse if they are allowed to proliferate even further across the region.
Well the French insistence on harsh monetary and provincial reparations for WW1 caused the German nationalist resentment leading to WW2.
Did ignoring the Nazi arms buildup work out well for Europe?
ISIS seems to be doing a very good job of recruiting allies for the nations arrayed against it. The US is not acting unilaterally here. I think we do need to help, and I believe that ISIS has invited every government in the area to fight it, and many industrial nations from around the world.
“policing” - didn’t we get past this nonsense a little after high school?
It’s an empire dude, doing imperial things like supporting puppet dictators, suppressing democracy where it needs, and invading countries.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
noun
a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
I can’t say that it is false in the case of the U.S. or any other world power in history but what are the alternatives? The U.S. tried isolationism as a primary foreign policy strategy off and on and that didn’t work out so well either. Sometimes you go to the fight and other times, the fight comes to you (Pearl Harbor et al). The real art isn’t choosing between becoming a lion or a turtle but instead figuring out which conflicts are worth getting involved in and how much.
Many of us think that ISIS is clearly on the intervention side because they are so hostile, organized, well-funded and unusually aggressive. They same people wouldn’t argue the same thing about different threats because, although we would win the battles militarily, they may not actually resolve anything and spawn unintended consequences.
Some Americans have a weird hangup about the fact that they are pretty much an empire, doing imperial things, as you say. It comes with the territory being the big dawg. shrug
I haven’t oppressed anyone today; I’m never gonna make my quota. 
So to summarize:
- ISIS is the embodiment of evil.
- It could be knocked out easily by conventional U.S. forces, home by Christmas.
- No one’s itching for a war, but let me tell you how we need to go to war right away.
Do you guys read off a script or what? It’s the same every time.
Maybe a page away from calling the antis a bunch of Chamberlain appeasers.
Has America had a war where the enemy hasn’t been called a new Hitler? Saddam, Osama, Milosevic, evil Latin American socialists…don’t forget Ahmadinejad and Putin too, with hawks angling on that propaganda ahead of time. Each guy is even more Hitlery than the last. Just for once, I’d like to see someone called the new Napoleon.
As for U.S. policing, well hey, that makes sense. Economics 101. Comparative advantage, ya know? It’s cheaper for us to have nuclear subs in the Yellow Sea spying on China than anyone else doing it. We’re doing the world a solid. ISIS are a bunch of Islam-Nazis, but no one else who actually lives there can be bothered to care, so it’s up to us to care for them.
In this you are quite right, no two ways about it.
I don’t agree with some of the other stuff that you said, I don’t believe that any country is ever going to see an end to poverty or homelessness or having an economy that is firing on all cylinders.
However after seeing the 70’s-90’s spate of hijackings, two gulf wars and various others, I believe that its time for the ME to experience a clear and present danger. Its their house, let them put it in order and let the cards fall where they may.
Give Israel the reins of defending themselves , with no out side interference, including the use of nuclear weapons as required
Either they are civilized and will get their shit together, or there will be a blood letting that we are only delaying, by out side interference.
Declan