I went out of my way to suggest disapproval of the Iraq and Afghani wars, and will readily acknowledge that our intervention in the Middle East caused the rise of ISIS.
That doesn’t change the fact that ISIS represents a new and particularly dangerous threat. Inaction could make things much worse going forward.
I think policing the world is no bad thing. Tyrants spring up from time to time and commit atrocities including genocides. We should stand up and do something about it, I don’t give a f**k that those people were born inside a different state boundary to me.
Just one of the terrible legacies of the second gulf war, is that now everyone seems to believe that successful interventions are impossible, and they cynically believe we only get involved because of some “???, 3. Profit!” plan anyway. It was painful hearing people scratch around for the real reason we were going to get involved in Syria.
In the end, we did virtually nothing, and the country went to hell. Anyone prepared to stand up and say maybe the non-intervention strategy was not the right one here, and/or that ISIS’ rise is partly attributable to us doing nothing? No, of course not.
The problem with policing right now though is that the US military is still so vast compared to other countries’ that even combined armies look weak by comparison. So we can talk about making NATO or the UN stronger, but the US is not going to hand over most of its forces, and until that day policing decisions come down largely to what the US wants to do.
In an ideal world, China and Russia would start observing human rights, and obeying international laws, and them we can talk about forming a really strong army with significant input from the triad of military superpowers (band name!). And said force will be deployed to the areas of greatest need and where they will have greatest impact; strategic value will not be a concern.
Alas, it’s but a dream, in the real world it’s pretty much on America with a little assistance from UK, France etc.
Um…have you looked at a map lately? The US have a vested interest in the region, as does the rest of the industrialized world (which is why a bunch of other countries are participating as well). You know what that infrastructure and economy you want to fix runs on? That black oil stuff. You know where the majority of it is? In the Middle East. You know what else is in the Middle East? ISIS. This isn’t about policing the world or trying to do good deeds, it’s about a vital strategic resource that the US needs to continue to survive and prosper, so that folks like you can bitch about what we do while lamenting that we don’t pour more money into infrastructure, ‘fix’(ing) our economy or overhauling healthcare, while pretending we don’t already do all those things (for certain definitions of ‘fix’ and ‘overhauling’).
We also have agreements with many countries in the Middle East similar to those with South Korea, Japan and Europe btw, both for trade and for defense, since you seem to be unaware of that as well.
Arguably, this is an example of how the system SHOULD work. Someone as vile as ISIS rears it’s head and instead of one country or a few semi-willing ‘allies’ haring off to take care of them you have a real coalition dealing with the problem. Hard to believe that anyone but a right wing conservative like my dad could fault Obama for how he’s handled this or how he’s measured the US response to this threat.
[QUOTE=BOOM!]
It’s an empire dude, doing imperial things like supporting puppet dictators, suppressing democracy where it needs, and invading countries.
[/QUOTE]
You love these little drive by one line slams, don’t you? 
It’s good that the US imperium can call upon our European and Middle Eastern regional minions like Jordan to participate in our nefarious imperial skullduggery, no? It’s good to be the God Emperor…
Well, there was Bokassa, but he was just a wannabee . . .
ISIL is a regional threat and should be dealt with by the regional powers. What did we sell all those weapons to Jordan and Saudi Arabia for?
Now, if Turkey was attacked and requested aid from NATO, that would be something. But again, that would be NATO, not the US by itself*.
*When you’re 80% or more of the force, I don’t see much of a difference between that and “by yourself”.
While I agree with that, I don’t see how anyone can claim that the US is not a regional power in the ME. Ghod knows we’ve done our very best over the past 50 years to position ourselves as one.
I get that you’re talking about homeland and geography…but the world is small, and with 25,000 active duty troops in MENA, our ongoing military and civilian presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Bahrain (among others), our extensive economic interests in the region, our long-standing relationship with Israel, and our history of adventurism and politicoeconomic interference in the region, it’s hard to say we’re not a regional power.
That’s a really vapid article, but I can see why it appeals to some. Take five slams against Bush, add two implications of Obama is the same as Bush, sprinkle some Buzzwords (shibboleth and American Exceptionalisn - someone watched the West Wing!), and yet, no actual proposals.
What are we supposed to do about ISIL? According to that article, “fix the UN.” Uh, ok. “End bribery and be more transparent.” Are we talking about the same issue here?
Like the OP, I think people who say we shouldn’t be doing something we are doing have the obligation to say specifically what we should be doing. “Do it better!” doesn’t count.
Are you just trying to throw out cool one-liners, or have you not actually read the newspapers in a few months? Egyptian airstrikes after mass murder? Rumors of King Abdullah personally flying missions against ISIL? Kurds driving ISIL into a major defeat about a week ago? Is any of that ringing a bell, or are you just brushing it off because if it doesn’t fit with your theory of what’s happening, it can’t be significant?
Now where did you guys put the middle ? I could swear I left it on the coffee table, but now it’s not there. Check your pockets.
Alright, Dr. Schweitzer, what should we be doing about ISIS?
You don’t think the US did enough by creating, empowering and arming ISIS in the first place?
Obviously the answer is to bomb some more. What could possibly go wrong.
ISIS wants nothing more than “the Crusader Army” to attack them so they can rally more to their cause. I think it’s really foolish to attack unless we intend to and are able to crush them. As I see it, we do not intend to, and I doubt we are able to-- that is, not without occupying the region essentially forever.
Let Turkey, and Jordan, and Iraq, and Syria deal with them.
The U.S. first got involved when there was a massacre about to happen, and it was relatively straightforward to prevent it (bomb the big convoy that’s traveling to kill some people. I was pretty OK with that. The goal was not to destroy the organization, but to prevent an imminent atrocity where the U.S. had the power immediately on hand to prevent that other nations did not. But now apparently the goal has shifted to “this is a bad group, and the U.S. should do whatever it takes to bring that about”. I agree that ISIS is a bad group, but eliminating it will require a sustained effort from the countries where it is operating. The U.S. is not unique in having weapons in the region. Eliminating ISIS will not require a massive airstrike that can be called in on a moments notice, but a long campaign both on the battlefield and in public opinion. There is no reason at this point to get directly involved in fighting to eliminate it.
Sure, it will start out as a horrible, barbarous hell-hole. If we keep our paws off, though, within a decade it will change toward a more reasonable and sustainable nation, and in another generation it might be a decent place.
Yes, the U.S. as “policeman of the world” is too often corrupt. And, yes it would be better if the powers in the region did more to help fight ISIS. Iran is a natural enemy of ISIS; I still think some alliance between U.S. and Iran should be possible to improve relations in the Middle East. I don’t think this is too optimistic; Iran is U.S.’ enemy largely because we made it so, just as we mistreated Castro’s Cuba.
But what are the alternatives to U.S. as world policeman? Stand back and laugh as ISIS commits brutalities? Yes, the incredibly stupid Bushian misadventure was a major cause of the ISIS crisis; that’s all the more reason the U.S. is responsible to fix it. Yes, we’d like to hope that such stupidities will not be repeated. We can hope that America comes to its senses, reforms campaign spending, and stops empowering criminals like GWB, Cheney and Rove.
If some cops are dirty, that doesn’t mean the clean ones should stop fighting crime. The world cop has done good in Bosnia and elsewhere. Those asking the U.S. to stand down and let ISIS continue its brutality are inhumane or sadistic.
I may partly agree with Dr. Drake, but will respond to those who think the first sentence of this excerpt is a near-term solution:
“Give it teeth”? The military teeth in the world are American fighting men directed by the Pentagon. Are you suggesting these Americans should be commanded by the U.N. General Assembly instead? How about U.S. nuclear weapons? In your “solution”, are these also to be donated to the one-country-one-vote U.N.? Puh-leeeze.
I’m not happy about U.S. hegemony. Frankly, I think the two-power Cold War may have been more stable than what we have now. But in today’s real world, U.S. needs to help if ISIS is to be stopped.
Well, okay then, what is the point of the UN? Either it should have power, or it should be disbanded. It’s not like there are no other venues for nations to talk to each other.
:eek: Please don’t go Excluded Middle on us! If we don’t turn our nukes over to the U.N. it means we should disband it? :smack: (I may have to retract my “partly agree.”)
Maybe I should have been clearer. The US military as a whole should not be subject to the U.N.
On international policing actions, the U.S. should be willing to loan a portion of its military to serve under U.N. command, under much the same model as other international military cooperations. Exactly what portion would have to be agreed by both the US and the UN, but I can’t imagine either side wanting to transfer control of nuclear weapons.
Is there some kind of Noam Chomsky build-your-own conspiracy playbook that requires that the U.S. be responsible for every single problem isn’t faces?
I suppose the U.S. is responsible for ISIL, Qadaffi, Saddam, the Ayatollah, Chavez, Putin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Thatcher, and George W Bush. Whatevs.
And how’d that work out for post-WWI Germany?