Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat. AQ was a threat because OBL subscribed to a theory that before the Caliphate can be established, America has to be persuaded to withdraw from the ME through direct attacks on their interests and on the American homeland itself. ISIS believes no such thing. They have already established the Caliphate; there was no need to engage the far enemy first, as OBL insisted was necessary.

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them. In doing so, they have transferred the cred for 911 from AQ to ISIS. Why is America doing this? They clearly hate ISIS. What do American authorizes hope to gain by boosting their stock?

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

Let me guess: Ladbrokes says the USA is a 16-1 favorite to defeat ISIS in a war - and we all know that underdogs never win wars, the huge upsets that the North Vietnamese and those ragtag Minutemen of 1776 pulled off notwithstanding.

There is an interesting aricle in Stratfor:
As Caliphates Compete, Radical Islam Will Eventually Weaken | Stratfor http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/cal...ntually-weaken …

"The rise of the Islamic State will inspire other jihadist groups to claim their own caliphates and emirates. In the long run, the extremism of these contrived dominions and the competition among them will undermine the jihadist movement. However, before that happens, the world will witness much upheaval.”…"According to classical Muslim political theorists, there can be only one caliphate for the entire Muslim global community, or ummah. In practice, though, there have been rival claimants to authority and even competing caliphates throughout the history of Islam.”...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat. AQ was a threat because OBL subscribed to a theory that before the Caliphate can be established, America has to be persuaded to withdraw from the ME through direct attacks on their interests and on the American homeland itself. ISIS believes no such thing. They have already established the Caliphate; there was no need to engage the far enemy first, as OBL insisted was necessary.

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them. In doing so, they have transferred the cred for 911 from AQ to ISIS. Why is America doing this? They clearly hate ISIS. What do American authorizes hope to gain by boosting their stock?

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

ISIS is certainly repugnant. War crimes are its standard operating procedure to an extent that one never saw with the Axis Powers of WWII, Saddam Hussein, or Commies other than the Khmer Rouge.

It has its vulnerabilities. So far it is effective at controlling cities and finding turncoats. Ba'athists who have lost all legitimate roles in Iraqi political life have turned on the Iraqi state which has its severe faults. If it seems unlikely that the highly-secular (by Islamic standards) Ba'athists could join such intolerant Islamists, then think again -- as Eric Hoffer tells us in his The True Believer, those who hold extremist ideologies often find it easy to go from one extremist cause to another. Communists in central and Balkan Europe found low-echelon (if not leading) ex-Nazi, ex-Arrow Cross, ex-Hlinka Guards, and ex-Iron Guard brutes willing to become Commie brutes. The ideology was exchangeable with surprising ease; the brutality and rigid discipline did not have to change.

What ISIS cannot do well is to wage frontal warfare. What I expect it to do is to fight to the last fighter. Someone who knows that his future upon surrender is a rope around his neck will fight to the end.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat. AQ was a threat because OBL subscribed to a theory that before the Caliphate can be established, America has to be persuaded to withdraw from the ME through direct attacks on their interests and on the American homeland itself. ISIS believes no such thing. They have already established the Caliphate; there was no need to engage the far enemy first, as OBL insisted was necessary.

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them. In doing so, they have transferred the cred for 911 from AQ to ISIS. Why is America doing this? They clearly hate ISIS. What do American authorizes hope to gain by boosting their stock?

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

What you may be missing is what (of all people) Newt Gingrich had already started to take Obama to task for (importantly, he did this before the Prez. speech last night) -

Going after ISIL as we do the Islamic terrorist in Yemen and Somalia

Note even a good reporter on the ground gets it -

http://omnifeed.com/article/www.medi...ldly-off-base/

NBC’s Richard Engel Slams President Obama’s ISIS Speech: ‘Wildly Off-Base’

- who frets that in the absence of our own boots on the ground, we do not have a coalition of the willing of other countries, including Shiite Iraqis, that will put the boots on the ground to do the job.

The war mongers and the chickenhawks, along with the media who want to sell tickets, all want some sort of big combo of shock-and-awe and Schwarzkopf's end-around with death highway photos of chard nasty ISIL terrorists. Or, if we can't have that, at a minimum, brawny CIA operatives on horseback leading the Syrian Front equivalent to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance to V-I-C-I-T-O-R-Y-!!!

Obama don't play that.

He is talking about this becoming like Somalia and Yemen and let's add-in Libya - eventually, stories on page 2, then page 5, and eventually featured on "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown."

Yes, it will start with some shock and awe bombings that will provide some photo evidence to placate the current bloodlust of most Americans (of course, McCain and Graham will continue to demand more and more glossies). But what will really be going on is systematically and methodically destroying not only ISIL's vehicles (tanks, APCs, technicals) and long-range artillery but the roads. The strategic bombing will be to isolate ISIL and hamper their movements. Then will come the SpecOps that will take the leadership out and provide that sophisticated counter to the beheadings (see Osama bin Laden). Heck, since the ISIL leadership is mostly unknown and not as menancing a figure as old OBL, we might even bring back a couple live ones to put on trail (I've always like the idea of having these guys dismantled in a WWF arena on live TV).

Now, of course, in the background to all of this is the real story - the final breakdown of the remaining boundaries of the Ottoman empire. Today's maps of the Middle East are going to become just interesting archives to future historians. And the real issue, of course, is Turkey.

[Note - Gingrich was smart enough to see what Obama had in mind and started to build a case against it. Smart enough, however, to also know Obama's got a winning hand on this in the long run and best for Newt to be one of the first to give the thumbs up so that he can make even Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren seem as warmongering crazies. Smart guy.]

Having just seen the way that ''middle of the road'' CNN is playing this it seems that David Kaiser's general thesis that George W. Bush is the grey champion is correct. Basically, we're being sold on the contradictory idea that if we spend money and lives forever in the middle east then the area will somehow become safe for Disneyworld theme park in just a few more years.

If this goes well, which I doubt, Bush will get lionized. If it goes poorly, which I suspect as the likely outcome, Obama will be blamed. Preident Rand Paul here we come.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat. AQ was a threat because OBL subscribed to a theory that before the Caliphate can be established, America has to be persuaded to withdraw from the ME through direct attacks on their interests and on the American homeland itself. ISIS believes no such thing. They have already established the Caliphate; there was no need to engage the far enemy first, as OBL insisted was necessary.

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them. In doing so, they have transferred the cred for 911 from AQ to ISIS. Why is America doing this? They clearly hate ISIS. What do American authorizes hope to gain by boosting their stock?

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

You may be right, and America may be over-reaching as usual. I would expect some people here to disagree with Obama's policy on this, even though Deb is not here right now to do it in an over-the-top way.

We'll see if this is another quagmire. So far, Obama is careful to avoid sending combat troops. This strategy of airstrikes and support will have to be well-done in order to work; it didn't work in Afghanistan under Bush after 9-11.

I am sympathetic to Obama's policy, and hope it works. I tend to think he's right that they are a threat. There's no reason to assume that the Islamic Caliphate and Al Qaeda are different in their plans to attack the West. You can say they believe no such thing, and yet apparently they have said they plan to attack America and our allies. An Islamic Caliphate seems to me obviously does establish a home base for terrorism, just like Afghanistan was. They are too busy establishing their territorial rule now, which is something Al Qaeda never did. But if allowed to stand, it's certainly reasonable to assume they would sponsor or enable attacks outside their borders, including more 9-11s. Something to ponder on this anniversary.

Their aim is clearly to rule over the entire Arab world too. That's what the Caliphate is. Such attacks and conquests violate international law in our era, and such violations are a threat to security and world order. It was OK for Genghis Khan or the old Moslem conquerers to do this, but this is the 21st century. And their cruelty and oppression amounts to dealing out genocide to those who don't subscribe to their exact religion and ways of life. The USA has a duty to stop these kinds of violations of international law and standards of conduct. We are the only one who can spearhead and support this effort, but it will only work if our partners in the region have the will and intention to resist and destroy this cancerous villainy, and the policy is carried out by a coalition of partners to support it. That seems to be the approach Obama is taking, and he has picked the right partners (as opposed to suggestions made here by you and others). What remains to be seen is whether it is carried out in such a way that the "good guys" don't kill a lot of innocent folks in turn, and how many more good guys get killed.

One thing is for sure too; defeating ISIS will not end bombings in Iraq and elsewhere, and other aspirations for caliphates in many places in the Muslim world. This is a long-term struggle to actually "end" it. To keep it under control, until it just fades away and people wise up to the actual way to improve their lives, is all we can hope for.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What you may be missing is what (of all people) Newt Gingrich had already started to take Obama to task for (importantly, he did this before the Prez. speech last night) -

Going after ISIL as we do the Islamic terrorist in Yemen and Somalia

Note even a good reporter on the ground gets it -

http://omnifeed.com/article/www.medi...ldly-off-base/
[/indent]
- who frets that in the absence of our own boots on the ground, we do not have a coalition of the willing of other countries, including Shiite Iraqis, that will put the boots on the ground to do the job.

The war mongers and the chickenhawks, along with the media who want to sell tickets, all want some sort of big combo of shock-and-awe and Schwarzkopf's end-around with death highway photos of chard nasty ISIL terrorists. Or, if we can't have that, at a minimum, brawny CIA operatives on horseback leading the Syrian Front equivalent to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance to V-I-C-I-T-O-R-Y-!!!

Obama don't play that.

He is talking about this becoming like Somalia and Yemen and let's add-in Libya - eventually, stories on page 2, then page 5, and eventually featured on "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown."

Yes, it will start with some shock and awe bombings that will provide some photo evidence to placate the current bloodlust of most Americans (of course, McCain and Graham will continue to demand more and more glossies). But what will really be going on is systematically and methodically destroying not only ISIL's vehicles (tanks, APCs, technicals) and long-range artillery but the roads. The strategic bombing will be to isolate ISIL and hamper their movements. Then will come the SpecOps that will take the leadership out and provide that sophisticated counter to the beheadings (see Osama bin Laden). Heck, since the ISIL leadership is mostly unknown and not as menancing a figure as old OBL, we might even bring back a couple live ones to put on trail (I've always like the idea of having these guys dismantled in a WWF arena on live TV).

Now, of course, in the background to all of this is the real story - the final breakdown of the remaining boundaries of the Ottoman empire. Today's maps of the Middle East are going to become just interesting archives to future historians. And the real issue, of course, is Turkey.

[Note - Gingrich was smart enough to see what Obama had in mind and started to build a case against it. Smart enough, however, to also know Obama's got a winning hand on this in the long run and best for Newt to be one of the first to give the thumbs up so that he can make even Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren seem as warmongering crazies. Smart guy.]

Why don't you just come out and say what you are trying to imply. Are you saying Obama is trying to play some kind of chess game against his political opponents? If this is so, why not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. That would ensure that nothing happens and Obama would be blameless for not taking any action.

It is obvious that ISIS is baiting the US. Why does Obama want to accommodate them?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why don't you just come out and say what you are trying to imply. Are you saying Obama is trying to play some kind of chess game against his political opponents? If this is so, why not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. That would ensure that nothing happens and Obama would be blameless for not taking any action.

It is obvious that ISIS is baiting the US. Why does Obama want to accommodate them?

The thing I am wondering, and I may create a separate thread for this, is if any of you feel that ISIS could be to this 4T what the Nazis were to the last. The message of Muslim supremacy sounds frightenly familiar to the Nazi obsession with creating a "master race". And there were those who wanted to stop Hitler and his ilk before they got out of hand, and if we don't do this with ISIS, history may very well repeat itsef. The trick is not to dismiss this gang as a "minor nuisance" as was the case with Hitler.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why don't you just come out and say what you are trying to imply. Are you saying Obama is trying to play some kind of chess game against his political opponents? If this is so, why not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. That would ensure that nothing happens and Obama would be blameless for not taking any action.

It is obvious that ISIS is baiting the US. Why does Obama want to accommodate them?

Given that politicians rarely do what's right, preferring to do what's expedient, Obama is playing the middle hand. If things go badly, he can argue (unsuccessfully I suspect) that he was responding to blood-lust by being reasonable. If things go well, he can claim that he pulled-off a Goldilocks War. He's already said that this can go on for a long time, so he seems to already believe that Goldilocks won't be the case. Which leaves us with the unreasonable expectation that doing just enough to avoid being labeled a coward will save his bacon.

The correct response should have been to point east, and say, "We've provided our allies in the region with weapons, training and monetary support to make them capable of quelling troubles they undersatnd much better than we do. Where is Turkey? Where is Egypt? Where are the Emirates and the Saudis?

"We will assit, but we will not lead. The leadership is up to the powers in the region, all of which out number and out gun ISIS by orders of magnitude. We wish them well, and offer our support, but the first moves are up to them."

If we have any responsibility at all, it's to degrade the weapons we left behind in our last charade. Perhaps we can fix that, but let's not do it again.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why don't you just come out and say what you are trying to imply. Are you saying Obama is trying to play some kind of chess game against his political opponents? If this is so, why not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. That would ensure that nothing happens and Obama would be blameless for not taking any action.

It is obvious that ISIS is baiting the US. Why does Obama want to accommodate them?

At this level of geo-politics, I don't think Obama gives a rat's ass about mental midgets and ideologically-blinded adolescents in Congress.

Here's a couple of other folks that get it -

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/ju...omali-line-was

Juan Cole: Obama's Yemen/Somali Line Was A Feature, Not A Bug

By Steve M. September 11, 2014 11:36 am - Comments

What if Obama is a sharper reader of the Middle East than his critics give him credit for?

One line in President Obama's speech last night led to eye-rolling from Think Progress and Bill Kristol alike:

This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

Juan Cole, however, thinks that's a sign that the president is talking about containment rather than war, and may be correct to do so:

What if Obama wants to prevent the fall of Baghdad, Erbil and even Riyadh? What if he is privately skeptical about Baghdad recovering Mosul any time soon? ...

The best that can be said for US actions against AQAP in Yemen is that they may have forestalled AQAP and kindred groups from taking and holding some provinces. For instance, AQAP took over Zinjibar and some other towns in Abyan Province in 2011, but in 2012 a government offensive backed by US air power and aided by grassroots anti-al-Qaeda popular committees expelled AQAP from Abyan....

Obama hinted in his speech that he wants to help Baghdad and Erbil take back towns from ISIL just as Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, the president of Yemen, took back Zinjibar. And just as AQAP hasn’t disappeared in Yemen, Obama expects ISIL to be around for a while. In essence, the Yemen policy has de facto yielded a sort of containment with regard to AQAP, though how successful it will be in the long run can be questioned.

What if Obama is a sharper reader of the Middle East than his critics give him credit for? He knows ISIL is likely not going away, just as, after 13 years, the Taliban have not. US military action may even prolong the lifetime of these groups (that is one argument about AQAP) even as it keeps them from taking more territory.

Don’t listen to his expansive four-stage program or his retooled, stage-managed John Wayne rhetoric. Look at his metaphors. He is telling those who have ears to hear that he is pulling a Yemen in Iraq and Syria. He knows very well what that implies. It is a sort of desultory, staccato containment from the air with a variety of grassroots and governmental forces joining in. Yemen is widely regarded as a failure, but perhaps it is only not a success. And perhaps that is all Obama can realistically hope for.

Obama's job is not to try to rid the world of evil. Obama's job is to protect America and U.S. interests. With regard to ISIS, that means curtailing the group's ability to be a threat to our country and our interests. If Cole is right, and if something like this gets Obama's actual job done, I'd prefer that to a bloodlust-satisfying full-on quagmire of a war that inflames our enemies and inspires ISIS's current enemies in the Arab/Muslim world to rally around the group. Please read Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek on the subject of how many people hate ISIS -- but hate the U.S. more, and might become ISIS fans out of anger at us.

I think the underlying problem is that Americans have come to take for granted what it means to have an adult in the Oval Office.

This is about the economy, not about ISIS. Foreclosures are up, manufacture is down, so Obama wants another spending stream to prevent deflation. The bathtub has a big gaping hole, and it's eroding. Their solution is to dump more water faster. Remember kids, if you see something, say something, especially when it's nothing, otherwise we can't justify those budgets and the guy rooting through your nude selfies will get fired.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

The thing I am wondering, and I may create a separate thread for this, is if any of you feel that ISIS could be to this 4T what the Nazis were to the last. The message of Muslim supremacy sounds frightenly familiar to the Nazi obsession with creating a "master race". And there were those who wanted to stop Hitler and his ilk before they got out of hand, and if we don't do this with ISIS, history may very well repeat itsef. The trick is not to dismiss this gang as a "minor nuisance" as was the case with Hitler.

You might want to read some of this -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...eath-slow-down

Deep Breath, Slow Down

Making calculated use of American airpower to help anti-ISIS forces regroup and make progress against ISIS makes sense to me. But given what we heard last night, given the hyperventilation from many that it is somehow not enough, I strongly recommend reading this article we posted yesterday. The strength of ISIS on the ground where it is seems to have been wildly, wildly exaggerated, through a mix of very effective social media-based propaganda and complementary hyper-ventilation by US commentators and and politicians. Even the limited airstrikes the US has already undertaken has lost ISIS arms, equipment and territory.

- which links to this -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/isis-pr-machine

Has The World Been Bamboozled By The ISIS PR Machine?

....According to a senior Iraqi intelligence official, more than 27,600 Islamic State fighters are believed to be operating in Iraq, about 2,600 of whom are foreigners.

Most analysts, however, estimate the number of Islamic State fighters in both Iraq and Syria to be about 20,000.

In any case, the group is dwarfed by its foes in the Syrian and Iraqi armies — both in numbers and firepower.

The Iraqi military and police force are estimated at more than 1 million. The Syrian army is estimated at 300,000 soldiers. There are believed to be more than 100,000 Syrian rebels, including the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the powerful Islamic Front rebel umbrella group, currently fighting the Islamic State group in Syria. Tens of thousands of Kurdish Peshmerga forces are fighting the group in Iraq.

The Islamic State group's greatest shortcoming is that it lacks the means to fight airpower, meaning that U.S. airstrikes can go a long way in destroying its capabilities.

Still, the Islamic State group has amassed a significant amount of weapons and hardware captured from Iraqi and Syrian military installations in recent months.

The Iraqi official, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to brief the media, told The Associated Press that the group's arsenal includes Kalashnikovs, machine guns, anti-aircraft guns and mortars, adding that they also have about 35 Iraqi military tanks, about 80 armored police vehicles and hundreds of Humvees.

In addition to those, the group earlier this year paraded in its Syrian stronghold of Raqqa what appeared to be a Scud missile, although it is unclear if the group has the capability to launch it.

Richard Brennan, an Iraq expert with RAND Corporation and a former U.S. Department of Defense policymaker, said the Islamic State group has captured 155mm howitzers — artillery weapons the Iraqi army commanded. It also captured some old Soviet-era tanks. They also seized some heavy weapons, including 50-caliber machine guns.

The group has a few MiG 21s captured when it overran the Syrian army's air base in Tabqa last month. Analysts say it is extremely unlikely that they could get any of them off the ground at this point.

"It's a very nice thing for them to be able to show in the video. But for now, we're unlikely to see an Islamic State air force anytime soon, or even just one working jet," Lister said.

A study released this week by the London-based Conflict Armament Research said Islamic State group fighters have also amassed weapons supplied by the U.S. and other allied countries, including anti-tank rockets, by overrunning stocks belonging to mainstream Syrian rebels.

Theodore Karasik, a security and political affairs analyst at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, estimated the Islamic State can claim about 20,000 core fighters, and up to 30,000, if allied Sunni tribesman are included.

Islamic State militants have shown the ability to operate commercially available drones, such as one that provided video over Islamic State group-occupied Fallujah.

Perhaps just as important as what the group has acquired is its technical know-how, according to Karasik.

"The main fact is they are very smart and they probably read every manual that the U.S. has put out on air doctrine and special operations doctrine, so they know what's coming," he said.

Among the group's most significant capabilities to emerge in the last six weeks or so, Lister said, has been the group's ability to deploy artillery.

The group has acquired M46 130mm field cannons from bases overrun recently in Syria's Raqqa province. These weapons add to the U.S. M198 howitzers the group captured in Iraq.

"Those are quite significant in terms of adding to the organization's ability to bombard targets before they assault, and that does appear to have been fairly significant in terms of at least weakening a target before launching a ground assault," he said.

A recent report published by the Institute for the Study of War described the Islamic State group as "an institution comprised of many layers of tactical, operational, and strategic capability, and it is expertly led."

"ISIS has a critical capability to design military campaigns that outmatch those of rival militaries in Iraq and Syria, but those military strategies can be overmatched by U.S. strategists, planners and advisers," it added.

If your still impress by what ISIL has, keep in mind two things - (a) the more sophisticated their weapon of choice (e.g. howitzers, tanks, SCUDS?), the more our air power is explicitly designed to target and decimate and (b) a guy named Hussein had orders of magnitude more of men and machines, and he wound up hiding in a hole before eventually being hung by his own people.

Let's just be glad somebody had the sense to get tons of nerve gas out of Syria before all this. Like I said, we've come to take for granted having an adult in the Oval Office.

Originally Posted by Kepi

This is about the economy, not about ISIS. Foreclosures are up, manufacture is down, so Obama wants another spending stream to prevent deflation. The bathtub has a big gaping hole, and it's eroding. Their solution is to dump more water faster. Remember kids, if you see something, say something, especially when it's nothing, otherwise we can't justify those budgets and the guy rooting through your nude selfies will get fired.

If that was remotely the motivation, then John McCain would be Secretary of Defense and Lindsey Graham would be running Central Command and the question would be - is it 200,000 boots on the ground or 500,000 boots?

Air campaigns don't stimulate much of anything - pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the defense sector's financial reports (they do have their fingers crossed for Putin revving up the Cold War Part Deux).

Like I said, we've all come to take for granted having an adult in the Oval Office.

Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat. AQ was a threat because OBL subscribed to a theory that before the Caliphate can be established, America has to be persuaded to withdraw from the ME through direct attacks on their interests and on the American homeland itself. ISIS believes no such thing. They have already established the Caliphate; there was no need to engage the far enemy first, as OBL insisted was necessary.

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them. In doing so, they have transferred the cred for 911 from AQ to ISIS. Why is America doing this? They clearly hate ISIS. What do American authorizes hope to gain by boosting their stock?

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

Obama is just talking....I mean if he didn't say they were a threat to Americans what would people think?

A lot of what Obama says is just empty words, I wouldn't take it personally. Did anything ever come of that whole Ukraine thing? Not really...but if Obama hadn't said anything he would have looked like a fool. The moment he spends large amounts of our budget and sends troops off to fight is the moment I care.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Is... Obama is trying to play some kind of chess game against his political opponents? If this is so, why not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. That would ensure that nothing happens and Obama would be blameless for not taking any action.

It is obvious that ISIS is baiting the US. Why does Obama want to accommodate them?

Such is out of character. So far President Obama has been loath to confront, doing so only under egregious conditions that offend his sense of legal propriety as learned in a law school.

War is far too risky for him to use it as a political tool -- until he has won. I see him with far more to lose and less to gain from ISIS as an enemy. He certainly can't win in time to alter the results of the 2014 elections except to the detriment of the Democratic Party. If he finds himself in a quagmire he is disgraced, and he effectively gives the current GOP the dominant role in politics for at least a half-century. By "dominant role in American politics" I think in practice of the "leading role of the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union".

Congress has not declared war for over 72 years -- when it declared war on satellite states of the Third Reich. If he should ask for a declaration of war from Congress and does not get it, then he is made a fool.

Originally Posted by playwrite

At this level of geo-politics, I don't think Obama gives a rat's ass about mental midgets and ideologically-blinded adolescents in Congress.

Here's a couple of other folks that get it -

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/ju...omali-line-was



I think the underlying problem is that Americans have come to take for granted what it means to have an adult in the Oval Office.

What is there to get? It was clear that Obama wants to use air power to prevent ISIS from acquiring more territory. This is precisely what ISIS wants Obama to do. So why is Obama accommodating them?

Look, as long as the US is bombing ISIS, ISIS has an excuse for being a pack incompetent, but murderous managers. They will retain support for a lot longer if they can blame the US for their failures at governing. Without a war with the US how are they going to be able to keep everybody on the same page?

Finally, isn't Syria a Russian ally? Why isn't ISIS their problem?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Now Obama has announced that ISIS is a threat to the US. In reality ISIS is no threat.

Nah, they're just out committing genocide and seeking domination of a region. Absolutely no threat at all. I'm sure they mean well.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

However American authorities are promoting the group by pretending to be scared of them.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Wilson Reagan

Fear and concern aren't the same things. Instead of the U.S. dealing with them doing acts of violence perhaps we can count on our friends from the U.N. or E.U. to step up to the plate and do something productive to help out.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Some of you here see ISIS as a threat. How do you persuade yourself of this? What am I missing?

Well, the whole wholesale slaughtering of thousands of people tends to rub people the wrong way. But hey, they aren't Americans so to hell with 'em, right? I mean, if they want to control the region killing their own fellow folks and they are hostile to the U.S. intent on destruction that can't be a problem can it?

j.p.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What is there to get? It was clear that Obama wants to use air power to prevent ISIS from acquiring more territory. This is precisely what ISIS wants Obama to do. So why is Obama accommodating them?

Yes, ISIS wants the U.S. military to launch strategic air strikes against them in killing them and their capacity to commit atrocities. That's logical.

j.p.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Having just seen the way that ''middle of the road'' CNN is playing this it seems that David Kaiser's general thesis that George W. Bush is the grey champion is correct. Basically, we're being sold on the contradictory idea that if we spend money and lives forever in the middle east then the area will somehow become safe for Disneyworld theme park in just a few more years.

If this goes well, which I doubt, Bush will get lionized. If it goes poorly, which I suspect as the likely outcome, Obama will be blamed. Preident Rand Paul here we come.

God, I hope so. I fully intend on standing with Rand in 2016. Perhaps we can concentrate on more important matters than ISIS like building a wall, fence, and security perimeter around Mexico in finally doing something about illegal immigrants (oh I forgot that phrase isn't P.C.). We can stop screwing around with going on offense and start dealing with national issues instead.

Personally, I think we ought to ask our, for all intents and purposes, 51st state of Israel to step up to the plate and let them finally have clear reign of the region. Let them know we support whatever their desires are for ensuring their safety and survival and that we won't put up any qualms with them doing what they want to do. I guarantee we wouldn't have to worry about ISIS any longer if we give them free reign. They'd be happy to accommodate. It's far more easy than relying on a ragtag group of would-be revolutionaries to take out ISIS (how'd that ultimately work out with the Mujahideen again?).

I don't really understand why we don't allow Israel to do more in dictating control of the region - for one, they're already there and have the capability.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Nah, they're just out committing genocide and seeking domination of a region. Absolutely no threat at all. I'm sure they mean well.

To us they are not a threat. Those who are threatened are just standing around waiting for us to save them. Why is this our job? Both Turkey and Egypt are more than capable of handling this, but they prefer that we get our hands dirty, then complain that we did it wrong. Let them do a little for themselves for a change.

Originally Posted by JDFP ...

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Wilson Reagan

Fear and concern aren't the same things. Instead of the U.S. dealing with them doing acts of violence perhaps we can count on our friends from the U.N. or E.U. to step up to the plate and do something productive to help out.

Priceless! A quote about bravery from the guy who cut and ran in Lebanon as soon as things got hot.

Originally Posted by JDFP ...

Well, the whole wholesale slaughtering of thousands of people tends to rub people the wrong way. But hey, they aren't Americans so to hell with 'em, right? I mean, if they want to control the region killing their own fellow folks and they are hostile to the U.S. intent on destruction that can't be a problem can it?

j.p.

Again, why is this our business. The locals seem to be disengaged, and the they are at risk. That's reason enough to sit on our hands.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

To us they are not a threat. Those who are threatened are just standing around waiting for us to save them. Why is this our job? Both Turkey and Egypt are more than capable of handling this, but they prefer that we get our hands dirty, then complain that we did it wrong. Let them do a little for themselves for a change.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that anyone else in the world really gives much of a damn. You're right though, it's not our business. But if we're making it our business (which seems to be the case) why half ass it? If we're going to do it either we're all in or just placating by saying: "Well, we don't want to get too involved, but let's do something for political posturing, okay?"

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Priceless! A quote about bravery from the guy who cut and ran in Lebanon as soon as things got hot.

Let's ask Gaddafi's son what he thinks about this. More should have been done though, I agree with you again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Again, why is this our business. The locals seem to be disengaged, and the they are at risk. That's reason enough to sit on our hands.

True. What's a valid alternative? Allow them to grow in strength and perhaps decide they'd like to invest in more real estate? Counting on a group of revolutionaries who hate us slightly less than ISIS who even Obama until recently dismissed as useless?

j.p.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What is there to get? It was clear that Obama wants to use air power to prevent ISIS from acquiring more territory. This is precisely what ISIS wants Obama to do. So why is Obama accommodating them?

Look, as long as the US is bombing ISIS, ISIS has an excuse for being a pack incompetent, but murderous managers. They will retain support for a lot longer if they can blame the US for their failures at governing. Without a war with the US how are they going to be able to keep everybody on the same page?

Finally, isn't Syria a Russian ally? Why isn't ISIS their problem?

Well, let's go through Juan Cole's list:

Erbil - there are countless stories of Kurds (and now, of course, add the Yazidis and several other minority religious groups) telling Americans that they will never forget what we did for them. That buys us a place at the table when Kurdistan is inevitably formed and inevitably seen by Turkey (as well as Iran) to be a knife poking them in the gonads. Most people haven't tuned into how totalitarian Turkey is becoming and how fed-up they are getting from being denied EU entry. Maybe some ripe pickins for Putin who's newly-acquired Crimea property still doesn't change the fact that his fleet at his only warm water port is still easily bottle up at Bosporus [and yea, I know about Kaliningrad, but no Russian can fart there without Brussels and the Pentagon first knowing his suffering some indigestion]. Turkey turning east would be a game changer and they're being existentially threatened by a new oil-rich Kurdistan just south of their most sensitive area just might turn the trick.

Baghdad - We nominally have a place at the table in Iraq's Shialand. While they're all Shiites the history between Arabs and Persians goes back way farther and it's mostly pretty ugly. We provide the balance, and it gives us the real channel to work out that little arrangement over somebody's nuclear program. Let Baghdad become Iraq's Sarajevo on steroids and all bets are off. With the House of Saud jumping in, EVERYONE has the excuse needed to go full nuke as we sit on the sidelines. You really think Israel and Pakistan are going to also side on the sidelines? That would be kind of silly.


Riyadh - the big prize. And where did most of the 9/11 hijackers come from? Do you think they were the only ones from the land of Saud? Any thought about where those foreign ISIL friendly folks are coming from? The House of Saud understands this. Do you think this time they'll raise oil prices to make a point? They've been there, done that back in the 70s; didn't work out so well for them then - the House almost got the Game of Thrones treatment. That's not going to happen again. What do you think will happen if they instead drop oil to $75? How many decades do you think it will take before anyone invests in another "frackin miracle" after billions in investing in $100+ extraction goes completely belly up taking out railroads and state govts along the way?

It's a complex world out there. The good news is we got an adult in the Oval Office that doesn't buy into the ISI-are-supermen narrative but he also doesn't buy into the narrative that we'll all be peachy-keen if we just withdraw from the world's problems and live off the commerce - that's China's role.

Originally Posted by JDFP

I agree with you. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that anyone else in the world really gives much of a damn. You're right though, it's not our business. But if we're making it our business (which seems to be the case) why half ass it? If we're going to do it either we're all in or just placating by saying: "Well, we don't want to get too involved, but let's do something for political posturing, okay?"



Let's ask Gaddafi's son what he thinks about this. More should have been done though, I agree with you again.



True. What's a valid alternative? Allow them to grow in strength and perhaps decide they'd like to invest in more real estate? Counting on a group of revolutionaries who hate us slightly less than ISIS who even Obama until recently dismissed as useless?

j.p.

I'm generally in agreement with you except for this -

"...why half ass it? If we're going to do it either we're all in or just placating by saying: "Well, we don't want to get too involved, but let's do something for political posturing, okay?"

These guys aren't supermen and Hellfire missiles, A10 and spec ops took out the Taliban in pretty short order. ISIL's couple dozen tanks, APCs, and long range artillery will be gone by the end of the month if not already. Their Humvees and rusting Toyota pickups soon after. The roads will be near impassible and we're going to get several doses of Highway of Death -







- and just as the ISIL leadership begins to recognize beheadings are relatively tender mercies, that's about when Navy Seal Team 6 breaks down the door.

People need to chill; we got an adult in the Oval Office now.

We want to help the Kurds and the Yazidis and the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians - but we want to obliterate the Alawites in Syria?

Either we stand for protecting religious minorities in the Middle East, or we don't - and how does enabling the Saudis in their latter-day Inquisition against the heretical Alawite "cult" further the national security interests of the United States?

But Bashar Assad is a "dirtbag," you say. But wasn't Augusto Pinochet a dirtbag too? And Anastasio Somoza, homosexual child molester Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, and the death squadists in El Salvador and the apartheidists in South Africa?

This is what happens when you are embroiled in a bipolar struggle for survival. You cannot afford the luxury of being prim and prickly when choosing your allies.

Finally, what an irony it is that Assad is the one genuine moderate Muslim in the region - and we want to destroy him.