Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why? Israel is nothing like Britain. Our country was once part of Britain, we share a common language and history, and we inherited our political, economic and intellectual culture from them. Much of what makes America great is part of this inheritance. We were the second country on earth to industrialize, because we had been part of Britain, who was the first. American entrepreneurs were just like their British counterparts; by the 1790's they had implemented stolen British textile technology in America. With our vast natural wealth and low population density, all we needed to rise to the very top were the cultural tools we got from them.

What might we be like if our mother country been Spain? We might be more like Argentina and less like Canada (like the US and Canada, Argentina and Uruguay are majority white European).

As for Israel, we have different languages, cultures and religion. We inherited nothing from them. They do nothing for us but whine and make demands. If anything, they owe us, we owe them nothing.

Israel is clearly not like Britain, but an ally in the Middle East. In my view, it is not a question of what we 'owe' them , it is a simple matter of working with an ally. My interest is in protecting the USA.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is ISIS not behaving as a state? Do they not call themselves a state? AQ never did that. Are they not administering law (as they define it) upon the regional population? AQ never did that. They lived apart for the rest of Afghan society and did not seek to impose their own Arab belief upon the local population. Rather, they left that to the Taliban. It was always clear, the Taliban was the state, AQ were GUESTs of the state, As guests that means no meddling. ISIS is different. They do NOT defer to the local tribal rulers. They seek to impose their OWN law. Only states do that.

What constraints, other than self-interest, do you imagine a state operates under?


What credentials are needed. It is self-evident. What I have done is a common tool for solving different problems, a coordinate transformation. For example if you are analyzing flow in a pipe it is useful to shift to cylindrical coordinates. A similarity transform is useful for simplifying certain types of problems. Outside of mathematics this idea is sometimes called paradigm shift or framing. Basically in order to think about something you have to put into in a framework in which you can comprehend the data that the thing is generating. Otherwise all is noise and your thinking will be disordered and useless.

AQ is a cell-based subversive organization and it is useful to think about them as such. To gain insight one can look at examples for history of other subversive organizations. Such organizations want to disrupt, to sow disorder and spark opposition. Hence the aim for splashy "demonstrations". In fact peaceful actions by subversive organizations are often called "demonstrations". Violent ones are consider as terrorism (e.g. Oklahoma bombing or 911).

Now ISIS calls itself a state, while AQ never did. And ISIS acts like a state while AQ never did. To assume that ISIS is a subversive organization like AQ is sloppy thinking. Why not take them at their word and consider them as a state? States are frequently brutal evil things (e.g. Nazi Germany). Warlord-states like that established by the Great Heathen Army in England over 865-870 or William the first in 1066-71 are also brutal. Lawarence of Arabia was a scholar of medieval warfare and found the mode of understanding that comes from the study of medieval warlords useful into forging the Arabian tribes into a potent fighting force during WW I. Most of his fellow British officers could not understand the Arabs, by looking far enough back into the British past Lawrence found useful analogies.

If you adopt the frame of a medieval warlord, and then put yourself in the shoes of ISIS leaders, what would do? How do you build a state? How can you get other men to flock to your banner, as opposed to those of your enemies? Most warlords achieve this by being a giver of gold (money)? But to become a giver of money you have to take it from someone else, and that takes men, for which you need money. It's the classic bootstrap problem. Without money, you need reputation. Without reputation why should anyone join you? And to achieve reputation you need to take on thge biggest and baddest dude around and get him to take you seriously. By getting Obama to go to war they have accomplished this. Obviously ISIS must really be a big deal if the mighty US deigns to fight them, after previous dissed them as "third rate".

Here is the problem. They ARE third rate. Why should we grant them a status they haven't earned? Well we have, that's water under the bridge. Now we wait to see how well the analogy works. Does ISIS go away or do jihadists flock to their banner?

But ISIS has a long way to go. They have to get the US to send in ground troops. The US can bomb for 50 years. They need to get us to deploy troops. Only in that way will America (who fear death and cannot tolerate even the death of their soldiers) be persuaded to withdraw. Only then can ISIS gain a reputation as the Arabi state that defeated the crusaders, like the great Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb. And then in some postwar peace process mediate by the local Sunni powers, they will have the legitimacy to become the rulers of a Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region.

Your thesis seems to carry two basic assertions: (a) ISIS needs US involvement to become a state; but (b) not so much involvement as to annihilate their ability to become or maintain state status. Given those assertions, you are recommending ignoring them and that they will simply go away. If we fail to heed your advice, then ISIS will gain the necessary reputation by our involvement to recruit enough fighters to establish the "Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region."

The first problem with your thesis is, of course, that prior to our involvement ISIS had already gained most of the "Sunni-Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region" and was certainly underway to expand that beyond to lands with majority Kurds and Shiites who, along with tiny minority Christians and tribal people, are at best given the choice to convert but more likely just killed. Facts on the ground point to a full-scale civil war in Iraq, that at least matches that in Syria, regardless of your supposed need for the presence of the Great Satan.

Second, your implied endpoint is some sort of "Sunni-Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region" that will simply be constrained from further expansion because they get the opportunity to sue for peace, become a somewhat nasty but acceptable new member to the league of nations and eventually we all get to singing Kumbaya together.

Sorry, but whether the caliphate is Al Qaeda or ISIS in name, all roads lead to Mecca - you might notice that they all knell and point in that direction four times a day.

It certainly a significant enough threat that the House of Saud has taken seriously with their responding to ISIL by both a call-up of 40K troops on its border with Iraq and highly-visible joining the air campaign. There are many in the Kingdom who would love to join with ISIS in a civil war within their Kingdom. To not grasp that, and not grasp the global scale impact of a civil war in the Kingdom, truly requires some disengagement from realities.

Needless to say, an ISIS state replacing the House of Saud would see overturning the neighboring Satan-based nations of Kuwait and the Emirates as a given. Real sweet putting over 1/3 of world oil production into the hands of bloodthirsty religious fanatics.

Then what about Lebanon and Turkey? Egypt? The north coast of Africa? Central Africa? Spain? What about Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Xinjiang, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines Balkans, Caucasus. Do you believe Islamic extremists in these areas would not partner up with a now hugely rich ISIS for sponsorship?

And as the assets and long-term investments by Western interests are lost in the areas more directly impacted by ISIL or their sponsored groups, do those Western interest just let that happen? And if the West (state or business interest) respond, doesn't that open them up to retaliations from internal cells of religious fundamentalists more than happy to be sponsored by a very rich ISIS?

Just where do you draw the line, if ever, and what is your rational for drawing the line there rather than in western Iraq?

And do you really believe that reaching state status and being part of the league of Kumbaya-singing nations will sufficiently constrain ISIL from re-igniting the 1000-year old argument between Sunni and Shia or the more ancient, if not more bitter, argument between Arab and Persian?

The risk-reward of your non-involvement advice seems to be completely out-of-balance - risking a combat conflagration in at least 1/3 of the world, terror attacks in much of the rest, and resulting global economic meltdown(s) - all for the reward of avoiding a sense of ennui from turning on the TV and seeing we're once- more-into-the-breech in western Iraq. Seems a little short-sighted to me.

Third, the entire premise results on a comparison of ISIL's 'state-approach' with that of al Qaeda's 'non-state approach. That comparison revolves around the notion that the state approach results in an "address" whereby the US can "come a-knocking." In contrast a non-state approach does not provide an address and thereby the stateless approach of al Qaeda is much less constrained than the state-approach of ISIL.

But, is there really a difference?

Certainly, these mythical state versus non-state addresses have nothing to do with real tangible addresses. The US first chased Osama out of his actual address in Kandahar, then nearly grabbed him at his address in Tora Bora, and then finally came the "big knock at the door" at his address in Lahore.

And at the individual level of leadership - is an ISIL leader, dead from being targeted by a smart bomb at his "state address," more dead than OBL at his "non-state address?"

The difference seems to only come from your belief that rather than engage in a homeland provocation (e,g., al Qaeda's 9/11), ISIL is banking on a rather middling regional provocation (i.e., western Iraq) to thread the needle of gaining a US response that is sufficient for recruiting but without endangering their entire enterprise.

Let's put aside my previously-stated doubt that their objectives are limited to a rather middling regional provocation of western Iraq (as opposed to my "Mecca scenario" that inevitable leads to an overwhelming but much more consequential US response). Let's instead focus on the real difference between ISIL and al Qaeda in "threading the needle" - and then, the exact same mistake both are making.

The big difference is ISIL has much LESS of a need to recruit than al Qaeda. ISIL, by following the "state approach" has recruits flocking to it - not only an address but black uniforms and flag that appeal to those recruits as the latest chic. Moreover, ISIL is building on 1, 2 or 3 (depending on when you start counting) decades of prep work by al Qaeda - these a-holes are standing on the shoulders of the earlier OBL a-holes.

The lack of need by ISIL for the Great Satin to assist in their recruiting begins to really blow a large hole into the very premise of your thesis.

What has to be offered, however, is an alternative theory that explains behavior (and will also explain that common mistake both al Qaeda and ISIL have made).

That theory goes back to the Beirut 1983 Marine Barracks bombing and Reagan's flaccid response before turning tail. Having witness those events, OBL's stated premise was that once the Great Satin's nose is bloody he will be shown incapable on the battlefield and, most importantly, unable to sustain the necessary effort.

Maybe recruitment from 9/11 was almost as important to OBL as the objective as blooding the Great Satin's nose in hope for withdrawal. I sort of doubt its equivalency but it is in the range of possibilities. However, I see absolutely no equivalency in the two objectives with ISIL. I've already laid out that they don't really need the Great Satan for recruitment at this stage of their caliph-building; they just need us out of the way. They know that we are war-weary, why not remind us of the nastiness of it all with a few beheadings and waiting for the chorus of people such as yourself to just say, fuck it?

But that's the mistake they share with OBL - you are not the one in charge.

At Tora Bora, OBL apologized to his fighters for this grave mistake. I believe ISIL leadership, if there are any left at the time, will be making the same apology.

One needs to scratch below the surface of concluding that the US has the will to sustain. We've shown that we have our limits (Vietnam, Iraq); so why did OBL and now ISIL making the mistake to believe we will stay out of it?

The mistake is mistaking 21st US war-making technology and strategies for that of a 1940s battleship or that of 1983 or even that at the beginning of the Iraq invasion just a decade ago. The most visible characteristic here is buying into the pundit talk that air power alone cannot defeat ISIL - derived from defining "defeat ISIL" as decimating its entire membership until the region breaks out into a chorus of Kumbaya.

Defeating ISIL is not about decimating all of them or even most of them; it's about containing them in their own stew, slowly degrading their leadership and capacities, and letting internal and external forces have their way with them. They presently can't see this, just like most people can't see this, because they are currently just too big too bad and too nasty to imagine their winding up in a frustrating stew. That's not just a mistake, it is a fatal mistake.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your thesis seems to carry two basic assertions: (a) ISIS needs US involvement to become a state; but (b) not so much involvement as to annihilate their ability to become or maintain state status. Given those assertions, you are recommending ignoring them and that they will simply go away. If we fail to heed your advice, then ISIS will gain the necessary reputation by our involvement to recruit enough fighters to establish the "Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region."

I am not making the claim that US involvement actual is helpful to ISIS's cause, but that ISIS believes it to be.

The first problem with your thesis is, of course, that prior to our involvement ISIS had already gained most of the "Sunni-Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region"

A quick land grab in the space of a month or two is not establishing a state. Can they hold on to it for decade?

Facts on the ground point to a full-scale civil war in Iraq, that at least matches that in Syria

Probably, except I wouldn't call the fighting against the Kurds as a civil war. The Kurd split from Iraq a long time ago. The Shia and Sunni conflict certainly would still be one. SISI cannot win such a war without beating Iran. And I don't see them doing so without the Americans doing all in its power to weaken their adversary while we strengthen their recruiting efforts.

It certainly a significant enough threat that the House of Saud has taken seriously with their responding to ISIL by both a call-up of 40K troops on its border with Iraq and highly-visible joining the air campaign.

This seems like a pretty milquetoast response to what is supposedly some kind of great threat.

There are many in the Kingdom who would love to join with ISIS in a civil war within their Kingdom.

I'm sure their are some. OBL was a Saudi national would explicitly wanted to overthrow the House of Saud and establish an Islamic state. You would think they would have a better chance of doing this from inside Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan ,but that's what he did. You have provided no evidence that the ISIS leaders, who are not Saudis are really interested in Saudi Arabia, instead of Syria and Iraq, as suggested by what they call themselves and by where they actually are.

To not grasp that, and not grasp the global scale impact of a civil war in the Kingdom, truly requires some disengagement from realities.

No it simply requires some restraint for engaging in from evidence-free speculation.

Needless to say, an ISIS state replacing the House of Saud would see overturning the neighboring Satan-based nations of Kuwait and the Emirates as a given. Real sweet putting over 1/3 of world oil production into the hands of bloodthirsty religious fanatics.

An alien invasion would have much more serious repercussion and is about as likely.

Then what about Lebanon and Turkey? Egypt? The north coast of Africa? Central Africa? Spain? What about Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Xinjiang, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines Balkans, Caucasus. Do you believe Islamic extremists in these areas would not partner up with a now hugely rich ISIS for sponsorship?

And you think the elites in charge of all these countries are just going to roll over and play dead for these ISIS losers? This is about as likely as American militiamen taking over the US government.

And as the assets and long-term investments by Western interests are lost in the areas more directly impacted by ISIL or their sponsored groups, do those Western interest just let that happen? And if the West (state or business interest) respond, doesn't that open them up to retaliations from internal cells of religious fundamentalists more than happy to be sponsored by a very rich ISIS?

Just where do you draw the line, if ever, and what is your rational for drawing the line there rather than in western Iraq?

Where do these delusions come from?

And do you really believe that reaching state status and being part of the league of Kumbaya-singing nations will sufficiently constrain ISIL from re-igniting the 1000-year old argument between Sunni and Shia or the more ancient, if not more bitter, argument between Arab and Persian?

ISIS isn't even going to exist in five years, without the US support you seem so insistent on offering them.

The risk-reward of your non-involvement advice seems to be completely out-of-balance - risking a combat conflagration in at least 1/3 of the world, terror attacks in much of the rest, and resulting global economic meltdown(s) - all for the reward of avoiding a sense of ennui from turning on the TV and seeing we're once- more-into-the-breech in western Iraq.

Because the risk is snake oil you are trying to sell. I'm not buying you claims. They are ridiculous assertions with zero facts and data to support them.

If ISIS is so scary, how come the Turks aren't acting? They are right next to them, just watching them go about their business.

Third, the entire premise results on a comparison of ISIL's 'state-approach' with that of al Qaeda's 'non-state approach.

My premise is based on the *observation* that none of the regional powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran) have acted against ISIS on their own initiative. If Turkey faces an existential threat from ISIS, why don't they used their armed forces to destroy the ISIS forces at Kobani?

That comparison revolves around the notion that the state approach results in an "address" whereby the US can "come a-knocking."

The US is perfectly capable of destroying the ISIS capital, like we did with Berlin and Tokyo.

The difference seems to only come from your belief that rather than engage in a homeland provocation (e,g., al Qaeda's 9/11), ISIL is banking on a rather middling regional provocation (i.e., western Iraq) to thread the needle of gaining a US response that is sufficient for recruiting but without endangering their entire enterprise.

ISIS believes they can prevail over America without having to fight a 10+ year ground war like the Taliban.

The big difference is ISIL has much LESS of a need to recruit than al Qaeda. ISIL, by following the "state approach" has recruits flocking to it - not only an address but black uniforms and flag that appeal to those recruits as the latest chic.

So you say. I based my observation on the fact that the current US action occur after the release of video that was obviously intended to be provocative. If ISIS did not WANT the US to get involved, why did they make the video?

The lack of need by ISIL for the Great Satan to assist in their recruiting begins

If ISIS feels there is no need to get the US involved, why did they produce the provocative video? Unlike you imagined scenarios, ISIS really did produce this video.

What has to be offered, however, is an alternative theory that explains behavior (and will also explain that common mistake both al Qaeda and ISIL have made).

What mistake is that? It seems that since OBL founded AQ 20 years ago the movement has grown to a point where it has you shitting in your shorts.

Seem like they got one American president to start two pointless wars and a different one to start another. Yet despite all this American effort are crushing Jihadism it still seems to be alive and kicking.

They know that we are war-weary, why not remind us of the nastiness of it all with a few beheadings and waiting for the chorus of people such as yourself to just say, fuck it?

Because before the beheadings we had already said fuck it. If they wanted to US out, they already had that. So why the provocative video?

You argue entirely on the basis of your suppositions, which are not not facts. You do not address what the actors in the region have actually done, which are facts. Your refusal to engage with facts of how those close by to ISIS, who can be affected by them, have chosen to act.

Those ISIS forces at Kobani could move in Turkey, its not far away. Based on my understanding of what ISIS is trying to achieve, I predict they won't move into Turkey. They will stay on the Syrian side of the border. They will spend a great deal of effort capturing an inconsequential town of no strategic value, but they won't move an inch into Turkey.

Your concept that ISIS is a great threat to all the regional powers implies the Turks should engage ISIS now, when they have the advantage. And if the Turks do not, ISIS will invade them, and march all the way to Instanbul.

I explain the absence of ISIS incursions into Turkey by their unwillingness to provoke the Turks because they fear the Turks. But they seem perfectly willing to take on the Americans. Why?

Originally Posted by radind

Israel is clearly not like Britain, but an ally in the Middle East. In my view, it is not a question of what we 'owe' them , it is a simple matter of working with an ally. My interest is in protecting the USA.

What do they do for us that balances out what we do for them?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What do they do for us that balances out what we do for them?

I see Israel as one reliable ally in the Middle East. We seem to have a business arrangement with Saudi Arabia, but I do not consider them an ally.

I can’t think of a list of items to answer your question. The issues in the Middle East have gone on for so long, I don’t see any solution without the destruction of Israel, If I had a voice in 1948, I would have preferred to give land in Germany as compensation to the Jews. That was never going to happen and the actual plan that resulted has never been accepted by most of Israel’s opponents. I see Israel trying to survive and some trying to destroy them.
At the present time I see Israel as an asset while you seem to see them as a liability.

We seem to be in a perpetual stalemate.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm
…"Immediately after the end of British mandate on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed, and the U.S. recognized Israel that same day. Arabs in the Mandatory and neighboring Arab states rejected a 1947 UN partition plan that would have divided the Mandatory into separate Jewish and Arab states, and the area has seen periods of invasions and armed conflict since 1948.
The United States is committed to realizing the vision of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people, alongside the Jewish State of Israel. In July 2013 the Israelis and the Palestinians began negotiations on a final status agreement between the parties.

U.S. Assistance to Israel

The U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship is strong, anchored by over $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing annually. In addition to financial support, the U.S. participates in a high level of exchanges with Israel, to include joint military exercises, military research, and weapons development. Through the Joint Counterterrorism Group and a semi-annual Strategic Dialogue, the U.S. and Israel have enhanced their cooperation in fighting terrorism.”..

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Did we really want to wait until Japan had first attacked us before we decided to kill millions of them? Or do you subscribe the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war?

The difference being that we are in a supportive role this time, and we have been fighting the same people already for 13 years.

Then they will go away, no need for us to do anything.

They will need our support. The IS will not go away without a fight.

Look, consider what the Turks are doing. ISIS is not an abstract threat for them. They can actually be observed in action from within Turkey. They could be attacking inside of Turkey within the hour if they decided to do that. If ISIS are the crazed monsters you and Playwrite make them out to be, the Turks should be shitting bricks. Yet, they have a powerful army. They have an air force. Their country is not in civil war. Why aren't they taking decisive action to degrade this threat that is right at their doorstep?

Good question, and nothing the US is doing will substitute for countries in the region doing what they need to do to defeat the IS.

When I see American talking heads 5000 miles away bloviating about the HUGE threat ISIS poses as a justification for war and then I look at the Turks who are only a few miles away not taking any aggressive action, I smell a snow job.

Maybe you have a good nose. We'll see though.

Originally Posted by radind

Israel is clearly not like Britain, but an ally in the Middle East. In my view, it is not a question of what we 'owe' them , it is a simple matter of working with an ally. My interest is in protecting the USA.

What do they ever do to help the USA? All they do is get us into heaps of trouble over and over again.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I am not making the claim that US involvement actual is helpful to ISIS's cause, but that ISIS believes it to be.

For one to believe that their atrocities are intended to entice us to drop bombs on their heads (rather than to scare us away (ala Reagan '83) is to believe these guys are either utterly stupid or more interested in martyrdom than state building - either way, that undermines your thesis that being a state will constrain them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

A quick land grab in the space of a month or two is not establishing a state. Can they hold on to it for decade?

Whether grabbing it or holding it, I believe the other motivations (e.g. Assad, Shia-hatred, caliph aspirations along with chic black uniforms and flag) are sufficient; they have shown they don't need the Great Satan, at least at this stage.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Probably, except I wouldn't call the fighting against the Kurds as a civil war. The Kurd split from Iraq a long time ago. The Shia and Sunni conflict certainly would still be one. SISI cannot win such a war without beating Iran. And I don't see them doing so without the Americans doing all in its power to weaken their adversary while we strengthen their recruiting efforts.

It would evolve as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Qatar with not only the end result being some division of Iraq in an unending war but the fall of the House of Saud. From there, we start discussing nuclear exchange.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This seems like a pretty milquetoast response to what is supposedly some kind of great threat.

Because, like Turkey, the House has to be concerned about internal threats, aligned with ISIL objectives, that can flash quickly into civil war. The problem is the threat is not just great, it is existential, requiring extreme caution by those parties.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I'm sure their are some. OBL was a Saudi national would explicitly wanted to overthrow the House of Saud and establish an Islamic state. You would think they would have a better chance of doing this from inside Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan ,but that's what he did. You have provided no evidence that the ISIS leaders, who are not Saudis are really interested in Saudi Arabia, instead of Syria and Iraq, as suggested by what they call themselves and by where they actually are.

A Caliphate without Mecca??? I think you might want to look at definition as well as history.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No it simply requires some restraint for engaging in from evidence-free speculation.

See above.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

An alien invasion would have much more serious repercussion and is about as likely.

See above.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And you think the elites in charge of all these countries are just going to roll over and play dead for these ISIS losers? This is about as likely as American militiamen taking over the US government.

And which elites would that be? Or, are you under the misunderstanding that there are no elites in a Caliphate - one that offers not only earthly rewards but a whole mess of virgins in the next life?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where do these delusions come from?

Pretty much what the Islamic fundamentalist extremist has been telling us for at least the past three decades; if one just listens to them.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

ISIS isn't even going to exist in five years, without the US support you seem so insistent on offering them.

Funny, I see them gone by the end of Obama's term as a result of what you see as "US support." I think its just a little too cute to have the notion that blowing someone to bits is actually sending a Valentine of support.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Because the risk is snake oil you are trying to sell. I'm not buying you claims. They are ridiculous assertions with zero facts and data to support them.

The facts are: ISIS has already gain the state you talk about without US involvement; they have made it clear they are not satisfied with that by capturing lands without Sunni majority; the degree they indicate wanting state status is no more or less than the degree they indicate wanting a Calphate; a Calphate requires Mecca; the players in the Region see them as a threat and have taken visible muscular responses within the context of not provoking internal civil wars. These are not assertions that requires your buying into them, they are facts on the ground that you're just choosing to ignore.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If ISIS is so scary, how come the Turks aren't acting? They are right next to them, just watching them go about their business.

As with the Saudis, scared shitless they will provoke an internal civil war. Why do you think that the primary route of foreign jihadists into Syria to join ISIL has been primarily through Turkey? Who is giving them that support and transport? Turkey is not only a NATO ally that keeps being refused EU entry, it is a powder keg.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My premise is based on the *observation* that none of the regional powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran) have acted against ISIS on their own initiative. If Turkey faces an existential threat from ISIS, why don't they used their armed forces to destroy the ISIS forces at Kobani?

In addition to Turkey being scared shitless of having their own internally-derived ISIS underway within their on populace, they hate Assad and not happy with the deal he made with the Syrian Kurds to essentially establish a Kurdish state on the border with Turkey, and then there's this little Turkish-Kurdish thingee that is decades older than all the shit we've been involved with in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The US is perfectly capable of destroying the ISIS capital, like we did with Berlin and Tokyo.

As we are perfectly capable of destroying al Qaeda leadership even in nuclear-armed frenemy Pakistan.

Addresses are not as important as not being stupid about how we deal with a threat. Fire bombing Raqqa would be as stupid as fire bombing Lahore - at least for the moment.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

ISIS believes they can prevail over America without having to fight a 10+ year ground war like the Taliban.

If prevail means that a lot of them get to continuing living in hovels in the Syrian eastern wastelands under internal as well as external constant duress, they may be right. If they believe prevail means posing a threat to major sections of Iraq or threatening Saudi Arabia or Turkey, they have made a fatal mistake.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So you say. I based my observation on the fact that the current US action occur after the release of video that was obviously intended to be provocative. If ISIS did not WANT the US to get involved, why did they make the video?

If ISIS feels there is no need to get the US involved, why did they produce the provocative video? Unlike you imagined scenarios, ISIS really did produce this video.

The choices would seem to be (a) yours of provoking us to bomb them to smithereens as their recruitment poster or (b) mine of trying to "seal the deal" for us saying "fuck it, we've had enough of you crazy Middle Eastern dudes."

I think the third choice is most likely - they're actually pretty stupid. It's been my sense that such religious extremists, like criminals, are not very bright. Yes, there are the exceptions, but then you're in the realm of psychopaths.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What mistake is that?

As I noted, believing the US doesn't have the will to engage and that being based on an outdated sense of our war-making capabilities. And actually, I think that not only them but most Americans underestimate Obama..

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It seems that since OBL founded AQ 20 years ago the movement has grown

Except for this Syrian civil war eliciting the rise of ISIL, I believe most experts in the field have found the Islamic fundamentalist threat to have waned considerable. As for ISIL, two steps forward, one step back - someone as familiar as you with the stock markets should understand that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... to a point where it has you shitting in your shorts.

Now, don't jump the shark here. I could say the same about your desire for Fortress America.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Seem like they got one American president to start two pointless wars and a different one to start another. Yet despite all this American effort are crushing Jihadism it still seems to be alive and kicking.

I see nothing pointless about the original intent of our efforts in Afghanistan. I can forgive (even myself) the desire for follow-up nation building there that does seem likely to fail - its our nature not to want to have 12 year old girls shot in the head because they want to go to school rather than forced to marry-up and blow some 67 year old dude for the rest of their lives. Iraq was about the biggest geopolitical mistake in our modern history and that is saying a lot. I lay that at the feet of an idiot named Bush who only smartin--up about having a sociopath as his VP when it was far too late.

Shit happens. Does that mean we should just curl up into the fetal position from now on and hope nobody bothers us too much?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Because before the beheadings we had already said fuck it. If they wanted to US out, they already had that. So why the provocative video?

Most likely just stupid bravado mixed in with being true insane believers, but also likely to instill fear in our former alliances - worked pretty well with the Iraqi army, not so much with the Kurds.

Besides, it's done. The game has moved on.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You argue entirely on the basis of your suppositions, which are not not facts. You do not address what the actors in the region have actually done, which are facts. Your refusal to engage with facts of how those close by to ISIS, who can be affected by them, have chosen to act.

It's funny, I see you exactly this way - that you are projecting this onto me to avoid grasping basic facts. Again - ISIS had its "state" BEFORE we responded; clearly indicated that they wanted more regardless of whether that territory was majority Sunni; have claimed a desire for a Caliphate as much as the desire for state status; a Caliphate requires Mecca; the Saudis and Turks see them as a threat and have responded in a manner that indicates great care in not turning the movement into internal threats.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Those ISIS forces at Kobani could move in Turkey, its not far away. Based on my understanding of what ISIS is trying to achieve, I predict they won't move into Turkey. They will stay on the Syrian side of the border. They will spend a great deal of effort capturing an inconsequential town of no strategic value, but they won't move an inch into Turkey.

Your concept that ISIS is a great threat to all the regional powers implies the Turks should engage ISIS now, when they have the advantage. And if the Turks do not, ISIS will invade them, and march all the way to Instanbul.

I explain the absence of ISIS incursions into Turkey by their unwillingness to provoke the Turks because they fear the Turks. But they seem perfectly willing to take on the Americans. Why?

History is riff with examples of two parties forgoing the battle that will inevitable come - Germany's agreement with the Soviet Union over Poland comes to mind. ISIS is not in a position to take on Turkey; Turkey doesn't want to provoke their own jihadist, they're not happy with Assad's setup of a Syrian Kurdistan at their border, and their relationship with all Kurds is a very strain one at best.

Does a nation join or stay in NATO because of a threat of invasion by the Soviets these days? Maybe Ukraine or some of the Baltics, but its pretty hard to imagine the world where the Soviets are threatening Turkey. They, like the Saudis, stay in alliances with us because at times we can do the heavy-lifting that would not only be very difficult for them but pose risks to our common strategic objectives.

That's not rocket science or even K-wave analysis. Just some simple common sense - made possible by not shitting in one's pants.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

We owe them the same loyalty we owed our #1 ally, the British, in World War II - and why should they give back the land that the Arabs lost because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem bet on the wrong horse in that same war?

Why if I lost a bet at Belmont Park and went to the mutuel window and tried to get my money back, the Pinkertons would severely pummel me about the head and shoulders, and I would be even worse off than I was before - which accurately sums up what happened to the Arabs first in 1949 (when they lost the Negev) and again in 1967 (when they lost Judea, Samaria, and Gaza).

You have a land full of people with differing loyalties. The Jews want a Jewish state, and the Palestinians are good either way ... since they are now the majority and will only be moreso in the future. The Israelis need to create two states, but they won't. Instead, they want us to back a permanent apartheid regime. Why is that in our interest?

Originally Posted by radind

Israel is clearly not like Britain, but an ally in the Middle East. In my view, it is not a question of what we 'owe' them , it is a simple matter of working with an ally. My interest is in protecting the USA.

How will backing Israel do that? So far, it's work in the exact opposite direction.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your thesis seems to carry two basic assertions: (a) ISIS needs US involvement to become a state; but (b) not so much involvement as to annihilate their ability to become or maintain state status. Given those assertions, you are recommending ignoring them and that they will simply go away. If we fail to heed your advice, then ISIS will gain the necessary reputation by our involvement to recruit enough fighters to establish the "Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region."

The first problem with your thesis is, of course, that prior to our involvement ISIS had already gained most of the "Sunni-Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region" and was certainly underway to expand that beyond to lands with majority Kurds and Shiites who, along with tiny minority Christians and tribal people, are at best given the choice to convert but more likely just killed. Facts on the ground point to a full-scale civil war in Iraq, that at least matches that in Syria, regardless of your supposed need for the presence of the Great Satan.

Second, your implied endpoint is some sort of "Sunni-Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region" that will simply be constrained from further expansion because they get the opportunity to sue for peace, become a somewhat nasty but acceptable new member to the league of nations and eventually we all get to singing Kumbaya together.

Sorry, but whether the caliphate is Al Qaeda or ISIS in name, all roads lead to Mecca - you might notice that they all knell and point in that direction four times a day.

It certainly a significant enough threat that the House of Saud has taken seriously with their responding to ISIL by both a call-up of 40K troops on its border with Iraq and highly-visible joining the air campaign. There are many in the Kingdom who would love to join with ISIS in a civil war within their Kingdom. To not grasp that, and not grasp the global scale impact of a civil war in the Kingdom, truly requires some disengagement from realities.

Needless to say, an ISIS state replacing the House of Saud would see overturning the neighboring Satan-based nations of Kuwait and the Emirates as a given. Real sweet putting over 1/3 of world oil production into the hands of bloodthirsty religious fanatics.

Then what about Lebanon and Turkey? Egypt? The north coast of Africa? Central Africa? Spain? What about Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Xinjiang, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines Balkans, Caucasus. Do you believe Islamic extremists in these areas would not partner up with a now hugely rich ISIS for sponsorship?

And as the assets and long-term investments by Western interests are lost in the areas more directly impacted by ISIL or their sponsored groups, do those Western interest just let that happen? And if the West (state or business interest) respond, doesn't that open them up to retaliations from internal cells of religious fundamentalists more than happy to be sponsored by a very rich ISIS?

Just where do you draw the line, if ever, and what is your rational for drawing the line there rather than in western Iraq?

And do you really believe that reaching state status and being part of the league of Kumbaya-singing nations will sufficiently constrain ISIL from re-igniting the 1000-year old argument between Sunni and Shia or the more ancient, if not more bitter, argument between Arab and Persian?

The risk-reward of your non-involvement advice seems to be completely out-of-balance - risking a combat conflagration in at least 1/3 of the world, terror attacks in much of the rest, and resulting global economic meltdown(s) - all for the reward of avoiding a sense of ennui from turning on the TV and seeing we're once- more-into-the-breech in western Iraq. Seems a little short-sighted to me.

Third, the entire premise results on a comparison of ISIL's 'state-approach' with that of al Qaeda's 'non-state approach. That comparison revolves around the notion that the state approach results in an "address" whereby the US can "come a-knocking." In contrast a non-state approach does not provide an address and thereby the stateless approach of al Qaeda is much less constrained than the state-approach of ISIL.

But, is there really a difference?

Certainly, these mythical state versus non-state addresses have nothing to do with real tangible addresses. The US first chased Osama out of his actual address in Kandahar, then nearly grabbed him at his address in Tora Bora, and then finally came the "big knock at the door" at his address in Lahore.

And at the individual level of leadership - is an ISIL leader, dead from being targeted by a smart bomb at his "state address," more dead than OBL at his "non-state address?"

The difference seems to only come from your belief that rather than engage in a homeland provocation (e,g., al Qaeda's 9/11), ISIL is banking on a rather middling regional provocation (i.e., western Iraq) to thread the needle of gaining a US response that is sufficient for recruiting but without endangering their entire enterprise.

Let's put aside my previously-stated doubt that their objectives are limited to a rather middling regional provocation of western Iraq (as opposed to my "Mecca scenario" that inevitable leads to an overwhelming but much more consequential US response). Let's instead focus on the real difference between ISIL and al Qaeda in "threading the needle" - and then, the exact same mistake both are making.

The big difference is ISIL has much LESS of a need to recruit than al Qaeda. ISIL, by following the "state approach" has recruits flocking to it - not only an address but black uniforms and flag that appeal to those recruits as the latest chic. Moreover, ISIL is building on 1, 2 or 3 (depending on when you start counting) decades of prep work by al Qaeda - these a-holes are standing on the shoulders of the earlier OBL a-holes.

The lack of need by ISIL for the Great Satin to assist in their recruiting begins to really blow a large hole into the very premise of your thesis.

What has to be offered, however, is an alternative theory that explains behavior (and will also explain that common mistake both al Qaeda and ISIL have made).

That theory goes back to the Beirut 1983 Marine Barracks bombing and Reagan's flaccid response before turning tail. Having witness those events, OBL's stated premise was that once the Great Satin's nose is bloody he will be shown incapable on the battlefield and, most importantly, unable to sustain the necessary effort.

Maybe recruitment from 9/11 was almost as important to OBL as the objective as blooding the Great Satin's nose in hope for withdrawal. I sort of doubt its equivalency but it is in the range of possibilities. However, I see absolutely no equivalency in the two objectives with ISIL. I've already laid out that they don't really need the Great Satan for recruitment at this stage of their caliph-building; they just need us out of the way. They know that we are war-weary, why not remind us of the nastiness of it all with a few beheadings and waiting for the chorus of people such as yourself to just say, fuck it?

But that's the mistake they share with OBL - you are not the one in charge.

At Tora Bora, OBL apologized to his fighters for this grave mistake. I believe ISIL leadership, if there are any left at the time, will be making the same apology.

One needs to scratch below the surface of concluding that the US has the will to sustain. We've shown that we have our limits (Vietnam, Iraq); so why did OBL and now ISIL making the mistake to believe we will stay out of it?

The mistake is mistaking 21st US war-making technology and strategies for that of a 1940s battleship or that of 1983 or even that at the beginning of the Iraq invasion just a decade ago. The most visible characteristic here is buying into the pundit talk that air power alone cannot defeat ISIL - derived from defining "defeat ISIL" as decimating its entire membership until the region breaks out into a chorus of Kumbaya.

Defeating ISIL is not about decimating all of them or even most of them; it's about containing them in their own stew, slowly degrading their leadership and capacities, and letting internal and external forces have their way with them. They presently can't see this, just like most people can't see this, because they are currently just too big too bad and too nasty to imagine their winding up in a frustrating stew. That's not just a mistake, it is a fatal mistake.

At the end of your argument, where is the justification for the US to take this on as a crusade? IS is beyond question a despicable organization, but it is a regional problem first and foremost. If the regional powers are unwilling to engage, why should we? We have nothing to gain and much to lose.

And yes, we see the relentless waste of human life and the imposition of pain on the local populations that makes us cringe. That also occurred In Iraq, both before and since we tried to pull them into the 21st century, and the same is true in Afghanistan. Why should this time be different? We can't fix this. Maybe there will come a time in the future when we can be of help. Other than the Kurds, no one seems ready ... even our erstwhile NATO allies the Turks.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How will backing Israel do that? So far, it's work in the exact opposite direction.

works opposite if you want to just give in to the terrorists.

Dad had FoX News Channel running for a few minutes -- and it castigated President Obama for being 'weak' because he has so far limited American military involvement against ISIS to air strikes against attackers. Of course, had he called for ground troops he would be a glory-seeking militarist violating the Constitutional separation of powers.

Is there anything 'fair and balanced' in FoX News except an alleged trademark?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

FoX "News" --- the GOP equivalent of Pravda.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At the end of your argument, where is the justification for the US to take this on as a crusade? IS is beyond question a despicable organization, but it is a regional problem first and foremost. If the regional powers are unwilling to engage, why should we? We have nothing to gain and much to lose.

And yes, we see the relentless waste of human life and the imposition of pain on the local populations that makes us cringe. That also occurred In Iraq, both before and since we tried to pull them into the 21st century, and the same is true in Afghanistan. Why should this time be different? We can't fix this. Maybe there will come a time in the future when we can be of help. Other than the Kurds, no one seems ready ... even our erstwhile NATO allies the Turks.

I would endorse arming the Kurds.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You have a land full of people with differing loyalties. The Jews want a Jewish state, and the Palestinians are good either way ... since they are now the majority and will only be moreso in the future. The Israelis need to create two states, but they won't. Instead, they want us to back a permanent apartheid regime. Why is that in our interest?

Based on history, any solution looks unlikely. However, I don’t think that the problem is only with Israel. There continue to be foes who seem to want the destruction of Israel, It still takes two to reach a deal.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5895567...hdraw-from-the

…"There are valid and numerous reasons to doubt Netanyahu's commitment to reaching a two-state peace deal that would establish Palestine as an independent state, but this latest comment does not appear, to me anyway, to say that.
There are a number of two-state peace plans that simultaneously grant Palestine an independent state while also meeting Israeli security concerns. This would most likely require at least some infringements on Palestinian sovereignty over security matters, for example by allowing a long-term mutli-national peacekeeping force in the West Bank, and a number of Palestinians are skeptical of any such deal on those grounds.

The point, though, is that it is within the realm of possibility to simultaneously end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank while also meeting Netanyahu's apparent demand for some continued Israeli security control. However, it's only possible to do both as part of a negotiated peace deal agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians, since it would require Israeli and Palestinian cooperation over West Bank security issues. In other words, it is not possible to do this by Israel unilaterally withdrawing from its occupation of the West Bank, as it did from Gaza in 2005.”...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At the end of your argument, where is the justification for the US to take this on as a crusade?

Several, as noted before with Mike; some re-noted here as well, below.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

IS is beyond question a despicable organization, but it is a regional problem first and foremost.

A lot depends on how you define "regional." Mike, and perhaps yourself, see this as ISIL being self-constrained to the objective of obtaining state status in Sunni-dominated areas of eastern Syria and western Iraq. I don't. Instead, I see every indication that their intent is a new Caliph which would obviously include Mecca and thereby their holding sway in not only Saudi Arabia but all Arab areas, posing eventual warfare with Iran, and supporting global fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in all Muslim dominated areas of the globe as well as any non-Muslim dominated nation (i.e., Russia and China as well as any and all Western nations) that act in their own self-interest to counter the ISIL agenda. I believe a cold hard look at the facts on the ground support my view and to believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking by those tired of all this shit. Just because you are tired of shit doesn't mean there's not going to be shitstorm for you to wade through.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If the regional powers are unwilling to engage, why should we?

Iran has the same problem that Isreal does - no one wants either of them in there because doing so will accelerate the situation going to the conflagration that I envision. In addition to the bad blood between Turks and Kurds, Turkey is as scared shitless as the House of Saud in provoking an indigenous ISIL within their own borders. They're doing what they can within that constraint and likely much more of their efforts to come will not be advertised for the obvious reason stated.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We have nothing to gain and much to lose.

I see it exactly the opposite.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

And yes, we see the relentless waste of human life and the imposition of pain on the local populations that makes us cringe. That also occurred In Iraq, both before and since we tried to pull them into the 21st century, and the same is true in Afghanistan. Why should this time be different?

I supported what we did in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. In both cases, I would be happy if we could obtain the level of stability now in Afghanistan or what was there in Iraq a year ago. Yes, it isn't/wasn't great and it is/was tenuous, but it is/was a hell of a lot better than what we have now and more importantly where this goes without our intervention.

With our intervention, I see ISIL as a step back after two steps forward, but eventually another two steps forward will come. You and Mike see the opposite. I believe the facts on the ground better support my view.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can't fix this.

Depends on what you by "fix." As I said, if one is looking for the complete decimation of every jihadist in the ME, one is going to be very disappointed for likely their lifetime. If one is merely looking to isolate ISIL to hovels in Syria's eastern wastelands and posing relatively little risks to Iraq, other ME countries and us, that's going to happen. I can live with that "fix."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Maybe there will come a time in the future when we can be of help.

Again, I see the opposite. The longer this cancer has to metastasize, the more difficult and costly to eradicate. From a global economic perspective, it can reach a level that kills.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Other than the Kurds, no one seems ready ... even our erstwhile NATO allies the Turks.

Protecting the Kurds is sufficient; their willingness to fight is part and parcel to that. I don't want to witness another Degar abandonment ever again.

From a strategic viewpoint, I would put the stability of Turkey only slightly behind that of Saudi Arabia and ahead of re-igniting Shia/Iranian v. Sunni/Arab conflagration. I would put all three ahead of avoiding an all out Iraqi civil and that being far more strategically important than mitigating the Syrian civil war. With that ordering, I see the desire for having a combat buddy in Turkey at the risk of creating major instability within that country as being a great example of cutting one's nose off to despite one's face.

Originally Posted by playwrite

A Caliphate without Mecca???

You assert that ISIS has the goal of establishing a Caliphate. Do you have evidence for this. OBL wrote about establishing a Caliphate and was focused on Saudi Arabia. For OBL Mecca and Medina loomed large and they formed a big part of his cassus belli for jihad. Can you provide a links to writing from ISIS leaders show a similar focus on Mecca and Medina, or are you just assuming that what OBL desired is what they desire.

I simply looked at what they call themselves to infer that they desire an Islamic state consisting of portions of modern-day Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

I see them gone by the end of Obama's term as a result of what you see as "US support."

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "gone". Is AQI gone? Technically there is no longer a group with this name, but one can also say ISIS grew out of the AQI movement and so they never really went away. If, under assault, ISIS becomes dormant and then reappears a few years later under a new name, were they ever really gone?

I think its just a little too cute to have the notion that blowing someone to bits is actually sending a Valentine of support.

It's not a Valentine. It's an excuse. A groups that actually calls itself a state needs to be able to act the part over the long run, or it loses legitimacy. If it loses legitimacy with its own troops, it ceases to exist. As long as the state is at war, the only things they need to achieve in maintain legitimacy is success in battle. Note they have moved north in Syria right up to the Turkish border. Further north they cannot go for that would mean a battle with Turkish forces and they would lose. They can go east against the Kurds, but after that they would get to Iran and that would means battles with Iranian forces and they would lose. They can (and have) moved east into Lebanon. Further east they cannot go, for there is ocean. South means taking on Israel, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. All three are losing propositions. So they can go against the remnant of Iraq. But they have done the easy part, taking territory where they had the support of the Sunni populace. They will have no support in Shia areas and will face a Shia insurgency as well as Iraqi regulars. How will they maintain legitimacy when further expansion is no long feasible?

I suggest they can do this by fighting America, a country that could destroy them, but will not. Instead it will drop bombs and kill people. Life will totally suck for ISIS' people, but it sucked before ISIS and the new suck can be blamed on the Americans. They won't rise up against ISIS, any more than the Iraqi Sunnis rose up against Saddam during the embargo. Remember this was our objective for the embargo. It obviously wasn't working which is why Dick Cheney and other Republicans changed their minds about invading Iraq in the 1990's. Note that didn't work any better.

they have made it clear they are not satisfied with that by capturing lands without Sunni majority

Where are they ruling over non-Sunni populations? Seems to me that are doing what the Americans did, exterminating the indigenous inhabitants so they can settle the land with their own people. That is they want to rule over land filled with their own people, not subject peoples.

Players in the Region see them as a threat and have taken visible muscular responses

Turkish forces are just watching ISIS capture Kobani. Doesn't seem very muscular to me.

within the context of not provoking internal civil wars.

Do you have an evidence that this is what restrains the Turks from taking action? My understanding the insurgency the Turks fear is a Kurdish one. They want the Kurds to lose. This seems to be what some Kurds in Turkey think:

Icin echoed a common belief that Turkish security forces are supporting Isis, if only by preventing Kurdish fighters from crossing the border to fight.

They also want ISIS to lose, sort of like how the US felt about the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980's.

You are suggesting that the Turks fear an uprising of Sunni Turks in support of ISIS Arabs. Seriously? You have any evidence for that?

Why do you think that the primary route of foreign jihadists into Syria to join ISIL has been primarily through Turkey?

ISIS is right next door to Turkey, and Instanbul is a very large cosmopolitan city that sees vast number of tourists every year. People looking to join ISIS can fly in as tourists. How would you get there?

...they (the Turks) hate Assad and not happy with the deal he made with the Syrian Kurds to essentially establish a Kurdish state on the border with Turkey, and then there's this little Turkish-Kurdish thingee that is decades older than all the shit we've been involved with in the Middle East.

All this goes to support MY contention that ISIS is nothing special in the eyes of the Turks. Turkey is not acting as if ISIS is an existential threat to Turkey, because they are not.

As we are perfectly capable of destroying al Qaeda leadership even in nuclear-armed frenemy Pakistan.

If we are so capable of destroying leadership how come al Zwahiri is still breathing?

If prevail means that a lot of them get to continuing living in hovels in the Syrian eastern wastelands under internal as well as external constant duress, they may be right.

Yes their people will live shitty lives, which they were doing before ISIS and for which they will blame US, not ISIS.

The choices would seem to be (a) yours of provoking us to bomb them to smithereens as their recruitment poster or (b) mine of trying to "seal the deal" for us saying "fuck it, we've had enough of you crazy Middle Eastern dudes."

This is a straw man.

I am saying we do nothing because ISIS is like Hezbollah, not AQ. AQ struck at the American homeland because of a peculiar theory OBL had about how to do jihad in the modern world. Lebanese Hezbollah has a different theory about jihad; they struck at Americans in Lebanon but not outside of Lebanon. ISIS has struck at Americans within Syria, but not outside of the region like in Africa, as OBL's AQ did in 1998.

I expect that if Americans did nothing as we did in Lebanon, ISIS will become as much of problem for America as is Lebanese Hezbollah. Its not like Hezbollah hasn't continued to be a problem from regional actors, but they are not a problem for US. And I think ISIS will be the same.

I could say the same about your desire for Fortress America.

This is your projection on to me. No fortress America, I don't see ISIS as a threat to America at all, any more than I see Hezbollah.

Does a nation join or stay in NATO because of a threat of invasion by the Soviets these days?

I think it is because bureaucracies seek to justify their existence.

They, like the Saudis, stay in alliances with us because at times we can do the heavy-lifting that would not only be very difficult for them but pose risks to our common strategic objectives.

Yes, I can see the advantage to elites, Saudi, American and others. But I am not an elite, and it has no benefit to me. I suspect you are well-off, and you apparently travel a lot and so could be one of these "world citizens". Based on your responses I suspect you have Zionist sympathies and this colors your view of the Middle East.

I am a Midwestern American. I don't travel the world, not am I a world investor. When I look at policy I look at what is good for my family and community. I look at an American government that is in the advanced stages of elite capture. I don't think this is a good thing. Wars like this ISIS one are a distraction from the key issues that actually affect the majority of Americans who are not world citizens.

I once was the mix of Hamiltonian and Wilsonian in my foreign policy views. View not too different from your own views. I can make your side of argument better than you have so far. But this view also forms a paradigm for thinking about these things. And after becoming an empty-nester in 2002 I've had time to think about them. I supported the Iraq war based on a prediction I had made about what the war was about. My understanding about the war was quite similar to that of Kinser'79 except I supported the war while he opposed it. But I was wrong. My paradigm had led me to believe things about how the world worked that were not true.

Now I am an engineer. If the model doesn't fit the facts you throw out the model, not the facts. So I now have a new mostly Jeffersonian paradigm that I will admit I more or less lifted wholesale from the libertarians, with whom I have always strenuously disagreed. But as the Iraq war dragged on, they were the only ones that made sense. Based on this new paradigm I opposed getting involved in Syria, and supported Obama's decision no to do so. I opposed air strikes in Syria and was very happy with how Obama handled they Syrian WMDs. I 100% agreed with Obama's assessment of ISIS as third raters. I do NOT think Obama has had a change of heart and now thinks ISIS is some kind of threat. I think ISIS is just as much a threat as Saddam's WMDs. It is a lie that Obama is now telling because 70% of the country WANTS him to believe in this nonsense--all because a snuff video.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes I can see the advantage to Saudi elites of having Americans fight their wars for them. What I do not see if how rank and file Americans benefit from this service we provide to foreign elites. American elites benefit of course, but not ordinary Americans. You know a number of people think that this 4T is going to be about whether or not American citizens are going to try to stop the elite takeover of the American state. That this is OK with you is clear. I don't think it is such a great thing.

I think he's got it.

We're going to watch the suffering of many. It's going to be bad. What makes it worse is that this time, isolationism may, in fact, be the best course. We have our own internal crisis to deal with.

Originally Posted by radind

I would endorse arming the Kurds.

I agree, and might go as far as recognizing them as a sovereign state. Iraqis will scream about it, but they have nothing to offer as an alternative. Turkey will definitiely scream, but we should point right back at them and question their commitment to NATO.

At least the Kurds cary their own water, and even act to protect others. That's impressive given their non-status and position of risk.

Originally Posted by radind

Based on history, any solution looks unlikely. However, I don’t think that the problem is only with Israel. There continue to be foes who seem to want the destruction of Israel, It still takes two to reach a deal.

I agree completely, but I was responding to knee-jerk Israeli flag-waving. No, there are no angels in that mess, but we have covered the Israeli's butts on so many occasions it's beyond count. In return, we get interference in our electoral process through AIPAC. The real problem is Likud and their far-right partners in crime. The more we support Israel unquestioningly, the stronger that coalition gets. It may be time to tell them good-bye. It may have the benefit of changing the electoral balance in Israel, which may break the stalemate.

I have no solution for Hamas, unless it involves Qatar. The PLA seems amenable, so the Palestinians need to decide who speaks for them..

Originally Posted by playwrite

A lot depends on how you define "regional." Mike, and perhaps yourself, see this as ISIL being self-constrained to the objective of obtaining state status in Sunni-dominated areas of eastern Syria and western Iraq. I don't. Instead, I see every indication that their intent is a new Caliph which would obviously include Mecca and thereby their holding sway in not only Saudi Arabia but all Arab areas, posing eventual warfare with Iran, and supporting global fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in all Muslim dominated areas of the globe as well as any non-Muslim dominated nation (i.e., Russia and China as well as any and all Western nations) that act in their own self-interest to counter the ISIL agenda. I believe a cold hard look at the facts on the ground support my view and to believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking by those tired of all this shit. Just because you are tired of shit doesn't mean there's not going to be shitstorm for you to wade through.

Let's assume they intend exactly what you suggest. So what? They are a tiny minority of Sunni Islam, and are highly unlikely to incite anything anywhere, Pakistan and Sub-Saharan Africa being potential exceptions. Even there, the predominant Muslim majorities are not likely to favor their brand of nonsense religion, and won't join their Caliphate. The most successful attempt in the past was the Mahdi in Sudan. The Brits and Egyptians dispatched him quickly once he became a real problem. Anywhere else, the balance of force is against them.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Iran has the same problem that Isreal does - no one wants either of them in there because doing so will accelerate the situation going to the conflagration that I envision. In addition to the bad blood between Turks and Kurds, Turkey is as scared shitless as the House of Saud in provoking an indigenous ISIL within their own borders. They're doing what they can within that constraint and likely much more of their efforts to come will not be advertised for the obvious reason stated.

OK, the House of Saud may have an issue - almost totally of their own making. Why is that an issue for us? The Turks, on the other hand, have a problem with their Kurdish minority, and continuing their defiant obstructionism is making it a whole lot worse. It's no longer the Turkey of Mustafa Kemel Attaturk. We should keep that in mind. After all, we are their benefactors too. At least the Kurds are on our side.

Originally Posted by PW ...

I supported what we did in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. In both cases, I would be happy if we could obtain the level of stability now in Afghanistan or what was there in Iraq a year ago. Yes, it isn't/wasn't great and it is/was tenuous, but it is/was a hell of a lot better than what we have now and more importantly where this goes without our intervention.

With our intervention, I see ISIL as a step back after two steps forward, but eventually another two steps forward will come. You and Mike see the opposite. I believe the facts on the ground better support my view.

Point to one long-term success in the region that wasn't created by oil wealth. I can only think of one: Jordan - the ultimate buffer state. I doubt that model can be cloned.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Depends on what you by "fix." As I said, if one is looking for the complete decimation of every jihadist in the ME, one is going to be very disappointed for likely their lifetime. If one is merely looking to isolate ISIL to hovels in Syria's eastern wastelands and posing relatively little risks to Iraq, other ME countries and us, that's going to happen. I can live with that "fix."

I say, let them play in the sandbox, and let the adults in the region deal with their mischief. Unless I'm totally out to lunch, they didn't groom an officer class in a Madras somewhere. They are the remnants of Saddam's army. So you have a bunch of wacko zealots running around beheading people, and an army under the command of professionals. Do you honestly think that the pros are willing sycophants? Unless al Baghdaddi is another charismatic Hitler type, I would say no.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Again, I see the opposite. The longer this cancer has to metastasize, the more difficult and costly to eradicate. From a global economic perspective, it can reach a level that kills.

Not to be too cavalier about this, but it's not our cancer to cure.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Protecting the Kurds is sufficient; their willingness to fight is part and parcel to that. I don't want to witness another Degar abandonment ever again.

I agree, we should certainly help the Kurds, even at the expense of the Turks.

Originally Posted by PW ...

From a strategic viewpoint, I would put the stability of Turkey only slightly behind that of Saudi Arabia and ahead of re-igniting Shia/Iranian v. Sunni/Arab conflagration. I would put all three ahead of avoiding an all out Iraqi civil and that being far more strategically important than mitigating the Syrian civil war. With that ordering, I see the desire for having a combat buddy in Turkey at the risk of creating major instability within that country as being a great example of cutting one's nose off to despite one's face.

I have no sympathy for entities that have all the cards in their hands to solve this problem, but boo-hoo loudly to get us to solve it for them. If their personal agendas are so important that letting this fester on their borders is OK by them, then it should be OK for us too. Other than the Kurds, Jordan and Lebanon have a claim on our help. That's all.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You assert that ISIS has the goal of establishing a Caliphate. Do you have evidence for this. OBL wrote about establishing a Caliphate and was focused on Saudi Arabia. For OBL Mecca and Medina loomed large and they formed a big part of his cassus belli for jihad. Can you provide a links to writing from ISIS leaders show a similar focus on Mecca and Medina, or are you just assuming that what OBL desired is what they desire.

I simply looked at what they call themselves to infer that they desire an Islamic state consisting of portions of modern-day Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bak..._Islamic_State

On 29 June 2014, ISIS announced the establishment of a caliphate. Al-Baghdadi was named its caliph, to be known as Caliph Ibrahim, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was renamed the Islamic State (IS).[2][10] There has been much debate especially across the Muslim world about the legitimacy of these moves.

The declaration of a caliphate has been heavily criticized by Middle Eastern governments, other jihadist groups,[38] and Sunni Muslim theologians and historians. Qatar-based TV broadcaster and theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated: "[The] declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria", adding that the title of caliph can "only be given by the entire Muslim nation", not by a single group.[39] (Mike - do you think Al-Baghdadi disagrees with this? )

In an audio-taped message, al-Baghdadi announced that ISIS would march on "Rome"—generally interpreted to mean the West—in its quest to establish an Islamic State from the Middle East across Europe, saying that he would conquer both Rome and Spain in this endeavor.[40][41] He also urged Muslims across the world to immigrate to the new Islamic State.[40][42]

On 5 July 2014, a video was released apparently showing al-Baghdadi making a speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, northern Iraq. A representative of the Iraqi government denied that the video was of al-Baghdadi, calling it a "farce".[39] However, both the BBC[43] and the Associated Press[44] quoted unnamed Iraqi officials as saying that the man in the video was believed to be al-Baghdadi. In the video, al-Baghdadi declared himself the world leader of Muslims and called on Muslims everywhere to support him.[45]

On 8 July 2014, ISIS launched its magazine Dabiq. Its title appears to have been selected for its eschatological connections with the Islamic version of the End times or Malahim.[46]

Rather than move on to respond to the rest of your post, let me leave you with this for a while - in part, so you can, if desired, research the references; but primarily to give you and other budding isolationists here a little time to consider who we are dealing with.

Like I said, just because you're tired of dealing with shit doesn't mean there's no shit storm out there just itching to poop on your head - whether or not they left it still attached to your torso.

Oh, by the way, from Koran's Book of Battles (Kitab Al-Malahim) - "The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it."

Oh, and here's a little about Dabiq in Muslim's End of Times -

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/an...hadists-603466

And for further insightful readings -

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...ne-2e280b3.pdf

Who knows, with the coming shit storm even you might want to try a little Kool-aid to wash it all down.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's assume they intend exactly what you suggest. So what? They are a tiny minority of Sunni Islam, and are highly unlikely to incite anything anywhere, Pakistan and Sub-Saharan Africa being potential exceptions. Even there, the predominant Muslim majorities are not likely to favor their brand of nonsense religion, and won't join their Caliphate.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-news-s...-state-1469945

Isis News: Six Pakistani Taliban Leaders Pledge Allegiance to Islamic State

A video has been released in which six members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) group declare bay'ah, or an oath of allegiance, to Isis (now known as Islamic State) and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The six and a half minute video opens with an extract of al-Baghdadi's sermon when he declared the formation of Islamic State (IS) and that he had become Caliph Ibrahim, in late June 2014.

Shahidullah Shahid, TTP spokesman, declares in the video: "From today, I accept Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as my Caliph and will accept every directive of his and will fight for him whatsoever the situation."

He announces that he and five other important regional TTP leaders have defected to IS. The news comes as a blow for the TTP as internal clashes with the Mehsud tribal faction continue to mar the group.

"The first time, I pledged allegiance through Abu Tasur al-Ardani; the second time, I announced it in the holy month of Ramzan through Abu al-Huda Sudani, and asked him to inform al-Baghdadi of my loyalties; the third time I pledged allegiance during a phone call with Abu Omar al-Shami; I am now announcing it for a fourth time for the media."

Shahid explains in the video that his decision was motivated by the Qur'an, insisting it is mandatory for all Muslims to follow the caliph.

The five local commanders have been named as Saeed Khan, Daulat Khan, Fateh Gul Zaman, Mufti Hassan and Khalid Mansoor. They were previously the TTP agency leaders in Orakzai, Kurram, Khyber, Peshawar and Hangu.

The news comes less than two weeks since the Pakistani extremist group pledged to support IS and promised to provide it with fighters.

"All Muslims in the world have great expectations of you... we are with you, we will provide you with Mujahideen [fighters] and with every possible support."

Mullah Fazlullah, who became TTP leader in November 2013, has yet to declare a formal alliance with the Levant based group.

I'll respond to more of your interesting post later. Thought I give you and Mike a little time to ponder perhaps some misunderstandings of the shit storm that's a-brew'n.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...Now I am an engineer. If the model doesn't fit the facts you throw out the model, not the facts. So I now have a new mostly Jeffersonian paradigm that I will admit I more or less lifted wholesale from the libertarians, with whom I have always strenuously disagreed. But as the Iraq war dragged on, they were the only ones that made sense. Based on this new paradigm I opposed getting involved in Syria, and supported Obama's decision no to do so. I opposed air strikes in Syria and was very happy with how Obama handled they Syrian WMDs. I 100% agreed with Obama's assessment of ISIS as third raters. I do NOT think Obama has had a change of heart and now thinks ISIS is some kind of threat. I think ISIS is just as much a threat as Saddam's WMDs. It is a lie that Obama is now telling because 70% of the country WANTS him to believe in this nonsense--all because a snuff video.

This is very interesting. Although I have a technical degree, I do not think like most of the engineers I met. However, I do relate to your current thinking and have some libertarian leanings myself. I was opposed to all of Bush's invasions , except for the initial attack after 911. Never wanted any occupations.
It apears to me that ISIL is not an immediate threat to the USA, although I am enough of a hawk to support the air attacks. And, I fully support Obama's position to not send US ground troops.