Originally Posted by playwrite

I believe that without our intervention, they will.

And this is basically the same argument used for the Iraq war, which you say was a bad idea. IMO the Iraq war is a bad idea because it cost a lot and left a mess all to defeat a threat posed by Saddam that was not real.

Yet now you are effectively saying Saddam that IS a threat. Not Saddam per se, but what he represented, Iraqi Sunnis. And what is ISIS but Iraqi and Syrian Sunni who want a different Syria-Iraq than the Shia-dominated states they are now. It's the same entity, with a new face.

Saddam was a murderous bastard. Al-Baghdadi is the most recent murderous bastard in Saddam's position. You might say that Saddam was ruler of Iraq, whereas al-Baghdadi wants more. And Saddam didn't want more? Saddam used to invoke images of Nebuchadnezzar implying he wanted to rule more than just Iraq. And he acted on that, invading Iran and Kuwait.

Believing that Saddam was so threatening that we had to stop him cost ten thousand American dead, tens of thousands of Americans horribly injured, $3 trillion flushed down the toilet and the loss of our soul. Was it worth it?

Is believing al Baghdadi is a threat going to be worth a similar price? When we embark on these things we do not know the blowback (e.g. 911) that will come in the future from our decision to get involved.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And this is basically the same argument used for the Iraq war, which you say was a bad idea. IMO the Iraq war is a bad idea because it cost a lot and left a mess all to defeat a threat posed by Saddam that was not real.

Yet now you are effectively saying Saddam... IS a threat. Not Saddam per se, but what he represented, Iraqi Sunnis. And what is ISIS but Iraqi and Syrian Sunni who want a different Syria-Iraq than the Shia-dominated states they are now. It's the same entity, with a new face.

There are some Saddamists in the IS, but it's mostly Al Qaeda, which didn't exist in Iraq until we went in. It's not "Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis," because most Sunnis there resisted Al Qaeda. Sunnis are also now helping to fight the IS in order to create a genuinely free Syria and Iraq, not just a Sunni Syria and Iraq. IS is a fanatic Islamic regenade group, not primarily an anti-Shia group.

Saddam was a murderous bastard. Al-Baghdadi is the most recent murderous bastard in Saddam's position. You might say that Saddam was ruler of Iraq, whereas al-Baghdadi wants more. And Saddam didn't want more? Saddam used to invoke images of Nebuchadnezzar implying he wanted to rule more than just Iraq. And he acted on that, invading Iran and Kuwait.

Believing that Saddam was so threatening that we had to stop him cost ten thousand American dead, tens of thousands of Americans horribly injured, $3 trillion flushed down the toilet and the loss of our soul. Was it worth it?

Is believing (that) al Baghdadi is a threat going to be worth a similar price? When we embark on these things we do not know the blowback (e.g. 911) that will come in the future from our decision to get involved.

Although your cautionary notes are worth considering, it is also worth considering the virtue of cleaning up the messes we created, not by sending more troops and invading these countries, but by helping those who are resisting the "bastards" that we have enabled in one way or another; Assad by not helping the Free Syrians with arms, Saddam by supporting him against Iran, and then invading his country and creating the chaos that, combined with the chaos Assad was allowed to create in Syria, allowed in turn these latest bastards of the IS to arise.

It is important to see things as they are in these countries. We may delude ourselves if we think we can stop threats that don't exist yet. We also delude ourselves if we look upon these people as entirely consisting of sectarian fanatics, thus ignoring the Arab Spring Revolution for freedom that sparked this latest crisis, and which still deserves our support.

On balance, I think helping to stop the IS now, without an invasion or ground troops, will likely prevent an attack later that could cause the USA to embark on a full-scale war next time around. The USA in concert with others needs to apply force in a measured way, where needed, to tip the balance toward world law and freedom. I may be wrong, but I note that I think I was right in opposing most US intervention from Vietnam until now, and I may be right again now to swing the other way toward support for measured and limited actions that might help bring more international law and freedom from genocide, as perhaps I might have thought in the 1930s.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Had we listened to Joe Biden (!), we would have the Kurds eating out of our hands right now.

Joe Biden The Foreign Policy Expert and Bashar Assad The Moderate Muslim are the two grimly ironic figures in The ISIS Crisis.

There is nothing "moderate" about Assad. Murdering 200,000 of your people is not "moderate" by any standard.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are some Saddamists in the IS, but it's mostly Al Qaeda, which didn't exist in Iraq until we went in. It's not "Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis," because most Sunnis there resisted Al Qaeda. Sunnis are also now helping to fight the IS in order to create a genuinely free Syria and Iraq, not just a Sunni Syria and Iraq. IS is a fanatic Islamic regenade group, not primarily an anti-Shia group.



Although your cautionary notes are worth considering, it is also worth considering the virtue of cleaning up the messes we created, not by sending more troops and invading these countries, but by helping those who are resisting the "bastards" that we have enabled in one way or another; Assad by not helping the Free Syrians with arms, Saddam by supporting him against Iran, and then invading his country and creating the chaos that, combined with the chaos Assad was allowed to create in Syria, allowed in turn these latest bastards of the IS to arise.

It is important to see things as they are in these countries. We may delude ourselves if we think we can stop threats that don't exist yet. We also delude ourselves if we look upon these people as entirely consisting of sectarian fanatics, thus ignoring the Arab Spring Revolution for freedom that sparked this latest crisis, and which still deserves our support.

On balance, I think helping to stop the IS now, without an invasion or ground troops, will likely prevent an attack later that could cause the USA to embark on a full-scale war next time around. The USA in concert with others needs to apply force in a measured way, where needed, to tip the balance toward world law and freedom. I may be wrong, but I note that I think I was right in opposing most US intervention from Vietnam until now, and I may be right again now to swing the other way toward support for measured and limited actions that might help bring more international law and freedom from genocide, as perhaps I might have thought in the 1930s.

Thanks for for comments. Well said

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is nothing "moderate" about Assad. Murdering 200,000 of your people is not "moderate" by any standard.

Let me split the difference. You can be a moderate Muslim and still be a murderous despotic thug. I submit that Assad is both.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Let me split the difference. You can be a moderate Muslim and still be a murderous despotic thug. I submit that Assad is both.

Exactly. To use a recently passed example, Saddam Hussien was also a ''moderate Moslem'' in that his dictatorship was based on secular corruption rather than ''stealing for a religion'' in the sense that ISIL can claim to be doing in their stealing of what had been Syrian and Iraqi oil reserves while claiming to be using the funds from the oil sales to be establishing an Islamic state. Yes, Sunnis had the upper hand in Hussien's Iraq, but that was based on the tribalism that was not accounted for in creating these states in 1919 rather than the Islamic split between Sunnis and Shiites. Assad is very like how Hussien was in putting tribe/kinship clan ahead of the nation state that he runs.

Which seems to mean that in terms of advancing or maintaining the viability of the human condition, whether a ruler is "moderate" or "extreme" in religious views means less than they way s/he rules over the people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Which seems to mean that in terms of advancing or maintaining the viability of the human condition, whether a ruler is "moderate" or "extreme" in religious views means less than they way s/he rules over the people.

We would tend to think so yes. Unfortunately the Age of Enlightenment was pretty much limited to western and southern Europe. Most of the rest of the world views the individual as a tool for the larger state, be it religious or secular, to use.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Again with the straw men! What is it with you?

Okay, this calling out straw man is obviously becoming a ploy on your part; it's starting to get a tad annoying. If I've mischaracterized your position then explain exactly how.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is irrelevant. None of it addresses any of my points.

Your point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that its a complex and risky situation. Well, no shit Sherlock. My point is one needs to dig a little deeper to decide on intervention or not; and that starts with at least the basics on how dissimilar these groups are particularly in regard to their threat to us. The Kurds are more or less allies that owe us a great debt, and we, them. ISIL wants to cut our heads off REGARDLESS of our location. The various Shiites are arrayed at all points on the gradient in between.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yeah, in Turkey and Iran as well as Syria and Iraq. If they try to achieve these aims that means Turkey and Iran get drawn into a war against Kurdistan and its American ally. I don't want to go there, do you?

That's an issue whether we intervene or not. After decades of battling one another, Turkey and the PKK were pretty close to calling it quits; combat had gone down to next to nil. Then ISIL came along and upset that apple cart and now, as you noted, the Kurds are up in arms and the Turks bombed them - we had nothing to do with that. Turkey embroiled in a new red hot civil war with the Kurds is not in our strategic interests. The Syrian Kurds now owe us and their relatives in Turkey are grateful to us; we might be able to use that card in the near future to help prevent a meltdown in Turkey. It's only easy to sniff at that if one is unfamiliar with history, demographics and geopolitical dynamics on a global scale.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes, that is why they are called Lebanese Hezbollah. But in the beginning they were part of a wider Shia Islamic movement:


This is the movement that Reagan declined to fight. Their efforts at spreading jihad only succeeded in Lebanon where they were greatly aided by Israel:


But NOT by America. And what began of Islamic Jihad, the violent arm of Hezbollah who had carried out the terrorist attacks on America?


After the US invaded Iraq in 2003, the Islamic revolution spread to Iraq. The Iraqi government we helped put into place consists of parties derived from the Iranian-sponsored Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. After aiding the Sunnis against the Communists and Shia Iran in the 1990's, we started persecuting them in the 1990's and invading their countries in the 2000's. So now we have a Sunni version of the earlier Shia Islamic Jihad on steroids. Your approach? MORE steroids!

Like I said, there is no pan-Shia movement because it is organically impossible. I attribute your references' lumping together of Lebanese with Iraqis, Persians with Arabs, and Sunnis with Shiites, etc, etc, to 1990s American's utter ignorance of the Middle East - an ignorance that apparently continues in a large number of people even today. People are busy, I guess.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My approach, don't feed the bears; it only encourages them. We should not give ISIS an excuse for their incompetence at providing the minimum requirements for a state (stability within the states borders). Since it is impossible for them to fight American terror from the air; they are excused as long as we keep it up, and so maintain their legitimacy. We made the same mistake with Iraq in the 1990's. The embargo allowed Saddam to fail at providing the sort of world his top supporters wanted without creating a loss of legitimacy in their eyes. In the same way the US Iranian embargo allows the Iranian leaders to fail at providing what their supporters want without losing their support.

If we back off, we force them to reform or lose legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters. Why do you think we have a liberal democracy here in this country when we as a people are seemingly incapable of keeping one, much less actually forming one? How did we get this?

Again, this entire self-centered America-is-at-the root-of-all-FUBARS mythology falls completely apart when one looks at the facts on the ground. ISIL gained most of its current territory with NO American involvement. They clearly indicated that they were not constrained to just Sunni-dominated lands. They have made it clear that they want a Caliphate that, by definition, includes Saudi Arabia, and that they want to march on both "Rome" and "Spain." They've been able to attract 10s of thousand of fighters. ALL PRIOR to our involvement.

You are also failing to understand the history and culture of the region where might-makes-right and power stays in power and encroaches on weakening powers unless some greater power comes along and displaces it. It's been that way for far longer than we have been around as a nation (or, even before our land mass being discovered"). ISIL isn't going to diminish without some larger force diminishing them; it is a pipe dream to believe otherwise. Just who is going to diminish them? You think they're going to call and loss an election? Maybe if you complain they're making straw men, they'll see the errors of their way and undertake self-beheadings?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And Dick Cheney said we must fight a war against ultimate bad guy Saddam, who threatened America with nukes and may have been behind 911. Did you take Dick Cheney's bloviations seriously? If not, then why are taking al Baghdadi serious? Really, the guy sounds like a more murderous version of Baghdad Bob.

A lot of what you say about the "threat" ISIS poses is very reminiscent to what Republicans said about Saddam Hussein.

On just about any level or element of comparison, there is none between Saddam and Bad-daddy. You're smart enough to know that so I assume that you've run out of time and/or logical arguments so this was just an easy red herring to throw in. Nice one.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You don't address my points, instead you construct straw men and attack them. That's a sign you have no good responses.

As Ron Ray-gun once said, "there you go again." And that includes your projection onto me of "no good responses."

Look, correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe something more than "mommy, he made another straw man, whaaaa!") but this really comes down to you thinking ISIL cannot grow into an immediate threat to us; and I do. From that flows your non-interventionist approach and my opposite assertion that early intervention is our best option.

That 'straw man' is confirmed with this specific example -

[QUOTE=Mikebert;513674]Why are you so insistent on insisting that Baghdad-Al here has the same fetish about Saudi Arabia as OBL? All the early proclamations of OBL were always burbling about "the land of the two holy shrines". Baghdad-Al doesn't talk about Saudi Arabia. Just because YOU think that because Mecca is the pilgrimage city, he MUST be including Saudi Arabia in his Islamic state doesn't mean he does. I don't think SA factors at all into his plans, nor do attacks on the West. But I think making threats does.[/quote[

It's pretty clear you "don't think SA factor at all in his plans" (I use the quote to hopefully avoid another straw man tantrum); I, on the other hand, believe facts on the ground as well as history and culture clearly points to him having exactly that same objective as OBL, and that is just a start for al Bad daddy.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Put yourself in his shoes. Where are his recruits coming from? Here are figures for the nearby countries expresses as recruits per million Muslims:
Jordan 318, Saudi Arabia 110, Palestine 28, Turkey 13, and Eqypt 4.

Here are yields from major Western countries: UK 260, France 200, US 115, Spain 100, Germany 60, Italy 30

Now where would you focus your recruitment efforts? The nearby countries are all Muslim majority countries and, except for Turkey, Arabic. ISIS is probably already reaching most of those who will resonate with his message in these countries. Apparently his message simply does not resonate with young disaffected Turks or Egyptians. But look at the yields from Western countries. Two of them exceed that from Saudi Arabia and the yield from the US is about the same.

So al Baghdadi talks about how Europe is a key part of his plans, invoking Rome (the capitol of Western Christendom; the Eastern capitol having already been conquered in 1453) and Spain, the location of the only Arab-Islamic intrusion into Europe; halted by Charles Martel in 732. Remember this guy is a Ph. D. With this and the new US war, maybe he thinks he can bump up Western recruitment considerably. It won't yield too many bodies: Muslim population in the West is only two-thirds that of Saudi Arabia. So far, total recruits from the West have been about the same as those from Saudi Arabia. I don't think he has a problem getting Syrian or Iraqi recruits. I think he wants Westerners for propaganda purposes (note that the head chopper is a Brit) and maybe some for media skills.

Those numbers are interesting but may not be giving your argument what you think they are giving it.

First, I realize you see ISIL as a state, but I'm pretty sure they haven't yet opened up a credible Burea of Labor Statistics - I would suspect all of those numbers, even if they are CIA, intel there is still pretty sketchy.

Second, Western European cities have very robust populations of disenchanted Muslim youths that still are relatively well off and pretty mobile compared to their counterparts in Turkey or Egypt where freedom of moment is constrained by economics but a pretty heavy handed govt presence. In the short run, one would expect the first waves of recruits to be those more able to travel, but that just adds to the potential for greater waves from those that can't or, more likely, a willingness to bring ISIL operating principle to their own countries.

Third, you look at those numbers coming from Europe and are heartened by believing that indicates some limited appeal among extremist in the Middle East; I look at those numbers and see broad appeal that transcends the region and underpins that ISIL presents a threat that will grow far beyond Iraq/Syria with increasing impacts on us if we do not stop or at least contain them.

It's too late to just close your eyes and hope them away. They're coming unless we stop them over there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Which seems to mean that in terms of advancing or maintaining the viability of the human condition, whether a ruler is "moderate" or "extreme" in religious views means less than they way s/he rules over the people.

The adjectives are pretty much useless. Only way to evaluate is by their actions.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

We would tend to think so yes. Unfortunately the Age of Enlightenment was pretty much limited to western and southern Europe. Most of the rest of the world views the individual as a tool for the larger state, be it religious or secular, to use.

The democratic revolution is a worldwide phenomenon. It started in Western Europe, but that doesn't mean it ends there. We have seen it particularly active in the last few years all over the world, and especially in places like Syria, whose people rose up for freedom. The people did not view themselves as tools of the state; they wanted a state that served the people. Their ruler crushed and killed them. That is not the fault of the people; that is the fault of the ruler. Those who oppose democracy, and all 3 revolutions, IOW those who already have the power, naturally want to keep it. We are watching the democratic movement on the News today in Hong Kong.

That's what happened in Western Europe itself too. It took one whole saeculum after the Revolution, but eventually it was broken there. It took almost 2 centuries to fully break the power of oppressive rulership even in Southern and Central Europe (160 years in Italy and Germany, for example, and 180 years in Spain and Greece). To break it in Eastern Europe took 2 centuries, but it was broken. And reversions are always possible, when new powers turn out to be as bad as the old powers, or even worse. It will eventually be overcome everywhere. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. And this justice does not depend on the views of "Enlightenment" philosophs. It is inherent in human beings, just as Jefferson said.

As to Obama... well, I try not to judge, even though he's gone back on a hell of a lot of promises he made to the voter base and probably permanently turned much of my cohort against politics.

But when we're joking and I have plausible deniability about what I actually believe? Maybe everyone in the Oval Office gets blackmailed. Sure, it's probably more reasonable to say that power corrupts, but I have to wonder about exactly what three-letter agencies have been doing these past several years...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is nothing "moderate" about Assad. Murdering 200,000 of your people is not "moderate" by any standard.

First of all, this is anti-Alawite blood libel, being served up by the "ISIS Lite" Wahhabis and their ilk; and second, even if it were true, what does this have to do with Assad's degree of devoutness as a Muslim? If Assad was 1/10th of a standard deviation less of a Muslim, he would be an out-and-out atheist - and indeed, the Ba'ath Party his father founded was atheist.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...it is also worth considering the virtue of cleaning up the messes we created, not by sending more troops.

It is fantasy to believe that this mess can be "cleaned up" without sending in US troops.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that its a complex and risky situation. Well, no shit Sherlock. My point is one needs to dig a little deeper to decide on intervention or not; and that starts with at least the basics on how dissimilar these groups are particularly in regard to their threat to us. The Kurds are more or less allies that owe us a great debt, and we, them. ISIL wants to cut our heads off REGARDLESS of our location. The various Shiites are arrayed at all points on the gradient in between.

Just because ISIS has killed a couple of American journalists does not mean they are a threat to the US.

we might be able to use that card in the near future to help prevent a meltdown in Turkey.

This is ludicrous. What role can America play in Turkeys domestic politics that the people of Turkey cannot do?

I attribute your references' lumping together of Lebanese with Iraqis, Persians with Arabs, and Sunnis with Shiites,

The one doing lumping here is you with your lumping of Turks with Arabs, when you stated that Turkey cannot oppose ISIS more forcefully because they fear internal unrest. Turkish Sunnis do not seem to support ISIS in any numbers (recruiting from Turkey is very low) probably because ISIS is an Arab movement.

They have made it clear that they want a Caliphate that, by definition, includes Saudi Arabia,

By YOUR definition. You have still not providing any support for this assertion beside your own opinion.

They've been able to attract 10s of thousand of fighters. ALL PRIOR to our involvement.

So? I never said ISIS needed the US to be created. And they don't need the US to expand. They need the US for the time when their expansion becomes bogged down. They are running out conquests where they can rely on allied locals to hold the territory after they conquer it. Just because they are fanatics and they scare you doesn't mean they are not subject to logistical constraints just as any other army.

but this really comes down to you thinking ISIL cannot grow into an immediate threat to us; and I do. From that flows your non-interventionist approach and my opposite assertion that early intervention is our best option.

Yeah that's right. But you never make any case for your side. You employ snark. Or present my statements in straw man form. Since you have yet to present your own evidence, I surmised your don't have any.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It's pretty clear you "don't think SA factor at all in his plans"

That's right. And in all this discussion you haven't given me any reasons to change my mind. It all boils down to yes he does because you say so. For OBL I have linked to his written documents. Can you provide some similar links?

It's pretty clear you "don't think SA factor at all in his plans"

;
Yes that's right.

I, on the other hand, believe facts on the ground as well as history and culture clearly points to him having exactly that same objective as OBL

Yes I know you believe this, but you haven't provided any evidence. You allude to "facts" that establish that Saudi Arabia as a realistic long-term objective of ISIS. But you refuse to link to these "facts".

Those numbers are interesting but may not be giving your argument what you think they are giving it.

I don't think you grasped my argument, For example your say this:

Third, you look at those numbers coming from Europe and are heartened by believing that indicates some limited appeal among extremist in the Middle East

I don't think I said that. What I said was that ISIS's message seems to have as much or more resonance amongst Muslims in the West as those in the immediate vicinity of the IS. So Baghdad-Al might be trying to gin up more recruits in the West with his the flamboyant threats that he can't back up. I see it as propaganda, just like all those leftist insurgents who branded themselves as "Peoples Liberation Movements" but who then set up dictatorships if they won.

First, I realize you see ISIL as a state

I think their goal is to set up an Islamic State, which, I submit, is why they call themselves a state. In contrast AQ was not a state nor did OBL plan to rule one. OBL was from a famous family and was widely known to not have the credentials to be Caliph.

It's too late to just close your eyes and hope them away. They're coming unless we stop them over there.

This is a statement of personal opinion for which you have provided no evidence. Did you think this way about the international Communist conspiracy?

I suspect its the religious nature of their movement that has you thrown for a loop. I think your fears of ISIS come in part from a prejudice against religious fundamentalists that asserts anyone who believes stuff like the Earth is 6000 years old cannot not be a rational person.

My sense of Islamists is that they are extremely conservative and believe that the Muslim world has to return to its roots in order to establish the just society. I believe ISIS is concerned with the situation for the Arab nation in Mesopotamia and the Levant. I use the term "nation" to refer to a people who have either had a state of their own historically or believe that are entitled to one, as Kurds believe.

I think Baghdad -Al wants to re-establish a Sunni Arab state in as much of the region as he can get his hands on. Iraq has an extremely weak government and so he has seized a chunk of Iraq. Majority-Sunni Arab Syria is currently in a civil war, which has greatly weakened the central government and ISIS has a chuck of Syria. Lebanon is a perennially weak state, and I suspect Baghdad-Al thinks he can get some of Lebanon too. Baghdad-Al has not tried to hide these plans, he explicitly referred to his Islamic State as being of Syria, Iraq and the Levant.

This statement and the fact of very weak governments in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon make sit entirely possible that ISIS may be able to assemble chunks of Iraq, Syria and perhaps the Levant into single Sunni-Arab state under the rule of religious law. As long as he stays in this region he faces no powerful opposition on the ground (unless the US sends in troops). I do not see how ISIS can be defeated militarily in the absence of a ground force more powerful than they. That is, a powerful force large enough to hold Sunni-Arab regions where they do not have legitimacy. Such a would have to be very large. Shinseki estimated 300,000 would be needed occupy the country and he was low-balling it.

No amount of US air support can give the Iraqi army the legitimacy they need to hold any Sunni-occupied territory they may capture from ISIS. The same goes for the Peshmerga. They can hold Kurdish territory, but not Arab territory captured from ISIS. Similarly Assad cannot hold territory held by ISIS either. So there is a standoff.

ISIS cannot really break out of there area because they also cannot hold territory occupied by large populations with whom they lack legitimacy. Shia-occupied areas would develop Shia jihadist insurgents who are just as monstrous as ISIS. Remember the guys who pounded nails into people's skulls? And the nail pounders will get Iranian support.

I point to the fact that ISIS has been careful to not go into Turkey as evidence that Baghdad-Al doesn't want to the fight the Turks. It's kind of hard to get to Rome without going through Turkey, so I simply don't take threats on Rome seriously.

So what do you fear is going to make ISIS able to defeat Turkey in the future? Explain how Arab extremists are going to establish control over 65 million Turks.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think Baghdad -Al wants to re-establish a Sunni Arab state in as much of the region as he can get his hands on.

So where does that stop?

ISIS cannot really break out of there area because they also cannot hold territory occupied by large populations with whom they lack legitimacy. Shia-occupied areas would develop Shia jihadist insurgents who are just as monstrous as ISIS. Remember the guys who pounded nails into people's skulls? And the nail pounders will get Iranian support.

I point to the fact that ISIS has been careful to not go into Turkey as evidence that Baghdad-Al doesn't want to the fight the Turks. It's kind of hard to get to Rome without going through Turkey, so I simply don't take threats on Rome seriously.

So what do you fear is going to make ISIS able to defeat Turkey in the future? Explain how Arab extremists are going to establish control over 65 million Turks.

I don't think they can. But they can try, and carry out terror attacks.

One map I saw in your link before included parts of Turkey in the proposed Islamic State.

It is fantasy to believe that this mess can be "cleaned up" without sending in US troops.

It may be. But the armies and militias of Free Syria, the Sunni tribes, the Kurds and the Iraqis deserve our support. These groups together are greater than ISIS. I think the IS can still be rolled back. I think now, that in 2017 some sort of peace settlement will come to the region, after some major fighting in late 2015 and early 2016.

Another major war will start at the end of 2020, but it may not be a Middle East war. I'm still studying this.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

First of all, this is anti-Alawite blood libel, being served up by the "ISIS Lite" Wahhabis and their ilk;

"This" is a fight for freedom by the Syrian people against a monstrous dictator who attacked them.

and second, even if it were true, what does this have to do with Assad's degree of devoutness as a Muslim? If Assad was 1/10th of a standard deviation less of a Muslim, he would be an out-and-out atheist - and indeed, the Ba'ath Party his father founded was atheist.

It doesn't matter what his beliefs are. It only matters what he does.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So where does that stop?

As soon as he reaches the point where he has to hold territory where he lacks allies on the ground. For example he can hold Anbar, because as long as he is successful he will have sufficient support amongst local leaders to do this. He cannot hold Baghdad, he does not have the troops to keep a lid on a population that large.

He also cannot engage one of the intact states, his forces will get crushed. He cannot go into Turkey for example. I even support US assistance in the effort of an ISIS invasion of Jordan. ISIS won't go into either of these countries. He has plenty of folks to fight in Syria and Northern Iraq, he doesn't need to go into one of the intact countries. Now that he has the US bombing him he has an excuse for the failure of IS to meet the requirements of a state, and he will lose the support of local Sunni leaders more slowly than he would otherwise.

But the armies and militias of Free Syria, the Sunni tribes, the Kurds and the Iraqis deserve our support. These groups together are greater than ISIS.

When ISIS took Mosul it was with 800 fighters against 30000 Iraqi regulars. ISIS won. Numerical advantage does not help when you can lose with a 40-:1 numerical superiority.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Just because ISIS has killed a couple of American journalists does not mean they are a threat to the US.

I never said that the beheadings alone were sufficient cause for intervention - quit making straw men, you hypocrite!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is ludicrous. What role can America play in Turkeys domestic politics that the people of Turkey cannot do?

History is filled with examples of external influences on internal matters; it is ludicrous for anyone who has indicated to have spent as much time as you studying history to assert otherwise.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The one doing lumping here is you with your lumping of Turks with Arabs, when you stated that Turkey cannot oppose ISIS more forcefully because they fear internal unrest. Turkish Sunnis do not seem to support ISIS in any numbers (recruiting from Turkey is very low) probably because ISIS is an Arab movement.

Your lumping was intended to show that all the players were no different than ISIL in wanting to establish a regional if not global caliphate. That is ludicrous for that is exactly what makes ISIL different. My lumping Sunni militants in various countries is about each setting off civil wars - being encouraged by ISIL but not necessarily joining them in some regional/global calling for a caliphate. If you can't grasp the difference perhaps you should stick with chemicals.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

By YOUR definition. You have still not providing any support for this assertion beside your own opinion.

I still can't figure out how you can accept the fact that ISIL has stated their objectives of "Rome" and "Spain" and have called on ALL true Muslims to join them in a caliphate, and still decide that somehow leaves out Saudi Arabia. Do all those moving vans bringing millions of Muslims from all over the world have to skirt around Saudi Arabia on their way to reach their new hovels somewhere in shithole eastern Syria?

Stubbornness can get weirdly illogical.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So? I never said ISIS needed the US to be created. And they don't need the US to expand. They need the US for the time when their expansion becomes bogged down. They are running out conquests where they can rely on allied locals to hold the territory after they conquer it. Just because they are fanatics and they scare you doesn't mean they are not subject to logistical constraints just as any other army.

I think you need to re-read your posts starting with 'ISIS needing the US just to keep everyone on the same page.'

You also need to read the news starting back at the beginning of the year. Without the US, they have grabbed almost all the territory that they presently have. Where they have now been stymied or rolled back of late has ONLY been with US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they would not have captured Kobani by now without US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they would have lost the Mosul Dam without US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they wouldn't now have Anbar completely in their control without US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they would not now be pressing the overthrow of Baghdad or Erbil without US involvement. I don't think that even you would believe their ability to finance their wars with $2M/day in oil revenue and with donations from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar would have somehow magically disappeared without US involvement.

Go ahead and whine "straw man" all you want. However, if you really believe that they would not be much farther along in both Iraq and Syria right now and posing a broader regional threat except for US involvement, then I think most would conclude your new found non-interventionism is based on losing a fundamental grasp on reality.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

As soon as he reaches the point where he has to hold territory where he lacks allies on the ground. For example he can hold Anbar, because as long as he is successful he will have sufficient support amongst local leaders to do this. He cannot hold Baghdad, he does not have the troops to keep a lid on a population that large.

But their intentions are greater than that, which means they will continue to attack, with armies or suicide bombers, just as they are doing in Baghdad. So, the people there, with our help, need to fight back and stop them.

He also cannot engage one of the intact states, his forces will get crushed. He cannot go into Turkey for example. I even support US assistance in the effort of an ISIS invasion of Jordan. ISIS won't go into either of these countries. He has plenty of folks to fight in Syria and Northern Iraq, he doesn't need to go into one of the intact countries. Now that he has the US bombing him he has an excuse for the failure of IS to meet the requirements of a state, and he will lose the support of local Sunni leaders more slowly than he would otherwise.

That's possible. It's also possible that air strikes and material support will help these groups who are fighting the IS. I just think Obama needs to act sooner to support the Free Syrians in the fight against both the IS and Assad. He has been reluctant all along, and he is still too slow. He needs to get going on this right away. Otherwise the free Syrians will not fight the IS, and their people there will lose what little faith they still have in The West to help them.

When ISIS took Mosul it was with 800 fighters against 30000 Iraqi regulars. ISIS won. Numerical advantage does not help when you can lose with a 40-:1 numerical superiority.

The hope is that with a new government, more representative, that the Iraqi soldiers will put up a better fight. But it's true, we depend on them and the other groups fighting against the IS. If we don't, then the Iraqis live with constant terror and attack. There is no peace in the Iraqis giving up the fight against the IS, or in we not supporting the Iraqis against the IS. We are trapped. We need to support all the opposition groups and countries I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"This" is a fight for freedom by the Syrian people against a monstrous dictator who attacked them.

It doesn't matter what his beliefs are. It only matters what he does.

Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator. Does that mean that we did the right thing to invade Iraq and topple him?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator. Does that mean that we did the right thing to invade Iraq and topple him?

Even if it was the 'right thing' to do, it turned out badly. I was never in favor of the invasion, but the outcome has been worse than I expected.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator. Does that mean that we did the right thing to invade Iraq and topple him?

No, it was not. That, however, has nothing to do with the current need for the US to contain ISIL.

Those who think it does have just gotten too tired to think.

Originally Posted by radind

Even if it was the 'right thing' to do, it turned out badly. I was never in favor of the invasion, but the outcome has been worse than I expected.

Yes, ISIS is an example that illustrates The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I never said that the beheadings alone were sufficient cause for intervention

I did not mean to imply that you said this. It was this act that led to the increased US involvement. Before this the US action had been restricted to Iraq. What I opposed is extension into Syria. I know it is necessary to deny ISIS a safe haven in Syria if they are to be destroyed. But that is my whole point. I don't WANT the US to destroy ISIS. I want the local powers to have to deal with ISIS, and America.

Your lumping was intended to show that all the players were no different than ISIL in wanting to establish a regional if not global caliphate.

No. My lumping was to show that people once thought that these Shia Islamists were part of a larger movement, just as they once thought there was an international Communist conspiracy. Now people like you are doing the same thing with ISIS.

It is true that Communists talked about exporting Marxist revolution just as the Shia talked about exporting their Islamic revolution. And ISIS talks about doing the same. But there is a difference between talk and reality. Just because someone says he will do something does not mean he can do it. I can say I intend to work out to get super buff all I want, that doesn't mean it is going to happen.

My lumping Sunni militants in various countries is about each setting off civil wars - being encouraged by ISIL but not necessarily joining them in some regional/global calling for a caliphate.

You implied that Turkey wants to strike at ISIS, but refrains from doing so out of fear of an ISIS inspired civil war with Islamists. You know that the real civil war threat Turkey faces is not from ISIS admirers, but from the Kurds, who ISIS is fighting. Turkey doesn't strike at ISIS because they don't WANT to. As long as ISIS is killing Kurds, they are doing Turkey's dirty work for them.

I still can't figure out how you can accept the fact that ISIL has stated their objectives of "Rome" and "Spain" and have called on ALL true Muslims to join them in a caliphate, and still decide that somehow leaves out Saudi Arabia.

You made an assertion w/o providing any evidence. I can provide evidence that shows OBL was concerned events in Saudi Arabia rather than in Lebanon as you posited. You have provided no evidence showing that ISIS has designs on Saudi Arabia. Do so.

Do all those moving vans bringing millions of Muslims from all over the world have to skirt around Saudi Arabia on their way to reach their new hovels somewhere in shithole eastern Syria?

Above you said that your concern about "Sunni militants in various countries is about each setting off civil wars - being encouraged by ISIL but not necessarily joining them in some regional/global calling for a caliphate." If their threat is not from joining ISIS, then what need is there for moving vans?

I think you need to re-read your posts starting with 'ISIS needing the US just to keep everyone on the same page.'

Yes. That was a reference to keeping ISIS from falling apart after the easy conquests are over. They aren't quite finished with them, and now that the US is involved, they will be making conquests and losing them for a long time, which will serve to keep people in the IS focused on the "American threat" and not on ISIS's corruption. This will help maintain ISIS's legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters for years, until the US gets tired of killing civilians.

I don't think even you would believe that they would not have captured Kobani by now without US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they would have lost the Mosul Dam without US involvement.

The question should be how did ISIS get Mosul in the first place? When your ally has 30000 troops equipped with expensive weaponry you provided and they are defeated by 800 guys with small arms, its time to find a different ally. Iraq cannot cope with ISIS. All the US air support won't make a difference if their guys run away.

The Kurds at least will fight. But the Kurds are a huge problem for us. They want to establish a state by carving out pieces of several countries just as ISIS wants to do. Allying with the Kurds means war with Turkey. That is the end game. So we are not going to ally with the Kurds. We have abandoned them before and we will do so again.

Now there was a possibility for a different solution, which I think was Obama's original plan. The Kurds in Iraq have established an autonomous zone that is essentially a Kurdish state. We could draw a clear distinction between operating in Iraq only. I think Turkey knows the Iraqi Kurds are never going to be part of Iraq again, and so US support of both the Kurds and Iraq inside Iraq should not overly incite Turkish Kurds. We would NOT support the Kurds in Syria, (and that means letting ISIS have Kobani) because that establishes a new precedent. It says the US might support Kurdish efforts to create more autonomous zones in countries other than Iraq, like Iran or Turkey. You yourself brought up the possibility of civil war in Turkey. Such a war would be between the Kurds and the Turks. ISIS might then decide to intervene in Turkey on the side of the government against the Kurds, figuring that would put the US and Turkey on opposite sides. Turkey might have struck at the Kurds in Turkey to discourage any potential Kurdish revolt. Can't you see how I just don't want the US to get in the middle of something like this? It's none of our business.

I don't think even you would believe that they wouldn't now have Anbar completely in their control without US involvement. I don't think even you would believe that they would not now be pressing the overthrow of Baghdad or Erbil without US involvement. I don't think that even you would believe their ability to finance their wars with $2M/day in oil revenue and with donations from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar would have somehow magically disappeared without US involvement.

I have not said the US cannot make an impact on the battlefield. Of course they can. In Vietnam we are said to have won every battle. But we lost the war.

Here is my position boiled down. I think ISIS is not a threat to the US homeland. I also did not think that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US homeland. And I do not think that Iran getting a bomb is a threat to the US homeland.

The Kool-Aid I refer to is believing that any of these threats are real. The arguments you are using to try to make out that ISIS is some sort threat are just silly. It's basically the Bircher idea that there are Commies (Islamists) in the West who follow instructions from Moscow (ISIS).

I did not believe them then and I do not now. Where I differ is Kennan's policy of containment made sense with the USSR because

(1) they had equal military strength with the US; including a nuclear capability that could destroy us
(2) their GDP was #2 in the world and once they had been rapidly growing
(3) they had a seemingly-attractive ideology

Of these ISIS only has #3. But there is a big difference between how the USSR carried itself and how ISIS doesn't. The USSR tried to present an acceptable face to the world. They would cover up their atrocities; ISIS advertises them. Thus ISIS is eroding their one advantage.

They are monstrous and evil, and clearly a regional threat. But they are not a threat to the US homeland. They are not America's responsibility. If you REALLY thought the US needs to defeat ISIS once and for all, then you would support ground troops, like a million of them, so we do the job right this time. But you are not.

It's like the Iraq Chickenhawks. If they REALLY believed that Iraq posed an existential threat to the US they would have enlisted. That they did not, showed that Iraq was no such threat; and they were right, it wasn't.

Dick Cheney made the same choice wrt Vietnam. He says he had better things to do than enlist. If the US has truly faced an existential threat from Vietnam, he would have gone. But it did not, Cheney was right, he DID have better things to do, like get stinking rich and be vice president.

Contrast the chickenhawks and Cheney with young elite men in the Confederacy. The latter DID join up en masse. They saw an existential threat from the Union and they were right to sign up; the Confederacy DID face an existential threat from the Union.

The chickenhawks and Cheney were also right not to sign up; nothing happened to the US after losing both Vietnam and Iraq wars.

Nothing will happen to the US after we lose this war with ISIS either. Americans know this is their guts and that's why they are reluctant to send in troops. They know that fighting another no-win war is simply not worth more American lives; money sure, we are going to blow it on "national defense" anyways.