Posted by Tina
Regarding the rising threat of ISIS, some of us believe there is nothing to be concerned about because our President will continue to avoid war and the terrorists are just “poor boys” who simply want America to go home. I think we owe it to ourselves to expect the worst and plan accordingly. I’d like to see the President turn to new advisers since what he’s doing hasn’t been affective Unfortunately I have little confidence that this administration is capable or interested in changing course.
Prior to the 2012 elections the President announced to the world that al Qaeda was “on the run” a phrase that is now proving to be ludicrous. In fact some experts believe the threat to the world from ISIS could be much greater than the organization headed by Osama bin Laden. A report on the threat posed by ISIS by Walter Russel Mead posted at The American Interest includes information gleaned from experts at the Washington Institute and the Brookings Doha Centre:
“They’re probably the richest jihadi organisation ever seen,” says Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute, and an expert on extremism. “They get their money from trafficking weapons, kidnappings for ransom, counterfeit currencies, oil refining, smuggling artefacts that are thousands of years old and from taxes that they have for areas they are in – either on businesses, or at checkpoints or on ordinary people,” he adds. […]
“Most jihadist groups are tightly controlled, secretive and well co-ordinated, but Isis has essentially taken that to another level, with a quite impressive level of bureaucracy, extensive account keeping, and multiple channels of accountability,” says Charles Lister, an analyst at the Brookings Doha Centre.
While the terror organization is currently occupied with the goal of creating a powerful terror state in the heart of the Middle East for now the number of jihadist that have joined ISIS from Britain and the U.S. is significant and suggest, ultimately, a much greater goal to spread and expand its power through acts of terror. The declining and stagnant economies in nations of the free world make them weak and attractive targets for ambitious, radical schemers. How this plays out is anyone’s guess. It isn’t comforting to know that our leader continues to appear, and indeed be, inept in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike.
Tina, this is the perfect follow up to the previous article. We really are facing a great unknown and we better be prepared for the worst, but I can almost guarantee you we won’t! Obama has his head where the sun don’t shine as usual.
In the immortal words of one of the left’s most favored sons, Leon Trotski, ““You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
“ISIS, some of us believe there is nothing to be concerned about because our President will continue to avoid war and the terrorists are just “poor boys” who simply want America to go home.”
Fer heaven’s sake, Tina. ISIS has said very plainly what it’s aims are. NOBODY is denying they are problematic.
What we’re looking for is the most EFFECTIVE was to deal with them, and I cannot believe that the chief lesson of the last 40 years of warfare does not seem to have taken hold in your little brain.
No conventional force can deal effectively with guerillas … with terrorists. So we have been running (not all that successful) counter-insurgencies. We have been lopping heads off hydras with our little drones.
But the only thing … the only thing … that will irradicate ISIS is a population that flatly refuses to live under their administration.
Just now, as near as we can tell, over the last six months, the Baathists in the north have been working with ISIS with the aim of taking the country back.
Neither Iran nor Syria are thrilled about this, and you have yet to tell me a good reason why we shouldn’t let them all thrash it out.
When the thrashing is done, we can then see what needs doing about the end product.
(And … you have admitted that you want to go back to war … so I’d better not hear any more denials on that subject.)
Libby, I’m sure Tina will get back to you on this…but, you said, “Neither Iran nor Syria are thrilled about this, and you have yet to tell me a good reason why we shouldn’t let them all thrash it out. When the thrashing is done, we can then see what needs doing about the end product. (And … you have admitted that you want to go back to war … so I’d better not hear any more denials on that subject.)” But, until she does I don’t think I ever heard Tina say she wants us to go back to war? Please show me where she says that.
Next, Iraq is done. Whatever it was, it is no more, and no amount of spilt blood is going to turn back the clock or fix it. What we have at best is three countries now and probably just two by the time Isis and the Sunnis are done. The Sunni forces have the money, the manpower, the materials, the will and the leadership, plus they have radical ISIS forces. The Shiites have Iran – Shiites lose. Who wants to get in the middle of this? No me! I feel sorry for the 300 Special Forces soldiers sent to Iraq to advise this corrupt regime. If we start bombing them, we’re only going to make tick off millions of Sunnis around the world and creating more radicals. We need to let them sort it out and deal with what’s left, so I guess we agree then?
You know why else you should remove temptation from my path and retire? I’m getting a really big head over my success ratio. I mean, I read:
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
And I think: “nobody with the brains god give a turtle would put anything that nonsensical into print.” “War” is not sentient and therefore not interested in anything. (How come you didn’t think that? It’s those ideological blinders again. Whatever Trotsky was, he wasn’t a dummy, and you should be able to own that.)
A mis-translation, perhaps … serving some political agenda? And sure enough, from Wiki:
Misattributed … This was attributed to Trotsky in an epigraph in Night Soldiers: A Novel (1988) by Alan Furst but it may actually be a revision of a statement earlier attributed to Trotsky: “You may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you.” Only a very loose translation of “the dialectic” would produce “war.”
And you all have unthinkingly taken it up. Quit doing that!
“… because our President will continue to avoid war ….”
And then she says this is a course that should be changed. And I’m getting right sick of you all dancing around this. Say what you mean.
Libby: “What we’re looking for is the most EFFECTIVE was to deal with them…”
Interesting how you include yourself, now.
An effective way to deal with “them” has been executed and resulted in a stable region that required “effective” management and continued strength and resolve.
“We” got neither. We got a smug, self-agrandizing dreamer who discredited, scorned, and finally dismissed the former President and eschewed the wisdom he might have gained had he taken a different approach…which is one of the major reasons why we are here now.
“…the chief lesson of the last 40 years of warfare does not seem to have taken hold in your little brain. – blah, blah, blah – We have been lopping heads off hydras with our little drones.”
Why the scorn lobbed at me? In fact why are you taking this up with me? I had nothing to do with this strategy!
“that will irradicate ISIS is a population that flatly refuses to live under their administration.”
No kiddin’!
“…and you have yet to tell me a good reason why we shouldn’t let them all thrash it out.”
I didn’t realize it was my job to tell you anything. When did you hire me…and how much do I get paid?
How many times do I have to repeat that this is a discussion forum. None of us is the boss.
“you have admitted that you want to go back to war”
Sorry, I have written no such thing! (If you can produce date and exact words I will responded …I imagine this is another of your presumptions based on what you think I think after consulting the caricature in your head).
I said. “…some of us believe there is nothing to be concerned about because our President will continue to avoid war…”
Please make sure you read what I actually wrote!
I also wrote, “I’d like to see the President turn to new advisers since what he’s doing hasn’t been affective. Unfortunately I have little confidence that this administration is capable or interested in changing course.”
Changing course does not refer to war, or drone strikes, or any other specific strategy but to those from whom he seeks advice and council…the ones he relies on have not done a good job. (Remember how angry the left was when it seemed Bush would not change?)
I also concluded: “It isn’t comforting to know that our leader continues to appear, and indeed be, inept in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike.
He has a lot of work to do before he is even taken seriously on the world stage much less being able to launch a plan.
He is the lamest of ducks on the world stage…and Kerry is not helping.
Jack I am angry that our nation has let this happen so I guess that anger bleeds into my posts about the conditions we now face but generally I’m with you. I fell really bad for the Special Forces, I feel bad for anyone in the military now, and I feel incredibly bad for the men and women who bled and died to eradicate terrorists and establish a stable Iraq that if supported and managed diplomatically over several decades could have supported those who honestly want to bring an end to the barbarism in the region and join the rest of us in this century.
I also feel for the next President who will inherit this mess and the mess at home.
I just spoke with Nick (ex-special forces) and he said if Iraqi’s had been getting oil revenue checks like the Alaskan natives do it might have helped solve a lot of problems.
“An effective way to deal with “them” has been executed and resulted in a stable region ….”
And that was? My understanding is that Maliki’s unwillingness to include Sunni and Kurds in the government has created the instablity and discontent upon which ISIS is preying.
We’ve already covered how Maliki has come to be where he is. What was Obama supposed to do about this, exactly?
“I also wrote, “I’d like to see the President turn to new advisers since what he’s doing hasn’t been affective.”
And what would these new advisors propose, exactly?
Come on, Tina, the remedy for this ineptitute? Tell us.
“We need to let them sort it out and deal with what’s left, so I guess we agree then?”
We do!
I’m not saying that a little nudge here and there might not be effective, and I’m not saying we might not eventually, on down the road, have to take a hand.
But to wade into this sectarian thing is pointless. They’ll leave off it when they are sufficiently bloodied, and not before.
Remember when the Soviet Union took its big boot off the satelites. Mayhem. But they did settle down, eventually. Saddam had a big boot, and we removed it. That may not have been the best thing.
Libby: “Fer heaven’s sake, Tina. ISIS has said very plainly what it’s aims are. NOBODY is denying they are problematic.”
I’d say someone forgot to send Obama the memo or email telling him there was a problem just last January.
Oh, I forgot he doesn’t attend most of his security council meetings. He prefers to read the summaries alone.
Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence: They’re JV:
“In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior varsity basketball players, downplaying their threat as small-league. He also shared what he thought were the chances of reaching Middle East peace agreements.
New Yorker editor David Remnick pointed out to the president that the Al Qaeda flag is now seen flying in Falluja in Iraq and in certain locations in Syria, and thus the terrorist group has not been “decimated” as Obama had said during his 2012 reelection campaign.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama told Remnick. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
Remnick characterized Obama’s analogy as “uncharacteristically flip.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/obama-dismisses-al-qaeda-resurgence-theyre-jv/
(Tried to post the New Yorker article but kept getting an error message.)
I guess Obama didn’t get the email on the leader of ISIS either. Now, he’s a Varsity player who’s making bin Laden look like a JV player.
No problem here either, move along.
ISIS Leader: ‘I’ll See You in New York’:
“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, spent four years in U.S. custody in Iraq.”
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/isis-leader-ill-york-24149915
“ISIS Leader: ‘I’ll See You in New York’”
Peggy, are you actually taking this seriously? Don’t be craven. It’s dangerous to the people around you. If we ever see Baghdadi in Manhattan, he’ll be in shackles. You really gotta try and be rational about this.
“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, spent four years in U.S. custody in Iraq.”
Well, we’re just reaping what we’ve sown, then, aren’t we? You do remember Abu Ghraib (and it was just the facility that made the papers)? That was some dumb-ass policy, that was.
“You do remember Abu Ghraib (and it was just the facility that made the papers)? That was some dumb-ass policy, that was.” Libby
Libby, Abu Ghraib was not a US policy! Why would you even say that? Policy is a national objective, it is a broad course of action adopted by a federal government in pursuit of its objectives. Are you telling me we adopted a national POLICY to place naked prisoners in a pyramid for a photo-op by a stupid female private and her stupid sergeant boyfriend?
What Abu Ghraib really was…was a predictable failure in supervision by a female commander who didn’t know her butt from a hole in the ground.
She was placed in charge of a prison facility with no corrections background, no training, and by a superior officer who made a stupid judgment call, not a US policy. It was later made apparent that she was incompetent when several low level enlisted personnel took it upon themselves to and humiliate prisoners for their personal entertainment.
The offenders were charged and convicted, and throughout this embarrassing ordeal policy was not the issue, although some in the media tried make sound like George Bush personally ordered this stuff. The female office in charge was removed and her career came to an end, policy had nothing to do with her either! Case closed.
Tina … what does this phrase mean?
“and it was just the facility that made the papers”
Do you really not remember how it was? We got caught at the systematic brutalization of prisoners, mostly Sunnis, at facilities all over the country. Some of it was just looking the other way, while the locals brutalized each other … and it was only one of the shameful pages in that book constituting our occupation.
And then, of course, there’s Gitmo … that great winner of hearts and minds.
How can you deny any of this?
Jack …
Get onto the Fresh Air website and listen to Dexter Filkins from yesterday. He’s been covering Iraq since the year one. It’s worth a listen.
He finds fault with our current administration, and he’s got me thinking about it. It’s wild how things hit you differently. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. The Japanese would rather we weren’t, but I’ve never given it a thought.
So, I suppose, we could do 60 years in Iraq, if we were so inclined. The Japanese never got into IEDs though. This is an issue.
And now I’m all confused. But I’m still thinking that the long view is the best. Iran is, we hear, already substantially into the situation. So we’ll let Iran deal with ISIS, and then we’ll deal with Iran.
I think this is a plan. Whadda you think?
Jack I think we need to screech this:
Abu Ghraib was not a US policy!
In fact abu Graib was being investigated long before it hit the papers and became a big story undermining our nations efforts. It became a big story because of the activist SCREECHING delivered by PARTISAN ACTIVISTS who put their political ambitions above the lives of our soldiers and allies fighting in harms way just to deliver a big black eye to Bush (Who had NOTHING to do with it)
Slime is the kindest thing I can think to say about those who imagine that our nation would do such things by policy.
This is the dark disloyal (Marx inspired) underbelly of the left that has been slowly working to discredit our nation and our nations values. It started in Viet Nam and it is complete and utter crap.
And Libby it was you at #14 who wrote, “…(and it was just the facility that made the papers)”
How about you tell us what it means!
As far as I’m concerned Gitmo was out in the open and a much better solution than the current method of blowing them to Smithereens or keeping them sequestered on ships in the ocean indefinitely while we covertly interrogate them by who knows what means.
Pie is right, you people think your doo doo don’t have an odor…the air of superiority is about as effective as those sweet air freshners.