3 Reasons to NOT Fight ISIS
President Obama has effectively declared war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, announcing that "we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIS through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy."
But here are three reasons we should not be fighting ISIS in the Middle East.
1. ISIS isn't that powerful.
War hawks such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) claim that "the threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated." That is itself an overstatement. The FBI and Homeland Security both say ISIS isn't a credible threat to the American homeland. The group may be great at using social media to exaggerate its power, but estimates of its troop strength range between 10,000 and 30,000 and most analysts talk about a core group of a few thousand fighters.
2. It's a regional conflict.
ISIS controls territory inside Iraq and Syria. But even President Obama concedes that ISIS does not currently pose a threat "beyond that region."
Iraq and Syria—and their neighbors, including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Kurds—are the ones that must deal with this problem. Iraq's army has more than one-quarter of a million U.S.-trained troops, the Peshmerga almost as many. Iran's active forces number over half a million.
3. What counts as victory?
In announcing bombing runs and sending more American soliders to the Middle East, President Obama not only failed to call for congressional authorization, he neglected to discuss any sort of exit strategy. That's a prerequisite for any responsible war plan. As important, his definition of success—we will "ultimately destroy" ISIS—is a goal nobody has ever achieved against any terrorist group.
Let's be clear: The U.S. should do everything it can to defend its citizens and its interests.
But if the past dozen years have taught us anything—in Iraq and elsehwere—it's that war is more complicated than our leaders ever want to admit. And it's a lot easier to start wars than to win them—or even know when they're over.
About 2 minutes.
Written by Nick Gillespie and produced by Meredith Bragg. Camera by Todd Krainin and Amanda Winkler.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic notifications when new videos go online.
Related reading: "Ending Evil vs. Defending the Country," by Jacob Sullum.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When (and if) ISIS is destroyed will there not arise just another group to fill the void? Isn't ISIS merely filling the void left by the impotent government in Baghdad?
Yes. They're just carrying out the mass executions of Shi'ites and beheadings of western journalists that those layabouts in Baghdad have failed to.
Correct.
As was the case with communists in Korea and Vietnam, if the US federal government just kills enough of the wahabists, it will wipe out the ideological movement.
" Isn't ISIS merely filling the void left by the impotent Saddam's brutal, repressive Secularist-Stalinist-Sunni police-state government in Baghdad?
yes.... well no.
Everyone points out that the region that ISIS 'Occupies' is all flat, featureless, mostly-oil-less desert regions that were formerly run by Sunni supporters of Saddams regime.
ie. these regions were never under the thumb of the new Shia regime. No one from these regions want to fight ISIS, and the Shiite Iraqi army has no iterest fighting ISIS to 'liberate' regions that would just as soon see the army lose.
ODIN?
Operation Disintegrate Islamist Nutjobs?
I thought it was
Operation: THOR
= Terrorist-Haven Organizational Relocation
i.e. kick their ass back to Syria where they were supposed to be
Pretty sure he meant the org from Archer (one of those new fangled 'cable television shows' the young people talk about Gilmore)
Then there's Tactical Helicopter Offensive Response
I blame Len Trexler, and that Barry guy. Other Barry too.
Sure. I'm not sure we should give a damn, so long as it's not someone who's made it a matter of national policy to kill as many Americans as it can get its hands on.
"Let's be clear: The U.S. should do everything it can to defend its citizens and its interests." [Emphasis mine].
The notion of these "interests" is not very well defined, and as a result can be quite dangerous. It can easily be used to justify attacks on nearly anything, since "interests" can be interpreted as "not what 'we' want", whoever "we" is those deciding on attacking.
Because "intervention" is such a clearly-defined word, by contrast?
As i've noted before - the US 5th fleet stays in the Gulf for reasons other than 'shits and giggles'.
You seem to have a thing for the 5th Fleet?
have you bothered to take note of their reason-for-being?
"The notion of these "interests" is not very well defined, and as a result can be quite dangerous."
Yeah, they can be broadly defined, but it's still a limiting principle--rather than an enabling one.
Whenever you're first considering a new intervention, you're always starting from a position of non-intervention. We're not doing anything, but we should because...
If you have to at least get past the idea that it needs to be in the interests of the United States to intervene, you've ruled out a number of our past interventions.
To liberate the Iraqis, for instance, is an insufficient justification for spending between $1 trillion and $2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money, losing the lives of 4,500 U.S. troops, and suffering some 32,000 U.S. casualties. If you want to justify losses like that, you at least have to talk about it in terms of how that benefited the U.S.
Don't try to justify that by telling me what it did for the Iraqis.
Likewise, if they want to go to war with ISIS, tell me about what U.S. interests are served by this. I'm willing to go real broad when I listen to that! Whatever U.S. interests they think are being served by going to war with ISIS, I want to hear about that--at the very least.
Is it because they want ISIS to stop cutting the heads off of journalists?
Do they imagine that ISIS is a security threat to the United States? If so, how so?
If U.S. interests are being served by a war, then there's a case to be made for going to war--and Congress should consider war.
Hell, I'm even willing to concede that if it's not in the interests of the United States to go to war after being attacked*, we should refrain from going to war--for the same reason. ...we should only go to war when it's in our interests to do so.
*Going to war in Lebanon in 1982, for instance, was not in America's interests--even though we were attacked.
"tell me about what U.S. interests are served by this"
The same interests who pocketed over $US 1 trillion of taxpayer money during the last Mesopotamian dustup.
Sure, mtrue. It's all the fault of Those Corporations, and not the people who supported that "last Mesopotamian dustup" at ~90% approval ratings. Whatever you say.
"It's all the fault of Those Corporations"
Who said anything about fault or corporations? Ken Shultz asked whose interests were served. By pointing out the enormous costs involved, he should have realized the enormous benefits the US taxpayers are willing to bestow on those clever enough to take advantage of their generosity.
No, it's not "the fault" of Those Corporations, it is merely "their interest".
It is the fault of politicians who succumb to the lobbying of those corporations, and the voters who vote for those politicians. And to change the mind of those voters, we need to point out whose interests the politicians they vote for actually serve.
Was that too hard for you to understand?
"No, it's not "the fault" of Those Corporations, it is merely "their interest"."
What corporations?
"we need to point out whose interests the politicians they vote for actually serve."
Point away, don't let me stop you.
Wasn't one of those interests (24-yrs ago) the 'free flow of oil at market price'?
And, isn't another the preservation of a free and democratic society in Israel?
Those are legitimate interests.
Our relationship with Israel is in no small part a relic of the Cold War--some of the things we did during the Cold War were driven by interests that aren't really relevant anymore. There was an excellent argument for paying Egypt to switch sides back then, too. Before the U.S. was Egypt's largest foreign donor, that honor belonged to the USSR.
Whatever we do, the very lowest threshold should be that it seems to be in our interests--given the information and perspective we have at the time.
Some of the things we did back then really weren't in our best interests--surely we should avoid doing those things, and I'll always argue against it when it seems that way to me.
"AD-RtR/OS!|9.12.14 @ 9:47PM|#
Wasn't one of those interests (24-yrs ago) the 'free flow of oil at market price'?"
hence the reference to the 5th fleet.
Was it in Saddam's interest to invade Kuwait? Hitler's to conquer Europe?
Our interests can include a whole host of evil shit. While I believe that every war we engage in should be in our interests, That's just a meager beginning of the justification.
How about it must be necessary for our security, as in actual, genuine threats to the well being of our country, not just a couple of our citizens who voluntarily went to a volatile area knowing the risks.
No, I think Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was not in his interests. Big mistake he made there!
Hitler may have gotten away with what he did in Western Europe--had he not made the mistake of invading Eastern Europe.
Generally speaking, peace serves a capitalist economy better than war. Surely, even if it were possible for us to invade China, take it over, etc., we'd be better off just continuing our trade relationship with them, wouldn't we?
Please understand what I'm saying. If it servers the interests of the United States, that is the least, very lowest, hurdle it should cross--and some of our recent excursions haven't cleared that lowest of of hurdles.
It was not in the interests of the United States to invade Iraq in 2003.
All the reasons not to invade in 1991 were still valid in 2003--including the risk of effectively ceding the region to Iran's influence. If we'd followed out interests, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out why battling ISIS is in our interests. And I'm coming up blank. If we simply followed this very lowest of limiting principles, would we be battling ISIS right now?
I don't think so.
The interests of political elites are not identical to those of the people.
It wasn't in the US citizenry's interest to engage in WW1 or WW2, either, but FDR and Wilson had compelling reasons to advocate war.
*Hitler may have gotten away with what he did in Western Europe--had he not made the mistake of invading Eastern Europe*
Hitler's armies went East before he invaded Western Europe. It was Britain's idiotic insistence of guaranteeing Polish sovereignty that turned the war into a European-wide affair and later a world-wide affair.
Same with Saddam. Had the US given clear signals that it would have not stood for an invasion of Kuwait, none of us would be discussing any of this today and Saddam would be getting ready to turn over power to Uday or Qusay.
Remember, it not being in the best interests of the United States was why we didn't invade Iraq in 1991. It really is a limiting principle! The reason we invaded in 2003 was becasue we ignored that principle. Remember when Dubya's war wasn't really about the WMDs and it wasn't really about Saddam's al Qaeda ties (both of which turned out to be bogus). No, it was to bring that contagious democracy thingy to the people of Iraq!
How dare a crass libertarian bastard such as myself wish to deny them the benefit of American style democracy? If you want to make the argument that inflicting democracy is in American security interests, that's the argument I want to hear--doesn't mean I'll buy it!
You could make the argument that stopping ISIS from lobbing the heads off of journalists is in America's interests, too--not matter the casualties or cost! Doesn't mean I'm going to buy that argument--but that's the argument that needs to be made.
So Obama finds Iraq and Syria interesting! What's wrong with that?
If fighting ISIS consisted simply of going in, killing a bunch of sadistic zealots, and then going home, then I'd be all for it.
But we all know what will happen. We'll send in troops to conquer territory. We'll set up a makeshift government which will then be subjected to attacks by residents who view us as foreign occupiers. The weak new government will be unable to govern. We'll leave them on their own, and a new insurgency will rise up.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
"We'll set up a makeshift government "
We already did that part.
But this time it will be Obama doing it!
The Good Tsar.
Now we get to do it in Syria.
And I'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so-on, and so-on...
This would all be cheaper and easier if we took the gloves off and brutally slaughtered our opponents. Collecting tribute for our trouble would help too.
That worked great for Germany.
It would have worked fine for Germany had Hitler not declared war on the USA.
Ass-u-me-ing that the chief role of the fedgov is to defend American citizens, how about if the military limits its operations to capturing or killing the the men who murdered American journalists and rescuing any other Americans who happen to be held by Islamists, then sending our boys home?
And while we're dreaming, maybe we can admit that maintaining the imaginary borders of the imaginary state of Iraq is far more costly in treasure and lives than just allowing the balkanized disaster of a nation to fragment politically.
" how about if the military limits its operations to capturing or killing the the men who murdered American journalists"
'We'll only bomb the ones wearing the ninja masks'?
We might need a special 'discriminatory' bomb for that job.
I was thinking that the SEALs do what they're trained to do while the other tens of thousands of military stay home.
I admit that this is an irrational proposition compared to launching a $1T invasion that costs hundreds of thousands of lives, but there you have it.
Point being, if it were not already clear, that dropping bombs--even Goldwater- and cosmo-beloved MOABs aimed for Soviet men's rooms--is not how you correct problems of criminal behavior.
But I wish you well in your crusade. Let me know if you need extra funding for your body armor when you're over there risking your life.
Who are you talking to? "crusade"?
You first postulated that the military do something near impossible, then pretend that some saying, "Thats impossible" was a making a proposal for something even sillier?
Presumably you were already in your weekend when you engaged, but my suggestion is obviously a massive downscaling of military action limited to killing small groups of people. Why you would think otherwise is bizarre, but I've come to expect the bizarre from Reasonoids and other assorted toughtalkers.
"a massive downscaling of military action limited to killing small groups of people. Why you would think otherwise is bizarre"
No, its that you don't seem to understand the requirements for doing 'what YOU want'.
Discriminating, tracking down individuals and ensuring 'only they' are harmed requires MORE resources and effort than what we're doing, which is 'airstrike from afar', which by definition is indisciminate.
Your entire concept is a contradiction.
" I've come to expect the bizarre from Reasonoids and other assorted toughtalkers."
Right.
You don't make any sense, then accuse people who point this out to you as being "toughtalking warmongers" or something? Classy.
Put the stupid pills down and walk away. I'll spell this out to you, then give you a break for a week while you get your shit together, relearn how to read and stop acting like a psycho out of the blue:
Doing a little something is easier than doing a big something.
Not necessarily. The detailing work for sculptures is almost always far more difficult than the basic form, even though the latter requires more material than the former. Why? Because the technique for basic form does not scale to detailing, and therefore a different process is required. In the case of what you've suggested, you'd need to be able to investigate the whereabouts of the individuals in question, which would likely require pacifying regions with large amounts of ISIS soldiers and finding a way to obtain information from them. The amounts of intelligence required would be enormous, and the logistics for a detailed investigative inquiry would require a friendly base of operations for the years that it would take to track these individuals down. It would likely take less time (and involve more easily obtainable resources) to destroy ISIS' conventional capabilities and collapse their state, than it would to track down these persons.
You're reading too much into the statement. If the government has a legitimate purpose at all (and you know I believe it doesn't), it should dedicate its resources to killing or capturing the murderers who killed American innocents, not sticking its nose in another ME hornet's nest. This is the only compelling interest for American citizens to spend their tax treasure half the world away.
Destroying ISIL is a political goal and is irrelevant to the families of the Americans who were killed. I won't say that I don't care if ISIL continues to wreak havok in the region--no one wants to see innocents suffer, not in the ME and not in North Korea--but it's not the federal government's business to blow our scarce resources and endanger American lives on the basis of pax america ideology.
If the hawks are truly hellbent on another engagement, they are more than welcome to spend their own resources to hire mercenaries or travel to Syria themselves to defend the innocents when, where, and if they find them. But leave the rest of us out of it, and leave kids who enlisted thinking that they were going to "defend their country" at home where they belong.
This is where we probably disagree. I would say that, just as the victims of John Gotti implicate the Gambino organization, these beheadings implicate the organization under whose auspices they occurred and in whose name their were committed. It is a longstanding principle of sovereignty that crimes committed against citizens of another country are the responsibility of that sovereign; that in cases of a third party violation they will bring the perpetrator to justice to the best of their ability and in the event of malfeasance on the part of their own government they will provide satisfaction to the aggrieved nation and penalize the government official appropriately. No less can be expected from ISIS, and while it is impractical to expect the exact same treatment of Americans abroad as at home, it sets a bad precedent to make US citizens free game when they travel outside the US' borders with no consequence to the aggressor state.
I am still not sure whether I want to see military action. Opening the gates of Janus is much easier than closing them, and still requires Congressional authority which has not yet been given. However, I do think there is a case for military involvement which has been lacking in almost all of the conflicts we've involved ourselves in since the end of the Cold War.
There are plenty of options on the continuum of retribution for murder of citizens between doing nothing and going to war.
If I get my noggin sawed off on video by well-organized democrats this coming November, I would want the state to fulfill its one legitimate duty and make the people who organized and perpetuated the crime to pay in every conceivable way, but I wouldn't condone a broad War on Democrats.
Since I see no indication that Congress or the executive views the situation with ISIL as anything but a geopolitical issue with Foley and Sotloff thrown in as a convenient excuse to whip up popular support for intervention, I don't see anything about this initiative to support.
"You're reading too much into the statement."
Oh, it was a mistake to take what you say at face value, rather than as some abstracted idea about the 'proper role of government'?
now you just move goalposts and claim your only point is, uh, 'leave me out of it'?
A second ago you were getting all CSI about sending in SuperCops to arrest a needle-in-a-haystack of Jihadists... now, "Anything is too much"!
You are a walking cluster of conflicting rationales.
"which would likely require pacifying regions with large amounts of ISIS soldiers and finding a way to obtain information from them"
Moles is the answer. Spies only pretending to be sympathetic to isis.
- You think tracking down and eliminating the "specific individuals within ISIS" is a "little something" requiring less resources/commitment/'intervention', than just bombing ISIS wherever convenient.
- you call me 'stupid' for pointing out that this is retarded?
And is the idea that if the "easy" something is 'useless', uh, do it anyway?
Why kill/capture "just" the individuals who murdered a journalist when that does nothing about the group in whose name they acted?
please, tell me "I don't get it" again. It makes you look brilliant.
Also - still taking your (apparently insincere, incoherent) suggestion of 'only going after actual murderous perpetrators' instead of the ISIS organization as a whole....
...there's this small thing about how they *keep doing it*?
You say there are "plenty of options" in regard to dealing with them - yet you suggest 'aistrikes' against them is clearly going too far.
What, besides your suggestion of treating them all as 'suspects in a murder', did you have in mind, exactly?
I am at a loss for how this qualifies as "criminal behavior".
If you're talking about terrorism in general? Sure, I'll buy that and I agree that the GWoT has been enormously counterproductive in most of its efforts.
In this case, we're talking about a state whose agents are participating in acts authorized and encouraged by the reigning sovereign, and who are protected by such. Not a "criminal matter" anymore than finding the specific bombers who hit Pearl Harbor was a job for private dicks.
Maybe the correct answer is not to do anything, but I don't see how treating what is not a criminal matter as if it is one is a solution to our problem.
That was in part a rhetorical point that no state is categorically or ethically distinct from any other human institution. Conscription is slavery, taxation is extortion, Executive Order 6102 was no different from breaking into homes and stealing gold like a common criminal. The uniform you have or the democratic/divine mandate is irrelevant: crime is a violation of natural rights no matter the violator's station.
Sounds like a plan to me dude. Wow.
http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk
How about we tell our people that if they want to go into savage nations like Iraq or Syria they might get their heads chopped off. If you go into the woods and get too close to the bears and you might get eaten, we're not going to go in and bomb the bears.
Why not? The Bills did.
(Sorry AuH20. It was there)
They shoot aggressive bears if they're attacking people. I'm not constructing an argument by analogy to ISIS, but let's not pretend that a live-and-let live attitude is typical when it comes to lethal threats.
I personally am a little more concerned about domestic converts of these organizations. I think we could do far more if we went after the Mullahs and groups within our countries which are preaching fundamentalist Islam. Of course, that would require admitting what the problem is, so it's easier to drop bombs.
Gotta bomb something.
How the fuck does the editorial board at the NY Times write this shit with a straight face:
Mr. Obama, who has spent much of his presidency seeking to wean the United States off a perpetual state of war, is now putting forward unjustifiable interpretations of the executive branch's authority to use military force without explicit approval from Congress.
Doublethink and sports bar.
Oh, had you not noticed that Obama is a Democrat? That makes it ENTIRELY different than when a lying war-criminal Republican asks Congress for the authority to do so.
Playing Devil's Advocate here;
How about we establish a working principle of "come to our negative attention, and there's a good chance we'll obliterate you for shits and giggles"?
I mean; being diplomatic, and reasonable, and post colonial for decades got us the current mess. It isn't good for us, and (tell the truth and shame the Devil) it isn't good for THEM either. Running round with an AK and beheading random journalists is doubtless a lot of fun, but it really isn't a resume builder. It's like playing basketball or football; there really isn't much chance you'll be able to make a career of it. There can only really be a few Yasser Arafats (sp?) and they mostly don't last all that long.
Confession; I think "multiculturalism" is largely eyewash.
I dunno, they can apparently move to the UK and make a good living turning the local girls into sex slaves...
I still distrust that story. It smells to me an awful lot like the "Daycare Abuse" hysteria, and far too many people spent far too much time in prison over that. It may be real, in which case heads should roll - the British Bureaucrats who should have stopped it sooner for preference.
That seems reasonable; it might also be reasonable for us to not stick our nose into every corner of the world and scolding [some] folks for not doing as we wish.
I suppose one could argue from the safety of those three suppositions....
until the next terrorist attack on US territory or interests.
I think Bill Clinton was relying upon reasoning much as that in the 1990's following the attempted bombing of the Twin Towers in '93 - that sure kept the embassies in East Africa safe, along with the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and others.
I.e., if you ignore a cancer, it will eventually get tired and give up?
Yeah, well, obviously, if we don't do something about ISIS, they're going to come here, make all of our women wear burkas, and replace the Constitution with sharia.
Except, not really.
ObamaCare is a bigger threat than ISIS.
Naw, I'm not saying I agree with the cancer analogy, but if it's apt, then you have to work from that premise, no?
I agree that Obamacare is a bigger threat than ISIS in particular; whether it's a bigger long term threat than Islamists in general -- especially in the European context, is much more questionable.
ISIL and Islamists may well be a threat to Europe, given their proximity. So let the Europeans worry about it. Why should the US keep spending money to fix Europe's problems?
If we didn't mess around in the Middle East as much as we do, all that Islamist anger would be directed at Europe, and maybe China and Russia. Let's stop drawing attention to ourselves.
I think it's less a problem of proximity than a problem of importing young radicals in order to pay for their unsustainable social programs, in Europe's case.
I agree that our meddling in the ME has caused us a lot of problems. Whether that anger would be directed elsewhere were we to leave, however, is another question. I'm not sure Jihadis require provocation; they have plenty of that in their religious education.
Because if there's one thing that's defined the world over the past 100 years, it's an atavistic return to the most vulgar forms of religion. That's why so many more people are religious today than they were a century or two ago.
Fundamentalism of every stripe is a reaction to the anxieties of modernity. There is zero reason to believe that a shooting war would hasten the end of fundamentalist Islamist anxieties, which will die a slow and natural death just as flat-earth Christianity dies a natural death.
So, if we just wait a few hundred years, everything will sort itself out?
If you don't shoot yourself in the head today, I can't guarantee you'll live forever. But I will guarantee that you won't kill yourself via an epic burst of stupidity.
And to make sure I'm reading you correctly, your solution to Islamism is to kill all of the Islamists?
While I don't believe it's possible to kill all the Islamists and their fellow travelers -- what would that be? 100 Million? -- I don't know if there is another solution present.
I think there are a number of bad options, with another shooting war (as opposed to a nonshooting war?) among the worst. Maybe there really is nothing we can do aside from a new sort of cold war, as the problem of Islamism is much larger than a battle arena. It's an ideological/religious struggle.
Of course, that provides small comfort to those caught in the present. Imagine telling the Jewry in Europe, in 1939, "Just wait it out. Nazism will eventually fade away."
On the last, FDR could've opened the gates for the Jews, and he didn't. Like everyone else of that era, the Old Right wasn't immune from antisemitism, but they properly raked him over the coals for failure to accept refugees into the US. The US would make a fine home for any Christian ME refugees who wanted to come, but you can rest assured that won't happen for a thousand different reasons.
My ideal would be to re-establish neutrality, close military bases all over the world, give the UN the boot, and allow American wealth and classical liberal values to make the world a better place through trade and peaceful influence as much as it might have in the 18th and 19th centuries if things had gone a bit better.
That there are nutbar savages half the world away is nothing new in the history of man and irrelevant to securing the rights of American citizens. Not every civil war in oil country has to be our war, and the lives and treasure of American citizens deserve more respect from the federal government.
"allow American wealth and classical liberal values to make the world a better place through trade and peaceful influence"
Well of course. It should be obvious that all ISIS wants is an opportunity to buy better guillotines from the US so they can behead everyone more efficiently. Libertarians really need to make a better case to open trade negotiations with ISIS. Perhaps they can import excess guillotines, train their people on using them, and then re-export highly trained executioners back to the US (since hundreds of them already have US passports anyway).
Increased trade, open borders, what could possibly go wrong?
" I don't know if there is another solution present."
Ever thought about converting to Islam? I'm only here today because my ancestors were clever enough to switch back and forth between protestantism and catholicism whenever the political winds shifted.
Ummm no. This isn't the middle ages, and suggesting we adapt to meet the demands of a new Inquisition as a "solution" is utterly repugnant to core values of liberalism that I can't take it seriously.
"Don't enjoy being raped in prison? Just become gay!" makes about as much sense.
Without those middle agers we wouldn't be here.
Zachary . even though Don `s postlng is super, I just bought a new Mitsubishi Evo since I been bringin in $7410 this-past/month and-a little over, 10/k this past-munth . it's certainly my favourite work Ive ever done . I started this 9-months ago and pretty much straight away started making more than $83 per hour . read this article--------- http://www.jobsfish.com
Tell Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Yazidis/Shabkas/Turkmen to take their share of land from IRAQ and go build their OWN nation
my best friend's aunt makes $76 /hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 8 months but last month her pay check was $19582 just working on the internet for a few hours. navigate to this site...
============= http://www.jobsaa.com
All that's required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. One of the America's interests is a sane world where people aren't routinely sawing off each other's heads.
The Kurds seem sufficiently civilized that we have some interest in their protecting themselves against truly batshit crazy theocratic totalitarians.
That Nick can't see this is why the rest of the country won't let libertarians have nice things. Like power.
One of the America's interests is a sane world where people aren't routinely sawing off each other's heads.
Ah, a member of the alleged reality-based community. I don't give a fuck if they all saw off each other's heads, as long as they do it in their own little corner of the world. If that offends your tender sensibilities - change the channel.
They aren't going to do it 'in THEIR own little corner of the world'.
Maybe the moron wing of libertarians wants to delude themselves that ISIL is nothing but an ugly group of 'other people' doing shitty things 'somewhere else'. But the FACT is that most of ISIL is foreigners (at least 10% of whom are Europeans or Americans) - who travelled to that part of the world to do shitty things to the people there. So that they can get enough practice/experience doing shitty things successfully -- and bring it on home (read the US and Europe) when they return here - where they originally came from - among the people who they despise far more than those in the 'somewhere else'.
Which they most certainly WILL DO. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is being killed first.
Really? How does that affect my life in the US?
And these war efforts cost trillions of dollars and wreck the lives of millions of American youths. All of that activity that could be spent on developing new technologies and medicines is wasted in the dusty desert populated by people who hold medieval beliefs. How is that kind of gigantic waste of economic resources and lives possibly in our interest?
Yet just over the border in Turkey, the Kurds are considered terrorists. Don't even think the word Kurdistan in Ankara.
Acting in foreign affairs is another thing that many people have defaulted to letting the government do. Ask for contributions to charity and a lot of people will say, and even more think, "I pay my taxes." Ask people to contribute to a foreign cause and you'll get the same response.
The consulate in Benghazi didn't need hundreds of troops to defend it. A few dozen would have done and then some. Our embassy in Erbil doesn't need hundreds of troops either.
Reason number one it is a corrupt idea.
I could come up with three reasons not to do anything: Three Reasons Not to Go to College, Three Reasons Not to Get Married, etc. The question is: considering all of the pros and all of the cons, what should we do?
ISIS may not be an immediate threat to the US, but that is their stated intention, and they have shown that they have the recruiting ability, the revenue stream, and the determination to threaten US interests. And yes, they may be a regional threat, but if they manage to topple the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, they are going to control much of the world's oil supply. Not such a "regional problem" at that point.
"It's a regional conflict."
That was much the thinking prior while the Axis Powers made war in Europe and the Far East prior to America getting sucked in. Maybe this won't happen. But, radical Islam has designs on a world Caliphate. They believe they can make it happen. The bigger question is "do we wait till ISIS becomes a direct threat to America?
There are some people here who are so ideologically committed that they'd say it is wrong to launch an attack until you see the missiles coming at you. You won't get much further arguing with them that you'd get with similarly ideologically-blinded liberals.
I'm not sure if ISIL will materialize as a real threat to American interests or not; but I'm sure any threat short of them coming to your front door will fail to satisfy some segment of libertarians.
And there are others here for whom Ayn Rand was far too much the pacifist. Why they call themselves libertarian is a mystery, but it takes all sorts.
And nice seeing you again, T. The board becomes boring when our basement Liberace is gone for too long.
Not sure if that's directed at me or William above, and no idea who "T" is, unless you're talking about Tony. Or Tulpa. But I've been posting here a while, in case you think I'm someone else.
Yes, there are a lot of neocons as well as some so-cons posting here, for sure. I think that while libertarian policies are pretty straightforward on the domestic front, complexities arise in a foreign policy context that are sometimes given short shrift by some of the more ideologically committed posters.
High end estimates on their size is about 30,000 fighters. The Iraqi army alone is ten times that size, not counting the Shi'ite militias and any Sunni tribes they can enlist plus the Peshmerga forces of the Kurds. Oh, and you can add the Syrian army and the other rebel forces in Syria that are fighting both ISIS and the Syrian army.
ISIS is a brutal, uncivilized horde that needs to be contained and then wiped out, but the forces in the area are more than sufficient unto the task as long as they are willing to take it up. If they can get the US to do a lot of their fighting for them, it sure saves them a lot of money and the political/religious capital that would have to be spent to drum up and maintain support for fighting their fellow (in general) religionists.
Every time we get into a war, we end up having the liberals undercut all the gains made by young men who paid the ultimate price. And then the locals pay, as Uncle Sam is seen as a paper tiger. Remember the Khmer Rouge? The slaughter and boat lift from Vietnam? All because libs hate the US and what we stand for, and don't really care what happens to the peons after we leave.
Now we see the same in Iraq. This is a disaster of the lib's making. But I don't care. Not one more life for Islam. Let them slaughter each other for the next 25 years, and maybe we can bomb them back to the stone age every five or so. But no more of our boy's blood to be thrown away by the libs afterwards.
HOw about a headline for this article that doesn't contain a split infinitive.?
Sure. And the Germans weren't a threat in 1933, either.
Through its seizure of oilfields, banks, weapons, and other resources, ISIS has amassed a war chest estimated to total $2 billion, according to NBC News.
As former Pentagon official Janine Davidson told the New Yorker, "ISIS now controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations."
*Through its seizure of oilfields, banks, weapons, and other resources, ISIS has amassed a war chest estimated to total $2 billion, according to NBC News.*
Hey, with that kind of money, they can run for POTUS in 2016.
"The U.S. should do everything it can do defend its citizens and its interests." That is much different that defending the country and its colonies. It is a blank check for interventionism since it is always possible for officials to identify some purported "interest" that needs protecting. Gillespie does not identify if he thinks the U.S, should protect "its citizens" anywhere in the world, or just on American lands.