Views on ISIS From the Middle East

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 07:49:00 AM EST
Tags: ISIS, Syria, Iraq (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm always interested in how countries halfway around the world say they would address a problem here. I'm not talking about legal problems since laws in other countries vary too much, but in hands-on tackling of a problem that affects society. Like ISIS.

Here's three articles I recommend, all from the same paper in the Middle East. Two are op-ed's and one is an editorial.

The bottom line for all three is that military force cannot solve the problem of ISIS. They come up with other suggestions, which read like something I might have written. If the answer is so obvious to them (and me), why is our Government so obtuse? War is usually never the answer. Links to the articles belos: [More...]

Military containment is only a partial solution to ISIL’s evils by by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid:
Restoring Hope is the Key to Beating Extremists (National Editorial)
The West’s Syria policy has been shaped by media missionaries by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

The takeaway from all three:

ISIL is a barbaric and brutal organisation. It represents neither Islam nor humanity’s most basic values. Nonetheless, it has emerged, spread and resisted those who oppose it. What we are fighting is not just a terrorist organisation, but the embodiment of a malicious ideology that must be defeated intellectually.

I consider this ideology to be the greatest danger that the world will face in the next decade....

The destruction of terrorist groups is not enough to bring lasting peace. We must also strike at the root to deprive their dangerous ideology of the power to rise again among people left vulnerable by an environment of hopelessness and desperation. And, on this note, let us be positive.

The solution has three components. The first is to counter malignant ideas with enlightened thinking, open minds and an attitude of tolerance and acceptance. This approach arises from our Islamic religion, which calls for peace, honours life, values dignity, promotes human development and directs us to do good to others.

Only one thing can stop a suicidal youth who is ready to die for ISIL: a stronger ideology that guides him onto the right path and convinces him that God created us to improve our world, not to destroy it.

And from the editorial, commenting on the first article:

But, as Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, the Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, pointed out in an opinion article published in The National yesterday, force alone will not rid us of fanaticism. He said: “The world must unite behind a holistic drive to discredit the ideology that gives the extremists their power, and to restore hope and dignity to those whom they would recruit.”

...He added that lasting peace would be achieved through three channels: winning the intellectual battle by countering the extremists’ malignant ideas with enlightened thinking, upgrading weak governance across the region by establishing stable institutions, and promoting initiatives to eliminate poverty, improve education and health, and create economic opportunities for all people.

Attacking ISIS is just the wrong answer. Without the thousands of disaffected, marginalized youth who believe they have been oppressed, most of whom were never given a fair shake in their lives, neither ISIS nor al Qaeda would have the strength they enjoy today. Instead of hitting them with missiles, we should get Turkey to see that it must close the border to Syria, and we should turn our attention at home to listening to the grievances these young people have, and finding a way to correct the ones that are legitimate. It will take decades, because we've waited so long without doing anything but display our military might and threaten them with it, but it is not rocket science. It's doable. Even if we're too late to save this generation, if we start now, we can save the next one.

< Happy Birthday, Open Thread | Brazilian Hotel Evacuated as Hostage Paraded on Balcony >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Views on ISIS From the Middle East | 110 comments (110 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It didn't seem to me that the links (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:37:17 AM EST

said that attacking ISIS was the wrong approach. I thought the links, especially the first two, indicated that attacking ISIS is part of the solution.

The first, written by the VP of the UAE, says:

"ISIL certainly can - and will - be defeated militarily by the international coalition that is now assembling and which the UAE is actively supporting. But military containment is only a partial solution. Lasting peace requires three bigger ingredients: winning the intellectual battle, upgrading weak governance and grassroots human development."

From the second link:

"The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Abdullah, told the United National General Assembly at the weekend that the country was committed to combating "violent extremism and affiliated beliefs and terrorist acts". To this end, the UAE has joined a coalition of countries, including the US and four Arab neighbours, in conducting air attacks on ISIL strongholds in Iraq and Syria."

If the UAE didn't think attacking ISIS was part of the solution, why would the UAE have joined the coalition to attack ISIS?

The third link was a mishmash of stuff and not particularly understandable to me.

While the other ideas expressed in the links look like they are good ideas that go to the source of the problem, they will take many years, really generations, to implement. They are very ambitious. I don't see how the region and the world can sit back now, waiting and hoping that these other ideas will get implemented and be effective.

Thanks for the links. My son's AP government teacher is big on current events, so I've called his attention (and my son's attention) to talkleft, and have been emailing links to certain TL threads to them. I'll email this thread, and call attention to the first op-ed.

: He says military containment is a partial solution (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 11:47:38 AM EST

but ONLY a partial solution.
I sense that they are supporting that partial solution in hopes we will devote the same about of energy to the rest of the solution. Apparently he does not know us very well.

Many of those marginalized youth... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dadler on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:09:08 AM EST

...come from societies that were oppressed by religious fundamentalism well before the west came around to hawk their bullsh*t. That is mostly how the west was ABLE to do it, after all. I would never diminish our inexcusable stupidity, but no to acknowledge the simple failed nature of the fundamentalist choice is odd. That is their own inexcusable stupidity in this day and age. IOW, everyone in this equation is full of sh*t. And that will result in, dare I say, nothing particularly good.

ISIS is, after all, first and foremost an organization of psychopaths who come from a region of the world that 1) largely has no respect or understanding of mental health and no mental healthcare infrastructure of any sort, and 2) is littered with weapons and religious nuttery. THAT is as big a problem as anything, and much less solvable by any means we might think we possess.

That's the reason I believe the U.S. and much of the west essentially need to divorce from those parts of the world, then come home, finally, and recreate our own nations into models of democratic egalitarianism that have never been seen before. THAT, however, is probably more difficult than defeating ISIS militarily, because we have allowed our own nations to become so corrupted.

I agree with part of your comment (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by ZtoA on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 12:52:04 PM EST

but certainly not all of it. I don't think young people in ISIS/ISIL are psychopaths.

A "divorce" from the ME and other parts of the globe will not work in this day and age. We are becoming much more of a global community. Weapons are already the genie out of the bottle - can't put it back now.

I'm agreeing with MT more and more that extremist religions (all the major world's organized religions) are struggling in the modern world because of sexism and women's rights and participation in the public realm. I think it is a major un-adressed and unrecognized motivating force.

First, deal with them with a basic level of respect. All humans deserve that. Some military response might be necessary. Mostly by other ME nations. US can help if asked. Rescue missions by the US - in a very limited way seem OK. Some financial support from the US might help. Better messaging and PR from the US. The US needs to take care of conditions here in the US too.

Will this happen? Possibly. It doesn't hurt to put our thoughts 'out there' and vote for candidates here that support the approach we advocate. J's writings on ISIS/ISIL should be the go-to-site for, well, pretty much everyone.

All of this is IMO of course.


Of course they are psychopaths ZtoA, (none / 0) (#14)
by fishcamp on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 01:24:57 PM EST

in fact their total disregard for humanity is one of the many qualifying factors of a psychopath. They have no redeeming thoughts for anyone except themselves and lure other people to become members of their twisted gang with lies that they believe are truths. They never learned right from wrong and have no problems with lying, cheating, stealing, or killing. It's very sad.


Young ISIS/ISIL/IS members (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by ZtoA on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 01:28:51 PM EST

may not start off as psychopaths. But they very well end up as psychopaths.


While that could be true ZtoA, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by fishcamp on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 02:12:33 PM EST

some of the more classic traits for young people to become psychopaths are an inflated view of their self worth, thrills and taking chances, low discipline, failure to work at the same or any job. They are usually shrewd, crafty, sly, deceptive, deceitful, manipulative, and dishonest. They have absolutely no feelings for pain and suffering of others. They usually are manipulative, selfish, irritable, impulsive, foolhardy, and bullies. As juveniles they usually have behavior problems that are crimes. They are usually clever but blatant liars. As young people they fit perfectly into these radical groups in the ME.


I find it hard to believe (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 07:43:32 PM EST

Though that ISIL found 30,000 local psychopaths. I can certainly believe that a few recruited psychopaths will travel to them to feel the warmth of their fire but 30,000 local boys just happen to all be psychopaths? Doesn't add up.

Experiencing daily physical and emotional rape, emotional pillage, and murder can also lead young people to repeat the violence, it becomes the norm.

The majority of us gain a great deal of self worth too from those first few years bonding with our mothers. It has been proven over and over again that when you break the hand that rocks the cradle...you have socially psychologically broken your world. It is all uphill growing into a functional man or woman when your mother is abused and it is an accepted norm.


MT, they were first sociopaths and (none / 0) (#42)
by fishcamp on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 07:30:43 AM EST

moved up a step to become psychopaths. But since we're not there how do we really know. There are many sociopaths around us here in the states. In fact I suspect there two or three right here on this blog.


Do we have to be there (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 08:48:48 AM EST

In order to understand that accepted family violence against women whether it is overt or covert destroys the healthy self esteem of all the children no matter their gender? It even changes brain development. That has been documented.

Can't we just look at our own history to know that though?

And I will repeat myself too, we have fallen down on the job in this country though we are not allowing the same degree of violence to be acceptable. But we have accepted that it is fair and balanced to consider attacking the weaker among us. That is why we are blind to the social devastation it brings about.


: Our own history.. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by jondee on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 12:17:09 PM EST

half the effing country here says "oh boo-hoo" and "cry me a river" when you talk about kids growing up malnourished, unloved, and unsafe in crime-ridden neighborhoods.
Listening to the Fox, talk radio, and Cato crowd here it's very easy to understand how people's psyches can be bent in the direction of sadism and apathy.
I was reading in National Geo the other day that even crocodiles respond communally to baby croc's distress calls. Here we get some libertarian Asperger's case who says "quit whining".

So, you do do virtual psych (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:20:33 AM EST

assessments!


: Yes (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by fishcamp on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:42:27 AM EST

Like many that go to war (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by jondee on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 12:08:10 PM EST

I knew a former Home Coming King-Most likely To..who made ear necklaces in Vietnam.


Growing Up in a Secular Country (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by RickyJim on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:28:24 AM EST

would be an environmental change that would counter the nurturing of extremists. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid's emirate, Dubai, is better than all the other Arab countries in this respect but still has Islam as the state religion and as Wikipedia points out,

Non-Muslim religious groups are permitted to advertise group functions openly and distribute various religious literature; however, outright proselytising is strictly prohibited under penalty of criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation for engaging in behaviour offensive to Islam.

Also, if he were an elected leader rather than a hereditary monarch, I think his pronouncements would be more influential. In all, Dubai should show the way by being the first completely secular, democratic emirate in the UAE.

ISIS is so bad (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 01:21:11 PM EST

it was drummed out by al Qaeda. And, Khorasan makes ISIS look like boy scouts. Khorasan is too secret to describe, but, it is very bad--their high technology exploding toothpaste and ignitable clothing were claimed to be an instant threat to commercial aviation. And, we need to be mindful, too, that Assad is worse that either ISIS or Khorasan, or ISIS and Khorasan combined--as they (and we) are in the fight against Assad.

Khorasan is a newcomer to the terror trail, but the little we do know is enough to bomb, especially since we are in the neighborhood. Khorasan, however, is not all bad in that it serves the purpose of a self-defense claim to the attack on Syria since there is no clear-cut legal justification or, even, UN approval. Khorasan also, puts a few more leaves into the pot of weak tea justification of the 2002 and 2003 AUMFs, since Khorasan, while secret, is al Qaeda-ish. It adds to the public support of war at any cost. And, it pries our representatives loose of their electoral concerns so that they can do the right thing, as Mother Teresa, and only, Mother Teresa, might believe.

ISIS is hardly endearing, but was acknowledged as not being an imminent threat. However Khorasan fits the bill, what with its American recruits holding boarding passes for flights to Topeka and all.

Having served its purpose, Khorasan, is now so this morning. The narrative has done its job--we now have a nation of scaredy cats, even though this al Qaeda-ish group has moved from its final stages of planning an attack on the US to one that is "aspirational." Glenn Greenwald presents a case for the the evaporation of this dire and imminent threat and the media stenography.

: We Got Them (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 01:35:07 PM EST

Now that the Khorasans are toast we must go after the Ramularins.
Super secret memo has been floated that they are even more dangerous than the Khorasans.

Well, M. lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by christinep on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 07:13:03 PM EST

it IS getting more difficult to ignore the polemics which you term posts. It comes down to this, IMO: You issue the usual invective about whatever that finds either/both the President and the U.S. to blame, then someone(s) answers with a differing viewpoint, then you feign innocence or victim-ology, then you tell us to be gone. I say: BS (and Double BS.)

Oops, I forgot: Isn't the next appeal to a protector as you claim that you have been wronged by us error-prone and nasty individuals. Yoiks!

You Are FOS Lentinel (4.00 / 4) (#83)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 10:46:28 PM EST

squeak - whose response to my suggestion that compassion for those in Muslim countries - some attempt to identify with their grievances - was to compare me to a Nazi sympathizer.

if that is what you got from what I wrote, either my writing was unclear or you misunderstood my comment.

You have been going on and on for some time now about how ISIS and the rest of the ones, who along with you hate the IUS and Obama, are going to attack us because we are bombing them as part of a multi national effort to stem ISIS.

ISIS and other extremists through out the world, and in the US, do not need any excuse to unleash their propaganda, threats of violence and violence.

Extremists through history have invented reasons to justify their murder, torture, and violence.

Do you think that the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, "deviants", et al., gave the nazi's a good reason to kill them?

The same is true with ISIS, al qaida, khorasan, etc.. they are on a violent tear and will kill all those in their path. For you to portray them as wounded, poor, and misunderstood people who would never make any threats against the US had we not been the evil empire that you portray it as, is HOGWASH and DELUSIONAL.

Bringing Khorasan into this is to play (2.00 / 1) (#90)
by Anne on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 06:39:41 AM EST

right into the hands of the administration. Al Qaeda not scary enough? ISIS not getting people afraid enough? Hmmm...what to do, what to do???

I know - invent a threat that doesn't exist!

As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the "homeland." A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.
The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded "The Khorasan Group." After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat -- too radical even for Al Qaeda! -- administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.
[snip]
There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner. Aki Peritz, a CIA counterterrorism official until 2009, told Time: "I'd certainly never heard of this group while working at the agency," while Obama's former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said: "We used the term [Khorasan] inside the government, we don't know where it came from....All I know is that they don't call themselves that." As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: "You haven't heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn't one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan ... had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it."

This is why I have so little trust in what we're being told, what's really going on. And why I have so little respect for the media, which just goes along with the plan instead of asking any questions or digging any deeper than the surface.

I have to say that for someone who so routinely demeans people for "bedwetting," you sure seem to have soaked through the sheets on yours. Yuck.


Bedwetting? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 09:37:06 AM EST

Not me. The fact that crazies want to attack America, does not worry me one bit. We are one of the leading countries in the world, it is to be expected. Many want to attack China, Russia, et al. They do not need provocation, IOW we would be a target even if we had not bombed ISIS, imo.

My point, which was quite clear, is that those who want to inflict harm on America do not need a tangible reason.

And, as I have repeatedly stated, I believe that the US should leave ISIS alone as they will self destruct. I linked to Chelsea Manning's piece weeks ago and that is pretty much what I think US policy should be towards ISIS.


Nailed it (none / 0) (#107)
by Jack203 on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 07:24:54 PM EST

Great article by Chelsea Manning. I couldn't agree more with her proposed solutions.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/chelsea-manning-isis-strategy

-- Counter the narrative in online Isis recruitment videos - including professionally made videos and amateur battle selfies - to avoid, as best as possible, the deliberate propaganda targeting of desperate and disaffected youth. This would rapidly prevent the recruitment of regional and western members.

-- Set clear, temporary borders in the region, publicly. This would discourage Isis from taking certain territory where humanitarian crises might be created, or humanitarian efforts impeded.

-- Establish an international moratorium on the payment of ransom for hostages, and work in the region to prevent Isis from stealing and taxing historical artifacts and valuable treasures as sources of income, and especially from taking over the oil reserves and refineries in Bayji, Iraq. This would disrupt and prevent Isis from maintaining stable and reliable sources of income.

-- Let Isis succeed in setting up a failed "state" in a contained area and over a long enough period of time to prove itself unpopular and unable to govern. This might begin to discredit the leadership and ideology of Isis for good.


I talked to my husband about this (none / 0) (#108)
by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 07:36:13 PM EST

He said nothing is more inhumane than forcing a bunch of people to try to survive living in the containment zone of ISIL until it "fails". It will fail in rivers of blood. As people attempt to escape how will you contain them? What if you allow them escape and they decide to re-ISIL outside the containment?

He said Manning's master plan is like a lot of intel analyst master plans without the help and input of other military roles (the people who know what it is like on the ground). Looks very good on paper, but they don't "see things" on the ground. They have no concept of the reality of what on the ground would be like.


Sunni lands (none / 0) (#111)
by Jack203 on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 09:03:52 PM EST

I don't understand the different Sunni factions as well as Jeralyn. It is clear the different tribes are fighting amongst themselves over power as well as the Shiites and Kurds. I don't think the majority of Sunni's want to be ruled by extremists, and once ISIS is no longer achieving victories they will lose their appeal within their own people.

I still like the plan. I am just 100% against any attempt by us to subjugate the Sunni's into being governed by someone other than them. They seem quite intent on fighting to the death against this. Why should we oppose them? Many Americans would do the same thing. It's madness to risk American lives into trying to pacify the Sunni lands.


I don't think we have the right (none / 0) (#112)
by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 09:19:49 PM EST

To subjugate anyone to any kind of governance. I don't think that is the plan at this time. I think we want Saudi Arabia to do some subjugating in Syria. I don't know if that plan makes us more humane either. It just looks to me like that's the big plan.

Just because women and children are considered Sunni, in a land of arranged marriages, how can Manning think it is humane to challenge them to survive the rivers of blood that would finally lead to that ISIL fail? And what did Sunni children do to deserve that hell?

It isn't just going to be an island of misfit bad guys.


Rivers of blood? (none / 0) (#113)
by Jack203 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 07:22:29 PM EST

If we could get the Sunni's to stop attacking their neighbors why would you possible expect MORE violence??

Some Sunni infighting is to be expected, but it is doubtful it would be anywhere remotely close to the current Sunni, Shiite, Kurd war going on right now.

IMO, the best thing we can do for Sunni children is to leave them alone.

ISIL will implode because they offer nothing besides repression. They will slowly lose their power, no rivers of blood. The Sunni recruits are attracted to ISIL's momentum and being part of a perceived "winning team". If you're not winning, you're losing. And they are losing right now.


So you think the failing (none / 0) (#114)
by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 10:29:11 PM EST

Of a "contained" ISIL state would be a quiet gentle failing?


Yes (none / 0) (#115)
by Jack203 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 11:07:04 PM EST

I certainly don't expect a Sunni genocide against other Sunnis.

We just spent over 10 years and over a trillion dollars with nothing gained. I really hope you don't want to try double or nothing.

The Sunni lands between Iraq and Syria are similar to the tribal lands in Pakistan. We can't control either of them. And why should we? The more we try , the worse it is for them and for us. We have no legitimacy over there.


My husband says ISIL will kill (none / 0) (#116)
by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 09:19:57 AM EST

Everybody, and they have already killed Sunnis in mass quantities. They don't follow a Sunni observance norm, they have created their own brand of Islamic faith. Either you believe exactly what they believe and how they believe or you are a non-believer and they will kill you and they should kill you because the Quran says to kill non-believers.


As I've said before (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:33:08 AM EST

just think how quickly this problem would be neutralized if all the superpowers cooperated and participated as they should.

Instead people want to expend in-short-supply energy and resources reviving the Cold War and obsessing about things like Iran's nuclear non-threat.


: Cooperate? (none / 0) (#118)
by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:00:03 PM EST

What if capitalism died with that cooperation?

Go squeaky. (none / 0) (#85)
by Green26 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:32:34 PM EST

That was an articulate rant.


: Go Green (none / 0) (#89)
by lentinel on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 05:54:25 AM EST

You have found a soulmate in squeaky.

Poor subject line. Good comment. (none / 0) (#110)
by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 08:35:07 PM EST

Another great post, Jeralyn. Thank you. (none / 0) (#2)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:48:36 AM EST

Without the thousands of disaffected, marginalized youth who believe they have been oppressed, most of whom were never given a fair shake in their lives, neither ISIS nor al Qaeda would have the strength they enjoy today. ... we should turn our attention at home to listening to the grievances these young people have, and finding a way to correct the ones that are legitimate.

I saw a documentary which featured a member of either al Qaeda or ISIS indoctrinating a boy who looked to be about 9 or 10. He looked like a sweet kid. Just a kid.

The guy doing the indoctrinating was telling the boy to hate America. The reason, he explained, is because "they kill Muslims".

How many generations has this been going on? Our killing and subjugating people - Muslim people - either by aggressive military action overthrowing regimes not to our liking or by supporting (or helping to install) repressive regimes?

How many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS did we kill during the height of the Bush-Cheney mania of the first decade of the 21st century? "Collateral damage" rampant. ("Collateral damage" I would remind everyone is an Orwellian term coined in the CLINTON administration to numb us to the horror of the number of civilian casualties we were inflicting. That precedes W.)

How many thousands of innocent people have we killed since the installation of the new president, Mr. Obama?

Do we honestly think that they have not noticed?
We, as a people, don't seem to have taken notice. But they are awakening - and their anger is understandable. They have had enough.

I do not, obviously, justify the rampages of ISIS.
But if we are unwilling to consider what draws people to them, to have a little compassion - to put ourselves in the position of people drawn to them - we will get nowhere and may suffer severe damage.

I am hoping for the best, but I can not bring myself to be optimistic.

The US didn't kill hundreds of thousands (3.50 / 2) (#8)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 11:41:20 AM EST

in the Bush-Cheney years. Looking at this linked article from the Huffington Post, which is about a study that came up with much larger numbers than had previously been used by credible sources, the numbers are more like 125,000 in Iraq. While some sources have a higher number, most have much lower numbers. Numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan are much much lower, like under 25,000 or so.

"Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday."

"That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts."

"About 70 percent of Iraq deaths from 2003-2011 were violent in nature, with most caused by gunshots, followed by car bombs and other explosions, said the study.

Coalition forces were blamed for 35 percent of violent deaths; militias were blamed for 32 percent. The rest were either unknown (21 percent), criminals (11 percent) or Iraqi forces (one percent)."

Article was from last year. US hasn't been in Iraq for several years.


For the sake of argument, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 04:26:13 PM EST

let's accept that we "only" killed ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND people.

Can't you see that that would be enough to fuel, let us say, resentment against our country - and a powerful recruiting tool and propaganda weapon for groups like ISIS?

I don't understand your point in presenting these numbers as a response to my comment.


Yes, but we could also kill zero (3.50 / 2) (#21)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 05:35:25 PM EST

and most of them would feel the exact same way about us.

Some of them kill more of themselves than we do, and in a much more brutal way.

Maybe more of the resentment should be directed at cleaning up their own house.


So, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 06:28:06 PM EST

you think it's genetic? They're just natural born haters?

This is ridiculous.

Look how we reacted when they killed three thousand of ours.
We destroyed our own country and two other ones.
And, a fact that doesn't even touch you, we killed over a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children.

But you don't think that has an impact on people?
Do you have such contempt for other peoples?
Are you, when all is said and done, a racist?


We hadn't been bombing them when 9/11 (2.00 / 1) (#37)
by Green26 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:14:05 PM EST

happened. The hatred of the US and the West has been going on a long time.

We sure haven't destroyed our country. The US is very strong.

We didn't kill 100,000 innocent people. Most of the figures put our by sources I trust, have much lower civilian death numbers. Some Sunnis, jihadis and terrorists are the main ones killing innocent people.


Why (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 05:02:21 AM EST

do you suppose the Clinton administration invented the term "collateral damage"? To what did it refer?

I don't think you know your history.

And I do think that you set a lower value on the lives of Musiims than you do on the lives of white folk.


I would (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 05:48:13 AM EST

also add that the issue for me, and I would think for all Americans, is not why they might be killing each other (we had our civil war, the Brits killed the Irish and visa versa etc. etc.) ---

the issue is why they are turning their wrath upon us.

I think that we have killed so many of them, overturned their governments, installed despots -- has something to do with it.

You don't seem to have any awareness of this history --- or if you do, you are dismissive of it.

I think that is a very naive, dangerous and even racist position.

And - I would remind you, that when 9/11 happened, Iranians were among those taking to the streets to express their sorrow and support for the US.

Considering what we had done to them in installing the Shah, a brutal dictator, I thought that was remarkable.


I call this the other American Exceptionalism (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 08:16:25 AM EST

Every move you make is responsible for everything. You created all the hostility, rage, war, and pain in the world because you are the master puppeteer and that omnipotent.

Also, all you have to do now is be quiet, sit in the corner, and maybe the thugs won't notice you or harm you. Go ahead and let them have endless blood. There's no way you could be responsible for the pain and anger that will spawn. Why would the children of all this ever turn around and tell you that you never helped them, you just watched, and then attack you?

They were never leaving you alone if you ever thought that was possible. ISIL made it clear more than once the end goal was a global caliphate.


: MT: Excellent observation. (none / 0) (#96)
by christinep on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 11:33:20 AM EST

: Note the below quote; also interesting op-ed (none / 0) (#99)
by Green26 on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 12:22:18 PM EST

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, spent nearly five years imprisoned at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. A majority of the other top Islamic State leaders were also former prisoners, including: Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, Abu Louay, Abu Kassem, Abu Jurnas, Abu Shema and Abu Suja.
Before their detention, Mr. al-Baghdadi and others were violent radicals, intent on attacking America."
NY Times Op-Ed.
Op-Ed is on how many of the ISIS leaders and others were in Coalition/Iraqi prisons in Iraq, and came together and did significant recruiting in the prisons.

While the Palestinians took to the streets (4.00 / 3) (#62)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 03:45:47 PM EST

expressing their indescribable joy at the fiery deaths of so many "Infidels."

Who can forget the Muslim mothers praying to Allah to bare more sons who, "God willing" would go on to become martyrs for "the cause?"

What is it about a religion that has so screwed up the maternal nature/nurture instinct that cultivates mothers, of all people, praying for the birth of large numbers of sons so they can grow up to strap on explosives and kill themselves for a sick, demented cause?

You can make all the analogies you want in comparing the wacko fringes of many religions. Mothers dreaming of the voluntary, suicidal deaths of their children is something unique, imo.


: Well, we may have interferred... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by unitron on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:04:31 PM EST

...with Iranians deciding on their own government, but we didn't help some other non-Iranian people come in and take over and hold part of their land, so maybe that goes at least part of the way to explaining the differences in Iranian and Palestinian re-actions.

They didn't (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Yman on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 06:37:02 PM EST

Why do you suppose the Clinton administration invented the term "collateral damage"? To what did it refer?

The phrase originated in 1961 and was used during the first Gulf War.


Civilians have been killed in war (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by Green26 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:05:46 AM EST

for a long time. Many civilians were killed in the bombings of WWII. Civilian deaths increase as fighting, and bombing, occurs in urban settings, as opposing forces do not dress in military uniforms, and as terrorists hide themselves and weapons in urban settings.

As ISIS moves its weapons and people more into urban settings, especially in Syria, there will be more civilian deaths. Civilian deaths are part modern day war, in many area of the world.

Collateral damage has been around for a long time. I see that some believe the term was used during the Viet Nam war.

Speaking of history, one can do the chicken and egg debate about the West and Islam, if you want, but the clear fact is that the Islam extremists hate the West and we will have to deal with that for a long time.


I guess (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:20:04 AM EST

them's jest natural born haters.

No reason.

Just born that way.


Really Lentinel... (4.00 / 4) (#51)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:30:57 AM EST

Your thinking, albeit propaganda for your mission, is pretty thin here. Do you think that the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, "deviants", et al., gave the nazi's a good reason to kill them?

Want more examples? Or can you think for yourself?

It always boils down to a power-hungry sociopath who is able to control the narrative and turn large numbers of people to his or her will.

You know that, but it would ruin your drum beating against Obama et al..

Personally I think that we should have left ISIS to self destruct, but who knows. Your insistence to lump Obama as the same as BushCO, is boring at this point, as it is hardly the case.

But carry on, you have a mission.


Gad squeak (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 12:59:03 PM EST

Can't you see a snark response to the above dialogue?

Very foul your commentary.
Most foul.


PS (none / 0) (#56)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 01:02:03 PM EST

If you and Christine agree with Green26 - with whom I was having a back and forth above, I feel sorry for both of you.


lentinel: I simply get tired (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by christinep on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 04:05:39 PM EST

from time to time of the drumbeat from yourself that reads like "we are the worst" "the President if the worst" "the sky is falling" and more than etc. For me, continual allegations of "we are so horrible" lead only to self-flagellation ... and I am not into that either in a religious or societal sense.

Of course, of course, our country has made mistakes. Every country throughout the ages--and especially those that became world powers in the various ages--has some degree of ugliness and blood on its hands. But, the harangue about our somehow unique evil would be beyond the pale if it were not such an unsupported claim ... a claim so overstated that it reads as silly and rote.

Come on, add a bit of balance. Give some recognition from time to time of the advances, the good promoted and/or promulgated in our society. That is indisputably true, as I'm certain that you realize.

It is always worthwhile to engage two or more people of different views toward the end of changing for the better. Even tho Eeyore could be a fascinating character, the face of eternal pessimism is really not approachable ... it ensures the status quo in relationships and in society. And, IMO, the foreboding and static picture of our country that you paint makes the likes of Eeyore seem like a Pollyanna. Can't we let some light in ....


Nertz (none / 0) (#73)
by lentinel on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 08:19:31 PM EST

We are engaging in a dangerous war.

I agree with what Jeralyn wrote.
That is might be the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.
That it will disastrous for us.

You don't think so?

Fine.

But just say so, instead of engaging in pseudo-psychiatry and referring to winnie the pooh.


: I will say so ... I disagree with you (none / 0) (#81)
by christinep on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:17:26 PM EST

From my whole self, from my whole heart, I disagree.
Likewise: Nertz in response. (Take care and be well.)

Missed The Snark (none / 0) (#57)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 01:08:59 PM EST

Glad to hear though... and I could not disagree more with Green26


Obama loosens up restrictions to prevent civilian (none / 0) (#69)
by Green26 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 06:31:15 PM EST

deaths.

"The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq."

Article.


: Not exactly (none / 0) (#100)
by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 12:57:27 PM EST

He got caught having them looser than they previously have been.
I suppose he hoped he could just trust CentCom without heavy White House up their butts scrutiny. I would look for the parameters to be met to tighten after this.
I for one will complain to make it so. If they could operate under the old parameters, then they can do it again.

Another thing is that the radicals (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 05:09:53 PM EST

aren't poor:

2011 study finds no link between poverty and support for militant groups, and suggests poorer people are actually less likely to support extremist groups than the more affluent, better educated people.

That certainly proves true at Fort Hood, Boston and the doctors from the UK.

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site.

And even the muslim terrorist who just beheaded an innocent woman in OK had all kinds of safety nets to support him after he was fired for trying to recruit new members.

No, it isn't money. It is something about the religion. As Maher said:

ROSE: I do believe that what we see with ISIS is not representative of --
MAHER: As I said, connecting tissue.
ROSE: -- not representative of the Islamic religion. I don't think the Koran teaches them to do these kinds of things.
MAHER: Well you're wrong about that. The Koran absolutely has on every page stuff that's horrible about how the infidels should be treated. But for example again ISIS says that they should perform genital mutilation on all women 11-46. Would most Muslims agree with that? No. Or carry it out? No.

Heh - quoting Maher as an expert ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Yman on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 07:39:12 PM EST

... on religion. Repeatedly, in fact. Is this the same Maher who called the Christian God a "psychotic mass murderer" when discussing Noah? The same Maher who said his slogan would be "Drugs are good and religion is bad"? The same Maher who called conservative Christians out for being selfish hypocrites for advocating cuts in social programs. Heeyyyyy, ... maybe you're on to something.

Wonder what Maher would say about all of the violence advocated in the Bible?

Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?


Quit making things up (2.00 / 1) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 08:49:30 PM EST

I didn't quote Maker as an expert on anything. I just quoted what even an avowed leftist can see.

And you don't try to refute what he said or what I said because you know it is the truth.


Maher hates religion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Yman on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 08:58:52 PM EST

He just hates Islam a little more than others.

But when you have to resort to "you know it's the truth", you really have nothing to back up your silly claims.


I've noticed that about James (none / 0) (#91)
by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 07:52:08 AM EST

especially when he's wrong he doubles down and starts blathering about the truth.

Yman, you're right about Maher, he thinks Christianity is just as crazy as Islam. James should do a better job researching the people he champions in his posts, it would save him mucho embarrassment is when he posts in the future.


: Well (none / 0) (#97)
by jondee on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 11:54:10 AM EST

I remember back when the Right loathed Christopher Hitchens until they started treasuring him as the returned Prodigal Son and quoting him as the ultimate irrefutable authority on the War On Terror.
Then their heads almost exploded when, rather than declaring a new-found loyalty to every conservative article of faith, Hitchens wrote an essay on Ronald Reagan's legacy in which he savaged Reagan and the so-called Reagan Revolution describing the Gipper as being "dumb as stump".

I see (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 08:23:02 PM EST

absolutely no relationship between what you have written and the comment above to which you are supposedly responding.
None.


The relationship is the fact that (2.00 / 1) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 08:51:44 PM EST

there is no truth in the claim that radical Islam is caused by being poor.


And, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:14:03 PM EST

where was that particular view expressed - that what you call "radical Islam is caused by being poor"?


Perhaps it's caused by not being poor... (none / 0) (#78)
by unitron on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:07:48 PM EST

...yet still feeling that they are disrespected and marginalized by Westerners.


: Plenty of people join up (none / 0) (#98)
by jondee on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 12:16:10 PM EST

who see membership in that movement as the best alternative in a situation with a limited number of bad options. People with the fewest options tend to be the poorest people. Just as is the case here in the U.S.
Of course conservatives love their Bell Curves with their the "innate" "cultural" "genetic" explanations not only as a one-size-fits-all explanation of Radical Islam but as explanations for almost every other social-historical phenomenon. Saves conservatives the trouble and spiritual hazard of intellectual effort -- which could lead into the area of the dreaded "secular-humanist" thinking and ideas.

Maybe a little OT (none / 0) (#3)
by ragebot on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:08:14 AM EST

Large parts of what is quoted could be applied to what is happening in poor sections of big (and small) cities in the US and countries to the South of the US border; not to mention plenty of other places.

There are more "disaffected, marginalized youth who believe they have been oppressed, most of whom were never given a fair shake in their lives" in North, Central, and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia than in the Middle East.

I don't have a good answer to this problem, just pointing out it is not limited to the Middle East.

you are correct (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 11:34:36 AM EST

and I guess that's my point. Whether we're trying to stop kids from joining gangs or selling drugs or falling prey to a cult like ISIS, our first response should not be to attack them (by putting them in jail or as with ISIS destroying them) but to address the root cause of what's thrown them off course, whether it's poverty, not having an alternative means to succeed at anything, feelings of isolation, etc. As Subcommandante Marcos and the Chiapas (Mexican revolutionaries) once said when describing themselves, they are just like all the other "exploited, marginalized oppressed minorities resisting and saying "enough."


A lot of stuff you imply (none / 0) (#10)
by ragebot on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 12:45:23 PM EST

is related to resource allocation.

Back in the day I remember after getting out of the US Army reading that based on what the US spent during the Vietnam conflict they could have paid every Viet Cong over $US200,000 and been ahead of the game. Simply dropping bags of money instead of bombs might have been cheaper.

On the other hand at some point there is simply not enough money to give every person on earth enough to retire.

While I don't pretend to understand and can't explain why I have become convinced some people are better able to prosper in any economic system than others. There have always been winners and losers economically and I see little to convince me this will not always be the case.


I don't really disagree (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 12:54:08 PM EST

with any thing you said


: Capt (none / 0) (#18)
by ragebot on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 04:21:52 PM EST

Not so sure I understand your post.
Conrad Hilton is a good example of a success. Not trying to defend his bozo granddaughter Paris, but her money is only a tiny fraction of the amount Conrad left to charity. Not sure what your solution is when a successful person wants to leave a small portion of their life savings to their family members.
Tesla was no doubt one of the great minds in history. But he spend too much time dealing with his own devils. A quick google will turn up lots of claims that Tesla suffered from mental illness. One thing my Mom always stressed to me was that you have to pick your fights, you can't do everything. Perhaps if Tesla spent a portion of his effort trying to secure his retirement instead of feuding with Edison he would have not died broke.

Agreed... (none / 0) (#60)
by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 02:43:42 PM EST

....but I think if a Muslim nation was dropping bombs on the inner cities and Muslim soldiers waging war on the bad guys in the streets and killing a whole lot of innocent people, there would be a backlash that would eventually morph into a whole lot of violence.

Mix in scoundrels and religion and it would be a powder keg, much like the ME.

We see it to a small degree in Ferguson, that rage isn't from one incident, it's from years of oppression. Granted it's not nearly as bad, but then again that is one person killed by an American.

Iraq alone had 100,000 innocent deaths by our hands to get one guy. That is hard for Americans to stomach, think how hard it is for the inhabitants suffering through it, and how easy it is to prey on people who live with it every day.

I am with you, no answers. But we have tried bombs and bullets for a decade and it only seems to have elevated the violence. But on the other hand, you can't let maniacs murder at will hoping peace will prevail.

We are in a tight spot and it sucks. Getting Arab nations involved is very smart, even if we are funding it, it's better that Muslims kill Muslim, that doesn't play as well for recruiting.


War is usually never the answer. (none / 0) (#6)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 11:14:15 AM EST

How true. Likewise a hammer is usually never the answer. So to a bowling ball, Zen Budhism, juggling, unicycles, classical music or anything else. But like war each is the answer where appropriate.

War was the answer to National Socialism, slavery in the US, independence from Britain, Japanese militarism, and Carthage among others. ISIS is making war on its neighbors and seems quite satisfied that for them war is indeed the answer.

How was war the answer to (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 07:56:39 PM EST

National Socialism? Do you mean that it taught us the usefulness of socialism? Because our military has no equal right now and it is the purest high functioning survival product delivering socialist system to ever exist.

My healthcare is socialized, my commissary...socialism, my housing...socialism, the youth center...socialism, the swimming facility...socialism, the freakin equestrian center where I can board my horse for pennies on the dollar...socialism, vet services for pennies on the dollar but you can only have two pets....socialism, top ranked comedians giving comedy shows to all....socialism, the golf course...even the golf course....socialism. And since 9/11 we really are comrades. When the spouses took on the DOD trying to cut benefits we beat their arses and we hadn't even broke a sweat yet, scared the hell out of them :) But we have been a bunch of socialist families at war now for over 10 years and when it is time to fight any petty differences we had long ago was squashed under the gears of war.

You make me giggle though...all that socialism stuff :)


I think he's trying to referenct the NAZI's. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by desertswine on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:09:31 PM EST

National Socialism, German Nationalsozialismus, also called Nazism or Naziism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism.

And there's my Nazi reference of the day. I'm trying to see if I can get thru a day without hearing a reference to the Nazi's. I can rarely get thru a day. It's amazing how pervasive they are, even today. Nazis, Schmatzis.


National Socialism ended in 1945 (none / 0) (#32)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:28:13 PM EST

At the conclusion of WWII in Europe.


There are neo nazi groups (none / 0) (#34)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:37:49 PM EST

in many every countrys. Including this one.


Oops (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:40:54 PM EST

VERY MANY countries. about 30 on this wiki page


: And, alarmingly, it is growing (none / 0) (#63)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 03:49:41 PM EST

rapidly in both East & West Europe as we speak.

So socialism works (none / 0) (#41)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 07:14:30 AM EST

if people go through training, wear uniforms, everyone knows their jobs, station in life, and can identify who out ranks them. Additionally socialism works if it doesn't have to pay for itself.


Not exactly (none / 0) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:21:32 AM EST

Middle Eastern countries paid for the first Gulf War, and on the books your military made a profit that go around. That can either be a frightening fact or a satisfying fact or just a fact...based on your belief system :)

And the socialist system of rank has allowed for destroying abuses to occur that had to be exposed by non-military activists. The military had to be exposed and made embarrassed about its rape problems before anything could be done about that.

Because the military is a mostly closed system and the bonding and reliance on each other is so much greater, did you know that being raped in the military often packs twice the psychological damage as being raped in the civilian world?


Show me the numbers (none / 0) (#59)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 02:21:58 PM EST

I am sure you have a link.

LOL go from socialism to rape. stay on subject. Because everything happens in a closed system in the military everything from rape to murder to tehft in the barracks is twice as bad.


: Well, theft and murder weren't (none / 0) (#68)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 05:19:05 PM EST

Covered up, rape was

You've just described the U.S. Military. (none / 0) (#50)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:26:07 AM EST

Duh (none / 0) (#58)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 02:18:26 PM EST

: The notion that he Army doesn't have to pay (none / 0) (#61)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 03:19:32 PM EST

For itself, is incorrect.
Mea culpa.

The solution is easy enough (none / 0) (#23)
by Jack203 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 07:29:14 PM EST

The less involved we are, the less we meddle, the less we bomb and bluster.....the better.

I don't think ISIL WANTS us to bomb them. But if we do, they are going to make the best out of it. The best is to play the West, crusader, oppressor, etc. card and attract recruits.

The whole Middle East is a nest of lunatics and conspiracy theories. It's a black hole for American lives and money with nothing to accomplish or gain.

There is no way to control the Sunni lands within Iraq and Syria. It's a hornets nest with thousands of buzzing hornets wanting to sting somebody, anybody right now. We need to leave them be for at least 10-15 years before even trying to negotiate or communicating rationally with them right now.

The Kurds better be able to defend themselves in the future, because we cannot and should not go running to their defense every time they ask us.

Finally, despite what Obama SAYS because of political necessities. I have hope that Obama and many of our top "Middle East" advisors seem to be on the same page with this. However, if we elect neocons again, it will be another disaster of epic proportions.

History always repeats itself (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by BarnBabe on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 09:35:53 PM EST

My Grandfather came to the USA from Poland when he was 15 yrs old. He did not want to be inducted into the Russian Army. His brother stayed and was hung from a tree by the Nazi's for hiding his Jewish neighbors. I did not live during WWII, but I know of WWII.

I see a similar pattern happening and that is what frightens me. One of the biggest problem in Germany before the war was the economy and the thought that the Jewish people owned all the companies and controlled the money. Unemployment was high and people were miffed that they had to give up so much after WWI. I am simplifying this of course, but you get the picture.

This was not a country of psychopaths. It just took one psychopath to raise his hand and fuel what the people were unhappy about and the rest of the people followed. They weren't born barbaric but they were able to have the Jewish people dig their own graves and shoot them in the back of the heads all because they were of the wrong religion. Sound familiar?

The American people did not want any part of what was happening. It was in Europe and had nothing to do with us. It was none of our business. Hadn't we learned that from WWI? We had our own problems. I know, when asked, we assisted. If you think about it, would there even be a Jewish religion left in this world?

I could go on pontificating, but I am torn on the ISIS subject. They have not asked to come to the table to talk. They say to leave them alone but when you behead our journalist in front of us, what do you expect our response will be. We are not always the bad guys in these disputes, but they make us believe we are.

My former husband had a progressive mental problem. It was a terrible waste of mind of a charming, intelligent, humorous, and generous human being. At a meeting with his doctors, I asked if it was my fault as I was constantly being told that it was and I tried so hard to tip toe around him and not make any waves. They calmly told me that I was not responsible for his schizophrenia.

So if I review my own personal WWII history and the Nazi's aggression and add to it my x husbands experiences, I am conflicted. I don't think it should be all 'oh, poor ISIS, they have good reason to be their way'. And I really don't think it is all my (our) fault. Maybe we need to stop blaming ourselves and call it as it is. Religion, end of story.


BarnBabe (nice handle) (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by ZtoA on Mon Sep 29, 2014 at 10:55:49 PM EST

Always nice to read your comments! Sorry about your ex. Schizophrenia is such a horrible disease (had it in my family too - up close and personal).

And I agree with all of your comment. Blame is not always the primary issue and a bit of historical perspective is in order. Great comment!


My family is mostly German (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:05:07 PM EST

A few studies indicate that the reason the German people fell easily under Hitler's control was our authoritatrian family structure. We had many great philosophers but you did not question authority in the family at that time.

You can still feel the echoes of that structure in my family. It has improved a thousand-fold but it was deeply ingrained. If you were sick and missing school you stayed with Great Grandma. She was a German immigrant. You were given a pillow and a lap blanket and you stayed on the couch, there was no reason to move around, there was no talking, you were sick, the only sound in the house was the ticking of the clock.


For me (none / 0) (#44)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:19:25 AM EST

one of the most interesting parts of the recent Roosevelts doc was the story of FDR in thr run up to our entry into th war. In the shadow of all you mention, quietly working behind the scenes. Doing all he could. Slowly getting people used to the idea that our involvement was coming.

The recent spate of polls are very noteworthy. I am the first to admit how easily some are led but the data in those polls can't entirely be written off to that. I think there are many people who share your point of view. They are not happy - at all - about the idea of more war. They are just as conflicted as you (and me). But 70+ % believe there will be american ground troops involved. Sadly they are probably not wrong.


Oh yes, it is coming (none / 0) (#65)
by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 04:34:32 PM EST

The thing that I feel though it that people are willing to blame us (ourselves included) and making us the bully for not being sensitive enough to the bad guys plight. I believe everyone should take their responsibility and pony up to the bar. Ain't ever going to happen. We are not the bullies here.

And because so many Americans are really good and generous people, we are willing to take the blame because others make us believe that we should. There are big problems in the Middle East and in the world. And so much of the fight is about who's God is the best God. Since in the ME there is the same God as I understand it, maybe THEY need to be talking about it themselves. Maybe it is about land and power and politics. Maybe then we really would not be involved. And then of course, there is Putin trying to reassemble the Soviet Union. Let's see, land, power, and politics. No end in sight.


Hello Barnbabe (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Jack203 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 07:20:05 PM EST

I rarely rarely blame us, but there is no denying we broke Iraq. Bully may be harsher word than I would use, but it's not too far off. Stupid oafs is closer.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I despise the neocons, but I truly believe many of them thought attacking Iraq was a win/win/win solution. Win for Iraq, Win for Democracy, Win for Israel, Win for Western oil interests, Win for Military Industrial Complex. And we take out Saddam who was not a friend. Who could POSSIBLY be against it? With all those "wins", why even look at the other side of the argument? You have to be a pinko wimp to think the other side of the argument could measure up to those "wins". And didn't you just see what happened on 9-11?? Yeah Saddam had nothing to do with it (although neocons tried their hardest to frame them), but Iraq is in the same relative area anyway.

Lets start with the obvious. We actually discredited Democracy by attempting to bomb it into the Iraqis. The neocons willfully ignored their culture which is very suspicious and hostile of the West (mostly for good reason). Secondly, the neocons just completely ignored the Sunni/Shiite split. Hey who cares about the details??

Of course it predictably ended up being a complete and utter catastrophe for everyone involved (save the Military Industrial Complex).

And when I say predictably, Iraq turned out worse, much worse than I hoped, and I was a pessimist going into it.


I was very anti Iraqi invasion (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by BarnBabe on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 12:12:17 AM EST

But the 911 flag was waved in people's faces along with the 'won't cost us a thing, free oil to run it, etc). Some people accused me of being unAmerican for not wanting to get even with Iraq. I was like, there were no pilots from Iraq flying the planes. They were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and no one was ready to take over their country. Saddam was well under control. We had the no fly zone and he was contained. Not happy, but contained.

Now, being annoyed with that does not give me a reason to go out kidnapping Republicans. I could use it as an excuse because the war has cost us plenty besides money. I think the worse thing about the war was the soldiers who had their lives ended way too soon. I think about the lost lives and the wounded. And I think of the families who had their own lives destroyed also. That was the cost of the war.

Therefore with ISIS, I see them blaming us rather than trying to right the problem. Our way might not be the best solution but neither is theirs.


Win/Lose (none / 0) (#72)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 07:40:17 PM EST

The Neo-con plan was a plan for perpetual war. Looks like it is working.


Nah (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Jack203 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:09:16 PM EST

You give them too much credit. Neocon predictions are dead wrong 95% of the time.

Neocons remind me of Game of Thrones King Robert wanting to kill Danerys because he thinks she is a threat, but it's Robert's attempt to kill her that so enrages Danerys husband into ordering an invasion in which he previously had no intention.

Completely, utterly dead wrong and neocons go hand and hand.


: So true (none / 0) (#86)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 11:39:28 PM EST

It's never anything like they predict. And when NeoCons inside the military saw the lay of land two years into Iraq they began a mass exodus out of service. All these blowing bloviators evaporated, they slunk into the shadows and quietly exited the stage of this phucked up disaster. I should have videotaped some of the lesser ranking wind bagging it on stage as they departed for glory though, hindsight is so different than their foresight.

Yes (none / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 04:40:16 PM EST

What are leaders supposed to do? Sit around and knit scarves?

Too bad all leaders are not required to have the best character, when it comes to certain things.


You really should read (none / 0) (#67)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 04:46:44 PM EST

the Council on Foreign Relations link Slado posted on the open thread. Fascinating stuff.


No ground troops (none / 0) (#74)
by Jack203 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 08:35:57 PM EST

In the Sunni lands...until 2017 anyway. The only people stupid enough to do that are the neocons.


Tidbits from professor at Univ of Montana. (none / 0) (#46)
by Green26 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 10:52:01 AM EST

"Calling Islamic State militants a cancer that will spread, University of Montana professor Mehrdad Kia warned that the problem could become global if not countered intellectually and dealt with directly by established Islamic nations."

"Islamic countries must also play a part in quashing the movement, he said."

"While the allied bombing campaign is a start, Kia said, the long-term challenge remains unresolved. Young recruits from the U.S., Canada, England, France and Germany have passports and could bring terrorism home."

"They will come back," Kia said. "This will become a major threat if we don't look at it and deal with it, militarily yes, but also culturally and intellectually."

"The value of the journalist no longer lies in his or her work, Kia said, but rather in their value as a hostage."

"The Islamic State and other terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, have long argued that Islam is engaged in a war with the West, something the U.S. has denied."

"Kia said. "One of the pilots who did the bombing the first night was a woman from the United Arab Emirates. Symbolically, that's so important. It becomes a counter muse to ISIS' narrative."

Linked article.

Bloviating (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Jack203 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:00:08 PM EST

"This will become a major threat if we don't look at it and deal with it, militarily yes, but also culturally and intellectually."

Wrong professor....

ISIS is NOT a major threat to us nor will they ever be. The Sunni's of Iraq and Syria are at war with the Shiite regimes of Sunni and Iraq. We shouldn't be taking sides for either one. The only reason we got sucked into this mess was the Kurds asked our help, and then ISIS egged us on by committing atrocities against American civilians in retaliation.

We were fighting the same people during the Iraq war, (not entirely though as Al Sadr Shiites also attacked and killed hundreds of Americans.)

We were in Sunni lands during the Iraq war. We took the power away from them. We disbanded them from the army, and they fought a guerrilla war against us. When we left, they found they no longer needed to fight from the shadows. They all packed in their pickup trucks, hundreds at a time, and attacked in mass weak points within Sunni lands guarded lightly by weak, poorly led mostly Shiite army units.

Now that we are patrolling the skies again with drones and F18s. Their pickup truck lightning attacks will no longer work. They lost their main "shock and awe" weapon and will need to go back to their much less effective suicide car bombs and roadside bombs.

They lost the momentum, and won't get it back. The stupidest thing we can do at this point will be to put American troops on the ground which the Sunnis can try to kill by roadside bombs again.

We need to let thing simmer down. Once the Sunnis realize they have more to gain by acting responsible and stop attacking their neighbors. The better. The Sunni's should have their own autonomy in their lands.


I agree with you (none / 0) (#80)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 09:09:16 PM EST

as far as troops. The president says there won't be. Fair enough. But still it depends on your definition of "troops". I am not trying to split hairs. Just trying to assess with clear eyes.

I especially agree with the utter insanity of taking sides in Islamic infighting.


: There's boots on the ground (none / 0) (#84)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 10:59:32 PM EST

The tweeted photos that were taken down of the dead commanders, they were each in a black body bag. That isn't a Muslim custom when dealing with the dead, that is possibly offensive from what I understand of the handling of the dead by very observant Muslims.
Who put those guys in black body bags and photographed them? IMO someone really screwed that air strike deaths propaganda up!

I know (none / 0) (#101)
by lentinel on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 01:11:04 PM EST

that sounded like a petulant child in the schoolyard, but we are, according to the tone which Jeralyn sets for our commentary, to refrain from name calling and personal attacks and stick instead to discussing points of view.

The person to whom I addressed this attacks things unsaid, and throws in insults into the bargain.

You did not (none / 0) (#103)
by lentinel on Wed Oct 01, 2014 at 02:10:07 PM EST

read the back and forth I was having with Green26.

I was not proposing any sympathy for ISIS.

I was proposing an alternative to dealing with people who might be drawn to ISIS. As Jeralyn phrased it, trying to understand their grievances. That, as an alternative to bombing.

How you morphed that into being supportive of a nazi regime alludes me.

I can only surmise that you mistook my point of view for that of Green's.

Since you honest enough initially to acknowledge that you missed the snark, sarcasm, of my last response to Green, perhaps you will be honest enough to acknowledge that you did not read the dialogue that preceded it, and instead make some unwarranted assumptions.

In any case, vitriol is uncalled for. "P.O.S". and the like.
Civility is what distinguishes this blog from others like Huffpo and Kos - and makes it readable, enjoyable and educational.