Iraq Reverts

[rebound]

Sorry if you thought I was advocating something specific. I have already made clear how I think these monsters need to be taken care of, and it involves something just short of this:

Make them afraid of what goes "bump in the night".

Fair enough.  And I definitely get the emotion.   The analogy (with the Nazis) really doesn't hold, though.  We were part of a declared war against a specific country,  with a large contingent of allied forces, etc.  We stayed out of that war until we were actually attacked on US soil by Japan.  And we had a very clear end-game in mind for our engagement in WWII in Europe:  Defeat Nazi Germany at all costs.   Because the Germans were a people and a country, with a defined leadership to represent them, this was a viable goal.  Not sure how that applies to ISIL and the other radical Islamic factions.

So I said I'd offer my opinion, for what it's worth. (and admittedly it's worth very little on this topic)

We wait.  We wait just like we did in WWII.  We wait and don't react to journalists getting murdered. We wait until the region is being overrun, and even our former foes are afraid of ISIL and their ilk.  We wait and take no military action unless/until all the affected parties over there are so desperate that they practically beg for our help.   That will mean sitting by while a lot of bad things happen, and a lot of people die, and the enemy consolidates power.   And then we do what we did in WWII.  We align with our (new) allies, and we destroy this newly consolidated power so definitively that they no longer metastasize somewhere else, and our new allies help us maintain the new power structure in our stead when it is over.    Just like WWII.

But unless and until it gets that bad, we wait.  We gather intel and we wait.  We give that intel and other non-military support to our friends over there, and we wait.  We start back-door talks with those countries that aren't our friends, but also fear ISIL, and we wait.  And we get ready for when it comes.  Because I think you are right, it will eventually come.  It's just a matter of when, and how strategic we are in managing our engagement.

[Conan71]

Fair enough.  And I definitely get the emotion.   The analogy (with the Nazis) really doesn't hold, though.  We were part of a declared war against a specific country,  with a large contingent of allied forces, etc.  We stayed out of that war until we were actually attacked on US soil by Japan.  And we had a very clear end-game in mind for our engagement in WWII in Europe:  Defeat Nazi Germany at all costs.   Because the Germans were a people and a country, with a defined leadership to represent them, this was a viable goal.  Not sure how that applies to ISIL and the other radical Islamic factions.

So I said I'd offer my opinion, for what it's worth. (and admittedly it's worth very little on this topic)

We wait.  We wait just like we did in WWII.  We wait and don't react to journalists getting murdered. We wait until the region is being overrun, and even our former foes are afraid of ISIL and their ilk.  We wait and take no military action unless/until all the affected parties over there are so desperate that they practically beg for our help.   That will mean sitting by while a lot of bad things happen, and a lot of people die, and the enemy consolidates power.   And then we do what we did in WWII.  We align with our (new) allies, and we destroy this newly consolidated power so definitively that they no longer metastasize somewhere else, and our new allies help us maintain the new power structure in our stead when it is over.    Just like WWII.

But unless and until it gets that bad, we wait.  We gather intel and we wait.  We give that intel and other non-military support to our friends over there, and we wait.  We start back-door talks with those countries that aren't our friends, but also fear ISIL, and we wait.  And we get ready for when it comes.  Because I think you are right, it will eventually come.  It's just a matter of when, and how strategic we are in managing our engagement.

It's an interesting strategy, Rebound and I appreciate your input.  With all due respect, my problem with this approach as it sends the message to potential recruits that they can continue with no consequences.  I simply wince when I hear: "Let it get overrun" At least if you go in and carpet bomb the crap out of their units, it's going to make recruiting a tougher sell and you keep the growth slow and maybe the ranks even shrink.  As well, the longer we dither, the more assets they capture, many assets you and I have paid for.  More lives perish, lives our American soldiers fought and died for.

The other problem is in the Middle East, today's allies are tomorrow's enemies.  We need to quit arming varying splinter factions there, you'd think we would have learned this 30 some years ago.

I'm as war weary as anyone else who has watched this nightmare unfold for 13 years.  I'd prefer it not require military engagement, but that appears to be the only remedy with these radicals.

[RecycleMichael]

rebound is my new favorite poster on TulsaNow.

Sorry Townsend. You had a good run.

[guido911]

Hey rebound, Inglorious Basterds was just a movie dude. Aldo Raine did not blow up the Nazis in a movie theater, and Donowitz (with Ulmer's help) did not machine gun Hitler in the face. The point I was making was make the terrorists fear America, make them afraid to sleep at night. That's my view. But if you want to just sit back and watch Americans getting beheaded until Europe gets frustrated enough, I get you. I disagree vehemently, but I get you.

And your point also presupposes the terrorism problem is in Iraq. It's in Somalia, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and throughout the world. I would like to know where it can consolidated so we can knock it all out as a matter of geographic convenience.

[guido911]

rebound is my new favorite poster on TulsaNow.

Sorry Townsend. You had a good run.

Pretty bright guy. I like him too.

[rebound]

It's an interesting strategy, Rebound and I appreciate your input.  With all due respect, my problem with this approach as it sends the message to potential recruits that they can continue with no consequences.  I simply wince when I hear: "Let it get overrun" At least if you go in and carpet bomb the crap out of their units, it's going to make recruiting a tougher sell and you keep the growth slow and maybe the ranks even shrink.  As well, the longer we dither, the more assets they capture, many assets you and I have paid for.  More lives perish, lives our American soldiers fought and died for.

The other problem is in the Middle East, today's allies are tomorrow's enemies.  We need to quit arming varying splinter factions there, you'd think we would have learned this 30 some years ago.

I'm as war weary as anyone else who has watched this nightmare unfold for 13 years.  I'd prefer it not require military engagement, but that appears to be the only remedy with these radicals.

Thanks,  I appreciate the reply  and I get where you are coming from.   And like I said,  my opinion isn't worth much and might be wrong.  I am 100 with you on the "quit arming various splinter factions" aspect, as no doubt this has lead to where we are to a great degree.   But just as today's allies may be tomorrow's enemies, it may be possible for today's enemies to become allies, or at least "the enemy of the enemy", which could be a starting point.  And I also am resigned to the fact that force will be required (by someone, and eventually...) as part of the final solution.   I just think it might be better in the long run for the US to allow for the locals over there to see us, and our presence in the region, in a somewhat better light.

[rebound]

Hey rebound, Inglorious Basterds was just a movie dude. Aldo Raine did not blow up the Nazis in a movie theater, and Donowitz (with Ulmer's help) did not machine gun Hitler in the face. The point I was making was make the terrorists fear America, make them afraid to sleep at night. That's my view. But if you want to just sit back and watch Americans getting beheaded until Europe gets frustrated enough, I get you. I disagree vehemently, but I get you.

And your point also presupposes the terrorism problem is in Iraq. It's in Somalia, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and throughout the world. I would like to know where it can consolidated so we can knock it all out as a matter of geographic convenience.

Thanks Guido, and all, for a "not quite as heated" discussion.   It's a tough topic, no doubt, and emotions run high when Americans are in harms way. 

I realize it was movie, but the vehicle used to make the point was specific to Nazi Germany, and the point of reference in that scene is imbued with all the background mythos that all WWII-based movies utilize as part of the plot device.  So while I understood the point, I just thought it important to note that the greater analogy wasn't as clean as in the movie. 

You bring up a good point related to the world-wide spread of terrorism.  But this, to me, illustrates my point.  I do not think the US can, both for practical and political reasons, assume the role of world-wide-terrorist-chaser.  At least not alone.  We need for not just the Europeans, but all countries (even those that would not currently support or assist US actions) to publicly acknowledge their alliance with (or at a minimum, their alignment with) the US in fighting this systemic threat.   I sincerely do not think we can "win" this ourselves, and it will unfortunately be a while before the rest of the world is forced to the same level of awareness as the US.   As I said in an earlier post, I am resigned to the need for eventual military action.   But I think it will have to get a lot worse for the greater world community before we will see the required reactions from others.  As hard as it will be, we should wait until then to aggressively engage.

[guido911]

The more I think about it, the more I am liking the idea of maybe Donowitz, and the actor portraying that character, Eli Roth, should assume control of our foreign policy decisions as to terrorism.





No one would sleep wondering if that guy was coming around. 

But on a serious note, I am not advocating world wide cop. I am looking out for what is in our country's best interest. If that means we have to knock down the doors of 8-10 countries to flush out and exterminate terrorist cells--so be it. We can never tolerate our countrymen to be brutally murdered and act passive, or publicly proclaim having "no strategy", or other bullcrap coming out of this administration. I am also entirely against a policy of "let's wait until the problem becomes the absolute worst, then act".  How many have to die, or how many family's get to watch their children get their heads chopped off, or how many mass graves discovered, or women kidnapped, or women raped, or children slaughtered, and on and on before we as a humanitarian nation do something? We did that in Rwanda, and how did that turn out for the tutsis? And what about other genocides in the world, including what ISIL is doing to Christians and Kurds RIGHT NOW. Even the Pope has weighed in favoring action.

[Gaspar]

The psychology is simple. 

ISIS is not new. They have been around since the 70s. They want power.  They seek to unify many governments and control many people under a theocracy.  They are barbaric and primitive but have been fueled, funded, and well armed by the failures and insecurities of the United States. They are able to achieve and sustain power through force and fear.  They have swollen in the vacuum of leadership and law that we chose to leave to them with.

They did exactly what reasonable people knew (and warned us) they would do.  They listened to the politicians tell them "we're leaving."  They waited until we left, and they took what we left them.

Our president has become too politically entangled to protect or defend us without contradiction, and far to narcissistic to admit failure and take corrective action. He wants to believe that barbaric and primitive actions can be countered with diplomacy, but he has never understood diplomacy, or negotiation from a position of power.  He is skilled only at pointing out the faults of others in comparison to himself, and offering condolence, and gesture.  ISIS is intimately aware of his weakness, and using it to their advantage by painting a picture of the United States as an impotent (self absorbed) enemy without teeth or claw.

As in the past we will hear the word COALITION over and over again, in hopes that the issue of ISIS will fade away.  As things continue to happen, others will be blamed. All will be beyond our control because we don't want to be in control.

There is no doubt that if we allow this evil to swell, it will be at our door soon, if it is not already.  It is sad that our sons and daughters will have to fight this, but there is no doubt that it is our fault and failure to act that allowed it.

[Gaspar]

Boy.  Hate to say "I told ya so."  But this just happened.

Really painful to watch him now.

[Conan71]

Has anyone put any credibility to the reports that ISIS is already operating in Juarez, Mexico?  This seems to be a popular email and social media topic in the last couple of weeks.  Not sure what to put into it, if it's simply people making anything up to claim it's not just teen aged Guatemalans as a reason to close the leaky southern border.

A simple Google search on it only brings up moon bat blogs and some reports from TV stations who say "purported" and credit government watchdog, Judicial Watch with the report. 

Report: ISIS in Ciudad Juarez, plans to attack with car bombs

By: Bill MeluginEL PASO, Texas - A newly released report from a government watchdog group alleges that ISIS terrorists are operating in Ciudad Juarez and are planning a terrorist attack on the United States with car bombs.

Judicial Watch says the information was confirmed to them by high level law-enforcement and intelligence officials.

The report states that intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to "carry an attack out on the border" and that "it's coming very soon."

Judicial Watch writes that their sources say the attacks are so imminent, that Homeland  Security, Justice, and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert, and that the commanding general at Fort Bliss is in the process of being briefed.

KFOX14 contacted Fort Bliss for a response.

"I am aware of the article and we take threats against Fort Bliss seriously," says Lt. Col. Lee Peters, a Fort Bliss spokesman. "Therefore, we continuously work with local and federal law enforcement agencies to assess threat levels in El Paso and can adjust our security measures based on these assessments. I am not sure of the validity of the article, but vigilance and preparedness are keys to maintaining a safe and secure installation."

The United States Department of Homeland Security also tells KFOX14 "The DHS and the FBI are unaware of any specific, credible threat to the U.S. homeland from ISIL."

Read the full Judicial Watch report here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/imminent-terrorist-attack-warning-feds-us-border/

[Gaspar]

Has anyone put any credibility to the reports that ISIS is already operating in Juarez, Mexico?  This seems to be a popular email and social media topic in the last couple of weeks.  Not sure what to put into it, if it's simply people making anything up to claim it's not just teen aged Guatemalans as a reason to close the leaky southern border.

A simple Google search on it only brings up moon bat blogs and some reports from TV stations who say "purported" and credit government watchdog, Judicial Watch with the report. 

I think if this was actually happening we would be seeing a rather large and unmistakable response by Homeland Security.  I can't imagine the consequences of failure to prepare if the threat is real.

[Conan71]

I think if this was actually happening we would be seeing a rather large and unmistakable response by Homeland Security.  I can't imagine the consequences of failure to prepare if the threat is real.

One would think.

Maybe Obama skimmed over that part on his briefing prior to taking off for another round of golf? 

[Conan71]

I tried to resist posting this.  Really.  I did.

[Gaspar]

Piers (I got fired) Morgan is urging Briton to take on ISIS. 
History is obviously hard for him.

"Britain didn't win 2 World Wars by sitting around watching murderous thugs behead our citizens or those of our allies."
http://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/507063367077732353

Besides, David Cameron has been very vocal and already revoked the passports of upwards of 3,000 British citizens suspected of working with ISIS (something we have yet to do to any of the Americans we know to be fighting with them).

I wonder if Piers is in favor of using guns to take on ISIS?