Posted on 09/03/2014 6:01:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week President Obama admitted that his administration has not worked out a strategy on how to deal with the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a dominant force in the Middle East. However, as ISIS continues its march through Syria and Iraq, many in the US administration believe it is, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a threat "beyond anything we have ever seen."
Predictably, the neocons attacked the president's speech. They believe the solution to any problem is more bombs and troops on the ground, so they cannot understand the president's hesitation.
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon made it clear that fighting ISIS is going to cost a lot more money and will bring US forces back to Iraq for the third time. The post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan peace dividend disintegrates.
"ISIS is an urgent threat and a minimalist approach, that depends solely on FY15 funding or pinprick strikes that leave fragile forces in Iraq and Syria to do the hard fighting, is insufficient to protect our interests and guarantee our safety in time," Mr. McKeon said last week.
What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will "print" more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.
A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!
McKeon and the other hawks act as if they had only recently become aware of the ISIS. Or if they noticed it, they pretend US policy had nothing to do with its rise.
McKeon also said last week, "ISIS threat was allowed to build and fester over a period of time."
In fact, US regime change policy in Syria was directly responsible for the rise of ISIS over these past three years. As journalist Eric Margolis observed recently, the emergence of ISIS is the "mother of all blowback." The neocons who want us to get tougher on ISIS, including a US attack on Syria, are the same ones who not long ago demanded that we support groups like ISIS to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. US-trained and funded "moderates" from the Free Syrian Army joined the Islamist militias including ISIS, taking US weapons and training with them.
Three years of supporting any force that might overthrow the secular government of President Assad has produced a new monster in the Middle East that neocons insist the US must slay.
Why can't they just admit they were wrong? Why can't the interventionists just admit that their support for regime change in Syria was a terrible and tragic mistake?
If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim, why can't they simply ask Assad to help out? Assad has never threatened the United States; ISIS has. Assad has been fighting ISIS and similar Islamist extremist groups for three years.
Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?
A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the president will finally stop listening to the neocons and interventionists whose recommendations have gotten us into this mess in the first place! Here's a strategy: just come home.
“O” and his creatures have been making it up as they go along for his entire tenure in the WH.
The predictable and unavoidable problems associated with this asinine and arrogant approach to ‘leadership’ are more apparent all the time.
I guess the OJT ‘Presidency’ was not such a good idea.
... and your son is an idiot with a perm.
Indeed. His points are well taken that ISIS is to some extent a result of past US policy.
That’s all fine, but it doesn’t provide any guidance on how to deal with the situation as it now exists. It’s as if after Pearl Harbor someone insisted on going back and rehashing all the mistakes the US had made dealing with Japan, which were numerous, and therefore we shouldn’t fight them now.
His notion that Assad has never threatened the US is just stupid. Syria has for decades been a major supporter of terrorism of many varieties. The Assads were allied at various times with both Saddam and Iran.
A foreign theocratic government, as such, is no more repugnant to US values than any other authoritarian or totalitarian system. Although, admittedly, all the theocratic governments around at the moment are all pretty bad.
Ron Paul: exactly right 20% of the time, an idiot the rest of the time.
Oh, I think I understand bammy's hesitation alright. He's lost. He and his cohorts in crime literally have no clue as to what they should do. I'll give them one small kudo for recognizing they are in over their heads and not rushing off and doing something stupid.
The post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan peace dividend disintegrates.
So we should let this go on, get bigger and more dangerous until it completely destabilizes the region? It will be easier to fight and defeat now than 2 or 3 years from now.
You can wring your hands all you want but in the end we may not have a whole lot of options here. If the other guy makes war on you, you're in a war, like it or not. bammy's policies coming home to roost.
"ISIS is an urgent threat and a minimalist approach, that depends solely on FY15 funding or pinprick strikes that leave fragile forces in Iraq and Syria to do the hard fighting, is insufficient to protect our interests and guarantee our safety in time," Mr. McKeon said last week.
He's probably right. I'm sure he has access to better intel than me or Paul.
What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will "print" more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.
Where is that coming from? Did Paul's cat walk across the keyboard again while he was getting coffee?
A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!
I don't agree with Paul's conclusions. I am certain that letting ISIS gain strength and territory is a very bad idea. There will be a cost to us to deal with them. Some now, no-doubt more later. Thanks bammy for setting the stage for them to come into power.
McKeon and the other hawks act as if they had only recently become aware of the ISIS. Or if they noticed it, they pretend US policy had nothing to do with its rise.
Oh, I'm sure bammy's policies had quite a bit to do with ISIS' rise to power.
...are the same ones who not long ago demanded that we support groups like ISIS to overthrow the Assad government in Syria...
Yes, "like" ISIS in that they opposed Assad. Not "like" ISIS in that they're murderous psychopaths. That was our position, not surprising bammy and crew got it wrong (intentionally or through ignorance).
Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?
You tell me Paul, why does bammy always seem to side with Muslims? Hmm? Why do you think that is Paul?
Is it better to have no strategy or bad strategy?
No, you isolationist dumbshit... viral videos of them hoisting the severed heads of American children will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave. These are NOT PEOPLE we're dealing with! They are savages who thirst for the blood of non-muslims of ALL ages!
What would you do?
I rest my case.
You said, though it might be lower than 20%
Did neocons want Assad out?! I thought it was the Dems!
Rachel Maddow’s been beating the drums nightly for congress to vote on war authorization for ISIS bombing etc.
But what is congressional Republicans incentive for taking the focus off of Obama on this?
Let his flounder for all to see.
He says he doesn’t need congress for anything else, he has a pen and phone.
????
Stop picking on McCain and Grahamnesty Ron, the Sunday morning talk shows count on them as guest experts.
That Mike Rogers is on TV every Sunday morning.
WTF are you talking about? Mike Rogers is not even mentioned in the article and so what if he is. *rme*
Paul’s attitude would be fine, if our borders were sealed, and if we were prepared to pay the economic price of doing so. (There are economic benefits to free trade—comparative advantage and all that.)
The Muslim world should be quarantined. No travel in or out, no trade in or out. We have plenty of oil and gas. Systematic deportation of Muslims should follow. Secular, moderate, unserious Muslims only should be allowed to stay.
He is on TV every Sunday...so maybe Paul was talking about him too.
Good points.
This is one of the most incoherent pieces I’ve read in a while. He blames the Syrian uprising to neocons? I guess Obama is a neocon now. And he then praises Obama for not even having a strategy as though it’s none of our business?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.