ISIS has set prices on sex slaves starting with children between the ages of 1 and 9:
I don’t understand how anybody can oppose sending troops against these animals and blasting them all to hell.
ISIS
Opinions, art, debate
Opinions, art, debate
ISIS has set prices on sex slaves starting with children between the ages of 1 and 9:
I don’t understand how anybody can oppose sending troops against these animals and blasting them all to hell.
Clarissa's Blog 
If the question is whether ISIS deserves to be attacked, there is probably nobody else in the world who deserves it more right now.
If the question is whether we should send troops to get involved in a land war in (western) Asia, well, that’s one of the classic blunders.
LikeLike
This is precisely the kind of thinking that led the US to sit out WWII, strengthening Stalin enormously and handing over half of Europe and then China to him. And that mistake the US is still paying for with no end in sight.
Cowardice always ends up costing more than bravery.
LikeLike
First, the US didn’t hand China to Stalin. Mao took China, and his interests, like those of any Chinese ruler, were distinct from those of Russia’s rulers. It took the US 25 years to realize that fact and sit down and negotiate with Mao.
Second, the facts are that people who live in cities are easier to rule than people who live in rural villages, and people who live in rural villages on plains are easier to rule than people who live in mountains. Consequently, the Kurds (in mountains) have broken away (in fact if not in name), the Sunni Arabs of the plains have only accepted the rule of fellow Sunni Arabs, and the Shias of the cities have (grudgingly) accepted the rule of whoever occupies the capitol building in Baghdad. The Sunni Arabs of the rural plains prefer the rule of fellow Sunni Arabs to the rule of Iran-friendly Shias in Baghdad and Iran-friendly Alawites in Damascus. Right now, the only effective fighting force offering them a Sunni Arab government that can stand up to Damascus and Baghdad is ISIS. Given the current chaos in Syria, the not-too-far-in-the-past chaos of the US occupation era in Iraq, and the unpleasant prospect of being under alien rule, it’s no surprise that they choose the only option that promises law and order, cultural affinity, and a force that can defy Damascus and Baghdad.
The Sunni Arab tribal leaders of Iraq and Syria could probably throw off the yoke of ISIS themselves if given the right political deal from Baghdad and Damascus, or at least from Baghdad. The solution is a combination of carrots (offered from Baghdad and perhaps Damascus) and sticks (waved primarily by the Kurds, since they are the only force that has proven effective against ISIS). This requires political solutions in Iraqi Kurdistan and Baghdad, which in turn requires tacit acquiescence in Ankara and Tehran. (Since Turkey and Iran could always mess things up in Kurdistan if they wanted.)
And what could US forces do? During the US occupation of Iraq they mostly drew fire from Iraqis, but they never actually imposed their will on anyone. Iraqis were more loyal to tribal leaders than the US, and lulls in violence came from political negotiation with tribal leaders. Send in troops again and the formal ruling apparatus of ISIS might withdraw from public view, but the web of tribal loyalties that Iraqis adhered to before ISIS, and that ISIS draws on (indeed, ISIS’s architect told his henchmen to marry into village power structures) will remain. After the US withdraws, those webs of loyalties will still be present, and somebody will emerge in that power structure. If Baghdad is hostile to the interests of the Sunni Arabs and Saudi Arabia is hostile to Baghdad, then the new power structure in the Sunni Arab regions of Iraq will still be an illiberal and fanatical group that focuses its energies on defying Baghdad. If Baghdad is willing to cut a deal that benefits the Sunni Arabs, maybe the new power structure will be willing to focus on more mundane aspects of governance, like fixing roads and building schools and trying to get the unemployment rate down before the next election.
Ground troops would be a military solution to a political problem.
LikeLike
Yes, precisely, the Iraq war left the US completely toothless on the world arena. And now it will take at least a decade more of guilt – filled navel-gazing to get over it. And who knows what will happen till then.
LikeLike
It’s not guilt-filled navel-gazing. There’s a political situation where the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and Syria are caught between two regimes that don’t care for them (the one in Baghdad being more powerful but less openly violent than the one in Damascus), both of those regimes have the support of Iran (which really doesn’t like them), and their only supporters are the Saudis (who will always support illiberal fanatics).
Until the political situation changes, ground troops are nothing more than a temporary fix.
LikeLike
This is a bunch of gangsters that could be taken out without that much effort. But the political will to do anything isn’t there.
LikeLike
If it wouldn’t take much effort to take them out then why have the nominal governments of Syria and Iraq been unable to take them out? Why is it that the Kurds, the only force that has enjoyed success against ISIS, took a few months to push ISIS back on their border?
If this were easy it would have been done. ISIS has drawn strength from a political situation that brings them support from locals who understand the situation and terrain. The key to defeating them is to change that political situation, for the governments in Baghdad and Erbil, to a lesser extent Damascus, and implicitly Tehran and Ankara, to decide that the Sunni Arabs of that region should be offered something that makes it worth their while to overthrow ISIS. Until ISIS loses local support, they will continue to rule.
LikeLike
As for China, at the time, Stalin perceived it as a clear win to himself. The international communism was strengthened enormously as a result of this massive expansion of its sphere.
LikeLike
I’m sure that Stalin did perceive Mao’s takeover of China as a win for the Soviets, but Mao didn’t…at least, not after a few years. Hence he was happy to receive Nixon and Kissinger as guests.
And for all of the talk of the solidarity and strength of international communism, that didn’t stop Vietnam and China from going to war with each other. There are lots of people in this world who claim similar labels but spend a lot of time fighting each other. Hence Sunnis and Shias are often at odds, despite both claiming the label “Muslim.”
LikeLike
None of this cancels the fact that China is still semi-hostile even today. And Russia is hugely hostile. And if the US had actually gone to war against Hitler, things would be very different.
LikeLike
I suspect that the main reason is that no one wants to be tained with the R or C words. Obama certainly doesn’t want to do anything openly violent toward any group calling itself Muslim (that is, he doesn’t want his name attached to it).
This is the international version of Rotherham where police turned a blind eye to organized pedofile gangs because they didn’t want to be called racist…. (and feminists were either tastefully ignoring it or contorting themselves into pretzels in order to not blame muslim patriarchy).
LikeLike
Well, it’s not like Obama has been eager to do anything about the pseudo Christian Russians. Or anybody else, for that matter. He hates foreign policy, that’s clear.
LikeLike