People, check this out, in the sea of whiny, saccharine idiocy, I actually found a good, interesting analysis of the Paris acts of terror and the ways of doing damage to Daesh.
A Good Article on ISIS
Opinions, art, debate
Opinions, art, debate
People, check this out, in the sea of whiny, saccharine idiocy, I actually found a good, interesting analysis of the Paris acts of terror and the ways of doing damage to Daesh.
Clarissa's Blog 
This article is more or less correct as far as it goes, but the author omits one very relevant fact: Al-Qaeda didn’t begin to lose its appeal to would-be extremists until it was largely defeated on the battlefield by massive ground military force. ISIS isn’t going to lose its appeal, either, as long as it appears to be winning.
A raging forest fire eventually burns itself out even if you leave it alone — but no one recommends allowing wildfires to spread over vast areas unchecked.
Obama has basically said that the U.S. isn’t going to change its non-leadership policy toward ISIS because of the Paris attacks.
It’s going to take a ground war to defeat ISIS — no matter what description (“boots on the ground,” whatever) the administration applies to the military action. That necessary war will probably be delayed until after the 2016 election, unless (God forbid) ISIS pulls off a successful Paris-like attack in the U.S., and then Obama’s hand will be forced.
LikeLike
The problem is that the US military doesn’t seem to be very good. Iraq, Afghanistan – both times it didn’t manage to achieve anything. And what’s the point of entering a war if you know you won’t win?
Why the US military keeps failing so badly with all the resources and technology is an interesting question to ponder. My guess is that the standard of living is too hogh, and people are unwilling to risk their hands.
LikeLike
In the U.S., the uniformed military forces are under civilian control. The U.S. military lost those wars because our civilian leaders (ultimately, the President — everybody else works for him) refused to commit the forces necessary to overwhelm and destroy the enemy quickly and decisively.
Generals and admirals who don’t manage to “convince” themselves that the President’s ideas about how to conduct the war are correct quickly find themselves retired or relieved of command. Think of Gen. Eric Shinseki during the Iraq War, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur in Korea.
LikeLike
But isn’t it true that civilian leaders refuse to commit more forces because they know citizens are ultimately against that? They are politicians who want to be reelected, so they don’t want to anger the voters.
LikeLike
Nobody wants war, but when it becomes necessary, a good President exercises the leadership to convince the public both of the necessity and of the sacrifices required to win it.
American public opinion was very much against entering the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII — but ultimately became very supportive of the war effort, at least in the two world wars. Remember that President Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected for a total of FOUR terms.
LikeLike
The number one characteristic of a sovereign state is its capacity to pursue a foreign policy. In this country, foreign policy keeps being sacrificed to frivolous, entirely forgettable needs of the moment. And that’s sad.
LikeLike
The author of that linked article omits one very relevant fact: Al-Qaeda didn’t begin to lose its appeal to extremists until it was decisively defeated on the battlefield by massive ground military forces. ISIS won’t, either.
A raging forest fire will eventually burn itself out if you leave it alone, but no sane person recommends letting a deadly wildfire spread unchecked.
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post — I thought WordPress had eaten my initial attempt at a comment!
LikeLike
Have you seen the Graeme Wood article?
LikeLike
Good article — thanks for the link.
But its conclusion — “Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it appears the best of bad military options” — is dead wrong.
We don’t have the luxury to wait that rabid barbarism out.
LikeLike
Good article. Thank you for posting the link.
LikeLike
Daesh? Say it isn’t so!
Juan Cole has been trying to make ‘Daesh” happen for what seems like decades (basically to try to disassociate it from Islam) but I’m against it.
They call themselves the Islamic State and there’s no reason to officially refer to them as anything else.
LikeLike
I like the term for the offensive factor. We don’t have anything offensive enough to refer to these animals. Something like “dirty pigs oozing stinky slimy that the prophet would recoil from” is needed.
But if Juan Cole supports the term, then I can’t. The fellow is brain – dead.
LikeLike