The US Military only has a 7% chance of defeating ISIS!

I agree.

Saudi Arabia is an example of a nation that has been close or at least accommodating of us for decades, yet maintaining a very separate fundamentalist culture. In fact, that shows that cultural change isn't an immediate concern.

I was referring to something else, though. It seemed there was a chance that the word jihad was being used as a way to scoop up most or all of Islam as enemies. And, that is a major mistake - both in method of argument and in the result.

 

Their educated elites tend to eventually manage to install repressive governments to protect themselves from Jihad waves. We did not install Gadaffi, Al Sissi, Saddam, the regime in Algeria ...

I am sure those impacted directly or indirectly by the bombing are not pleased with it. OTH, those who are terrified and fed up with the IS/Al Queda oppression probably like to see them get smacked.

Whether some Muslims like or not trifling with serious folks is usually an error. What we have been doing is more of an irritant than a solution.

Given the current political reality further war in the ME is frankly stupid, IMO.

 

I have known many Muslims who were not terrorists, many would describe themselves as "bad Muslims" but they did believe.

To the extent that they had adopted Western ways they felt guilty. Many if not most Muslims believe that the best course would be the adoption of Sharia law even if they would rather drink, dance to Daddy Yankee, and seduce Western women than go to war.

 

You have to look at history to figure out how/why Saddam got control. One starting point is when the West decided to divide the ME into countries along borders that did not match the peoples within those borders - thus creating an Iraq that was probably ungovernable other than by a forceful hand. We had that problem contained for a decade, and then our stupid decision to conquer Iraq opened up the gigantic catastrophe we have today. Al Sisi came about as a result of a revolution against the regime that we strongly supported, but which was not addressing the serious problems of the citizens of Egypt. So, now we have an Egypt where the people see the USA as one of the important reasons that revolution was required.

When we caused civil war in Iraq (by giving it to Maliki), it was a gigantic opening for ISIL. Somewhat similarly, when Assad decided to start bombing his opposition in Syria, that was a gigantic opening for ISIL. Notice that both these cases started with outrageously repressive governments which were not successfully serving the people. And, in the case of Iraq, it came directly from us.

If anyone has been "trifling" with others it surely must be us, as we don't live in the ME, yet we have taken repeated strong roles in how THEY are governed, and WE have been wrong, causing gigantic hardship there, regardless of any intent.


So, I somewhat agree with your last sentence in that we don't have a real solution now, and we have a desperately pathetic record of picking/establishing government. Also, there are regional players who don't agree with us - Assad has serious support from Russia and Iran, for example. However, I do believe we have some level of responsibility as well as a lot to lose from bad solutions. The result is that we can't just walk away.

 

We have jurisdictions that support Sharia law today, under our constitution and when both parties consent. And, we have Christian fundamentalists who share a lot with Islam in terms of preferred societal norms of behavior - sexuality, alcohol, abortion, marriage/divorce, and even concern about capitalism.

I think we have to be careful about how we interpret these statements about Sharia law. In some cases, it's really not much more than a call for conservative principles that are not outrageously different.

 

Brilliant!



We're not even at war with ISIS but the right wingers are spreading hysteria because they want more billions wasted on military industrial complex welfare.

Brilliant!

 

We are in general agreement on history and facts. Not sure there was any way to divide up the ME that would not have problems. Perhaps greater problems. It would appear that they were trying to avoid creating a united greater Persia next to a united Sunni Arab monstrosity. We may see how that scenario works itself out before too long now.

Re: trifling I was referring to the effort. Assad was one of the more tolerant revolving ME dictators. Dictators get very ugly when they are in a life or death fight.

You are right to conclude that we have a great deal of responsibility for this mess, but IMO, we can not clean it up. The public will turn on any government that send troops in there - again. Our record, as you point out, is very convincing,

 

The Sharia approach to honor killings, rape, women's testimony, homosexuals etc. is very incompatible with our culture and legal system. The Branch Davidians were minor kinks in comparison.

 

Well, when practiced in the US under our legal system, it doesn't include those elements.

And, it doesn't include all those elements when practiced in most other countries, either, including Muslim countries.

Iraq is a Muslim nation. Before we turned them loose as an independent nation they had already modified their constitution such that the Qur'an is above the constitution. And, slavery is not legal in Iraq. Yet, you want to accuse them of what YOUR version of Sharia means to YOU.

Slavery is also illegal in other nations that have significant Muslim majorities.

Rather than concocting YOUR version of what Sharia means and then accusing other nations of following that, we should be focused on what matters, REGARDLESS of religion.

 

Your arguments are not very responsive to the problem. They do not contradict my post. Secular Muslim elites have always resisted the implementation of Sharia. This usually involves embracing a very authoritarian government to suppress Islamist zealots. In fact, Sharia is not a a very flexible system.

You need to read Bernard Lewis and other Arabic fluent Islamic scholars instead of sources influenced by the current political environment. Your post reads rather like the current administration talking points. Think for yourself.

 

I've read "Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 years" and "What Went Wrong" by Lewis. I've scanned others, as I do respect him.

Being different from the Pentagon isn't a discredit in my book. I don't always agree, but they must be respected for what they know.

I agree that governments that are not selected in a democratic manner are quicker to resort to repression when under stress. But, you are going beyond that, claiming that those who oppose the government represent Islam in some way.

And, that does not help, as they are ALL Muslims in countries that are all Muslim. So, if you find a revolutionary, he or she is going to be Muslim!! And, if you find a criminal, they are going to be Muslim!! And, if you find a budding young Thomas Jefferson, he/she will be Muslim. Duh!

So, your fixation on Sharia is a total red herring. We know from experience that if the culture (here OR there) wants to be progressive, they can do so while accommodating Sharia. And, we know that if they want to be terrorists, they can use Sharia as an excuse to commit unspeakable crime.

The root problem in Syria is that the extended drought drove large numbers into the cities, and Assad had no solution. So, Assad resorted to lethal violence and disenfranchisement against the large majority opposed to him.

What has followed is pretty expectable - a war of revolution, with those opposed to Assad not very likely to fight those who come to "help" - even when they are terrorists. When you are in a revolution, you don't spend all that much time and energy killing those standing with you even if you don't agree with them.

Trying to point to Sharia as a problem in the above makes zero sense to me. Sharia is not being seen by anyone in Syria as the problem as far as I know. And, the same goes in Iraq, where Maliki bombed and drove from office and jobs the 8M Sunni civilians there. The subsequent civil war can't be claimed to be about Sharia. The war opened an opportunity for ISIL, and they took it. But, Sunnis in Iraq aren't likely to form a significant opposition to ISIL while the government offers them no future beyond death and disenfranchisement.

So, again, Sharia has nothing to do with it at all. We even let people use Sharia here in the USA!

 

The Pentagon has no choice but to march to their the President's latest political correct hit tune. Nation building, cultural reform, creating an education system for other nations should not be a military function. Send HHS over there for that. They would probably obtain better rules of engagement.

I am not "claiming those who oppose the government represent Islam". Many non-Muslims oppose our government. Sharia is a substitute for the COTUS. It is often a big deadly problem. Of course, Islam is a minor problem when the Muslim community is small and well integrated. That is no longer the case in the US.

I did not say that Sharia is the problem in Syria. The problem is, as you point out, the centuries old religious dispute between Sunni and Shia. IMO, the American military will only waste treasure and lives in Syria and the ME generally. Regarding the likelihood of the Sunnis in Syria effectively opposing ISIS - perhaps. But it is always best to remember that "American Intelligence" is usually something of an oxymoron.

You may want to read Among the Believers, Naipaul. You would have to conduct months of interviews with Muslims in Iran to gain a better feel for their mindset.

 

In this post you say that Sharia is "often a big deadly problem".

But, I already clearly pointed out that Sharia is present among peaceful upright communities as well as with terrorists. And, I pointed out that this is true in the ME countries where essentially everyone is Muslim and thus they all believe in Sharia in some form. You can't resort to some dilution factor by saying "small and well integrated".

So, we KNOW that Sharia is NOT the "big deadly problem". I see this as important, because it is an entry point for irrational hate against pretty much every person and nation in the ME - thus being a factor in leading to irrational decisions bound to fail.

Yes, there IS a big sectarian problem. But in Syria, that overflowed when other factors put huge pressure on the government. Assad failed, and his solution was to bomb the opposition. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing argument that Assad would have bombed Sunnis purely because they were Sunnis. In fact, the entrepreneur class in Syria had been willing to stick with Assad even though they saw him as a horrible leader. They were concerned that Syria could become like the Iraq we created, and they knew how bad that was. Any solution in Syria needs to end up with a leader who will succeed. It is a huge issue that Assad is NOT that leader - an issue that seriously affects our strategy.

The America military is WAY smarter and WAY more ready to state the truth than you suggest. Trying to pitch them as toadies simply doesn't work. While I don't always agree with their solutions, their intel is consistently better than that of other US sources. And, the Pentagon does NOT just bend in the wind to the president.

 

Any Muslim community in the West that begins to govern itself according to Sharia law will be a very big problem. They already are a big problem.

The US military and political leadership has a long track record of performing very badly until it is educated through repeated defeats on the battlefield. Surely you know this. The Iraq wars were a rare exception. Immediate victory in battle followed by naive political blundering.

Of course the American military are "toadies". It is called the chain of command. Generals, in the US, must do exactly what they are told or resign or get the full MacArthur treatment. They all know that. We are lucky that they do.

 

We already have jurisdictions which adjudicate according to Sharia under our constitution. Yet, I hear no problem from that.

In Iraq, the initial conquest was never in doubt. The problem was that we had no plan to follow that up. And, somehow we thought we could reduce AQI on our own, without the help of the Sunnis. Even today, we only hear about the requirement for Sunni help if we dig into what we're doing and why. For example, in Iraq we're working to train Sunnis who prefer to support the existing government and we're working with the existing government to make accommodation for Sunnis - an end to their disenfranchisement, an end to slaughter of Sunnis by militias condoned by the government, etc. Unfortunately, in the US those acts aren't seen as us doing anything - as a people, we would really prefer to blow stuff up than to work toward a real solution. So, we have our military taking the acts that are required while the public thinks they are being toadies!! Sorry, I don't agree. Obama is being heavily influenced by our Pentagon, and mostly in a direction with which I agree. It's no accident that our Iraq policy has been so close to Bush policy at the end of his term - it's the same Pentagon.

 

Christian fundamentalist Bush's war on Iraq has cost multiple thousands of deaths to people of all stripes in the ME.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey right wingers - since you feel the government has only a 7% chance of winning a "war" against ISIS, why don't you increase those odds by enlisting or by fighting the war yourselves?

 

Actually G.W. Bush was just following the law that President Clinton signed into law, the "Iraq Liberation Act" of 1998.

If you ever read Bin Laden's declaration of war on the USA, Bin Laden's first "Fatwa" it was because Bin Laden looked at President Clinton to be a pantywaist, not willing to deal with Saddam Hussein and thinking that America was just a "paper tiger" that had the talk but not the walk. Bin Laden decided to appoint Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plan, organize, train and carry out the Al Qaeda attacks on American soil on 9-11-01 believing that America's only response would be only a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Unknown to Al Qaeda at the time that G.W. Bush would become President in 2001 and Bush had the talk and the walk.

But unfortunatly for Bush and America, the Bush administration inherited Clinton's failed anti terrorist policies and Clinton's military that was over down sized during the Clinton administration. When it comes to Al Qaeda and 9/11 it always goes back to Clinton just like today when you look at the Middle East, it always goes back to Obama's failed foreign affairs policies with the Middle East. One has to wonder who's side is Obama really on ???

 

Google Sharia problems UK France.

We actually did have a plan. Probably a bad one - to install a pro-American strongman. American foreign policy is written in sand.

As a people we would rather blow things up than fight another pointless ground war. The US has no positive role to play in the ME. The people know it.

Again, the military had better be the toadies of the President - it's the law. "If only the Tsar knew!" Cry the peasants.

The Tsar always knows - especially in America.

 

In this day and age where nuclear materials can be purchased online, nothing is out of the reach of ISIS, that's rather worrying isn't it?

 

LOL! What on earth made you think I was a "Christian fundamentalist"? Gocho? Or the Bigot Channel?

I am as anti-war as it can get - until the bipartisan alliance in Washington sends in the troops. When that happens the 60s peace movement will look like a West point graduation in comparison.

The US needs to stop blundering around in the ME - and the world for that matter. G. Washington warned about the consequences - not too late to pay attention to him.

 

Obama is just a product of the old movement rads that raised him. He appears to be a bit brighter than the nincompoops around him. The fact that he doesn't have much faith in his daily intel brief proves he at least has a clue. And he has been smart enough not to send in another invasion force. Be thankful for that.

Yes, the fish rots from the old head. Clinton was a disaster. Both Bush's had a built in bias for the Saudi's. never expect much form Presidents - they are better than kings and dictators. That's as good as it gets. Alas.

 

Where in the post do you see me calling a Christian fundie?

- - - Updated - - -

or perhaps it is the fact that two different posts were conjoined into one that caused you that confusion - I did not call you a fundie

 

"Christian fundamentalist Bush's war on Iraq has cost multiple thousands of deaths to people of all stripes in the ME.
Hey right wingers - since you feel the government has only a 7% chance of winning a "war" against ISIS, why don't you increase those odds by enlisting or by fighting the war yourselves?"

Well, I suppose you could just be trolling to bash Christians generally.

FWIW, the defining aspect of both Bush Presidents was Big Government Progressive Republicanism not Christianity. I did not notice any national Christian movement in support of the ME wars. Of course, virtually the whole country loved Bush I when he declared victory - 92% approval? Were all those the cheerleaders Christian right wingers?

Shame on the left wing war mongering hypocrites.

US policy in the ME has been a great bipartisan black comedy of military and foreign policy errors from Carter on.

 

If you remember Obama's demeanor after only being in the White House for a few months, he realized the job of POTUS was bigger than he was.

Obama said right after winning the big lottery in November of 2008, "judge me by who I surround myself with" in the White House. As we see Obama surrounded himself with losers, incompetent people like Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice both who have been in charge of America's national security. Yep the same Susan Rice who was part of the Clinton administration who convinced President Clinton not to accept the Sudan's offering of turning over Osama bin Laden to U.S. authorities.

Valerie Jarrett the Iranian born communist who is in charge of the social engineering of our military.

As former Obama's Secretary of Defense Gates, Panetta and Hagel all have pointed out that Obama just doesn't trust his military advisers but ignores them along with the military civilian secretaries.

Barack Obama doesn't understand geopolitics, it's a game played like chess. Obama and some of those Obama had surrounded himself with have said that geopolitics was obsolete in the 21st Century. Seems like all of the other world leaders didn't get the message.

But President Clinton decisions would come back to haunt both President G.W. Bush and Obama. It was Clinton who after Reagan had won the Cold War wanted to expand NATO by bringing in former Warsaw Pact nations and put NATO troops on Russia's borders. When Russia asked if they could join NATO, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (another foreign born American who has a chip on her shoulder when it comes to Russian because of WW ll) told Clinton to tell the Russians no way. This would lead to Vladimir Putin coming into power.

Clinton's mistakes that he made in Mogadishu would lead the way of Al Qaeda declaring war on America that lead to 9/11.

And it was Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno who convinced Clinton that Al Qaeda was not a national security issue but a law enforcement issue.

 

This is how it works. The aging old rads and their converts all know everything.

There is a very long history of this. Take the Kronstadt sailors, or the Tudeh Party in Iran. They are always way smarter than the fools they help to overthrow governments.

And then the "fools" outfox and kill all the smart guys!

How can that happen to such crafty deep thinkers?