I've long appreciated the War Nerd's insight, knowledge, and humor about historical and current foreign policy. In three articles, the War Nerd breaks down the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and makes it clear how little threat ISIS really poses.
First, the War Nerd analyses the supposed scary and menacing ISIS advance on the Syrian Kurdish village of Kobanei as insignificant and a pathetic year-long campaign by ISIS that highlights its weakness rather than its strength.
Next the War Nerd wonders why while the U.S. is bombs away on ISIS that Israel has been quiet, pointing out, "Nobody ever seems to mention it, but the supposedly fearsome IS now owns the ground right under Israel’s Golan Heights fortifications, after moving in in June 2014 when the weary SAA, tired of being shelled by the IDF, moved out. So IS has been in place right there on Israel’s border for months now—and there’s been no attack from Israel. Yes, folks, you might actually get the impression that the Israelis—who know a thing or two about threat assessment—just don’t take IS very seriously."
Last, the War Nerd debunks the recent claims that ISIS is an advancing threat on Baghdad, "Islamic State isn’t looming over Baghdad so much as sulking outside it, in the final Sunni enclave — stalled out and dreaming of a return to the hegemony the Sunni held over the city ten years ago. And if you really think that Baghdad, which is now firmly in Shia hands, is like some damsel in distress, just waiting to be ravished by big, bad IS…well, you haven’t been following the record of the Shia militias which drove the Sunni out in the first place."
So why is the U.S. escalating?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @02:46AM
Obviously, that plays an important part, psychologically. A government's first job #1 is to protect its citizens. You can't let these animals get away with those show executions and suffer no consequences, even if that appears to be what they're inviting.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday October 13 2014, @03:04AM
As if those are actually executions. Have you seen the videos? The actual beheading isn't shown, just like with the Daniel Pearl execution video which happened years earlier. They show the frightened hostage before and the head after, but never the actual beheading. This all smacks of bullshit. (Note: there are legit beheading videos out there, but those are carried out by actual Islamic militants who were lucky enough to secure a catch but too small to actually matter).
The summary is all you need to read here, for the linked articles are just an air of scepticism of the official narrative. Though you can read the linked articles and determine that for yourself. Or as an anonymous poster said, if it's on the mainsteam media then you don't have to worry about it.
It's as if American propaganda finally went full-Hollywood. And who runs Hollywood? I'll give you a hint -- a population with ties to the Middle-East runs Hollywood, and they think you're too stupid to know any better in showing you those videos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:29AM
> They show the frightened hostage before and the head after, but never the actual beheading. This all smacks of bullshit.
Or it is their media relations group deciding that if they don't show the most gory parts that the video will propagate much further since it can play during primetime and on websites like youtube without violating their no snuff film rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @05:06AM
Ah, yes. It's all the fault of the Jews. Considering the source, I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else.
Move along, people. Nothing to see here....
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday October 13 2014, @02:03PM
It's as if American propaganda finally went full-Hollywood. And who runs Hollywood? I'll give you a hint -- a population with ties to the Middle-East runs Hollywood, and they think you're too stupid to know any better in showing you those videos.
Not surprising, considering American is has been living under post- Smith-Mundt Act [rt.com] regime since 2012.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @02:08PM
ISIS aims to govern. They want to seem brutal, but not too brutal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @06:57PM
(Score: 1) by number11 on Monday October 13 2014, @04:30PM
And ISIS shows the executions of Westerners on video, with the purpose of sucking western military involvement. Which will inevitably kill civilians (a lot more civilians than the 3 westerners), thereby generating hate against the foreigners, and increased support for ISIS among the population. Well, the Sunni population, but that's the potential pool for recruits anyhow.
You can't let these animals get away with those show executions and suffer no consequences, even if that appears to be what they're inviting.
But how about the animals that make missile attacks on wedding parties and funerals, who drop bombs on houses, who kill women and children? Without even being brave enough to engage in face to face combat? Which side do you think the (mostly Sunni, so not at great risk from ISIS) local population, who's getting bombs dropped on their heads, is going to think of as animals?
Nope, ISIS is pretty media-savvy, and played the West for suckers. And they succeeded. As long as there isn't massive resistance on the ground. But there's nobody on the ground to do that. The professional Iraqi officer corps, those who are involved, are with ISIS (we purged Baathists from the Iraqi army, remember?). The Kurds are spunky, but have little leadership or equipment. Turkey may take on ISIS, at least on that side of Iraq, but not until they've let ISIS wipe out the Kurds (Turkey has been fighting the Kurds for decades).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nyder on Monday October 13 2014, @03:11AM
My guess is that the USA doesn't actually understand war. Ever since WWIII, we think we are the solution to the world's problem, and instead, we are sucking our own dick.
Korean War - We didn't really help anyone, did we?
Vietnam War - Ya, we really knew what we were doing then.
Gulf War 1- Actually, this was played smart, didn't invade because that would of been stupid.
Gulf War 2- Enter Stupid, George W. Bush, decides that making the middle east more unstable helps american policy.
War on Drugs - Which is odd, because the US Government was supplying drugs into the USA, and then arresting every one.
War on Terror- Which I'm going to point out, that the US policy on the middle east has not only caused the rise in terrorist, but we have not only supplied them, and trained them over the years.
The truth is, the USA Government are bullies. We will beat up on any small nation. But if a big nation, like Russia does stuff that isn't cool, we ignore it. Why? Because as the worlds bully, we are too scared to actually get hit back. I mean, that might hurt us. It's okay if we do it to you, but if you do it to us, OMG, that is wrong. Do as we say, not as we do.
After all, look at our policy. The US Goverment thinks it's okay to hack any computers in other countries, but if you do that to us, OMG, it's cyber war time.
Our current USA Government is a bunch of wimp ass bullies, who do not understand that with power comes responsibility, and they are leading us down the drain to become a crappy 3rd world country. You think it won't happen? It's been slowly happening over the last 2 decades.
You want the USA to become a place you are proud to call home? Time for a new government. Our current government cares nothing for the world, for the USA and doesn't give a fuck about your rights, as they shown by walking over our constitution for the last decade or 2.
Time for a change, time to get rid of all the congress/senate/executive office and start over with new ones, hopefully ones that understand if you pull the same shit our current government has pulled, you will be removed from your job and replaced with someone who actually gives a fuck about the people of the USA and the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:41AM
Yes we did. Thanks to the US, S. Korea had the chance to develop into a successful, prosperous democracy that she is today.
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Monday October 13 2014, @08:34AM
The US supported the dictators of South Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Doo-hwan [wikipedia.org]
They didnt give a shit frankly. And if the USA had played their cards differently, Nth Korea may well have been not the dysfunctional ass pimple it is today.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @11:35AM
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @11:56AM
"Ever since WWIII"
Yeah well... Maybe if you mean WWI. We didn't really "do" anything in WWI except watch the remains of the old order in Europe (Austrian Empire, Ottoman Empire) completely self destruct and the rest start to slide (Russia, England)
The war on alcohol didn't really do anything but develop organized crime, gun control, and begin the development of the police state.
WWII could be looked at pessimistically as delay fighting as long as possible to gain maximal advantage in the end. If the Germans could have just left the western front alone, we'd probably have allied with them against the commies and they'd have allied with us against the Japanese, at least on paper. The world would still be talking about the partition of Russia and how .de got bountiful wheat fields in the Ukraine and we got stuck with Siberia. On the bright side we'd probably have a literal bridge between Alaska and Siberia
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 13 2014, @12:17PM
That's not it at all.
The problem is that its government doesn't understand peace. The US federal government has been in a state of military emergency since 1941, and will not back away from that anytime soon. There are also lots of elements in the US that believe that doing something about an international problem necessarily involves blowing something up, and that there aren't any long-term consequences to doing so. They also have a not-very-sophisticated view of the rest of the world: Countries are basically either Good Guys or Bad Guys, and there's an assumption that the only way a country moves from being a Bad Guy to being a Good Guy is through military or covert action. And I should point out that there's no correlation whatsoever between the degree of freedom a government gives its population and whether they are considered a Good Guy or a Bad Guy: the real determining factor is how they treat US corporations. There's also no correlation whatsoever between which party controls the White House or Congress and whether this is going on. And any correlation between the level of threat posed to the US or an ally and whether we decide to get into a war is the exact opposite of what most people think: Grenada, Vietnam, Kosovo, Somalia? Go get 'em! North Korea with nukes, Russia, China? No way!
As to why the Obama administration is going after ISIS, the goal is to establish a military presence in Syria, which they want to take control of in a proxy war but can't attack directly with the army because otherwise Russia will get upset. They have 3 reasons to do that:
1. It would eliminate any opposition to Israel permanently claiming the Golon Heights or even a bit beyond that.
2. It would remove a Russian ally (that's what makes the Assad government a Bad Guy).
3. It will help soften relations between the US and Iran, which means that they can negotiate delays in Iran's effort to get nukes. This of course means that it will be easier to take over Iran later on.
The problem with this whole worldview is that it pays approximately zero attention to what ordinary people in other parts of the world actually want, and so they get blindsided by popular movements like the mostly non-violent Egyptian protest movement that toppled US ally Mubarak (which prompted the US to organize a coup against the elected government of Mohammed Morsi - remember, democracy doesn't matter to these guys), and surprised when it turns out that a lot of Afghans would prefer the oppressive rule of the Taliban to the oppressive rule of our corrupt puppets in Kabul, and confused when the Venezuelans put a stop to the US-backed coup against Hugo Chavez.
This is all straight out of Henry Kissinger's playbook [wikipedia.org], and it's working well enough that they're going to continue it until they run out of Bad Guys.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @12:26PM
"necessarily involves blowing something up"
The short version of your more or less correct paragraph is the "well known" pentagon strategy / tradition / joke of "ready, fire, aim". It goes back a lot longer than the pentagon.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday October 15 2014, @01:18PM
As far as the last decade worth of "terrorist" events is concerned, you missed the most important one - the covert/proxy war against Russia in Afghanistan. Funny thing that, you give a bunch of freedom fighters a few billion worth of arms and training so they can fight your enemies for you, then skip out on the rebuilding cheque when the Russians retreat, leaving behind a rather nasty political situation and a battered, broken country full of dead people, in the care of rival groups of heavily armed, well trained, angry men, but then everyone was suprised when they decided to attack America.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Monday October 13 2014, @03:15AM
Uh, lessee... Power? Politics? Corporate profits?
I dunno, gotta be sumpthin' that benefits those who have (or want).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:52PM
It's the oldest trick in the book: while everything in your country is going to hell, you distract people with stuff that's happening abroad, usually a "threat".
Want to see some real terrorists? How bout http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214 [rollingstone.com]
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Monday October 13 2014, @03:27AM
"So why is the U.S. escalating?"
A preliminary question: "Is the U.S. Escalating?" Recent John Stewart segment highlights that simultaneous with our leaders calling ISIS "The gravest threat ever to every single one of our interests", ISIS armored vehicles are roaming openly and unopposed in the Syrian deserts outside Kobani for days on end, and our administration is downplaying the idea of Kobani being overthrown as no big deal. One of the more ridiculous episodes of hypocrisy in our foreign policy. Mostly sounds like hysterical fear-mongering which is coincident with mid-term elections happening within the month. I'd bet $1 that this issue mysteriously fades off the radar after November.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/697025 [hulu.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @09:00AM
ISIS is a fabrication of the US military industrial complex
supported in Syria, and controlled in Iraq
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762680/Feeding-frenzy-debunks-Rand-Paul-claim-John-McCain-met-ISIS-linked-jihadists-Syria.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 13 2014, @03:39AM
The threat that IS poses is not exactly a military threat. The threat is, that they MIGHT unite the Muslim world. Yeah, I know - a lot of you are going to say that is stupid, and point to Sunni killing Shia and vice versa. And, THAT is exactly what I am talking about.
The west destroyed the Ottoman for a reason. The west feared the power of a consolidated Arab/Muslim world. We saw an opportunity to destroy a potential threat, and we did it.
If IS should manage to win some victories, then convince the rest of Islam that they are the legitimate successors to the Ottoman, we've got a world of trouble on our hands.
Given a unified Levant, and given support from Muslim nations outside the Levant, Israel will be a helluva lot more danger than it is today. US/UK influence will go down the drain. Russian influence my increase - or not. Russia will remain a nation of unbelievers, but Russia has been a friend of Muslim nations in the past.
I really don't think the US can do much about IS right now, but IS does indeed pose a pretty serious threat. It remains to be seen whether they can unite Islam behind them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:05AM
Hooray for simplistic theories by thoroughly ignorant internet dweebs!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @12:21PM
AC's post sucked, but the reason why his summary of it sucking was correct is that proposed alliance is hopeless. Despite the best efforts of propaganda, multicultural empires like Ottoman, Austrian, USSR, and USA, and on the smaller scale, places like Iraq, are inherently unstable and short term and ineffective. So yeah, go ahead and make the "second ottoman reich" or whatever you want to call it, its not going to last longer than a lifetime or so, and in a generation they'll just be weaker than now.
So go ahead, ISIS, try to recreate the ottoman empire. That was a pitiful excuse for an empire but when your opponents are individual viking warriors and Germans wearing animal skins and helmets with horns on them, it will survive pretty well, when the opponents are post 18th or so century tech level and monocultural / culturally unified, the ottomans were simply doomed. Their only hope is something like economic collapse or the end of the oil era or ebola or another plague bringing the rest of the world back to pre 18th century technology and population.
If they are a threat, this is the only way they're a threat. They need one infected agent snuck across our wide open unguarded borders with a train ticket to DC... thats all. They don't need nukes or air craft carriers or smart bombs when their opponents no longer have the tech basis to create them. We've already got Walmart and the FIRE sector of the economy and MTV and even worse, MBAs, trying to destroy America and being fairly successful at it so far, so they don't have to do much other than laugh and point although they could "help the process along" a bit.
As a thought experiment, aside from human suffering, which never enters into political / economic decisions anyway, whats the worst case scenario when they take over the deserts and turn it into a fascistic xenophobic dictatorial paradise. That's basically, what, a slightly righter wing version of Nevada today and California before we started temporarily irrigating it? Ah, I know, its basically Utah on the other side of the planet. I'm not really seeing a problem with coexisting with them. Most of "our" oil is pumped out from underneath them so that doesn't matter and when they wipe Israel off the map they'll either take over the orange groves and keep selling, or we'll buy Florida oranges. The USA will find a new poster child puppet state to keep the military industrial complex in business, maybe South Korea or we can continue to meddle in the Balkans until the Russians get Really pissed off with us, anyway. So the problem with letting them take over is what, exactly? Go ahead. Not really worth getting our soldiers killed over a pile of sand.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 13 2014, @12:55PM
One of your own oversights is, you think that the Caliphate needs to be permanent to be effective. The "alliance", as you refer to it, need only last a decade to effectively set mankind back hundreds of years.
You mention the virulent ebola victim on a train ride from the Mexican border to D.C. Follow that idea up with a more coordinated effort. 20, or even 50 victims traveling by auto from the east coast to the west, while 20 to 50 more victims travel from the west to the east. At every stop for fuel or food, more people are exposed to the virus. Meanwhile, 20 to 50 MORE victims make it their business to expire in Washington D.C. and the surrounding environs.
Now, where is the US in the following months and years?
It matters little how permanent the caliphate might be, after we have suffered such a devastating blow. 9/11/01 would be nothing in comparison to 150 virulent plague carriers criss crossing the continent. It would be less than nothing, in terms of human suffering, economic hardship, military defeat, and technological base. Every aspect of human life would suffer here.
And, IS has the zealots who are mentally and psychologically capable of carrying out such an attack. The actual plague carriers need not even be aware of how they are being used - it only takes a small number of dedicated technicians to pull it off.
A decade later - how much are our survivors going to care about the mideast?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @08:38PM
Ebola is a FLUID-borne infection.
To become an airborne infection, that pathogen would have to mutate in incredible ways (and, in the process, would likely lose its deadly nature).
To have this traveler(s)-spreading-a-plague scheme work with Ebola, you would have to have people who are infected but don't look so sick that everybody would know to avoid them.
With the active stage of the illness, that is a narrow window.
The effective method would be to find people who had survived the infection but who remain contagious (a strange ailment indeed).
Very hot chicks who are very promiscuous would be the ticket.
That's a very small subset of a very small subset of a very small subset.
Oh, and, once again, I recommend that people stop consuming Lamestream Media.
They aren't accurate worth a damn and they purposely try to stoke your emotions.
I particularly recommend against the Murdock/Ailes brand of hand-waving swill.
Fox so-called News Viewers Less Informed Than Those Who Watch No News At All [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 13 2014, @01:14PM
I agree with the main thrust of your post: the Middle East has always been a mess and always will be, so why meddle?
It's worth pointing out that we in the West now don't think much of the Ottoman Empire, but it lasted for 600 years, a pretty good run. And our European friends were conquered by them in good part (if you lived in the Balkans) and had the rest very strongly threatened a couple of times beyond that (Siege of Vienna). Their territories extended pretty much over as much acreage as the Roman Empire, and they were as technically modern as their contemporaries and rivals for most of their run. Then and today Istanbul was and is as multi-cultural as a small handful of world cities like London, Paris, and New York. So the disregard in your post is not supported by the history.
It's also worth pointing out that there is a bit of a strategic worry for the United States from ISIS, in that if they attack Turkey we get pulled in by the NATO defense clause. Until then it's a complicated question for Ankara because ISIS is beating up on the Kurds, which is just fine by Ankara because they don't like the Kurds and have been gnashing their teeth at the PKK running to succor across the border in quasi-independent Kurdistan for a decade now. On the other hand, when all those Kurds fleeing ISIS run across the Turkish border then Ankara gets even *more* Kurds it has to officially worry about. It's sort of a lose-lose-lose for them at the moment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @02:50PM
"we get pulled in by the NATO defense clause"
If we postulate that the constitution is just a piece of toilet paper, then its no great extension of that concept to the NATO treaty.
You are correct that the best strategy at this time for Turkey is to fund a proxy war by arming / helping out / turning a blind eye toward the Kurds if they want the status quo.
On the other hand, if they got everyone else involved on their side, they'd probably gain power over neighboring territory, although this might be an interesting way to get kicked out of NATO. Then again if the EU and/or Turkey formally decide to give up on their multi year engagement instead of getting married, its quite possible depending on how brutal the breakup goes, they'd get kicked out of NATO anyway, so may as well try to grab some territory while they can.
Its an interesting puzzle for Turkey. Lets say the odds of eventual EU membership are 75% and the odds of that outcome being positive are about 75%. Don't forget that the propaganda message is EU membership is always a universal good, look at how well off Germany is economically, or Belgium. For a good time tell that to the man on the street in the PIIGS. So its about 50/50 good outcome if they cooperate with the EU and act like members of a team. That means they only need "somewhat above 50% odds of success" if they want to grab some territory with NATO help. Of course grabbing territory doesn't guarantee a successful outcome (see the USA in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Russia in pretty much the entire USSR and also Afghanistan). So are the odds of being a successful EU member higher or lower than the odds of going it alone and grabbing some territory? And if "go it alone" fails, well, pick a fall guy and reapply to the EU, can't blame all those powerless citizens for one crazy guy. Which sounds a lot like the political structure of Turkey today in 2014, so I think their leadership has already made up their mind and is just waiting to act. There doesn't seem to be a possible failure scenario for Turkey as long as after they're outta NATO and EU, ISIS doesn't completely take them over, which the west and the Russians probably won't permit anyway, but that failure would set us up for WWI-redo with once Turkey collapses who gets to take things over, and other than everyone agreeing it won't be ISIS there isn't much agreement.
So in summary I'm guessing they're leaning toward attack ISIS, try to get NATOs help, possibly get kicked out of NATO and shut down the EU negotiations, and if it works out be a small regional independent power, and if it fails blame it all on their current crazy leader and reapply for EU and maybe NATO when a new strongman is in charge.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @02:31PM
That would be fine, except that would not be the precedent to set at a moment when Russia is once again knocking on Europe's door. The US would not renege on the NATO defense clause if Turkey invokes it. And they nearly invoked it when Assad shot down a Turkish fighter last year.
It's quite important to consider that Turks are not Arabs, and consider themselves in many ways the bringers of civilization and light to the backward Arabs. They are far more cosmopolitan than anybody else in the region. Their economic strength and secular government represent in many ways a positive example of modernity for the region as well.
But as a country straddling two continents and cultures as Turkey does, there is a lot of complexity. There are the forces that identify more with Europe, and which have been seeking EU membership and fueling the protests against Erdogan's Islamic party, and then there are the parochial Islamist forces who constitute Erdogan's base who yearn for a return to hegemony. But the trouble is there are too many realities standing in the way of hegemony. There's Iran, Kurds, Palestinians, Russian, and Israel. They'd have to chop through a lot of pretty solid relationships and interests to return to Ottoman hegemony.
Through all of that, though, it doesn't make much sense for Turkey to go it alone at this point. Staying out of the EU and getting out of NATO would significantly complicate their ambitions, whatever they decide to be.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 13 2014, @12:56PM
Then let it. If Israel vanished tomorrow it would have zero impact on American strategic interests, just as its continued existence tomorrow would have zero impact on American strategic interests. Whether you like Israel or not, it would be incredibly refreshing if we could all in the USA drop the meme that a tiny, insignificant country of 8 million narcissists in the Middle East has more geopolitical importance to the average American than, say, Indonesia (the fourth most populous country in the world), or the entire South Asian subcontinent of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (no.s 2, 6, 8 individually, #1 combined). When's the last time you heard talking heads on American TV agonizing about the security of Kashmir, despite its relevance as the flash point in a real, potential nuclear exchange?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 13 2014, @02:02PM
I pretty much agree - but the US government isn't going to abandon Israel. They are to valuable in terms of money laundering and hidden research, not to mention the military value of having an ally in north east Africa. I have no great antipathy to Israel, nor do I have any loyalty to that country - it should be a non-factor in our diplomatic considerations.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday October 13 2014, @05:54PM
It amazes me that the "small government" types in the USA make no comment at all about the money that floats of the country and into Israel. Not being a US citizen, I don't keep up with the smaller news outlets, but certainly here in the UK we get a *lot* of people yelling about foreign aid and why it's a bad thing.
I wish the US would let Israel stand on its own two feet so that Israel didn't have the "big brother" stood behind it while it pokes the various wasp nests in the Middle East; I appreciate this is unrealistic now that Israel have nuclear weapons but had they been a little less protective in the past, I suspect the entire area would be a lot less inflamed than it is now.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @02:17PM
There is no other example of such a small, unimportant country as Israel having such a large presence in the public discourse of a country the size of the United States. It stands alone in that regard. For Israel, it was initially a question of survival. And as far as that goes, you know, good for them. They took what they had in very difficult circumstances and made a go of it. Now, they're using American patronage to fight proxy wars on their behalf and further their program of Greater Israel. As an American citizen that's not cool. And when they start thumbing their noses at us, mocking our elected President and Vice President and essentially daring them to do anything about it, it's a sure sign they've grown too big for their britches. Israel needs to be cut loose, and in many cases ought to be treated as an equal threat to our interests in the Middle East as any other actor like ISIS.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @03:50AM
Anyone ever see the old John Candy movie "Canadian Bacon [youtube.com]"? The current situation with ISIS kind of reminds me of it. We have the U.S. military's arsenal of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, recon satellites, drones, etc, up against what looks to be an army consisting of guys in the back of pickup trucks with Ak-47s. And yet, we are led to believe that ISIS is this grave threat to the world? In Canadian Bacon, the President and his top generals and staff decide to convince the American people that Canada poses a grave threat to the country in order to boost the President's poll numbers and keep the military industrial complex rolling in money.
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Monday October 13 2014, @04:18AM
Excellent comparison.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @12:36PM
Canada poses a grave threat to the country
You ever tried poutine? Its not all maple syrup and Molsons, up there. That stuff is questionable at best.
One problem with convincing our young mostly straight male soldiers that Canada is the enemy, is their women are possibly the hottest on the planet, on average, by conventional western standards. Oh sure Swedes blah blah blah, but the point remains that outside a comedy movie its going to be a tough sell to convince our boys that a "playboy mansion" the size of a country is somehow the root of all evil.
I'm not entirely kidding, there is a cultural effect such that a large part of how a bully picks their victims is we pick the weirdos. Its no surprise that this iteration of the Medieval Christian Crusades went to the middle east, because that place is just weird from USA cultural perspective, and not the south of France like one of the historical crusades ended up pillaging.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gallondr00nk on Monday October 13 2014, @06:59AM
I suspect that's the deep reason the US has been escalating. From the government to the armed forces and back, everyone is closing their eyes and imagining this huge, gargantuan terror, capable of sending the US into another long, prolonged war.
They want war, and will happily build up a terrorist militia in the middle east to be a SPECTRE style organisation in order to do that - they did it with Al-Quaeda. It would be laughably, pitiably paranoid if the consequences weren't always so dreadful.
You can't justify a vastly larger military budget than any other in the world without the presence of many enemies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @07:53AM
The fear is that ISIS will sponsor terrorist groups, just like al qaeda has. The big fear is that ISIS could send lots of sleeper agents, and have them do nasty things, like send in people infected with Ebola, more suicide airplane attacks into buildings, or lots of car bombs. Less democratic nations, like Russia and China, are harder to do terrorist activity against.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday October 13 2014, @10:14AM
There are two good reasons for hyping ISIS. The first is that, unlike Al Quaeda, ISIS is something that looks like a real army. You actually stand a chance of being able to tell the combatants from the non-combatants. That makes it a much cleaner fight and exactly the sort of thing that the US would like. It's much easier to look noble and heroic fighting a weak army than fighting terrorists (and ending up killing lots of civilians by mistake). There's little chance that you'll lose and there's little chance that anything that you do will look worse than your opponents. ISIS is pretty much the ideal enemy, from a PR perspective.
The second reason is Russia. Putin's aggression in the Chrimea and posturing in other former Soviet states is making everyone nervous. ISIS can be thrown up as a way of making the public accept concessions to Russia - we don't like them, but they're helping Fight The Good Fight(tm) and so we'll let them off this time...
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @10:36AM
#3: Putin again.
ISIS provides a convenient excuse for having a lot of coordinated, drilled, veteran military in the general vicinity of Ukraine/Crimea. If the USA ever wanted to bring (the threat of) any military might to bear on that situation, being this close is kind of a necessity.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 13 2014, @09:31PM
The US government already has that - the Ukrainian military! The reason that whole dust-up in Ukraine happened in the first place was that the Russian-friendly president was ousted by the EU/US-friendly faction. And we did it with such good diplomatic cover that many people think that Putin was the aggressor when in fact it was the other way around.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @12:14PM
Second, while there's a lot of talk about the US escalating the war on ISIS, what is missed is that this escalation is reactionary and far smaller in scale than it could be. For example, the 1991 Persian Gulf war had immense air power activity rate of over a thousand sorties per day for six weeks followed by an invasion by an army of around 300k. I gather the current effort against ISIS is around two orders of magnitude less in both air and land power and spread over the entire region rather than just supporting hot spots like Kobani.
Further, Obama's voting base includes a substantial number with anti-war views. He'll escalate as little as possible to keep them engaged in the coming 2014 election. Recently, I was dredging through my scribblings on the Green site when I came across this early 2008 aside [slashdot.org]:
Frankly, I'm more worried that Obama will get us into an expensive war. Inexperience and naivety is more dangerous than McCain's supposed "military swagger".
Looks like I got that one right.
Moving on, there's oil revenue involved. If ISIS can establish a stable base, they'll have considerable oil revenue to fund their adventures. And the leadership of the group is apparently pretty well off due to the inclusion of former Ba'athists.
As to the Kobani siege, it doesn't matter if they are "weak" as War Nerd puts it. What matters is if their opposition is stronger than them or not. Currently, the Syrian Kurds aren't and I expect, in the absence of substantial intervention by a stronger power (of greater impact than a few desultory air raids), the town will fall in the next few weeks. At that point, the territory of this particular opponent of ISIS is cut in half. ISIS is fighting a multi-front war and the fall of this particular town will have significant strategic value for them in that it greatly weakens this particular front.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @12:43PM
WRT the first point, why are the non-insurgents "corrupt, incompetent, and weak"
Its because their geography, economy, culture, some combo, sucks.
Let the insurgents take over and magically skittles candy will fly out of unicorn butts. Oh no wait, maybe it'll suck even worse.
So whats the problem exactly?
WRT exporting terror that's just USA propaganda. The only thing weaker and less able to export trouble than a 3rd world hell hole, is a 3rd world hell hole taken over by insurgents, because they know darn well theres 10 internal groups who hate them and want to takeover the takeover.
I mean think about it, you've got a .gov thats so unstable it can't control or defend against its own people, and after the revolution its going to be even weaker... Sounds like an opponent we'd want, not something to be avoided.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 13 2014, @02:03PM
Its because their geography, economy, culture, some combo, sucks."
We are talking about the cradle of civilization here, your factors are off.
If you want an explanation you have to look at history. Research the historical "Lawrence of Arabia," the Sykes-Picot pact, and learn how and when the borders you see drawn on the map were concocted. You have a situation where, after centuries of Turkish tyranny, the peoples of the region were carved up 'British Style' (that means you make sure each 'state' you draw is too divided to ever resist you.) Then after the Turks and the French and British period, the American period - the Baathists period, followed by devastating wars, the US invasion which destroyed the infrastructure, and now most of the people in the region were effectively (if not literally!) born under our bombs.
The US talks about Democracy but never actually backs it. The recent episode in Egypt is typical. Democracy got some nice speeches, but as soon as the generals put the kibosh on it they got more tangible kudos - in the form of military aid.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @09:51PM
The US talks about Democracy but never actually backs it
You're half-way there.
The USA actively opposes egalitarianism.
The USA **likes** the concentrations of power that come with Capitalism and Totalitarianism.
(Those are MUCH easier to manipulate.)
The key words to US foreign policy are hegemony [google.com] aka projection of power and mercantilism [google.com] aka making them buy USA's stuff at gunpoint.
USA has repeatedly sponsored/organized/staged coups in numerous countries. [alternet.org]
Skip down to the 4th paragraph and look at the list.
Some countries got off light with only 1 or 2; there were THREE in Turkey and THREE MORE in Bolivia.
Make the USA impatient and it will send in one of its many assassin teams (CIA; Delta Force; SEALs; etc.).
Continue to resist USA hegemony and your whole country gets bombed, invaded, and occupied.
...and once your infrastructure is destroyed, Halliburton gets a giant contract to rebuild that.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @02:43PM
and after the revolution its going to be even weaker...
I can think of a number of cases where that didn't happen. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue and Cuba under the Castro revolutionaries to name examples from my previous post. Contrary to your assertion, a lot of times the revolutionaries ruthlessly suppress rivals resulting in a much stronger government than what they replaced.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @03:12PM
Yes you have two anecdotes. I checked wikipedia and they list 87 pages under "20th century revolutions". Not all 85 failed of course.
I am also looking at it pragmatically, "lets have a revolution" net average usually does very little good for military, cultural influence, and economic growth. Its hard to come out ahead by killing a bunch of people. The net aggregate effect of the Khmer and Castro is probably somewhat negative compared to their competitors. Compare Miami vs Havana, for example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @05:59PM
Yes you have two anecdotes.
Two anecdotes which I consider particularly relevant.
I am also looking at it pragmatically, "lets have a revolution" net average usually does very little good for military, cultural influence, and economic growth.
Depends on what the goals are. Those things don't matter, for example, if you're the last man standing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @11:37PM
Cuba under the Castro revolutionaries[...]resulting in a much stronger government
...which actually serves the needs of its people, starting with universal medical care as well as universal education (which results in an extremely high literacy rate--way better than USA). [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
The Cuban concept of Democracy is pretty awesome:
from Comparative Democracy: Revolutionary versus Capitalist [dissidentvoice.org]
In the final chapters of "Cuba and Its Neighbours", Cuban democracy is laid out for the readers. Among its facets are:
* "the right to vote is recognized by the state without any effort of the voter" (146)
* secret ballot universal suffrage
* minimum voting age is 16 (157)
* municipal elections involve no candidate expenses and no campaigning
* municipal delegates work as volunteers (except presidents and vice-presidents who receive same salary as at workplace)
* up to 50% of municipal delegates are elected to Parliament (ANPP) and are known as de base deputies
* the other approximately 50% of parliamentarians, known as directos, are nominated directly by organizations; everyone not already elected to municipal assembly, can be a directo
* ANPP deputies are volunteers with some exceptions such as president, vice-president, secretary of the ANPP
* a candidate must receive 50+% of the vote
* the president is chosen by the ANPP
Other features are a high voter turnout which contrasts with voter disgruntlement in the US (57.5% in the 2012 US presidential election) while even municipal elections draw 90+% in Cuba.
.
Cuba is also a great global neighbor, volunteering its medical skills to other nations. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wordpress.com]
.
If it wasn't for the USA's embargo, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Havana and Calle Ocho (SW 8th Street) in Miami.
The embargo is really simple and really effective:
Hey, CountyX, you say you want to do business with Cuba?
Fine. USA banks won't process any of your transactions with USA companies.
You have the choice: USA or Cuba, but not both.
If you had had that kind of bully on your playground, the masses would have gotten baseball bats and beaten him to a bloody pulp.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday October 13 2014, @01:41PM
My thought is that the Demopublican Party needs a "boogeyman du-jour" to maintain a level of fear, and to distract from their creation of a fascist oligarchy.
The Republican half of the Party needs the fear to keep people voting for their candidates, since they are seen as "supporting a strong defense."
The Democratic half of the Party needs the fear that the Republican half of the Party will win, so more voters will "hold their nose" and vote for them.
War and conflict makes an effective distraction.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:36AM
...and they pretend to be all tough, but in the end they can only bomb and invade poor impoverished countries with barely enough to feed themselves let alone maintain an adequate defense force... will the USA ever attack China or Russia, or even Germany? Fuck no! The USA could barely hold its own against the Japanese in WW2 until atomic bombs were invented.
Now the only way the USA can maintain any sense of power is to try to stop other countries from getting nukes. Even North Korea, with merely a possibility of a nuclear weapons program is now off the list of countries to be invaded.
The pentagon would *really* love to invade Iran, but even a potential future threat of nuclear weapons in Iran has made the US military industrial complex nervous about directly attacking Iran, and we all know that it *is* the pentagon.