ISIS – The Case For Non-Intervention
Submitted by Roger Barris via Acting-Man.com,
Happy Armchair Warriors
The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, have thrown the debate about ISIS into overdrive, particularly among the presidential candidates. Several strands have emerged from these discussions, but I think that their taxonomy is not often clearly laid out. I would therefore like to try to do this.
IS military parade in Mosul
I think that there are three inter-related strands to the discussion, which I summarize below:
- Military action against ISIS in Syria and Iraq
- Protecting the border (including the related issue of profiling)
- Data privacy
Today, I would like to discuss the case for military action against ISIS.
The argument here is that, in order for the world to defend itself against terrorism, ISIS must be defeated in its homeland. ISIS must be denied territory. This position is supported by, among the major Republican candidates, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.
Less clear are the positions of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who are both reluctant to engage in further foreign interventions, but who also make belligerent noises about ISIS. The only candidate who is consistently and unambiguously against military escalation is Rand Paul.
The undercard of the Republican debates, however, features the most aggressive proponent of escalation, Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham is the only candidate in either party proposing “boots on the ground.” He has recently reiterated this stand in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled “How to Defeat ISIS Now – Not ‘Ultimately.’”
John McCain and Lindsay Graham: the happy warriors
He wrote the article with his Senate colleague, and fellow happy warrior, John McCain. Since they are such vocal advocates of escalation, let’s use their article as the standard bearer for the position. As the title implies, Senators McCain and Graham presume that defeating ISIS should be a goal of American foreign policy, a goal that they clearly link to the fight against terrorism:
In his address on national television Sunday night, President Obama insisted that he has a strategy to destroy…ISIS. But what Americans see instead is an incremental, reactionary, indirect approach that assumes that time is on our side. It is not. The danger is growing nearer: from attacks in Paris and Beirut, to the bombing of a Russian airliner, to the Islamic State-inspired shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.
The Senators implicitly claim that only by defeating ISIS in its heartland can we protect ourselves in San Bernardino. They apparently don’t feel that this linkage requires justification, just treating it as a self-evident truth. But it is far from obvious that ISIS’ control of territory materially increases its willingness and ability to commit the type of attacks that we have recently seen in Paris and San Bernardino.
Territory controlled by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as of late 2015 – click to enlarge.
Interventionist Arguments
I have seen three arguments put forth by the proponents of attacks on ISIS:
- ISIS’ prestige is enormously enhanced by its occupation of territory and its declaration of a caliphate. Among other things, it is a demonstration to the devout that God is on their side. This is an essential recruiting tool for the movement.
- ISIS uses its controlled territory to plot assaults – “Apocalyptic terrorists cannot be allowed to have sanctuary in ungoverned spaces, from which to plan attacks against the West,” to use the wording of the Senators – and train attackers.
- ISIS uses the financial resources arising from its territory – taxes and natural resources, such as oil – to further its terrorist activities.
These are the arguments for why ISIS must be defeated militarily in order to weaken its ability to commit acts of terror. But there is a forth element required to make the argument complete, as even the Senators admit. The fourth element is that ISIS must be replaced with stable regimes that can and will permanently repress the group or any of its successors.
Let’s examine each of these four elements in turn.
To my mind, the validity of the first step comes down to the following question: Which is the more effective recruiting tool for ISIS, (a) the prestige of declaring and holding a caliphate or (b) the ability to point to bombs falling on Muslim brothers? Although I cannot, fortunately, put myself in the mind of an Islamic terrorist, I don’t think that there is any doubt that (b) wins.
It is obvious that the terrorist attacks are “blowback” against military action against ISIS. This is clearly seen in the bombing of the Russian plane, which was only targeted after Russia commenced military action in Syria. The terrorists in Paris were reported to have shouted references to Syria and Iraq during their spree.
Syria lies in ruins – nearly every bomb dropped in the region drives more recruits into the arms of extremist groups like IS
A recent terrorist knifing in London also involved the attacker shouting references to Syria. I think that only the deliberately obtuse could deny that blowback anger makes a better recruiting poster than territorial occupation.
I am equally unconvinced of the validity of the second element. The San Bernardino terrorists, for example, were “inspired” by ISIS, but never trained nor plotted from this area. Certain of the Paris terrorists had trained or fought in Syria, but I can’t see that this was essential to the attacks they committed.
The reality is that these are low-tech assaults upon soft targets. The idea that the attackers require an ungoverned sanctuary to carry out their plotting or training is nonsense. Almost any suburban living room would serve.
San Bernardino attackers Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik – quite possibly inspired by ISIS, but they certainly didn’t need the self-anointed Caliphate to commit the attack. Islamist fundamentalist ideology cannot be eradicated militarily.
The third argument – the financial one – is probably the strongest, but even this one fails to compel. I repeat, these attacks are low tech assaults upon soft targets which do not require a great deal of financial support. The San Bernardino attackers, for example, were able to fund themselves, with a little help from an online “P2P” lender .
The attacks in France were more expensive, but even they would not have required anywhere near the financial resources of an ISIS. Although ISIS requires state-like revenues to support its military actions, this is not true of its terrorism.
The Failure of Nation-Building
But it is with the last element that the proponents of military action against ISIS really fail to make their case. Our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq – both places where we defeated our enemies militarily, as the proponents of military action against ISIS somehow forget – shows that we cannot win the war against ISIS unless we can also win the peace.
Otherwise, our enemies will simply melt away, waiting for the inevitable slackening of our resolve to re-emerge, just as the Taliban have done in Afghanistan and just as the Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein did in Iraq (before becoming, among other things, ISIS).
Senators McCain and Graham acknowledge this in their article, which contains quotes such as:
Iraqis must win the peace, but Americans have a major stake in their success, and a unique role to play in helping them. The only way to do so is to be present.
And:
At the same time, Islamic State’s ability to spread is directly related to the collapse of political order. Unless America does more to help these countries make the transition to just and inclusive governments, Islamic State will find havens to pursue its evil ends.
And finally:
So the U.S. should lead an effort to assemble a multinational force…[to] destroy Islamic State in Syria. Such a force could also help to keep the peace in a post-Assad Syria, as was done in Bosnia and Kosovo. Here, too, if the West wins the war and leaves, it should not be surprised if violence and extremism return.
In other words, what the happy warriors have to offer is the same old “nation building” mantra that the neoconservatives have been chanting forever, combined with an apparent willingness to garrison these regions in perpetuity.
And right on cue they have defaulted to Bosnia and Kosovo as the lone alleged success story for this strategy, which is in fact no success at all and where we have recently been treated to Kosovan parliamentary debates featuring tear gas attacks from the opposition, as proof of the vibrant democracy we have fostered.
Parliamentary debate, Kosovo-style: tear-gassed by the opposition.
But probably the most amazing thing about the article is the total lack of proportionality. Although tragic, the 14 deaths and 22 injuries in San Bernardino would have been, in the Detroit of my youth, about an average tally for a hot summer weekend. Yet in response to this, Senators McCain and Graham want us to embark on a Pax Americana which has been shown to work exactly nowhere.
Looking at this, it is hard to resist the notion that they are spoiling for a fight and since they can’t claim that ISIS is developing weapons of mass destruction, San Bernardino will have to do.
Dubious Logic
Although Senators McCain and Graham would lead us into a massive overreaction, this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the current policy of the Obama administration (and, by extension, the proposed policy of Hillary Clinton, which is basically the same with a “no-fly zone” added to show that she is more butch than her former boss).
Obama’s policy uses enough military action to expose us to “blowback” attacks and keep the ISIS recruiters busy, yet is insufficient to actually achieve military victory. From the standpoint of the America’s interests, this is not as barmy as the proposals from the happy warriors, but it isn’t much better.
It should be noted that American politicians are not the only ones pursuing this dubious logic. Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the UK’s David Cameron have also decided that the best way to fight terrorism is to put their countries in harm’s way for more of it.
Even Francois Hollande, on behalf of a country not known for its martial appetite, has joined in. It is hard to see this as anything but the deplorable universal tendency for politicians to need to do something, no matter how misguided.
The UK government’s reaction to the Paris Attacks
Conclusion – We Have no Dog in this Fight
I continue to believe, as I stated way back in September 2013, that we don’t have a dog in this fight. San Bernardino doesn’t change the calculation. ISIS will eventually collapse under its own homicidal and parasitical weight, probably with the help of one or more of its neighbors, whose inactivity and divisiveness we currently underwrite.
Then ISIS will be replaced by something better…or worse…it is impossible to know in this region. In the interim, we and our European friends should focus our efforts on isolating ourselves from the madness. And we certainly should not go out of our way to draw further fire.
(20 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
jm
You "dual citizen "jew-kikes that made money on the backs of the rest and took a holiday break on the most infamous day in American history need to be slaughtered first!
And trust me you will be!!!
Now you really sound like Mohammed.
Not a Jew. Said it many times.
jm you know the truth... I'l leave it there!
Hope you have taste for what is coming your way next!!!
Articles like this are always a good opportunity to identify zionists to put on my shitlist. Been ambiguous about jm, but now I know.
I don't mind someone who keeps on criticising a religion, but if, after all this time, a poster keeps pushing a certain narrative ignoring something as blatant as the fact that elements of the CIA, the State Dept., created AND constantly supplies these ISIS (& Other) terrorist nutjobs (With Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia acting as deniable operators), then I think we can all guess that either mental illness or zionism (Same thing to me) is the motivating factor.
See my comments about NATO, Russian, Israeli involvment in a thread above.
But more to the point, compare Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore to any middle eastern country (outside, gasp, Israel) and the stagnation of muslim society shows up in stark relief. These asian countries were all literally in ruins due to war but they now stand toe-to-toe with the most advanced and prosperous nations in the world. Muslim nations? Well, they are backward and fragile even though they have far greater material resources than any of the asian countries mentioned.
Muslim societies are weak and violent because of core beliefs that are hostile to life and progress. Drop islam, hello progress.
You left out Malaysia, a prosperous and modern muslim country. Quite frankly, I don't want to waste time defending Islam, of which I am ignorant, or for that matter any other religion including my own. A UN report months before Libya was bombed back to the stone age said that it was a modern, model N.African country. Any decent, secular ones like Iraq and Syria always seem to get bombed by the neocons and get replaced by rabid Islamic nutjobs in the power vacuum. Newton's third law of motion is a great analogy for human behaviour: "Exerting a force on something will simultaneously provoke an equal and opposite force".
I get what you're saying, but unless you are describing the virulent Saudi Wahabist nutjobs, my own personal experiences of "Muslims" in general have been positive all my life. They have not been the rapists and dunces of the human ape family, but scientists and medics who are thoughtful, charitable fellows devoted to their wives and families. These were Iraqis, Lebanese and British-born muslims. I can't believe I'm the only one who has gone through life with these impressions. If it is organized religion that offends you, fine. If it is just muslims, then what you ultimately advocate is wholesale extermination - forced conversions and genocide - as a solution on innocent people. You can see how insane that is, don't you?
Saudi Wahabism is hostile to life and progress, just like the christian creationists, jewish zionists and whatever else is out there trying to impose their bullshit on the rest of us. I don't buy the "All Muslims are evil" bullshit beloved by the zionists. These zionist fucks have long since been saying, "All Christians are evil" - this is no different.
Maybe Malaysia is an exception, but the after effects of the commodities bust are clear, we'll see how prosperous they are. Line them up against their neighbors like Singapore-- and one can argue the same effect a sI mentioned.
I would surmise your favorable viewpoint is because you are seeing the very best emigrating to the US and EU to become doctors and professionals. The very best of people can more easily transcend the baser motives embedded in a boilerplate belief system, especially a barbaric one. Good for them. But it is not just Wahhabis and Salafists and the sects you hear about. Barbarism and backwardness is a core part of their religious guidebook; it just stands on great relief with this Wahhabi stuff.
I don't endorse extermination. These aren't races or genetic types. It is about ideas--bad ideas. Progress always means discarding bad ideas. At best by reasoning, convincing, pursuading about how bad islam is an idea to orgrnaize life and society. In our PC times, this is almost impossible and the adherents aren't averse to violence when met with reason anyway. It is discouraged to even tell the truth about Mohammed and his pedophilia--much less his other behaviors that are set up as a template for true believers. The humane thing is to show how the religion itself is flawed through and through by conradiction and inhumanity.
There are vile and inhuman behaviors found in all people and everywhere. Everyone knows this. islam raises up a pedophile as the model of virtue, endorses makes the apostacy punishable by death, constantly contradicts itself and says it is the product of God. This is a big difference that needs to be pointed out. this isn't saying that all "muslims are evil". But their belief systems has violence at its core, and to be good they have to ignore these aspects.
I wonder, jm, does the fact that The Lords of the Palestine Mandate, after things settled down (or before they started) installed monarchs in several countries of the ME.
The monarchs were also given their country's share of the oil revenues, which they used to keep their subjects ignorant and poor, lest they rebel against them.
The worst thing for the people of the Middle East was living on top of all that oil.
I've heard that argument and there is something to it... governments don't invest in their people because they fight to protect their large share of the natural resources pie.
There is also something to the facts about islam being a retardant and catalyst for inhumane bahavior and violence. See the punishment for apostacy, homosexuality, and approval for pedophilia, spousal abuse, among many other acts that are prohibited by civlized life.
I think the two two factors work in concert with each other. You can't change the former.
I have heard that argument about Islam.
Doesn't it seem Islam appears more intolerant today than 60 years ago?
Whether that is because the US recently tolerated homosexuals in the military and most of the West now permits same sex marriages. All of which widened the gap between our two cultures.
Did the Western media, when we were so dependent on the oil imports from these Arab monarchies, tone down the rhetoric and avoid reporting on our differences? Including the effect of the existence of Israel on the average Arab citizen in the Middle East? An effect that pushed Arab beliefs further into the Koran for an explanation and remedy.
I think your father watched "Apocalypse Now" one too many times. What garbage.
What we will never know: Is the people that fail to meet some dreamy expectation in life, never achieve anything that makes them feel noteworthy, looking for that spotlight, pissed-off (usually at their own life), something like a death, injury, sickness, kids fucked up, and they decide to get involved, make a name, have a purpose (even an ill concieved one) so something ticks and off they go. Holster on, ready to show the world their macho stupidity. Never has it worked out for anybody's good, only ruins the individual, the family and saddens his community. Good friends, family, beer and an occassional steak/salad is not that bad. It is all attitude. So is this a terrorist, a fool, or what? It is not a patroit. This is a patriot, this is a macho cause, worthy of our guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be60--LsAfE
Y'all broke it. Y'all own it now.
We don't own fuckin nothin anymore!... Let's make that clear fuck face!!!
That's why you're seeing the Federal Reserve keeping interest rate policy non-existent and destroying the commodities markets for the past 8 years on behalf of their "nigger tent dwelling Zionist controlled Jew-Kike" patrons in Tel Aviv and Riyadh !
Have the guts to take this World out of this misery and admit you "fucked up" and nuke the shit out of both of them with your own baliistic missiles instead of starting WWIII with two adversaries that will END ALL of US if you fuck with either one or both of them!!!
After all just ask the Japanese!... We've done it to them 3 times already!!!
That is insane. See the CIA - ISIS connections. See NATO nation and US ally Turkey's direct connections to ISIS. See Chief US ally in the Middle East Saudi Arbia and it's direct support and founding role in starting ISIS.
Today US and NATO ally Bulgaria began emergency air lift of weapons to ISIS Via Turkey, including 7,000 Anti Tank Guided Missiles. Via Saudi, the USA supplied ISIS and Al-Qaeda with 10,000 TOW ATGM.
I could add much more.
Tell me how the USA has no dog in a fight the US CIA directly founded and still supports via third parties. Even Israel runs a rescue service for wounded ISIS, risking IDF troops to resuce wounded ISIS and bring them to Israel for treatment.
The above post was absolute Washington DC, Main Stream Media inspired bull shit.
We as in we-the-people have no dog in this fight. What TPTB choose to do has nothing at all to do with what we want or what is in our best interests.
It's time to make the clear distinction that our governments don't represent "we" in any shape or form.
True, but the author believes he can take the fact that the Anglo-zino West stirred up this shit storm and drop it down the memory hole. What a tool. Maybe jm is the author of this dis-info attempt?
Its was only a couple decades ago that we were led by leaders with the intelligence to realize that the Sunni-led Iraq vs Shite Iran war was a win-win situation, and we could leave those 2 scorpions in the bottle. But no; now the US are trying to be allies with everyone, and at war with everyone. At the same time.
The Zionists a) Did not like Saddam's Scuds, feeble though they were. B) Did not like Saddam compensating Palestinian families when the IOF demolished their houses. C) Hate Arab Nationalists because, as is clear to all by now, the Zinos have a real talent in steering Jihadis, hence they prefer and even create Jihadis, while killing off Nationalists And D) Oded Yinon's plan required Saddam gone.
"The argument here is that, in order for the world to defend itself against terrorism, ISIS must be defeated in its homeland."
Bullshit. How about we stop training, backing, supporting, supplying terrorists. Then we would not have to defend ourselves against them chief.
....or better yet...
OK Ace...I'll toss you a plastig gun with the orange thing at the end of the barrel and you can go storm Langley. I'll be across the street sipping a bottle of ginger ale and eating some popcorn.
". .. sipping a bottle of ginger ale..."
I'm going to go with you meant to say " ..... enjoying a nice pale ale..."
I think Russia has good reason to be in Syria besides boredom. I think too, a majority of Americans agree that we should not be there but the MIC has a bit more say in the matter than the people do.
The US, saudi arabia, qatar, turkey have created isis and are using them to take down their enemies like Assad and Iraq, Iran. and they are continuing to support that while pretending to fight them which is why they aren't doing anything. Teh US is a war criminal and the leaders should be put in jail and all aid to isis muste stopped
What would Bibi do?
What does Bibi do?
And why isn't ISIS crawling all over Israel?
Because they wouldn't have a chance in a ground war against a real army.
Dog: [growls]
Cluseau: Does your dog bite?
Clerk: No, Monsieur.
Cluseau moves to pet dog, dog lashes out.
Cluseau: I thought you said your dog does not bite!
Clerk: Monsieur, that is not my dog.
Nobody is claiming the ISIS dog, that somebody bred, and many are feeding.
Bingo. The only country in the region whose destruction would be mourned by decent people is Israel, and she can take care of herself. The House of Saud will not long survive the withdrawal of US military protection, and don't deserve to.
Uncle Sugar needs to do three things.
First he needs to tell Riyadh to go join their prophet in hell (as if they weren't halfway there already).
Second, he needs to force Wall Street to cough up the USD500 billion they owe the Jews for the war, hand the noney over to Israel, sell her all the weapons she needs to defend herself against Amalek, no questions asked, and stop telling her what to do with her fucking Arabs, unless he wants to sell her a nerve gas that kills Arabs in thirty seconds but has no effect on Jews at all.
Third, he needs to bring American soldiers home from the middle east and put them to work defending their country from invasion on the Mexican border.
Fuck off Identity Fraud Nail from Zinoland. Were you and HorseFace born in the same parish?
How about just declaring other countries' affairs to be none of our business? You know, like we were told by George Washington when the country was founded, that getting involved in entangling alliances is just a bad idea?
As you mentioned, Israel can take care of it self. This makes its affairs not our problem.
The only foreign policy that makes sense is:
a) Peace with everyone who reciprocates with peaceful behavior
b) Trade with everyone who is willing to trade on equal terms
c) Be armed to the teeth and make it absolutely certain that anyone who fucks with us will be utterly destroyed without mercy.
the only foreign policy that makes sense must necessarily begin with the removal and/or execution of the traitors currently running the foreign policy
<--- Satan America with FakeNobelPrizeWinnerCabalA$$LickerLiarAddictObamma & his vampire Mps McCain, Biden et all are responsible for all this.
As of now these terrorists are murdering ppl , doing slave trade of humans, using children as soldiers and as suicide bombers, sex slaves using marriage then talaq talaq talaq, they are removing organs of their captives & selling these for money (this is happening NOW)
All due to immoral policies of America , europe & their allies
Excellent and well considered analysis. Sadly, the same cannot be said for most of the comments which ignore the reasoning and jump straight to lunatic fringe shouting. Sigh.
"The argument here is that, in order for the world to defend itself against terrorism, ISIS must be defeated in its homeland."
That may be the stated argument but, in actuality, those making the argument only want to protect ISIS from Russia until Assad is ousted.
no dog in the fight...??? in fact Turkey is a NATO member and is supporting and funding isis... so the above is NOT A FACT and in addition Turkey has picked a fight with Russia and NATO is obligated to support Turkey.
SHITFORBRAINS obama thinks he can play both ends against the middle with no understanding or plan for the outcome... wash dc and nyc are in the iranian nuclear crosshairs and they can easily put one or two on a ship in transit to venezuela...and lob them a few dozen miles to target.
Obama will leave a plate of excrement for whoever follows him... and then parade around the world flashing his nobel peace prize, criticizing America AND BEATING HIS CHEST ABOUT THE DEAL HE CUT WITH IRAN.... SIMPLY A CLINTONESQUE REPEAT OF N. KOREA... difference is n. korea does it for food and money.... iran will use the bomb on israel...
Obama operates from a position of punishing America for imagined offenses that were drilled into his small brain by his mother and grandparents and other commies... illogical and non factual but an idealogue doesn't need facts.... just a loud trumpet provided by the main stream commie pravda media... hence his constant support of his black thug "sons" ... his support of occupy wall street, his desire for a national police force, his corruption of the DOJ with puppet atty gens... his undercutting of the Inspector Generals... his support of Soros funded migratory protestors paid to protest... his constant attacks on the rule of Law and the Constitution and total disregard for due process... hence he releases thousands of felons and then crys over gun violence.... delusional juvenile racist commie muslim jihadi... TRAITOR
What does all this have to do with withdrawing from the middle east..... REMEMBER... WE... THE USA...DESTABILIZED THE REGION, RECRUITED, TRAINED AND SUPPORTED AL QUEDA AND ISIS AND SUPPORT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD... AND THEIR GAME PLAN INCLUDES INFILTRATING THE USA AND STARTING THEIR BS OVER HERE...
better to kill them in the sandbox before they get here or their pawns already here continue to act up again...and again the stupid wonderboy is importing a couple hundred thousand of them over the next couple of years...... keep in mind 90% of the current muslim imports are sucking on the government tit....abusing the system.
It is really too bad that the us government was purchased by the house of saud and now is like a ship without a rudder, leaderless and being attacked by the TRAITOR in chief...