ISIS burns 45 more to death in Iraq

[clacy]

State Dept Spokeswoman Marie Harf yesterday said....


"We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…"

Ok, so now we're going to win the war on terror with a Middle East jobs program?

[fnord123]

Ok, so now we're going to win the war on terror with a Middle East jobs program?

A jobs program is way, way down the list.  That sort of thing only makes sense after some level of stability has returned - e.g. the Marshall program after WW2 ended.

In the near term we should provide equipment (and no more!) when there is a clear case of aggression against somebody who is reasonable that actually needs help.  If the recipient can pay for the equipment, they should have to do so.

Kurdistan is actually an example of things gone right.  Rather than sending in our military to force them to be part of Iraq, we let them have their own ethnically (mostly) homogenous area.  They seem to be doing OK - certainly way better than the other part of Iraq where we forced Sunni and Shia to try to coexist.

[moda0306]

Also, +100 to fnord123.

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said My one regret is that I have but one plus to give fnord.

Yes.

But things changed in 1971 when Nixon put us on the fiat +1 system.

What's not clear to me is how our grandchildren will ever pay back all these +1's.

They will have to pay it back... via hyper-disagreement.

Everyone will simultaneousy realize that all this agreement is an illusion caused by groupthink, and all these ideas we are producing are artificial in quality, and don't really represent a true wealth of knowledge.

Until we have a TRULY free market of ideas, where we all only have 100 "+1"s to throw around at any given time, and you can't use any of them on any ideas that don't conform with anarcho-ideaism, we will be living in a giant game of greater fools.

BTW, this has all been deductively proven, so no need to disagree with me.  Oh and remember all those awful confetti +1s I just mentioned?  I'd love as many of them as you guys can spare.  In fact, I work quite hard for them every day.



Sorry... had to go nuclear on this.  It was too good not to keep it going.

[Kriegsspiel]

State Dept Spokeswoman Marie Harf yesterday said....


"We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…"

Ok, so now we're going to win the war on terror with a Middle East jobs program?

I think that is basically correct. First off, we aren't able to kill all of them: squirters get away and keep fighting and recruiting more, which leads to the smoldering wars that we just aren't able to execute.

Second, even if we could kill all 20,000 (or whatever the ISIS manpower estimates are now), what then? We shouldn't just go in, kill and destroy, then sit back and think that a stable country is going to come out of it. To be honest, and I'm kind of a cynic, even IF we had a group in the wings waiting to fill the power vacuum, I don't trust the government's OICs to know they aren't going to be shitheads in the future.

Lastly... Win the "War On Terror?" I don't think it's even winnable. It's not really even DEFINABLE.

[clacy]

State Dept Spokeswoman Marie Harf yesterday said....


"We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…"

Ok, so now we're going to win the war on terror with a Middle East jobs program?

I think that is basically correct. First off, we aren't able to kill all of them: squirters get away and keep fighting and recruiting more, which leads to the smoldering wars that we just aren't able to execute.

Second, even if we could kill all 20,000 (or whatever the ISIS manpower estimates are now), what then? We shouldn't just go in, kill and destroy, then sit back and think that a stable country is going to come out of it. To be honest, and I'm kind of a cynic, even IF we had a group in the wings waiting to fill the power vacuum, I don't trust the government's OICs to know they aren't going to be shitheads in the future.

Lastly... Win the "War On Terror?" I don't think it's even winnable. It's not really even DEFINABLE.

Well, Harf's solution is no less realistic.  In fact, I would argue that it's much easier just to kill a few hundred thousand terrorist (or terrorist wannabees) than it is to figure out a way to employ half a billion disaffected Muslim youth.

It's a numbing problem with no real solution.

[WiseOne]

I think the majority of the blame belongs to Britain in particular, with France deserving a lesser share.  After WWI they carved up the middle east along artificial lines to maximize the stability of their colonies and protectorates.
...
Ever wonder why Iraq has Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias that hate each other?  Or Syria has Sunnis and Alawites?  The above is why - and it is the root of why those places are so screwed up today.  I respect the strategic thinking of colonial Britain and France, but it sure left major headaches for post-colonial times.

BINGO!!!  (Somewhat anachronistic method of restating plus-ones)

You can add Palestine to the list too.  Britain did a fabulous job there after WWI.  Among their other brilliant maneuvers, Palestine was divided in such a way that the Palestinians lost access to most of the region's water supply.  That little fact makes a lot of the subsequent border disputes a lot more understandable.

[fnord123]

I would argue that it's much easier just to kill a few hundred thousand terrorist (or terrorist wannabees) than it is to figure out a way to employ half a billion disaffected Muslim youth.

I agree with you that killing a few hundred thousand terrorists is easy (well, as long as one assumes that there are at least a few hundred thousand terrorists in the Syria/Iraq ISIS area - not clear if that is the case or not). B-52s could do the job, or if we were worried they had sufficiently effective SAMs, a bunch of cruise missiles at a lot higher price.

The hard part is what to do about all the civilians they are mixed up with - many of whom we will make orphans, or widows, or widowers, etc. They will all hate the US (justifiably - imagine how the people of Junction City, Kansas would feel if we killed a bunch of them because McVeigh bombed a building) and probably become terrorists themselves.  The same could be said of many muslims outside the immediate area (just as members of the greater Kansas area would feel about bombing Junction City, Kansas), who would become enemies of the US.

Violence is an easy solution, especially when a country has a huge credit card and a willingness to use it to pay for it.  The trouble with it, like many other easy solutions, is it is not always the right one, especially when applied in the wrong way.

[dualstow]

I think you're mostly right, fnord. The problem with your analogy though is that, a few militiamen aside, Kansas does not appear to be a future threat nor a hotbed of radicalization.

[rickb]

I think you're mostly right, fnord. The problem with your analogy though is that, a few militiamen aside, Kansas does not appear to be a future threat nor a hotbed of radicalization.

OK, then.  Idaho.

[clacy]

I am not sure what Ms. Harf said on behalf of the White House is actually accurate. 

She said that we need a long term plan, which is focused on creating jobs, etc in the Middle East.  I'm not sure poverty or lack of jobs is the actual problem.  We've seen many of the most prominent terrorists come from middle or upper middle class families.  They often have high levels of education, and in many cases educated abroad.

The WH is adamant about ignoring the religious aspect of this problem and looking at it through the eyes of the West, which is to assume ALL problems can be addressed by jobs/money.

Clearly there is no way in which the west can institute change of the magnitude needed to eliminate "disaffected youth", etc and destroy poverty.  In fact, we can't even do that on a much smaller scale in our own country where the problem is much more easily addressed.

But even if there was a realistic way to do what she advises, it would certainly help some, but there are far more factors than just poverty that is causing these young men to want to blow themselves and innocent children up.

[dualstow]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, guys. But as innocent as the majority is, there is still a recruitment that is an order of magnitude larger than anything seen over here. It's an army of McVeighs, even if they operate in unconnected, or even individual, cells.

[Pointedstick]

I am not sure what Ms. Harf said on behalf of the White House is actually accurate. 

She said that we need a long term plan, which is focused on creating jobs, etc in the Middle East.  I'm not sure poverty or lack of jobs is the actual problem.  We've seen many of the most prominent terrorists come from middle or upper middle class families.  They often have high levels of education, and in many cases educated abroad.

The WH is adamant about ignoring the religious aspect of this problem and looking at it through the eyes of the West, which is to assume ALL problems can be addressed by jobs/money.

Clearly there is no way in which the west can institute change of the magnitude needed to eliminate "disaffected youth", etc and destroy poverty.  In fact, we can't even do that on a much smaller scale in our own country where the problem is much more easily addressed.

But even if there was a realistic way to do what she advises, it would certainly help some, but there are far more factors than just poverty that is causing these young men to want to blow themselves and innocent children up.

+1, +2, +3!

[Mountaineer]

I just posted on the Religion thread some commentary on the Atlantic and NYT articles dealing with ISIS.  It seemed to better fit that thread.  You may have interest in reading it.

... Mountaineer

[l82start]

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said My one regret is that I have but one plus to give fnord.

Yes.

But things changed in 1971 when Nixon put us on the fiat +1 system.

What's not clear to me is how our grandchildren will ever pay back all these +1's.

They will have to pay it back... via hyper-disagreement.

Everyone will simultaneousy realize that all this agreement is an illusion caused by groupthink, and all these ideas we are producing are artificial in quality, and don't really represent a true wealth of knowledge.

Until we have a TRULY free market of ideas, where we all only have 100 "+1"s to throw around at any given time, and you can't use any of them on any ideas that don't conform with anarcho-ideaism, we will be living in a giant game of greater fools.

BTW, this has all been deductively proven, so no need to disagree with me.  Oh and remember all those awful confetti +1s I just mentioned?  I'd love as many of them as you guys can spare.  In fact, I work quite hard for them every day.



Sorry... had to go nuclear on this.  It was too good not to keep it going.

+ 

15441897-cartoon-money-and-hands-with-thumbs-up-vector-cartoon-image.jpg (85.78 KiB) Viewed 3429 times

[Greg]

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said My one regret is that I have but one plus to give fnord.

Yes.

But things changed in 1971 when Nixon put us on the fiat +1 system.

What's not clear to me is how our grandchildren will ever pay back all these +1's.

They will have to pay it back... via hyper-disagreement.

Everyone will simultaneousy realize that all this agreement is an illusion caused by groupthink, and all these ideas we are producing are artificial in quality, and don't really represent a true wealth of knowledge.

Until we have a TRULY free market of ideas, where we all only have 100 "+1"s to throw around at any given time, and you can't use any of them on any ideas that don't conform with anarcho-ideaism, we will be living in a giant game of greater fools.

BTW, this has all been deductively proven, so no need to disagree with me.  Oh and remember all those awful confetti +1s I just mentioned?  I'd love as many of them as you guys can spare.  In fact, I work quite hard for them every day.



Sorry... had to go nuclear on this.  It was too good not to keep it going.

I was saving these for retirement but seems like you could use them.

+11,537

[Ad Orientem]

Yes.

But things changed in 1971 when Nixon put us on the fiat +1 system.

What's not clear to me is how our grandchildren will ever pay back all these +1's.

They will have to pay it back... via hyper-disagreement.

Everyone will simultaneousy realize that all this agreement is an illusion caused by groupthink, and all these ideas we are producing are artificial in quality, and don't really represent a true wealth of knowledge.

Until we have a TRULY free market of ideas, where we all only have 100 "+1"s to throw around at any given time, and you can't use any of them on any ideas that don't conform with anarcho-ideaism, we will be living in a giant game of greater fools.

BTW, this has all been deductively proven, so no need to disagree with me.  Oh and remember all those awful confetti +1s I just mentioned?  I'd love as many of them as you guys can spare.  In fact, I work quite hard for them every day.



Sorry... had to go nuclear on this.  It was too good not to keep it going.

I was saving these for retirement but seems like you could use them.

+11,537

lol

[Libertarian666]

There is plenty of blame to go around.

True.

The question is... What do we do going forward?

Nothing.  They are killing people in the Sunni-majority regions of a far away land. 

Saying we're playing into their hands by getting fed up with burning/be-heading people, is totally wrong IMO.

Saudi Arabia beheads people for sorcery and adultery as well.  Not our problem - we should condemn them (shame on both Bush and Obama for kowtowing to them) just as we condemn ISIS and do nothing further.

Someone, somewhere has to stand up to these barbarians.  The US certainly can't do it alone, but there is NO WAY they can be defeated without the US's leadership (as well as money/weapons/etc).

Why is the US leadership required? Why do we need to defeat them?

Let's say they setup a crazy, behead-happy theocracy in western Iraq and eastern Syria, mostly composed of Sunnis.  Why is this our problem?  The US is running massive deficits.  Saudi Arabia has a budget surplus of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with them?  Germany has had budget surpluses recently in the billions - why not let them deal with it?  Both countries are much closer to Syria/Iraq than we are.

Why should we bankrupt our country further and impose massive debt on our children to try to force the population in the area in question to live under an oppressive government we pick rather than one they pick?

Oh, that's easy. Because we (the US federal government) are the USA, so whatever we (the US federal government) wants is by definition right and wonderful. USA! USA! USA!
(Note: )

[Kbg]

A lot of this conversation was very 1 or 0 in the approach. There are many approaches short of doing nothing and total annihilation that will help.

Doing nothing I think is dangerous for the US and nothing than observing ISIS' actions and propaganda should make that clear. Personally I think Obama has this one about right, use what is easy for us (but not cheap...airpower and advisers) and let the Iraqis (Shia) and Kurds do the ground combat. It will take longer and it won't be as "efficient" as US troops, but it can work and it will be cheaper and minimize the loss of US servicemen and women in the long run. (As a side note, the US did "break" Iraq, and at the cost of 1T and thousands of lives we did put it back together so far as a country like that could be put back together...this latest is totally on them in my view.)

As I've posted several times, we delude ourselves if we think the whole thing is really about us (or the West in general), it's really mostly about sectarian Sunni-Shia power in the M.East. Perhaps we are side participants in their version of the 100 Years war. Anyone who understands the history of the 100 Years war also understands, that yes you can kill your way out of something. It's not very fun getting there, but there is a point that even humans get tired of the killing and whatever beliefs they had get mellowed by a stronger desire for peace. People can also be "killed" into accepting beliefs previously absolutely anathema to them when those beliefs are no longer worth the cost. The US civil war is a pretty good example of that. War sucks, but the reason we humans do it is because it actually does work at resolving the big differences.

Ultimately ISIS is going to lose. It is generally piss poor grand strategy to take on the world which is what ISIS has done by its actions. It isn't a matter of if, only when. If true world powers like Germany or the former Soviet Union can't pull it off, I'm quite positive ISIS can't.