So the US is bombing the shit out of ISIS in Iraq and now in Syria. Do you approve?

[indecizo]

Innocent people are still going to die and other jihadis are going to rise because they were killed by the United States. Do you approve the aerial attacks?

 

[crillemannen]

Well who armed and trained Isis in the first place.. US foreign politics are so bad. I can really understand the US hate-thing going on in the middle west.

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

Well who armed and trained Isis in the first place..

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, actually. The U.S. hasn't done anything to help them. To the (extremely) limited extent we've done anything to help the rebels, it's been mostly non-lethal aid. To the (ridiculously) limited extent lethal aid was provided, it's been to the more secular groups that ISIS has been fighting themselves.

In direct answer to the question posed, I have a pretty high threshold for times when I think the U.S. should start bombing things. I'm pretty sure having comically bloodthirsty terrorists actually mostly succeed in setting up a transnational caliphate may cross that threshold, especially when Iraq's terrible prime minister left office so there's the possibility of rectifying the disenchantment among Iraqi Sunnis that allowed ISIS to do this in the first place. But on the other hand, herpderp america suxxxxxxx

 

[indecizo]

I have conflictive thoughts about this issue.

This war on terror has been a total failure. Iraq and Afghanistan are worse than ever after the invasion 11 years ago. The US is just not going to wipe out ISIS. Bombing them is going to make it worse and bring other jihadists that are mad at the US, those groups are driven by hate. I get that they don't want troops to walk on Iraq or Syria and those are targeted attacks. Who knows how much collateral damage those attacks are going to cause, even if the military claim that there will be minimum casualties they wouldn't be in in a position to be trusted. And how many trillions is this going to cost to your government.

But on the other hand, what ISIS is doing is wrong and they should stop and they are not going to do that.

 

[FarBeyondMetal]

Even if Saudi Arabia and Qatar contribute the money rather than the US directly, the US gives both those countries more money in aid than they spend on terror groups, so I'm sure it's a little deal they have along the lines of "We here in the US will help you build your country as long as you use some of that money to do things such as fund terror groups that operate on the premise of destabilizing anything and everything"

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

Even if Saudi Arabia and Qatar contribute the money rather than the US directly, the US gives both those countries more money in aid than they spend on terror groups, so I'm sure it's a little deal they have along the lines of "We here in the US will help you build your country as long as you use some of that money to do things such as fund terror groups that operate on the premise of destabilizing anything and everything"

I don't think any source would substantiate your point about aid, and secondly, if you think the U.S. is encouraging the Gulf countries to fund terror groups, you're incorrect. Maybe in the 80s, but that was mostly channeled through Pakistan anyway. The Saudi foreign fighters at that point (like Bin Laden) were a new phenomenon; the U.S. was almost exclusively funding indigenous anti-Soviet forces. The U.S.-Saudi relationship in particular has always been somewhat conflictual because, on the one hand, they've been helpful to regional political and energy stability, while on the other the U.S. knows full well that a lot of connected, rich people in Saudi are funding terror groups. The aid we give them you're talking about is, as far as I know, mostly military hardware anyway, not "here, take this money and do whatever you want with it!" Some of that could be diverted I guess, but the State Department's IMET account, where a lot of that stuff comes from, is audited pretty well by Congress. The DoD also has some money and oversight stuff set aside for it as well.

Saudi Arabia also doesn't even make it into the top 25 recipient countries.

I have conflictive thoughts about this issue.

This war on terror has been a total failure. Iraq and Afghanistan are worse than ever after the invasion 11 years ago. The US is just not going to wipe out ISIS. Bombing them is going to make it worse and bring other jihadists that are mad at the US, those groups are driven by hate. I get that they don't want troops to walk on Iraq or Syria and those are targeted attacks. Who knows how much collateral damage those attacks are going to cause, even if the military claim that there will be minimum casualties they wouldn't be in in a position to be trusted. And how many trillions is this going to cost to your government.

But on the other hand, what ISIS is doing is wrong and they should stop and they are not going to do that.

Iraq is worse, Afghanistan is definitely not. The Taliban really, really sucked, and for whatever else, I remain glad the U.S. kicked them out.

What you have to bear in mind is that ISIS is not Al Qaeda. With AQ, we could use drone strikes and special operations to selectively target senior leaders. We basically destroyed the organization ("Al Qaeda core") entirely by doing precisely that, and it was very successful. AQ is barely a thing anymore.

ISIS has actively taken over a giant slab of land and is operating a de facto government in it. You can't just bust down doors and use selective drone strikes when these guys have armored vehicles and MANPADs (like Stinger missiles). That's why I think Obama went for air strikes; he has to degrade their infrastructure first.

As far as civilian casualties, most of Iraq's population is in the southeast. The ISIS-controlled area is in northern and northwest Iraq, which is split between Iraqi Kurdistan and Sunni areas. The Kurds are behind us 100%, but yes, there is some risk of making the Sunnis even angrier. But I think the combination of them realizing how awful ISIS is and the new Iraqi Prime Minister hopefully being much more ethnically inclusive will help reduce the chance of that happening.

Re: cost, it's not that big a deal. That's why we have bases and aircraft carriers in the Gulf. The U.S. deficit has shrunken hugely since 2010 and we can manage, especially with French or British airpower assisting.

 

[FarBeyondMetal]

OK so say the US doesn't indirectly fund ISIS, really does want to defeat them, and the US succeeds. There would still be huge problems specifically in Iraq, where the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds don't want anything to do with each other. Defeating ISIS will just spawn another Sunni militant group unless there is some sort of diplomatic agreement between all the warring factions and I somehow think that the US involvement is a hindrance towards reaching this agreement rather than a facilitator.

Edit: and as for the Saudis and Qataris funding this whole mess, if they are willing to go through this type of barbarism to reach their goals they deserve NO weapons and NO military aid.

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

OK so say the US doesn't indirectly fund ISIS, really does want to defeat them, and the US succeeds. There would still be huge problems specifically in Iraq, where the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds don't want anything to do with each other. Defeating ISIS will just spawn another Sunni militant group unless there is some sort of diplomatic agreement between all the warring factions and I somehow think that the US involvement is a hindrance towards reaching this agreement rather than a facilitator.

Edit: and as for the Saudis and Qataris funding this whole mess, if they are willing to go through this type of barbarism to reach their goals they deserve NO weapons and NO military aid.

Kurds are fine as long as they get their oil revenue; they couldn't care less what happens in the rest of the country. You have the right idea about ISIS being a manifestation rather than a cause of sectarian infighting, but here's the thing: the reason ISIS didn't exist (or at least experience this level of success) until now is because the U.S. and the Iraqi gov successfully negotiated a ceasefire and political arrangement with the Sunnis and Shia during the Anbar Awakening. The reason it went to hell was because of specific choices made by Nouri al-Maliki to be sectarian and dickish toward the Shia after the US left in 2012. Obama totally gets this, which is why he (and Iran) put tons of pressure on Maliki to resign in favor of someone more reasonable, which is precisely what happened. So to the contrary, the US has been one of the few actors trying to avert something like ISIS. The default in Iraq is sectarian infighting; we're one of the few powers trying to avoid that. The hope is that the air strikes, in conjunction with a more inclusive government in Baghdad, will put more pressure on ISIS and give Sunnis a voice and stake in the government. I totally agree that this is a hard lift, but unless Iraq splits apart we have to live with the post-WWI borders.

As for Saudi and Qatar, lots of people agree with you. There has been definite diplomatic movement away from Saudi, especially since we now produce so much oil ourselves. As for Qatar, it's really punching above its weight and starting to alienate folks, the U.S. included. But we have a large military base there and they're very nice to us, so there you go. Politics is complicated.

 

[FarBeyondMetal]

Kurds are fine as long as they get their oil revenue; they couldn't care less what happens in the rest of the country. You have the right idea about ISIS being a manifestation rather than a cause of sectarian infighting, but here's the thing: the reason ISIS didn't exist (or at least experience this level of success) until now is because the U.S. and the Iraqi gov successfully negotiated a ceasefire and political arrangement with the Sunnis and Shia during the Anbar Awakening. The reason it went to hell was because of specific choices made by Nouri al-Maliki to be sectarian and dickish toward the Shia after the US left in 2012. Obama totally gets this, which is why he (and Iran) put tons of pressure on Maliki to resign in favor of someone more reasonable, which is precisely what happened. So to the contrary, the US has been one of the few actors trying to avert something like ISIS. The default in Iraq is sectarian infighting; we're one of the few powers trying to avoid that. The hope is that the air strikes, in conjunction with a more inclusive government in Baghdad, will put more pressure on ISIS and give Sunnis a voice and stake in the government. I totally agree that this is a hard lift, but unless Iraq splits apart we have to live with the post-WWI borders.

As for Saudi and Qatar, lots of people agree with you. There has been definite diplomatic movement away from Saudi, especially since we now produce so much oil ourselves. As for Qatar, it's really punching above its weight and starting to alienate folks, the U.S. included. But we have a large military base there and they're very nice to us, so there you go. Politics is complicated.

I'm not going to say I disagree or agree with all your points, but surely the bold is a typo and is supposed to be Sunni, otherwise I am very confused.

 

[AD Chaos]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, actually. The U.S. hasn't done anything to help them. To the (extremely) limited extent we've done anything to help the rebels, it's been mostly non-lethal aid. To the (ridiculously) limited extent lethal aid was provided, it's been to the more secular groups that ISIS has been fighting themselves.

In direct answer to the question posed, I have a pretty high threshold for times when I think the U.S. should start bombing things. I'm pretty sure having comically bloodthirsty terrorists actually mostly succeed in setting up a transnational caliphate may cross that threshold, especially when Iraq's terrible prime minister left office so there's the possibility of rectifying the disenchantment among Iraqi Sunnis that allowed ISIS to do this in the first place. But on the other hand, herpderp america suxxxxxxx

I hope you don't take this too personally, but since you seem to take the voice for US Gov here, I'm going to reply to you as such:

First off don't mix in the international banking cartels and corporations that run the US government with the everyday, hardworking American taxpayer by saying things like ''herpderp america suxxxxxxx''. Nowadays they're often two distinct -and even opposite- things. The former is the one getting a lot of heat from all over the world, and deserving so.

You modified your initial post more than once, but since you were mentioning Russia, let me ask you this: how exactly is going halfway across the world to destabilize and force regime change on Russia's doorstep ''in the best interest of US national security''? Could it be that there's oil and gas fields by Crimea and the Black Sea, and large debt to be had from Ukraine?
Why are you trying to settle a NATO base and missiles right by Russia's doorstep? What if it was the other way around, and Russia would be parking their ships and missiles in Cuba or in Mexico, how would you react to that then?
Double standards much?

Why aren't you government people investing the US taxpayers' money on improving roads and infrastructure in the USA, instead? How about taking care of your vets properly? Why not say, building a maglev network to take transportation to the 21st century for Americans and improve things for everyone there, like all the other developed countries do?
What about bringing back jobs to your country, fighting poverty, income inequality, improving healthcare for people, etc?

Why exactly is so much more important to kill people on endless wars, cultivate resentment and create animosity, abroad and at home?

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

I'm not going to say I disagree or agree with all your points, but surely the bold is a typo and is supposed to be Sunni, otherwise I am very confused.

Yeah that was a typo, sorry.

I hope you don't take this too personally, but since you seem to take the voice for US Gov here, I'm going to reply to you as such:

Fair enough, although I have plenty of quibbles with U.S. foreign policy. My opinions tend to basically be what passes for your average analysis among think tanks, academics, and centrist policy wonks in DC and around the country.

You modified your initial post more than once, but since you were mentioning Russia, let me ask you this: how exactly is going halfway across the world to destabilize and force regime change on Russia's doorstep ''in the best interest of US national security''? Could it be that there's oil and gas fields by Crimea and the Black Sea, and large debt to be had from Ukraine?
Why are you trying to settle a NATO base and missiles right by Russia's doorstep? What if it was the other way around, and Russia would be parking their ships and missiles in Cuba or in Mexico, how would you react to that then?
Double standards much?

Yeah, I did delete an inflammatory paragraph just because there was no analytical point to it. I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise, but here is what most of the civilized world thinks, and what I think: Ukraine has historically been related to or part of Russia, but intervening military and economically to prop up a president (Yanukovych) who's a central part of your corruption-and-threat-based network of power in Europe is some barbaric bullshit to be pulling in the 21st century, and that's why so many other countries hate Russia. To pretend it's about oil or U.S. dominance or anything else is self-hating Americanism. It's not all about us. Ukrainians just want to live their lives and have closer relations with the EU. So Russia hikes gas prices and sends paratroopers in. If you really think the U.S. is at fault there, I don't know what to tell you. You're in a tiny global minority and the weight of evidence is 1000% stacked against you. I don't mean for that to be a personal attack- that's just stating what the vast majority of people, U.S. and foreign, think.

There's also the whole issue of how we have an unbelievable amount of oil and gas and don't need any from Russia, especially since it would be LNG, which is expensive to import. We export LNG. As for nuclear weapons, Russia has many more than us and has almost always flouted arms control agreements in some form. Obama actually wanted to do another round of reductions beyond New START and Putin rejected him. If you really want to get into the issue of whether ICBMs are perceived as threatening, that is a whoooole other issue, but the tl;dr version is that Russia's conventional forces (its army, really) are quite weak, so it uses its nuclear weapons as a trump card instead. The positions of the nukes were really determined by how the Cold War panned out, and nobody (except maybe Russia, because Putin is paranoid) perceives the smaller number of U.S. nukes as a threat. They're a deterrent- nothing more, nothing less. And this is after the Obama administration made a highly publicized attempt to wipe the slate clean on U.S.-Russia relations, made plenty of diplomatic overtures, and even declined to place a new missile defense system near Russia.

Other than Russia Today anchors (several of whom have quit over the issue), you'd really be hard-pressed to find anybody in this country who thinks the U.S. is to blame for what's happening in Ukraine. That's not because there's a vast pro-U.S. conspiracy; it's because what Russia is doing is manifestly awful by any basic standards of human decency.

Why aren't you government people investing the US taxpayers' money on improving roads and infrastructure in the USA, instead? How about taking care of your vets properly? Why not say, building a maglev network to take transportation to the 21st century for Americans and improve things for everyone there, like all the other developed countries do?
What about bringing back jobs to your country, fighting poverty, income inequality, improving healthcare for people, etc?

Why exactly is so much more important to kill people on endless wars, cultivate resentment and create animosity, abroad and at home?

Well, I could note that America has, since the end of the Cold War, been the de facto and singular power in the international system guaranteeing the security of the commons- trade, the flow of energy, etc. etc. When ISIS rolls into Kurdistan, the Kurds don't call Russia or China or France. They call us. Everybody does. Because we have a giant military, we won the Cold War, and the international system is a vacuum waiting to be filled by powerful countries. Better it be us than China or Russia.

But more broadly, I'm advocating for limited, smart, reasonable security engagement by the U.S. when really bad shit happens that directly threatens us in some capacity. Russia invading a sovereign country with paratroopers and tanks is really bad shit and sets a precedent for other countries being invaded, so we (along with the rest of Europe- are they all wrong too?) impose sanctions. ISIS is murdering ethnic minority groups and setting up its own terrorist state a la 90s Afghanistan. That is really bad shit for literally everybody in that neighborhood, plus us in the future, so yes, I think we should use force to degrade ISIS. Syria is horrible, but they have very strong air defenses and I'm more concerned about a nuclear deal with Iran, so I do not think that passes the really bad shit test for intervention.

And ultimately, none of those things at all preclude investing in the U.S. economy. Every country spends money on security- some more, some less. We spend a shockingly reasonable amount relative to our GDP and how much we do, in my opinion- about 5%, and declining.

 

[JeffTD]

Super tactical, surgical tactics in tandem with allies is the only way to do this. This is how Iraq should have been done in the first place (if it were to be done at all) and they're trying to not make the same mistake twice (getting into a drawn out, boots-on-the-ground conflict).