How to defeat ISIL

[GIThruster]

Note here the odd explanation that Mohammad never gave people this forth choice" implying how much they see themselves as continuing the 1,500 year Jihad:

http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/british-e ... ing-video/

And let me just call to memory the famous words of C. S. Lewis, when during WWII before the Pacifist Society, he remarked that pacifism in their context, was the surest means to secure a society where pacifism was no longer tolerated. If you ignore when evil like this knocks on the door, if you justify it and rationalize it and make any room for it, it takes control and there is no longer room for any kind of toleration.

[GIThruster]

And Britain too? Not numbers like France but still, this is concerning:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/28/brita ... ium=social

[mvanwink5]

Yes, well the alternatives to the Prog position where there was never a chance to meddle that wasn't too enticing to pass up especially when it involved bullying, killing, or all other forms of arrogance, the alternatives are not restricted to being a "pacifist," contrary to what Prog propaganda says. I don't fall for that false choice and neither should you. Please get a Prog to explain how the American military involvement in the Middle East has resulted in increased security for the US? No. Since WW2 Prog's good intentions, starting with the Prog creation of Israel (what could go wrong with that "good" Prog intention?) to present efforts for the overthrow of the Pro-Russian Ukraine thugs in power to put our own Pro-Nato Ukraine thugs in power. Where does this Prog madness end? I reject the Prog's false choice to make the world in the Utopian Prog image by any means especially military and "foreign aide," versus "do nothing." Putin had it right "Everything the Americans do turn out to be a Libya or Iraq." I guess you could throw Ukraine, Syria, and ISIL into that.

No Pacifism is not the alternative to the Prog bank busting multi trillion dollar, nation destroying national debt, meddle in everything approach. That is pure Prog narrative. Don't buy it, I don't.

[tomclarke]

And Britain too? Not numbers like France but still, this is concerning:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/28/brita ... ium=social

It does happen. But the numbers are very small. And there is very active work to make them smaller still. You can find comparison with the way young men went off to fight in the Spanish Civil War. Remember, going to another country to fight what you believe is a just war is not the same as supporting terrorism! There are people persuaded to become terrorists as well, but very few indeed.

[tomclarke]

Note here the odd explanation that Mohammad never gave people this forth choice" implying how much they see themselves as continuing the 1,500 year Jihad:

http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/british-e ... ing-video/

And let me just call to memory the famous words of C. S. Lewis, when during WWII before the Pacifist Society, he remarked that pacifism in their context, was the surest means to secure a society where pacifism was no longer tolerated. If you ignore when evil like this knocks on the door, if you justify it and rationalize it and make any room for it, it takes control and there is no longer room for any kind of toleration.

Going and fighting in other people's countries where you are not wanted is quite different from this, and requires much stronger reasons to justify. We fought in Europe because Germany was expansionist and attacked our close allies, with clear intention to attack us as well.

Syria & Iraq are not our allies, and whatever happens in the middle east will not lead to conquest of Europe or US.

I'd go for military involvement, with a decent coalition to spread the blame.

[mvanwink5]

I'd go for military involvement

Nicely sanitized.
Then what?

[tomclarke]

I'd go for military involvement

Nicely sanitized.
Then what?

It would be in a coalition with Iran and others. It would be supporting Shia/Sunni govt and Kurds against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (though there are extra problems with Syria). It would include political efforts to reduce income streams to ISIS. It would be continued for some time (5 years or so). US involvement would be air support only I guess. What they are doing now.

[mvanwink5]

TC, open your mind a crack. What happened after the low cost Iraq war? how many trillions of dollars, lives, collateral maiming, psychological damage, and the problem has escalated to include all of the Middle East.

That is the answer to "Then what?" for the Iraq war (police action). So what will be the answer to this new "corrective initiative?" To phrase it in Prog-speak.

There is a strong need for Irony Guard, and I am already breaking out with the "Yellow Rose of Texas" tune. (not a pretty sight) And others have engaged in medicinal MJ treatment.

[hanelyp]

A coalition with Iran, a nation openly hostile to the very foundation of the US, who would go to war with us in seconds if we didn't out muscle them? A government that needs to be removed along side ISIS if there is ever to be peace in the mid east. What are you smoking?

[choff]

One story I've heard of late is that Egypt and the U.A.E. attacked Muslim extremists in Libya and didn't tell the White House because the POTUS is considered a potential security leak, they think he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course I've heard stories about the former president also secretly being a Muslim, that his family would sell their souls for big oil, seems absurd to suggest. Then there are reports that the west funded and trained ISIL in Jordan and Turkey. If these are tall tales, then at the very least ISIL have acquired encryption keys to all top secret U.S. communications. There's no other way to explain the accurate intelligence they receive except for direct collusion with CIA.

[tomclarke]

TC, open your mind a crack. What happened after the low cost Iraq war? how many trillions of dollars, lives, collateral maiming, psychological damage, and the problem has escalated to include all of the Middle East.

That is the answer to "Then what?" for the Iraq war (police action). So what will be the answer to this new "corrective initiative?" To phrase it in Prog-speak.

There is a strong need for Irony Guard, and I am already breaking out with the "Yellow Rose of Texas" tune. (not a pretty sight) And others have engaged in medicinal MJ treatment.

The Iraq war was entered by neo-Cons with an ideological view that ignored the advice of all the experts and also ignored real-world politik. Therefore they did not plan for what would happen after the toppling of Saddam and made some crucially bad decisions early on. They were idiots. They could have got better advice, but did not because of ideology.

I'm not advocating military force of a "shoot-em-up till they cave" variety that is separated from diplomacy.

Equally I'm not saying diplomacy can work without military force. I'm realistic. Also, because of that, I have limited ideas of what "work" will mean. The Middle East is a can of worms - this is worm management, not worm eradication.

In this case that means Iran and the US working together. For many years that was impossible because of Iranian anti-US ideology. Now, maybe, Iran is being pragmatic. It wants to be a serious power in the Middle East and will only get that by cooperating with other serious powers. The US, unless dominated by anti-Iran ideologues, will gain from cooperation if that is possible. Such a realignment along the lines of mutual interests would shake thing sup in the Middle East for the better.

[paperburn1]

Then there are reports that the west funded and trained ISIL in Jordan and Turkey. If these are tall tales, then at the very least ISIL have acquired encryption keys to all top secret U.S. communications. There's no other way to explain the accurate intelligence they receive except for direct collusion with CIA.

ISIL in Syria is receiving support and intel from the west. The only question is whether it is direct or indirect from the USA. We sided Syria rebels to over throw the current government in Syria. This ties back to funneling support though Libya
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=li ... s+to+syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world ... d=all&_r=0
Qatari C-17 cargo aircraft have made at least three stops in Libya this year — including flights from Mitiga airport in Tripoli on Jan. 15 and Feb. 1, and another that departed Benghazi on April 1.The planes returned to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The cargo was then flown to Ankara, Turkey, along with other weapons and equipment that the Qataris had been gathering for the rebels, officials and rebels said.
Benghazi , now does that start making a little more sense. Can't have it out there we are supporting the bad guys.

[mvanwink5]

Yes, but the point is that it is not possible to be smart enough to avoid the multi trillion dollar + unintended consequences that then snow ball. So, Progs are always doing 'what if' xxx mistake was not made(?), and 'if only' our version of the perfect philosopher king was on the throne... Wasn't Obama the Dem Prog's dream king to rule them all... wisely? In fact, he was so believed that he was given the Nobel Peace prize even before he got onto the golf course. What happened to the dream? Ask my sister and she will tell you it is the neo cons fault!!!

No, despite the dream king at the end of the Prog rainbow and the perfect Prog strategy, reality will be there to thump the hubris (at the collateral expense of the unwashed)... What is amazing is that like all addicts, Progs just don't learn. Utopia, with glazed eyes!

So, the point of 'What then'? Is that it is impossible to have a clue, the world is vastly too complex. Maybe if there was a Muab'Dib?

[hanelyp]

One story I've heard of late is that Egypt and the U.A.E. attacked Muslim extremists in Libya and didn't tell the White House because the POTUS is considered a potential security leak, they think he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

From the perspective of operational security, probably close enough to the mark. The US has an enemy agent in the white house.

[williatw]

The Iraq war was entered by neo-Cons with an ideological view that ignored the advice of all the experts and also ignored real-world politik. Therefore they did not plan for what would happen after the toppling of Saddam and made some crucially bad decisions early on. They were idiots. They could have got better advice, but did not because of ideology

Most of the people here act like the Iraq war started with the surge....barely acknowledging the ineptitude that preceded it.

In this case that means Iran and the US working together. For many years that was impossible because of Iranian anti-US ideology. Now, maybe, Iran is being pragmatic. It wants to be a serious power in the Middle East and will only get that by cooperating with other serious powers. The US, unless dominated by anti-Iran ideologues, will gain from cooperation if that is possible. Such a realignment along the lines of mutual interests would shake thing sup in the Middle East for the better.

Latest Big Lie: ‘We Have No Strategy’

They DO have a strategy, but they prefer to appear indecisive. That’s because the strategy would likely provoke even greater criticism than the false confession of endless dithering.

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels: Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.

The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2014/0 ... epage=true