Thoughtful And Intriguing Analysis On United States IS[IS] Options...


Selene

Recommended Posts

This article is written by Steven Maizie whose info/vitae is listed below:

A gulf divides scholarly work on political questions from the punditry of the

popular media. PRAXIS aims to bridge this divide, drawing on insights from

political, legal and moral philosophy to reveal uncommon perspectives on the big

issues of our day.

Steven Mazie is the Supreme Court Correspondent for The Economist and writes

regularly for The Economist's Democracy in America blog. He is Professor of

Political Studies at Bard High School Early College-Manhattan and holds an A.B. in Government from Harvard College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the

University of Michigan. Mazies recent publications include Up from

Colorblindness: Equality, Race and the Lessons of Ricci v. DeStefano (2011),

Rawls on Wall Street (2011), Equality, Race and Gifted Education: An

Egalitarian Critique of Admission to New York Citys Specialized High Schools

12009) and Israels Higher Law: Religion and Liberal Democracy in the Jewish

State (2006). He has taught previously at the University of Michigan (1998),

New York University (2001) and Bard College (2005, 2011).

The author starts with the writings of Thomas Hobbes which caught my attention:

In the writings of Thomas Hobbes, the great 17th-century political

theorist, we find a keen analysis of the danger ISIS poses to civilized life in the 21st century. I'll explore Hobbes's insights a few paragraphs down. But

first, if you need a primer on ISISthe group now calls itself simply the

Islamic State (IS)you might start by consulting these excellent info-packs by Zack Beauchamp at Vox. Id also recommend watching the chilling, eye-opening

video captured by a reporter from The Vice who spent three weeks embedded with

the militants

He then first turns his approach to an analysis of the military "situation"

which he labels a conundrum.

He cites an "expert" who explains the problem with IS[iS]:

As Mr. Beauchamp writes, it is simply implausible that the United States

military, for all its force and firepower, can defeat ISIS. There is no magic

American bullet that could fix the ISIS problem, Mr. Beauchamp claims. Even an intensive, decades-long American ground effortsomething that is politically

not on the table, anywaysmight only make the problem worse. The reason is that ISIS's presence in Iraq and Syria is fundamentally a political problem, not a

military one. As long as a significant proportion of Iraqs Sunni population is on ISISs side, no amount of bombing will secure America's ultimate objective. And a stepped-up US ground presence, as Mr. Beauchamp writes, might only

further infuriate the Sunni population.

Beauchamp observes and dispels, "Another myth ... is the assumption that ISIS is crazy and irrational.

He explains why this is potentially a fatal mistake:

For over a decade, ISIS has been motivated by one clear goal: to

establish a caliphate governed by an extremist interpretation of Islamic law:

ISIS developed strategies for accomplishing that goalfor instance, exploiting

popular discontent among non-extremist Sunni Iraqis with their Shia-dominated

government. Its tactics have evolved over the course of time in response to

military defeats (as in 2008 in Iraq) and new opportunities (the Syrian civil

war). As Yale political scientist Stathis Kalyvas explains, in pure strategic

terms, ISIS is acting similarly to revolutionary militant groups around the

worldnot in an especially crazy or uniquely "Islamist" way.

This methodical, patient, well-organized approach has helped ISIS win and hold

on to significant territory in Syria and Iraq, snatching American military

equipment in the process and using it to fuel its campaign to take still more

land.

Anther advantage that the author believes IS[iS] possesses is a "...caliphate

without borders."

Watching the Vices inside video on ISIS reveals how readily Muslims young and old embrace the concept and pledge their loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the charismatic leader of the movement. This despite the condemnation of ISISs retrograde theology and brutal tactics by the vast majority of Muslim leaders

around the world.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes masterwork arguing that a ruler with absolute

authority is the best prescription for social peace, the prospect of zealots

with weapons was portrayed as one of the foremost dangers to overcome. Human

beings seek out religion, Hobbes wrote, because they cant make sense of the

world. People are then drawn to the assumption that there is some cause,

whereof there is no former cause, but is eternal, which is what men call God.

This nascent religious belief gets the ball rolling in a dangerous direction.

For once such a belief is established, people are willing to devote themselves

to God out of fear and trick themselves into believing all kinds of ridiculous

ideas, with birds, snakes and even onions and leeks taking on divine

significance. Thats where scheming men with strange, even unfathomable, ideas

enter the scene, according to Hobbes. And around the corner come figures like

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, cunning would-be caliphs who draw followers into the palms of their hands. Hobbes might as well be blogging today:

So easy are men to be drawn to believe anything from such men as have gotten credit with them and can with gentleness and dexterity take hold of their fear and ignorance.

The author finishes stating:

In sum, ISIS is not likely to be defeated anytime soonnot on the

battlefield and not in the forum of public opinion in the Middle East. President Obama may have no option but to talk tough and military options may seem

increasingly inescapable, but the task, and the foe, are formidable.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, getting sloppy...forgot to include the link.

http://bigthink.com/praxis/two-reasons-isis-is-even-more-terrifying-than-you-think

A...

oops...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the article cited is on the mark, then we should exterminate them and god-damn the collateral damage.

There is a saying in the Talmud -- If he is coming to kill go rise up early and slay him first.

Even the Catholics have some good advice to offer: Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

The advice was: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS's real expansionist threat is to Saudi Arabia and they are both Sunni. This whole thing is just another facet of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s with Iran having now a greater advantage. It's the Shiites who are expanding their basic power and influence, not the Sunnis. It's the Shiites who are the greatest threat to Israel. The ISIS threat right now is to--aside from Saudi Arabia--Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria (Assad) and Iran. Not enough clout for that job. The geo-political Black Swan is Israel making a major, overt move against Iran. What I think will happen is Israel will hit Hezbollah in Lebanon which will make Assad weaker and ISIS temporarily stronger, depending on how hard Israel would press the matter. It may have stopped fighting in Gaza to prepare for Lebanon.

--Brant

not out of time but increasingly out of non-reactive non-ISIS control (police are essentially reactive, btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leftist hand-ringing.

First, the U.S. should be arming our potential allies, the Syrian Free Army, the Kurds, the Ukrainians --- oops, wrong conflict. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we haven't yet taken that step. Then, the U.S. should bomb IS positions and units. We're doing a little of that. Finally, we should provide intel to our allies. I think we're doing some of that too.

IS is a fairly small group. It might not go away completely, but they will probably fade into the woodwork if their task appears hopeless.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leftist hand-ringing.

First, the U.S. should be arming our potential allies, the Syrian Free Army, the Kurds, the Ukrainians --- oops, wrong conflict. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we haven't yet taken that step. Then, the U.S. should bomb IS positions and units. We're doing a little of that. Finally, we should provide intel to our allies. I think we're doing some of that too.

IS is a fairly small group. It might not go away completely, but they will probably fade into the woodwork if their task appears hopeless.

Darrell

Why? (Repeated six times.) Actions need reasons.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leftist hand-ringing.

First, the U.S. should be arming our potential allies, the Syrian Free Army, the Kurds, the Ukrainians --- oops, wrong conflict. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we haven't yet taken that step. Then, the U.S. should bomb IS positions and units. We're doing a little of that. Finally, we should provide intel to our allies. I think we're doing some of that too.

IS is a fairly small group. It might not go away completely, but they will probably fade into the woodwork if their task appears hopeless.

Darrell

Why? (Repeated six times.) Actions need reasons.

--Brant

In order to reach our strategic objectives. Arming our allies would strengthen them without putting our soldiers at risk.

Let's start with the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting IS(IS) directly. Or, rather, IS(IS) is attacking them. The major hurdle might be the opinion of the Turks. They've had problems with the kurds in the past, probably because they were repressing them. Otherwise, arming the Kurds would deal a direct blow to the effectiveness of IS(IS). If we supplied the Kurds with sufficient weapons and took out some of the armored vehicles that IS(IS) got from us indirectly, they'd probably be forced to abandon their efforts to take Kurdish territory.

The Syrian Free Army is also fighting IS(IS) in and around Aleppo in Syria. So, same argument applies there. In fact, we should have been arming the Syrian Free Army for years in order to take out Assad who, along with his father, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. and Israel for generations. We should have capitalized on what started as peaceful demonstrations for more freedom in Syria in order to get rid of an enemy in the region and doing so might have prevented IS(IS) from getting any traction in the first place.

With respect to Ukraine, we should make it painful for Putin to invade and enlarge his territory. Our objective there should be to welcome Ukraine into the European economy and keep Russia at bay. Our weakness strengthens Putin. If we were to weaken and discredit him, Russia might look for another leader. On our present course, we'll have to deal with him for another generation.

It's not difficult. We should have strategic objectives that bolster our long term interests in freedom, free trade, peace, and economic development, and we should pursue those objectives.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article on the issue from stratfor

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama said recently that he had no strategy as yet toward the Islamic State but that he would present a plan on Wednesday. It is important for a president to know when he has no strategy. It is not necessarily wise to announce it, as friends will be frightened and enemies delighted. A president must know what it is he does not know, and he should remain calm in pursuit of it, but there is no obligation to be honest about it.

This is particularly true because, in a certain sense, Obama has a strategy, though it is not necessarily one he likes. Strategy is something that emerges from reality, while tactics might be chosen. Given the situation, the United States has an unavoidable strategy. There are options and uncertainties for employing it. Let us consider some of the things that Obama does know.The Formation of National Strategy

There are serious crises on the northern and southern edges of the Black Sea Basin. There is no crisis in the Black Sea itself, but it is surrounded by crises. The United States has been concerned about the status of Russia ever since U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. The United States has been concerned about the Middle East since U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower forced the British to retreat from Suez in 1956. As a result, the United States inherited -- or seized -- the British position.

A national strategy emerges over the decades and centuries. It becomes a set of national interests into which a great deal has been invested, upon which a great deal depends and upon which many are counting. Presidents inherit national strategies, and they can modify them to some extent. But the idea that a president has the power to craft a new national strategy both overstates his power and understates the power of realities crafted by all those who came before him. We are all trapped in circumstances into which we were born and choices that were made for us. The United States has an inherent interest in Ukraine and in Syria-Iraq. Whether we should have that interest is an interesting philosophical question for a late-night discussion, followed by a sunrise when we return to reality. These places reflexively matter to the United States.

The American strategy is fixed: Allow powers in the region to compete and balance against each other. When that fails, intervene with as little force and risk as possible. For example, the conflict between Iran and Iraq canceled out two rising powers until the war ended. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to overturn the balance of power in the region. The result was Desert Storm.

This strategy provides a model. In the Syria-Iraq region, the initial strategy is to allow the regional powers to balance each other, while providing as little support as possible to maintain the balance of power. It is crucial to understand the balance of power in detail, and to understand what might undermine it, so that any force can be applied effectively. This is the tactical part, and it is the tactical part that can go wrong. The strategy has a logic of its own. Understanding what that strategy demands is the hard part. Some nations have lost their sovereignty by not understanding what strategy demands. France in 1940 comes to mind. For the United States, there is no threat to sovereignty, but that makes the process harder: Great powers can tend to be casual because the situation is not existential. This increases the cost of doing what is necessary.

The ground where we are talking about applying this model is Syria and Iraq. Both of these central governments have lost control of the country as a whole, but each remains a force. Both countries are divided by religion, and the religions are divided internally as well. In a sense the nations have ceased to exist, and the fragments they consisted of are now smaller but more complex entities.

The issue is whether the United States can live with this situation or whether it must reshape it. The immediate question is whether the United States has the power to reshape it and to what extent. The American interest turns on its ability to balance local forces. If that exists, the question is whether there is any other shape that can be achieved through American power that would be superior. From my point of view, there are many different shapes that can be imagined, but few that can be achieved. The American experience in Iraq highlighted the problems with counterinsurgency or being caught in a local civil war. The idea of major intervention assumes that this time it will be different. This fits one famous definition of insanity.

The Islamic State's Role

There is then the special case of the Islamic State. It is special because its emergence triggered the current crisis. It is special because the brutal murder of two prisoners on video showed a particular cruelty. And it is different because its ideology is similar to that of al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. It has excited particular American passions.

To counter this, I would argue that the uprising by Iraq's Sunni community was inevitable, with its marginalization by Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite regime in Baghdad. That it took this particularly virulent form is because the more conservative elements of the Sunni community were unable or unwilling to challenge al-Maliki. But the fragmentation of Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions was well underway before the Islamic State, and jihadism was deeply embedded in the Sunni community a long time ago.

Moreover, although the Islamic State is brutal, its cruelty is not unique in the region. Syrian President Bashar al Assad and others may not have killed Americans or uploaded killings to YouTube, but their history of ghastly acts is comparable. Finally, the Islamic State -- engaged in war with everyone around it -- is much less dangerous to the United States than a small group with time on its hands, planning an attack. In any event, if the Islamic State did not exist, the threat to the United States from jihadist groups in Yemen or Libya or somewhere inside the United States would remain.

Because the Islamic State operates to some extent as a conventional military force, it is vulnerable to U.S. air power. The use of air power against conventional forces that lack anti-aircraft missiles is a useful gambit. It shows that the United States is doing something, while taking little risk, assuming that the Islamic State really does not have anti-aircraft missiles. But it accomplishes little. The Islamic State will disperse its forces, denying conventional aircraft a target. Attempting to defeat the Islamic State by distinguishing its supporters from other Sunni groups and killing them will founder at the first step. The problem of counterinsurgency is identifying the insurgent.

There is no reason not to bomb the Islamic State's forces and leaders. They certainly deserve it. But there should be no illusion that bombing them will force them to capitulate or mend their ways. They are now part of the fabric of the Sunni community, and only the Sunni community can root them out. Identifying Sunnis who are anti-Islamic State and supplying them with weapons is a much better idea. It is the balance-of-power strategy that the United States follows, but this approach doesn't have the dramatic satisfaction of blowing up the enemy. That satisfaction is not trivial, and the United States can certainly blow something up and call it the enemy, but it does not address the strategic problem.

In the first place, is it really a problem for the United States? The American interest is not stability but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralyzed so that no one who would threaten the United States emerges. The Islamic State had real successes at first, but the balance of power with the Kurds and Shia has limited its expansion, and tensions within the Sunni community diverted its attention. Certainly there is the danger of intercontinental terrorism, and U.S. intelligence should be active in identifying and destroying these threats. But the re-occupation of Iraq, or Iraq plus Syria, makes no sense. The United States does not have the force needed to occupy Iraq and Syria at the same time. The demographic imbalance between available forces and the local population makes that impossible.

The danger is that other Islamic State franchises might emerge in other countries. But the United States would not be able to block these threats as well as the other countries in the region. Saudi Arabia must cope with any internal threat it faces not because the United States is indifferent, but because the Saudis are much better at dealing with such threats. In the end, the same can be said for the Iranians.

Most important, it can also be said for the Turks. The Turks are emerging as a regional power. Their economy has grown dramatically in the past decade, their military is the largest in the region, and they are part of the Islamic world. Their government is Islamist but in no way similar to the Islamic State, which concerns Ankara. This is partly because of Ankara's fear that the jihadist group might spread to Turkey, but more so because its impact on Iraqi Kurdistan could affect Turkey's long-term energy plans.

Forming a New Balance in the Region

The United States cannot win the game of small mosaic tiles that is emerging in Syria and Iraq. An American intervention at this microscopic level can only fail. But the principle of balance of power does not mean that balance must be maintained directly. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia have far more at stake in this than the United States. So long as they believe that the United States will attempt to control the situation, it is perfectly rational for them to back off and watch, or act in the margins, or even hinder the Americans.

The United States must turn this from a balance of power between Syria and Iraq to a balance of power among this trio of regional powers. They have far more at stake and, absent the United States, they have no choice but to involve themselves. They cannot stand by and watch a chaos that could spread to them.

It is impossible to forecast how the game is played out. What is important is that the game begins. The Turks do not trust the Iranians, and neither is comfortable with the Saudis. They will cooperate, compete, manipulate and betray, just as the United States or any country might do in such a circumstance. The point is that there is a tactic that will fail: American re-involvement. There is a tactic that will succeed: the United States making it clear that while it might aid the pacification in some way, the responsibility is on regional powers. The inevitable outcome will be a regional competition that the United States can manage far better than the current chaos.

Obama has sought volunteers from NATO for a coalition to fight the Islamic State. It is not clear why he thinks those NATO countries -- with the exception of Turkey -- will spend their national treasures and lives to contain the Islamic State, or why the Islamic State alone is the issue. The coalition that must form is not a coalition of the symbolic, but a coalition of the urgently involved. That coalition does not have to be recruited. In a real coalition, its members have no choice but to join. And whether they act together or in competition, they will have to act. And not acting will simply increase the risk to them.

U.S. strategy is sound. It is to allow the balance of power to play out, to come in only when it absolutely must -- with overwhelming force, as in Kuwait -- and to avoid intervention where it cannot succeed. The tactical application of strategy is the problem. In this case the tactic is not direct intervention by the United States, save as a satisfying gesture to avenge murdered Americans. But the solution rests in doing as little as possible and forcing regional powers into the fray, then in maintaining the balance of power in this coalition.

Such an American strategy is not an avoidance of responsibility. It is the use of U.S. power to force a regional solution. Sometimes the best use of American power is to go to war. Far more often, the best use of U.S. power is to withhold it. The United States cannot evade responsibility in the region. But it is enormously unimaginative to assume that carrying out that responsibility is best achieved by direct intervention. Indirect intervention is frequently more efficient and more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article on the issue from stratfor

There is then the special case of the Islamic State. It is special because its emergence triggered the current crisis. It is special because the brutal murder of two prisoners on video showed a particular cruelty. And it is different because its ideology is similar to that of al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. It has excited particular American passions.

Moreover, although the Islamic State is brutal, its cruelty is not unique in the region. Syrian President Bashar al Assad and others may not have killed Americans or uploaded killings to YouTube, but their history of ghastly acts is comparable. Finally, the Islamic State -- engaged in war with everyone around it -- is much less dangerous to the United States than a small group with time on its hands, planning an attack. In any event, if the Islamic State did not exist, the threat to the United States from jihadist groups in Yemen or Libya or somewhere inside the United States would remain.

I see you are drinking again...

https://rational.org/index.php?id=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leftist hand-ringing.

First, the U.S. should be arming our potential allies, the Syrian Free Army, the Kurds, the Ukrainians --- oops, wrong conflict. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we haven't yet taken that step. Then, the U.S. should bomb IS positions and units. We're doing a little of that. Finally, we should provide intel to our allies. I think we're doing some of that too.

IS is a fairly small group. It might not go away completely, but they will probably fade into the woodwork if their task appears hopeless.

Darrell

Why? (Repeated six times.) Actions need reasons.

--Brant

In order to reach our strategic objectives. Arming our allies would strengthen them without putting our soldiers at risk.

Let's start with the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting IS(IS) directly. Or, rather, IS(IS) is attacking them. The major hurdle might be the opinion of the Turks. They've had problems with the kurds in the past, probably because they were repressing them. Otherwise, arming the Kurds would deal a direct blow to the effectiveness of IS(IS). If we supplied the Kurds with sufficient weapons and took out some of the armored vehicles that IS(IS) got from us indirectly, they'd probably be forced to abandon their efforts to take Kurdish territory.

The Syrian Free Army is also fighting IS(IS) in and around Aleppo in Syria. So, same argument applies there. In fact, we should have been arming the Syrian Free Army for years in order to take out Assad who, along with his father, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. and Israel for generations. We should have capitalized on what started as peaceful demonstrations for more freedom in Syria in order to get rid of an enemy in the region and doing so might have prevented IS(IS) from getting any traction in the first place.

With respect to Ukraine, we should make it painful for Putin to invade and enlarge his territory. Our objective there should be to welcome Ukraine into the European economy and keep Russia at bay. Our weakness strengthens Putin. If we were to weaken and discredit him, Russia might look for another leader. On our present course, we'll have to deal with him for another generation.

It's not difficult. We should have strategic objectives that bolster our long term interests in freedom, free trade, peace, and economic development, and we should pursue those objectives.

Darrell

There's no point in talking to you about anything else but Ukraine, for if we've got the hots for meddling around there the whole world is on the platter. The problem is the whole world is on your platter, so there's no point in even talking about Ukraine. The more we intervene domestically the more we (the U.S.) intervene internationally and the worse and worse it all gets.

Now, how in the hell do your geo-political views flow out of or are informed by Objectivism? OL is not Neo-Con Living, after all.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he ignores the elephant in the room, Adam.

...and it is?...

Mohamadism.

ISIS is just another jihad group, the most successful so far, and as I've said before, you can smash them (and they should be smashed) but they aren't what really needs to be defeated. The whole movement is about sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and that is greater than ISIS, greater than Al Qaeda, greater than Boko Haram, greater than all of them. Muhammad is what needs to be defeated.

Darrell above suggests arming the FSA. The FSA, however, are working with the IS. Chances are you'll just be arming more muslims who will opt for the strong horse when the time comes, which just might happen to still be the Islamic State.

In my opinion a speech like this would do more to start turning things around than anything else could.

An ISIS Speech For Obama

I volunteer as a speech writer for the Radical-in-Chief.By Nonie Darwish

Author’s note: The speech below was written by me for Obama for one of his upcoming addresses on ISIS. Hopefully he will use it, because it is what America needs to hear from our president today. Such a speech is what the Muslim world needs to hear instead of what it heard from Obama six years ago in Cairo.

When I got elected president of the United States, I promised I would change the relationship between the Muslim world and America. That promise was based on my assumption that I understood the Muslim culture and religion better than any prior American president, because I grew up in Indonesia and went to Islamic school. To me, dealing with the Muslim world was a no brainer.

Instead of starting my presidency with a monumental speech thanking the American people for electing me, their first black president, and launching a new dawn in the healing of America from the ravages of race relations, I chose to give my most important first speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. I told them everything they needed to hear. I gave them the respect they desperately needed, and even bowed to his majesty, the King of Saudi Arabia. This all came at a cost to my popularity among my own forgiving citizens and my standing in the world.

I was willing to negotiate unconditionally with Iran and refused to take sides in their civil unrest. I removed every reference to Islam’s connection to terrorism from all of US government documents and labeled terrorist acts on my own military personnel at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” I did not respond to Islamists who embarrassed me before my re-election, when I blamed their attack on the Benghazi consulate and murder of 4 American officials on a video and not on Islamic terror. I made sure to lift up the spirits of the Muslim people even at the expense of my own people. I accused my opposition of being racists and allowed my attorney general to tell Americans that they are a “nation of cowards.”

But to my surprise, nothing worked. Today, the Middle East still hate us, is in flames and radical Islam is empowered like never before. The first radical Islamic State was launched during my presidency and the people of Egypt, to whom I spoke 6 years ago, are now calling me Satan and terror supporter. I also have lost the respect and confidence of many Americans, US allies and even our enemies.

I now declare that I am a changed man and it is not too late for America. I now declare that the problem we face in the world today is not the US, but Islam, period. US policy towards the Middle East was at worst imperfect and confused, but its failures fall squarely on the shoulders of a Muslim world unable to live in peace, neither with itself nor with the rest of the world. It is time for moderate Muslims to take control of their Islamic states if they are truly the majority and the terrorists are truly the minority.

The king of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are warning us that ISIS will attack Europe in a month and the US in two months. This is my response to them: Enough trying to scare us into doing your dirty work for you, while you come out smelling like a rose. You have no control over your jihadists because jihad is a basic educational requirement for a Muslim and the Muslim head of state. If it is true that moderate Muslims reject jihad as violence and war and are truly the majority, and terrorists are the minority, then you should have no problem with crushing Islamic terrorism. But somehow your Muslim leaders seem helpless and refuse to be open with your own people about condemning jihad by name. You keep financing it while winking at terror groups to do their jihad obligation against the outside world rather than within your kingdom. Moderate Muslims are not acting with the confidence of a majority and you keep pandering to the jihadists at the expense of the safety and security of America.

We in America will not play this game anymore. It is up to you to prove to us that moderate Islam is the majority and that you are capable of handling it, otherwise we in the West must take the terrorists’ word that Islam has declared war on us.

I agree with the solutions of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, but I will even go further. The following are executive orders effective today:

1- Citizenship of Naturalized Americans who join terror groups to fight against our nation will be revoked and their passports confiscated.

2- Assimilation of Muslim immigrants already inside the US is a requirement for citizenship.

3- All Muslim immigrants must declare they have renounced Sharia Law and those who do not wish to do so will be deported.

4- Muslim Groups sympathetic to ISIS and other Islamic terror groups will be dissolved immediately.

5- Religious visas and immigration from Muslim countries must be brought to a halt until Islamic terrorism is defeated.

6- Since Islam as it is practiced today, is more of a political ideology than a religion, all permits to build mosques must be placed on hold until further notice.

7- We demand equal access inside the Muslim world. If Saudi Arabia can build mosques in the US, then the US must be able to build churches, synagogues or temples inside Saudi Arabia. Access for access will be our policy.

8- Any religion that condemns its followers to death for leaving it would be declared illegal to operate inside the US.

8- Drilling for oil and building refineries on American soil is a matter of national security and must start immediately for the benefit of America and its allies.

I Barack Hussein Obama declare that the above would be my most important legacy as the first black president of the United States of America.

Nonie Darwish author: The Devil We Don’t Know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS's real expansionist threat is to Saudi Arabia and they are both Sunni.

The ISIS threat right now is to--aside from Saudi Arabia--Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria (Assad) and Iran.

They are no threat to Saudi Arabia. They are a threat to the regime. According to a recent poll most Muslims in Saudi Arabia support the Islamic State.

They are also no threat to Hamas. Hamas is a Sunni organisation and they have support from the Islamic State. Shia and Sunni will work together when it suits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as "regime" governs Saudi Arabia they are the same. You take out the "regime" and you've got a completely ungovernable mess. That's the threat to Saudi Arabia post regime.

Thanks for the Hamas clarification, but if it's getting Shia support Hamas is threatened by being weakened apart from the recent weakening.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he ignores the elephant in the room, Adam.

...and it is?...

Mohamadism.

ISIS is just another jihad group, the most successful so far, and as I've said before, you can smash them (and they should be smashed) but they aren't what really needs to be defeated. The whole movement is about sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and that is greater than ISIS, greater than Al Qaeda, greater than Boko Haram, greater than all of them. Muhammad is what needs to be defeated.

The Islamic fascist groups do operate as a Hydra. So as the US plays "Whack-a Mole", each succeeding head that pops up is a more highly evolved, more sophisticated, more effective version of the last. This is like using antibiotics. They are used the most in hospitals, so there is where you will find the most virulent pathogens.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as "regime" governs Saudi Arabia they are the same. You take out the "regime" and you've got a completely ungovernable mess. That's the threat to Saudi Arabia post regime.

Thanks for the Hamas clarification, but if it's getting Shia support Hamas is threatened by being weakened apart from the recent weakening.

--Brant

It would be one regime replaced with another. Partial implementation of Sharia for its full implementation. Hamas gets its strength from acceptance of its philosophy from within, and from without (outside of Sunni Islam) through propaganda effectively maintaining a lie. The Islamic regime of Iran is helping them because they have a common enemy, but I don't think that weakens Hamas. What will weaken Hamas is when the vast majority of decent minded Westerners start to see through the propaganda.

Shia Islam is only about 5% of the Islamic world. Sunni Islam is about 90%, so the Shia are vastly outnumbered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the President speaks:

"We will destroy ISIS."

Then: patty cake, patty cake . . .

--Brant

just something of a free fire zone except IDed targets instead of killing anything that moves--ISIS fighters will just go indoors and hunker down until Zero declares they've been destroyed

ISIS should be badly damaged by the air campaign, but hardly destroyed--at least the Kurds will be buffed up

tomorrow is September 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the President speaks:

"We will destroy ISIS."

The feckless idiot enabled ISIS when he surrendered Iraq.

Greg

Bush did too when he invaded it.

Now central Iraq--with disastrous Syria over-spill--will be a shooting gallery, which I agree with--Iraq, not Syria--but he isn't going to destroy ISIS. What has broken up is central Iraqi authority from the capital into Kurd, Sunni and Shiite. The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually. The President is too dense and ignorant for the sophistication now needed, hence bombing within Syria. ISIS, beaten up in Iraq, would have to retreat to Syria where they would be once again, only weaker, the inferior anti-Assad player that got kicked out previously. There's your "boots on the ground" and they aren't American boots. Iraq should have been decentralized into three mostly autonomous regions to begin with. Instead the Shiites tried to have it all. You need a Saddam Hussein for that. You know, the guy we started with, trying to make things better, especially with the oil to pay for it all. What an absolute crock! (While I was against the invasion before the invasion, I had no idea--not 20% of an idea (except for the American casualties)--how bad it would become. Even today most Americans don't begin to know what a fundamental and fanatical Christian nut job President Bush was.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the President speaks:

"We will destroy ISIS."

The feckless idiot enabled ISIS when he surrendered Iraq.

Greg

And to work with the FSA is to work with Islamic supremacists too. All the world leaders are taking great pains to avoid linking the IS's actions with Islam. They are either that ignorant, or they are afraid of the repercussion of speaking the truth. Either way, it's the surest sign that it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author finishes stating:

In sum, ISIS is not likely to be defeated anytime soonnot on the

battlefield and not in the forum of public opinion in the Middle East. President Obama may have no option but to talk tough and military options may seem

increasingly inescapable, but the task, and the foe, are formidable.

A...

Any "problem" can be solved if one kills enough people.

Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now