Osler's Razor

Age old problem.

For example, Europe and the US "deplored" Japanese aggression and atrocities against China in the '20s and '30s, but despite substantial interests in the region, could never figure out how to "handle" the situation, given all circumstances. So, little to nothing was done, notwithstanding many prominent Americans, including Stimson, had come to believe that nothing short of war would prevent the Japanese from overrunning South East Asia. After a while the Japanese stupidly and arrogantly forced the issue, war ensued, the Japanese lost and the problem was solved..

ISIS may not be Japan of the 20s to 40's, but it is every bit as brutal, determined and militaristic. The situation in the middle-east may "play out" without serious military intervention, but there is not much historical precedent for such an outcome.

The West is presently just pushing back the "evil day," in my opinion. As distasteful, expensive in blood and money, uncertain in its consequences, and "immoral" as war may be, it is inevitable. In fact, it is already here, and we have only just begun to fight_barely.

It would be convenient if the people of the region could take care of ISIS, and when it is gone, ISIS redux, but there is not much prospect of that. In any event, thousands suffer and die and will continue to suffer and die, intervention or no intervention. Half-measures and doing nothing are not demonstrably worse that just taking ISIS out. Now is as good as any time to do it, maybe the best of times.

We were ill prepared militarily to do anything in China in the 20s and 30s. That is not the case today. We were understandably given over to handwringing in the '20s and '30s, but what is our excuse for half-measures today?



 

IS (or ISIL or ISIS) are bad guys who ultimately don't pose any long term threat as an actual nation/state. Just look at who they have called out or picked battles with: the US and the UK, all of Western Europe, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and today they threatened Putin. They also consider al Qaeda an enemy. Yes, IS has managed to "unite" the US and al Qaeda against them.

It's hard to succeed in building a nation/waging a war when literally none of the arms producing powers will supply you and all of the arms producing powers want you destroyed. Go look at IS' (mostly self declared) list of enemies on Wikipedia. With a list of enemies that long, you're not long for this world.

Having said that, IS will clearly kill a lot of innocent people between now whenever they are stopped. So I'm not sure doing nothing is an option I can stomach because of all the thousands of innocent people who will die between now and then. With Syria quickly devolving into a failed state, IS can survive (for a time) in a power vacuum. Allowing IS to survive will also allow them to plan attacks on innocent people that while not ultimately successful in establishing their goal of an Islamic Caliphate that stretches from Spain to India, it will result in a lot of innocent people dying.

I think the best solution for now is your option three plus liberal use of special operations forces. The air strikes have been fairly effective is stopping the advance of IS. I think the air strikes should extend into Syria (with or without the Syrians' permission) so IS does not have a safe haven to regroup.

We've already deployed special operators on the ground with the Kurdish forces. I would imagine some have seen combat, though not officially. By strategic use of operators, IS will finally have to fight someone bigger and badder than they are. I suspect IS won't like that as much.
 

AMT-- It would be fascinating to know how Special Forces are used in this kind of situation, but I would imagine we won't know that for a loooong time.
 

Option #2 is what America has been doing for the past two decades: GO TO WAR. The infrastructure built when America dreamed big for its future is crumbling. Fixing it is at best an afterthought and any new big project is off the table, war seems to be the only “expense is no object” big project America has been up to. I guess there is no need to spell out where I personally stand on option #2 and implicitly the half-baked option #3, which only makes us look like idiots siding with whoever may fight ISIS now and for completely different reasons than we do and who most likely hate us just as much, even when we think we're war buddies.
That being said Option #1 is my pick.
Again, why is America the designated avenger for worldwide loss of innocent people?
 

That's a good question, Marta. I guess people would say because we are willing to take on that role, and it gives us influence in the world.
 

Influence in the world? What kind of influence?
For the hoity-toity western Europeans we are arrogant rednecks. Middle East… you better have a good, opaque cover on your American passport. South-East Asia and the Far East …your wallet is fat, now can we push some cheap crap we make here just for you? Australians are nice to everybody so we're good there, sort of same in Eastern Europe, minus USSR [sic] where we still have an aura of “can do no wrong awe…not with all that firepower and that cool gear.”
 

Re: Mark

Reuters (I think it was Reuters) had an article in the past week about seeking special operators imbedded with the Kurdish forces fighting IS in Iraq. The Kurdish fighters acknowledged that the operators were taking part in actual combat. The Reuters articles identified them as US and German (yes, German) special forces.

We also know about the raid to attempt to free James Foley and other hostages. While it was unsuccessful because the hostages had been moved, I believe it was reported that several IS fighters were killed in the operation. I would think we'll see more of these types of operations in the future, but in attempt to rescue hostages and in an attempt to capture/kill IS high value targets.

Plus there are undoubtedly special operations forces on the ground helping direct airstrikes.

Re Marta:

America is the designated avenger of the loss of innocent lives because we have the power and resources to do it. Maybe we use that power too liberally, but it is hard to draw the line on when it should be used. How many is enough to get involved? We stepped in to prevent (further) ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, but didn't in Rwanda. I believe Pres. Clinton identified the failure to intervene in Rwanda as one of his greatest regrets of his presidency. How large of scale of ethnic cleansing (which IS freely admits to doing) is enough so that the US should get involved?

I think we'll have no shortage of partners in this mission, as the list of IS' enemies is long and growing longer.
 

Option 1 is what my heart and moral compass wants. Option 3 is my compromise. The reality is we helped cause this problem (Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2....).

I am often left wondering if Obama's reluctance(timidity) to engage in war and or conflict has something to do with the albatross the Nobel committee hung around his neck - The Nobel Peace Prize.
 

I pick #3, "Something in Between." And I agree, we're already doing that.

What also needs to happen, is for the President to appear more resolute. As with so many issues, he takes too "professiorial" an approach. In a word, he looks weak. And bullies (see Putin) take advantage of the weak and irresolute.

The Middle East is a terrible mess what with so many power hungry groups fighting for control. Push here, pull there. If this was 1920, I'd be all for #1, do nothing. But the problems presented by modern transportation and telecommunications and most frightening of all, weaponry, mean the risk of damage outside the Middle East is much higher.

ISIS is unstable group of renegade nutjobs led by an egomaniacal character with a Messiah complex. Who made HIM Caliph? There will be internal power struggles. These people cannot govern-- long term.

But what I fear is that somehow they, or someone like them will get a hold of a nuclear device... and use it.

Meanwhile, Russian commentators with official or quasi-official titles are talking about using nuclear devices in Eastern Europe.....
 

IPLG-- so "professorial" is bad, huh?