Skip to main content

Royal Saudi Air Force jets fly in formation during a graduation ceremony for air force officers at King Faisal Air Academy in Riyadh January 1, 2013. REUTERS/Fahad Shadeed
Royal Saudi Air Force jets fly in formation during a graduation ceremony for air force officers at King Faisal Air Academy in Riyadh. Now let them fight their country's own wars.
This is obnoxious.
As Mr. Obama considered new strikes, the White House began its diplomatic campaign to enlist allies and neighbors in the region to increase their support for Syria’s moderate opposition and, in some cases, to provide support for possible American military operations. The countries likely to be enlisted include Australia, Britain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, officials said.

The officials, who asked not to be named discussing sensitive internal deliberations, said they expected that Britain and Australia would be willing to join the United States in an air campaign. The officials said they also wanted help from Turkey, which has military bases that could be used to support an effort in Syria.

Wait, why does the US, Britain and Australia have to shoulder the military burden of taking on a foe threatening multiple nations in the Middle East? Sure, Turkey has airbases. They also have airplanes240 F-16s and F4s. Turkey also has one of the larger armies in the region, nearly 300,000 strong. Islamic State a threat to them? Let them handle it.

And why has the US been arming the Gulf emirates to the teeth? Islamic State has no love for them, and wants their land for their "caliphate," so maybe they can deploy some of that hardware? The United Arab Emirates has 80 F-16s, 60 Mirage 2000, and an actual army. Oman has a smaller air force, but it has one. And an army. As does Qatar. And Bahrain. And Kuwait.

Then there is Saudi Arabia, with over 300 F-15s and over 100 Tornados. And with an army that is 150,000-strong, the ability to provide serious manpower to any anti-IS effort. For comparison's sake, Australia has 95 combat aircraft, total.

How about Jordan? With nearly 80 F-16s and over 100,000 soldiers in its well-regarded army, they'd be a serious force. And heck, Iran has a real problem with IS as well, so why not? Invite them to the party as well.

Point is, there are plenty of actors in the region with the capability to take care of the threat to their stability. Let the US provide drone and satellite surveillance. If some of these countries need help ferrying troops into Iraq, then sure, lug them around in our transport aircraft. Heck, chip in with some additional combat aircraft.

But the time to shoulder the weight of fighting other people's wars is over. Let someone else pay for these wars, and bleed for them, and suffer blowback for them. We've spent the last several decades arming these countries. Now let them take care of their own problems.

We can cheer them on from the sidelines.

Update: Egypt and UAE conducted air strikes in Libya a couple of days ago, so there you have it. Precedent. And here you have Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority declaring IS "enemy number one of Islam". So they should do something about that. They. Not us.  

Originally posted to kos on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Group W: Resisting War and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed, thanks nt (22+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:54:34 AM PDT

  •  But Would That Make a Lot of Their Home Crowd (11+ / 0-)

    grumpy if they intervened?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

  •  I agree with much of what you're saying... (8+ / 0-)

    ...but, did we not play a very large part in "making this mess," in the first place?

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:57:39 AM PDT

    •  So? (48+ / 0-)

      you think those regional players have all been sitting quietly on the sidelines? Nope, they've been moving weapons and money and sometimes fighters to the groups of their choice. Their scheming has further destabilized an unstable region as the various religious and political factions vie for influence and power. And yeah, having the US and Russia all meddling as well doesn't help matters.

      But really, not sure I see any innocents here.

      •  Pretty sure the Yazidi are innocent (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, Phoenix Woman

        As well as all the other innocent women and children

        Saying other countries should run the whole thing even though their armed forces are paper tigers commanded by people terrified of their government toppling in another round of Arab spring is self serving and wishful thinking

      •  You're naively (12+ / 0-)

        accepting this this is actually about countering ISIS as opposed to securing US hegemony & economic interests in the region. The US doesn't want to leave the fighting to others because neutralizing ISIS isn't the ccore goal.

        •  So, if neutralizing ISIS (9+ / 0-)

          isn't the core goal of the US, what is? It seems to me that this administration has not buckled under considerable pressure to just commit the military indiscriminately.

          IMHO, ISIS needs to be stopped in the here and now.  IF our job is to supply our superior air power, while all the neighbors supply the boots on the ground, then that's the beginning of a global effort to stop ISIS before it further rampages and consolidates power.

          •  ISIS is toast (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eparrot

            The Syrian Kurds, the Iraqi Army, the Syrian Army, and the Iranians have pretty much consigned them to the dustbin as we speak.

            A funny thing, the US media now talks about Taqba, as if it's some sort of great victory for ISIS. The fact is, Taqba was behind ISIS lines for weeks. The fact that they just now focused on it shows that they are trying to consolidate their core, because they are losing everywhere else. Those same media refused to show where ISIS was losing, and why.

            The big picture is, that ISIS is losing in a big way. The American media won't present that picture though.

            … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

            by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:22:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I half disagree (4+ / 0-)

              I think if the problem were contained to Iraq then, yes, they would quickly outlast their welcome and get routed, but the mess in Syria is enabling ISIS to thrive.

              •  Syria is a bit more problematic than Iraq (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                but I predict that they'll be ousted there too, soon enough.

                Stay tuned.

                … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

                by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:10:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ISIS goes back and forth between the two states (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BYw

                Depending on which area its leaders think has more weaknesses that the pickup-riding dingbats can exploit.

                They got their start in Jordan but soon got run out of that country by Jordan's tougher-than-nails security apparatus.

                They then fled to Iraq's Anbar province, which is largely miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles, and laid low for a few years until 2012, when Saudi and Kuwaiti zillionaires started offering big bucks to any Sunni jihadist groups willing to try and topple Assad and replace him with a Sunni theocracy.

                But even with the backing of the Saudis and Kuwaitis (and the US to an extent), they couldn't take out Assad.  Worse, their methods and foibles made them quite unpopular in Syria, so they slunk off towards Iraq again, this time with the goal of conquest as opposed to hiding out. And now that's failed, so it's back to Syria for what may be their last stand.

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:44:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  ISIS is far from "toast" (6+ / 0-)

              They continue to expand in Syria, and they continue to consolidate control in Iraq.  

              The big picture is not that ISIS is losing in a big way.  I'm not sure where that information comes from.  They are not going to take Baghdad, and they have been halted pretty much from taking more territory in Kurdistan, but they are not static and certainly not being defeated.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:38:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They are being defeated (3+ / 0-)

                The Syrian Kurds have them on the run, as do the Iraqi Army. Iranian units have featured big in their thwarting, but God forbid the US media ever mention that.

                ISIS is of limited military value. They know how to use suicide bombers to effect a breach in lines. They know how to use fairly simple artillery. What they don't know how to do is stand up to regular troops. The Lebanese Army defeated them, as did the Iranians. The Iraqi and Syrian armies have too, although when you factor in corruption/collusion the results have been more ambiguous.

                At the end of the day, ISIS' strategic situation is far more precarious today than it was in June.

                I'd bet they'll be out of business and underground by the end of the year.

                … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

                by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:47:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ISIS is toast (0+ / 0-)

                They have lost their chief patrons in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait over their hamfisted ways.  They are jumped-up thugs in pickup trucks and can't fight toe-to-toe that well.

                About the only thing they have left, besides a last stand in Syria, is to hang out in the hell on earth that is Gaza, but that's not their style.  They much prefer certain areas to the east of tbe Golan Heights, areas that have never seen IDF shelling even as Gaza as nd Hamas get pounded to bits.  So long as they hang out there, they make a perfect justification for the IDF's attacks on Gaza and other areas.

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Primarily (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sunspots, OCLefty

            oil, blocking Iranian influence, oil, and making the world safe for US corporations (other than oil companies) to do business. Now to the extent that ISIS poses a threat to these interests, then the US wants to block ISIS. Note than it was only when IS threatened a major oil center in Iraq did the US act in a serious way.

            Don't get me wrong, ISIS is a monster, a monster the US and its core allies created, first by destroying Iraq, then by supporting them in Syria.

            But it's dangerous to think the US, or some combination of other countries, can simply kill ISIS away.  

            •  The US did nothing (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bear83, Deep Texan, pamelabrown, edwardssl

              when ISIS moved on the Baiji oil refinery and still has not committed itself to airstrikes in that area.  That's the largest oil pipeline and refinery in Iraq.

              The US acted when the Kurdistan region was under threat, and when ISIS actively engaged in genocide in Sinjar... I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that this was only because of the oil.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:42:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The US did nothing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ivorybill, Sunspots

                until ISIS threatened Erbil. Hell, it couldn't even bring itself to denounce ISIS when it beheaded dozens at Raqqa.

                •  I'd have preferred (4+ / 0-)

                  that the US acted more proactively earlier, once it became clear that ISIS is into beheading and mass shooting of prisoners.  But that's contrary to the general opinions in this diary.  I do agree with you that ISIS is going nowhere until there is some sort of solution to the never-ending bloodbath that is Syria. Unfortunately, the only force strong enough to intervene and stop the killing is Turkey, and I don't see them doing that at all, or at least until things get much, much worse.  Kos' idea that somehow the Arab nations will sort it out is a bit embarrassing.

                  “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                  by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:05:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The US is at least (5+ / 0-)

          indirectly responsible for ISIS. The story is insane. We are supposed to believe that the US supported only Syrian moderates, but our close allies supported al-Qaeda types. These troops worked closely together, for the same goal, but our help didn't help the radicals, until it did.

          Now nobody wants to claim responsibility for them, so they trot out the Bonnie and Clyde meme that they support themselves entirely on bank robbery and looting. Nobody gave them aid, no sir! They "found" everything they needed without outside help. No help here! Really! I promise!

          A lie can't get thinner than that.

          … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

          by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:13:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And this is part of the problem (4+ / 0-)

        with you saying "let the Saudis handle it".  The Saudis did way more than we did to create this problem. Saudi involvement in Syria has been far, far more damaging than US involvement and the actual risk is a full-on regional war pitting the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia against Iran.

        Jordan may have 100,000 men in their army, but they are more vulnerable than one might think.

        I'm not advocating troops on the ground - but this idea of blanket disengagement, that there's no innocents so just let the regional countries "handle it" means, basically, that we have no interest in preventing or slowing a wider regional war.  I disagree with that.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:18:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And no interest in preventing genocide, to boot... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill, bear83

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:41:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why was Syria (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          with a fully equipped conventional army, not able to win the "war" against a mere population outright?

          Why was father assad able to blast Homs (wasnt it?) into submission but son not the same?

          i am asking, because if the modern day regimes can not do this any more (win with military means against their populations) then such a war would not lead to a stable outcome, but to a Somali-sation of the entire region.

          •  These are fair questions (5+ / 0-)

            I have some theories:

            (1)  Hafith al Assad was able to crush Homs because he had even more Russian support during the cold war.  He was also a more astute and talented politician than his ophthalmologist son (never select ophthalmologists as leaders - I'm lookin' at you, Rand Paul)

            (2)  The Arab Spring solidified dissent, and the fall of Mubarak and Qaddafi made people think that they might actually succeed.  Also modern technology (cell phones, internet) made opposition coordination easier now than in the 80's, across the entire country.  Baby Assad had multiple uprisings to deal with; Papa had only Homs.

            (3)  30 more years of the Assad regime meant that a majority of Syrians were even more fed-up, and the drought and collapse of agriculture in the east of the country meant that there was a big disaffected population in Damascus along with 500,000 Iraqi refugees - so that the government had to spend more resources on controlling the capital and was unable to react as quickly.

            Those are some ideas.  Generally, I think the entire Middle East has entered into a wave of revolution and that also sparked a far wider uprising than what happened in 1980, when post-colonial military dictatorships and authoritarianism were really taking hold.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:27:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You are right, but the ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill

        Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and others are at the same time under the counter supporting ISIS, so how can they destroy the monster they (and the US, and Britain, and France, and on and on) helped create? I also don't think the Russians will stop meddling.  In other words, we are all shafted in the end no matter what we do and the ultimate victims are those, including women and children, who don't hold the same beliefs as (place name of extremist group) who happens to control the area in which they live.

        It is a total mess and I don't see it getting any better as long as humans control the earth and overpopulate it. This is the beginning of a global off and on again global dystopia/war/famine/pestilence/death as envisioned by such as Margaret Atwood and other scifi writers, unless we find a saner way out.  Sure Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and the other states in the region (including Israel - which Syrian jihadists have reached in the Golan Heights) should shoulder the burden - but will they? Beside we have mostly supplied their weapons.  As you point out our getting enmeshed in the war(s) may very well be a trap, but I think that we are trapped by history already.  

        I'd sure like for somebody to prove me wrong, but the new global warming report, plus ebola (and other epidemic diseases), war and current famines, plus maximum human stupidity, seem to be overwhelming evidence.

    •  Yes, we did play a huge part in making (10+ / 0-)

      much of this mess, I agree.  But that's all the more reason to get out and away. Vicious circle/cycle etc. And our involvement in the region just makes it all worse. I cringed just typing that last sentence cuz it's so shop-worn,  But true, nonetheless.

      (I'm now having a full-blown flashback to my Berkeley days during the Viet Nam War.  Plus ca change, et al. Uh-oh: foreign languages.)

      "Why you sockdologizing ol' mantrap, you!"

      by ejoanna on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:38:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ¡Bien dicho! :) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anak, ejoanna

        (Sorry, couldn't resist. Translation: Well said!)

        "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both." - Justice Louis Brandeis

        by flitedocnm on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:47:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can Saudi Arabia be trusted to fight ISIS, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, ejoanna, bear83, bywaterbob, BvueDem

        if Saudi Arabia may have been bankrolling and arming ISIS as part of its struggle against Iran and Sh'iia?

        •  Any additional involvement of Saudi Arabia (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          untorqued, AaronInSanDiego

          is outright harmful.  It is naive to think that we should back away and let the Saudis handle it, because half of Saudi Arabia already supports ISIS and the other half is duplicitous and self-interested on a scale that not even we Americans can match.  

          Encouraging Saudi Arabia to become directly involved in the Syrian conflict?  It's complete madness.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if the saudis did actually fight ISIS (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivorybill, BvueDem

            i would expect that there would be a significant risk of their regime falling to internal unrest. an islamic state controlling mecca, medina, the saudi oil fields, and capturing a good part of the military hardware we've given the saudis over the years would be a bad, bad thing.

            my main concern would be for the proxy war in syria and western iraq to turn into an open regional war between the gulf arabs and the iranians, were we to bug out. i'd prefer to have an oil-independent transportation infrastructure in place before something like that touched off.

            as long as the global economy, agriculture, and transportation depends upon oil commodity prices set in large part by middle eastern oil, we will not be simply free to walk away fro the region, not after we armed it and fucked it up for decades. that being said, we could do a hell of a lot better job in our interactions there than the past several decades, and need to if we are to avoid it blowing up and sending oil prices into the stratosphere.

    •  Yes it's true we failed to follow (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, OCLefty

      Turkey's refusal to participate in the invasion of Iraq. They were right we were wrong. We should not act unless it is in concert with the regional powers. At their request and not our insistence.

      Inside every old person is a child wondering what the hell happened.

      by CA148 NEWS on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:49:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because the US and UK (22+ / 0-)

    want to maintain political control in the region. The UK has been in that business for a couple of centuries. They are now clinging to the skirts of their more successful daughter.

    Humanitarian issues are really not the major concern.  

  •  Agreed, of course. (5+ / 0-)

    But of course this also ignores all of the real reason any of the "Western Nations" have a military presence and have armed the ME, to protect corporate holding and the profits they bring.

    These aren't "their nations" anymore than the U.S. was the American slaves' nation.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:01:37 AM PDT

    •  Delete "all of" from 1st sentence. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

      by Greyhound on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:02:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "corporate holdings and the profits (0+ / 0-)

      they bring" accrue to the United States and their citizens in the availability and stability of the oil market.  Hate the corporations and their profits all you want, but that's what comes from having the oil production, transportation and delivery systems in private hands.  Whether private or public control, however, this country is built on oil and continues to be dependent on oil, and is simply not equipped to pay for the accelerated costs of the commodity if the production and delivery system is significantly altered.

      "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

      by SueDe on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:19:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because no one else will (0+ / 0-)

    or can "deal" with things like this. As it has been for 75 years. And nature abhors a vacuum.

  •  I'd be happy if the neighbors stopped supporting (10+ / 0-)

    the wack-a-doodles in the neighborhood.

  •  Those aren't bombers are they? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut

    I don't know my planes but it sounds like most of them are fighters, useful for vanquishing another state's fighters but not useful for laying waste to a territory.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:16:19 AM PDT

    •  Most fighters can carry bombs. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fat old man, Eric K, TrueBlueDem, BYw

      F-16 planes definitely can.  IIRC, the Saudi Tornados can as well.  Even bullets from the planes' guns will destroy armored vehicles (maybe not tanks, but APC's and the like will not hold up), pickup trucks, and more.  Plus, there are the soldiers as well - they're capable of doing things.

      •  F-16s are ground support/attack aircraft (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim

        They carry bombs and their pilots train on bombing ranges. They were the main attack craft of the Air Force in the first Iraq war.

        F-15s are interceptors.  

        When atlatls are outlawed, only outlaws will have atlatls.

        by wheeldog on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:56:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  F-16's are better air-to-air combat planes than (0+ / 0-)

          practically any other country's planes built for that purpose.  The F-15's are better, I believe, even though their design is about 30 years old.  There may be a few more advanced planes around but then again the US still has the best interceptors, plus best avionic defenses to find the enemy, plus the best training of any air force.  Doesn't mean that the enemy might get lucky or that there might be mechanical problems that would force down a US plane, but the US Air Force is head and shoulders above every other air force, no matter the mission.  It should be - we pay for it to be the best.

          •  F-16s are also going on 30 years old. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, Greyhound, BYw

            I was working as a newspaper reporter in Utah when they rolled them out at Hill AFB there. Knew a number of pilots who flew the F-16s in the first Iraq war.  

            Both have had numerous upgrades--avionics, electronics, etc. -- but the airframes are getting old. Not much you can do about that.

            I think the F22/F35 programs are a colossal waste of money. Considering the types of wars we're looking at fighting--take the Mideast as the prime example--we'd be better off dusting off the production lines of the F16 and F15 both. AND, the A-10 Warthog.

            The F22 and F35 programs are billions down the rathole.

            New F16 and F15 airframes with more upgraded engines and avionics would be a far, far better investment.

            When atlatls are outlawed, only outlaws will have atlatls.

            by wheeldog on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:17:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Older than 30 years (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, BYw

            The F-16 went into service in 1978, 4 years after its first flight.  Considering development time before that first test flight we're talking about a 45 year old design.

            The F-15 went into service a couple years earlier.

        •  F15's were used as bombers, too. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          They were the replacement fighter-bomber for the F-111.

  •  They have been (7+ / 0-)

    I think it's been fairly well-established (hat tip, Big Time Dick Cheney) that Grampy McCain (R-Senile) and Fading Magnolia Graham (R-Closet) went to Saudi Arabia and asked them to support the rebels in Syria that Grampy was photographed with. Ah, ISIS.  

    So they have been dealing with it.  The same way they've been funding radical Islamists for decades, as long as they didn't do anything in Saudi Arabia.

  •  The American military craves constant practice (9+ / 0-)

    to keep the war machine humming, politicians in both parties want to keep the money flowing to defense contractors, and just about everyone in power wants to make sure that the population continues to accept the U.S. being on a permanent war footing as normal. Letting the neighbors deal with ISIS undermines each of these goals. You can't be the dominant military power if you're going to sit on the sidelines.

  •  rAmen. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Sunspots, tampaedski, BYw

    We are all made of star stuff, so please be kind to dust bunnies.

    by jwinIL14 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:19:23 AM PDT

  •  AMEN!!! (8+ / 0-)
    But the time to shoulder the weight of fighting other people's wars are over. Let someone else pay for these wars, and bleed for them, and suffer blowback for them. We've spent the last several decades arming these countries. Now let them take care of their own problems.
  •  Yes, great idea. Let's do that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, Anne Elk

    Let's do just like we did in the 90s with Afghanistan.

    It worked just great.

    I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

    by Farugia on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:23:57 AM PDT

    •  How did it hurt? (0+ / 0-)

      Brains behind 9/11 were not Taliban. Militant Islamists can train anywhere in the world.  They can carry out operations anywhere in the world.  They will always be able to do so, and it is even easier to do so today.  The Islamic State is a symptom,  not the underlying disease.
       

    •  Yeah, we really helped the Libyans didn't we? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots

      "Aux ames bien nees, la valeur n'attend point le nombre des annees" Pierre Corneille.

      by Patate on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:10:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you think the US is going to keep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw

      the Taliban from re-taking Afghanistan without our constant presence in that country for the next 40 years (at least), you're dreaming.  That country is the Taliban's home, and they will not leave it to itself.  They may headquarter in Pakistan now, but they won't take over that country.  Their heads and their hearts are in Afghanistan, and they will eventually take it back regardless of what future we want for that god-forsaken country.

      "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

      by SueDe on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:34:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't vote for anyone who won't disband military (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    We have nuclear weapons, no one is going to invade us, those can be maintained by the department of energy

    If you add up all the restrictions people here want to impose on using US forces then there is no use whatsoever for our military

    And since we desperately need that money, we should take a real stand on it

    But no, people here don't say what they mean, this is all just remaining anger over Iraq and not a logical position

    •  if you've been paying attention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots

      to what most people here have been saying, you'd notice that most of us do favor greatly reducing the size of our military, although probably not totally eliminating it.  
      I'm not sure what isn't "logical" about opposition to a war with ISIS.  

      you can shit on my face but that doesn't mean I have to lick my lips

      by red rabbit on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:07:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's nearly $700 billion PER YEAR (0+ / 0-)

        Could you imagine how ridiculous that is under any other scenario?

        Imagine if we grew $700 billion worth of food and then shot it into space every year

        Your position is that we should make cuts, but not eliminate such a giant waste

        99% of the entire liberal platform would be solved overnight if we did this, yet even on here people don't push it

        Why? Because these positions are based on anger not logical reasoning

  •  Oil, Markos. We want their oil. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, Sunspots
    •  That hasn't been true in quite some time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivorybill, Lawrence, marsanges

      actual oil production and consumption numbers since 2009 say otherwise.

      The "drill baby drill" crowd very much got their way, and their allies in Canada helped by getting their way up there too. Haven't you noticed they've kind of shut up?

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

      by terrypinder on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:40:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Suspiciously quiet" is more like it, but OK. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots

        Guess I was remembering some Saudi youth dancing the night away after telling a reporter, "The Americans want our oil, don't they? Let them do the fighting," OWTTE.

        •  I'm considering, if I find the time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          to do a deep dive into how the Drill, Baby, Drill crowd quietly got their way and how almost no one seems to have noticed. But seriously, the vast majority of overseas oil comes from Canada, and most oil that is consumed in the US is drilled here.

          Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

          by terrypinder on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:17:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it varies a lot by region of the country (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terrypinder

            on the west coast, we import a significant amount of middle eastern oil, but the midwest gets it from the gulf coast and canada, and the east coast is a different mixture of sources.

            •  Last stats I saw about US Oil Consumption (0+ / 0-)

              We get about 1/3 of our imported oil from Canada, about 1/5 from the Persian Gulf.

              We seem to be close to 50/50 now in terms of consumption (about half our oil is domestic), so we are getting about 10% of our oil from the Persian Gulf.

              I think with a combination of conservation and efficiency that amount of oil can be replaced.  But of course that is a thought experiment that neglects the dynamics of the world oil market.

              A few years old...

              US EIA data

              •  if you look at it from a national scale, yes (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OCLefty, terrypinder

                but if you look at it by region or state, it varies a lot. for california, most of our oil used to be produced by CA or alaskan oil fields, but since around 1998 CA has been in a gradual decline, and alaska has tapped out pretty fast, so foreign imports have made up the difference.

                which foreign countries?

                saudi arabia: 30%
                ecuador: 22%
                iraq: 19%
                colombia: 8%
                canada: 6%
                angola: 4%

                and then a bunch of smaller imports from various places.

                by contrast, the midwest is probably getting most of the oil from mexico and canada, and probably aren't getting anything from the middle east.

                while getting off of middle eastern oil is no big deal for the country as a whole, because they're not currently on it, it's a bigger deal for CA. i'd love it if we could conserve enough to drop our oil consumption by the 25% that's supplied by iraq and SA, but that's a big drop to manage. (personally, i'd like to see us completely off oil). oil markets in the US is pretty varied by place.

              •  EIA indicates it's 60/40 now (0+ / 0-)

                Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

                by terrypinder on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:56:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'm thinking natural gas played a part as well (0+ / 0-)

            not that I'm a fan of natural gas as a long term replacement for oil, but it's definitely helped reduce the dependence on ME oil.  

            you can shit on my face but that doesn't mean I have to lick my lips

            by red rabbit on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:08:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The "Maher Doctrine" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Tony Situ

    That is to say, let them burn out their blood lust the way European Christians did in the 100 years war.  Then when they are ready to join the 21st century, we can talk to them again.

    -9.00, -5.85
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

    by Wintermute on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:34:46 AM PDT

    •  I should say "100 years OF war" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw, capelza

      From about 1520 to roughly a century later.  THE 100 years war was something else.

      -9.00, -5.85
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

      by Wintermute on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:39:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Beg Your Pardon? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivorybill, Lawrence, Mr MadAsHell, BYw

      Rather genocidal sentiment, would you say??

      PS - As I always say to my students, "Exactly who is 'they' and who is 'we'?"

    •  1914-1945 finally broke Europe (4+ / 0-)
      That is to say, let them burn out their blood lust the way European Christians did in the 100 years war.  Then when they are ready to join the 21st century, we can talk to them again.
      White people were 40% of the world's population (and growing) at the turn of the 20th Century and collectively ruled over pretty much the entire world.  The British alone ruled 1/4th of the Earth's landmass and 1/5th of its population and have invaded/waged war in all but 22 of the world's current countries.

      Then WWI killed, maimed, and PTSDed an entire generation of European men, redrew the map like no war had before it, destroyed four empires, and gave birth to a culture of cynicism and iconoclasm.  Then the Depression came.  Then WWII killed, maimed, and PTSDed another entire generation of European men.

      Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

      by Visceral on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  war and suffering isn't what built the peace (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greyhound, capelza

        if that had been the case, europe would have found peace centuries earlier.

        no, building the peace was what built the peace. it was a conscious project, not some natural consequence of the wars. that, and an american fear of communist revolution in europe, and a rare moment in american sanity WRT foreign policy and economic policy at war's end.

        •  You're right, but the last war did create the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, BYw, capelza

          chance to break the traditional power systems in the formerly Axis nations and imposed some small portion of sanity within the community of nations. WWII broke Europe so badly that change became possible.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

          by Greyhound on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:12:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  first you need an opportunity (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BYw

            then you need the right people to be in a position to take advantage of it, then they have to make it stick and build institutions that prevent a return of the old system.

            revolutions are very difficult, and rare for this reason. europe really got lucky in the 40s to have everything come together.

      •  In an interesting book by Scott Anderson, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza

        "Lawrence in Arabia," WWI was also a pivotal time for the Middle East as the European powers, and Standard Oil of New York, maneuvered for influence as the Ottoman Empire was breaking up, while also determining post-WWI borders.  The Middle East was broken long ago, largely by European powers.  The US was late joining the party, but we haven't exactly learned from history.

        "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

        by Mr MadAsHell on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:20:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey I am just quoting the Maher Doctrine (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't invent it.  But the point is that European RELIGIOUS wars were replaced with simple feudal, proto-nationalist, and imperial wars.  Like WW1 as @Visceral pointed out.

      -9.00, -5.85
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

      by Wintermute on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:02:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this is especially ironic (0+ / 0-)

      given the actions of america in that part of the world in the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. so civilized and free of bloodlust, we were.

  •  Agree it's time for the Middle East nations (9+ / 0-)

    to start figuring it out for themselves.

    But it won't happen right away.

    Yes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, UAE etc have the weaponry and manpower.

    But they fear their own people. They would suffer immediate blowback from within if they attacked fellow Muslims and Arabs openly.

    They're all too happy to let the U.S. and allies shoulder the burden. And of course they are also too happy to fund the extremists at the same time in exchange for not upsetting people at home and not becoming targets themselves.

    Of course that will only work for so long.

    Blue is blue and must be that but yellow is none the worse for it - Carlisle Wheeling

    by kenwards on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:34:49 AM PDT

    •  Agreed... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kenwards

      Most of this weaponry is for domestic consumption and show parades, i.e., to impress (and subtly threaten) the domestic populations and their neighbors with just how rootin' tootin' rough 'n ready these guys are.

      Most of the troops spend their time polishing their weapons and learning how to walk in a parade.

      We need to look back to one of the major (and underreported) revelations from WikiLeaks: The statement from the Saudis urging the US to attack Iran, using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. The phrase the Saudis used, if I recall, was  urging the US to do the dirty work and 'cut off the head of this snake.'

      Nope, these guys don't want their military very far out of their barracks, especially against another Islamic state. They want the US to do it, while they publicly condemn us for it--again for domestic consumption.    

      When atlatls are outlawed, only outlaws will have atlatls.

      by wheeldog on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:04:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ISIS is a bit of a problem of US creation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OpherGopher, cany, Sunspots, kay3295

    (and arguably, British too) but I think, the way you've laid out the numbers, your case is sound.

    We can provide just what you said we can. After all, the US has also likely trained a good number of their forces too.

    It is indeed time the US takes a backseat.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

    by terrypinder on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:36:18 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. (12+ / 0-)

    Why does it always seem like the rest of the world is sitting around, catatonic, waiting for us to do something?

    And when we do, more often than not, shit gets worse, not better. It might look like we've helped at first, but the long-term effects of our meddling are of the "delayed reaction" type.

    Extended Release Clusterfuckery. That's what we do "best."

    We've got our own "wars" to fight here, at home.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

    by DeadHead on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:36:31 AM PDT

  •  arming people in other countries always... (9+ / 0-)

    ...comes back to bite us in the ass.

    stop it!

    I'm a blue drop in a purple bucket. Thank you, Raul Ruiz, for making CA-36 more blue since 2012.

    by blue drop on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:37:17 AM PDT

  •  I believe Iran has already accepted their invite. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, jds1978, BYw

    U.S. and Iran Hit ISIS, Ignore Each Other
    Eli Lake, The Daily Beast 16 Aug 2014
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

    U.S. warplanes striking targets in Iraq. Iranian tanks are reportedly moving into the northern part of the country. But the two foreign militaries fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are not talking to one another.  

    U.S. and Iraqi officials tell The Daily Beast that, for now, there is no direct channel to coordinate military activities inside Iraq. Instead messages are occasionally passed by senior Iraqi officials who have for years served as interlocutors between Iran and the United States.

    Be awesome if we'd open a channel instead of OPPS! WW3.

    Btw, I like your idea of have the House of Saud fly cover for this theater instead of the USA. Go a long why in easing the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Or they will finally fight as well, either or.

    Contrary to popular belief, zombies are quite intelligent and excel in anagrams.

    by Patience John on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:41:04 AM PDT

  •  Wasn't That Freddie Prinze's Shtick? (0+ / 0-)

    "It's not my job."

  •  And While We're Looking into This . . . (0+ / 0-)

    why don't we examine who ISIS really serves.

    "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

    by midnight lurker on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:50:19 AM PDT

    •  Well, why don't you tell us? (9+ / 0-)

      Curious minds want to know.  What conspiracy theory do you want to sell? That ISIS is a US creation so that we can maintain our hegemony?  That's the big one in Lebanon right now: Hillary Clinton admits creating ISIS in her recent book.  Or some similar bizarre and utterly uninformed theory?

      The Middle East is filled with conspiracy theories.  Syrians say "ISIS is actually a creation of Bashar al Assad to get the US to support him".  Iraqis say "Iran created ISIS so it can control Iraq."

      One thing you will never hear in the region, or around here: toxic political culture, religious fundamentalism and tragic colonial history are the reasons why ISIS exists.

      But don't let me provide an explanation.  I'd rather hear which one you're peddling? Why be shy?  Come on, let's hear it!

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:32:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most so-called conspiracies can be explained ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, Phoenix Woman, capelza

        by human stupidly.  Even if some are actually conspiracies.

      •  You Have Miscontrued my Comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill

        I don't have a clue as to the answer. There are many who could stand to gain in one way or another. The one thing ISIS is not is something for the benefit of the common people of the region.

        "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

        by midnight lurker on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:33:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then accept my apologies (0+ / 0-)

          Didn't mean to jump all over you.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:47:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Accepted. In the Meantime . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivorybill

            I have come across this. It seems another group that should be wary is the House of Saud. But it still is a power/money grab couched in terms of religious purity.

            "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

            by midnight lurker on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:58:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Wahabi vision of Islam (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, BYw

              upon which Saudi Arabia was founded, is not especially different from ISIS. Saudis form a major component of the foreign jihadis fighting with ISIS, and the movement has quite a few sympathizers among religious leaders in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Government will not confront ISIS and may ultimately support them.

              Yet another reason why our long-term interests in the region are more closely aligned with Iran than Saudi Arabia. And our interests are definitely not seeing a wide Sunni-Shia' regional conflict.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:13:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  agreed mostly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    but what if they don't do anything about it?

    •  As opposed to us? (0+ / 0-)
      As Mr. Obama considered new strikes, the White House began its diplomatic campaign to enlist allies and neighbors in the region to increase their support for Syria’s moderate opposition and, in some cases, to provide support for possible American military operations.
      Only a week ago Obama himself said moderate rebels were a unicorn.  Besides, all that has to happen is for Turkey to close its border.
  •  The time for fighting other people's wars is over! (8+ / 0-)

    Amen!

    But the time to shoulder the weight of fighting other people's wars is over.

    Let someone else pay for these wars, and bleed for them, and suffer blowback for them.

    We've spent the last several decades arming these countries.

    Now let them take care of their own problems.

    _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

    by allenjo on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:50:37 AM PDT

  •  Less profits for the defence industry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Sunspots

    if the US isn't involved.

  •  I am . . . . (5+ / 0-)

    already against the next war.

    Republicans - No solutions, just reasons why other peoples solutions will not work.

    by egarratt on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:55:17 AM PDT

  •  I've been happy to read that other people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, Sunspots, BYw

    are coming around to what I've been saying since the US invaded Iraq in 2003 -  the Arab States have to shoulder the responsibility for keeping the peace in their own neighborhood.

    Yes, our invasion of Iraq added fertilizer to the growing plant that is Islamic extremism, but so did Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, etc... money.  There is a lot of blame to be passed around (like the Soviets in Afghanistan; CIA created coup in Iran, and so on) but the US has to stop intervening and stop "helping" in "nation-building".  This is an Arab issue - let them deal with it.

    •  dont forget Israel. They have a pretty good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots

      military and could help, too. It's their neighborhood, after all.

      The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

      by Flyswatterbanjo on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yea, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BYw

        maybe we should get the one power in the region that is truly expert at pissing off Arabs and Muslims to attack ISIS.  

        I'm sure all those young Muslims who join ISIS would suddenly realize the error of their ways.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:18:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dont get it. Are you saying that if ISIS gets (0+ / 0-)

          Attacked by Arabs, Turks or Iranians they won't be pissed, but if they get attacked by Israelis they will?

          In your comment right below this one you say it's not an Arab problem, because there are Turks, Iranians and Kurds in the area. Aren't the Israelis in the area? Why is everyone acting like they're not? They're only the the country with the biggest arsenal in the whole region. We don't need to get involved because the Israelis can take care of it.

          The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

          by Flyswatterbanjo on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 05:19:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  a couple things... (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, ISIS will be pissed no matter who attacks them.  The issue is that Israel will polarize other actors in the region and weaken collective action against ISIS.  We have a distorted idea here of how Israel is perceived in the region.  Even moderate states will not cooperate with Israel as long as they have absolutely no intention of removing the settlements and negotiating in good faith with the Palestinians.  Especially after bombing the crap out of Gaza.  You want to give Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon really serious internal political problems?  If so, get Israel involved.

            And if the Israelis "take care of it", they will do so by permanently annexing the Golan and whatever else they feel they want.  Israel is seen as an expansionist state, with some justification.

            Also Israel is not going to intervene.  They don't have any particular humanitarian interest in seeing the deaths stop in Syria, and they don't see themselves as part of some sort of regional security collaborative.  They see themselves pretty much in perpetual cold or hot war with the Arab nations around them, so they are not going to join together in some sort of alliance.

            And if you really want to recruit thousands more foreign fighters for ISIS, then get Israel involved.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:36:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  But it is not an Arab issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BvueDem

      Iranians are not Arabs. Turks are not Arabs. Kurds are not Arabs.

      The Arab states bordering on Syria include Lebanon - which is split between Shia', Sunni and Christian, and which is at risk of disintegration if it actively joins one side or the other.  There is simply no way Lebanon can intervene, because Hizbullah already supports Assad and most of the rest of Lebanon supports the opposition.  Actually bringing Lebanon into the war would just turn into a new Lebanese civil war.  

      Jordan is in no way prepared to prevent violence inside Syria or to invade.  Jordan is, in fact, highly vulnerable to ISIS as several Jordanian Sunni clerics were key in getting the movement started in the first place, and Jordan is barely able to handle the fact that half of its population are already refugees.

      And Iraq? Iraq has to defeat ISIS inside Iraq first, and it won't be able to.  They can prevent ISIS from taking Baghdad or Kurdistan, but the Iraqi army is not capable of controlling all the territory they lost.

      So where does that leave us with Markos' great idea of "let the Arabs deal with it"?  Ultimately, Turkey may need to get involved - but this is pretty unlikely for a very long time.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Harrumph! (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you, Kos...

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:03:53 PM PDT

  •  Come on, kos. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BvueDem

    Do you really NOT know the answer to your own question?  If so, please go ahead and answer it publicly.  I certainly know, so I'll do it for you:  Muslims in a general sense think of themselves as one people across the globe, and are loath to take up arms against each other (except in the case where one group finds another to be insufficiently pious), unless there is no other choice.  Having said that, Sunni and Shia will bomb each other into oblivion without hesitation.  Additionally, the rest of the world abdicated global police action to us, the US, decades ago, and therefore we have the large military, overwhelming intelligence footprint, and dominant foreign policy voice on the planet.  One of the spoils of winning WWII I guess, and we live with it still today...

  •  You are threatening (4+ / 0-)

    the income of our sainted war profiteers.  Messing with their profits could be dangerous to your health and well being.  It might be a good idea to start checking your car and home for IED's...

    •  There's still plenty of profit in it for us. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots, Deep Texan

      We supply (sell them) the planes, tanks, munitions, and training, especially for their pilots.

      If they actually go out and use them and expend some of their inventory of arms and munitions, they'll have to buy most of it from us to restock the larder. The US, England, and France are the major arms sellers to the Arab countries. We'll still make a handy profit.

      When atlatls are outlawed, only outlaws will have atlatls.

      by wheeldog on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:08:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is bad for your health. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Decorina

      But the MMIC (Media-Mil-Ind-Complex) will turn it into "let them and them fight" and they'll hold all the receipts.

      K-reist, the dogs of daytime MSNBC are also drooling for airstrikes. WTF?

      "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
      Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
      Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

      by OleHippieChick on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:15:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republished to Group W (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:07:42 PM PDT

  •  Yes. For years I've said regional powers will (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7, Sunspots, Tony Situ

    never police their own neighborhoods as long as they know they can sit back and let the U.S. do it for them.

    A message must be sent:  "This time, the American cavalry will NOT come charging to the rescue.   Clean up your own neighborhood."

    Btw, it's nice to see someone else did a wiki survey of regional air forces in wake of the Libya airstrikes.   There is a huge amount of aerial firepower in that region that is just gathering dust.   Why do these nations even have air forces if they won't use them?

  •  One of your best Kos (3+ / 0-)

    "The Democrats and the Republicans are equally corrupt where money is concerned. It's only in the amount where the Republicans excel." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

  •  tipped and recced (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, allenjo

    My sentiments exactly! I tried to say pretty much the same thing on a thread on The Guardian last night, but nowhere as eloquently and well-thought-out as this. Great diary!

    "Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less." -- E.J. Dionne

    by lartwielder on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:28:37 PM PDT

  •  Golly (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, tampaedski, wheeldog, BvueDem

    If the Saudis actually have to fight, who's going to be the swell billion dollar color guard when all the little Princes graduate from the various in-house military academies?

    Somebody has to streak the green and white smoke across the sky in a new to semi-new 90 million dollar jet fighter.

    It's as vital a job as processing wire transfers to the monsters that make the messes that the rest of the world, AKA "The Little People", are then expected to clean up.

    The US Air Force Jets drop bombs.

    The Saudi Air Force Jets drop green and white smoke. It's a tradition. Like Young Republicans stating that they are "fighting the idea war" at home rather than join the Marines. A feature at the elaborate state functions where little Princes play soldier until they are ready to be real playboys. As Saudi as jailing to even beheading Malaysian, Thai, and Filipino girls for prostitution after lightly fining the VIPs and Royals who sex traffic them into the kingdom and then pretend they just magically appeared in the desert.

    They have the Saudi Pottery Barn Rule.

    "We help finance breaking it, and then somebody else is outsourced to clean it up. By the way? What is this "Pottery Barn?" Is that where the American, as you say, "hillbillies" shop for Hermes and Prada? I am liking the 'Duck Dynasty' very much. We have The DirectTV at all the palaces."

    They have gotten so used to their good deal, before the little Princes go from marching around playing soldier to marching around killing bottles of Kristal.

    Actual fighting is for the children of poor American people from The Texas and The Alabama, as God, Boeing, and MacDonald Douglas intended.

    Jeepers.

    Think of the royal children. If not them, the poor Saudi pilots.

    All the pilots know how to do is drop the green and white smoke. ISIS will laugh at them.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:34:13 PM PDT

  •  Don't be naive (0+ / 0-)

    There is one reason we are there - MONEY/OIL. They are one and the same.

  •  I just saw Congressman Peter Welch on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany

    Msnbc discussing going into Syria.  He made a very simple and understandable reason for not getting heavily involved in Syria. "How does the US navigate between two monsters, Assad and ISIS, and come out succesfully? "

    Which monster are we for, exactly?

  •  Wait, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    this sounds sane and reasonable. We can't have that kind of attitude when it comes to making money, I mean war. Of course one could make the argument that those countries will need to buy supplies for their battle with IS, and replacements for any damaged aircraft. Which would mean there is still money to be made. But taxpayer money smells better, what with all the debt rubbed all over it.

    Nope, your proposal makes too damn much sense. Never gonna happen.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:50:26 PM PDT

  •  They are afraid of Russians (0+ / 0-)

    They want to get rid of IS and Bashar-al-Asad, but they cant with Russia supporting him.

  •  The problem is.... (4+ / 0-)

    virtually every state you mentioned has very little to no interest in preventing genocide against the millions of Christian, Yezidi, and other minorities inhabiting northern Iraq.

    In fact, many of the inhabitants of those nations probably also think that Yezidis are devil worshippers, just like iS does.

    If it is left up to them and there is no assistance provided to the Kurds, then it is basically a given that genocide will take place.

    That may be an uncomfortable truth that some would like to ignore, but ignoring that truth won't make it go away.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:52:25 PM PDT

  •  What they are really afraid of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    'they' being the Muslim countries,  is mobilizing a military that could very well turn on them. Look at what happened in Russia during WWI.  Without the Czar's entry into the conflict the Bolshevik army would never have existed. Imagine their horror as thousands of well armed Muslim soldiers join 'the cause'.

  •  agreed and the MIC (0+ / 0-)

    would still get their budget and be able to build more toys.

    to sell them..

    why does it always have to be us?

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:20:46 PM PDT

  •  And the military industrial complex still makes (0+ / 0-)

    gajillions -- Win/Win

    Conservatives: On the wrong side of every issue throughout human history.

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:55:51 PM PDT

  •  Damn right! (0+ / 0-)

    A coalition of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey (or some of them) might succeed in destroying ISIS or they might make a mess of the job.  We WILL make a mess of the job because, it's not our country or our fight and the vast majority of Americans are infidels in the eyes of Muslims besides.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:26:11 PM PDT

  •  Re-reading Robert Fisk's reporting (0+ / 0-)

    on the Middle East is a good way of gaining insight into Saudi Arabia's foreign policy. And it's worth keeping in mind before the US takes on fruitless foreign policy actions that do little to foster real security for the USA.

  •  Just like WW2 (0+ / 0-)

    asking Austria to take the lead on Hitler. Great idea.

  •  You assume that these countries are even bothered (0+ / 0-)

    by the emergence of Islamic State.  If anything, the IS is so fucking crazy, these nations can use it as a foil against all the crazy shit they do, by saying "hey, at least we aren't cutting children's torsos in half!"

    That's why Bill Maher is entirely correct regarding the way these Middle Eastern nations abuse Islam to further their own corrupt regimes.

    I think all religion causes problems, but you guys are blind if you don't think Islam, in its modern interpretation, is on equal footing with all the crazy shit happening in the name of Christianity, Judaism, etc.  It's way fucking worse.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:32:16 AM PDT

Mark Sumner, ginabroom, Angie in WA State, dwellscho, Bill in Portland Maine, Phoenix Woman, Joan McCarter, Shockwave, just another vet, Wintermute, eeff, Matilda, hubcap, Heart of the Rockies, highacidity, rabel, farmerhunt, Cedwyn, Texknight, psnyder, TexDem, ranger995, Noodles, scott5js, rflowers, agincour, bsegel, side pocket, Man Eegee, mosesfreeman, vcmvo2, capelza, OpherGopher, grimjc, caliberal2001, citizenx, basquebob, terrypinder, ChemBob, reflectionsv37, ocooper, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Pluto, ThatSinger, esquimaux, profundo, dopper0189, koNko, KenBee, aggieric, global citizen, gpoutney, Joshua Bloxom, Briney Remark, Dreaming of Better Days, shaharazade, kurious, tonyfv, bear83, weneedahero, devis1, ColoTim, puakev, joedemocrat, jayden, I am a Patriot, GeorgeXVIII, fb, jwinIL14, JayC, gfv6800, GAS, OleHippieChick, Thomas Twinnings, Greyhound, Kickemout, TomFromNJ, Hanging Up My Tusks, BYw, rhutcheson, Miz Trom, zmom, Norm in Chicago, ejoanna, RationalThoughtProcess, kevinpdx, ArthurPoet, Nannyberry, BlueOak, Railfan, flitedocnm, jakedog42, mookins, renzo capetti, cordgrass, shyewoods, tb mare, ItsSimpleSimon, paradise50, Patate, kenwards, ericlewis0, leu2500, stevenaxelrod, cany, Reetz, Bluefin, allenjo, Mr MadAsHell, myadestes, BlueJessamine, FarWestGirl, gmats, armd, smiley7, Carolyn in Oregon, Mark Tapley, midnight lurker, bywaterbob, enhydra lutris, PhilJD, ratcityreprobate, Auriandra, anodnhajo, DeadHead, angry marmot, Eric Nelson, a2nite, Deep Texan, JGibson, Th0rn, Jake Bodhi, reginahny, Nztorg, Patience John, lartwielder, Buckeye54, james321, Blue Bell Bookworm, lmcclatchie, Dewstino, unfangus, leeleedee, ggfkate, Smoh, tampaedski, saxoman1, PatMcDowell, Dodgerdog1, RightHeaded, Zwenkau, jlalbrecht, SirVantes, Richard Villiers, politically indigo, OuijaForestCat, snau, AnacharsisClootz, LeftCoastCommonSense

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site