Skip to main content

President Barack Obama makes a statement on the situations in Iraq and Ferguson, Missouri, from Edgartown, Massachusetts, August 14, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
"If you do not fully understand the feedback structure of a complex system, in a crisis don't just do something, stand there. Most intuitively obvious interventions have great potential for making things worse!" - Jay Forrester
After clearly making things worse in Iraq, Americans should be more cautious when we hear those who quickly reach for the war drums clamor for invasion of Iraq and Syria.  

Pictures of beheaded American journalists fill newspapers and media with demands that we eliminate the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. Right-wing critics have been quick to criticize President Obama for saying we do not have a strategy for Syria yet, seeming to suggest, "go in and kill them all" is a sufficient plan, despite the disastrous consequences nearly every other time we've taken this approach?  Have we learned nothing at all from the last two wars we entered without first having a robust overarching strategy for it - including an exit strategy?

The instability in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan now have created the environments and power vacuums into which even more radical and violent extremists are rushing into exploit. We could easily make this much worse. Perhaps, discovering that our own actions are a key driving force in causing instability not just in Iraq and Syria, but throughout the entire Islamic and Arab worlds that should not be our natural enemies.

We would do well to support President Obama taking as much time as necessary to develop sound strategies and alliances and clear widely supported answers to basic questions prior to any interventions.

1. What are our true national security interests and goals both short-term and long-term?

2. What is our exit plan?

3. What powers will we leave behind?

4. What are possible unintended side-effects where hasty intervention could make things worse?

5. What will be the total realistic anticipated costs and time frames over the entire life-cycle of the intervention? Who is going to pay for it? What else could we spend those monies, time, and management resources on that may have greater value and might improve regional stability in indirect ways?  (Opportunity cost.)

6. What alternative ways might we reach our same goals without putting boots on the ground in both Iraq and Iran?

7. What other nations will help?

I was reassured to see Michael Calderone reporting calls for caution in this morning's  Huffington Post, in Two Iraq War Supporters Urge Caution Amid ISIS Media Frenzy

Starting with a review of war hawks like Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) demanding to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "I think it's time for him to say and do more." Calderone finds more moderate voices from former hawks.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department found the Islamic State has made no credible threats to the U.S. and the Defense Department expressed doubts about the organization’s “capability right now to conduct a major attack” on U.S. soil. Some politicians have raised the specter of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when urging further action against the group, but National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen said Wednesday that the organization is "not al Qaeda pre 9/11." ...

“I feel the atmosphere today is, in some ways, similar to the atmosphere in 2003, when we thought there was less time to deal with Saddam [Hussein] than there was,” said Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, in an interview with The Huffington Post. “Yes, I understand ISIS poses a threat to the United States. It’s not clear it poses an imminent threat.”

Goldberg, who endorsed the 2003 invasion and describes himself as “dispositionally interventionist,” said, “We saw the consequences of an administration launching a war without a strategy in Iraq.” For that reason, he added, it’s better for Obama to admit “he doesn’t have a strategy than to lie that he has a strategy when he does not.” ... “If a full-scale attack on ISIS is going to end up with a long-term occupation of Syria and Iraq by the U.S., or the U.S. allying with [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s] regime or the Iranian regime," Goldberg said, "then I think we need to do more thinking.”

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman,remembered what a hurry he and others were to war after 9/11 and observes “we were in a hurry, myself included, to change things after 9/11, and when you’re in a hurry you ignore complexities that come back to haunt you later.” ... "ISIS is awful, but it is not a threat to America's homeland."

Goldberg suggests that media should be paying more attention to President Obama's ongoing campaign of hitting terrorist targets around the world.

Our intelligence and military communities are indicating that ISIS forces are no immediate threat. We should therefor have the patience to trust our president to take whatever time is necessary to plan the wisest long-term strategy.

If out fundamental national security interest in this region is access to oil, notice that had we spend the last decade and half, and $1 trillion in accelerating our transition to renewable energy we would not only have been more secure militarily with energy independence, economically thriving, have deprived extremist elements of their major source of revenue, and lead the world in reducing global warming. This would have been a vastly superior "military, economic, and political" strategy compared with the tragic blunder of a second war the Bush-Cheney administration pushed us into on false premises. Generations of American will be left paying for that stupidity with no productive assets to generate the wealth to do so.

I appreciate President Obama's wise caution and support him taking as long as is necessary to insure whatever we do is truly in the best national security interests of the United States, and every alternative and possible unintended side effect has been seriously examined.

8:07 AM PT: One more question should be high on everyone's mind,  especially those who are calling for us to rush back in with boots on the ground.  

Why do the Islamic State militants want us to make such an intervention so much that they've executed two American journalists in such a provocative and taunting manner?

Could it be that they see a U.S. - Western led intervention with "boots on the ground" as exactly what best advances their cause of global jihad and unification of the Islamic world against the western "Crusaders?"

A Western invasion on Islamic soil will boost extremist recruiting more than any other alternative, and may be the only thing that can unite the extremist of the many different jihadist factions that will otherwise have to fight each other - with the most extreme jihadists loosing in the end, as they have no capacity or talent at governing.

If we hang back, other Arab and Middle Eastern power may have to step up to the plate to handle this as a local problem. Then it is Arab against Arab and not the universal cause of "all Arabs and Muslims" unite against the Western "Crusaders" (many see our presence there as a continuation of the Crusades of the Holy Wars from centuries past.)

This allow local leaders an excuse to distract their people's attention from their lack of governance, widespread corruption, lack of economic growth, and internecine violence from a 1,000 year old internal religious war, on many civil wars and authoritarian regimes.

Other regional powers will be delighted to sit back and watch as we jump into the middle of this swamp. Perhaps, we should hang back and ask them what their plan is, and in what modest ways we may be able to help out from a distance.

While we put our nation in emergency "rehab" to get off of our oil addiction.  We need an all out "full employment" renewable energy and infrastructure rebuilding program that put the wasted labor and capital to work.

Paul Krugman estimated about a year ago that we are leaving approximately $1 trillion a year of resources idle at a time when we urgently need to rebuild American.  Other nations are doing this, like China.

Let's wake up America.  Could it be that doing more of the same of this dump stuff we've been doing for the last decade is not going to take us to a new an better place?  

Poll

Do you support President Obama taking as much time as is necessary to formulate a wise, robust, and effective strategy instead of rushing back into Iraq and Syria with a another military intervention?

66%113 votes
1%3 votes
0%1 votes
0%1 votes
0%0 votes
5%10 votes
2%5 votes
21%37 votes

| 170 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Tipped & reced nt (18+ / 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 Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 06:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Have people forgotten we have been lied to befo... (32+ / 0-)

    Have people forgotten we have been lied to before?

    What's wrong with a well designed plan?

    Have people forgotten wars cost MONEY??? We are still paying for the last two.

    •  Liars were never called to account and lies were (10+ / 0-)

      never fully exposed to public view.  GOP convenes a Benghazi hearing every other month, but Dems never convened a single hearing on Iraq.  We're now dealing w/ the consequences of "look forwards, not backwards."

      The neocons got away w/ lying us into a totally unnecessary war and then F'ing that war up every way humanly possible.   Their being able to do so has only emboldened them.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:35:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are those consequences? (0+ / 0-)

        We were not in power for Iraq 2. Would locking up Cheney make ISIS stand down?

        Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it...just wondering how it will help Iraq now.

        •  Where did I advocate locking up Cheney? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBL55, ypochris

          My point is that, had there been Congressional hearings exposing the lies and the incompetence that led us to piss away a few trillion $ and a few thousand American lives, people would be less willing to listen to the neocons now.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:17:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I figured this: (0+ / 0-)

            " Liars were never called to account and lies were (7+ / 0-)
            never fully exposed to public view.  GOP convenes a Benghazi hearing every other month, but Dems never convened a single hearing on Iraq.  We're now dealing w/ the consequences of "look forwards, not backwards."

            ...included Cheney. I see ISIS being handled differently and much more widely-accepted (look at the 'frenemies' it's making) than Iraq II, which had far-less international support.

    •  The money will come from non-military (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      parts of the budget.  The military parts will continue because it costs money to expend and then to re-load.  As for Veteran care?  That's free to be ignored in favor of tax cuts.

  •  CNN yesterday (31+ / 0-)

    was the biggest steaming pile of concern trolling I've ever seen.  They were far tougher on Obama's "Messaging Problem" than they ever were on Bush's Murderous Incompetent Zeal.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 06:42:48 AM PDT

    •  There is a messaging problem in a larger sense (17+ / 0-)

      The US no longer has a coherent foreign policy doctrine or strategy.  We had one for better and worse in the Cold War.  We haven't really had one since.   It used to be that there was pretty much bipartisan agreement on foreign policy from Truman through Bush Sr.  

      Now we have neocons with their utopian lunacy, the GWOT whatever that is this week, NATO probably both too large and too weak, secret plans to combat (or not) cyber war, any plan to deal with Asian powers, chaos in Africa? ....

      We don't know where we're going.  I'm not faulting Obama in particular on this.  We haven't had any foreign policy vision since Bush Sr and I'm not trying to give him credit either, but he was the last of the WWII generation leaders and at least that generation knew what it wanted to do.  After that era played itself out, nothing much was put in its place.

      What do we want to do now?  We need a policy that fits ours relative economic strength now not what our relative strength was in 1945.

      •  I agree greenball. And this situation is an (8+ / 0-)

        unintended side-effect of that vacuum. The neocons have and will exploit this vacuum at every opportunity.

        I've called for Democrats to improve the articulation and PR around our approach many time over the last years, but not well enough to galvanize action.

        My feeling is that the U.S. needs to aggressively lead the world in a Keynesian-like Marshall Plan to accelerate the conversion to a renewable energy economy including a focus on bring up the health standards and quality of life of all people of the world which could fit together quite well.

        "Peace through global prosperity."

        By addressing the fundamental causes of global instability we could create allies instead of having to suppress and kill a large fraction of the next generations of the global population.

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:29:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neocons absolutely exploit the vacuum (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HiKa, HoundDog, sockpuppet

          I have to say after re-reading Tuchman's Guns of August that I'm pretty cynical about the ability of the US to muster any stronger alliances.  The UK, Australia and Canada are generally willing but we're not in the days of the British Empire either so that only goes so far.  In a bipolar world it was easier for nations to simply choose sides.  This world is much more complicated and as long as we're willing to pay the bill, the rest of them are just going to sit on their hands or cut deals behind our backs.  I'm not saying this is an easy problem.  I'd like to see the kind of world you want but I am not seeing that kind of altruism anywhere these days.  

          •  Those players aren't the point. (6+ / 0-)

            Obama's waiting to see if ME nations likely to be affected by IS are willing to fight.  If they aren't there's no point in starting brush wars in 2 countries.  He has a strategy and a foreign policy.  Now that the EU is getting it about Ukraine he can speak more forcefully about Putin's warmongering.  If Saudi Arabia gets on board against IS they'll bring other countries and it will be about the ME as a whole improving the ME as a whole.  Any other major intervention will be a clusterfuck.  

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:10:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks. Hey sorry I mispelled you name above. (0+ / 0-)

            Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

            by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:20:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But the strategy used to be to meddle anywhere (11+ / 0-)

        an important capitalist had a financial interest being threatened, so that wasn't much of a strategy!

        only intervene when we or our allies are directly threatened and always prevent a genocide

        "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

        by merrywidow on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:30:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just right. Trying to impose a single strategy... (8+ / 0-)

        on the chaotic, multi-faceted world we live in today would be...well...a lot like the Iraq War, actually.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:38:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think the disintegration of foreign policy (7+ / 0-)

        happened much earlier: I think it started with Nixon's illegal pre-election secret Vietnam negotiations.  Continued of course by Reagan.

        Sure it had problems before, everything has a certain amount of partisan diddling. But people recognized that fucking with foreign policy too much gets people killed by the thousands or hundreds of thousands, or millions.

        Nixon and Reagan turned foreign policy into full-scale 100% partisan dickery, and dam the consequences.

      •  You need a single enemy (5+ / 0-)

        That's what held the Cold War foreign policy consensus together; anti-communism. Which is why neo-cons and simplistic thinkers of that ilk long to replace Communists with Muslims.

        In a multi-polar world, muddling through may not be intellectually satisfying, but it's likely to be more successful than a coherent foreign policy that depends upon facts on the ground staying roughly the same for years at a time. They won't.

        Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

        by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:00:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Muddling through can be a foreign policy (4+ / 0-)

          but even so you need to be clear on what your vital interests are.  

          This is why I get hysterical when someone tells me Israel is our greatest ally.  No, that would be Canada for reasons that are beyond obvious if you can start your map app.  

          CNN had this blinking global map yesterday of all the hot spots as if all the hot spots are our problem.  They aren't.  If you're muddling through, you defend your vital interests at any cost, but only defend other interests or people if you have the resources (which requires being clear on how many resources you are going to devote to threats that aren't vital to your interests) and find willing partners.  

          You have to be very clear on what your vital interests are so that others don't miscalculate.

      •  having a "foreign policy vision" makes no sense (5+ / 0-)

        the world changes every day, you have to adapt to it on the fly.  Establishing some "doctrine" and adhering to it no matter what was always stupid, and is stupid now, and was never really the case anyway.  

        Hell, we "red scare" in the 20s then allied with Stalin in twenty years later, for crying out loud.

        •  Your policy needs to be clear enough that your (4+ / 0-)

          potential adversaries don't miscalculate and that you don't miscalculate the response of your adversaries.  The latter was another stupidity of the neocons.  They assumed there would be no response to our unprovoked attack on Iraq.  Well, we're seeing just one response in the actions from Putin.  You don't try to grab a major oil region without other nations getting nervous and trying to push back and where they decide to push back may not be where you expected.  The neocons said the rules no longer apply and Putin got that message but not in the way we intended.

      •  I'm pretty sure there is a strong policy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, sockpuppet, mightymouse

        The globalized financial elite wants a transnational corporatist regime with flexibility to establish police states wherever labor forces may be importunate.  Now, this policy doesn't play out as neatly as Cold War dynamics did, but it was the Cold War that was the exception, not the rule.  Ever heard of Metternich? The Holy Alliance?  The "Concert of Nations"?  1848 still erupted against it.  Even though it managed to limp on as a system until 1914, most of its century of hegemony was a mess.

        “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

        by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        I think there is, it's just not one you thought up and agree with.  And it runs against the Leftist-conservative notions of what our foreign policy should be which are prominent on this board.  

        There was a very deliberate plan/strategy evident in HRC's and Obama's foreign policy in 2009/10, at least to me, and we're living in the fourth year of developments arising from it.  It's not a conceptually new strategy, it's an evolution and extension of work and concepts going back to James Baker and Madeleine Albright.  It was not so much disagreed with as not understood yet overforced in some places (Iraq) and neglected in the rest of the world during Powell's and Rice's tenures as SoS.  

      •  Messages reply (0+ / 0-)

        And your solution greenball??

        Obama has saved us a trillion dollars on foreign policy spending. HE has it right get out of their or form a coalition.
        The USA does not have to police the world a lone.

        Get congress of their tails thye have to vote on the plan.
        60 + % of US citizens DO NOT want to go to war there again.

        Bush senior had no foriegn policy!!

        A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not been created yet.

        by RSGmusic on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 12:28:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think Bush Sr was so coherent (0+ / 0-)

        His focus as the Cold War ended was his "New World Order" where he blundered us into a ground war in the Middle East and where we've been mired ever since.  I think We don't know what the fuck we're doing started as soon as the Cold War ended.

        When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

        by Sun dog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:07:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, that one fellow in mid afternoon reported (13+ / 0-)

      the right-wing talking points about President Obama's "lack of strategy" and "paralysis" as if it were a fact, not an opinion where the actual fact is the President is being wise to pause and think this through.

      CNN is degenerated to such a sad extent. I'm reminded of Judith Miller beating war drums and doling at the D.O.D. and Cheney's propaganda as if it were news after selling her soul for privileged access.  

      Media "journalists" have obviously learned nothing. Have journalism schools not made major "Hall of Shame" case studies of the Judith Miller case?  Are the CNN afternoon "journalists" talking heads trying to play "king of the hill" to get on a higher pedestal of shame than Judith Miller?

      This is why I did this post as soon as I woke up Sun Dog. I've been upset every since yesterday CNN war drumming.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:23:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the problem is the vacuum again (4+ / 0-)

        In the absence of a clear, coherent policy, the warmongers just make their simplistic arguments for war after war.  This is a problem Democrats have all the time.  They're not brave enough to clearly articulate a different choice and they just go "lite" on everything.   You can do austerity lite but foreign policy lite is a bit more dicey.

    •  Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, were they blamed (8+ / 0-)

      on Bush?

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:26:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sen. Portman was just on MSNBC... (8+ / 0-)

      hyperventilating for Obama to "do something" QUICK!!!
      Apparently he spotted an ISIS terrorist under his bed, like other Neocons.

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:48:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Media only understands staging and presentation, (5+ / 0-)

      and not actual policies, so of course they'll focus on what they know.

      Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow. Just....wow.

      by Inland on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:59:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks, I'll check it out hassanm. I have to do (0+ / 0-)

      some urgent work now, but will come back to it later this morning.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:30:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Only wise if ends up (14+ / 0-)

    not going to war. And the extent to which he hasn't gone to war is overstated, considering he's bombing Iraq and has more 1000 troops there now plus untold number of special forces, some of which are reportedly fighting on the front-lines.

    It's true that bombing ISIS in Syria would be a huge escalation and forgive me for not having a lot of confidence that he won't do that. Indeed, the Bushian rhetoric coming from the admin suggest otherwise.

    Prez O, as usual is more deliberate and less reckless that many in DC but the results of his policies usually ended up pretty damn reckless and violent.

    •  Yes, the "We'll follow them to the Gates of Hell" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, david mizner, greenbell

      said by Joe Biden is not exactly encouraging in the

      "It's true that bombing ISIS in Syria would be a huge escalation and forgive me for not having a lot of confidence that he won't do that"

      _______________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 Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:22:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would that be Crusades Lite (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo, a2nite, CitizenOfEarth

        or Neo-Crusades or Progressive Crusades?

      •  That expression is interesting isn't it. Biden (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AmericanAnt

        followed up by saying "and that where there are going to live, or be" something like that.

        But didn't notice the irony that so will we.

        Decades ago when I lived in Cambridge-Boston, where traffic was hellacious, in the worst downtown part of the commute was a big billboard for a condominium high-rise that said "if you lived here, you'd be home by now."  

        Every single time I saw that on my long route to the suburbs I'd think  "Yes, and if we lived here, this would be our home," looking at over the ocean of smoggy traffic.

        How long can we spend at the gates of hell before we recognized this is "where we've chosen to live?" "And, so now hell is our new home."  We have choice.

        Sometimes we have to choose "worse before better to get to better places."

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Biden can go to hell *without me* (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo

        What a freakin idiot fanning the flames of war-mongers  like that.  And let's not kid ourselves. This was not a Biden foot-in-mouth moment. That had to be a calculated PR stunt approved by the White House.


        No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

        by CitizenOfEarth on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  think of the Holocaust (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CitizenOfEarth

          calculated PR stunts from the war hawks

          A war weary nation, sickened by 13 years of never ending wars, hopefully will not be sold so easily this time.

          Next we will once again hear Pelosi and Debbie W/S doing their think of the children, I can't get the children out of my mind routine.

          And of course, there is Debbie W/S's new one, think of the Holocaust.

          _______________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 Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 11:24:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What would you have him do? (8+ / 0-)

      I'm honestly curious.

      The way I see it we have some responsibility to Iraq since we did tear it apart and they have asked for our help.

      I think we could do enough damage to ISIS to make them a less effective killing machine and help to rise up a force to fight them, but it will take some commitment.

      I'm not a war monger but I would like to see the Iraqis and Kurds be in a more secure position and capable of handling ISIS militarily. I think we can help them do that as we have been doing.

      What do you want to see?

      Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

      by high uintas on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:43:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I agree about the responsibility, (9+ / 0-)

        I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done beyond providing humanitarian aid.

        Every U.S. military adventure in the Middle East for the past 50 years (or more) has ended up causing more problems than it solved. Unless someone shows some very convincing evidence that somehow things are different this time, I'm opposed to any more military action there.

        •  I'm very conflicted about this (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue aardvark, sethtriggs, HoundDog

          I would be more laissez faire about it if we hadn't done the damage that led to this.

          Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:04:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Me too high uintas. I hope I didn't give the (5+ / 0-)

            impression that I'm brimming with answers.

            I'm trusting that President Obama has greater insight, more intelligence, and more intelligence (both senses of the word) as well as advisers than I do.

            He has shown a great deal of thoughtfulness and caution in these kinds of matters.

            But, I was alarmed when this morning on MSNBC and CNN saw so many Democratic calling for urgent dramatic intervention.

            And yesterday, CNN's coverage was so biased, it started with the question that was right out of the neocon-Republican talking points handbooks. "What wrong with Obama that he isn't doing anything, while vile terrorists cut off American's heads?"

            Last night I saw a "National Inquirer-like" magazine with the headlines, "President Obama said 'Let him die.'"

            Our media seems to have a deep built in bias for dramatic actions.

            Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

            by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:42:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do you count the rescue of the Yazidi as... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, Tony Situ

          "humanitarian aid?"

          The air drops of supplies were nice, but if we didn't do the bombing campaign, they'd all be dead anyway.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:56:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you check with the Yazidis (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ypochris

            They'll tell you the Syrian and Turkish Kurds saved their butts:  http://www.globalpost.com/...

            “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

            by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:40:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Syrian and Kurdish ground troops who... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ, high uintas

              were getting routed, and were unable to save even their own butts, without American air support.

              As it says in your link:

              Many felt betrayed by Iraqi Kurdish forces who withdrew from their cities, leaving civilians behind without warning as IS militants attacked.

              “There were more than 250 peshmerga in Sinjar. The people felt safe. They believed they would fight for them,” said Dr. Salim Hassan, who heads the Committee for Yazidi IDPs (internally displaced people) in Sulimaniyeh. “But these forces withdrew in the night with no warning to the people.”

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:02:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yah, only after our bombings; what a coincidence. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high uintas
        •  Maybe a few more beheadings will change your (0+ / 0-)

          mind, though.  OR maybe not, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say.

      •  What'd would have him do he's (4+ / 0-)

        never going to do. That's not to blame him exactly; the American system and political culture are bent toward bombing (for reasons that are partly have to do with national security) and no president we've had, not even the relatively non-violent Jimmy Carter, would dare entirely defy the calls for blood, which are now coming from his own party.

        That said, I have some hope he'll reject the most insane proposals coming out, like that from Frank Wolf, who's going to introduce a bill authorizing force against ISIS, Boko Haram, Ansar Al Sharia, and Al Shabab.

        But to answer your question, I'd have him point out that American violence and imperialism contributed to the problem and begin to demilitarize in the region.

        •  Let's ask a basic question (3+ / 0-)

          What US action would be in the best interests of the citizens of NE Syria and NW Iraq? I think most of them would prefer rule by their local sheiks to rule by ISIS, but obviously there's no good data to back that up.

          If, as I surmise, the local population would be much better off if ISIS went away, what can we do to make that happen?

          Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

          by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:08:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, back on planet earth (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas, HoundDog, mightymouse

            I think the focus should be on trying to end the war in Syria -- that's the only way out -- and to do so, it involves 1) working with Iran in a serious way 2)accept that the war criminal Assad may remain in power. Hard pill to swallow -- the second, I mean; the first should be common sense -- but the truth is, Assad has already won and he's backed by most Syrians, who see him as less bad than the alternative.

            •  No, Assad hasn't won (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue aardvark, high uintas

              and that's not happening.   You're six months behind the times.

            •  Last I saw a map (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high uintas

              Assad controlled less than 50% of the population and much less than 50% of the territory. And he's NEVER getting the Kurdish controlled area back; ask Saddam about digging the pershmerga out once they've dug in.

              But I agree, let's work to end the violence in Syria by talking to Iran. We also need to talk to KSA and the Gulf states and find some combination of carrots and sticks to get them to cut off funding to ISIS.

              Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

              by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 11:50:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Let's ask an even more basic question (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, ypochris

            What US action would be in the best interests of citizens of the United States. I think most of them would prefer to have their children and money stay at home, but obviously there's no good data to back that up.

            If, as I surmise, the US would be much better of if we stayed the hell out of it, what can we do to make that happen?

      •  But you could have said the same about Vietnam (4+ / 0-)

        The flaw in the neocon utopian plan was that chaos tends to incite utopian revolution all right but utopian revolutionaries are just as likely to be brutal killers as small d democrats.  Once you get a revolutionary fervor going it's hard to stop it or control it because it invites support on the ground and being utopian it assumes its end justifies any means. It's almost impossible for a foreign power to stop that without astounding costs.  

        Just because we broke it, doesn't mean we can fix it.  Maybe we can but you can't assume we can.

        •  I don't think we can fix it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog

          but I do think we can make it easier for the people in the region to work towards something better than ISIS. Whatever that is I leave up to them.

          Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:21:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I do not have a solution high unitas. Which is why (5+ / 0-)

        I am hoping we Democrats can say in as loud a voice as possible. "Take more time to think about it, and get everyone on board."

        Intelligence and military experts say IS represents no immediate threat to the U.S. so like the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm."  Let's not rush in and make it worse.

        Appearing to do nothing dramatic would be better than making it worse. We are doing a lot of things behind the scenes.  

        It's just that quite diplomacy doesn't create the "Shock and Awe" videos CNN loves to boost ratings.

        Didn't the bombings of the last Iraq War give them the highest ratings in their history?

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:35:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

          with taking time to formulate the right approach. And boy howdy! are the media outlets screaming for full on war. It's exciting and maybe they can embed and all that jazz. It's disgusting.

          On that note, the one person I really listen to is Richard Engle because of his knowledge of the area and lately he has been more critical of the Pres. for not acting than I would have expected.

          I wonder what it is that he knows or believes that has made him that way. Maybe he is just horrified by the things that ISIS is doing. I know that if I think about it too long I start wanting to go crush them myself.

          Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:07:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "we have some responsibility" (0+ / 0-)

        yes, we are responsible for breaking Iraq.

        (and, essentially, for helping Al-Qaeda type Islamic fundamentalist militants - we took out a secular regime, and now Islamic State is taking over part of Iraq.)

        but just because "we have some responsibility" doesn't mean there is anything useful we can do.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the problem with thinking hard. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, HoundDog

      You don't always end up where you gut reaction tells you to be.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thinking is hard. If it weren't everyone would be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell

        doing it.

        Every now in then, if done well, it can pay rich dividends.

        I can't think of any examples, off the top of my head, but this is what I've been frequently told by parents, teacher, and other "authority figures."  

        Hey, wait a minute ...!  Maybe this is a trick?

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:44:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As though there's not reckless violence with no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, joe from Lowell

      help from us.

      You seem to believe US military action is somehow more violent than that of other folks. ISIS does not recognize any national border in the region as valid; ergo, they will stop attacking when attacking no longer works. That implies someone killing them in large numbers.

      Do you see an end game for ISIS other than their military defeat? Do they seem to you as though they have legitimate demands easily met through negotiation?

      Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

      by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:05:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our weapons are more powerful (0+ / 0-)

        It is a point of national pride ("shock and awe") that our violence is more violent.

        “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

        by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:47:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dead is dead, but it matters who kills you (0+ / 0-)

        If ISIS managed to mount a D-Day style invasion of the east coast, would you prefer to get help from Canada, or in the form of unsolicited aerial bombardment by Russian planes?

        Other countries are (rightfully) suspicious of our motives for offering assistance, and will not hesitate to blame us when the unavoidable tragedies of friendly fire and the like happen. Even if we were completely successful at only killing ISIS troops and nobody else, we would end up staying longer than some fraction of the population wanted, thus engendering resentment rather than gratitude.

        What if we waited for the governments of Syria and/or Iraq to make an open request for assistance rather than unilaterally marching in?

        •  I am pretty certain Iraq has already (0+ / 0-)

          requested air support. Syria is not likely to ask for help. On the other hand, Assad does not de facto rule large portions of Syria which border ISIS territory. If, say, the Kurds or the non-ISIS non-Kurd rebels were to request our help, is that more legitimate?

          Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

          by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 11:47:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He's systematically dismantling (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, AmericanAnt, mightymouse

      his one landmark foreign policy achievement, military disengagement from Iraq.  We could easily have as many soldiers there at the end of his term as when he took office.

      “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

      by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like we've had troops in Korea since before I was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        born and I'm collecting Social Security.  

      •  So you favored standing aside to allow ISIL to (0+ / 0-)

        commit genocide a couple weeks ago.  OK.

        You sound like a beltway talking head.  WHo gives a shit about "dismantling" what you claim to be a landmark foreign policy achievement?  When conditions change on the ground, you do what you have to do.  Who gives a fuck about theoretical "doctrines" or "dismantling" some previous status that may no longer be valid given the changing conditions?

        Hell, I could have seen you demanding no action after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, because responding would have "dismantled WWI being the war to end all wars".  Get out of the beltway mindset and get real.

    •  Oh please…. (0+ / 0-)

      Weren;t you among those that advocated doing nothing wrt the impending genocide that was about to take place a couple weeks ago, which was only prevented by bombing and other assistance from other countries?

      ANd weren't you among those who advocated standing aside to let Assad gas people with impunity?

      And was not your crowd in favor of standing by to allow genocide in Rwanda?

      Etc, etc, etc.

      So sick of you guys claiming that your isolationism is an unqualified virtue.  Your isolationism may keep you out of particular entanglements (though it can also lead to worse things for you), but at least own up to the fact that you greenlihged gassings, genocides, etc.

  •  Doing nothing can be a very good strategy. Having (13+ / 0-)

    things play out until there is a clearer picture can be the smart thing to do.   Or we could be implementing actions now but not revealing them for tactical reasons. But Obama took a PR hit by basically saying we don't have fucking idea what to do.  Willing to give him time to how things play out though.  

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubt." Bertrand Russell I'm very certain that is true. 10−122

    by thestructureguy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:08:23 AM PDT

    •  Well said thestructureguy. He could have reported (4+ / 0-)

      that we've bombed 128 targets in the last days, and are continuing to make drone strikes around the globe, formulating additional plans.

      The wording was not well done.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:33:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (6+ / 0-)

      He is thoughtful about his actions but that doesn't always play well on the PR front. People want to hear stuff like Biden's "Gates of Hell" even if they know we don't mean it. It's that whole Big Daddy thing we have going in our country.

      Personally I'm happy with his approach so far. I don't really need chest beating to feel secure.

      Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

      by high uintas on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:35:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, mightymouse

      that was a great plan in Afghanistan.  I remember the GOP saying that in the 1990s when Clinton went after Bin Laden.  That turned out great.

    •  "Doing nothing" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, HoundDog, mightymouse

      But that's not what the US is doing. The US is already doing something. The US has been conducting airstrikes.

    •  The "strategy" quote was taken out of context... (7+ / 0-)

      ... PBO was asked specifically about air strikes against IS inside Syrian territory, and he answered specifically:

      "I don't want to put the cart before  the horse.
      We don't have a strategy yet"
      ... regarding air strikes against IS inside Syrian territory.

      The remark ran afoul of election-year "gotcha" politics. Rather than blame PBO for not finishing the sentence, we should be criticizing the assholes at the networks for letting FOX write their copy.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:08:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. But I'm supporting our president to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell, Matt Z

        as long as he wants to think of better strategies and principles.

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:46:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with your assessment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        Airstrikes inside Syrian territory are tactics; our overall response to the problem is the strategy, and would be used to decide if we were going to conduct the airstrikes.

        Strategy in this situation is more like "We will defend any country that asks for our assistance against armed rebellion." or "We will provide material aid and intelligence services only to the following countries after they have asked for it."

        If we had a strategy at that level he could have communicated it while still saying "and we are evaluating the specific approach of Syrian airstrikes in light of that strategy."

    •  It was a well-deserved PR hit. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanAnt

      Obama basically said "These airstrikes are just America mindlessly flailing out in anger.   I have no idea how they fit into any coherent set of goals."

      My view is that it's pretty fucked up to be killing people before you've worked out some purpose for it other than "I'm angry and I want some payback."

  •  Hear! Hear! (6+ / 0-)
    had we spend the last decade and half, and $1 trillion in accelerating our transition to renewable energy we would not only have been more secure militarily with energy independence, economically thriving, have deprived extremist elements of their major source of revenue, and lead the world in reducing global warming.
    That would truly have enhanced Homeland Security.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

  •  I saw Newt Gingrich blathering on CNN yesterday (5+ / 0-)

    blasting Obama for not having a strategy, reminding me why I should never ever watch Wolf Blitzer. Those guys are eating this up, loving every minute of dishing it out to this president for daring to say he doesn't have a strategy yet.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:39:50 AM PDT

  •  the 'go to work' drumbeat makes no sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog


    it doesn't make any sense on the tee vee, and it doesn't make any sense in Congress.  Iraq is not our problem anymore.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:46:56 AM PDT

    •  Ya, I'm taking today off. Screw work!" (0+ / 0-)

      (Humor alert. sorry louise. I can't help myself. Let's see how long it take for my one good friend to come and write "Gravitas...gravitas, gravitas... HoundDog!"

      Woof, woof.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:50:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Delay isn't always wise and helped cause this mess (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tapu dali, HoundDog

    People seem to have forgotten that a significant part of the reason ISIS has gotten out of control is because the west largely did nothing during the early stages of the uprising against Assad when the regime was on its back foot.  Assad actively supported ISIS in order to have a counterweight against the insurgents.  Predictably enough, ISIS, which did get backing, and the Assad regime, which also got backing, made short work of the insurgents and now ISIS is roaring ahead, much like the Mujahideen did after the Soviets left.  And of course, Americans completely ignored the threat of the Taliban when something could have been done, and by delay we ended up with 9/11 and a decades long war.

    This is a pay me now or pay me later situation, but dealing with ISIS in a couple of years time if they manage to win will be vastly more bloody and difficult.  

    Sure, take time, but frankly the strategy isn't all that hard to come up with.  Bribe the right militia leaders, supply the people fighting them on the ground, work too coordinate and foster cooperation among them (that is, Kurds and the Iraqi government), perhaps provide limited air support or arrange for others to do so (e.g., those fancy fighter jets we keep selling to Saudis or perhaps Turkey might welcome the opportunity this represents), and provide intelligence and cyber support.  Provide a lot of humanitarian assistance and logistical support to help stabilize the area.

    There's probably no need for heavy US involvement, but simply ignoring the problem hoping it goes away is a sure fire terrible strategy.  We don't need to think long to recognize that whatever our strategy is, it sure as hell shouldn't be doing nothing

    •  Very well said; agree totally (nt) (0+ / 0-)

      I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa

      by tapu dali on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:15:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Saudis are (3+ / 0-)

         scared shitlless of ISIS. If the masses of puritanical fundamentalists in Arabia rise up and join ISIS, say goodbye to the House of Saud. ISIS will be flying those F-16s.

    •  Thanks for this thought provoking proposal, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature

      Mindful Nature.

      I do not support ignoring the problem, just caution that we do not make it worse by short-sighted, poorly thought out interventions.

      I'll have to reread your proposal and concentrate more before responding substantively. Thanks for suggesting concrete proposals.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:53:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Every act the West took was countered by Russia. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell

      I don't why you think that just upping western aid to the rebels would have ended the civil war. Wouldn't Putin have just kept seeing us every time we raised?

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:01:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Quite possibly (0+ / 0-)

        As I recall, the west didn't really take any actions whatsoever, while Russia supported Assad.  Russia did evacuate Tartus, which suggests that in their early days Putin wasn't planning on digging in hard.  Of course now that he's discovered his imperialist muscle, I'd expect a far more confrontational approach from Russia, which wasn't exactly helpful before.

        •  Well, the west sent some, and the Gulf states more (0+ / 0-)

          Between the two, the Syrian opposition was receiving a lot of support.

          But the Russians and Iranians sent more, and they could have sent even more.

          And ultimately, they were always going to see us and raise, because they both care a lot more about Syria than either the West or the Gulf does.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 01:24:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe the reality is that ISIS has won (0+ / 0-)

      already.  And chances are Obama is a lot more sensible about the terrorist/freedom fighter duality of ISIS and its trend to the freedom fighter side of it than most of the people posting here.

      ISIS is building itself up to be the serious regional successor state to Assad-run Syria:

      http://www.reuters.com/...

      It's still all very contingent on al-Baghdadi's leadership, but it may not be long until the state in the forming can't, for practical purposes, be broken up again.  The obvious direction for its expansion is now west, not east.

      There's also a video taunt ISIS sent Putin iirc yesterday or the day before.  They're telling him that the price of his supporting Assad is that they're going to make his life a lot worse in Muslim parts of the RF if not go after him personally.  Blowback, Vladimir.  Reap the whirlwind.

    •  The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 (0+ / 0-)

      Only our good Saudi friends the mujahideen of al-Qaeda, or as the west knew them at the time, the "afghan arabs".  The last passport Osama bin Laden held was a 1993 Bosnian passport, gosh, I wonder how he got that?  Can we look in those directions, or is the denial too deep?

      “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

      by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:06:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is what makes people laugh at the left (0+ / 0-)

        The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?  You mean other than providing support and an operating base for Al Qaeda?  

        And of course the left is such a defender of liberty and women's rights that Taliban rule can just be blown off as not too terrible.  Similarly, now we have people trying to sell the idea of ISIS as cuddly freedom fighters.   Amazing.  

        Too bad the left doesn't give a rats ass about human rights, religious freedoms or women.

        •  They're essential in my country (0+ / 0-)

          I'm a believer in the social contract.  I'm not a believer in imposing my social contract on another civilization because that tends to keep you fighting wars from here to eternity believing you're so darn exceptional you just must be "Jesus" come to save humanity from their sins.  I believe in Jesus for that matter.  I just don't confuse him with the United States.

          Too bad the left doesn't give a rats ass about human rights, religious freedoms or women.
    •  We are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature

      probably already doing all of that....but the President does not want to advertise it.

      Some folks do not want to give this President credit for seeing beyond the next day's crisis, but he always surprises by having things in motion behind the scenes.

      The ME experts that I respect seem to support the ''tread carefully'' approach by the President when it comes to Syria.

      You know he has people working behind the scenes to persuade the key countries to join in this effort...like Turkey, SA, Jordan ect.

      We cannot be the face of this effort....must be a west/middle east joint effort to eliminate this scourge.

      President is playing it as well as it can be played.

      •  I think you have the truth of it (0+ / 0-)

        Like me, he has lived under dictatorships and in the third world.  People forget he isn't half African American, he is half African and he is the first American president to have experience outside the US outside of US diplomatic compounds and diplomatic posts.  Unlike most Americans, people in the rest of the world are actual human beings  and I am sure he recognizes tht most of what people complain about here are really just first world problems.  I think he is capable of vastly more nuanced understandings of different points of view.  Long story short I think he has vastly better judgment than almost anyone, even if I don't always agree

  •  The Russians are coming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, mightymouse

    The Stampede to war with Syria seems to have completely forgotten that the Russians are on Assad's side and brokered the Nerve gas deal.

    This apparently is driven by the Russian Naval facility in Syria which gives them a figurative and literal safe harbor in the Med.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:52:38 AM PDT

    •  Just one of those nagging little complexities (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999

      worth thinking about. Thanks for commenting JML9999.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:55:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think it's forgotten. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, mightymouse

      I think the people stampeding for war in Syria are doing so, and have been doing so for years, partially because it is a Russian client.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:02:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since we are in part responsible for ISIS having (3+ / 0-)

    any power for harm over the people of Syria and Iraq, we are in part responsible for removing them from power.

    Very, very carefully, with as much coordination with other stakeholders (starting with the aforementioned denizens of ISIS controlled territory) as possible.

    If it's going to come to killing - which is likely with the sort of people who behead prisoners to make a statement - I'd rather kill 25% of ISIS 3 months from now than 5% tomorrow.

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:57:03 AM PDT

  •  Because "we ought to do something" is not same as (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, HoundDog, joe from Lowell, killjoy

    "we ought to do anything, anything at all".  Or as the Sunday Senators assume, just more military.

    Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow. Just....wow.

    by Inland on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:57:45 AM PDT

    •  Well, said, Inland. I wish I had thought of this. (0+ / 0-)

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:56:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strategy and war (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, HoundDog, divineorder, mightymouse

    But he should have done this BEFORE starting to bomb Iraq. I'm all for spending the time to develop a strategy, but that should have been done before going into a game of terrorist whack-a-mole. I get annoyed by how many act as though the US isn't ALREADY attacking Iraq as such.

    People rightly criticized George W. Bush for not having an "exit strategy." But Obama is also entering a war without an exit strategy (or any strategy at all other than terrorist whack-a-mole).

    •  He's in Iraq because they got rid of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, mightymouse

      Maliki.  That was a pre-condition.  Maliki is responsible for IS, not Obama, not Bush.  Of course Bush gave us Maliki so he's got that on his head, but this would not have happened if Sunni's had been included in governing.  

      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

      by I love OCD on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You reaally think this would have happened (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, mightymouse

        if Saddam was still in charge?  

        “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

        by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:29:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Did having Assad in charge stop them? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I love OCD

          Arab Spring, both its positive and negative elements, is not optional.

          Why would you assume that Saddam would have been uniquely immune from the transnational Islamist uprising in the region?

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:05:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Saddam was making videos for fun. He was waning (0+ / 0-)

          Look around the world.  There are fewer wars than normal, more countries moving into the 21st century in terms of women's rights, health care and education, there are more people in communication with outsiders than ever in history.  Now look at the hotspots.  In every case you have conservatives/regressives fighting for their right to live in a patriarchal, violent, uneducated past.  The point isn't religion, or politics, or culture, it's the terror weak, frightened men experience when their artificial power is threatened.  Neonazis in Europe, neoIslamists in the ME, Africa, the Far East, neoChristians in Africa, South America and the US.  The common thread is a threat to power structures that benefit one gender, one class, one outmoded system, or all of the above.  America's men's rights movement equals the Taliban.  It's not religion it's loss of perceived power.  

          Racism, sexism, bigotry- it's all based in the fear of losing control, being challenged on formerly sacred ground, having to adapt to changes you don't understand and may not triumph over.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Saddam wouldn't have survived the Arab Spring. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe from Lowell, I love OCD

          It that's my speculation too.

    •  The bombing was to prevent the genocide that was (0+ / 0-)

      about to happen to those that were trapped on the mountain with no food/water, and given the choice of convert or die.  HAve you already forgotten that?  The bombing could not wait.

    •  But I'm angry and I want payback NOW! (2+ / 0-)

      So let's blow shit up and kill people and worry about goals and strategy later.    Kill first, plan later.   That's how we roll in 'murica.

  •  I've seen & heard nothing (0+ / 0-)

    that would lead me to believe there isn't already a plan in action.

    The issue is twofold: We don't know who the CIA is supporting/funding in the region (I suspect it's ISIS). We don't know what the unofficial goal is in the region (I suspect driving Iranian forces/agents out of Iraq to sabotage their alliance, and preventing the Kurds from gaining autonomy, to appease Turkey).  

    But both of these are unspeakable in polite society, so Obama is forced to do what Bush the Lesser did: go on the TeeVee and lie his ass off.  I don't believe him when he says there's no plan, just as I don't believe him when he says there's no way he's putting boots on the ground in Iraq.  He already has, and we don't know what they're doing there.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:00:44 AM PDT

  •  imho the various Islamic nutjob factions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, mightymouse

    seem to want us bogged down there which is reason enough not to be there.

    Axiom one is that if one third to defend everywhere at once one defends nowhere. Right now we are overextended,we need to shorten our LOC´s, are in many indefensible positions around the world, have ignored our best friends, and let disease run rampant.

    We are now at a point at which we run scared every time nutjob Saudi Nazi tries to get us to bomb a group he has financed so he can scare us. Hell why don't we just cut out the middleman and bomb the Saudis?

    Ecrasez l´infame (crush the infamy) Voltaire.

    by shigeru on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:06:36 AM PDT

  •  weighing options is wise (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, KayCeSF

    ISIS needs to be wiped out.  That's pretty much a given as far as I'm concerned.  But, there are a lot of ways that can be done, and it's wise to look at all of them before rushing to a mistake.   I'm pretty sure eventually we'll need to involve boots on the ground in this thing, although I hope not.  But, trying to find alternatives is good... whatever works and leaves as many ISIS dead as possible.

    The media made too much of Obama saying "we don't have a strategy."  I'm sure we have strategies... we just don't have one set one at this stage, and at this stage we shouldn't have.  Furthermore, if we do have a strategy, I don't want to know about it.  If I know about it, then surely ISIS would know about it.  The thing about good strategies are, you don't frickin' tell people about them.   I know people like transparency, but some things are simply none of our business until they're in action.  Otherwise, the plan won't be effective and more of our troops could die.  

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:11:06 AM PDT

  •  chest-heaving sigh: what can one say? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, mightymouse

    the fucking planet is in an uproar, from humans to volcanic eruptions.

    there is only one thing to support: stop spending money on war and start to invest in the world as a whole.

    good god, hearing Biden saying he's gonna chase ISIS to the gates of hell and the media blaring about those missing planes... cause it's 9/11 all over again... makes me want to vomit. and yes, Ebola is coming to take us away haha.

    we need to shut down war. and the assholes in charge of this runaway train.

    there is no other option that is sane.  

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:13:11 AM PDT

  •  This is all about $$. It always (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog

    comes back to that.  The military industrial complex sees billions being left on the table..table being Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Ukraine and everywhere else they want us to go.  We have so much shit we already don't know what to do with we're literally giving it away to local police stations like Ferguson.  Luckily, Pres. Obama is not on the 2016 ballot.  So, he can do what's right and not want the $$ making schemers want him to do.  We just have to make sure the next POTUS does reverse course.

  •  he is deliberate in what he is saying. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, Matt Z

    For all we know, he wanted the message to sound like "Oh my we just are not sure what to do yet" while he is getting ready to launch some secret seals there way.

    i have a feeling there will be some type of a surprise attack.

    I support him and am glad that he is the decider.

    Unfortunately I will support an invasion with troops in Iraq.  The rest of the world MUST help with the destruction of ISIS.

  •  Agree 100% but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog

    1. Absolutely, it should go without saying:

    President Obama is wise to take time to develop strategy for IS rather than rushing into another war
    I support Obama in this, will continue to do so, but that is not to say he's being a timely, strategic, or even reasonable President.

    2. It's reasonable to expect all Presidents to do be strategic (caution is a low level internal attribute to be kept private - unless you're killing time according to plan) enabled by well-prepared and agile plans continuously updated assuming multiple fronts of emerging and escalating threats.

    3. It's reasonable to expect anyone called The Leader Of The Free World who has a trillion dollar intelligence capability to be perceived as being ahead of the US News.

    4. It's unreasonable in any situation great or small to say you have no strategy. That's either a lie or "JV" as the President has called the jihadists (imitating, "Come and get us"???).

    5. Or it's all theater of the absurd and we're simply in the next annual end-of-summer MIC deployment buildup scheduled for this fall.

    6. Or, the worst case scenario, it's not unreasonable to assume, that the jihadi Saudi and Pakistani benefactors of the jihadist mercenaries looking for their next paychecks are well ahead of the US News and have a regional plan (i.e., get ready or the bumpy ride as the US is used like both pinata and a trogan horse.

  •  "Boots on the ground" in IRAN?? (5+ / 0-)

    Just shoot me now.  I have a hard time thinking of a nation more likely to be helpful in containing ISIS than Iran.

    “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:26:56 AM PDT

  •  Excellent post. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06, HoundDog, Matt Z

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:28:59 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, Tom. This one sort of popped out even (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Matt Z

      before I was fully awake.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:01:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i'm in complete agreement hounddog, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, AmericanAnt, mightymouse

    I want our leaders to think long and hard about issues of war. I don't want to stumble into another ruinous, war.

    Those folks clamoring for a military solution need to carry their sorry arses down to the recruitment center and sign up.

    Take your bratty kids too!

  •  Tipped & rec'ed nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, Matt Z

    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 Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:34:28 AM PDT

  •  T and R!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, HoundDog, Matt Z

    "Fear is the breakfast cereal of GOP[RWNJ] loyalists." Socrates, Verona, NJ

    by orlbucfan on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:00 AM PDT

  •  There are countless ways to fuck this up (6+ / 0-)

    The drums of war are being beaten by people who refuse to see complexity and nuance. Refuse to acknowledge it even exists. They want to meet fundamentalism with fundamentalism. Recent history suggests we play that game poorly.

    Now let's go further back in history and count how many western empires over the past few millennia have wrapped their arms around the complexity enough to succeed in occupying and terraforming the Middle East in their image.

    Oh, wait, the answer is ZERO?

    Fuck.

    Maybe yet another war isn't the answer.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:51:21 AM PDT

  •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for putting this out there.

    I keep waiting for competent journalism to be broadcast on mainstream news. For any journalist to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions about what more military intervention would mean in Iraq. We know, for example, that previous interventions have not turned out in the best interest of the US (to put it mildly). But shouldn't we be asking what right we have to intervene? Shouldn't journalists be asking why we arm dictators and extremists, including extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Israel? Shouldn't they be exploring how the US helped to create ISIS through destroying Iraq's civil institutions and installing a corrupt sectarian system, engineered by Iraqi exiles who we supported?

    Our military/political class has all sorts of investment in dropping more bombs, and the pretext they will use is humanitarian. But how could any US intervention be legitimate without a larger, international consensus on how to address the various conflicts in the region (from Israel/Palestine, to the Syrian civil war, to Iraq's fragmentation). None of this is easy--I can't think of any quick solution. But I do know that our unbending support for Israel and Saudi Arabia as the pillars of stability in the region have been disastrous for the peoples of the Middle East. Unfortunately, our foreign policy is not concerned with them people our policies affect the most.

  •  in order to do all the neolibs want: (0+ / 0-)

    1. re-invade Iraq
    2. increase forces in Afghanistan
    3. put multiple divisions in line in Europe
    4. put more AC carriers and groups in the Pacific
    5. add divisions and air wings to Asia
    6: fight Ebola

    We will have to:
    1. raise taxes
    2. increase debt
    3. implement the draft and guard call up asap

    In short WWIII prep. If that be it just say it outright.
    Half measures will avail us nothing if that is so.

    Ecrasez l´infame (crush the infamy) Voltaire.

    by shigeru on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:40:40 AM PDT

  •  Well said diary-thank you my thoughts also. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    tipped n rec'd.

    "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln

    by appledown on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:49:20 AM PDT

  •  I agree with those on the Right who say it's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell

    troubling that Pres. Obama doesn't have a strategy, but for very different reasons.  Obama is already bombing in Iraq, and that means human lives are being taken.  We as a nation shouldn't be blowing stuff up and killing people unless we are sure of what we intend to accomplish and sure that it's worth the price.  That means we must have a strategy.   Otherwise we're just mindlessly flailing out in anger with no particular purpose.   I am personally against any new war in Middle East, and hearing Obama say he doesn't have a strategy only strengthens my anti-war sentiment.

    •  So you bought (0+ / 0-)

      the shortened version of the exchange between the President and the interviewer that the FoxNews assholes are promoting?

      The question was on bombing Syria, and he wants to go very slow on that, and made it clear there is a huge difference between bombing a sovereign nation, and helping an Iraq who requested assistance.

       If you do not see the diff between bombing ISIS in Iraq when they are threatening Baghdad and Irmil and threatening genocide of huge numbers of Iraqis, and  starting a war in Syria, not sure there is much I can say to you.

      Iraq is not Syria.

  •  Why does isis want boots on the ground? (0+ / 0-)

    Because boots on the ground is money in the pocket.

    How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
    Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone

    President Obama would never lose pallets of money. President Obama is not a Hollywood president. He's no drama Obama remember that.

    Protest that works comment by nomandates Registration Table Change the culture 100% registration.

    by 88kathy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

  •  Thanks in particular for your parting question- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kat herder

    Why is ISIS acting so provocatively, and
    Shouldn't we be cautious about over-reacting, and playing into their hands?

    People need to THINK instead of just REACTING and we have a chance to think, this time around.

    P.S.
    When is Obama going to do something, quietly on the side I guess, about rich Saudi's funding ISIS? Isn't that a BIG problem?

    •  ISIS is taunting us (0+ / 0-)

      And the media is egging them on. I've had the very same question for a while--why would we play into their hands by engaging them on the ground when it's obvious that's what they want? Also, it seems to me that it's like responding to a would-be bully who keeps goading you into throwing a punch. It's ultimately a bigger display of weakness than simply refusing to engage.

  •  I don't think President Obama wants to say, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hawkjt

    'float like a butterfly, sting like a bee'
    'rope a dope'

    He has too much respect for us. It is amazing because he has almost no respect coming from us.

    Protest that works comment by nomandates Registration Table Change the culture 100% registration.

    by 88kathy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:20:51 AM PDT

  •  Had to vote for "kill all the terrorists at once", (0+ / 0-)

    sounded like an answer to a push poll survey. Couldn't resist.
    It's sad you felt compelled to write this,  but everyone seems to have short memories.  A GI friend who served in Iraq said we could handle this with 10,000 Marines. I asked if he knew who the enemy was, he said it didn't matter.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:27:00 AM PDT

  •  Robert Reich on the war-mongering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, allenjo
    Robert Reich
    9/1/2014
     https://www.facebook.com/...
    It’s remarkable and frightening how quickly war-mongering can inflame passions. In June, most Americans thought we should stay out of Syria. In July, a majority of Americans thought we had no responsibility to prevent violence in Iraq. Now, a majority sees ISIS as a “major threat” to America, and believes we should "take action." Why the change? The barbarous beheading of journalist James Foley surely contributed, but Fox News and other tribunes of the right have been fanning the flames, as have Republicans on the lookout for yet another way to attack the President, and even some Democratic hawks who until recently were pushing for a faster exit from Iraq. George W. Bush started this calamity when he ordered American troops into Iraq the first time. Do we really want to do this again?


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

  •  hope this link works... (0+ / 0-)

    wnyc

     was listening this morning to an interview w/ Vijay Prashad, a professor of International Studies at Trinity College.

    He, too, said the same - that to rush wasn't a good strategy at all.

    oh and ps - Brian Lehrer also had a Cuomo-less debate w/ Teachout and Astorino!  

    There will be no humanity without forgiveness. There will be no forgiveness without justice. But justice will be impossible without humanity. – Yolande Mukagasana

    by kishik on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 11:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Obama knows what he is doing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hawkjt

    He knows that what inspires support for ISIS is the presence of foreign, non-Muslim soldiers occupying Arab lands.  He also knows that Arabs need to be convinced to take collective action to police their own region because the US does not need the oil the way it once did and that dependence will continue to diminish each year.  He will provide logistical support and containment, but this is mainly a problem for Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 12:02:34 PM PDT

  •  OK the solution?????? (0+ / 0-)

    well there is NO GOOD PLAY OR PLAN ON THIS.

    A coalition is a good idea.

    The USA does not have to police the world  alone.

    Come on all you are chair QB's what is your solutions??

    60 + % of US citizens do not want to go back to war!!

    A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not been created yet.

    by RSGmusic on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 12:31:55 PM PDT

  •  OK Solutions ????????? 2nd try. (0+ / 0-)

    NO matter what Obama does, Not many people will like it.

    If they have to discuss a plan in congress, that is it. The GOP will leak the plan.
    No secrets are more fleeting then military secrets.
    What ever is done publicize a dummy plan or ISIS will be waiting for what ever is decided.  

    Put the problem on all the nations of the world to police the ISIS.

    OK We the USA drop out until others are willing to go to war on the ground or what ever is decided.

    You see in the long run, ISIS is NOT A nation, it is a cult.
    If you try to wipe it out. The leaders back off to some other country and then reform the group a few yrs later.  

    IN the US we can use that spending to help are vets at home that the GOP wants to reduce funding for.

    We could extend unemployment also by NOT spending much on this war. OF course the GOP will be against both of these idea's.

    Other things are needed in the USA like rebuilding infrastructure that will create jobs needed.

    You see the GOP needs us to go to war to fund the red states supplying the war.

    Last and NO JOKE send all the congress house ans senate to the front lines to fight the war NO EXCEPTIONS. See how fast they will do something agreed upon. Then say, you planned it, Now get on the front lines to defend it.  

    The cost over run on the military right now will be in the billions.  

    You need to get the other countries to get in, form some coalition. Then decide to support it in some way.  

    60 + % of US citizens do not want to go back to war!!

    A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not been created yet.

    by RSGmusic on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 01:20:15 PM PDT

  •  This is fun(ny).... (0+ / 0-)

    "These 'Yet To Be' United States" --James Baldwin-- -6.75, -5.78

    by kevinbr38 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:52:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site