As a long-time lurker, I have noticed that the vast majority of the Daily Kos community doesn't care about foreign policy and seemingly wishes that we would bring our military home letting the rest of the world fend for itself. Many even think we are a destabilizing force whether from misguided notions of advancing democracy or cynical motives such as stealing Arab oil. I find such isolationism and self-loathing to be depressing and not in line with what a liberal should be. We should wish for a better, more democratic world, work for peaceful change where possible, and help prevent the rise of brutal dictatorships.
Back in August, a front-page editorial on Daily Kos pooh-poohed the threat posed by ISIS and basically suggested that Iraq and Syria's neighbors should deal with them. Since then, there have been a handful of other front-page diaries along the same line opposing the bombing of ISIS. On the whole, however, based on the diaries on Daily Kos, you'd never know anything was happening in the Middle East. I commend the few commenters such as Lawrence and Inland who have been the exceptions and would like to add my voice on this issue.
ISIS might appear to be a useful tool for the McCains and Grahams of the world who never see a situation that doesn't beg for military intervention, but I believe ISIS could be different. At this point, ISIS has grown to 20-30,000 soldiers who are capable of simultaneously defeating a YPG force in Kobane, holding Mosul and Sinejar against the Peshmerga and seizing Anbar province from the Iraqi Army and associated Sunni tribes, all while being bombed by the US. I realize that none of these ground forces are Patton's 3rd Army, but what makes anyone think that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Lebanon are that much better?
If ISIS continues to roll up victories and seize territory, they will become an even bigger magnet for jihadists from all over. Face it, people like to be on the winning team, especially when it is wrapped in religious certainty. Yes, there will be people living under their rule who don't like their extremism and brutality, but it's that extremism and brutality that will keep those people in check. What happens when the current 20-30,000 become 100-200,000 and they take over the rest of the Middle East save for Israel and Turkey and Iran? They then will have F-15s and F-16s and control of much of the world's oil.
There are two scenarios that come to mind where this outcome wouldn't happen, without healthy US intervention. First, Turkey and/or Iran could decide to fight ISIS before it gets too large, though Iran's full involvement would be highly problematic. Second, like any movement, success could lead to ISIS fracturing into multiple warring groups disagreeing over who's really closer to Allah, or any number of other things.
My argument is that we don't want to rely on one of the two above scenarios actually happening. At this point, there's a good chance we'd be able to subdue ISIS with an Afghanistan Northern Alliance strategy such as the one we used successfully in 2001 against the Taliban. This is what Obama is essentially trying to do in Iraq and Syria and we should be supportive because the other option is US ground forces in large numbers. You don't want that and I don't want that, but you know many Republicans will be pushing for that. Thus, I hope we soon bring sufficient air power to bear including close air support such as A-10s and use what native ground forces we have at our disposal, including the YPG (but not Assad's forces).
I know it is distasteful to get involved in Iraq and Syria where every group seems to be of questionable virtue, but some groups are much worse than others and we need to make sure these groups never get out of control.