Question. If Kobani falls to ISIS should we care? Is it our responsibility? Isn't this a Middle Eastern problem that should be solved by the nations of that region?
Yes. Thousands could be slaughtered. Yes. It would be a tragedy. But why is it the responsibility of the US to protect the people of the world?
Fact. Our military is strained and has been subjected to cuts both in manpower and budget.
Fact. The military forces of the region, at least on paper, have more than enough power to defeat ISIS.
Fact. Turkey would be directly affected by the fall of that city and yet they have not acted.
I ask again. If Kobani falls should we care?
The idea all along was to reverse every thing George Bush did.
ReplyDeleteAt this point nothing short of another Iraqi style and size invasion is going to help and frankly there is no desire or time much less leadership to do that.
Therefore it's a done deal.
Care?
I quit caring what happened in the middle east years ago.
Around January of 2009 as a fact.
America elected a man who hates America and with a Muslim name was determined to pull out of Iraq and reverse everything the Bush administration did.
He was successful so there it is.
The war at that point was lost.
As evil as I think ISIS is, I'm just too sick of the US fighting for people not willing to fight for themselves in that region. I hate it when ISIS slaughters Christians or tries to convert them at gunpoint, but at the same time, I think going there for the sole reason of stopping those atrocities against them and being able to do it without the political responsibility of being dragged into the whole fight against ISIS across the Middle East is impossible.
ReplyDeleteI think aid and humanitarian groups should be given more money and equipment to evac and assist the innocent people that ISIS butchers, We definitely shouldn't do nothing for them. But the idea of fighting an Iraq War III for all of this and a bunch of dictatorships in the region who are only our friends because they provide "stability," just not fucking worth it. They've got the equipment to give ISIS a run for their money; they've got help from Russia and Iran. I just don't see it being worth another war for our interests, at least not yet anyway. And I really don't see it looking like that in the eyes of the American people anytime soon either.
If the US does go in, we go all in, no fucking RoE that helps them kill us, no political bullshit that allows them a vote in any new government and no prisoners.
DeleteIf we go in again, we knock shit down and kill people no half way measures all assets and options on the table.
"Never get off the boat, gawd dam fucking A right, unless you are prepared to go all the fucking way"
>Apocalypse now<
Do you really trust Obama to wage a war like that? I sure don't. He once suggested a retaliatory strike against Syria that was designed to accomplish very little with the only purpose being to keep his word about his "red line" statement that Syria crossed when they supposedly used chemical weapons.
DeleteIf we went in, it would be a war waged the way our leadership wants to fight: highly Politically Correct ROE and very little strategic thought beyond what is immediately in their face. Do you really trust the Obama Administration to plan out a military campaign and win it effectively? This is the same leadership that had to sell Americans healthcare by lying to them about it and then threatening them with a penalty if they didn't comply. We'd suffer HUGE casualties if they were to lead us in a conflict.
'I'm just too sick of the US fighting for people not willing to fight for themselves in that region.' hmm ,do you realy think US ever fought in iraq for anyone else but your own pocket (in this case for pocket of Haliburton and co.) Iraq was supposed to be a cheap and simple robbery,go in kick dictator out and let Iraq pay for all, but things got out of hand and the heist went sideways and cost Uncle Sam untold bilions. (Its actually beyond funny that greatest benefits will now be reaped by Chinese who got most contracts on the oil)
DeleteWhat if we are waiting for Kobani to fall to see if Turkey joins the fight?
ReplyDeleteTurkey is on the side of ISIS.
DeleteNow we wait for that Turkish dude come here and defend Turkey.
DeleteAparentely they are teaching kung fu to their fighters. https://news.vice.com/article/video-shows-islamic-state-recruits-with-us-equipment-at-training-camp-in-iraq?utm_source=vicenewsfb
The Kurds in northern Syria are aligned with the PKK aka Kurdish Workers Party. PKK has been at war with Turkey for over 30 years AND is designated a terrorist organization by the US.
ReplyDeleteTurkey can't wait to watch PKK sympathizers get whacked in Kobani.
Turkey could line up a couple battalions of T-155 Firtina and, with drone observation, shell the shit out of ISIS from the safety of their border. They could also send in AH-1 Cobra gunships to take out ISIS armor.
Turkey doesn't give two shits about Kurds.
Turkey can keep that stance if they want but they're already having riots over the issue. things will get worse unless they get their act together.
DeleteThose riots are in South-eastern Turkey aka ethnic Kurdish regions of Turkey.
DeleteI agree, it isn't sustainable and aside from being close to Syria and being a route for oil pipelines, Turkey is going to find a lot of people off at it. Erdogan needs to go
Turkey has made great diplomatic gains over the years in convincing many Kurds that rebellion is not in their best interest. Allowing ISIS to overrun and slaughter Kurdish towns right over the border will likely erase those gains and result in a record number of Kurds joining the rebellion against Turkish rule.
DeleteWhat is the moral consequence of not doing something more, I have no love for Iraq/Syria, nor their incompetent impotent male population. But if we stand by and watch this happen on TV (which unlike other shitholes we will). I really don't care if a male population gets lined up and shot, they allow themselves to be marched out there like sheep and slaughtered, but ISIS is massacring everyone, there are videos of them stepping on babies for fun. If Kobani has no civs in it then let it fall, but saying "ISIS isn't our problem" is the easy answer. (lets just glass the place already).
ReplyDeleteOn a sidenote, if Russia offers up ground troops to fight ISIS if the West drops sanctions, it would put the EU/US leaders in a tight spot, politically and diplomatically, while making Putin look pretty good to everyone else.
So , after the United States have put the disorder in the Middle East , you want direr here that does not concern you ?
ReplyDeleteUnited states ( and I mean the administration, not citizens ) is dropped iraq, we created the rebellion that gave birth to the ISIS , and continues to support the enemies of Bashar Al Assad, the thus preventing them from ending the civil war and destroy much of the ISIS .
Morality would you put in prison all those who have joined you in ( bush, cheney, rumsfeld , obama, clinton H ) and you do the household ISIS , BEFORE you leave and close your bases
if the US put the world in disarray (i dispute that) then you should be the first to yell for the US to get the hell outta the way and let the more enlightened powers in Europe take over and make things right.
Deleteyou want it both ways. you blame the US for practically everything, and at the same time you want us to do everything.
we're done. US leadership might want to be involved but the American people are done with the bullshit.
let the world...and Kobani...BURN!
@ the American people are done with the bullshit.@
DeleteGood, if it presents itself in reality.
It is time to shine for Russia then. We would obtain possibility to improve our economy and geopolitical agenda after it. When the biggest guy with the biggest bludgeon is absence on the yard, another big guys rule.
Russia isn't the next biggest guy though. i've never understood it but the Russians just don't have an expeditionary flare to them. quite honestly the Cubans were more active around the world (if you don't count combat in Afghanistan and Vietnam) than the USSR/Russia was/has been.
DeleteChina isn't interested in the job and they'd prefer to bully neighbors instead of helping with world issues.
the UK, France, Netherlands, Spain, Italy would be best suited to stepping up to the plate but none of them have the military means or the political support back home to do the job.
i predict that the American people are getting tired of seeing money bleed out of this country to help the ungrateful. that means that i will soon be able to sit back with glee and watch the bonfire.
China has bought half of africa, Israel a third.... These both countries prefer discret actions.
DeleteURSS created and helped all communist rebellion over the world, as US Created and helped All coloured revolution over the world...
Your solution Solomon could make the job, IF USA Stop to ARM and PAY ALL SYRIAN REBELLION !
The half of USA power is the dark job of CIA...
To fabsther
Delete@after the United States have put the disorder in the Middle East@
It is very popular stance to keep in Russia: bad USA did this, bad USA did that, and we, Russians, carry to another nations only Peace and Truth with our beloved high-caliber cannons)))))
USA supports one world-wide system (with pros and contras), and another nations can’t do the same, as Russians (IMHO, of course). So if USA refuses their “single global moderator” status – it means new possibilities for geopolitical subjects (except EU who needs USA “military umbrella” too much) and new risks for geopolitical subjects. I’m prone to think that the first “meat to eat” will be EU and their quasi-colonies in Africa.
Solomon’s stance (@we are done about damn global leadership@) is very familiar to me and my nation (IMHO) – we’ve passed through this painful process of “parasites” who suck our resources, technologies, military protection and shit in turn.
And I’m personally is very glad about my citizenship of a geopolitical subject with full resources stockpiles. It is little but very pleasant bonus for me – to watch what will do all this “ancient” nations who “suffered after soviet occupation”. Bark against Russia under USA back is one thing, face us alone – is an absolutely another. We will remind them their “nice frolics” like Nazi anti-Russian parades and so on. Bgggg.
@Cubans were more active around the world @
DeleteIn economy issues – agree. I’m a practicing corporative lawyer, know some real issues, and my estimation of our civilian economy – SNAFU. Anyway we improve it, slowly but surely.
@Russia isn't the next biggest guy though.@
God forbid us to be the biggest guy, sir. I’m not going to fight for Happiness of all our God- forsaken world. I’m interested only in my nation’s interests.
@i predict that the American people are getting tired of seeing money bleed out of this country to help the ungrateful. that means that i will soon be able to sit back with glee and watch the bonfire.@
I guess it is the single way for American nation to survive. To be a regional super-power and one of geopolitical subject. It reduces possibility of global Nuke war, IMHO. But increases possibility of small nuke wars and regional conflicts. Only strong will survive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFcaNG0ZJRA
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the english subtitles...
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
ReplyDeleteBecause I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
simplistic. moralistic. has nothing to do with the realities in the Middle East. does not speak of tremendous sacrifice that the US has already made and applies to people worth fighting for.
Deletei remain unconvinced that moderate Muslims inhabiting the Middle East fit that category. the question remains. If Kobani falls why should we care? the answer. we shouldn't. its up to others to prove their moral superiority. we've had our fill of protecting and paying for the world's problems.
IMHO, it's depends:
Delete(1) big players are playing, obviously, a big game ... it's just a fact that US-EU was fomenting color revolutions all around, with lots of unclear outputs (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, etc) and more doubt results due direct interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, not to mention red lines (Venezuela, North Korea, Iran); It was suposedly to create a better world for the sake of the free market; and, to be fair, it isn't costing much to US taxpayers ATM, as it was just funded by printing money and debt, QE's; be sure, it's not a big deal to waste USD 1 trillion in a 10 years intervention when you printed exactly USD 1 trillion last year alone, outside the budget;
(2) all the countries listed had one common atribute: after 90's, all were URSS orfans, rulled by dictators or autocrats and (with rare exceptions) formelly suported by western powers (even Sadam, no? and nowadays, UAE and Saudi and Yemen and Thai); the result of the revolutions? factions poping all around; looks that someone lost the grip; Libya is a very good example; so, color revs are good, right? Maybe, if you can start and end it (diferent thing than just pushing military to then retreat without real achievement in terms of stability and security);
(3) thus, if is there any moral dimension on this matter, well, i could just say YES, if US did the mess allowing IS to exist funding or letting allies funding it, even as an colateral result (color rev on Syria and money and weapons to syrian rebels, called moderates, with the clear objective to just hang Assad); but, to be fair, looks that's no real moral basis to act here, as many of US allies on that region didn't differ, in essence, to syrian regime ... that leds me to think that all the problem relating to the IS was due a sum of milscalcs from the last big players (W) moves ... someone need's a pipeline crossing that region (EU-Qatar) and they spawn their champions to do the job, but the outcome wasn't so bright ... more effort will be need to fix that (boots on the ground?), just because it was "started" without a clear goals or exit solution ... so, in this case, i think that lose the big prize (pipelines, after Iraq) isn't a option, and to be coherent, US-EU had to finally be comited to win (destroy) any kind of resistance on this project ...
(4) looks that US citzens aren't in charge anymore, but big corps or the so called 1% ... my US friends are not even bothering to vote (like 30% max); they can only complain about lack of leadership, but im in doubt if things could be diferent this time: 48 million people living in the poverty in US makes the narrative of US being worlds police kinda outdated ... if it will act, it will be not motivated to avoid the death of civilians, for sure; it will act as usual, looking to seize an strategic area to place an route of pipes to reduce RF leverage on EU, the weak chain on the modern capitalism;
(5) on this meanwhile, the real US oponents are just probing oportunities: RF and China; RF is just big enough to be eated by EU and China is just winning all around, exploiting the capitalism flawn that let a planned economy to just rape all the chips on the table; Iran, Iraq and all the 'stans are now under their soft power, and, if im not wrong, even some EU countries; please just forget gross numbers and check it out for global stakes on the last two or three decades: isn't it clear? if not, extrapolate this trend for 20 years and drawn conclusions, specially in terms of military and soft power ... things are changing faster and old tools that worked in the 70s and 80s arent enough to deal with (starting with astoning debts in US and EU and ending with two formidable oponents in a near future) ... play smart, i should say if i was in position of give my cent, and just start what you can finish with profit ... or, in short: if you will fuck someone, just fuck entirelly ...
Just in time:
Deletehttp://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/op_23.pdf
QEs = 29 double invasions and growing ...