There are 38 comments.

1. Member
   Misthiocracy

   @Misthiocracy

   

   7:15 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Tommy De Seno:I can’t help but wonder how poor blacks in the inner cities feel about Obama’s focus on jobs for ISIS.

   Has the American ghetto been repaired? Shall I vacation in Detroit?

   Why should the President care? It’s not like he’s facing re-election.

2. Member
   Misthiocracy

   @Misthiocracy

   

   7:48 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Manny:

   We didn’t kill our way out of WWII. Germany and Japan ultimately saw the futility of more of their dead.

   One could be argued that it’s a poor analogy because:

   1. The militaries of Germany and Japan were made up of mostly rational individuals who did not seek death for its own sake. When the threat of death is no longer an incentive then one must either kill every single enemy combatant (which is arguably a mathematical impossibility) or else find an alternative solution.
   2. Germany and Japan were sovereign states while Islamic Fascism is a non-state political movement. After the war, the Allies occupied their territory and helped to create new regimes which were not militarily hostile. Even if ISIS were to disband, that would not eliminate Islamic Fascism as an ideology.
   3. The Axis Powers were a mere three states who were entirely self-financed. Islamic Fascism is supported financially and materially by numerous states against whom the US has not declared war, as well as non-state actors operating from states against whom the US has not declared war. Without the cooperation (or destruction) of those sources of support, direct military action against Islamic Fascism will never achieve the goal of defeating it for good.
   4. While the organization known as ISIS aspires to sovereign statehood, it has not attacked the United States in the same way that both Japan and Germany had prior to the US entering the war, therefore there is little justification for the US to seek a war whose aims are limited to eliminating ISIS as an organization.

      ISIS has attacked US allies (Turkey and Iraq), so the US is justified in engaging in war whose goal is to remove ISIS from allied territory. However, as long as Syria remains an enemy of the United States, and as long as ISIS wages war against Syria, there is little justification for the US to defend Syria from ISIS. (Please note I use the word “little”, not “no”.)

   A better analogy might be the 18th and 19th century war on piracy. Pirates were not sovereign states, though they were supported financially and legally by some states.

   Overwhelming state power on the high seas, combined with political and diplomatic agreement between the sovereign states to no longer support piracy denied the pirates the use of any safe harbours and made piracy unprofitable.

   Using that analogy, one sees that killing the combatants still isn’t enough to win the war. What is also required is to deny the combatants access to any safe harbours and to cut off support from state and non-state actors.

   In that way, I agree with Ms. Harf. Simply killing Islamic combatants isn’t enough to win the war, because there will always be more where they came from.

   However, killing them can be enough to keep them out of allied territory. That’s not a “win” per se, but it’s something.

3. Member
   Misthiocracy

   @Misthiocracy

   

   7:49 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   iWc:

   Nah. She is overqualified. Way too pretty.

   I actually think the administration’s chosen spokeswomen are quite attractive, and I don’t get why folk try to attack them along those lines.

4. Coolidge
   ctlaw

   @ctlaw

   8:01 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Misthiocracy:

   Manny:

   We didn’t kill our way out of WWII. Germany and Japan ultimately saw the futility of more of their dead.

   One could be argued that it’s a poor analogy…

   However, killing them can be enough to keep them out of allied territory. That’s not a “win” per se, but it’s something.

   Agree on the final sentence.

   The Japan analogy fails on three grounds that may be more relevant than the ones you noted.

   First, there only needed to be one rational actor who ultimately acted in his self-interest: Hirohito. Until we develop a capability to directly threaten Allah, no analogy.

   Second, the Japanese were not seeking/obtaining converts…

   Third, as an island nation, they were even more easy to isolate. Had they not surrendered, we might have skipped the invasion in favor of naval quarantine combined with continued atomic bombing.

5. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   10:25 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Tommy De Seno:I can’t help but wonder how poor blacks in the inner cities feel about Obama’s focus on jobs for ISIS.

   Has the American ghetto been repaired? Shall I vacation in Detroit?

   Sure, come on over. We have three casinos, lots of good restaurants, and of course, the ghetto porn experience.

6. Thatcher
   user_3467

   @DavidCarroll

   

   11:26 AM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Harf needs to find a job for which she is better suited.  Maybe one that serves fries.

7. Coolidge
   iWc

   @iWe

   

   12:04 PM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Misthiocracy:

   iWc:

   Nah. She is overqualified. Way too pretty.

   I actually think the administration’s chosen spokeswomen are quite attractive, and I don’t get why folk try to attack them along those lines.

   I am not attacking Harf for being pretty, just as I do not attack Janet Reno or Madeline not-so-bright for being hags.

   There are women who have sex appeal and brains – Coulter anyone?  But if you are going to choose a cupcake for a job, presumably because people will be too interested in looking to actually take the time to listen, then please make the cupcake either smarter or sexier.

   Maybe I just don’t care for dumb blonds.

8. Inactive
   Gödel's Ghost

   @GreatGhostofGodel

   5:56 PM EST ⋅ Feb 20, 2015

   Boy, I never want to hear another single word about bubble-headed bleached blondes coming on at 5^* on Fox News.

   ^* h/t Don Henley