Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I was flabbergasted to read this morning that we are “
Believe me, it greatly pains me to respond to Claire in the way I have, considering I was a big supporter of the Iraq war throughout GWB’s presidency. At the same time, though, GWB and Congress in 2005 developed a pretty good contingency should major problems with Iraq arise (which they of course did).
It’s something called the Halliburton Rule (DUN, DUN, DUNNNN!). This rule was greatly responsible for the continued commercial success of something called Horizontal Fracturing (fracking, in the common vernacular). Result of said fracking: US Oil Production has now reached the previous 1970 peak, and combined with gas fracking, the US is now able to meet 90% of its energy needs through domestic production.
This buys this nation some time and patience in how to handle any and all future adverse developments in the M.E. And I’m reasonably certain Obama and his fellow Progressives have at least a rudimentary understanding, and thus a headstart, regarding this.
Introducing a small, vulnerable American ground force into the region to be killed or held hostage by the other side is a good way to turn this into a situation that demands action.
It’s time to get serious, people. Forget all this iPhone app garbage. We’ve got to launch brigades of mattress-carrying college co-eds against ISIS, and we’ve got to launch them now!
Well, Lindsey Graham is screaming.
But part of it is that, if you’re running to take office in a year and a half, you do not want to limit your options in any way. The political and strategic situations are too fluid.
These guys could have handled ISIS. Not sure anyone (in this administration) can today.
The rest of the world doesn’t get to direct US foreign policy.
There is a lot to this Zafar. Part of it is that the American People don’t trust the political class not to mess this up and rather than see more of their sons and (now) daughters die in the Middle East, they’d rather stay out of it. I can’t say I blame them.
The Caitlyn thing is just nonsense, at least from a Conservative standpoint. Sure you are correct if you are talking about the lobotomized Left but there is still another half of the country who aren’t totally zombified yet. I think your mentioning of ROE is more of an obstacle to getting support than Caitlyn. Who wants to send loved ones over there to die when we all know that our armed forces won’t be allowed to fight back because our Commander in Chief has a chip on his shoulder about this country?
You mean the ones that have occurred weren’t enough? We’ve had a Jordanian pilot burned alive and posted to Youtube, countless Christians killed either in North Africa or in Syria, and an American–if not a couple–beheaded at the hands of these barbarians. I don’t think it’s headliner atrocities holding us back, unless you are looking for the fall of a capitol somewhere, I don’t know.
Maybe not in the past, but what about in the Age of Obama? I don’t think some of you realize that our weakness on the world stage was part of his transforming of the United States.
Actually, they do, at least until we get a new President. The present one has surrendered American foreign policy to the UN. Which is to say, to Russia and the PRC.
Eric Hines
Claire, I hate to break it to you but look at our culture. Can you find for me anywhere in our culture where the leadership that is needed right now is NOT being ridiculed into submission or pointed to as an example of cis-white-male-dominant bigotry? I’m not saying this is the thinking of much of the American People, but you have to keep in mind the avenue through which our presidential candidates have to propagate their message. This avenue is not conducive to white males (and sorry Rubio and Fiorina are white males to them because they are Republicans) trying to militarily subjugate an area populated by non-white people. To some extent our candidates are scared of what will be said about them and how they will be characterized. Otherwise I find it hard to believe that Rubio, Cruz, or Walker–after all of the leadership these three have shown in other areas–couldn’t be our Churchill regarding ISIL. It just doesn’t jive with me unless you look at it through the lens of apprehension about the media.
I’m not truly disagreeing. I’m expressing astonishment that we’ve so quickly found ourselves in a situation in which it is not politically advantageous to display leadership–in a leadership contest.
I certainly sympathize with what you are saying, and I would wager that many of our top candidates do as well. One hunch is that they are biding their time, that they know Hilldabeast won’t be the next president and that one of them will. And that which ever one it is will be able to do something about ISIL. At least that is my hope. For now, you have to conclude that our candidates don’t want to “Todd Aiken” themselves with regard to ISIL. I don’t know how they could possibly do something like that regarding ISIL, but we are dealing a media populated with folks who hate this country and will do nothing but sabotage any attempt to protect it. Frankly, our biggest threat is the Left in this country, not ISIL.
No, but the rest of the world can put up barriers against the current tendency of the US to utilize the military as a tool of foreign policy. Vladimir Putin has, arguably, done an excellent job of erecting such barriers, and Claire has (more or less) acknowledged such.
Oh, there are plenty of visible things that can be done to the US between what’s already happened at the hands of ISIS and, say, 9/11.
I can’t believe the number of people here and elsewhere who think it’s sufficient to say, “hey, it’s their problem. We should stay out of it.”
This is foolhardy in the extreme. The middle east is vital to the global economy. ISIS is a terrorist organization, and terrorists can move across oceans in ways armies can’t. By ignoring these threats, the U.S. is projecting weakness, and that is being exploited by China, Russia, and other bad actors. By abandoning allies around the world, the U.S. is sending a signal that it is an untrustworthy friend, and that is going to cause other countries to move into the Chinese and Russian sphere of influences.
If the U.S. continues down this path of isolationism, eventually one of these bad actors will cross a line that cannot be ignored. When that happens, the reslting war will be much, much worse than the result of taking action now, which will be much much worse than taking action a year or two ago would have been.
Every day that this problem is ignored is going to result in an increased loss of life and treasure when the inevitable conflict reaches us.
Obama should be telling his generals that he wants a plan to smash ISIS quickly and decisively, and he should not be putting conditions on that plan until it’s developed and can be evaluated. If the only way to do it is to put 20,000 soldiers into combat on the ground, then that’s what has to be done.
My fear is that the military has been purged of the great generals and they have been replaced with political generals and yes-men who will spend more time figuring out how to shape a strategy that will please Obama than on one that will displease ISIS.
The seriousness of this goes across all areas: 1. Major humanitarian crisis that includes rape, murder, torture- humans beings with nowhere to go once the town or country is seized – unspeakable crimes against humanity taking place. 2. Major gateways to pumping and exporting oil which fuels the world! 3. Ancient history, museums, major archaeological sites, religious tombs, being decimated. 4. Ethnic cleansing on a major scale – churches burned, thousands of years of holy history being destroyed from all major religions 5. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons falling into their arsenal – this is just the headlines. Is this not enough??They have sights set on US, Israel and Europe – they’ve said so!… and NO Outcry from every major civilized country banning together to stop this evil?
You don’t think it is coming here for awhile? Think again – they’re here – crossing our and Europe’s porous borders blending with refugees that are fleeing their misery. Terror material and Korans have been found at Mexican border. The cries from ME for help are falling on deaf ears – did we not learn anything from the Holocaust? I am embarrassed and angry at this administration, including the pathetic GOP now in place. Worthless – I cannot rationalize the lack of a united voice here – American and worldwide. Not to mention the shifty trade policy no one knows anything about now called Fast Trade? The Republicans have gone silent and are following orders. I can’t make sense of any of it – too scary.
I don’t believe polling data supports that statement. Not that I want foreign policy decided by polls but the majority of Americans not only want to respond but since February they have been in favor of sending ground troops. What matters however is what the President wants to do. The only reason he is even talking about it is because Americans want something done.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/04/Most-Americans-Want-Obama-Send-Ground-Troops-Battle-ISIS
Rick Perry. If he wants to stand out from the pack this seems like the perfect opportunity, especially since he seems to be emphasizing his military background.
Guys I can sum this up for you really quickly, particularly the question about why there isn’t a unified message from the West regarding ISIL. The foreign policy elites on either side of the Atlantic do not (have not) view(ed) any jihadist group as a real threat. They have always said that we overreacted to 9/11 and furthermore think the current ISIL problem is our creation anyway. That sentiment is especially felt among the European elite. Our own elites think of jihadism as nothing more than a law enforcement issue and that goes back to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid, if not longer.
Many of you guys are searching for military answers when the real question is cultural. We all know that if the US military was unleashed, that ISIL would be rolled up in at most a month. But what would that entail? It would involve doing things that culturally the West just does not have the stomach for any longer. We have a collective bunch of Pajama Boys running our foreign policy, with the King Pajama Boy are Commander in Chief, and you guys expect us to have a hard hitting military solution for ISIL? Just look at what happened this past week with the G-7 summit. Climate change, really? That’s what the leaders of the Western world met over? Our elites think we are all hysterical kooks because they are protected from whatever hell can be unleashed.
Jack Bauer, where are you?
Last time I looked, in a Time article, Rick [redacted] Perry’s plan wasn’t much different than Obama’s. Now granted things could have changed between then and now, but the last thing he put to paper was air strikes and more cooperation with states in the region. So what else do you have?
Agree completely with every word.
One of the bad things about this is that it is referred to as “embracing a new approach.” (I assume the NYT wouldn’t use that terminology without being fed it from the WH, or at least without WH approval.) It suggests a certain muddleheadedness about goals. It suggests that somebody in the administration said, “Yeah, let’s try that for a while, even if we’re not sure why.”
If the WH wanted to fake an air of confidence, determination, and purpose, it would not let the NYT say things like “embracing a new approach” and “major shift of focus.”
Rubio? He has a speedboat? :)
My point is it’s a good opportunity for Perry to establish himself as the mature foreign policy candidate. He doesn’t need to be more hawkish than Lindsey Graham, the “Bomb everyone” candidate, but I want to see exactly how much Perry has developed an overall vision about foreign policy as well as specifics. We have been completely adrift without any comprehensive foreign policy for this entire administration and the world is paying for it.
And quite saying “ISIL” Robert! It’s freaking ISIS. The only ones who say it are you and the administration. :)
Don’t they call themselves ISIL?
Someday they’ll all be Caitlyn.
Larry – great intent, and I agree with the thought. The problem is that it can’t be done in a week. It would take 100% of the available USAF’s airlift capacity and 96 hours to deploy one Stryker-equipped Brigade combat team, (assuming a secure airfield). That’s a combat force of about 3,500 gunfighters, mounted in armored wheeled vehicles. No tanks, no heavy artillery (towed 155’s and 4.2″ mortars only). Lethal? Definitely. Tough and motivated to kick-ass? Absolutely. Enough to lay waste, destroy ISIL, blow-up all their stuff in a week? No way.
A military campaign to decisively defeat ISIL as a coherent force is fully possible, but it can’t be done cheap, it can’t be done in secret, and it would require a national effort on the order of World War II to achieve. Claire’s point is spot on: There are no Republicans currently running who are telling the truth to the American people of what will have to be done to defeat ISIL. Sadly this goes back to G.W. Bush, who never (ever) expressed a clear vision of VICTORY. Obama has merely skulked around the issue, ignoring it because it doesn’t fit into his worldview.
Just because the Obama Administration says it doesn’t make it wrong, although you can be forgiven for thinking so (that is usually a very safe assumption.)
I call them “ISIL” because it is more accurate (regional identity, vice a specific nation-state). Their objectives are not defined by, or limited to, Syria or Iraq. “ISIS” suggests that this a threat bound by arbitrary lines drawn on a map.