An Article on ISIS

[Zarathustra]

Sadly, part of the President's plan--remember that he has part of a plan!--is to work with and arm some Syrian rebels, the same group he said only one month ago that we would neither work with nor arm. I thought I felt the wind change directions!

This is the same group who sold the beheaded journalist to ISIS! Now they're our ground forces in Syria???

We cannot defeat ISIS without boots on the ground. Obama is counting on the Iraqi army--which completely collapsed at the first sign of ISIS--to now be able to defeat them with our air support? That means we'll have to coordinate our strikes with these cowards and (over in Syria) slightly less radical radicals.

What happens if one of our planes is shot down, and we don't have ground troops to retrieve our pilot? ISIS beheads our journalists, just imagine what they'll do with our soldiers. When that hits Youtube, people here are going to go nuts.

You don't go to war half way. You go in to win, all in. Overwhelming force. Anything less only increases the risk to our men.

For instance, we will never know for sure WHY GWB went to war in Iraq. We only know, for sure, certain facts: it wasn't because they were allied with AQ or connected with 9/11. Cuz they weren't. We not only know it now, we knew it then. It WASN't because they had WMD's...cuz they didn't. Not only known now, but known then.

Everyone, including our allies, the Dems in Congress, and even Russia, thought Saddam had WMDs. If we knew it then, it would have been impossible for Bush to have convinced anyone. This is just a repeated myth.

No, Iraq wasn't connected with 9/11. But neither is ISIS. Nor was Libya. Nor is Syria. I think Bush just wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse to get rid of the on-going problem, and yes threat, of Saddam. We weren't 'containing' him for nothing. The international community wasn't watching, and occasionally dropping bombs on him, for nothing. You can still disagree with doing it, but it was authorized by Congress, many of the people who later became critics of it for political reasons.

[finn]

I think Z that given the drive to invade Iraq, WMDs was a specious argument to arrive at a rationale for invasion; there is a fair bit of testimony of cherry picking of intelligence even in the face of warnings by the intelligence agencies that certain "evidence" was very shallow. I agree that there were many so called leaders who followed the mob rather than led it and then jumped ship from one view to another when hindsight eventually caught up.

However and with hindsight, I think the threat Saddam posed was starting talks with the Germans about allowing Oil to be purchased in Euros instead of US dollars. Interestingly, Chavez and Gaddhafi also wanted to trade oil not using the US dollar and more recently still, China and Russia will not conduct their gas trade in US dollars.

However to the point, I think IS should be located, isolated and put down as soon as possible. I think Obama is vascillating whilst trying to give an impression of determination. I think your points about boots on the ground and the deficiencies of the Iraq army above Z are well made.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

OTOH...the war powers and AUMF...are you SURE they are unconstitutional?

Yes, because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to cede any of its powers or responsibilities onto the Executive. Those powers were all separated for a reason and that reason was so that too much power wouldn't wind up in the hands of one group or one person.
At this time, our President, regardless of who might occupy that position, has the ability to order military action whenever and wherever he feels like it. Political science already has a term for an Executive with essentially absolute control over the military and unchecked discretion with regards to its use, and that term is "despot". (Many people would say "dictator" but technically a dictator is an Executive appointed by a Legislative body specifically for the purpose of conducting a war, after which the dictator's term of office and powers come to an end.)

Why don't we go ahead and change the title from "President of the United States" to "Caesar"?

One might want to ponder the fact that, according to the article, the admin. wanted the authority that exists to be repealed, but is now using it.
Who's fault is that?
Perhaps the people who DIDN't REPEAL it?
Cuz they have no damn problem with the authorization/argument. They LIKE it.
They only have a problem with the particular person who currently HAS it.

Precisely. No Republican (well, almost none of them) had a problem with Bush using and abusing all that Executive authority but as soon as someone else from the other major party was in office they all began to harrumph (see, I spelled it correctly now, TF) but never actually did anything about it.
There are two reasons no one in Congress wants to change things: 1) if they did, then they would have to reassert that authority which means they would be responsible for declaring war on enemies and they don't want the responsibility and 2) by forcing the Executive to take action Congress can blame someone else if something bad happens--"it wasn't our fault because we didn't do it".

You don't go to war half way. You go in to win, all in. Overwhelming force. Anything less only increases the risk to our men.

Absolutely. Although I recommend getting out and staying out, if you are going to go in then you don't send it ten thousand or twenty thousand or even fifty thousand; rather, you send in two hundred and fifty thousand backed by air and artillery support and you shoot every human who doesn't surrender. This is basic Sun Tzu teaching--claim victory before you enter the battlefield and victory is most easily claimed by overwhelming force.

[Vraith]

This is just a repeated myth.

It isn't a myth. There are a large number of folk who were in the position to know...from Senate Intelligence, to the CiA, to the U.N., to the Brit's...who knew it, and they all say the admin. was informed.
[[IIRC, there was even a cabinet member who said W. started planning to go after Iraq in his first month in office...well before 9/11, and the Iraq pursuit]]

OTOH...the war powers and AUMF...are you SURE they are unconstitutional?

Yes, because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to cede any of its powers or responsibilities onto the Executive.

Yes, I know that's the argument. And it probably should be interpreted/applied that way.
But the Const. doesn't FORBID delegation of authority, I don't think.
And there is a difference...I say delegate on purpose. Because to cede implies to give away, give up permanently. Delegation, otoh, is more limited. Ultimate authority still rests with the delegator. They can take it back.

But, back on topic, basically:
I've been trying to find out exactly WHO told the Sotloff family that he was sold by moderate Syrian rebels.
And no one knows...or if they do, they aren't saying.
All they say is "sources on the ground."
Also no one knows...or if they do, they aren't saying...
what group it was who had/sold him.
The FBI apparently says they're still investigating, but so far it doesn't seem to be true.
The Syrian groups, of course, are saying it didn't happen.
I don't see any reason to believe any side at this point.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Agreed. It is impossible to believe anything since we aren't actually there looking into the situation for ourselves.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

IS activity in Syria has caused 130,000 refugees to flee to Turkey; more than a million refugees have already fled Syria to Turkey in the last couple of years because of the rebels fighting against Assad.

This is one thing that sets IS apart from its predecessors like Al Queda--at least AQ would probably leave you alone if you are Muslim. The IS, though, will shoot you if you aren't the "right kind" of Muslim.

Now...if you think the United States has something against Muslims, consider what China has done to to its Muslim population in Xinjiang Province.

[Vraith]

This is one thing that sets IS apart from its predecessors like Al Queda--at least AQ would probably leave you alone if you are Muslim. The IS, though, will shoot you if you aren't the "right kind" of Muslim.

Now...if you think the United States has something against Muslims, consider what China has done to to its Muslim population in Xinjiang Province.

Well, the first is misleading. Much of the reason Syria is in trouble is cuz the Gov't is a minority Muslim group suppressing a majority one. That is true in a number of nations. And there are any number of terrorist and rebel groups of religious sects killing folk of other sects of their own religion.

And to be fair to China [in a backhanded way]...they, for the most part, clamp down on plenty of religions, not just Islamic ones. So they're at least consistent. And there is some evidence [though it is China...reliable info is problematic] that the Uighur weren't just peacefully minding their own business.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes, I oversimplified some things a little but the base argument is still sound--the IS is more of a danger to Muslims than external threats are.

Agreed--China cracks down on all religions, not just Muslims. Most Uighurs probably don't really consider themselves 'Chinese' in the same sense that people from the Eastern provinces do.