Do you Think Obama is Doing Enough to Defeat Isis?

[TotallyOz]

I have tons of friends in the Middle East and many are concerned that Isis is going to continue, fight and keep gaining ground. I tend to agree. It seems this movement is going strong. Why? Is Obama doing enough? Are we doing enough?

[RA1]

By no means are "we" doing enough. Never mind the "right" things. But, that is a separate issue.

Best regards,

RA1

[paulsf]

No. He is a pacifist. I think he can't get thru these next couple of years and let somebody else worry about it.

[MsAnn]

The whole disgusting mess is a black hole. There is no solution, none that I can see anyway. It's interesting how we lay this at the feet of Obama. It's a World problem. What would you have him do? Boots on the ground? Create another long drawn out war like Iraq or Afghanistan? I guess we all remember how well that worked out for us. There's enough blood on the American Flag. Time perhaps for our "friends" (insert roll eyes) in the Middle East to take a more commanding role. They've been at this for a thousand years, they should be good at it by now. OR for once, maybe just maybe, it would be nice to see the Iraqi's get their shit together.

Failing that, word on the street is that Cheney and Busch would gladly come out of retirement. Since they are so good at this "war" thing.

But I digress.

P.S. MsAnn apologizes for the outburst. I do believe the brownies are about to come out of the oven, and I hear the tea pot whistling. I'll retreat to the kitchen now like a good wife should.

[RA1]

Indeed it is a world problem but if the US does not lead, who will? That does not (to me) mean invade and occupy or be the sole opposer. A wide, deep and long coalition would be great.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

Indeed it is a world problem but if the US does not lead, who will?

Best regards,

RA1

How about the Turks, Jordanians, Egyptians, the Suadi's, French, English, Germans and the rest of the EU.

"You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."

[RA1]

Are you serious? At the moment the US is the world leading democracy. Who shall lead if we do not? Certainly not those you mention. They, of course, would be welcome as part of a coalition.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

Are you serious? At the moment the US is the world leading democracy. Who shall lead if we do not? Certainly not those you mention. They, of course, would be welcome as part of a coalition.

Best regards,

RA1

I was talking about the coalition. All the countries I mentioned, with the exception perhaps of the Jordanians, have formidable fighting forces. Of course the Iraqi's didn't make the list. One would have hoped that they could have stepped up to the plate, but that ship apparently already sailed with billions of US dollars on board.

[lookin]

If you ask me, Obama is doing the right things, although I wish he had started a bit sooner.

I've felt for some years that the answer to defeating Middle East terror groups lies primarily in the Middle East. The fact that there are now a few Middle East boots on the ground and a few Middle East planes in the sky is a good thing. But the best thing is that there are now Middle East clerics actually calling the terrorists out for the sociopaths they are, rather than ignoring them or trying to defend them. In my opinion, this is the most significant step yet in trying to rein in ISIS, and my take is that Obama and Kerry are the ones who got it to happen.

A few years ago, I saw a projection that the U. S. would be energy independent within a decade or two. It now appears we are pretty close to that now, and that reduced reliance on business entanglements with the Middle East is another good thing that happened on Obama's watch.

While I think it's good that the U. S. maintains a strong identity as a 'leader', I am much more comfortable in sharing that role with other like-minded nations. It's very easy to fall into the trap of being the 'only' country that can solve the world's problems. No doubt other countries would like for the U. S. to do all the heavy lifting while they enjoy the benefits, but I don't think that's fair to us. For one thing, it puts a huge target on our back alone.

I like the way that Obama and Kerry have spread the responsibility of leadership among more countries. Of course, that means that our interests will not be the only ones represented, and that will be hard for some to accept. But, overall, I think it's a much more tenable position to share the labor and to also share the fruits of that labor.

No doubt, there's a shift involved in going from the 'boss of the world' to being part of a group. In my opinion, it's a necessary shift and there will be discomfort along the way, as there always is with change. It will also happen over months and years, rather than days and weeks. While I would personally like to see that shift sooner rather than later, I believe there's a case to be made for having others ask for our help instead of shoving it down their throats. We already tried that under the Bush administration and we're still cleaning up that mess.

In fact, my feeling is that ISIS came about primarily because of the power vacuums left by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's misadventures in the Middle East. It will take some time to re-stabilize that part of the world and, if it's to remain stable, it will take a lot more than one country and one president to keep it that way.

So, yes, I'm happy with the direction Obama and his team are taking. Even if others may not be.

[MsAnn]

If you ask me, Obama is doing the right things, although I wish he had started a bit sooner.

I've felt for some years that the answer to defeating Middle East terror groups lies primarily in the Middle East. The fact that there are now a few Middle East boots on the ground and a few Middle East planes in the sky is a good thing. But the best thing is that there are now Middle East clerics actually calling the terrorists out for the sociopaths they are, rather than ignoring them or trying to defend them. In my opinion, this is the most significant step yet in trying to rein in ISIS, and my take is that Obama and Kerry are the ones who got it to happen.

A few years ago, I saw a projection that the U. S. would be energy independent within a decade or two. It now appears we are pretty close to that now, and that reduced reliance on business entanglements with the Middle East is another good thing that happened on Obama's watch.

While I think it's good that the U. S. maintains a strong identity as a 'leader', I am much more comfortable in sharing that role with other like-minded nations. It's very easy to fall into the trap of being the 'only' country that can solve the world's problems. No doubt other countries would like for the U. S. to do all the heavy lifting while they enjoy the benefits, but I don't think that's fair to us. For one thing, it puts a huge target on our back alone.

I like the way that Obama and Kerry have spread the responsibility of leadership among more countries. Of course, that means that our interests will not be the only ones represented, and that will be hard for some to accept. But, overall, I think it's a much more tenable position to share the labor and to also share the fruits of that labor.

No doubt, there's a shift involved in going from the 'boss of the world' to being part of a group. In my opinion, it's a necessary shift and there will be discomfort along the way, as there always is with change. It will also happen over months and years, rather than days and weeks. While I would personally like to see that shift sooner rather than later, I believe there's a case to be made for having others ask for our help instead of shoving it down their throats. We already tried that under the Bush administration and we're still cleaning up that mess.

In fact, my feeling is that ISIS came about primarily because of the power vacuums left by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's misadventures in the Middle East. It will take some time to re-stabilize that part of the world and, if it's to remain stable, it will take a lot more than one country and one president to keep it that way.

So, yes, I'm happy with the direction Obama and his team are taking. Even if others may not be.

Excellent synopsis. Mainly because I agree with you of course. Others may not, but that would only mean that they are wrong on this matter.

[MsGuy]

...but that ship apparently already sailed with billions of US dollars on board.

And yet here we go again with 'trainers' and new equipment and more bales of hundred dollar bills thinking, "This time will be different." Arrgh!

I suspect part of the problem is that our culture just does not give us the mental equipment to deal well with a multi-actor game where every player, state or sub-state, is simultaneously competing and cooperating with every other actor.

Just one aspect of the situation:

Sure the current bunch in Bagdad wants to defeat Isis and needs the Kurds right now to do so. But it sure as hell doesn't want to see the US build up Kurdistan so much that the Kurds can retain control of the Kirkuk oilfields after the dust settles. And it wants to peel off some of the Sunni tribes from their support of ISIS but can't offer anything that would allow the tribes to wriggle out from under the thumb of the Shias. Meanwhile each of the Sunni tribes has its separate interests, the various Shia militias on which the Bagdad regime is dependant but over which it has only marginal control go their own way, Iran plays its hand to boost both the militias it finances and the Assad dynasty in Syria. Did I forget to mention that the Kurds have ambitions of their own, have their own fractious political divisions and don't really give a hoot about ISIS except as it threatens what they regard as Greater Kurdistan. And while we're at it, don't leave out that ISIS took and now holds its chunk of Iraq only with the help and consent of disgruntled Sunni tribes and the old Bathist network.

And that's just the briefest of overviews of Iraq. Syria is even more complicated. And we haven't even talked about the different goals of the 'coalition' that the US has assembled to do the fighting.

The reality that any American administration is going to have to deal with is that the more of the heavy lifting the US does on the ground, the more its allies are going to shift their focus to their conflicting end games and jockey for advantages in the aftermath. Why waste resources fighting ISIS if the US will do it for you?

[MsAnn]

And yet here we go again with 'trainers' and new equipment and more bales of hundred dollar bills thinking, "This time will be different." Arrgh!

I suspect part of the problem is that our culture just does not give us the mental equipment to deal well with a multi-actor game where every player, state or sub-state, is simultaneously competing and cooperating with every other actor.

Just one aspect of the situation:

Sure the current bunch in Bagdad wants to defeat Isis and needs the Kurds right now to do so. But it sure as hell doesn't want to see the US build up Kurdistan so much that the Kurds can retain control of the Kirkuk oilfields after the dust settles. And it wants to peel off some of the Sunni tribes from their support of ISIS but can't offer anything that would allow the tribes to wriggle out from under the thumb of the Shias. Meanwhile each of the Sunni tribes has its separate interests, the various Shia militias on which the Bagdad regime is dependant but over which it has only marginal control go their own way, Iran plays its hand to boost both the militias it finances and the Assad dynasty in Syria. Did I forget to mention that the Kurds have ambitions of their own, have their own fractious political divisions and don't really give a hoot about ISIS except as it threatens what they regard as Greater Kurdistan. And while we're at it, don't leave out that ISIS took and now holds its chunk of Iraq only with the help and consent of disgruntled Sunni tribes and the old Bathist network.

And that's just the briefest of overviews of Iraq. Syria is even more complicated. And we haven't even talked about the different goals of the 'coalition' that the US has assembled to do the fighting.

The reality that any American administration is going to have to deal with is that the more of the heavy lifting the US does on the ground, the more its allies are going to shift their focus to their conflicting end games and jockey for advantages in the aftermath. Why waste resources fighting ISIS if the US will do it for you?

Behold, "The Black Hole"

[Suckrates]

Grandma prefers THIS Black hole... So much more appealing and user friendly.

[MsAnn]

Grandma prefers THIS Black hole... So much more appealing and user friendly.

Isn't the Black Hole all part of the "Big Bang Theory?"

In which case I do believe Grandma is on to something here.

[lookin]

Many thanks for all the good viewpoints guys!

I think another lesson we've learned is that the Middle East abhors a power vacuum. For all the things you can say about Saddam Hussein, the man knew how to keep a lid on things. The same hand that held down the Sunnis also held down terrorist groups that weren't working for him. There was no power vacuum in Saddam's Iraq.

There's no power vacuum in Saudi Arabia either. State beheadings, yes, but not so much from terrorists.

I'm not as knowledgeable as you folks, but there seems to be a pretty good correlation between repressive governments and a lack of terrorist groups. So that makes me wonder if we should be so quick to support the overthrow of tyrants until we have something better in mind.

I don't know much about Assad, but I'm wondering how much worse he is than an Islamic Caliphate that's bringing in aimless psychopaths to Syria from all over the world and sending them back to us as committed psychopaths. Should we have thought it through another step before we dropped him like a hot kebab?

I don't know the answer, but it seems like maybe we should think twice before we throw the bully out with the Ba'athwater.

[MsGuy]

1) ISIS guys aren't psychopaths, lookin, or no more so than most men that tote guns and shoot people. They're just folks who would cheerfully saw off you head with a dull knife to make a point (& post a video of it on YouTube afterwards). Not the same thing at all. Seriously, that's not the same.

2) Bush #1's people said back in the '90s that the reason he didn't knock off Saddam the first time around was he was worried about events in Iraq spinning out of our control if he brought down Saddam.

[MsAnn]

Well on the one hand, you guys are indeed correct on both counts regarding Saddam. We were afraid of a power vaccum, and yes he did manage to keep a lid on things, but that comes with a price of ethnic cleansing. We often turn our heads the other way, when it suits us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/middleeast/05iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

[AdamSmith]

2) Bush #1's people said back in the '90s that the reason he didn't knock off Saddam the first time around was he was worried about events in Iraq spinning out of our control if he brought down Saddam.

Exactly. George H.W. -- and Colin Powell, at that time Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- specifically decided to end the Kuwait blitz after 100 hours and not chase Saddam all the way to Baghdad because they knew, "You break it, you own it." And could see no way it was worth getting stuck doing post-Saddam nation-building there.

[AdamSmith]

Re: Saddam's ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, there is the argument that the U.S. reaching out more or less unilaterally (+ Tony Blair for what that was worth) and taking out a sovereign government in Iraq -- not to mention botching the aftermath even beyond our fundamental miscalculations about the aftermath in the first place -- ended up damaging our moral authority around the world, thus our ability over the long run to help the downtrodden etc., in ways that far more than offset the "good" of stopping Saddam. That is, that Bush/Cheney may end up responsible for having destroyed American exceptionalism.

Never mind the hundreds of thousands of casualties in the chaos following our actions in Iraq.

Nor our role in propping up Saddam in the first place.

Nor the extent to which the drain of the trillion-plus dollars and counting that we've spent there has damaged our national security, it being based far more today on economic strength (and everything that buys, guns and butter and economic leverage over enemies and frenemies abroad) than on anything else.

[MsAnn]

Re: Saddam's ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, there is the argument that the U.S. reaching out more or less unilaterally (+ Tony Blair for what that was worth) and taking out a sovereign government in Iraq -- not to mention botching the aftermath even beyond our fundamental miscalculations about the aftermath in the first place -- ended up damaging our moral authority around the world, thus our ability over the long run to help the downtrodden etc., in ways that far more than offset the "good" of stopping Saddam. That is, that Bush/Cheney may end up responsible for having destroyed American exceptionalism.

Never mind the hundreds of thousands of casualties in the chaos following our actions in Iraq.

Nor our role in propping up Saddam in the first place.

Nor the extent to which the drain of the trillion-plus dollars and counting that we've spent there has damaged our national security, it being based far more today on economic strength (and everything that buys, guns and butter and economic leverage over enemies and frenemies abroad) than on anything else.

Precisely MsGuy. In my view there is no argument, that's exactly what happened, and the same point that Putin gladly throws back in our face, whenever we run for the moral high ground. We're good at, we're passionate when we talk about American "exceptionalism," that speech is well rehearsed, but the facts remain, that we took a beating on the world stage, and we walked away, or are trying to walk away with a lot of blood on our hands.

History is a funny thing, depending on who's telling, the truth rarely comes through.

[TotallyOz]

I have friends from Syria and they are peaceful, fun-loving and very accepting people. They have not been able to visit their homeland for many years and it breaks their heart that this is what is happening. They have also said that there are so many beautiful places in Syria that no one could believe the true beauty. Has anyone here ever been there?

Hundreds of Christians were kidnapped today. Museums and antiquities stolen.

[boiworship]

Must read about ISIS in the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

It truly is a traditionalist Islamic movement.

[AdamSmith]

I have friends from Syria and they are peaceful, fun-loving and very accepting people. They have not been able to visit their homeland for many years and it breaks their heart that this is what is happening. They have also said that there are so many beautiful places in Syria that no one could believe the true beauty. Has anyone here ever been there?

Hundreds of Christians were kidnapped today. Museums and antiquities stolen.

A Syrian friend of mine says the same things. Heartbreaking.

Also too, too terrible the antiquities just destroyed in Mosul.

In 1992 I saw an awe-inspiring exhibition of ancient Near Eastern art and artifacts at the National Gallery in DC. While the docent wasn't looking I actually touched the stele of the Code of Hammurabi. (Pretty sure that hardness-scale-10 diorite didn't suffer as a result.)

Have been wondering if any of the fragile sandstone stele and statuary just lost were among the things I saw that day.

[AdamSmith]

Something, anyway.

Did ISIS Smash Fake Sculptures in Mosul? Experts say Many of Them Were Replicas

Brian Boucher, Friday, February 27, 2015

Artnet News

ISIS militants smash artworks in Mosul in their latest propaganda video.

While no one should take ISIS to be any less of a threat than it is, we might take some small consolation from the possibility that some of the sculptures the militants smashed on video this week at the Nineveh Museum in Mosul, Iraq, were replicas. While an Assyrian stone lion smashed in the videos is indisputably a terrible loss, the destruction of replicas in this particular case may soften the blow.

"According to archaeologists, most if not all the statues in the Mosul museum are replicas not originals," reports Channel 4 News, London. “The reason they crumble so easily is that they're made of plaster. ‘You can see iron bars inside," pointed out Mark Altaweel of the Institute of Archaeology at University College, London, as we watched the video together. ‘The originals don't have iron bars.'"

“According to the British Institute," adds Channel 4, “the originals were taken to Baghdad for safekeeping. ISIS probably wouldn't care about the distinction. One false idol is the same as another."

All the same, reaction around the world has been swift and horrified (see The Metropolitan Museum and Others Respond to ISIS Destruction of Assyrian Sculptures). ISIS has also done a brisk business in smuggling antiquities out of the region for sale on foreign markets (see Increase in Antiquities Smuggling Busts amidst Government Crackdown), though the international trade is mostly focused on smaller items.

Why are the militants so bent on destruction of the region's cultural heritage? Amr al-Azm, a Syrian anthropologist and historian, told the New York Times that the destruction of artworks, and the slaughter and capture of Assyrians and others in the area that it accompanied, are strategic. While the militants claim that they are smashing the sculptures because they are idols forbidden by Islam, he posits that “It's all a provocation" aimed to lure U.S. and Iraqi forces to try to retake Mosul. “They want a fight with the West because that's how they gain credibility and recruits," Azm said.

ISIS has “repeatedly threatened to destroy [the museum's] collection," according to the Times, since they took the city in June.

http://news.artnet.com/art-world/did-isis-smash-fake-sculptures-in-mosul-271776

[BigK]

Exactly. George H.W. -- and Colin Powell, at that time Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- specifically decided to end the Kuwait blitz after 100 hours and not chase Saddam all the way to Baghdad because they knew, "You break it, you own it." And could see no way it was worth getting stuck doing post-Saddam nation-building there.

Sort of like how Carter broke Iran.