How rah, rah YAY War! will US Media Outlets be?

[The Notorious]

Watching the Republicans should be interesting. The GOP heavily backed the surge in Afghanistan early in Obama's presidency. But five years into his presidency, and there is far less desire for interventionism among congressional Republicans. That's the front to watch.

Democrats will back airstrikes and similar actions. Only ground troops could seriously jeopardize Democratic support for President Obama's actions. While the professional protest left will be against it, they won't swing opinion in the party.

The buy-in from the conservatives have been quite an interest change from 2013. I think we'll see congressional Republicans switching their vote this time.

[Shryke]

The buy-in from the conservatives have been quite an interest change from 2013. I think we'll see congressional Republicans switching their vote this time.

The GOP loves war that supports their narrative. Scary Muslims is completely their narrative.

So I expect, as someone said earlier, that the GOP will support the intervention and then criticize Obama's prosecution of it.

[Fragile Bird]

ISIS relies on funding and recruits. When they dry up, what happens?

Look, we know we can't change the hearts and minds of people against their will. And, short of permanent occupation, our military cannot ensure good behavior. So what is the alternative? How about picking our battles more wisely?

ISIS loots every bank in the communities they take control of. I think the last estimate I saw suggested they have a billion dollars in the kitty. And in addition to that, new recruits bring funds raised in their communities with them when they show up to join the battle. I heard an interview with a journalist (I think he was an Australian) who has had more interviews with the ISIS crowd than anyone else, and he suggested recruits were averaging $30,000 with them when they show up.

[lokisnow]

Andrew Sullivan absolutely kills it today, scathing on the media (fwiw, I consider this thread to be about the media support or opposition to the war).

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/11/a-pragmatism-too-far/

It’s extremely hard to reconcile the events of the past month or so with the rationale of the Obama presidency. And that’s what makes this capitulation to hysteria so profoundly depressing. I can see the simple pragmatism behind it: the president under-estimated the strength and tenacity of these maniacs, and feared they could make further gains, plunging the region into a new turmoil. The media and the elites all jumped into full metal panic mode and created a powerful momentum for action. In fact, the elite consensus in favor of attacking ISIS was, until last night, at least, eerily reminiscent of the elite consensus in favor of going to war in Iraq in 2003 – without the year or so of debate. If you’re Obama, you do not believe you can really solve this problem, but you need to do something, both to stave off possible disaster, to guard against potential ISIS expansion, and to try and rescue the Iraqi “state” one more time. So you rely on air-power, you corral the Saudis to help train and fund Sunni opposition to ISIS, you funnel some arms to the “moderate” Syrian rebels … and hope for the best.

What this misses in its flexibility is that it comes at the cost of profound incoherence. Presidencies need a grand narrative if they are to succeed. Obama’s was a simple one: to slowly rescue the US from the economic and foreign policy nadir that Bush-Cheney bequeathed us. We would slowly climb back out of the hole of fiscal recklessness and financial corruption into a saner, calmer period of slow but steady growth. We would slowly de-leverage from counter-productive over-reach in the war on Islamist terrorism. We would end two wars. We would begin nation-building at home – in the form of universal health insurance and badly needed infrastructure improvement. Above all, we would not be jerked back and forth by Islamist fanatics abroad, seeking to chart a course of steady strategic retrenchment.

Now, of course, this was never going to be a linear path. I feared back in 2009 that withdrawing from Iraq might look a lot like withdrawal from Vietnam. That it took place without a bloodbath or national humiliation was a triumph of optics and luck and bribery. But I was never under any illusion that the “surge” had succeeded in its own terms. We had no guarantee that Iraq would not return almost instantly to the sectarian distrust, hatred and violence that have been integral to its existence for decades. Kurdistan could work – but the rest remains ungovernable, except by tyranny and terror. And so yet another spasm of Shi’a-Sunni violence seemed inevitable to me. But at least, we would no longer be sitting in the middle.

I don’t buy for a second the lame idea that if the US had kept a residual force there – despite Baghdad’s express wishes – we would have avoided the current turmoil. We couldn’t control or end it with a hundred thousand of the best-trained troops in the world. What chance would 10,000 advisers have to counter the weight of history and the cycle of revenge? So there would come a point at which Iraq would implode again and the US might be tempted to intervene. I naïvely thought no sane American, after the Iraq War, would ever support that. I foolishly believed we would not be able to instantly erase – like an Etch-A-Sketch – all that we so painfully learned in that catastrophe.

What I under-estimated was the media’s ability to generate mass panic and hysteria and the Beltway elite’s instant recourse to the language of war. I believed that Obama was stronger than this, that he could actually resist this kind of emotional spasm and speak to us like grown-ups about what we can and cannot do about a long, religious war in the Middle East, that doesn’t threaten us directly. But he spoke to us like children last night, assuming the mantle of the protective daddy we had sought in Bush and Cheney, evoking the rhetoric he was elected to dispel.

What the president doesn’t seem to understand is that this dramatic U-turn isn’t just foolish on its own national security terms; it is devastating to him politically. He is now playing on Cheney’s turf, not his own. His core supporters, like yours truly, regarded our evolution from that Cheney mindset one of Obama’s key achievements – and he tossed it away last night almost casually. He committed himself and us to a victory we cannot achieve in two countries we cannot control with the aid of allies we cannot trust. And, worse, he has done so by evading the key Constitutional requirement that a declaration of war be made by the Congress. He is actually relying on the post-9/11 authorization of military force against al Qaeda in Afghanistan to wage war in Syria (in violation of international law) and in Iraq.

This is not just a betrayal of a core principle of his presidency – a restoration of normality – it is a rebuke to his own statements. This is what the president said last year:

We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

His speech last night was an argument for doing exactly what he said we should not do a year ago. He has made no attempt to explain why he has completely changed his mind – except to react emotionally to a vile off-shoot of another Sunni insurgency in Iraq. This does not only mean his administration no longer has a coherent narrative, it also means he is utterly hostage to forces abroad he cannot control. His refusal to go to Congress for a prolonged open-ended campaign in Syria is also utterly inconsistent with his decision a year ago to go to Congress before even considering punitive air-strikes in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

If he believed he needed to go to Congress for that limited engagement, how on earth can he argue with a straight face that he does not need to now? It makes no sense – and no one in the administration has been able to make a persuasive case for this walking contradiction.

That seems to me to leave us with a small chance to nip this in the bud. I believe that the administration needs to get direct authorization from the Congress to re-enter the Iraqi theater and enter the Syrian one by October 7 – 60 days since the first air-strike. Again, this is completely consistent with Obama’s previous positions. We have to break the war machine’s ability to do what it will without any constitutional checks upon it. We need to demand a full debate and a serious declaration of war. We are, after all, planning at least a three-year campaign in Syria, without the Syrian government’s approval, and in violation of international law. How can we do that without direct Congressional authority – especially when the administration has declared that ISIS is not a threat to the homeland?

Maybe there are enough Democratic and Republican skeptics in the Senate to force a vote. Even if they lose, such a vote would at least force these cowards to own a war they are acquiescing in, to share the full responsibility and face the voters, and to be subsequently accountable for its failures or modest success. And if an open-ended war against an entity that has not attacked the US or plans to do so is not something that the Congress should approve, then we really are an empire, and not a republic. We are an empire with an executive branch that controls war and peace, that launches covert and overt wars, that keeps the US on permanent offense across the globe, creating as much terror as it prevents, and entangling us in one more sectarian vortex of fickle friends and mortal foes.

I refuse to cave into depressed acquiescence to this machine, even as it has now captured the one president who promised to restrain it. The only way to do this is to build a strong campaign – not least among Obama supporters – that no war be continued past October 7 without full Congressional debate and formal authorization.

Are we able to prevent the US from entering another nightmarish engagement in a part of the world that rewards no one?

Repeat after me: Yes. We. Can.

[Jon Sprunk]

That's what's going on here. That's why it's a bombing campaign and not an invasion.

Except none of those have actually worked except for Iraq and Iran because those were actually countries and thus easier to cut off.

Plus, you know, the dirty secret that US allies in Saudi Arabia and the like are the major bankrollers of most of these groups. Smarter and more informed people generally seem to think little can be done because of issues like that.

The US should not be blundering into this mess like the proverbial bull. Yes, yes, we're only bombing and sending "advisors." But I'm far from convinced that any military action on our part is going to make this mess any better. Most likely, our involvement makes it worse.

Until we end the reasons that draw people to these movements, we're just pouring gasoline on the fire and wondering why it keeps spreading.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jon,

This fire has been blazing for some small amount of time. I don't see how we can make it worse by providing competent opposition to ISIS.

[S John]

What ISIS has accomplished is moderately impressive, but they do not actually scare me at all. They are just the latest boogie man, the new al-queda, the new threat that we 'can't afford to ignore' in order to justify military action. They've done some medieval shit. On a sort of universal morality scale, I'm not gonna lose one wink of sleep when the ringleaders of this organization are vaporized in an air strike. I hope that happens to them soon.

BUT. At some point we need to break the cycle of intervention in that part of the world OR accept that not only will it never be at peace, but we will always be knee deep in shit halfway around the world in a region where Americans have no business killing and dying. I completely agree that IS is terrible and needs to be destroyed, but we, the US, continue to help perpetuate the cycle of violence through our involvement in a number of very complex conflicts that we clearly do not fully understand.

How many countries and factions are there in that region who receive military support and funding from the United States? Someone please tell me why in the fuck we are giving them, training them to use, or selling them ANY piece of military hardware if any time things get a little hairy in their own back yard it is still going to fall to the United States to deal with it. Fuck that. There are a number of countries in that area with powerful militaries - and we would know, having significantly contributed to them.

[S John]

Sorry for the double:

I would draw my personal line of intervention at preventing IS from toppling a country that has nuclear weapons. Other than that, if this is a major cause for concern for regional powers in the area - then how about they get together and fucking do something about it.

Instead you have a power who is much hated in the region - the United States - shouldering the burden and the blame in what is going to be a thankless job and likely another lengthy bloody slog through the heat, dust, and bullshit that is the ME.

[The Notorious]

And here's the buy-in:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-congress-syria-20140911-story.html

Conngress, once reluctant to take a stand on fighting Islamic militants overseas, now appears eager to do so, as Republicans in the House largely backed President Obama's proposal to arm Syrian rebels.

A vote could come as soon as next week, and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday in public and private sessions that the country should unite behind the administration, even as questions persist.

"We only have one commander in chief," Boehner said. “At this point in time it’s important that we give the president what he’s asking for.”

"Our House Democratic caucus stands with the president," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the minority leader.

[Shryke]

What ISIS has accomplished is moderately impressive, but they do not actually scare me at all. They are just the latest boogie man, the new al-queda, the new threat that we 'can't afford to ignore' in order to justify military action. They've done some medieval shit. On a sort of universal morality scale, I'm not gonna lose one wink of sleep when the ringleaders of this organization are vaporized in an air strike. I hope that happens to them soon.

BUT. At some point we need to break the cycle of intervention in that part of the world OR accept that not only will it never be at peace, but we will always be knee deep in shit halfway around the world in a region where Americans have no business killing and dying. I completely agree that IS is terrible and needs to be destroyed, but we, the US, continue to help perpetuate the cycle of violence through our involvement in a number of very complex conflicts that we clearly do not fully understand.

How many countries and factions are there in that region who receive military support and funding from the United States? Someone please tell me why in the fuck we are giving them, training them to use, or selling them ANY piece of military hardware if any time things get a little hairy in their own back yard it is still going to fall to the United States to deal with it. Fuck that. There are a number of countries in that area with powerful militaries - and we would know, having significantly contributed to them.

Because you aren't giving them arms so they can fight every battle on their own. You are doing it to make allies.

[Jon Sprunk]

Jon,

This fire has been blazing for some small amount of time. I don't see how we can make it worse by providing competent opposition to ISIS.

Scot,

This is pretty much the defense of every foreign military intervention, and more often than not it's wrong when it comes to this part of the world. Because we always fail to learn the crucial lesson: military force cannot fix social problems. It cannot defeat an ideology. If we "defeat" ISIS/ISIL now, it will metastasize to other areas, which we will then drone/bomb, causing it to spread somewhere else. It's a neverending game of whack-a-mole.

Plus, no one has demonstrated that ISIL/ISIS is even as dangerous to US interests as Saddam was, and a lot of us here think the invasion of Iraq was a pretty bad decision....

[S John]

Because you aren't giving them arms so they can fight every battle on their own. You are doing it to make allies.

What lovely friends they've all been.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jon,

What ISIS is doing to anyone who disagrees with their bizarre version of Islam is more than a mere "social problem". They're killing people for having the temerity to disagree and they're going after new territory. They have an expressed desire to expand. I say stop them before they get any bigger rather than waiting for them to reach our or our allies shores.

By your logic we had no business fighting against Nazi Germany. They hadn't attacked us.

[lokisnow]

Sorry for the double:

I would draw my personal line of intervention at preventing IS from toppling a country that has nuclear weapons. Other than that, if this is a major cause for concern for regional powers in the area - then how about they get together and fucking do something about it.

Instead you have a power who is much hated in the region - the United States - shouldering the burden and the blame in what is going to be a thankless job and likely another lengthy bloody slog through the heat, dust, and bullshit that is the ME.

Nailed it. The middle east can deal with this shit on their own. Doesn't matter if they are bad guys, that doesn't make our actions a "good war."

To quote from same amazing film mentioned before (the Americanization of Emily):

It's the virtue of war that's the fraud, not war itself. It's the valor and the self-sacrifice and the goodness of war that needs the exposing.

And here's the buy-in:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-congress-syria-20140911-story.html

Throw all the bums out.

[Galactus]

I think the last estimate I saw suggested they have a billion dollars in the kitty.

That's... Honestly not a lot.

[Galactus]

They are just the latest boogie man, the new al-queda, the new threat that we 'can't afford to ignore' in order to justify military action.

They're really not Al-Qaeda. They're the taliban, just the taliban stuck in a much more unstable and important context. Unlike Al-qaida bombing the shit out of them is a perfectly decent solution, especially if others do the mopping-up.

[Jon Sprunk]

Jon,

What ISIS is doing to anyone who disagrees with their bizarre version of Islam is more than a mere "social problem". They're killing people for having the temerity to disagree and they're going after new territory. They have an expressed desire to expand. I say stop them before they get any bigger rather than waiting for them to reach our or our allies shores.

By your logic we had no business fighting against Nazi Germany. They hadn't attacked us.

Every problem is not ours to solve. Let's start there. There are so many bad actors on the world stage, your argument is begging for eternal warfare. Or world conquest "in the name of peace."

And if we're really comparing ISIS/ISIL to Nazi Germany, then the conversation is over.

Honest questions: if ISIS/ISIL is so bad, why aren't we sending the full armed forces to take care of them? Should we? Raise your hand if you'd like to see another US invasion in the ME, followed by a lengthy occupation to "ensure the peace," with a trillion dollars of spending and rebuilding, after which we will leave the region in worse shape than it is right now.....

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Jon,

What ISIS is doing to anyone who disagrees with their bizarre version of Islam is more than a mere "social problem". They're killing people for having the temerity to disagree and they're going after new territory. They have an expressed desire to expand. I say stop them before they get any bigger rather than waiting for them to reach our or our allies shores.

By your logic we had no business fighting against Nazi Germany. They hadn't attacked us.

The Nazis had seized control of one of the world's most industrially and militarily advanced nations, ISIS controls territory in one of the world's poorest regions. They might be as evil as the Nazis, but they have far less power.

Also, the Nazis declared war on us.

[Galactus]

Every problem is not ours to solve.

"With great power there must always come great responsibility."

[Jon Sprunk]

“There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for.”