I think we would attract a larger and more generous coalition if we took such a humanitarian approach. Even if it failed in the goal of reducing extremism, at least we would have accomplished something worthy.
Doing the world a bunch of favors is noble, but unwise; it is neither practical or safe. And opening our borders, as it were, will not reduce extremism in the slightest. If anything it will bring it here or strengthen what hold it does have elsewhere.
Even though the US is taking the lead in this fight, what is the responsibility that other countries (our allies) have? Inviting the world to the US under the pretense of asylum will not change the strategic/tactical situation and I am not sure what it would convey to our allies except that they would say, “Oh that is nice”. Germany and Britain and Australia and whomever else are not going to change their stance because we look nicer than the already nice that we are.
Western military intervention does not seem to have addressed the root cause of terrorism, so why continue down that road?
It has not eliminated the root cause but it addresses the immediate situation. The fewer terrorists there are, the less damage that can be done to us, our allies or innocent bystanders.
Also, what is the root cause? Do the experts even know? My impression is that it is no one thing, but a combination of different factors. Ultimately, the root is some-thing philosophical or theological. These are beliefs, cultural and otherwise, which cannot be changed by anything we do or say. The extremists or practitioners must themselves decide to no longer subscribe to it. It is impractical to do this through education and it has been repeatedly shown that negotiation is not an option.
I would offer that one of the best ways to eliminate the root causes of radical islamic terrorism is to eliminate the leaders and teachers of it. As I said above, they cannot be swayed or convinced to give up their beliefs with argument. The only way to end it would be to ensure that there is an overwhelming civilian and governmental majority of those who oppose the extremists or who do not stand for their intimidation. The only way this can be done is through reducing the number of extremists. That means killing them.
For the record, this is all theoretical. I personally believe that extremism in some form or another will always exist and cannot be eliminated from the earth. But it can always be blown to relative insignificance when it arises.
Also, without such humanitarian intervention, you can be certain than the millions of Syrians displaced by war will produce the desperate conditions that allows terrorism to thrive.
That, again, is impractical for us to control or deal with. It’s not like rebuilding Europe after World War II, or even Japan for that matter. Islamic terrorism is international and has no borders. It can thrive just as easily in Africa or Germany as it can in Syria. I would also dispute that terrorism (of the radical islamic variety) is primarily or significantly a product of poverty and destruction; that would imply they are no more than warlords and gangs. Islamic terrorism is a trans-national, religious mandate. It may be easier to prey on the weak population in a bereft country, but first the religious component has to exist.
As we have seen with Iraq, there is really no way to nation-build in the middle-east. Not effectively, anyway. The region is so unstable that all of NATO, let alone the US itself, could not hope to address all the geopolitical problems and havens for terrorists such that a democratic state can gain a foothold for any length of time. It is a very hard issue and not one with an overall perfect answer I think.
The simple and moderately successful solution, currently, is to pinpoint the bad guys and kill them.
I would offer that one of the best ways to eliminate the root causes of radical islamic terrorism is to eliminate the leaders and teachers of it.
What attracts people to those leaders and teachers in the first place?
I suggest the major factors are oppression, alienation, and poverty.
There will always be some angry or insane person ready to lead/teach, but acquiring followers takes something more.
From what I understand (and my understanding, like just about everyone else, is limited) a big source of ISIS support is the widespread feeling among Sunnis (formerly the hegemonic ethnic/religous group in Iraq) that the US and the Iraqi puppet state have sold them out. Iraqi society and overall standard of living having steadily declined since the wars began. The oil industry–formerly nationalized and a source of wealth for the Iraqi economy–is now in the hands of western corporate power.
In other words, ISIS is just as much an anti-imperialist movement as a fundamentalist movement.
We can safely doubt that there would be much discussion about redeploying to Iraq if there weren’t so many oil resources at stake. In fact, there are still plenty of western military contractors deployed in Iraq to protect those resources.
This gets us back to the original reason for the war–that Saddam couldn’t be trusted with so much wealth with which he could buy weapons that could be used against Israel and other neighboring states.
I don’t dispute that ISIS is a dangerous phenomenon and that the rights of Kurds and Shiites should be protected. But it seems like Sunnis in Iraq and Syria don’t feel like they have an alternative. If the West wants Iraqis to support our puppet state, then we need to find a way to give Iraqis the same level of security, material comfort and well-being that they experienced under Saddam. That may be impossible at this point, making this a no-win situation for all parties involved. Recall that back in 2003 President Bush assured Iraqis that the USA would overthrow Saddam and then leave.
All that said, it’s also possible that ISIS is an element of the overall Western strategic plan for the region. We have a track record of encouraging similar groups in Libya and Syria and our ally Saudi Arabia has a related religious/political ideology. This Alex Jonesy hypothesis may sound crazy, but sadly, we live in a crazy world. Sometimes it seems like there is a kind of public relations campaign to convince Westerners that Arabs are too barbaric to govern themselves and they should be ruled by dictators with the West safely in possession of valuable resources.
All that said, it’s also possible that ISIS is an element of the overall Western strategic plan for the region. We have a track record of encouraging similar groups in Libya and Syria and our ally Saudi Arabia has a related religious/political ideology. This Alex Jonesy hypothesis may sound crazy, but sadly, we live in a crazy world. Sometimes it seems like there is a kind of public relations campaign to convince Westerners that Arabs are too barbaric to govern themselves and they should be ruled by dictators with the West safely in possession of valuable resources.
It’s not all that far fetched and there are certainly related things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
To be frank - it’s a good strategy if that’s our intent. I am in full agreement that it’s possibly deliberate.
#1 - there are lots of different extremists, and it’s better to have your enemies fighting your enemies
#2 - It’s better that they are fighting over there, than bringing it all to your local downtown core.
#3 - The existence of extremists, and their ever present threat, validates gobs of military spending, which to some degree maintains a system of relative and balanceable world social stability.
It is a matter of time before boots do land on the ground outside of the few thousand we have there currently. Whether you agree with it or not, if you ask the military to solve a problem, they are going to give you a military solution every time.
I honestly believe if we would have kept about 10,000 soldiers there after 2011, we wouldn’t be in this mess. It also would have been a heck of a lot cheaper than going back in blind.
To be frank - it’s a good strategy if that’s our intent. I am in full agreement that it’s possibly deliberate.
#1 - there are lots of different extremists, and it’s better to have your enemies fighting your enemies
#2 - It’s better that they are fighting over there, than bringing it all to your local downtown core.
#3 - The existence of extremists, and their ever present threat, validates gobs of military spending, which to some degree maintains a system of relative and balanceable world social stability.
In addition, perhaps the Allies hope to break up Iraq into 3 or more states. It makes each state more dependent on Western military to protect it from the others. Each state would be more reluctant to nationalize resources or otherwise defy the empire. And a pan-nationalist Arab movement is less likely to emerge if the region is divided between shia and sunni.
In addition, perhaps the Allies hope to break up Iraq into 3 or more states. It makes each state more dependent on Western military to protect it from the others. Each state would be more reluctant to nationalize resources or otherwise defy the empire. And a pan-nationalist Arab movement is less likely to emerge if the region is divided between shia and sunni.
I think this idea has already happened in the past and is perhaps the reason we have the current problems. If nothing else this seems like taking our (western) meddling to a whole different level. Or at the very least being frank about strategies we have been employing for decades.
#1 - there are lots of different extremists, and it’s better to have your enemies fighting your enemies
Kerry dismissed the idea of Iran joining the coalition as “inappropriate” even though they are volunteering their help.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29172524
More interesting perhaps: Iran is joining the fight anyways. They have military units inside Iraq already.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/meast/iran-president-amanpour-interview/
I’m afraid the ground invasion is inevitable.
NASA says a limited nuclear war will lower global temperatues. Let’s solve two problems at once and Nuke it all
Here is a better deal:
Build in both poles a tower hundred miles in height. At each tower top mount 100 jet engines, 1000 is better. These engines are blowing in the north and south poles in opposite directions. The earth’s axis will change the angle so that Asia will be on the dark side of the Earth. Tsunamis will flush Russia away due to the melting of Antarctica. China would be in the permafrost zone.
A pleasant mild climate will be established in entire American continent.
In Africa, the climate will be like in Siberia now. Africans will learn to shoot down the pine nuts with wooden mallets. A bit sorry about Australia. They didn’t do anything wrong, but not much good either. So, let it be. Not sure about Europe. We’ll see.
Perhaps the Turks declare war today, and we see a welcomed resurgence of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE!
Or collapse?
LOL Possible.
But I don’t think so. I think the Turks would kick ass - and surprise the world. A lighting fast strike…
Iraq needs to get broken into three separate states based on ethnic groups. Or bring in a dictatorship, the current Iraq cannot survive.
This article which was published by the CBC today…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-isis-and-syria-drove-a-stake-through-the-arab-spring-1.2785736
…argues that the whole ISIS mess could have been avoided if Arab states had responded positively over the years to the calls made by peaceful moderates for political and economic reform. Instead of doing so, the leaders of these states fixated on maintaining the status quo and used harsh measures to quell what they regarded as dissent. The result? Resentment, instabilty, increasing support for extremist groups, and eventually revolution and chaos.
Perhaps the Turks declare war today, and we see a welcomed resurgence of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE!
lol OTTOMANNS EMPIRE…everywhere I look, I see OTTOMANNS EMPIRE.
They now call 'em Kebap House.
It is a foodchain, nothing to worry about! :-D
A three state solution will only create more problems in the region. They won’t really be states anyways, they will be proxies for their more powerful neighbors.(aside from the Kurds). A sunni state will be backed by the Saudi’s and their kinsman around the arabian peninsula. The shia portion would be backed by the Iranian’s and likely Assad if he wins the civil war there. The Kurds, will be marginalized by all sides because they are a large demographic in all these surrounding countries and an independence movement on their part would cause problems in Iran, Turkey, and Syria because they have large minorities of this ethnic group. It would also cause problems for an Iraqi Kurdistan that wouldn’t be able to support a large influx of their ethnic brethren that would undoubtedly move to a legitimized homeland.
It is a recipe for disaster even greater than what we are seeing today.
Yes, three state solution is a terrible idea. Was a terrible idea in 2008 when Joe Biden suggested it, terrible idea now.
Seems the turks have let me down…
I was expecting a full scale offensive/invasion, to crush this spell of violence… instead we got F-All, and now an infamous Turkish “site of importance” has fallen.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/isis-knocks-on-turkeys-door/ar-BB83BOI
Turks don’t want to go in for a few different reasons. How disappointing… :(
Predicitions are flying that 5,000 civilians will be executed within 24 - 48 hours of total ISIS take over of Kobani.
