I’m struggling to write about the situation in Iraq and Syria in part because I want to hear what the president has to say. One thing I believe already, however, is that Congress ought to debate and authorize the action the president takes, and that it ought to draw circles to hem in what they’re authorizing. There should be a time limit, for example. Congress should have to come back and reapprove military action in six months or a year. We’ve had too much open-ended conflict.
I say that they should authorize his action as opposed to not voting at all. Perhaps they shouldn’t authorize his action and should actually bar him from using military force. But that decision can only be made once we hear the plan.
In making a decision to enter Syria’s civil war the president needs a coherent and realistic plan for ending the war. As far as I know, no one has such a plan. But, an absolute prerequisite is to get the regional players, Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Arabs and Kurds, to agree that they have to give up their dreams of domination. Both Syria and Iraq were once ecumenical societies with a lot of intermarriage and tolerance. If they’re ever going to be anything like that again, the powers that be have to want it. They have to decide that they’d rather have stability than armed sectarian militias. The focus of any plan must start with creating a coalition with that goal.
Without consensus on that goal, our policy will be an odd one where we kill in the name of humanitarianism and there is no end to it in sight.
So, the policy has to be convincing on this score.
Even with any consensus on any goal, there will not be any end in sight, no matter how vague. Not at all. The Middle East is god-forsaken in spite of all the ostentatious piety.
The most the Kurds have ever wanted is t have their own state – understandably in light of their persecution bt other states. If “the international community” is going to expect the Kurds to play a key role in protecting minorities in the region, the least the Kurds can expect in rturn is an international guarantee of an autonomous if not fully independent Kurdish state in the future.
As we speak, Kurds are fighting for land outside of official Iraqi Kurdistan with both ISIS and Shiite militias.
Assyrian Christians in particular are worried about alleged Kurdish designs on their traditional territory (Nineveh Plains).
http://www.aina.org/news/20110930190835.htm
By its very definition war puts people in harm’s way. No one, not even Obama can sanitize it and if the polls are showing a peculiar thirst for blood on the part of the American populous, think about the reaction when one of our fighters is shot down and the pilot is beheaded.
Weighing on Obama’s mind first and foremost has to be how we got here. How ISIL developed its stronghold.
But interestingly, after watching the FOX machine and the Koch money frame our ‘homeland’s’ (gawd I hate that word) politics, what will be Obama’s strategy to defeat the ISIL media machine? We’ve seen how FOX has trained the minds of its viewers and now ISIL is following suit. So we can bomb ISIL camps all day but as long as its websites replicate FOX, there will always be a line of recruits.
‘homeland’s’ (gawd I hate that word)
I admit I was surprised when this word was adopted by the Bushies in creating their new department (which, ironically, was first proposed by Dems, stopped by the GOP, then adopted by the GOP as if it were their own idea) since it is a direct copy of a word common to Nazi Germany. I began to refer to it, and still sometimes do, as Der Heimlandversicherheitsamt to more accurately communicate the tone of the whole venture.
I’ll bet that if some right winger started slogans like “God is with us”, “Hail Victory”, and began promoting Israel’s need for “Living Space” in the west bank that these phrases would be readily adopted by the whole without realizing the history.
Well, why refer back to the Nazis? We have our own inimitable ‘In god we trust’ slogan. The implication is that he is with us otherwise we wouldn’t put our trust in him. ‘Homeland’ is ghoulish. Of course in Britain they have the Home Office (Department of the Interior, I guess). I fear that tonight the U.S. is walking into a trap. Obama will make clear that the endeavor against Islamic State will last more than three years, that is, beyond the end of his presidency. He is casting the die for his swan song. And what a startling deception it is too. Out of Iraq and into Iraq. Back and forth. Obama to the U.S.: ‘Take my hand and tell me you love me.’ But this is not going away any time soon. Nor is Ukraine.
There is nothing the US can do to make things better in the middle east in the short term. Any action will make it worse. For that matter, so will inaction. Such is the mess the US has created, with assistance from various allies primarily Israel and the UK.
In the long term the only action that will make things better is for the US to withdrawal all military (both overt and covert) and stop buying fossil fuels from the region.
Of course, that won’t happen, so prepare for things to get worse and for it to cost hundreds of billions of tax dollars in the process. As Atrios is fond of saying, this is why we can’t have nice things.
“Such is the mess the US has created … “
The US sure created a mess. My only hope is based on the thought that the US under Obama is not quite the same as the US under Cheney.
OT:
For everyone who thinks Hillary is so great:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevr
on
I’ll see you that one and raise you Clinton’s tongue bath review of Henry Kissinger’s latest book.
But she’s part of the progressive base that re-nominated Cuomo or something like that as some here have claimed.
If the strategy involves using military force against ISIS, how about a good old-fashioned Declaration of War from Congress? That way they’d have some skin in the game. As it is, Congress dodges its constitutional duty to declare war then it subsequently allows itself to take the credit if things go well or to blame the president if they don’t. Vaguely worded AUMFs have enabled vast mission creep and conflicts that last for decades. Enough is enough.
Even if this were possible (which I doubt; the US has not made a declaration of war since WW2), the present situation doesn’t give the opportunity. A state can only declare war against another state, and not one of the entities we would be fighting is a state.
Of course ISIS claims to be a state, but it is not recognized by any other state, only a few jihadi organizations. I read an essay somewhere recently suggesting that the US should formally recognize ISIS as a state and the territory they control in Syria as territory of that state, precisely in order to declare war on them and thus avoid appearing to get involved in Syria’s civil war or fighting on their territory.
A formal declaration of war on ISIS would be de facto recognition. This idea is the kind of thinking people do when they set up dummy corporations or phony tax shelters, not diplomacy. It’s a solution that is worse the the problem, not a solution any other country would go along with.
Well, I can’t wait to hear what the President’s plan is to rescue the Kobayashi Maru. Hopefully he is able to pull off a solution along the lines of what James Kirk did.
Here’s the most plausible plan I’ve read, http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2014/09/previewing-the-syria-tourniquet-.html
Before the speech tonight, this is worth reading/rereading, http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/dont-bs-the-american-people-about-iraq-syria-and-isil/
Pretty good, except that it leaves the whole Asad thing up in the air. If we are smart, we will stay away from Asad. On their own, both he and the rebels will also fight ISIS, thus helping us.
The problem is not so much Asad, as the neocons who will be pushing for us to help the “moderate” rebels against Asad. We need to stay out of that. They are not a particularly strong force, and not all of them are so “moderate” either. Whatever the neocons want, I hope we’ve learned by now that it’s exactly what we should NOT do.
In other words, kick ISIS out of Syria, Iraq, and wherever else they may be, but stay out of Syria’s civil war. And that make sense. because only once the regional threat of ISIS is eliminated, could it even be possible to negotiate some international solution to Syria’s civil war.
It is very difficult to stay out of a civil war when you entering to fight in it.
Imagine England entering our Civil War not against the South but just against those dangerous Mississippians. And while they did it, they’d try to strengthen to more reasonable Virginians and Georgians.
That’s a tall task.
Yes. See my next comment.
However, I don’t think your analogy works. The situation in Syria is more complicated, it’s a three-way fight: Asad, “moderate” rebels, and ISIS. The US civil war it was just a two-way fight. Mississippi was a part of the Confederacy, it had the same enemy as the rest of the confederacy and wasn’t fighting against any other part of the confederacy.
The Abu Aardvark piece is solid.
But they aren’t even sure that plan will work.
If I had to recommend a plan of action (vs. no action), I would design something very close to the Aardvark plan.
If that’s what the president presents, I will be somewhat relieved but still extremely nervous about the prospects for success.
With more consideration, I think it’s almost inevitable that we will contribute to the civil war even without wanting to. I don’t see how we can avoid arming the “moderate” rebels to fight ISIS, but they will use those arms against Asad rather than against ISIS, since they know the alliance is going to defeat ISIS, and because they want to stockpile money and arms for the future fight against Asad.
This reminds me of the Nationalist Chinese in WW2. Everything we gave them they used against the Communists rather than against the Japanese, while Mao was actually fighting the Japanese. The ROC saved everything for the civil war that followed the end of WW2, then lost. This whole situation fueled the postwar rise of the right in the US, with disastrous consequences that are still with us.
It should be a goal for the international alliance to help create a more democratized Syria, but that may be like squaring the circle. A worse problem than Asad himself is the Baath Party.
Prolly didn’t read it carefully enough. But it,sounds like a continuation of,the same. I would like someone to address the idea of the caliphate. How deep is that desire? There was once the Ottoman Empire over this land. And there are millions of Sunnis. They were ignored after the Bush war and the government there excluded them. So do we now all expect it will return to whatever normal is if we drop a few more bombs and promise the Sunnis a bigger role in the government? Are the WW1.boundaries still inviolate? And just so we are clear, bombs kill people, including Sunnis.
And Congress should have to vote the PAY-GO tax increases to pay for this action. Or tell what is in the national security budget that they would cut to offset it (cough, NSA, CIA, cough).
I’d say go with a war tax surcharge — on individuals and corporations. Construct a formula that gets a “fair share” based on income and wealth. That would reduce public and corporate support down to just those that profit from the MIC and/or love war. That number would be south of 30%.
Ordinarily,I would not care,about taxes, but if the Rs are going to freak out about spending for progressive programs and the debt, hell yes. Tax the bastards.
I’m really not excited for another war.
BTW:
NBC News: German TV shows Nazi symbols on helmets of Ukraine soldiers
Vicky Nuland’s boys.
The Wall Street media begins to catch up. Who fed the President the line about who the US was dealing with? John Brennan? Hillary? Nuland? They have disqualified themselves for further public service.
Also because the sweet adventure in Ukraine makes dealing with ISIS that much more difficult. Just like the GOP’s domestic politics.
Welcome , Mr President, to reality.
Another pragmatic warning:
Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept: Obama’s Best Hope Against ISIS Was Just Killed, So Let’s Make Friends with Iran
Wonder who set that one up. Almost like the assassination of Mahsoud.
His advice is very similar to what I’ve been saying for a little while now.
I am not at all.certain that bringing Iran into this thing is helpful. But then I’m not the military strategist. But Turkey and other Muslim countries in the region need to participate. We can’t be seen as the only killer of Sunni Muslims.
It’s not a matter of US policy but recognizing reality on the ground. Iran’s Quds special forces are advising Iraqi Army units and militias and were part of the force liberating the town of Amerli.
The US is not traditionally good over the past three decades of recognizing realities on the ground. Trying to play this conflict like the Iran-Iraq war will wind up creating further catastrophe.
At some point regular politics must take place. The US cannot eliminate a non-state actor like ISIS while supporting other non-state actors trying to conduct regime change in Syria and Iran. Those actions work at cross-purposes and perpetuate the mess we have gotten ourselves into as a consequence Reagan-Rumsfeld policies.
So you want Shites killing Sunnis. What could possibly be wrong with that? They’re all friends, I suppose.
It’s not a matter of what I want or even what the US could want. The situation on the ground is that Iran is an ally of Iraq, who is our ally in this. We would be in better position to deal with this if we had normal diplomatic relations with Iran. That is the reality that US policy makers in their 35-year-old vengeance for the Iranian hostage crisis will eventually have deal with, like it or not. Iran seems smart enough not to get sucked into another sectarian conflict in Iran like the one Reagan suckered them into. And President Obama himself, if not his advisers, seems smart enough not to double-deal with Iran.
Awaiting Obama’s big speech?
Me too.
I can’t wait to see how he skirts the issues this time.
Will it be a concession to the Dems’ need for at least a respectable loss instead of a blowout in November?
A surrender to the inevitable political loss that is fast approaching?
Will it be walking the line between blood-and-guts warmongering and his usual halfway-here/halfway-there straddling of both sides of the issue?
Ah jes’ cain’t wait to find out.
I’ll tell you what it won’t be, though.
It won’t be an expression of the single tactical foreign policy approach that if followed could lead the United States out of the downward spiral in which it is currently headed.
“What’s that,” you say?
It won’t be a statement of intent to withdraw all U.S. forces from their many and various overt and covert war activities to the relative safety of home, where they could be redeployed in military and non-military matters like securing the border and rebuilding the physical infrastructure of the United States of America.
I can hear the leftiness/centriness response now.
Channeling Joan Rivers in all of her rancid glory.
Change the fucking laws!!!
How?
Elect people who understand what is happening.
Again…how?
Start now by not supporting people who support the current PermaGov.
Again…
Riiiight…
Like what we are doing isn’t physical suicide?
Suicide by economic imperialism in an increasingly well-armed world?
Thank you and goodnight.
Later…
AG