Noonan Gets It About Right

[acesfull86]

Obama is an incompetent jackass. I hope he spends every single day from now until 2016 playing golf. It will end up costing America much less than if he attempted to do his job. Why the right criticizes him for vacationing, I will never understand.

Carry on.

 

[50PoundHead]

How does that poll show she's wrong? Is her point that the USA should go it alone in a response to ISIS?

I didn't say "wrong." I said "clearly right." This is a muddle that was created by the mission creep we have seen since the end of the Cold War that was greatly exacerbated during the Bush decision to remake the Middle East. From the article, I think Noonan is hinting at a strong intervention approach.

Rand Paul nails it here. Link: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...obama-s-speech-rand-paul-throws-hannity-curve

We have to back off the whole Wilsonian thing, regardless of the moral dimension inherent in moving away from a foreign policy built on making the world in our image. And this goes back to the First Gulf War. Why the US sided with the Emir of Kuwait instead of Saddam Hussein is still a puzzle to me. Hussein was a thug, but we had given great support to other rogues.

 

[50PoundHead]

Stunning. I can't believe the country is warming to intervention again -- especially under what is tantamount to a shallow domestic threat, at this point, and in an operation (random bombing) which doesn't proffer any remotely clear exit scenario. Plus, international coalition? That term still seems politically toxic to me.

Of course ISIL needs to be dealt with -- somehow. I'm fairly hawkish in general, but there aren't a lot of appealing options at hand.

Tom Donilon was pretty good on CNN (I think it was CNN) the other day. He thought ISIL could be contained. But containing and eliminating are two different things. I don't think the threat from extremists of any stripe can ever be eliminated and in an era when you can create mayhem simply by going to the Feed & Seed and buy a bunch of fertilizer, it's a discomfort that we will just have to get used to dealing with.

 

[keithlaw]

I don't think the threat from extremists of any stripe can ever be eliminated and in an era when you can create mayhem simply by going to the Feed & Seed and buy a bunch of fertilizer, it's a discomfort that we will just have to get used to dealing with.

I bet you could eliminate a lot of the extremist threat if you just sold the Feed and Seeds to Chuck

 

[BedellBrave]

Bush read My Pet Goat while New York burned. I also can't recall him doing one single thing before 9/11. Without Googling, I bet few can.

Should Obama be playing golf? Probably not. I better not EVER see the next Republicant president playing golf. The world will be burning somewhere, and Fox News will have you believing Democrats started the fire because they hate America.

Obama playing golf isn't the topic of this thread.

 

[BedellBrave]

I didn't say "wrong." I said "clearly right." This is a muddle that was created by the mission creep we have seen since the end of the Cold War that was greatly exacerbated during the Bush decision to remake the Middle East. From the article, I think Noonan is hinting at a strong intervention approach.

Rand Paul nails it here. Link: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...obama-s-speech-rand-paul-throws-hannity-curve

We have to back off the whole Wilsonian thing, regardless of the moral dimension inherent in moving away from a foreign policy built on making the world in our image. And this goes back to the First Gulf War. Why the US sided with the Emir of Kuwait instead of Saddam Hussein is still a puzzle to me. Hussein was a thug, but we had given great support to other rogues.

The numbers she suggested were in line with the numbers in the article you posted. Her main point was regarding why the change between sentiment now and at the beginning of the year - and that was Americans are recognizing more and more that their are minority communities in the region - particularly Christians and that they are under very real threat.

And the - the issue here isn't do we try nation building foreign policy here. The issue is, does the US intervene in ways intended to stop genocide especially when the aggressor is virulently anti-American. Or do we go the non-interventionist route.

 

[BedellBrave]

Tom Donilon was pretty good on CNN (I think it was CNN) the other day. He thought ISIL could be contained. But containing and eliminating are two different things. I don't think the threat from extremists of any stripe can ever be eliminated and in an era when you can create mayhem simply by going to the Feed & Seed and buy a bunch of fertilizer, it's a discomfort that we will just have to get used to dealing with.

The problem is, ISIS is not just a shadowy terrorist group. It is a visible army that grows by the moment and it is a state, with clear intentions of growing beyond it's present boundaries (thus the ISIL name and the IS name).

 

[57Brave]

"We hear reports that this may be the most dangerous threat the United States has ever faced. I won't minimize that statement. I can only question the absurdity of this premise. We have a military budget that exceeds $445 billion a year. We have the largest air force in the world. Second largest to the Air Force is our navy. We have battleships, aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, stealth fighter planes; we have tanks, drones, armored personal carriers and vast amounts of other weapons of war. So the premise, if you were making a satire of this situation, would be that the United States cannot defeat an army of 30,000 religious zealots who ride around in pickup trucks with guns on the back. Too illogical for a movie? It all goes back to the old Mark Twain statement, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be credible." Of course the moderate Muslims could go to war against the Muslim extremists, but that wouldn't be in the world of absurdity."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/dr-strangelove-vs-isis_b_5831208.html

 

[Julio3000]

The problem is, ISIS is not just a shadowy terrorist group. It is a visible army that grows by the moment and it is a state, with clear intentions of growing beyond it's present boundaries (thus the ISIL name and the IS name).

Great. If it's a state, and an army, we can kick its ass. Then there's a power vacuum and a need to rebuild infrastructure and a need to protect vital interests in the region . . . stop me when this starts sounding familiar.

 

[BedellBrave]

Great. If it's a state, and an army, we can kick its ass. Then there's a power vacuum and a need to rebuild infrastructure and a need to protect vital interests in the region . . . stop me when this starts sounding familiar.

Slippery slope, yada yada. Not quite getting you to my left not being for an operation that in the past you would have supported. What's up with the non-interventionist move? Have the neo-cons done this to you?

Next y'all are going to tell me we ought not be doing anything in trying to prevent the spread of Ebola.

 

[Julio3000]

Slippery slope, yada yada. Not quite getting you to my left not being for an operation that in the past you would have supported. What's up with the non-interventionist move? Have the neo-cons done this to you?

Next y'all are going to tell me we ought not be doing anything in trying to prevent the spread of Ebola.

Hey, I'm genuinely conflicted about it, at heart. This is one of the few things that I second-guess and soul-search about. I'm not sure if I'm a pacifist or a Sam Power-esque humanitarian interventionist at heart. I have always been been more the latter, and the more I see the doctrine in practice, the more I question it.

You make a salient point. The neo-cons DO have me scared. The more I listen to rw media and hear Bill Kristol, et al., argue for intervention, the more I think that someone is getting played. Considering that you've been staunchly critical of that crowd for years, but are now pushing in that direction—because of the plight of your co-religionists—I wonder if it's you.

There is a valid and noteworthy point to be made about the persecution of religious minorities. And, if you're being fair-minded and intellectually honest, you'll admit that there's a counterpoint contained in my post above: that we're at this point because our eyes were bigger than our collective stomachs, and some people's prescription is that our eyes should get bigger still, than we should ask some tough questions.

I think, timid soul that I am, that I would happily squeeze the trigger on a GAU-8 Avenger if I were flying an A-10 above an ISIL troop column. **** that flag and all who sail under it. But would I commit the US to another pseudo-imperialist adventure in the middle east, absent an existential threat? That's a legit question, is it not?

 

[BedellBrave]

Hey, I'm genuinely conflicted about it, at heart. This is one of the few things that I second-guess and soul-search about. I'm not sure if I'm a pacifist or a Sam Power-esque humanitarian interventionist at heart. I have always been been more the latter, and the more I see the doctrine in practice, the more I question it.

You make a salient point. The neo-cons DO have me scared. The more I listen to rw media and hear Bill Kristol, et al., argue for intervention, the more I think that someone is getting played. Considering that you've been staunchly critical of that crowd for years, but are now pushing in that direction—because of the plight of your co-religionists—I wonder if it's you.

There is a valid and noteworthy point to be made about the persecution of religious minorities. And, if you're being fair-minded and intellectually honest, you'll admit that there's a counterpoint contained in my post above: that we're at this point because our eyes were bigger than our collective stomachs, and some people's prescription is that our eyes should get bigger still, than we should ask some tough questions.

I think, timid soul that I am, that I would happily squeeze the trigger on a GAU-8 Avenger if I were flying an A-10 above an ISIL troop column. **** that flag and all who sail under it. But would I commit the US to another pseudo-imperialist adventure in the middle east, absent an existential threat? That's a legit question, is it not?

I understand your wondering about me; but, sometimes we find ourselves aligning with folks we don't agree with (Kristol) to a point (i.e., do something). Yet, that doesn't then mean that we go as far or for the same reasons as they do. Also, as I've maintained throughout this discussion, my concern isn't just for my "co-religionists" (a.k.a., my brothers and sisters) - it's for all those that ISIL seeks to slaughter including Shia, Yazidi, Sunni Kurds, Zorastrian Kurds, etc., as well. We really are talking about a wicked group. And I am putting my money where my mouth is - I've got two aid groups that I'm promoting and supporting - one working with Christian refugees in the Kurdish area and one working with Yazidi and other non-Christian refugees in eastern Turkey.

The part of the current plan that does concern me is the length to train Syrian resistance.

I'm not sure we are worth much as a nation if we don't engage in some humanitarian interventionism. Does it need to be wise or wiser? Most certainly, but we can't let clusterfarks and foaming at the mouth neocons turn us into Cains. Imho.

And if preventing genocide is pseudo-imperialism, then so be it. Maybe I'm being too idealistic. But I'd rather err on one side rather than the other.