Payers for Paris

[TuMicks]

The problem is vastly more complex than some bad guys doing really, really bad stuff.

For one thing the coalition of the willing in 2003, (mis)led by the US, has to look in the mirror and accept some responsibility for allowing a leadership vacuum to occur and to continue existing in Iraq. That indirectly caused what's happening. Yes. And its water under the bridge. Paris happened last week.

For another, much of the unrest in Syria was and is in some part the result of a lengthy drought there which ruined many farmers' and rural peoples' lives, compelling them to move to the cities looking for relief, where they joined the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq. The Syrian government was partly asleep, partly overwhelmed, partly brutal. Other countries did not offer enough aid to help Syria manage the crisis. Farmers did not kill 129 people in France. You mentioned complexity... the international cost of grain involves a tremendous number of variables, and that's just getting the grain out of the ground. It doesn't include the problems of getting aid beyond the reach of tyrants and into the hands of those who are starving.

For a third, my understanding is that most if not all of the Paris attackers were European, NOT Syrian refugees. I could be wrong on this. Does it matter where they are from or when they got there, or even when their parents or grandparents entered a European country?

The regional powers - Turkey, the Kurds, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others - either implicitly support the IS or allow it to exist because doing so serves their interest. Hugely screwed up area of the world. They only need to know one thing: If you support ISIS, you make us your implacable enemy (which is not the same thing a saying we're invading your neighborhood tomorrow. See #1 above.

Fighting this asymmetrical war requires asymmetrical thinking and action. Droning is like playing whack-a-mole. Absolutely true. As for a ground war do we forget how badly the last massive ground war in the Middle East turned out? Yep. Not only that.. but I remember Vietnam.Asymmetrical thinking and action should include military action. Yet there's more that can be done.

Bashar al-Assad probably should leave power but who or what replaces him? That's a real problem. Action should also include Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern staffing in our intelligence apparatus; leaning hard on countries, groups, and individuals who fund and arm the IS; working with our own people to minimize (preferably eliminate) their radicalization; humanitarian aid to help the refugees return to a stable homeland or not be compelled to leave to begin with. There are undoubtedly more actions, ones I'm not thinking of.

I sure don't have all the answers. I do believe two things.

Simply blowing up the bad guys won't work. It doesn't have to fix everything. But it's a good start. A very good start, indeed. And I wont live in fear or succumb to nationalism and xenophobia.

In a clash of cultures, it helps to define which culture is better than another. You really don't need a great deal of nuance here. Sex slavery, genocide, mass decapitation... moreover, theirs has a well defined DOCTRINE that not just explains these actions, but DEMANDS them of the faithful. I don't understand how recognizing that makes one xenophobic. I think it indicates that one is awake.

But wait a minute: Nationalism = bad? I thought nationalism was putting the welfare of your country above all others and/or expanding your borders over the objections of your neighbors and/or taking assets that belong to others. So, we (USA, France, Belgium, even RUSSIA... that is to say many nations) are opposed to an entity taking ground at a frightening rate, vowing the make the whole world part of the caliphate... tell me again who is nationalistic? Xenophobia = bad? I thought that word meant if you aren't of my group, my sect... you are "the other" or "of the outside". In ISIS, you have a group for whom even most MUSLIMS are not Islamic enough. While in the West, you can be Jewish, Christian, Yazidi, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, atheist... neither your color nor your class define your future... our people/culture is imperfect. It is many things... but xenophobic is not one of them.

I apologize Mr. Kleb... I get that all of this is difficult. It's ugly. Just keep an open mind. The evil is not at full tide. ISIS and other brands of the worst jihadism are still seeking more blood. Just keep an open mind. We can revisit this after the next atrocity.

[Mr Kleb]

TuMicks, thank you for your response. I appreciate your taking the time to tease apart my post and reply to individual points. I'll tackle three points.

First, that 'water under the bridge' seriously undermined, some would say collapsed, that bridge. Iraq could have transitioned over a strong (and still standing) bridge from a relatively peaceful and orderly existence under Saddam to a similarly peaceful and orderly post-Saddam nation. America spectacularly botched the job of managing the water's flow and in so doing helped create the conditions that allowed the IS to exist, grow, and thrive - for now.

Next, perhaps my point about a military response was poorly stated. I'll restate it now.

Blowing up the bad guys as the sole way to make the IS go away is less likely to provide a long-term solution than a multi-pronged strategy.

Blowing up bad guys is viscerally satisfying. It's necessary to remove IS commanders, strategists, IT people, from the field of play. And it's a start, as you say. What comes next, though? And what is the end game? It's a good idea to have a plan or at least an idea of what do do beyond that.

A multi-pronged, comprehensive response includes blowing up bad guys. Helping Kurds, Iraqis, Syrian resistance groups, and others resist the IS. It includes humanitarian aid; development and redevelopment assistance; refugee assistance. Escorting al-Assad out of power; short-circuiting IS' sources of finance and arms; cyberwarfare against the IS; working here at home to minimalize (preferably avoid) radicalization.

It's important to respond to the threat rationally, intelligently, and proportionately. A military-only response is none of those things.

Third, I refuse to give in to fear, nationalism, and xenophobia. Perhaps nationalism is out of place in this discussion. Here is the definition of xenophobia according to Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine):
----------------------
XENOPHOBIA

noun xe·no·pho·bia \?ze-n?-'fo-be-?, ?ze-\

: fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners
-------------------------------
Xenophobia threatens to rear its ugly head on this side of the Atlantic. What more than two dozen governors are doing - refusing to accept Syrian refugees - is ignorant and verges on xenophobia. For one thing the refugee-vetting process is lengthy, detailed, and exhaustive. Refugees must jump through many, many hoops to gain entry to the US. Is the process perfect? Of course not. For another, the refugee-as-IS-plant theory doesn't fit the IS recruitment strategy unless there's been some very recent change. IS want people to come to them. For a third, the IS scorns refugees. For a fourth, the governors may not have the legal standing to do so.

When they say they want to slow down or bar the Syrian refugee intake are they talking about Muslim Syrians? Sunni or Shia Syrians? Christian Syrians? Doctors, lawyers, farmers, shopkeepers, thirtysomethings with a professional degree? Why not bar Iraqi refugees? Why not bar French citizens of, ahem, questionable backgrounds? After all, weren't Frenchmen the main cohort of those who committed the Paris atrocities? What about Belgians with that background? Or do Syrians hold the franchise on committing barbaric acts?
---------------
Before leaving I'll apologize to the OP for my role in taking this thread off topic. I'm appalled at the butchery in Paris as well as in Beirut and in the air over the Sinai Peninsula.

[charlie'sdad]

The situation is much more complex than just blowing up the bad guys. Wouldn’t it great, if that would work? There are so many moving parts and factions in and around Syria it is dizzying to try and figure it out. There is the Assad regime and militias operating all over Syria, there are the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, al Qaeda and Hezbollah are still around, then Turkey comes into play, and Saudi Arabia and Iran have a dog in the fight. It’s a mess.

And Iraq is relevant. It shows that we suck at invading and then trying to rebuild a Middle Eastern country. In fact, we just make things way worse. And Syria right now is arguably more complicated than Iraq ever was prior to our invasion.

Then consider that a U.S. attack in Syria will undoubtedly empower the “bad guys” who we are trying to eliminate. You can’t get better propaganda to work with. It legitimizes ISIS and its successors as powerful global threats and galvanizes and energizes their supporters.

In my opinion, starting a war in Syria has scary, disastrous prospects.

[Paws n Jaws]

I'm completely in favor of killing these guys. But you're right. An invasion in the traditional sense would be a bedshitting of epic proportion.

Hit their camps and supply lines by all means. Pay some local spies for Intel. No problem. But I personally wouldn't want to see boots on the ground unless it's 4 man teams executing a surgical strike and then getting out.

Another big operation would be a debacle. And we're spread too thin as it is.

[Piper'sMom]

I just want to say after reading the above dialogue, I appreciate the intelligent and respectful way ALL parties voiced their opinions. THAT is what makes me proud to be of the human race.

[charlie'sdad]

Worth a watch for anyone trying to grasp the situation in Syria. This is the best, easiest, "tutorial" that I've seen, read or heard.