Gawker - USA Either is or isn't or will be boming ISIS in Iraq

Emails sent to parents of Foley.  I read this and all I could think was "Christ, sounds like dialogue from a low budget movie."  And then my next thought was - POTUS just wipe these assholes off the face of the earth. 

This is what happens when people don't have access to education and opportunity.  They've got nothing to do but take their rotten lot in life and let it fester until some radical nutjob comes along and tells them their crappy lot in life is "The USA's Fault" and the only way to gain access to heaven is to go kill Americans and anyone who doesn't believe as you and who tries to get in your way.

Terrorists' email: 'We will not stop until we quench our thirst for your blood' http://t.co/ZSZhQlKN14

— New York Post (@nypost) August 22, 2014

It seems to me that where there is a power vacuum, infighting, and chaos they will go.

So Libya, South Sudan, CAR, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, the list goes on......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28884665...Boko Haram..

I think there should be a total media blackout on this group IS, no-one in the media should be publishing any of their you tube videos, twitter feeds, website info etc - this particular terrorist group's social media savvy according to US Intel rivals that of most US companies - so cut them off at the source - stop publishing their propaganda like rubbish.

No doubt they enjoy the fear that they are spreading, stop the spread of that and yeah then wipe them off the face of the earth - before there is another 911 type of incident.

Couldn't agree more, Themi.

Not as easy as it sounds apparently. Google UK boss today (or yesterday now) said that for all the Youtube videos they remove, another 100,000 get uploaded

I know its a daunting task - there is a group on Twitter who have been systematically wiping out ISIS accounts, but more turn up each day - still its better than doing nothing

Some more info on what it may take to eradicate or at least make a dent in ISIS stronghold

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/the-islamic-state-and-its-terrorism-from-syria-to-iraq-is-growing/story-fnh81ifq-1227041715939

Ruling by using fear never survives.  It's been proven time and time again because ultimately, humans innately know when something is not right.  And they eventually get fed up with their lot in life.
 
The problem is that too often men like these ISIS leaders look to use the desire to have a better life and promise to give them that life by finding someone to blame for their lot in life and convincing the people that the only way to get a better life is to kill off anyone who doesn't agree with them or who they’ve convinced should be blamed for the difficulties in their lives.
 
It's been happening all over the Middle East as more and more people have gotten access to the internet they can see that living oppressed is NOT the natural state of life.  Eventually the people in those areas will say enough is enough.
 
The problem for years has been that those who have come in and thrown out their rhetoric that following THEM will mean the people will have a better life never quite deliver.  Instead, once in power these "saviors" turn out to be exactly what they are - small minded men who could never truly get anyone to follow them - so they use force, fear and bribery to control the population.
 
But what many of these people don't realize (or forget) is that one man, or even hundreds of men, can't really control millions of people.  They allow them to do so because of that fear (or worse because they turn into the same small minded cruel people or those seeking favor and special treatment).  The fear mongers’ only claim to fame is that they are trying to wrest power from whatever bastard took over the last time and then turned into a power hungry dictators.
 
Education is one of the key ways to battle ISIS.  What the US and other countries should do is use coordinated and decisive counter attacks against ISIS' posting of videos done so only to elicit fear or to seduce the young men who are joining them.
 
Information and education is the key.  If ISIS promises a better life then the West has to show how that is a lie and more importantly really find them a better solution.

LornaDoone wrote:
But what many of these people don't realize (or forget) is that one man, or even hundreds of men, can't really control millions of people.  They allow them to do so because of that fear (or worse because they turn into the same small minded cruel people or those seeking favor and special treatment).  The fear mongers’ only claim to fame is that they are trying to wrest power from whatever bastard took over the last time and then turned into a power hungry dictators.
 

Yep true....in Nazi Germany for example at the beginning there was the minor SA (police assistance who were thugs) who helped Nazis to get on power by shielding meetings of political opponents by force or by massively disable the opposing events. And then when the Nazis were on power, "only" around 200 000 Nazis were responsible for the systematic Jew killing, the SS (the SS were in charge of the concentration camps). The terror and fear was spread all over and that made them strong. Bad guys are always the minority but strong in spreading fear and terror. "psychological operations/warfare".

By the way, I read an article yesterday that Saddam Hussein's daughter Raghad Hussein gave an interview in June were she triumphed about the success of the IS in Iraq.  
She is the oldest daughter (45 years) and she lives in exile in Jordan with her Millions. Normally she is not allowed to do political interviews as this was an agreement with the Jordan royal family in order to stay in exile in their country. In 2007, Interpol issued an arrest warrant against her because she supported the uprising against America. But Jordan does no deliver her to Interpol and protects her.

But now it looks like that she is supporting the IS with her money and that she wants revenge for her father and she wants to get on power in Iraq like her father. After his dead she claimed already her political position in the country and I guess now she sees her time. And lot of veterans of the Hussein - era joining the IS to get back on power.

Revenge and hate are a dangerous combination....

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/tochter-saddam-husseins-sponsert-islamisten-a-988581.html

Nicky - Because of the violent history of the region, revenge and hate are the driving force behind much of what is happening in the Middle East today. Everyone has a reason to hate everyone else. Add power-hungry fanatics into the mix and you have a very unstable situation that will only cause more of the same. It is a vicious circle of misery

Here is an interview on CNN with Professor Michael Clarke on US strategy in Iraq - the map really helps!

Professor Clarke has been called for evidence in the UN inquiry into the US use of drones and advised Ben Emmerson, QC and the inquiry - Amal as we know is part of Emmerson's team...

Oops!

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/08/29/wrn-isis-strikes-michael-clarke.cnn.html

LINK Well, ... men ...

Great videos.  Thanks Party and Atalante.

Atalante wrote:LINK Well, ... men ...

 
This is scary, really really scary. And the worst part is I think there could be a lot of truth in this story. Listen to the last part of the video where retired US Army General Wesley Clarke talks about the plan to bring down 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

American foreign politics is insane. You would think that they learnt the lession after arming the Mujahedin to fight against the Sovjets. Yes it might have been one of the things that brought the USSR down but the prize was the Talibans and AlQaida. Do the US goverment really want the whole Middle East run by muslim fanatics? Do they really think that they will all be as cooperative and docile as the Saudi sheiks?

You would think that after 35 years they would have learnt the mistake they did in Iran,because they wanted to get rid of the Shah. Khomeini's people are still in power and now they probably have nukes as well.

Muslim fanatics often talk about the US as Satan. Well the US goverment sure are doing the Devil's work.

Very dominant gene pool indeed.

Atalante wrote:LINK Well, ... men ...

SGC is a website run by one guy and it's all his opinion.  He's extremely left leaning and has a grudge against the USA.

He also admits to being extremely abused as a child by his parents and had a complete break from his parents and basic society.

So his opinion is just that.  Opinion.  Not fact.

And who's the general ? Made up too ? He's on twitter so ... ask him again about the facts, ... LINK

Well, there are some pretty unusual groups becoming bedfellows right now in the struggle against a greater evil.......common sense prevails for the moment.

 Shame it takes this level of madness to get this degree of cooperation.....

I know the former General has political aspirations as a Democrate but he is still very convincing.

One man.  He doesn't determine US policy now does he?  He's talking about the Bush/Cheney administration.

I don't think this is the direction our current President has taken.

He's been trying to fix the mess that those two assholes made of the world all whilst having NO support from that fucking Congress that have their heads so far up the Koch brothers asses they can't see daylight.

It's really easy to be a sideline quarterback since you don't have to deal with the consequences of the actions you're spewing.

THIS is what we have to deal with on a daily basis.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/punditry-presidency-article-1.1921882




The punditry vs. the presidency

How the constant chorus of ‘do something’ Obama foreign policy critics gets it wrong

BY Michael Cohen
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Sunday, August 31, 2014, 4:30 AM
 
Drew Dzwonkowski/New York Daily News President Obama is a popular target for pundits who lack understanding of the issues.



There is a fun foreign policy game making all the rounds in Washington D.C. this summer: Pin the tail on Barack Obama.


Its appeal is not hard to understand; it's so easy to play.


Step 1: Pick a foreign crisis that touches even slightly on U.S. national security interests. This shouldn't be hard, because the United States defines practically everything in the world as being an American interest.


Step 2: Make clear that this is no garden-variety problem but rather "the defining crisis of [OBAMA'S] presidency," or a threat to the "very foundations of global order" or the answer to the question, "is this how World War III begins."


Step 3: Bemoan the lack of "leadership," "strategy," "attention" or "fortitude" from the commander in chief. Note that the President is "weirdly detached" and "emotionally disengaged" (bonus points for a Churchill reference).


Make corny jokes about how Obama's focus on golf is "turning into 'a real handicap.'" Ask snarky questions like "what would it look like if America actually had a Middle East strategy" that wasn't defined by "inaction" and the lack of a "clear vision." Even suggest that if only a Russian strongman were running America, those terrorists would finally get their due.


Step 4: Insist that everything would be better if something had been done differently a few years ago (bonus points if you made that suggestion at the time).


Say things like:
"We should have ____ ("bombed Syria" or "supported the moderate rebels" or "bombed Syria and supported the rebels")…


Not playing President. Being President.



"If only we had ____ ("pressured Maliki" or "kept troops in Iraq" or "pressured Maliki and kept the troops in Iraq")...


Step 5: Offer a set of proposals that are vague and contradictory, have little chance of being implemented, fail to take account domestic politics and would do absolutely nothing to impact the crisis that you've described in Step 1.


Step 6: Publish your condemnation in a major newspaper or news outlet. Wait for a phone call from a booker with a Sunday morning talk show.


There are no points for understanding how international relations work, how U.S. power is actually utilized or how other countries interpret their own interests. There's no space on the board for tracking the real-life impact of your recommendations.


Foreign policy stewardship would be easy if it were as simple as playing this game. If, as President Obama joked recently, America "control(led) everything around the world," there wouldn't be much to decide at all.


But if there is any one lesson from the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the nearly 13 years since Sept. 11, 2001 it is that - exceptionalist rhetoric notwithstanding - America is far from omnipotent. For all its global influence, the United States cannot dictate world events or force other nations, even close allies, to bend to its will.


Failure to recognize the very real limitations on American power, or the dangerous side effects of many seductively "tough-sounding" strategies, masks the vexing and often imperfect choices that are integral to foreign policy decision-making.


Worst of all, the constant calls for a quick and usually muscular response to perceived national security threats gives Americans a false sense of insecurity. The fact is, while people may be relentlessly, breathlessly trying to make us believe that we're on the cusp of World War III, the world is actually pretty safe.


Is golf really a 'handicap' for Obama? No.



From Latin America and Europe to the Far East and broad swathes of sub-Saharan Africa, most of the world is at peace. While 2014 has been a particularly violent year, we are nonetheless in the midst of a more than two-decade-long decline in the number of wars and their lethality.


More countries are democratic; more children go to school; more people have access to health care and no longer live in grinding poverty than pretty much any point in human history.


Geographically isolated with a host of global security alliances and close allies, America is particularly safe. Perhaps most important, there are so many more tools, from global institutions and international legal structures (and broadly accepted global norms) to non-governmental and regional organizations as well as conflict resolution mechanisms, all oriented toward preventing and containing wars.


This is much more than just a feel-good story. These facts are a reminder that the global stakes are much lower than they were in the past, which makes it essential for policymakers to choose their battles wisely and raise the bar extremely high for America to get involved, militarily, in foreign conflicts.


Consider, for example, the major international crises that are dominating the news today.
Certainly, Russia seizing Crimea is bad for Ukraine, and it's a troubling violation of the global norm against cross-border attacks. But it has little to no effect on U.S. security. With the presence of NATO in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia's military ambitions are well-contained.


The rise of ISIS is terrifying, but far more for the people of Iraq and Syria than for Americans. It's true, albeit a minute possibility, that ISIS could establish a safe haven in the territory they hold, train some terrorists and send them to attack the United States.


But it's hard to be concerned over such a remote event, especially when Americans face serious actual challenges at home - like the constant drumbeat of senseless gun violence that takes the lives of an estimated 30,000 Americans every year.


Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine have little impact on U.S. security.



This doesn't mean the U.S. should pull up the drawbridge and do nothing in response. Upholding global rules and norms that maintain international security is one of the key ways to ensure that this current era of relative peace continues. Pushing back on terrorist actors who threaten our values and the security of key allies is a sensible policy.


But for Obama or any American President, doing so effectively means utilizing and properly leveraging the tools at his disposal, being realistic about what U.S. power can achieve, and perhaps above all, avoiding the sort of bold, ostentatious move that pundits love to recommend but rarely do much good.


Despite missteps along the way - in particular, the dreadful 2009 decision to surge 30,000 American troops in Afghanistan - Obama's foreign policy stewardship has increasingly become a model of deliberation and restraint. That approach often produces outcomes that are less than satisfying - but it doesn't mean the underlying policy is unwise.


Ironically, ignoring the chorus of critics persistently calling for the Obama administration to "do something" - and do it quickly - is evidence of the resoluteness that the President is so often accused of lacking.


The situation in Eastern Ukraine is a good example. In the days and weeks after Russian strongman Vladimir Putin seized Crimea, foreign-policy pundits and the President's political opponents practically fell over themselves in loudly warning of a new Cold War and demanding a forceful American response.


Yet there was virtually no direct step that the U.S. could take to reverse Russia's actions. America wasn't about to get in a shooting war with a nuclear-armed power, especially over a country that is of little strategic importance to the United States.


Instead, the President's response, in coordination with occasionally reluctant allies, has been to slowly ratchet up pressure on Russia via multilateral and bilateral sanctions, condemn Moscow diplomatically and suspend their participation in forums like the G-20.


There are not momentous moves, but the global condemnation of Russia had a cascading effect, turning a once promising economic market into a virtual pariah state. More than $75 billion in capital has been taken out of the country; international investment has dried up; the international community - even some of Russia's close neighbors - have abandoned Moscow.


ISIS poses a far greater threat to Iraq and Syria than it does to the U.S.



Of course, even though Russia is being punished, Putin continues to escalate the situation in Eastern Ukraine. As Obama noted on Thursday, "Russian decision-making is isolating Russia… they're doing this to themselves"


It's a reminder of Putin's strategic failures but also the limitations of U.S. coercion.
The situation in Iraq and Syria has produced a more alarming set of challenges. But here, too, Obama is operating from the principle that the U.S. ability to shape events there is heavily constrained - particularly without a competent and reliable Iraqi ally.


In the days and weeks since ISIS began its latest military offensive in Iraq, the administration has eschewed the idea of going in with guns blazing - and instead withheld major military assistance until there was progress toward shoring up the country's pronounced political divisions. In combination with ISIS's gains on the ground, Obama was able to coax Iraqi leaders to push Prime Minister Nouri Maliki out of power and lay the groundwork for a potentially more inclusive Iraqi government.


Dealing with ISIS, however, is a long-term political challenge - one that the U.S. cannot and should not try to solve on its own. Obama can support the Iraqi military and its political leaders; he can share intelligence and provide direct military support. But ultimately, as Obama noted this week, in order to "degrade ISIL over the long term," it is crucial to "build a regional strategy."



That will depend on the level of support from the Iraqi government and that of other key actors in the region, as well as the ability of the US to not only potentially strike at ISIS targets in Syria but also develop a long-term strategy for stabilizing that war-torn country.


Of course, because pundits crave cartoonish notions of leadership and are allergic to uncertainty and deliberation, the President's ill-considered but honest statement Thursday that the U.S. has "no strategy yet" for dealing with ISIS set off a firestorm of mockery.


But the recognition that any U.S. strategy will be dependent on the contributions of others, will develop and evolve over time and, above all, cannot be constructed on the fly, should be welcomed. While U.S. engagement may help defeat ISIS, it almost certainly will not be decisive.



Inevitably it is Iraqis who will shape the destiny of Iraq.


Understanding this with some measure of humility is not a strength of American pundits, for whom everything is about the United States - and, even more simplistic than that, about its President.


But policies that are based on incomplete information, reliant on the actions of uncertain allies, constrained by politics (both domestic and foreign) and generally are defined by a set of choices that consist of least-worst policy options don't generally result in a proverbial "win."


Managing America's role in the world isn't a game.


Cohen is a fellow at the Century Foundation.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/punditry-presidency-article-1.1921882#ixzz3C131jhtq