How responsible is the US for the rise of ISIS?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think we need to tread carefully about Saudi Arabia as mental as it seems the House of Saud is actually the modernising and moderate wing in Saudi Arabia, hence the goatees and taches. Depose them and a real shit-storm will arise from the cleric led madrassas.

I wonder if they think Allah had abandoned them if we dropped an H-Bomb right on top of the Kaaba, during the high season of Ramadan?

[Arising_uk]

Let's say (as many here believe) America is wholly responsible for islamic fundies goin' off the deep end...yes, it's 'our' fault the dogs done gone rabid.v...

Not wholly responsible as France, the UK and the Soviets and now Russia have also been fucking about down there since the second world war and since oil was found. Like Vietnam and WWII you're just late to the party and this time can take a bit more of the blame as the Mujahideen wouldn't have won without your SAMS and Iraq I and II did exactly what we said it would, created a sectarian nightmare out of which things like ISIS arose.

What would you have us do about it?

I think we have two options, get out and leave them to it but arm up just in case we get an aggressive caliphate out of it. This at least would remove their claims that we are interfering with them, although the Palestine/Israel situation is still going to be a major sticking point. Or two, go back in full force to Iraq, crush Isis and this time stay until the democratic institutions of rule of law and private voting are ingrained and the people trust them, took the British about 50 to a 100 years in their empire.

I was clear, up-thread, what I think ought to happen...but what do 'you' think America should do 'now'?

My two cents.
p.s.
I also think we all ought to be writing to our politicians and ask them what the hell happened to our money that was spent upon the Iraqi armed forces and why we were told that we'd left a competent trained army behind.

[Obvious Leo]

Arising. I agree with you that there only appear to be two options. We either get the hell out of there and leave them to it, which means EVERYBODY OUT, or we go in and kick the living shit out of them. I don't reckon the latter is truly a realistic option for the reasons you give. It would require a continuous military presence afterwards, possibly for a century, and I can't imagine any nation having the geo-political will for such an exercise in the 21st century, even assuming that other nations would allow such a thing to happen. The Romans and the British constructed empires in this way, and the US has been militarily committed in Germany and Japan since WWII, but I very much doubt that this can be the way of the world in the future.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Arising. I agree with you that there only appear to be two options. We either get the hell out of there and leave them to it, which means EVERYBODY OUT, or we go in and kick the living shit out of them. I don't reckon the latter is truly a realistic option for the reasons you give. It would require a continuous military presence afterwards, possibly for a century, and I can't imagine any nation having the geo-political will for such an exercise in the 21st century, even assuming that other nations would allow such a thing to happen. The Romans and the British constructed empires in this way, and the US has been militarily committed in Germany and Japan since WWII, but I very much doubt that this can be the way of the world in the future.

I tend to agree. What we are doing and have been doing for 100 years (at least) is interfering. Before mass communications it was hard for subjected peoples to mount a defence against imperialism, but today things are very different.
In the past revolt could be put down mercilessly, quietly and thoroughly supported by a robust and unchallengeable propaganda machine that gave the right to the imperial force, against the "rebels", "insurrectionists", or "fanatics". The dark truths of the imperialist hegemony were carefully filtered through a press favourable to the aggressor empire, and always portrayed conflicts through the eyes of the 'superior" and often "white" races that considered themselves a civilising and positive influence.
The West is behind the times and has not really caught up with the new world, were its actions can be openly laid out for all to see.

What would be the end-game for military action? Are we willing to completely suppress the entire region, and demand a level of control that we imposed in Nazi Germany and Japan in 1945? Are we willing to accept the backlash from all Muslim nations across the globe, either from individual groups that will surely emerge, or from hostile nations such as the nuclear power Pakistan? Our diplomatic grasp in Pakistan is already very fragile indeed.

Or is there a halfway measure?

The only way I can see military action working to is to delivery a blow so severe that it would crush their faith in Islam, to effectively end the religion for all time, anything less would mean a thousand years of splinter groups and cults re-emerging to perform random acts of terrorism in perpetuity.

[henry quirk]

So: 'we' shoulda left 'em alone but didn't, and now we get to kill them?

Hell, that's 'win, win', folks.

[Walker]

The war is against evil, not the region.

In peace or war, whether on offense or defense, the focus comes from the top.

The top is always focused on something. The question is, what?

The foremost job of government is defense. The top must begin the defense of good by declaring war against evil. Declaring war is not just mouthed, scripted rhetoric. The public delaration of intent must be done with full awareness of war’s horror. It must have clear objectives for the end so that it is reached asap. War is combat without rules. The concept of “rules” is for the proper treatment of the defeated after combat and after war, which is when evil can be safely abstracted into relativistic conceptual analysis.

All that is required to know about evil going into War, from the perspective of a Nation, which what the top represents in this situation, is:

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

This brief article summarizes the current illegal vetting process that welcomes fit and healthy military-aged men into the promised land.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/20 ... ist-groups

[Obvious Leo]

It is just such infantile notions of good and evil which drive the whole sorry agenda for this sort of mess in the first place. Instead of dropping bombs on people we should be dropping smartphones on them because in the long run only education will save them from their oppressors. It has ever been thus.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The war is against evil, not the region.

In peace or war, whether on offense or defense, the focus comes from the top.

The top is always focused on something. The question is, what?

The foremost job of government is defense. The top must begin the defense of good by declaring war against evil. Declaring war is not just mouthed, scripted rhetoric. The public delaration of intent must be done with full awareness of war’s horror. It must have clear objectives for the end so that it is reached asap. War is combat without rules. The concept of “rules” is for the proper treatment of the defeated after combat and after war, which is when evil can be safely abstracted into relativistic conceptual analysis.

All that is required to know about evil going into War, from the perspective of a Nation, which what the top represents in this situation, is:

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

This brief article summarizes the current illegal vetting process that welcomes fit and healthy military-aged men into the promised land.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/20 ... ist-groups

Perhaps the US should start its 'war of evil' at home. People in glass houses....

[Obvious Leo]

Perhaps the US should start its 'war of evil' at home. People in glass houses....

Indeed. Perhaps as individuals we could even turn the focus of attention on ourselves. Who is so righteous that he commands the authority to determine the righteousness of others?

[henry quirk]

"we should be dropping smartphones"

With some of those lithium batteries that spontaneously combust...yeah, that would work.

[Walker]

It is just such infantile notions of good and evil which drive the whole sorry agenda for this sort of mess in the first place. Instead of dropping bombs on people we should be dropping smartphones on them because in the long run only education will save them from their oppressors. It has ever been thus.

If the United States would withdraw its protections from the world and seal its borders, close all the borders and withdraw military presence from around the world, you would continue to see evil in the world. Probably more than what is now seen. Sad but true. And all that withdrawal would certainly be bucking the vested interests.

I think the attitude is more along the lines of ... Infantile my ass. Try to kill me, fuck you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Perhaps the US should start its 'war on evil' at home. People in glass houses....

Indeed. Perhaps as individuals we could even turn the focus of attention on ourselves. Who is so righteous that he commands the authority to determine the righteousness of others?

Well we are next in line to be one of the US's little bitches, but until that time we have very little to be ashamed of.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The war is against evil, not the region.

In peace or war, whether on offense or defense, the focus comes from the top.

The top is always focused on something. The question is, what?

The foremost job of government is defense. The top must begin the defense of good by declaring war against evil. Declaring war is not just mouthed, scripted rhetoric. The public delaration of intent must be done with full awareness of war’s horror. It must have clear objectives for the end so that it is reached asap. War is combat without rules. The concept of “rules” is for the proper treatment of the defeated after combat and after war, which is when evil can be safely abstracted into relativistic conceptual analysis.

All that is required to know about evil going into War, from the perspective of a Nation, which what the top represents in this situation, is:

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

This brief article summarizes the current illegal vetting process that welcomes fit and healthy military-aged men into the promised land.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/20 ... ist-groups

The war on "terror" transmutes to the way on "evil"What a Crock of Shite.
Have you learned nothing from the last 14 years, in which the number of deaths from terrorism has increased year by year.
Not the "region".?????? Barking Mad!
You cannot drop a bomb on evil, bombs have to be dropped in a region, and people die; children, women, non combatants; homes are destroyed, shops, hospitals, livelihoods.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is just such infantile notions of good and evil which drive the whole sorry agenda for this sort of mess in the first place. Instead of dropping bombs on people we should be dropping smartphones on them because in the long run only education will save them from their oppressors. It has ever been thus.

Simple narratives serve the weak minded.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You cannot drop a bomb on evil, bombs have to be dropped in a region, and people die; children, women, non combatants; homes are destroyed, shops, hospitals, livelihoods.

Hear hear.