U.S. Strategy Seeks to Avoid ISIS Prophecy

 

 

Interesting take. Too often our policy makers don't listen to the psychological/religious ramifications of who we are dealing with.

 

I remember thinking that as far back as the Waco Fiasco when Clinton's people would not consult or listen to religious advisors to help them see the kind of crazy they were negotiating with in David Koresh and his followers.

I remember reading about this theory when The Atlantic did their cover story some months ago about how ISIS came to be and what their aims in the region are. It's a fascinating dilemma given that actually engaging them could be just the thing to drive even more people to join their ranks.

Thank you NYT, for reminding us all that the liberal psyche is a delicate little flower afraid the wind may blow it the wrong way.. Seriously, we are going to hesitate to put forces on the ground because of some "prophecy?" The fact that we even acknowledge that their prophecies exist and are legitimate is a joke.

 

We are at war, maybe not officially because of politics, but lets call it what it is. These terrorists are real, and they want to kill us and every other person who does not adhere to the extreme interpretation of their religion. This administration has done very little of anything to prevent the rise of these terrorists, and then they are going to say "whoa, pump the breaks we don't want to put troops on the ground because some text may loosely hints that a war will break out sometime in the future." Am I the only one who realizes how simple of a "prophecy" that is?

 

I am just at a disbelief that we are going to let a prophecy from a terrorist group dictate our foreign policy. After the laughing stock that was the Iranian Nuclear Deal, I didn't think Obama had it in him to make me think any less of his foreign policy.

Agreed with the OP and Getslow.

 

At first I was all for an all out ground war, but then I looked into it a little. IS wants us to come, besides the discrimination of Muslims this is the next best thing that they could ask for, we would be playing into their hands.

Maybe I'm being too hawkish, but I just cant support using a terrorist prophecy as a justification for our actions/ in-actions. I agree that using indiscriminate violence in the region should be avoided, and that we should make clear that our goals are to neutralize a terrorist organization and not a a religion.

 

There is no doubt that if we were to just go in and start killing indiscriminately, it would sure push more people towards radicalism. However, this is why it is important that we are clear and transparent with our goals, those being to eliminate a terrorist organization determined to kill out all those who oppose their beliefs.

 

The general message is the same. I just have a huge issue with legitimizing their ideology be acknowledging the existence of their prophecies.

Thank you NYT, for reminding us all that the liberal psyche is a delicate little flower afraid the wind may blow it the wrong way.. Seriously, we are going to hesitate to put forces on the ground because of some "prophecy?" The fact that we even acknowledge that their prophecies exist and are legitimate is a joke.

 

We are at war, maybe not officially because of politics, but lets call it what it is. These terrorists are real, and they want to kill us and every other person who does not adhere to the extreme interpretation of their religion. This administration has done very little of anything to prevent the rise of these terrorists, and then they are going to say "whoa, pump the breaks we don't want to put troops on the ground because some text may loosely hints that a war will break out sometime in the future." Am I the only one who realizes how simple of a "prophecy" that is?

 

I am just at a disbelief that we are going to let a prophecy from a terrorist group dictate our foreign policy. After the laughing stock that was the Iranian Nuclear Deal, I didn't think Obama had it in him to make me think any less of his foreign policy.

 

I don't think anyone is saying this should be the sole decider over what to do. But we should have a thorough accounting of the externalities of another ground war.

 

It's easy to stand behind a podium or a keyboard and prattle on about "toughness" or projecting "power." These are simplistic responses to complex issues and they don't require any serious thought. The absolute unwillingness of the Bush administration to consider the possibilities and consequences of its invasion of Iraq is a major part of what led it to be one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our country's history, one we are still dealing with over a decade later. Yet, instead of demanding a rational foreign policy, we are back to demanding the knee-jerk, unthinking kind.

 

We shouldn't hinge our decision to use ground forces based on their prophecy, but we absolutely should consider that it will be a massive recruiting tool for them and consider its destabilizing prospects. We should consider that these people are suicidal zealots, not a country with a government that will surrender when beaten to spare the rest. We should consider that our record with fighting non-state groups has been weak precisely for this reason.

 

We should consider that a fight there won't be easy, even with overwhelming firepower. These are much the same people and groups that carried out the insurgency after the initial invasion that proved devastating and it wasn't until the Sunni Awakening that any progress was made against it. Yet knee-jerk responses are demanding we go in shooting without first ensuring local tribes and groups are willing to fight too.

 

We should consider that even if we beat back ISIS and pacify the area that it won't last if there is no governance. We beat back Al-Qaeda in Iraq (the precursor to ISIS) and brought violence in Iraq down before attempting to withdraw, but without a stable, functioning government there violence was bred. The remnants of AQI were turned into ISIS and they decided they would provide the governance instead. And, further, our official policy is to get rid of Assad, which will lead to Syria being ungoverned for the foreseeable future which is going to leave a vacuum for power there (and the Iraqi government has not fared much better). Whether we physically destroy ISIS or not there will be ample room for new groups to rise in the absence of order, just like ISIS did. What are we going to do about that?

It always amazes me how quick some are to just blast a different thought or angle to look at a problem. They use macho words and labeling words and bellicose words to try and win by diatribe any disagreement.

 

For the record, I've never believed in "doing nothing," but I sure wish more and more people would pause and look at all consequences both short and long term before determining to engage a foreign land with our greatest treasure (ground troops). Might have served us before destabilizing the Sunni/Shia balance in '03 and might have done well to figure out how to wage war in SE Asia.

I don't think anyone is saying this should be the sole decider over what to do. But we should have a thorough accounting of the externalities of another ground war.

 

It's easy to stand behind a podium or a keyboard and prattle on about "toughness" or projecting "power." These are simplistic responses to complex issues and they don't require any serious thought. The absolute unwillingness of the Bush administration to consider the possibilities and consequences of its invasion of Iraq is a major part of what led it to be one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our country's history, one we are still dealing with over a decade later. Yet, instead of demanding a rational foreign policy, we are back to demanding the knee-jerk, unthinking kind.

 

We shouldn't hinge our decision to use ground forces based on their prophecy, but we absolutely should consider that it will be a massive recruiting tool for them and consider its destabilizing prospects. We should consider that these people are suicidal zealots, not a country with a government that will surrender when beaten to spare the rest. We should consider that our record with fighting non-state groups has been weak precisely for this reason.

 

We should consider that a fight there won't be easy, even with overwhelming firepower. These are much the same people and groups that carried out the insurgency after the initial invasion that proved devastating and it wasn't until the Sunni Awakening that any progress was made against it. Yet knee-jerk responses are demanding we go in shooting without first ensuring local tribes and groups are willing to fight too.

 

We should consider that even if we beat back ISIS and pacify the area that it won't last if there is no governance. We beat back Al-Qaeda in Iraq (the precursor to ISIS) and brought violence in Iraq down before attempting to withdraw, but without a stable, functioning government there violence was bred. The remnants of AQI were turned into ISIS and they decided they would provide the governance instead. And, further, our official policy is to get rid of Assad, which will lead to Syria being ungoverned for the foreseeable future which is going to leave a vacuum for power there (and the Iraqi government has not fared much better). Whether we physically destroy ISIS or not there will be ample room for new groups to rise in the absence of order, just like ISIS did. What are we going to do about that?

 

Hab, I appreciate the thought out response, but I have numerous contentions with it. The one thing that I will agree on is that is is a complex issue that will not be resolved by a simple solution.

 

I think the attempt to blame this the current situation, as it is today, on Bush is a pretty simple and lame explanation, yet expected. When you get an ingrown toe nail, you fix it right away. If you don't treat it, the toe nail grows and grows, becomes infected, and your toe swells up to the point where you can't walk. Bush cut his nails to short, gave the US an ingrown toe nail. Obama refused to acknowledge the issue and let it grow to the point we are at today; we cant walk.

 

As far as not using a knee-jerk reaction, and using a rational response: All for it, I would just like to see a rational response first, which I have yet to see this administration present.

 

The potential for ISIS to use the implementation of US ground forces as a recruiting tool is there. However, this is why we need to maintain a clear and precise goal. That being to eliminate a terrorist organization, not a religion. We are not going in to remove a religion, we are not going to overthrow a government or claim land as our own. We are there to eliminate a radical terrorist organization that is hell-bent on ridding the world of opposition ideologies.

 

Once, not if as you suggest, once we remove ISIS from power, we can then begin to stabilize the region. This will be done with respect to local tribes and de facto governments that have been established in the region during this turmoil.

 

I am not sure where I implied that we should "go in shooting without first ensuring local tribes and groups are willing to fight too" but i can assure you that that was never my intention. However, we cant wait around for the local tribes to want to join the fight will ISIS continues to operate and carry out attacks against the west. If the local tribes don't want to join the fight, then so be it. We will have to grow a pair as a nation and do what others are unwilling to do.

 

The power vacuum conundrum is a good one, and one that I have spent years studying. It boils down to this, would you rather have a dictator( in this case terrorist organization) in power, or would you rather continually over throw the dictator (again, terrorist organization in this case. Using dictator to be consistent with the conundrum) until you find a regime that fits.

 

Typically, it is better to over throw the regime when the opportunity presents itself (i.e. when a new regime is gaining strength). If the new regime comes to power, and is not what it was believed to be, then it is imperative that the new regime must be squashed before it gains strength. This is where our current administration failed, instead of acknowledging the strength of ISIS, we ruled them out and enabled them to gain strength. Once we remove ISIS, we have to continually monitor the political landscape, and in the event that a group similar to ISIS arises, we must make sure that they are disintegrated before they become capable of protruding such a large influence in the region.

HHSOG,

 

That's one of the best fact based posts I've read on this subject.

 

Well done!!!

I'm with Ted Cruz, turn the whole area into a wasteland.