dagblog - Comments for "How Foreign Policy Non-Experts Think"

It was the congress-critter

Beetlejuice — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:26:52 +0000

It was the congress-critter who I see as the one responsible. He used the Mujahidin to conduct a proxy war with the Russians. But they learned if they could defeat one super power, they could defeat any and all who stood in their way.

Ha! Did not even notice that.

Bruce Levine — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:50:43 +0000

In reply to Though it is interesting that

Ha! Did not even notice that. That inside-the-beltway stuff, on any given day. . .

Though it is interesting that

Michael Maiello — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:43:22 +0000

In reply to "ISIL must be destroyed/will

Though it is interesting that the dovish response comes from the New America Foundation, where Anne Marie Slaughter is running the show.

"ISIL must be destroyed/will

Michael Maiello — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:36:58 +0000

In reply to A very Washington Post,

"ISIL must be destroyed/will be crushed" tweeted Secretary of State John Kerry last Thursday..."

Rillleee? The Secretary of State throws shade on Twitter now? This is why I can't take things seriously.

A very Washington Post,

Bruce Levine — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:22:42 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy Non-Experts Think

A very Washington Post, inside the Beltwayish scorecard on the president's options and who's behind them. Briefly, the four options cited are:

1. Limited airstrikes, diplomacy and emphasis on local states to do the heavy work;

2. Expand airstrikes into Syria, even if it means an effective alliance with the Syrian government;

3. Boots on the ground, special ops., all the way type stuff; and

4. Do nothing without demonstrated consensus among Americans that staying away is not an option.

We'll see. Isn't it amazing

Bruce Levine — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:25:40 +0000

In reply to Adding him to my reading list

We'll see. Isn't it amazing how much has gone in just a few short weeks. Maybe the most important think to do is to just step back for a minute. Problem is world doesn't allow it some time.

BTW, I tried to get Dr. Ibish involved in the discussion (took a shot on Twitter). He's very gracious but I guess he's got a few other things on his plate. Anyway, best.

Adding him to my reading list

Michael Maiello — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:39:44 +0000

In reply to Michael,

Adding him to my reading list. Thanks, Bruce. I also suspect the murder of Foley was one of those inevitable steps too far. It certainly makes it easy for the administration to explain military action to a skeptical public.

Michael,

Bruce Levine — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 01:21:00 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy Non-Experts Think

Michael,

Not sure if you're familiar with Hussein Ibish. He's a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and among other things he blogs at Ibishblog.com. I've been turning to his analyses more and more because he writes with a special clarity about the region and its complexities. Anyway, I thought of you when I read Ibish's most recent piece, in which he asserts that the United States is already at war again in the Middle East, but also asserts that ISIS made a real strategic mistake by its public execution of James Foley. Here's a few key excerpts (my bolds):

Although most Americans don’t know it, and certainly haven’t endorsed it, the United States is back at war in the Middle East. Its latest, and most hideous, antagonist is the monstrous aberration that calls itself the Islamic State. And no matter what the present intentions, there seems no way this conflict in Iraq and Syria can fail to metastasise.

. . .

Last week, the Islamic State presented the Obama administration with an impossible two-fold conundrum. On the one hand, it had driven thousands of Yazidi religious minorities onto an isolated mountaintop where they faced certain death if not relieved. On the other hand, it was threatening to advance towards the Kurdistan Regional Government capital of Ebril where the United States has a consulate and numerous offices. From both a humanitarian and a practical point of view, the president had no choice.

. . .

It is often said that the Islamic State is a crafty and calculating organisation. There is no sign of that here. Had they been intelligent, the fanatics would have allowed the American system to produce its own push back against Mr Obama’s initiative to challenge them. There was, and still is, a good deal of scepticism in Congress and among the public against any further American military engagement in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.

But with the Foley murder, and particularly the gruesome video and photographs they distributed, the Islamic State poked the lion in the eye.

[t]he truth is what they want

Bruce Levine — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:45:10 +0000

In reply to I'm currently reading Charles

[t]he truth is what they want you to believe. So any reports of death's can't be validated until the fighting stops and unbiased teams comb thru the wreckage to see what really happened.

Totally agree Beetle, and an excellent point to always keep in mind when talking war and peace. Thanks.

Very true. Although I never

Verified Atheist — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:38:14 +0000

In reply to Don't be so hard on yourself

Very true. Although I never voted for Bush, I was duped into believing they were going to find those WMDs. I just found it unfathomable that they would make so explicit a case for knowing they were there without being very certain. Silly me.

Edit to add: that's not to say I supported us invading Iraq, even at the time, but I was more ambivalent about it than I would've been had I known the WMDs were mythical.