Thanks for responding Michael.  I tried to focus on genocide isolated from other factors that might cause us to become more and more involved militarily, but it's hard to do it when there are more "traditional" national security interests at this point.

Interesting and perhaps not to profound, but it seems to me that most folks, yourself as well I think, are willing to accept the limited air strikes that we are conducting now, and which seem to be allowing the Iraqi and Kurdish forces to regroup and consolidate their respective defenses.  And, if what we're reading is correct (and that has to be a big if), we're saving lives.  

And what about if those limited air strikes while we deliberated a bit at home and coordinated more with our partners in NATO and the Middle East?  Because I do agree with you that ISIS will not stop being a problem until it is destroyed.  I have two principal questions at this point I guess: (1) Are we getting the real story over there; and (2) does ISIS pose a threat to the national security of the United States.  If yes to both, then I would agree with you that half-assed measures won't work to destroy ISIS.  Of course, once destroyed there's another power vacuum created. . .I know.

Michael, It's going to be a hectic day for me and I think people have read more than enough of what I think.  So on the way out to my office I was thinking of ways that a Doc or someone might try and get us to analyze what the various options.  So, with deep humility to the real folk in this milieu, here's a model that might help folks think about what is going on Let's call it the Four Questions of bslev :

1. What is the best case scenario if we commit to doing nothing will leave us vulnerable to the possibility of mission creep -- again -- in the Levant?  Presumably that would involve an elimination of the air strikes, and some accommodation of the need to keep embassy staff, etc with security realities?

2. Turn it around, and play out what my senior partner and mentor likes to call the "parade of horribles" if we withdraw completely from the region militarily?

3. What is the best case scenario that would attach to granting the president full discretion to do whatever he felt it was necessary to do to defeat ISIS in the Levant (edited to add), and assume that the president does just that?

4. And what are the parade of horribles going full bore?

My hunch is the model could help us figure out where we should be as measured against these four extremes -- or something.

Two other quick points and then I bow out gracefully and with appreciation for the opportunity to participate here:

1. Whatever one feels about what is happening now, he or she should support the president to the extent that he cannot just run in with guns blazing without careful and deliberate considerations of models far more complex than the Four Questions of bslev.  This is a moving target, but it requires deliberation.

2. Progressives, don't cede your formation of the narrative that will inform the decision makers.  Disagree with me, call me a whatever, but please, please, please, particularly with social media for all and places like this for the readers, do not cede the narrative that will influence whether and where and how much shooting there may very well be.

Other than that, your book, which I am nearly finished with, reads like a novel that you would curl up with and tune out the entire world and just melt into the story. Damn good history stuff too.

I'm out.  Cheers.

Bruce

It doesn't look like it will take a massive effort to prevent ISIS from conquering Iraq. The air strikes seem to be doing that.

If it escalates and drags us into another quagmire, it will be an error. But if the war doesn't escalate, it might be justified---repeat, "might".

The difference between 1941 and the present is back then Germany looked as it were going to conquer and control the entire European continent and Japan the entire Pacific west of Hawaii. So an all out effort was started once Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese... do or die ... was what drove the nation. Much of our money and commerce was invested in Europe and the Pacific so any political turmoil would have had a significant impact in our financial markets.

The Korea war, Vietnam war and currently troubles in the Middle East doesn't have that much impact on our commerce or financial markets so less attention is paid. It would be better to classify these military actions as police actions which require fewer resources and personnel as well as concerns over fatalities and reconstruction efforts. They were suppose to be quick and dirty police actions, but ended up costing more money and lives because they underestimated the opposition they would be facing ... war on a budget.

The Middle East has nothing of value for America to expend resources on ... we're not that invested in the region to mount a full fledged war footing. Point being, how many parents are willing to allow their children to run off to war and die in the Middle East ?... for what purpose? what would their deaths gain for America? how much would it cost ? and for how long ?

Simply put, Americans are more than willing to die for a cause, spend billions to trillions of dollars and take as much time as is necessary into an effort so long as there's something financially and material to be gained.

The only way public opinion could be turned would be if ISIS followed the same path as the Muslims had when they began to spread the word of Koran ... conquering North Africa, up through Spain and pushing up into France, then through Greece up into Bulgaria, Romania toward Vienna in Austria. 

So as long as they are content to remain in the Middle East, they pose no threat.

The flip side of the coin would be republicans in Congress who would see a full fledged war in the Middle East as the key to unraveling The New Deal and all social benefit programs as a necessary war effort public sacrifice. In other words, going to war just to cut social spending programs and regulatory Agency budgets they don't like without raise taxes.

What many people fail to acknowledge is once the Soviet Union collapsed, all the money, equipment and real estate automatically became a Peace Dividend. The US auctioned it all off and used the proceed to shore up the deficit and plow newly released revenue streams to flow back into public services and works. So too did our Allies. The money once allocated for defense against the Soviet threat is now intermingled with other government services the public uses and relies on. So any new escalation of military functions, resources and so forth will have to come from new revenue resources which republicans are reluctant to consider.

With our current political problems; political factions are seeking to unravel 100 years of  progressive legislation. ... does Unreasonable Men ring a bell??? ... one can only sit back and watch because our legislative process is too busy chasing its' tail to be functional.