"The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight".
It beggars belief to read this. It's like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not our fight and with patience only the threat of the Japanese Imperium in East Asia could have been overcome.
No one can say Islamist extremism isn't existential: what if the fourth plane had hit the White House? It can happen again. The damage 9/11 did was hugely out of proportion to the people killed and hurt (terrible as the loss was), as well.
It beggars belief to read this. It's like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not our fight and with patience only the threat of the Japanese Imperium in East Asia could have been overcome.
No one can say Islamist extremism isn't existential: what if the fourth plane had hit the White House? It can happen again. The damage 9/11 did was hugely out of proportion to the people killed and hurt (terrible as the loss was), as well.
1
The English were defeated, humiliated in Afganistan in the 1800's. Much has been written about that struggle. And a lot of the arguments about fighting there are the same today. The main mistake westerner polititions have made is that Afgans have a western thought process. No, theirs is a culture of tribes. Western politics is absurd. That said, Mr. Grenier's piece is spot on. Our politicians didn't have a clue about eastern thought, they had the WW2 mentality about war. And with radical Islam, the idea to many of the young fighters that what awaits a martyr in heaven is much better than life on earth, is very strong.
What to do? I believe we need more people like Mr. Grenier to advise us and use his advice to the fullest. BTW, nice to read an article that makes sense of the situation. If "W" had listened to people other than neocons maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
What to do? I believe we need more people like Mr. Grenier to advise us and use his advice to the fullest. BTW, nice to read an article that makes sense of the situation. If "W" had listened to people other than neocons maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
1
Robert Grenier is right about doubting the "existential" threat that "radical Islam" poses to the US. The IS has managed to capture the fear of the American public with shockingly gruesome beheadings of its American and Western hostages. There are always politicians who know best and want to be in the spotlight.
Indeed the Muslim world has to take on the IS, if it doesn't want "radical Islam" to subjugate the entire region. What the West can do is to try to dissuade young Muslims from joining the IS and prevent them from doing harm to the public.
Indeed the Muslim world has to take on the IS, if it doesn't want "radical Islam" to subjugate the entire region. What the West can do is to try to dissuade young Muslims from joining the IS and prevent them from doing harm to the public.
1
AN oustanding article that details the exact approach we need to take...however it requires something most of us Americans struggle with and that is....patience.
1
I still think that Saddam had Iraq in check. We should have never went into the place. And now Republicans say Bush has left a "peaceful Iraq". Well yeah - with 160,000 U.S. soldiers and a two trillion dollar debt to China. Sigh..
2
We don’t live in a perfect world. The Taliban have never been perfect. However, there is no need for us to fix every problem or the Taliban.
Since the 9/11/2001 nobody has proven the Taliban involvement. The Al Qaeda had the training camps in Afghanistan, but also the Northern Alliance, the archenemy of the Taliban. The Taliban coexisted in the same country with the communist puppet regime during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but that didn’t make them the backers of Moscow.
I have never read any article proving that the Taliban aided the Al Qaeda in any way – logistically, financially or with the training of the recruits.
We know that the Al Qaeda was a miniscule organization of the Sunni Arabs with a radical Wahhabi ideology. The leadership, financial backers, ideology and recruits came from the Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan – all of them our alleged regional allies.
That was embarrassing for the White House. Instead of admitting that our Middle Eastern foreign policy failed our national interests, the White House aimed at the least inconvenient target (which we abandoned after the defeat of the USSR) to avoid any personal liability.
Instead of helping the locals reform their society by initiating the real Arab Spring, the Bush Administration opted for the Afghan War.
Thus we wasted a couple trillion dollars and sacrificed the US troops only to end up with the ISIS…
That’s why those 30 pages of report were blackened out...
Since the 9/11/2001 nobody has proven the Taliban involvement. The Al Qaeda had the training camps in Afghanistan, but also the Northern Alliance, the archenemy of the Taliban. The Taliban coexisted in the same country with the communist puppet regime during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but that didn’t make them the backers of Moscow.
I have never read any article proving that the Taliban aided the Al Qaeda in any way – logistically, financially or with the training of the recruits.
We know that the Al Qaeda was a miniscule organization of the Sunni Arabs with a radical Wahhabi ideology. The leadership, financial backers, ideology and recruits came from the Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan – all of them our alleged regional allies.
That was embarrassing for the White House. Instead of admitting that our Middle Eastern foreign policy failed our national interests, the White House aimed at the least inconvenient target (which we abandoned after the defeat of the USSR) to avoid any personal liability.
Instead of helping the locals reform their society by initiating the real Arab Spring, the Bush Administration opted for the Afghan War.
Thus we wasted a couple trillion dollars and sacrificed the US troops only to end up with the ISIS…
That’s why those 30 pages of report were blackened out...
1
There are leaders who will divide people to lead ( irrespective of goals ).. They galvanize people by evoking prejudice, hatred, fear, jealousy, racism, sexism etc. Every country have those leaders including US.
Once we tear down the social fabric of a country, we enable these leaders to lead smoothly.
Once we tear down the social fabric of a country, we enable these leaders to lead smoothly.
1
This article is part of long tradition of criticizing Obama, while advocating that we do what he is already doing. You are saying we shouldn't use "degrade and destroy" rhetoric? What should we be saying instead? You say we shouldn't use ground troops, but say we should use advisers on the ground. What's the difference, when either could get killed by the enemy? Why not admit that Obama is doing it right, and that doing it right is inevitably going to be messy?
6
Stop calling it the "islamic state". that sounds like it's a nation and has territory and connects it to islam. Call it "Muslim murderers" instead, since, according to the Atlantic Monthly article it intends to murder all muslims who do not swear allegiance to their leader: and don't call him caliph, call him "chief muslim murderer." Language matters.
In Afghanistan, and in Pakistan responsible Muslims are waging a battle against murderers in the guise of "conservatives". Don't call people by their own grandiose self-titles, label them by what they do: murder Muslims.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, there are plenty of desperate people. Let's try to help them, not with arms which can be diverted to murderous gangs, but with food, sheep, chickens, sewing supplies, school uniforms, and books. Chickens are especially subversive because they deliver eggs daily for good protein sustenance and because they can be killed quickly for a feast: like a child's birthday. I'm imagining drones delivering chick peas, live chickens, and fresh parsley, all labeled: a gift from the United States of America.
In Afghanistan, and in Pakistan responsible Muslims are waging a battle against murderers in the guise of "conservatives". Don't call people by their own grandiose self-titles, label them by what they do: murder Muslims.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, there are plenty of desperate people. Let's try to help them, not with arms which can be diverted to murderous gangs, but with food, sheep, chickens, sewing supplies, school uniforms, and books. Chickens are especially subversive because they deliver eggs daily for good protein sustenance and because they can be killed quickly for a feast: like a child's birthday. I'm imagining drones delivering chick peas, live chickens, and fresh parsley, all labeled: a gift from the United States of America.
5
I don't disagree with much the author says, but he doesn't say much. What SHOULD the US do? He doesn't answer; instead giving vague platitudes.
I believe that we should stop supporting brutal and repressive regimes, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. We shouldn't overly support Assad against ISIL, but neither should we support his al Qaeda opponents (the "good" rebels) or their Saudi and Israeli backers. There are no "good guys" in this fight and we shouldn't pretend there are.
Not giving military support to one side in this conflict is not isolationism; it's just not war-mongering.
I believe that we should stop supporting brutal and repressive regimes, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. We shouldn't overly support Assad against ISIL, but neither should we support his al Qaeda opponents (the "good" rebels) or their Saudi and Israeli backers. There are no "good guys" in this fight and we shouldn't pretend there are.
Not giving military support to one side in this conflict is not isolationism; it's just not war-mongering.
9
With all due respect to Mr. Grenier, given his public service to our country, he's living in a dream world. But that is his choice. The decisive turning point in the current civil war being waged in Iraq - there has been several - was when ISIS scored its victory against government troops and captured Fallujah in January, 2014. But we only woke up from our collective, self-induced amnesia after ISIS overran Mosul in its mini-blitzkrieg, And once again the debacle in Iraq became front-page news..But by then it was too late. We are in the end game in Iraq despite the impending military offensive by Iraqi troops to regain control of Tikrit as a test case of their resolve as a credible fighting force. But they had their chance to show us their mettle and failed miserably when they ran from ISIS jihadis in Fallujah and then later again in Mosul. The troops beat a hasty retreat advancing to the end with their gear in these previous battles, and they will fail once again in Tikrit. We wasted billions of dollars during the American occupation on training them to stand and fight. But no amount of money can buy you that allusive quality called esprit de corps based on a sense of pride, fellowship and ultimately shared sacrifice on the battleflied. And our American advisers are once again holding their hands. But they are still pedaling on a bicycle with training wheels which should have come off long ago. And if these advisers are placed among the troops, well, order more body bags.
3
"If the United States were to take the lead in the ground war in Iraq and perhaps eventually in Syria by introducing conventional combat forces, we would feed into a radical Islamist narrative that pits the invading armies of the crusader against the committed defenders of Islam. ".
The reason this narrative exists is because it is undeniable to those with half a functioning brain: we have invaded a half dozen Muslim countries in the last decade, and zero Jewish and Christian countries, though Israel has admittedly invaded us. It isn't just a narrative, the holy rolling Christians are on a crusade again to force everyone to believe in their new white rich Jesus, here and abroad. Bushy to them was a holy man and the next messiah until he failed miserably. If a there is a predominantly Muslim country that doesn't buy US weapons and still has an intact government still existing out there, they should be afraid because Northrop Grunman and Lockheed Martin, two of our new people, need some new bombing sites and won't be denied.
The reason this narrative exists is because it is undeniable to those with half a functioning brain: we have invaded a half dozen Muslim countries in the last decade, and zero Jewish and Christian countries, though Israel has admittedly invaded us. It isn't just a narrative, the holy rolling Christians are on a crusade again to force everyone to believe in their new white rich Jesus, here and abroad. Bushy to them was a holy man and the next messiah until he failed miserably. If a there is a predominantly Muslim country that doesn't buy US weapons and still has an intact government still existing out there, they should be afraid because Northrop Grunman and Lockheed Martin, two of our new people, need some new bombing sites and won't be denied.
4
"The extremists may pose a fundamental danger to the moderate majority in much of the Muslim world; but very few American civilians have fallen victim to Islamic terror since 9/11"
Erm, slightly complacent if you ask me. Just a thought, but how many Islamists, sorry, how many RADICAL islamists are in the armed services and just how many of these have access to nuclear weapons? Are their any checks on their 'affiliations'? I do hope so.
Erm, slightly complacent if you ask me. Just a thought, but how many Islamists, sorry, how many RADICAL islamists are in the armed services and just how many of these have access to nuclear weapons? Are their any checks on their 'affiliations'? I do hope so.
Actually Mr. Grenier argues how not to lose the war on terror.
His arguments are founded and sensible. It cannot be in America´s interest to become a partisan in this epic shake-up the Islamic world is experiencing. On the other hand, we cannot stay out of it either. The outcome will affect also our future. But instead of sending the cavalry and barb wiring our homes we should show these people our true strength: Democracy and humanity. The experience of the past 14 years has shown that the war on terror cannot be won. What we can do though is make terror as a weapon to attack us obsolete. The warfare to do that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric but zerometric. http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/15.html
His arguments are founded and sensible. It cannot be in America´s interest to become a partisan in this epic shake-up the Islamic world is experiencing. On the other hand, we cannot stay out of it either. The outcome will affect also our future. But instead of sending the cavalry and barb wiring our homes we should show these people our true strength: Democracy and humanity. The experience of the past 14 years has shown that the war on terror cannot be won. What we can do though is make terror as a weapon to attack us obsolete. The warfare to do that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric but zerometric. http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/15.html
3
"Not existential" if you live in NY or DC. But if you live in Iraq, or Jordan or Syria, etc., it is existential now, this minute. If you live in Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states it is fast becoming existential.
"Not existential" is like the guy falling from the Empire State Building. As he passes the 40th floor on his fall to the bottom he says "So far, so good."
Really bad analysis as is your seemingly favorable opinion of Hamid Karzai and Gul Agha Shirzai. Thieves on a national scale whose colossal corruption has done as much as the Taliban to destroy the country.
Choosing and/or supporting incredibly bad leaders does not do the job which is why there are so many people who detest the US. Because the US has a habit of supporting incredibly bad leaders who mouth the proper phrases to us.
"Not existential" is like the guy falling from the Empire State Building. As he passes the 40th floor on his fall to the bottom he says "So far, so good."
Really bad analysis as is your seemingly favorable opinion of Hamid Karzai and Gul Agha Shirzai. Thieves on a national scale whose colossal corruption has done as much as the Taliban to destroy the country.
Choosing and/or supporting incredibly bad leaders does not do the job which is why there are so many people who detest the US. Because the US has a habit of supporting incredibly bad leaders who mouth the proper phrases to us.
4
"But we should not try to win on our own what only local forces can sustain, particularly when our effort to help only makes their success less likely." -- Oh, my. What a gem of common sense; I'll be sending it to family and friends.
3
If "Ultimate victory" against militant Islam "will require wisdom and patience," we are done for. Luckily Grenier is wrong. We need only butt out, and see to our homeland defenses, and we'll be alright. Unless they get their hands on nuclear weapons those galoots can't seriously hurt us. A 7th century world view will not prevail in the 21st.
Our Achilles' heel has been our dependence on Middle East oil. In the next few years it will remain important, but with the development of new oil sources and with revolutionary battery technology reducing our oil thirst, ME oil will before long will stop being indispensable. Thus, even in the unlikely case of ISIS securing control of the Gulf's oil, that will still not put it in the catbird seat.
As to Afghanistan, had that 2001/02 success Granier speaks of, petered out the consequences would not have been very different the situation today, with the Taliban poised to take over as we leave.
It remains that, apart from punishing the perpetrates of 9/11 and their hosts, our military action in Afghanistan, subsequent to 2002 was pointless. We had no national interests there. Even had we been able to put a lid on that country that would not have scotched terrorists plotting from scores of other safe havens. Bush understood and was right to neglect that theater. Obama was wrong to make political capital from that neglect and to puff the embers of Bush's dying ground fire into a costly and pointless 100,000 man conflagration.
Our Achilles' heel has been our dependence on Middle East oil. In the next few years it will remain important, but with the development of new oil sources and with revolutionary battery technology reducing our oil thirst, ME oil will before long will stop being indispensable. Thus, even in the unlikely case of ISIS securing control of the Gulf's oil, that will still not put it in the catbird seat.
As to Afghanistan, had that 2001/02 success Granier speaks of, petered out the consequences would not have been very different the situation today, with the Taliban poised to take over as we leave.
It remains that, apart from punishing the perpetrates of 9/11 and their hosts, our military action in Afghanistan, subsequent to 2002 was pointless. We had no national interests there. Even had we been able to put a lid on that country that would not have scotched terrorists plotting from scores of other safe havens. Bush understood and was right to neglect that theater. Obama was wrong to make political capital from that neglect and to puff the embers of Bush's dying ground fire into a costly and pointless 100,000 man conflagration.
1
ISIS was created to deal with the Government of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. CIA and government of Saudi Arabia Saudi are responsible. Arabia payed money, and Washington trained militants in the border camps. Now ISIS is a real headache for CIA. ISIS has become a real stumbling block for our government and Middle East. Israel is the first under pucker factor.
Your operations in the middle-east are quite justifiable, even though it seems to have backfired, but what about USA donating billion $ to Pakistan, which is spreading terrorism all over the region??? doesn't that ring a bell Mr Grenier, Your foreign policies surely lack any practical sense and counter your own principles!!
2
No, Americans in general do not have the necessary patience and our leaders in both parties certainly lack the patience -- and wisdom -- and understanding of history.
I have a very liberal friend whom I use as a barometer on this. And to my recurring amazement, he is completely on board with boots on the ground, drone strikes, assassinations, and black hole prisons. This suggests our future is endless war. Which, of course, is very profitable for the well-connected elites.
I have a very liberal friend whom I use as a barometer on this. And to my recurring amazement, he is completely on board with boots on the ground, drone strikes, assassinations, and black hole prisons. This suggests our future is endless war. Which, of course, is very profitable for the well-connected elites.
1
This blog is like watching Homeland all over again,minus the love story component of it! The point,and the take away from Afghanistan, happens to be to think twice before you enter a situation and,once you do, see it through.America failed to recognise its real enemies,they are slightly to the east of Afghanistan-to wit-the country that provided a safe haven to America's number one enemy.
3
As part of 'the long war' the West needs to take a balanced approach:
- confront the extremists militarily, using disciplined proportional force, with a focus on minimising civilian casualites
- strengthen the moderates by addressing their grievances, where real.
To do this, we need to understand what the moderate Muslim world thinks, which is hard to do, when terrorist acts are occurring. But, over time this approach will marginalise and weaken the extremists.
In my view, as part of this balanced approach, Israel a secure part of the west, needs to move away from its 'Dahiyya doctrine', with associated civilian casualties, and agree an equitable solution with the people in Gaza and the West bank.
- confront the extremists militarily, using disciplined proportional force, with a focus on minimising civilian casualites
- strengthen the moderates by addressing their grievances, where real.
To do this, we need to understand what the moderate Muslim world thinks, which is hard to do, when terrorist acts are occurring. But, over time this approach will marginalise and weaken the extremists.
In my view, as part of this balanced approach, Israel a secure part of the west, needs to move away from its 'Dahiyya doctrine', with associated civilian casualties, and agree an equitable solution with the people in Gaza and the West bank.
1
Thanks for your op-ed. As for getting the public onboard, it can be done. Here are some points which can get us going:
1. American soldiers are not superheroes, they are the best trained and best-equipped military in the world, so they do extraordinary things in the battlefield. But they are still very much human, and suffer from that limitation - they make mistakes, they get hurt, they suffer from the shock of killing and maiming, and they often forget their limits and overreach.
2. War is by definition violent and disorderly. It involves killing your opponent, who is trying to kill you first. There is no clean, "lawful" and "glorious" way to go about doing it - you just do what you have to, Longer the war, the Worse your choices. Historians and poets then edit, embellish and add those nice bits later, bcos the truth is too ugly and depressing. Hence victors write history, not losers.
3. When we go to war, the Constitution suffers. Longer the war, deeper the damage. War is not about rules, Constitution is all about rules. The two are antithetical. Hence "Emergency powers", suspension of liberties. Hurts the Constitution. Period.
So no matter how sexy the President looks in a flight-suit, war is bad for the Constitution. Period. In addition to suspending parts of the Constitution, its sanctity is eroded over the years.
Soldiers are individuals, not a collective "troops". We are citizens, not consumers.
No Constitution, no USA, just another tyranny with bigger cars.
1. American soldiers are not superheroes, they are the best trained and best-equipped military in the world, so they do extraordinary things in the battlefield. But they are still very much human, and suffer from that limitation - they make mistakes, they get hurt, they suffer from the shock of killing and maiming, and they often forget their limits and overreach.
2. War is by definition violent and disorderly. It involves killing your opponent, who is trying to kill you first. There is no clean, "lawful" and "glorious" way to go about doing it - you just do what you have to, Longer the war, the Worse your choices. Historians and poets then edit, embellish and add those nice bits later, bcos the truth is too ugly and depressing. Hence victors write history, not losers.
3. When we go to war, the Constitution suffers. Longer the war, deeper the damage. War is not about rules, Constitution is all about rules. The two are antithetical. Hence "Emergency powers", suspension of liberties. Hurts the Constitution. Period.
So no matter how sexy the President looks in a flight-suit, war is bad for the Constitution. Period. In addition to suspending parts of the Constitution, its sanctity is eroded over the years.
Soldiers are individuals, not a collective "troops". We are citizens, not consumers.
No Constitution, no USA, just another tyranny with bigger cars.
3
" ... the war we fleetingly won. ..."
That must have been the same type of victory the US had in Vietnam.
A victory that has brought "peace" and "freedom" to Afghanistan.
But as for the analysis that the war on IS I do agree, this is a war the US and the rest of the West will have to stay out and let Muslims fight between them.
The only role the West has is to totally isolate IS and keep the cancer from spreading.
So lock them in as long as this will still work.
IS already is not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in most parts of Northern Africa and parts of South East Asia as Muslim tribes there have shifted allegiances from one leading group, e.g. Al Quaeda, to IS these days.
And make no mistake, the leaders of IS are not just highly motivated, they are also highly Western educated and perfectly funded.
They have learned from the mistakes of Al Quaeda and are not bound to repeat them.
Plus, they have a no-exit strategy, they want the end of all wars, some kind of Armageddon, in which their messiah will return and lead Muslims into victory.
They do not need an escape or fall back strategy.
Something that the US and the West still have to learn.
That must have been the same type of victory the US had in Vietnam.
A victory that has brought "peace" and "freedom" to Afghanistan.
But as for the analysis that the war on IS I do agree, this is a war the US and the rest of the West will have to stay out and let Muslims fight between them.
The only role the West has is to totally isolate IS and keep the cancer from spreading.
So lock them in as long as this will still work.
IS already is not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in most parts of Northern Africa and parts of South East Asia as Muslim tribes there have shifted allegiances from one leading group, e.g. Al Quaeda, to IS these days.
And make no mistake, the leaders of IS are not just highly motivated, they are also highly Western educated and perfectly funded.
They have learned from the mistakes of Al Quaeda and are not bound to repeat them.
Plus, they have a no-exit strategy, they want the end of all wars, some kind of Armageddon, in which their messiah will return and lead Muslims into victory.
They do not need an escape or fall back strategy.
Something that the US and the West still have to learn.
True, all true. But we can turn the threat of radical Islam into an existential threat. All we need do is let Hawks such as McCain and his amigos talk us into seeing it that way.
Yes we need patience but even more we need courage. The courage to stay out of this particular fight and let it run its course.
Yes we need patience but even more we need courage. The courage to stay out of this particular fight and let it run its course.
3
Why not try a new less hostile and more forward looking policy and strategy with and towards the Arab and Moslem worlds?
America's anti Arab and anti ISLAM policies starting with the post WWI acquiescence to the Sykes-Picot treaty, Balfour Declaration, the birth sustenance and empowerment of ISRAEL and, lately, the conquest and destruction of Iraq , has been and will remain to be the major cause of Arab ISLAM deep iand relentless animosity towards the USA.
Should America reconsider that all out anti Arab/ISLAM and pro, ISRAEL strategic outlook things will really change and neither ISIS nor others will find the receptive public it enjoys now.
America's anti Arab and anti ISLAM policies starting with the post WWI acquiescence to the Sykes-Picot treaty, Balfour Declaration, the birth sustenance and empowerment of ISRAEL and, lately, the conquest and destruction of Iraq , has been and will remain to be the major cause of Arab ISLAM deep iand relentless animosity towards the USA.
Should America reconsider that all out anti Arab/ISLAM and pro, ISRAEL strategic outlook things will really change and neither ISIS nor others will find the receptive public it enjoys now.
2
Patience, what does America know about patience? In this “got to know now” era, we want answers yesterday on a problem today.
Obama has given his case for not wanting to call ISIS Islamic terrorists (especially when other Islamic nations are part of the coalition).
Obama is trying real hard to be patience because he always sees the long game, but the forces for war and want American boots on the ground have no time for patience.
If only we took the time to look back at our record of invading countries and one would easily see our record sucks.
This time with ISIS, let's calm down, keep giving air support, but by all means allow the Muslims to fight their own war.
Obama has given his case for not wanting to call ISIS Islamic terrorists (especially when other Islamic nations are part of the coalition).
Obama is trying real hard to be patience because he always sees the long game, but the forces for war and want American boots on the ground have no time for patience.
If only we took the time to look back at our record of invading countries and one would easily see our record sucks.
This time with ISIS, let's calm down, keep giving air support, but by all means allow the Muslims to fight their own war.
3
If 1.6 billion Muslims are not willing to actively (with troops and funding) oppose ISIS, then active U.S. military intervention is a no-win situation. We will wind up with casualties, massive additional debt, and the enmity of the various Sunni Muslims.
The Shite and Sunni Muslims have been unable and unwilling to resolve 1400 years of killing each other. What will change with U.S. and European intervention.
It would be far better for western nations to cut the Mid-East loose to address their own problems themselves. We don't need their oil, we don't need the casualties, and most of all we don't need to sacrifice the lives and health of the one percent we send into harm's way.
The Shite and Sunni Muslims have been unable and unwilling to resolve 1400 years of killing each other. What will change with U.S. and European intervention.
It would be far better for western nations to cut the Mid-East loose to address their own problems themselves. We don't need their oil, we don't need the casualties, and most of all we don't need to sacrifice the lives and health of the one percent we send into harm's way.
2
I agree in the main. We must keep in mind that the long-run economic and political forces are on our side. Any population living as ISIS wishes them to is doomed to poverty and backwardness.
The U.S. or any determined modern military could certainly go in and militarily defeat ISIS, but as Mr. Greiner points out, that doesn't solve the problem of what happens afterwards. Given that we or any outside power would be not willing to simply exterminate the whole population, or even occupy the area for long, the long run goal must be for the Syrian and Iraqi Sunni Arabs to able to defend themselves. But for that, they first have to form that most rare, almost non-existent thing in the Arab world: reasonably competent and consensual government. I despair of that happening.
The U.S. or any determined modern military could certainly go in and militarily defeat ISIS, but as Mr. Greiner points out, that doesn't solve the problem of what happens afterwards. Given that we or any outside power would be not willing to simply exterminate the whole population, or even occupy the area for long, the long run goal must be for the Syrian and Iraqi Sunni Arabs to able to defend themselves. But for that, they first have to form that most rare, almost non-existent thing in the Arab world: reasonably competent and consensual government. I despair of that happening.
1
If we didn't have 300 million guns widely available, ISIL would be a tiny threat.
The idea of win quickly and get out is based on a false narrative from the Vietnam experience. The text books and histories of that war incorrectly state that the American public gradually turned against our involvement there because of negative, harmful images shown on American television news. This is largely false. Except for the many families who had children being drafted and sent over to fight and die, most Americans, as with Afghanistan, were uninvolved, believing that the critical decisions were properly in the hands of the leadership. The shock of setbacks, like Tet in 1968, was induced by false optimism of "victory".
Based on false conclusions about Vietnam, the American military has pursued the idea that a quick and relatively "clean" victory was the only choice. Democracies are stronger than imagined in such matters. Part of the key is honesty combined with clearly defined objectives, both often lacking.
Calming down about the threat of terrorism is not only a good idea, it is good strategy. No American administration, however, wants to be the next to sustain a major attack on American soil, because, unlike 2001, the blame and political uproar would be massive and instant.
Terrorism must be dealt with bit by bit on the basis of precisely what it is and nothing more, no exaggeration, no hype. Realism and calm assessment are essential. It is not an all front, all the time war, unless we want to create that sort of mess from our own fears.
http://terryreport.com
Based on false conclusions about Vietnam, the American military has pursued the idea that a quick and relatively "clean" victory was the only choice. Democracies are stronger than imagined in such matters. Part of the key is honesty combined with clearly defined objectives, both often lacking.
Calming down about the threat of terrorism is not only a good idea, it is good strategy. No American administration, however, wants to be the next to sustain a major attack on American soil, because, unlike 2001, the blame and political uproar would be massive and instant.
Terrorism must be dealt with bit by bit on the basis of precisely what it is and nothing more, no exaggeration, no hype. Realism and calm assessment are essential. It is not an all front, all the time war, unless we want to create that sort of mess from our own fears.
http://terryreport.com
2
ISIS IS NOT an existetential threat? That is an opinion and not a fact. But I am curious, if they are not an existential threat why is Obama conducting daily sorties? If they are not an existential threat why has Obama received daily intelligence briefings for over a year? Maybe you could
(1) explain that to the woman who was beheaded at her job
(2) The parents of the 3 year old killed by the blast at the Boston Marathon. Maybe he can explain what it's like to lose a child He must know
(3) the families who lost loved ones at the hands of Major Hassan at Fort Hood
(4) the many people at the Boston Marathon who lost limbs. I wonder what they'd say.
Maybe the author can explain what the head of ISIS meant when he was released from Abu Grahib "I will see you in New York."
Finally, I wonder if the author can factually prove the over 200 Americans who have gone to fight with ISIS won't come back. Are they are on the Homeland Security list? No fly list? Are those who joined from France, Belgium Germany, France, et won't come here? Do their countries have them targeted and are they prohibited from coming to this country with their existing passports?
I think the premise of this article is flawed to say the least and he will eat these words sooner than he thinks
(1) explain that to the woman who was beheaded at her job
(2) The parents of the 3 year old killed by the blast at the Boston Marathon. Maybe he can explain what it's like to lose a child He must know
(3) the families who lost loved ones at the hands of Major Hassan at Fort Hood
(4) the many people at the Boston Marathon who lost limbs. I wonder what they'd say.
Maybe the author can explain what the head of ISIS meant when he was released from Abu Grahib "I will see you in New York."
Finally, I wonder if the author can factually prove the over 200 Americans who have gone to fight with ISIS won't come back. Are they are on the Homeland Security list? No fly list? Are those who joined from France, Belgium Germany, France, et won't come here? Do their countries have them targeted and are they prohibited from coming to this country with their existing passports?
I think the premise of this article is flawed to say the least and he will eat these words sooner than he thinks
2-4 were done by people who had no connection whatsoever with ISIS. This unfortunately, is typical American thinking right now. Every stupid and murderous action done in the name of Islam is supposedly part of a single unified conspiracy that needs to be fought with boot on the ground. It just ain't so.
1
I don’t necessarily disagree with everything Mr. Grenier says. There is lot of discussion of what will work & what strategies will do this or that, or how we can “win”, etc. But I did an editor search for the word “moral” in this editorial and only found “morale” and “demoralized”. I tried “morality” and found nothing. Has it ever occurred to anyone that there used to be this thing called moral justification of warfare & Just War Criteria? -- Something we showed little recollection of especially when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Before these “wars of choice”, we use to implicitly regard unnecessary war as murder (the culpability for which lies with those who start them, not the soldiers under orders). Maybe if we looked at what is NECESSARY for our defense and only do that, we might know better what we want and be able to achieve something like it instead of just making a bad situation, much, much worse.
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. ……It was right to resist the war.” Pope Benedict XVI
“It is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war. ……..The War in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying the requirements of a just war.” Ron Paul
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. ……It was right to resist the war.” Pope Benedict XVI
“It is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war. ……..The War in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying the requirements of a just war.” Ron Paul
5
As a Vietnam veteran who experience American perfidy in the Army and later as a civilian working in that theater, I see the ISIS point of view as a simple logic of how do we get these psychopaths out of our lives. They are resorting to all kinds of stupid cruelty but actual have logic behind it. It's not a question of right or wrong. Both sides are crazy but the Americans should know better. After Vietnam and all the media hyping that goes on, RT makes more sense even though Russian Oligarchy and Putin leave much to be desired. I liked Reagans saying that we would unite to fight off an extraterrestrial alien invasion. Forget it, they are not that stupid and want nothing to do with us. An asteroid will probably eventually take care of these psychopaths. As Stalin said "no people, no problems"
It would be interesting to know his thoughts on the Saudi funding of extremism as it relates to the current conflict.
His analysis is otherwise very wise and should be heeded by US and other strategists. Part of a sensible strategy though is to find out who's bankrolling this instability and exerting quiet pressure and providing incentives to stop it. It would probably be far more effective and ultimately less incendiary than irresponsible loud bluster which only aids and abets ISIS and their ilk.
His analysis is otherwise very wise and should be heeded by US and other strategists. Part of a sensible strategy though is to find out who's bankrolling this instability and exerting quiet pressure and providing incentives to stop it. It would probably be far more effective and ultimately less incendiary than irresponsible loud bluster which only aids and abets ISIS and their ilk.
4
ISIS is indeed an extremist fundamentalist islamic group that must be defeated, but not by foreign forces leading it; Muslims themselves must gain the 'souls' and 'heart' of their own people and show the stupidity of ISIS in invoking an all-loving god for the depravity and carnage they are carrying out. But it is the West's obligation to help the local armed forces, given that the West's military intervention in the wrong country (Irak had nothing to do with 9/11/01) plus the unwise disbanding of the native military, just because it was Saddam Hussein's, may have caused extremism to develop from a marginal force into one to reckon with.
3
Who are our "Muslim allies?" The answer to that question evades us. And, just as we are unable to play for a tie, we are unable to embrace leaders like Assad, who are not sufficiently moral, in our arrogant estimation, to help us bring stability to an area that badly needs a powerful anchor. As we continue to make moral judgments about our "allies" and try to force western style democracy in an area in which it is not just unfamiliar, but antithetical, all the patience in the world will not help us win, or even disengage. At least, however, someone is finally talking seriously about the fight not being our fight. We just need to find out whose fight it is, and get them in it, and get us out.
1
The Kurds are our allies.
1
"Ultimate victory in the fight against violent extremism inspired by Islam will require wisdom and patience of an unaccustomed sort. The question is whether, as a government and as a people, Americans are capable of it."
The American people--and, therefore, the American government--would demand a forceful response to a series of significant homeland attacks by Islamist extremists. They would not accept Mr.Grenier’s prescription of patient standoffishness to let Muslim versus Muslim warfare run its course.
Moreover, unlike apparently Mr. Grenier, with Rwanda and Bosnia still fresh memories, many Americans cannot accept just standing by without trying to do something about the avowed and witnessed genocide by Islam extremists.
The American people--and, therefore, the American government--would demand a forceful response to a series of significant homeland attacks by Islamist extremists. They would not accept Mr.Grenier’s prescription of patient standoffishness to let Muslim versus Muslim warfare run its course.
Moreover, unlike apparently Mr. Grenier, with Rwanda and Bosnia still fresh memories, many Americans cannot accept just standing by without trying to do something about the avowed and witnessed genocide by Islam extremists.
This is the most intelligent and reasonable analysis of the ISIS threat that I have since since ISIS became a news story. Thanks to the NY Times for publishing this piece. Hopefully, it will be disseminated to the widest possible audience. Calls for patience and reason are not popular in our "we must solve the problem now" culture, a culture that is doing us great harm.
4
This is a wise perspective, and I also fear that Americans are not capable of realism. We are subjected to too many war movies. My longterm study of jihadism and the groups that resemble jihadists--millennial and apocalyptic movements--has taught me that ideas cannot be killed by bullets and that bullets that make martyrs only raise more demons from the blood of the dead.
Yes, Islam is undergoing a horrible "reformation," one that will take years and that will eventually result in an accommodation with the modern world. We need to contain ourselves and not fulfill the violent expectations of religious terrorists. It only brings them more recruits.
Yes, Islam is undergoing a horrible "reformation," one that will take years and that will eventually result in an accommodation with the modern world. We need to contain ourselves and not fulfill the violent expectations of religious terrorists. It only brings them more recruits.
2
Each worldwide conflict is different and requires different strategies in order to win. We invaded Germany and Japan and finally dropped nuclear bombs. Imagine if that was our strategy with the Soviet Union. These wars in the Muslim countries between Sunnis and Shia is a lot like the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants in Europe. Imagine if the Muslim armies had gone in to 'make things better'? Tamp down the worst excesses, but I think we'll just have to let it burn itself out. Besides, we're going to need something in reserve when the Chinese start making their moves.
1
When did we invade Japan?
“The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight."
Radical Islamic militants undoubtedly smile at the naivety of this statement. Their enemies are all kafirs--infidels—particularly Western Crusaders as well as Muslim variants (takfirs}. Are we to be dismissive of the words and actions of the radical Islamists that express their clear intent to take the fight to the West’s homelands?
“In the course of exercising strategic patience we should remember that the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one. The extremists may pose a fundamental danger to the moderate majority in much of the Muslim world; but very few American civilians have fallen victim to Islamic terror since 9/11, and Shariah is unlikely to be imposed in Texas.”
This seems to acknowledge that the US and other Western countries will be targeted for attack but it says that we should tolerate any body blows because it is not conceivable that they will be enough to threaten our existence. Again, profound naivety; that is, the idea that Americans or the citizens of any attacked country would not demand a forceful response to a series of significant attacks but would accept Mr. Grenier’s counsel of patient standoffishness to let Muslim internecine conflict run its course.
Radical Islamic militants undoubtedly smile at the naivety of this statement. Their enemies are all kafirs--infidels—particularly Western Crusaders as well as Muslim variants (takfirs}. Are we to be dismissive of the words and actions of the radical Islamists that express their clear intent to take the fight to the West’s homelands?
“In the course of exercising strategic patience we should remember that the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one. The extremists may pose a fundamental danger to the moderate majority in much of the Muslim world; but very few American civilians have fallen victim to Islamic terror since 9/11, and Shariah is unlikely to be imposed in Texas.”
This seems to acknowledge that the US and other Western countries will be targeted for attack but it says that we should tolerate any body blows because it is not conceivable that they will be enough to threaten our existence. Again, profound naivety; that is, the idea that Americans or the citizens of any attacked country would not demand a forceful response to a series of significant attacks but would accept Mr. Grenier’s counsel of patient standoffishness to let Muslim internecine conflict run its course.
1
Couldn't it be that the glorious US military leads just don't know what they strategically could do to effectively fight IS ?
This time it seems that your enemy is invisible and omnipresent at the same time, solid allies not to find anymore and historical right not on the side of foreigners, that we western world are in Middle East arab countries.
Finally there sits the right-in-their-haert-implanted Israel making war on civilians. Even traded and traditional values overcome themselves at a time. Regarding the ecological problems we all face on mother earth, the USA as the flagship of modernism one should think about the god of maximizing profit and bigotery in overcome religions.
Last but not least it is the era of enlightment we all should live in, everybody is allowed to use one's own head.
This time it seems that your enemy is invisible and omnipresent at the same time, solid allies not to find anymore and historical right not on the side of foreigners, that we western world are in Middle East arab countries.
Finally there sits the right-in-their-haert-implanted Israel making war on civilians. Even traded and traditional values overcome themselves at a time. Regarding the ecological problems we all face on mother earth, the USA as the flagship of modernism one should think about the god of maximizing profit and bigotery in overcome religions.
Last but not least it is the era of enlightment we all should live in, everybody is allowed to use one's own head.
1
'Ultimate victory in the fight against violent extremism inspired by Islam will require wisdom and patience of an unaccustomed sort.'
So evidently Mr. Grenier advocates, that Islam inspires violent extremism? But, if that were true, we should be starting the 4th Crusades; And yet, those of us with the facility for critical thinking know better than to believe that everyone who practices Islam is a future extremist.
So evidently Mr. Grenier advocates, that Islam inspires violent extremism? But, if that were true, we should be starting the 4th Crusades; And yet, those of us with the facility for critical thinking know better than to believe that everyone who practices Islam is a future extremist.
3
I can't help but see parallels between the Old Testament story of Noah and our current Holy Land and greater Middle East troubles. I mean if there is a God he/she cannot be too happy with the insanity that is going on there: a racist, messianic, militaristic and colonial regime armed with nuclear weapons threatens the entire region while brutalizing a captive indigenous population; a reactionary, nihilistic cult of disenfranchised losers terrorize moderates of all stripes in a vengeful, religious frenzy; a blood thirsty dictator hangs on to power even as the country he supposedly wants to rule is in the grips of a merciless civil war were the slaughter of the innocents is its only constant. Looming over this is the specter of global climate change which, if a merciful God decrees, would be the instrument with which to bring about a 1000 year flood over the region ending the cycle of hate. No need to build an ark. There is nothing worth saving. God has lost his patience. And I fear this is the only scenario left that can save humanity.
3
While the idea that Afghans should spearhead a campaign to dislodge the Taliban was sound in logic, the devil lied in the perceptions.At the time of 2001 Afghan war I was still in Pakistan. As a Pashtoon I can confidently vouchsafe that the US failed miserably in its effort to try to not leave a footprint on Afghan soil. Pashtoons on the sides of the Durand Line strongly believe that it's the US in cahoots with Pakistan trying to promote its stretegic interests in Afghanistan--offcourse with the help of a handful of Afghan stooges. And this perception didn't take hold after the 2005 'surge', it was there since the 2001 invasion.
1
They will come after us because that is what they said they would do and we have no reason to doubt it. We can pretend like it has nothing to do with us, but like anyone who has ever been in a bar-fight knows, there are no bystanders. These guys are evil pure and simple and we have the means to deal with them so to not do so would be another evil. Ronald Reagan started all of this in the 80's when he armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan....this is blowback on an operatic scale. THe irony is that real development was happening in Afghanistan while the Soviets were there....were they communists....sort of....were they a threat to us....not by a long shot.
1
Could it be that the "limited but critical support" this ex-CIA officer is advocating might just be... the CIA?
2
Afghanistan and Isis are two different matters. They have in common extreme Islam, but Afghanistan is backward, tribal and isolated. I'm reminded of Hadrians wall; they are insular and therefore easy to wall off from the rest of world. The cost of routing them out in their own rugged terrain against the local tribal politics is just too great. Isis, on the other hand, is sophisticated, moneyed, media savvy, and going right after the heart or urban islamic powers. The threat to expanding regional instability did not exist in Afganistan, as it does with Isis.
Further, the President contends that ISIS is not Islamic at all but instead terrorists. So this goes against the argument that ISIS is some internal conflict within Islam that Islam must work out within itself. I suspect that many moderate Muslims in this country that have relatives abroad fear speaking against ISIS out of concern for their families in Musim countries. The very tatics of ISIS are intimidation, in your face hostility. And if that is the case, like those who quietly assumed the Nazis were a fad that would just run its course, it is folly to ignore them and to be isolationist. That does not mean we must have boots on the ground, but neither should we stick our heads in the ground.
Further, the President contends that ISIS is not Islamic at all but instead terrorists. So this goes against the argument that ISIS is some internal conflict within Islam that Islam must work out within itself. I suspect that many moderate Muslims in this country that have relatives abroad fear speaking against ISIS out of concern for their families in Musim countries. The very tatics of ISIS are intimidation, in your face hostility. And if that is the case, like those who quietly assumed the Nazis were a fad that would just run its course, it is folly to ignore them and to be isolationist. That does not mean we must have boots on the ground, but neither should we stick our heads in the ground.
1
Americans need to take a moment and listen to the wisdom of King Abdullah of Jordan as he recounted yesterday on a Sunday program how to deal with ISIS.
His main point is that dealing with ISIS is an Arab/Muslim problem that only they can solve with limited assistance from the West, particularly the United States.
The killing by ISIS of a Jordanian pilot has awakened a little giant in the form of Jordanian outrage that has multiplied across the Arab and Muslim world.
They will deal with this challenge and put ISIS out of business.
His main point is that dealing with ISIS is an Arab/Muslim problem that only they can solve with limited assistance from the West, particularly the United States.
The killing by ISIS of a Jordanian pilot has awakened a little giant in the form of Jordanian outrage that has multiplied across the Arab and Muslim world.
They will deal with this challenge and put ISIS out of business.
1
Brilliant and well reasoned...but it won't play in Chris Kyle's Texas.
3
Right now 4 out of the 10 most emailed articles are about "Downton Abbey". Nothing about ISIS or that whole area. So I wouldn't worry about Americans getting all worked up and sending over an invasion force.
1
"Shariah is unlikely to be imposed in Texas"
Not if the Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit has its way..
Not if the Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit has its way..
2
So extreme, radical Islamists are not an existential threat to us here in America? Perhaps one of our fearless leaders should so inform those who survived - barely - the events of 11 September 2001, along with the relatives of those who didn't. I'm sure they'd be most appreciative. Along with the many New York straphangers who are alive today because the NYPD managed to break up a plot to make an armed attack on the subway system. You know, like the ones on the London Underground and Madrid's commuter trains. All the perpetrators of those had something religious in common, and it wasn't Christmas trees or Passover seders or, for that matter, anything Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Taoist, Confucian, any of the world's tribal faiths, or even atheist.
And did I fail to mention that the 9-11 boys seriously wanted to bring along a nuke on their trip to the World Trade Center, only to be frustrated when their 'contacts' - an FSB setup (That's Federal Security Bureau, Russia's successor to the KGB) - sold them a fake loaded with radioactive paint? Yes, Putin actually warned us - along with the leaders or intelligence services of at least 51 other nations - before that fateful day. But not to worry, there's no existential threat. 'Til the next time. Sleep well.
And did I fail to mention that the 9-11 boys seriously wanted to bring along a nuke on their trip to the World Trade Center, only to be frustrated when their 'contacts' - an FSB setup (That's Federal Security Bureau, Russia's successor to the KGB) - sold them a fake loaded with radioactive paint? Yes, Putin actually warned us - along with the leaders or intelligence services of at least 51 other nations - before that fateful day. But not to worry, there's no existential threat. 'Til the next time. Sleep well.
The greatest irony of this century is that America has started a "war" that they have already won. An American is 10 times more likely to die after being hit by lightening than being killed by an Islamic terrorist. There is no significant danger to North America ! Tragically the Levant is a region run by backward thinking, corrupt and inept rulers. Their people have little hope of a better future as a direct result of the failings of their political systems all of which are captive of distorted and nihilistic version of Islam. Peace in the region and thus a resolution of the threat against the West will only occur when the people of the region demand better. We ultimately can never dictate what the regions people want, only they can.
3
Don't even need to bother with this garbage article. Try telling that to the Yazidis, Assyrians, and other minorities being slaughtered by ISIS. obama sits on his hands, and the filth of humanity (putin, khameini, nasrallah, etc.) run roughshod conquering and conducting wars and terrorism across the globe.
obama's shameful, appalling equivocating on so many major foreign policy situations has emboldened these thugs to continue attacking their neighbors. obama's damage will take decades to repair...
obama's shameful, appalling equivocating on so many major foreign policy situations has emboldened these thugs to continue attacking their neighbors. obama's damage will take decades to repair...
America is full of "Outrage Hobbyists," a body of people of the sort who take news they get as an entertainment, react emotionally and forcefully from a safe distance, then extol a policy, for their own entertainment. It's an entertainment cycle, it does not have to have a relationship to a real goal or even reality. Just witness the endless people commenting that we should confront Russia on it's border with troops because, "Putin is a bully." It's stuff for a TV series, which is how Americans think.
Most Americans haven't voluntarily voluntarily read a history book in their adult lives. It's good to read an article by an expert who has.
Most Americans haven't voluntarily voluntarily read a history book in their adult lives. It's good to read an article by an expert who has.
1
"Not an existential threat"?
I guess that the Italians (with ISIS in Libya a few hundred kilometers away) would disagree. Maybe the Spaniards and the French, having fought similar forces over 1,000 years ago would also have something to say, considering that ISIS makes a point of using the same modus operandi that successfully reached its peak with Al Andalus.
I guess that the Italians (with ISIS in Libya a few hundred kilometers away) would disagree. Maybe the Spaniards and the French, having fought similar forces over 1,000 years ago would also have something to say, considering that ISIS makes a point of using the same modus operandi that successfully reached its peak with Al Andalus.
I dunno, you say the people here wouldn't accept Shariah law. It seems like a substantial part of those severe, "conservative" laws are just what certain people here want.
5
I think our relationship to extremist Muslim killers needs to change. We have failed to demonstrate even our own belief in our absolute right to live unmolested and to defend ourselves and our way of life. We have been willing to send men to kill and die, but when we get our hands on these criminals face to face, our will melts into guilt over peripheral issues like Abu Grab or waterboarding or maybe our CO2 footprint.
I am referring to the fact that we have run a massive 14 year catch and release program, while not a single one of these murderers have been executed at our hands. Not one hanging. 3000 thousands Americans murdered at their offices, we have the culprits, and they still live and breath. This is remarkable, something that would have amazed our forefathers.
Our enemies see it as a moral weakness and I think they are right. It is. This kind of weakness brings out evil. The lust for absolute power and blood smells a moral vacuum. It is as we aren't too sure that maybe our enemies aren't better than us and shouldn't win. This I think, as much as faith or personal crisis is what draws the worst from the West to those killing fields.
Whether or not we have a critical interest in destroying ISIS in Iraq, we clearly have this interest: we should not let these blood thirsty animals walk our streets as free men and women, ever. Any who return or fall into our hands on the battle field if we take the battle field should hang.
I am referring to the fact that we have run a massive 14 year catch and release program, while not a single one of these murderers have been executed at our hands. Not one hanging. 3000 thousands Americans murdered at their offices, we have the culprits, and they still live and breath. This is remarkable, something that would have amazed our forefathers.
Our enemies see it as a moral weakness and I think they are right. It is. This kind of weakness brings out evil. The lust for absolute power and blood smells a moral vacuum. It is as we aren't too sure that maybe our enemies aren't better than us and shouldn't win. This I think, as much as faith or personal crisis is what draws the worst from the West to those killing fields.
Whether or not we have a critical interest in destroying ISIS in Iraq, we clearly have this interest: we should not let these blood thirsty animals walk our streets as free men and women, ever. Any who return or fall into our hands on the battle field if we take the battle field should hang.
"We" brought on the deaths of many thousands of Afghans and of at least 100,000 Iraqis. Is that not enough for you?
1
Iraq is an artificial country, as are a number of countries in the area. The only reliable ally are the Kurds. We should arm them to the teeth and provide them support. They are effective and pro US.
Turkey is ineffective and provides covert support to ISIL. We need to support the Kurds.
Turkey is ineffective and provides covert support to ISIL. We need to support the Kurds.
4
If I see another comment about the Iraq War being "about oil," I think I'm going to be sick. The Iraq War was a mistake, made by the naïve and the zealous, but it wasn't about oil -- buying it would've been much cheaper.
Now, on to Grenier's rather commonplace Op-Ed: Just because a threat isn't existential doesn't -- does not -- mean it isn't a serious one. And then there's this business about Islamism being a threat for "the Muslim world" to deal with. When people say this kind of thing, the teleology inhering in it disturbs me. The president pontificates, "lest we get on our high horse...", then references the Crusades and the Catholic Inquisition, then implies that what came out of the Wars of Religion of 16th-century Western Europe will also come out of the Middle East, Central Asia, or North Africa, namely Enlightenment.
But how can he know this? How can anyone? Why must Islamic history mirror the history of Latin Christendom? How do we know that Islamism is doomed for the ash heap? The difference between craziness in the 16th century and craziness in the 21st is the destructive power of modern technology. Were dirty bombs used against the Huguenots?
When discussing the Islamic world, you see the adverb "ultimately" used a lot. But what does it mean to say that ultimately it's [so-and-so's] problem? How long until ultimately arrives? Is it on its way? What about traffic? We're in their sights, and it's our problem too; and God is on the side of the big squadrons.
Now, on to Grenier's rather commonplace Op-Ed: Just because a threat isn't existential doesn't -- does not -- mean it isn't a serious one. And then there's this business about Islamism being a threat for "the Muslim world" to deal with. When people say this kind of thing, the teleology inhering in it disturbs me. The president pontificates, "lest we get on our high horse...", then references the Crusades and the Catholic Inquisition, then implies that what came out of the Wars of Religion of 16th-century Western Europe will also come out of the Middle East, Central Asia, or North Africa, namely Enlightenment.
But how can he know this? How can anyone? Why must Islamic history mirror the history of Latin Christendom? How do we know that Islamism is doomed for the ash heap? The difference between craziness in the 16th century and craziness in the 21st is the destructive power of modern technology. Were dirty bombs used against the Huguenots?
When discussing the Islamic world, you see the adverb "ultimately" used a lot. But what does it mean to say that ultimately it's [so-and-so's] problem? How long until ultimately arrives? Is it on its way? What about traffic? We're in their sights, and it's our problem too; and God is on the side of the big squadrons.
We don’t live in a perfect world. The Taliban have never been perfect. However, there is no need for us to fix every problem or the Taliban.
Since the 9/11/2001 nobody has proven the Taliban involvement. The Al Qaeda had the training camps in Afghanistan, but also the Northern Alliance, the archenemy of the Taliban. The Taliban coexisted in the same country with the communist puppet regime during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but that didn’t make them the backers of Moscow.
I have never read any article proving that the Taliban aided the Al Qaeda in any way – logistically, financially or with the training of the recruits.
We know that the Al Qaeda was a miniscule organization of the Sunni Arabs with a radical Wahhabi ideology. The leadership, financial backers, ideology and recruits came from the Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan – all of them our alleged regional allies.
That was embarrassing for the White House. Instead of admitting that our Middle Eastern foreign policy failed our national interests, the White House aimed at the least inconvenient target (which we abandoned after the defeat of the USSR) to avoid any personal liability.
Instead of helping the locals reform their society by initiating the real Arab Spring, the Bush Administration opted for the Afghan War.
Thus we wasted a couple trillion dollars and sacrificed the US troops only to end up with the ISIS…
That’s why those 30 pages of report were blackened out...
Since the 9/11/2001 nobody has proven the Taliban involvement. The Al Qaeda had the training camps in Afghanistan, but also the Northern Alliance, the archenemy of the Taliban. The Taliban coexisted in the same country with the communist puppet regime during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but that didn’t make them the backers of Moscow.
I have never read any article proving that the Taliban aided the Al Qaeda in any way – logistically, financially or with the training of the recruits.
We know that the Al Qaeda was a miniscule organization of the Sunni Arabs with a radical Wahhabi ideology. The leadership, financial backers, ideology and recruits came from the Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan – all of them our alleged regional allies.
That was embarrassing for the White House. Instead of admitting that our Middle Eastern foreign policy failed our national interests, the White House aimed at the least inconvenient target (which we abandoned after the defeat of the USSR) to avoid any personal liability.
Instead of helping the locals reform their society by initiating the real Arab Spring, the Bush Administration opted for the Afghan War.
Thus we wasted a couple trillion dollars and sacrificed the US troops only to end up with the ISIS…
That’s why those 30 pages of report were blackened out...
1
It seems to me that when it comes to the fights against ISIS and the Taliban, the author is advocating pretty much the strategy the president is following. He has announced a slowdown in the draw down of US forces in Afghanistan and it looks as though we will be keeping 10,000 troops there for the foreseeable future. We do need to keep air and logistical support for Afghan forces on the table.
As for Iraq and ISIS, we need to ensure that Iraqi frontline forces are up to the job of protecting US forward air controllers and advisers before we put them at risk. As the author himself states, this is not primarily our fight.
As for Iraq and ISIS, we need to ensure that Iraqi frontline forces are up to the job of protecting US forward air controllers and advisers before we put them at risk. As the author himself states, this is not primarily our fight.
1
Radical Islam whether by Iran, Isis or any number of other terrorist groups/nations is the single greatest threat to the US since WWII. They have been at what with us for years, and the lack o leadership continually shown by appeasers and is more than a lack of intelligence and shows a weakness of character and resolve. Think of the millions of lives we could have saved if we had stood up to the Nazis in the 1930s before they rolled over country after country, but the isolationists kept us on the sidelines. History has shown us that isolationism is a failed strategy and always costs more, so we should act now to destroy this unspeakable evil, or go by our wives and daughters burkas, because women and apostates have no rights under Radical Islam.
Mr.Grenier's article is clear and Rational. That makes the information he conveys ill suited to Washington.
He would need to weave in the Monied Interests and Their take on ISIS. The war drums are beating again, against Iran, Isis,and whatever other boogeymen the Pentagon can come up with. Patience is a virtue unknown to those in the gov't intent on pursuing their futile dreams of Power.
Seems like the more wars we fight the weaker we get in world public opinion, our economy and our future prospects. But since are future leaders are being selected by the corporate crowd rather than we the people, more war seems inevitable.
He would need to weave in the Monied Interests and Their take on ISIS. The war drums are beating again, against Iran, Isis,and whatever other boogeymen the Pentagon can come up with. Patience is a virtue unknown to those in the gov't intent on pursuing their futile dreams of Power.
Seems like the more wars we fight the weaker we get in world public opinion, our economy and our future prospects. But since are future leaders are being selected by the corporate crowd rather than we the people, more war seems inevitable.
3
I'm confused, isn't the author saying the Obama administration is not doing enough, while advocating exactly for what it is doing?
Obama made the mistake of inaction at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and with the Morsi's regime. What exactly does the author propose we do differently now?
Obama made the mistake of inaction at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and with the Morsi's regime. What exactly does the author propose we do differently now?
1
"...we should remember that the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one."
Neither was Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930's. Perhaps we should wait until the threat becomes existential? Evil triumphs when good men do nothing!
Neither was Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930's. Perhaps we should wait until the threat becomes existential? Evil triumphs when good men do nothing!
So we should bomb the entire world because in the future one of those countries might be stronger and might do something we don't like? I guess I never thought about it that way, very thankfully.
So, when they become an existential threat, do we have your permission to wipe them off the face of then planet? Do it now, or do it later. That is reality, not this wishful, naive thinking.
Our media are crawling with retired military men, who unlike Robert Grenier, are paid "consultants" and lobbyists to the arms industry. War and big bucks go together, and patience is not counted in the bottom line.
3
Very good article and I agree with the author on most points, particularly in regard to having a few Americans on the ground to direct close air support, which could have a devastating effect on the enemy.
But I really wish I could have a conversation with Mr. Grenier in regard to Afghanistan. As a combat veteran and a long time student of military history, one thing I've learned is that wars are won, for the most part, by killing enemy soldiers and destroying or cutting off supplies, though the press almost always focuses on territory taken or occupied. In many years of reading journalists reports about Afghanistan, I never read one word about supplies or supply lines (no, it doesn't make good press) and thus felt that I never had idea at all how we were actually doing in that war or what our strategy was. I still don't.
I've never read a single word about supplies in relationship to ISIS either. Somebody has to know.
But I really wish I could have a conversation with Mr. Grenier in regard to Afghanistan. As a combat veteran and a long time student of military history, one thing I've learned is that wars are won, for the most part, by killing enemy soldiers and destroying or cutting off supplies, though the press almost always focuses on territory taken or occupied. In many years of reading journalists reports about Afghanistan, I never read one word about supplies or supply lines (no, it doesn't make good press) and thus felt that I never had idea at all how we were actually doing in that war or what our strategy was. I still don't.
I've never read a single word about supplies in relationship to ISIS either. Somebody has to know.
28
Did you ever in your education in military history read about a place called Vietnam? We killed by some estimates over two million Vietnamese. We dropped 2x the tonnage of explosives on the Ho Chi Min Trail as on all of Germany in WWII. Their policy, to take as many casualties as needed, was never a secret, and they never lacked for fresh soldiers. And they weren't even religious martyrs.
It's never about supply lines or numbers of dead when you fight a determined small arms citizenry in a large country.
It's never about supply lines or numbers of dead when you fight a determined small arms citizenry in a large country.
3
Yeah, so the problem is that the most important supplies are money for weapons and religious propaganda. That money and religious indoctrination comes from bad state actors like Iran and Saudi Arabia with their oil money. You want to cut off supplies of money and religious indoctrination, jack up taxes on oil and put that money into researching solar. Anything we can do to reduce demand for oil will come back 10x in money we don't have to spend fighting pointless wars in these dirt-holes.
It's seriously too bad that Pakistan has nukes, because *that* is an existential threat 100% for sure.
It's seriously too bad that Pakistan has nukes, because *that* is an existential threat 100% for sure.
2
The Military Industrial Complex is the supply line. You haven't figured out what Eisenhower, the last respected Republican president, was warning us against. Sure we beat the Soviets to the moon, with a German SS major running the program. Does Obama have a technical head or the head of a lawyer looking for a legal trick. The lawyers are being outmaneuvered by combat people, former Baathists Iraqi officers experienced in combating our enemies, the Iranians, who were also crazy. No lawyers there.
The families of the 13 soldiers and one unborn baby murdered by an Islamic extremist at Ft. Hood were surely comforted by fact that the the deaths of their loved ones in no way constituted an existential threat to the United States.
Perhaps Mr. Grenier could also personally meet with the families of those killed or maimed in the Boston marathon bombing, and explain his enlightened thinking on this matter.
Such foolish straw man augments, as Mr. Grenier makes in the third to last paragraph, are verbal sophistry for easy mass consumption. Where are the thoughtful reasoned solutions, based on the quite real fanatical Islamic world view espousing the iron -fisted theocratic rule of Asia, Africa and Europe?
Perhaps Mr. Grenier could also personally meet with the families of those killed or maimed in the Boston marathon bombing, and explain his enlightened thinking on this matter.
Such foolish straw man augments, as Mr. Grenier makes in the third to last paragraph, are verbal sophistry for easy mass consumption. Where are the thoughtful reasoned solutions, based on the quite real fanatical Islamic world view espousing the iron -fisted theocratic rule of Asia, Africa and Europe?
7
ursa5000,
The Fort Hood victims were not murdered by Islamic extremism, they were murdered by a sick, inhuman piece of criminal excrement.
The victims of the Boston Marathon bombing? Two sick, inhuman pieces of criminal excrement.
There is nothing thoughtful or reasoned about desiring to get the US into what will be characterized by many as a religious war that will kill many more on both sides than we have lost so far. It is entirely likely that the number of servicemembers' lives lost *through accidents* in a war against ISIS will be greater than those we wish to avenge. Who will comfort THOSE victims' families?
This problem, if it be a Muslim problem, ought to be solved by Muslims. We can and should take care of our own criminal elements, regardless of religion or ideology.
The Fort Hood victims were not murdered by Islamic extremism, they were murdered by a sick, inhuman piece of criminal excrement.
The victims of the Boston Marathon bombing? Two sick, inhuman pieces of criminal excrement.
There is nothing thoughtful or reasoned about desiring to get the US into what will be characterized by many as a religious war that will kill many more on both sides than we have lost so far. It is entirely likely that the number of servicemembers' lives lost *through accidents* in a war against ISIS will be greater than those we wish to avenge. Who will comfort THOSE victims' families?
This problem, if it be a Muslim problem, ought to be solved by Muslims. We can and should take care of our own criminal elements, regardless of religion or ideology.
I believe he means there is no real threat of the U.S. being taken over by the terrorist. There may be occasional deaths but that also happens with our local nut jobs gunning people down when the notion suits them. Take a deep breath and keep things in proportion. Whenever there is senseless killing families will grieve. Over reacting will only cause more grieving.
1
your argument ignores his argument. Did you read the piece? What cases of successful interventions can you cite where the population is divided into tribes unwilling to cooperate to fight against the bad agents?
The fact that bad actors do bad things doesn't justify going to war by itself. More innocent people are killed by police each year than you cite. Where's your outrage there?
The fact that bad actors do bad things doesn't justify going to war by itself. More innocent people are killed by police each year than you cite. Where's your outrage there?
1
Wait until the North Koreans sell them one of the 10,000
miniturized warheads they're producing and the missiles to
carry them as far as Japan. They have an unsophisticated
ICBM - soon to be sophisticated. Why all this busy-ness?
To sell them. Think ISIS wouldn't be interested? You could
squirrel away one of their warheads in a Kia.
miniturized warheads they're producing and the missiles to
carry them as far as Japan. They have an unsophisticated
ICBM - soon to be sophisticated. Why all this busy-ness?
To sell them. Think ISIS wouldn't be interested? You could
squirrel away one of their warheads in a Kia.
A North Korean warhead is probably the size of a Kia, with a less than 50% chance of working (the one they may have that is.) Anyway, no Kia bomb is driving to the US from the middle of Dirtland Iraq.
1
Look, even a small nuke is *not* an *existential* threat unless our reaction to the threat of one is to compromise our own constitution and morals. I agree that NK has the potential to really make a mess of things (not to mention Pakistan and Russia), but a small nuke--while a horrible tragedy and crime if it's set off--is *not* an existential threat to America or western democracy.
3
Many years ago when I was a young man, I broke up a fight, or so I thought. I knew the individuals involved. A guy was kneeling on top of his girlfriend, and he was punching her in the face, she was screaming (obviously). Without any thought I grabbed the guy from behind and pulled him off the girl, within moments the guy and his girlfriend BOTH turned their aggression onto me, and both started to beat on me.
Would I do the same again? Possibly, but in all honesty, I might think twice if I took time to measure my response. So it should be with any U.S. involvement with ISIS.
Would I do the same again? Possibly, but in all honesty, I might think twice if I took time to measure my response. So it should be with any U.S. involvement with ISIS.
14
On the other hand if instead of pulling him off you'd knocked him out, the girl might have given you a great big kiss.
Bingo. Let them duke it out. That includes Israel, sorry to say.
3
The morale of that story is: Don't start a fight you can't finish even in this a little too convenient tale/
We're Americans. We don't do patience.
21
Shame on us.
2
I'm perplexed how ISIS is an existential threat to America. So far, up to and including Kayla Mueller, they have killed 4 Americans, all of whom were in or nearby ISIS territory. I cannot think of a better way for ISIS to kill more Americans than by sending tens of thousands of our people into their territory. Not only do they get to kill us in their territory, but they also get to use our invasion as a recruiting tool amongst the local people, and for more ISIS sympathizers abroad.
We could send a million troops abroad and yet the only way they could pose any significant threat to us is from within our borders via sleeper cells. Our troops overseas aren't very useful in preventing that.
We could send a million troops abroad and yet the only way they could pose any significant threat to us is from within our borders via sleeper cells. Our troops overseas aren't very useful in preventing that.
30
I hate to think of what ISIS would do to captured US soldiers. Of course, the way they are treating others is equally horrifying!
1
Yeah, and even if they sneak in a bunch of sleeper cells, keep in mind that those do not pose an *existential* threat to us. They can harm us, but only we can compromise our morals and constitution (the real threat to our society).
2
Lest we forget, many of the Arab Nations, Saudi Arabia in particular encouraged the extremist factions of their own people and supported many terrorist groups. Now that the lunacy has begun to threaten them, they are rethinking their position, their strategy, etc. It is for them and their brethren in the Middle East to move against ISIS. The United States might offer a blueprint of how best to get the job done as well as whatever intelligence will aid in accomplishing the task. However, it is not our burden. In fact we are seen throughout the area as imperialists whose only interest in them was their oil. Jordan has moved to fight ISIS. Let Saudi and the others join them.
22
Yeah, Saudi Arabia--how the heck did we become "friends" with them? They are the one's who *created* the crazy form of Islam that ISIS touts.
1
Mr. Grenier is right when he says this is not our problem, but one for Muslims of the world to confront. They need to find a way to examine the teachings of their belief system and reject those parts that call for acceptance of their beliefs or death. They need to find a way bring all of their members into the discussion. They need to develop a heirarchy which they can accept so that they have a common and united voice to the world as well as to reach other.
A million military boots on the ground might win the fight, but minds won't change until a million new voices within the Muslim community and its educational system produce a basic statement of their belief system that allows room for coexistence with other systems.
A million military boots on the ground might win the fight, but minds won't change until a million new voices within the Muslim community and its educational system produce a basic statement of their belief system that allows room for coexistence with other systems.
10
Is this not what President Obama has been saying all along? Grenier rather contradicts himself of this point. His right wing bias slipping through no doubt.
It may take a while. How many 'hundreds of years' ago was it that the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland were duking it out. Our veneer of civilization is not all that deep.
As one part of an actual policy in foreign policy, this is fine, but international relations also have a logic of their own. No one in american politics seems to have the slightest interest in that logic. Makes Kissinger look good. Yuk
Today's example.
Slap fights over a foreign politician coming to the House, which has no treaty authority, to lecture partisan republican fan boys on the need for war with Iran, while democrats mostly hide rather than be seen as disloyal to Israel, now our master, when, Iran controls Iraqi Shiite militias, and, is the most active opponent of daesh, and Iraq is close to a failed state. When, we infuriated Egypt Sunni Arabs by bringing failed states state of nature and shame to it its neighborhood in the name of human rights (!). In the Middle East, N. Korea, Pakistan we must do business with Russia, but we picked a needless fight with Russia's megalomaniac over Ukraine when every moron knew we would no more come to Ukraine's aid than to that of Shia who rose against Saddam with our encouragement only to be slaughtered. Now the Obama administration Guarantees Iran will never have nukes, an equally false promise. (Ask N. Korea.) China....
Daesh is a failed state infection. Cheerleading Netanyahu as president, House interference in executive treaty negations, war with Iran, Obama's policyless refusal to use combat troops, guarantee the infection will spread.
Looks like we are hell bent on topping war on false pretenses insanity.
Today's example.
Slap fights over a foreign politician coming to the House, which has no treaty authority, to lecture partisan republican fan boys on the need for war with Iran, while democrats mostly hide rather than be seen as disloyal to Israel, now our master, when, Iran controls Iraqi Shiite militias, and, is the most active opponent of daesh, and Iraq is close to a failed state. When, we infuriated Egypt Sunni Arabs by bringing failed states state of nature and shame to it its neighborhood in the name of human rights (!). In the Middle East, N. Korea, Pakistan we must do business with Russia, but we picked a needless fight with Russia's megalomaniac over Ukraine when every moron knew we would no more come to Ukraine's aid than to that of Shia who rose against Saddam with our encouragement only to be slaughtered. Now the Obama administration Guarantees Iran will never have nukes, an equally false promise. (Ask N. Korea.) China....
Daesh is a failed state infection. Cheerleading Netanyahu as president, House interference in executive treaty negations, war with Iran, Obama's policyless refusal to use combat troops, guarantee the infection will spread.
Looks like we are hell bent on topping war on false pretenses insanity.
4
Kudos to Mr. Grenier for writing a particularly insightful article that links our setbacks and failures in the muslim world with a national character failing, so to speak. I don't agree with the criticism of the current Obama strategy of no ground forces though. I think it is extremely important that moderate muslims fight for the future of the muslim world rather than having US and other nations fight for it on their behalf. As long as the US and other nations are on the frontline fighting the jihadists the moderate muslims can afford to sit back and criticize the US efforts so they can be left alone by the jihadists. By US withdrawing to the background, they now have no option but to coalesce around modern ideas of inclusivity and tolerance to unitedly fight against the menace of muslim extremism.
19
Unfortunately, to the nearly three thousand people who died on 9/11, the threat from Al Qaeda was existential in that their human existence depended upon preemptively stopping that attack.
The threat from Islamic extremism and ISIS has been, and will continue to be, existential to some and not to others. It affects America in that ISIS counts Americans among its many victims.
I agree that it is wise counsel to for America not to try to do something in place of a population what only that population can sustain over the long-term.
There is a reason we continue to have significant military presences in South Korea, Japan and Europe. We have recognized the need for, and committed the U.S. to, the long-term success in these places. The same cannot currently be said of Iraq or Afghanistan. Political leadership currently views the cost as too high relative to the benefit. I believe this is short sighted.
The threat from Islamic extremism and ISIS has been, and will continue to be, existential to some and not to others. It affects America in that ISIS counts Americans among its many victims.
I agree that it is wise counsel to for America not to try to do something in place of a population what only that population can sustain over the long-term.
There is a reason we continue to have significant military presences in South Korea, Japan and Europe. We have recognized the need for, and committed the U.S. to, the long-term success in these places. The same cannot currently be said of Iraq or Afghanistan. Political leadership currently views the cost as too high relative to the benefit. I believe this is short sighted.
2
The 9/11 tragedy cannot become the underlying excuse for future foreign policy. Certainly thousands of innocent people were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was simply very bad luck. But invoking Rudy's 9/11 every time a lunatic says he is going after "Twitter" or someone is killed who was captured is not smart policy. As many have mentioned let all the military units we have paid for in Middle East step up and fight their lunatics. We shouldn't be going there because a few of the crazies might be lurking in the US.
You need to look up the meaning of "existential" as applied to the potential threat of ISIS or of Al Qaeda. It does not mean threatening to the lives of individuals or indeed of 3000. It means a threat to the existence of the country. Such was Germany and Japan in WWII and Soviet Russia afterwards. Used otherwise we might consider the drug gangs in Mexico who have killed thousands, an existential threat. Why aren't we sending our military to Mexico?
1
>>There is a reason we continue to have significant military presences in South Korea, Japan and Europe. We have recognized the need for, and committed the U.S. to, the long-term success in these places. The same cannot currently be said of Iraq or Afghanistan. Political leadership currently views the cost as too high relative to the benefit. I believe this is short sighted.<<
The reasons we have a military presence in these places stem from the rules of formal warfare between state-supported armies, with it's treaties, terms of surrender and acceptance of victory, defeat or stalemate.
The people in the Mid-East don't want us there as an occupying force, no matter whose side we fight on.
The reasons we have a military presence in these places stem from the rules of formal warfare between state-supported armies, with it's treaties, terms of surrender and acceptance of victory, defeat or stalemate.
The people in the Mid-East don't want us there as an occupying force, no matter whose side we fight on.
Kudos to Robert Grenier. He should turn his OP-ED essay into a book.
Yes, we need strategic patience, something beyond the mentality of the
average American and perhaps the average member of Congress. However,
I think Obama and his national security team understand the concept. Obama may have made a tactical and strategic error in Afghanistan in 2010 but recently, his decisions have been fairly measured. We don't have boots on the ground in Syria and our time horizon for defeating ISIS in Iraq is measured in years not months. In fact, there is no time limit on our current engagements in the MENA region. There is also a clear understanding expressed by senior administration spokespersons that direct U.S. involvement in the counterinsurgency campaign would be self defeating.
Some Republicans are pushing for U.S. combat troops but perhaps what they really mean is more U.S. special ops directing Kurdish and Iraqi combat units on the ground. I don't think anyone in the U.S. has a stomach for more American deaths fighting on the ground in either Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. In fact, I would imagine the days of large scale U.S. ground deployments overseas is now over.
Yes, we need strategic patience, something beyond the mentality of the
average American and perhaps the average member of Congress. However,
I think Obama and his national security team understand the concept. Obama may have made a tactical and strategic error in Afghanistan in 2010 but recently, his decisions have been fairly measured. We don't have boots on the ground in Syria and our time horizon for defeating ISIS in Iraq is measured in years not months. In fact, there is no time limit on our current engagements in the MENA region. There is also a clear understanding expressed by senior administration spokespersons that direct U.S. involvement in the counterinsurgency campaign would be self defeating.
Some Republicans are pushing for U.S. combat troops but perhaps what they really mean is more U.S. special ops directing Kurdish and Iraqi combat units on the ground. I don't think anyone in the U.S. has a stomach for more American deaths fighting on the ground in either Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. In fact, I would imagine the days of large scale U.S. ground deployments overseas is now over.
14
I agree that Obama's actions showed insight. The problem is, that, despite being the most vaunted orator on the planet, he feels unable to talk straightforwardly about it. Flagpins and heroes dominate reason in the national debate, like dinosaurs dominated furry little mammals.
1
The quick defeat of "radical Islamic militancy" desired by so many would require (I'm estimating) a million Boots on the Ground, and those who cheerlead for a rapid victory aren't asking for a million (or more). Nor do we know what downsides the Million Person March would bring. However, on the Education Front, employing a million or more well-paid teachers in our classrooms would surely be effective in improving classroom size and learning, without causing irreparable harm through maiming, death, destruction, ongoing emotional dramage and hostility. "The United States has a compelling national interest" in more than is dreamt of by vainglorious leaders and their followers into the heart of darkness.
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, MT
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, MT
6
Mr. Grenier's utter and complete failure, as a member of Generation Failure at the CIA--the CIA failed in the 1990s and on September 11th to strike and kill Radical Islamic terrorists--to accept responsibility for the CIA's lame and pathetic strategy, vice taking down Al Qaeda since Al Qaeda's inception in 1989, is telling. And how convenient. Ultimate victory over Radical Islamic terrorism will not require patience, it will require far more committed and far more passionate clandestine operatives than Mr. Grenier. And for anyone who thinks that Radical Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States, here's a remedy--have a small chat with the widows and orphans of anyone massacred by Al Qaeda on September 11th. As for wisdom, wisdom in the global fight that we are engaged in, against Radical Islamic terrorism, simply comes down to killing every Radical Islamic terrorist and seizing all their assets and tearing apart their financial networks. And that will not require patience, but it will require a helluva' lot of shoe leather, street smarts, grenades, sniper rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
1
You do know, don't you, that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?
1
And angry old men, making a lot of money.
1
More cherry-picked history. The CIA gave Clinton good info on the whereabouts of OBL in Afghanstan. Clinton ordered a missile strike on the camp, a launch from a submarine. Some idiot in the Pentagon changed that operationally to a surface launch, giving Pakistani Intelligence the opportunity to spot the approaching missile ship. A quick radio message to OBL, and he decamped--gone 30 min before the missiles hit. Bush-Cheney laughed at that as "pounding sand," thereby encouraging treason in the officer corps.
I agree that the ISIS threat is not our fight. But Grenier, like many other analysts, columnists, and government spokesmen, says we have a vital national security stake in this fight without ever saying exactly what that stake it. On the contrary, the fight within Islam has virtually no capability to threaten our continental homeland security beyond turning a few of our home-grown radicals into terrorists. Help arm and train the good guys over there? Encourage Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and others to take it seriously and do something about it because it threatens their neighborhood? Sure. But don't blow it up into something it isn't. And, with oil no longer the excuse to intervene, serious threats to our national security are pretty much absent. Or maybe you can show me something I'm missing.
3
Your President is also the so-called Commander-in -Chief, and this has been a mistaken assignment since George Washington retired, with one outstanding exception.
The accession of Dwight D.Eisenhower to that position illustrated just how important it is for a Commander in Chief to have blooded experience as a commander. The chaos caused by recent clumsiness is caused not so much because Americans learned nothing from Afghanistan or Viet Nam or even the War of 1812; it is because Americans failed to heed the words of your most eminent Commander in Chief.
Time to make some changes, right?
The accession of Dwight D.Eisenhower to that position illustrated just how important it is for a Commander in Chief to have blooded experience as a commander. The chaos caused by recent clumsiness is caused not so much because Americans learned nothing from Afghanistan or Viet Nam or even the War of 1812; it is because Americans failed to heed the words of your most eminent Commander in Chief.
Time to make some changes, right?
So called Commander in Chief?
"Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Those boys knew how to write with precision when writing a contract for self government back in the day.
"Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Those boys knew how to write with precision when writing a contract for self government back in the day.
6
So you believe in military government? Dictatorship? If a POTUS has been trained to kill, what's he going to become? A diplomat? Witness the failures of Colin Powell as Secy State, unable to say "no," able to say only "yes, sir."
1
Mr. Grenier, you say, "In the course of exercising such strategic patience we should remember that the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one."
Radial Islam wants revenge for the Crusades and it's causes, Christianity; for losing Spain, and misguided belief that anyone other than "pure" Muslims are infidels deserving death. This can be ignored to a point but for a very real fact, nuclear weapons. A dirty bomb by some machismo-fueled, arrested developed adolescent man with a weapon and license to wreak havoc via the Koran, can cause a lot of existential damage.
While your solution is admirable, it might have worked before the nuclear age. Radical Islam is a cancer that now must be eradicated.
Radial Islam wants revenge for the Crusades and it's causes, Christianity; for losing Spain, and misguided belief that anyone other than "pure" Muslims are infidels deserving death. This can be ignored to a point but for a very real fact, nuclear weapons. A dirty bomb by some machismo-fueled, arrested developed adolescent man with a weapon and license to wreak havoc via the Koran, can cause a lot of existential damage.
While your solution is admirable, it might have worked before the nuclear age. Radical Islam is a cancer that now must be eradicated.
4
I wonder at the political motivation of this article. Grenier is advocating doing exactly what we are doing but then takes a shot at Obama by claiming that he isn't doing enough.
7
No one denies that at times there must be watchful waiting. The problem is knowing when to stop watching and to do something, whether that is getting out and cutting loses or getting in.
Is the threat of radical Islam not an existential threat to the West?: Maybe today, but what if the attack of the Iraqi army and Shiite militias on Tikrit fails? What if the announced scheduled attack on Mosul fails? Is that enough to elicit action and not just watching? Or should the West wait until Iraq or Syria falls?
So watchful waiting and strategic patience may at times be correct, but the distance between that and acting too late or waking up too late and inviting absolute catastrophe is quite short.
Alas the US government and the West have not proven adept at rapid response and efficiently switching from patience to action.
Is the threat of radical Islam not an existential threat to the West?: Maybe today, but what if the attack of the Iraqi army and Shiite militias on Tikrit fails? What if the announced scheduled attack on Mosul fails? Is that enough to elicit action and not just watching? Or should the West wait until Iraq or Syria falls?
So watchful waiting and strategic patience may at times be correct, but the distance between that and acting too late or waking up too late and inviting absolute catastrophe is quite short.
Alas the US government and the West have not proven adept at rapid response and efficiently switching from patience to action.
8
Reply to Joshua, I guess that you are saying that the US needs some very good leaders who are able to both (i) make the right decisions at the right time, and (ii) convince the world that they know what they are doing. I think that it is unlikely, but possible.
Nor have they proven adept at patience, you might add. Bush - not Cheney of course (he never admits mistakes) - was shocked by the Afghan and Iraqi response to our invasions.
As someone who served as a Marine in Iraq on combat ops, and as someone who just watched the History Channel's HD series on Viet Nam, I applaud Bob Grenier for his wisdom imparted and eloquence in doing so.
We should have been out of AFG in April 2002.
We never should have gone into IRQ (but once that door was kicked-in, this will not make liberals happy, we had a moral obligation to see the chaos down as gently as possible and not just "leave" like an adolescent might after a mistake). We never should have lifted a paw and gone into yet another Muslim country like Libya... Yemen.... Syria... ISIS...
We need to act like adults, exercise strategic patience and not as our "leaders" so often do, demonstrate attention-spans tuned to 24 hour CNN and news cycles, and not objective reality and wisdom and humility instead.
And it would help loads if more national security decision-makers and others had actually served in uniform, and been on the wrong end of an AK-47 once, or at least had THEIR KIDS on the front lines at risk. We hope and pray!
I am now deploying back into the Mideast in a few months as a Marine, again. It is nice to know there are still some thoughtful adults in Washington back here in the rear with the gear. Thank you, Bob Grenier.
We should have been out of AFG in April 2002.
We never should have gone into IRQ (but once that door was kicked-in, this will not make liberals happy, we had a moral obligation to see the chaos down as gently as possible and not just "leave" like an adolescent might after a mistake). We never should have lifted a paw and gone into yet another Muslim country like Libya... Yemen.... Syria... ISIS...
We need to act like adults, exercise strategic patience and not as our "leaders" so often do, demonstrate attention-spans tuned to 24 hour CNN and news cycles, and not objective reality and wisdom and humility instead.
And it would help loads if more national security decision-makers and others had actually served in uniform, and been on the wrong end of an AK-47 once, or at least had THEIR KIDS on the front lines at risk. We hope and pray!
I am now deploying back into the Mideast in a few months as a Marine, again. It is nice to know there are still some thoughtful adults in Washington back here in the rear with the gear. Thank you, Bob Grenier.
15
Thank you for your service. Thank you for your level-headed rational comments.
Be safe and be sure to vote. If Americans like you, who know better, vote, we will elect representatives who keep us out of ground wars where we have no business being involved and ultimately hurt ourselves and the people who live there. Strategic patience helps all aspects of life.
Be safe and be sure to vote. If Americans like you, who know better, vote, we will elect representatives who keep us out of ground wars where we have no business being involved and ultimately hurt ourselves and the people who live there. Strategic patience helps all aspects of life.
3
Very good comment, in every respect. When I was a young man every male who was physically and mentally competent had a "military obligation". The abolition of the draft was both morally and militarily a great mistake. When we have a situation where almost none of our leaders have served, or who have children who would be in harms way if we did decide on military action, the political choices regarding conflict are ethically problematic. How just is it that while the great majority of Americans are out shopping at the mall, others, often of a lower economic position, are being killed in some place that most of those shoppers could not find on a map, or would know almost nothing of its history or culture.
Mr. Grenier is correct that we face, as a nation, no existential threat. and that what is required is patience and a long view. In the meantime, we might try ending our immoral support of Israel, and also our support of brutal, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, both of which policies cause many in that region to view us as "the Great Satan".
Mr. Grenier is correct that we face, as a nation, no existential threat. and that what is required is patience and a long view. In the meantime, we might try ending our immoral support of Israel, and also our support of brutal, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, both of which policies cause many in that region to view us as "the Great Satan".
1
What do we have in the comments? (1) "The slippery slope argument: Better in Iraq than in Brooklyn, or, as the writer posits, a small part of Italy." 'Nuff said about that. (2) "War is not the answer: it's better to show how good we are." This is a naive approach. ISIS doesn't care. (3) "One death is too many. The US must fix all the world's problems, whether it be Rwanda, Iraq, or Western Africa." The question posed by Grenier is, "does this constitute an existential threat?" Ebola was an existential threat. (4) "Slippery slope II: The Actual Attack." Well, North Korea has had nukes for some time now. And we are better at detecting 9-11 style attacks. But keep in mind that many of our terrorist attacks have come from within: Oklahoma City, Columbine.
In SW Asia, as in the Balkans, we are seeing the fall out from WWI: artificial lines drawn combining groups of people who have little in common. Let the locals sort it out. Try to prevent genocidal slaughter (as we did in Kobane and with the Yazidi). But be prepared for the unintended consequences.
In SW Asia, as in the Balkans, we are seeing the fall out from WWI: artificial lines drawn combining groups of people who have little in common. Let the locals sort it out. Try to prevent genocidal slaughter (as we did in Kobane and with the Yazidi). But be prepared for the unintended consequences.
4
Thanks for raising the level of the debate. "Ultimate victory in the fight against violent extremism inspired by Islam" will depend on how the majority of people who are being killed, maimed and traumatized by it, i.e. the people in the region, fight the extremists. It is a long struggle that will have to navigate the traps laid by the extremists for the lay believer.
I think on the military front we often make the mistake of undermining the fighting skills and spirits of Afghans and Arabs taking the fight to the extremists. They are fighting on the ground with care for civilians and without bombing their way out of battles.
I think on the military front we often make the mistake of undermining the fighting skills and spirits of Afghans and Arabs taking the fight to the extremists. They are fighting on the ground with care for civilians and without bombing their way out of battles.
3
Unfortunately, one cannot unilaterally raise the level of debate. The side more willing to use crude arguments determines the level.
It's true that aggressive driving is a greater threat to the mortality of Americans than is ISIS. And, it is all well and good to let Arabs work this out internally, providing limited assistance at the margins to which side we find to be preferable.
But what about the victims of genocide?
Must we sit on the sidelines and watch the Coptic Christians, the Assyrians, and the Yazidis be executed, wiped from the face of the planet just as Hitler had planned for the Jews?
The author is absolutely correct that going in with our traditional approach does not enhance our security, makes more enemies than friends, and makes it less likely that our friends will succeed in the long run. However, the price to be paid is the extermination of the local ethnic minorities. Can we live with that?
But what about the victims of genocide?
Must we sit on the sidelines and watch the Coptic Christians, the Assyrians, and the Yazidis be executed, wiped from the face of the planet just as Hitler had planned for the Jews?
The author is absolutely correct that going in with our traditional approach does not enhance our security, makes more enemies than friends, and makes it less likely that our friends will succeed in the long run. However, the price to be paid is the extermination of the local ethnic minorities. Can we live with that?
9
Excellent article, sending western troops to push them out of cities simply will provide a propaganda victory for the fanatics. The use of limited air and special forces to degrade their mobility, communications and command and control is useful but the heavy fighting must be done by the locals it is their fight and their need to organize themselves to fight. We should not attempt to provide them with equipment to fight our style of war unless the enemy has it. We should help but the responsibility and authority must be local. Groups like ISIS rely on the idea that they simply have to outlast the west which is always looking for quick results. Instead they have to learn they are a minor irritant who the west can fight over very long terms at comparatively low cost in manpower and money. It always has to be remembered that it costs us orders of magnitude more to field a fighter than it does these insurgents. to use high kinetic warfare against them is to use cannons to kill mosquitos.
4
Indeed. Just like Americans would like to retell the story of WW II, ISIS would like to retell the story of the crusades.
Thank you for this. I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder what's up with the egos - for that has to be the blocking factor - of anyone who can't see and act on such an honest and valuable perspective. If that sounds like harsh judgment, it's nothing compared to the suffering on the ground that happens when situations like these are handled wrong.
2
Three cheers for Robert Grenier! I often wish there were a way to take CIA retirees and place them judiciously in the Pentagon and State Dept. They tend to know the facts on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq or in the latest small war and could make these agencies much more effective.
My background for this statement began with being an English teacher in Laos in 1967-69. There, while assigned to the Lycee in Luang Prabang, I often had dinner and watched Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns while discussing religion with a CIA operative. His comment on the Tet Offensive's conclusion was: "We won Tet and lost the war." That was 1968. We left Vietnam in 1975, having lost. Wisdom tends not to percolate upwards!
My background for this statement began with being an English teacher in Laos in 1967-69. There, while assigned to the Lycee in Luang Prabang, I often had dinner and watched Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns while discussing religion with a CIA operative. His comment on the Tet Offensive's conclusion was: "We won Tet and lost the war." That was 1968. We left Vietnam in 1975, having lost. Wisdom tends not to percolate upwards!
6
America has proven incapable of identifying, motivating and supporting it's foreign ethnic sectarian allies in support of American interests and in pursuit of American values.
In order to fight the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, America armed, trained and financed the men and organizations that would become al Qaeda, the Taliban, Northern Alliance, Haqqani Network. Then America abandoned Afghanistan without continuing diplomacy, humanitarian aid or commerce.
By focusing only upon military and intelligence solutions at the back end we ignore the historical and current socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian factors that create and inspire and ISIS/ISIL, Taliban and al Qaeda at the front end.
In order to fight the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, America armed, trained and financed the men and organizations that would become al Qaeda, the Taliban, Northern Alliance, Haqqani Network. Then America abandoned Afghanistan without continuing diplomacy, humanitarian aid or commerce.
By focusing only upon military and intelligence solutions at the back end we ignore the historical and current socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian factors that create and inspire and ISIS/ISIL, Taliban and al Qaeda at the front end.
10
Neither did Khalid Sheik Mohammed nor Osama bin Laden ever cite "abandonment" by the US or - wait for it - lack of humanitarian aid from the West - the thought is absurd - as motivation for 9/11. Stop looking at the world through the eyes of contemporary Western education to explain their actions. Their understanding of the world and their motivations are so completely foreign to us - they demand we just forget everything we think we know about people and reorder out thinking. "ISIS/ISIL," al Qaeda, blah, blah, blah, are, by our standards, nuts.
2
I think I understand the dangers of isolationism, but I fear Mr. Grenier is looking at events from his own professional bias. We were attacked, we are hated, by people who believe (correctly) that we have killed their loved ones and their comrades at arms. Surely, strict Shariah law is ultimately unworkable in a modern society. But they are going to have to find this out on their own. I understand that it means horrors, cruelties, and unfairness to innocent people. We can not help these people with more guns and violence. We should stay on the sidelines of this largely internal conflict and offer what aid ( in the form of food and shelter) that we can. 911 did not happen because we were providing non lethal aid to the region. It was horrible, and it was wrong, but it happened because we were perceived as enemies. We could take another tack, one far less expensive in terms of lives and resources and, I suspect, come out far batter than we have so far.
46
You will always be conceived as an enemy by someone,
and there will always be some justification of terrorism.
And it is simply wrong to live in total seclusion just out of fear of a few who will hate you, while a majority embraces your presence.
and there will always be some justification of terrorism.
And it is simply wrong to live in total seclusion just out of fear of a few who will hate you, while a majority embraces your presence.
2
The crematoria erected by the Germans a mere 75 years ago were put out of business by the Americans and Russians. ISIS, too, will be shut down although by force of circumstance the Americans will largely have to go it alone. There can be no other way. A few airstrikes against vague ISIS targets by the Jordanians and the Egyptians amount to very little. There is no will among the Muslim countries, at present, to fight as a unified force, and the civilized world will not wait a hundred or a thousand years to confront this evil. The inhuman butchery being carried out, now, by ISIS is motivated by impulses that predate, by centuries, the existence of our nation. My friend, horrors, cruelties, and unfairness to innocent people will indeed continue to occur. It's a truly tragic situation. But either we become witness to this horror, up close, or there will be no end to it.
"The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world. In the end, only Muslims can determine the outcome. ,,, We in the United States and the West have an important national security stake in that outcome. But we should not try to win on our own what only local forces can sustain, particularly when our effort to help only makes their success less likely. The United States ... must avoid playing into the hands of those who would paint those allies as quislings who serve American interests.
This states the proper approach to ISIS. Americans have reacted emotionally. According to John McCain, "America and our allies and partners will only be secure when ISIS is defeated." To date, the number of Western deaths at the hands of Somali pirates is considerably greater than those at the hand of ISIs. At most, ISIS's troop level is about the same as Belgium's. Going to war against an entity of such limited reach is unnecessary and unwise. It's time that cooler heads prevail.
This states the proper approach to ISIS. Americans have reacted emotionally. According to John McCain, "America and our allies and partners will only be secure when ISIS is defeated." To date, the number of Western deaths at the hands of Somali pirates is considerably greater than those at the hand of ISIs. At most, ISIS's troop level is about the same as Belgium's. Going to war against an entity of such limited reach is unnecessary and unwise. It's time that cooler heads prevail.
3
Mr Grenier looks back at the early days of our attack on the Taliban, but he ignores a major feature - we were supporting selected Afghan warlords to replace the Taliban, but a case can be made that our war never should have been against the Taliban. The Taliban were terrible, sort of like the Saudis only without the oil wealth, and the veneer of hypocrisy, but they were never "existential enemies."
The forgotten reason for the whole mission was to respond to the 9/11 attacks, and they were not a Taliban project. The Taliban hosted Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda camps, but we could have bypassed the hosts and gone directly after our real enemy, if we had so chosen.
Instead, from the start, the Bush administration turned our response to 9/11 into a misguided attempt at nation building - as misguided, and as much a failure, as the more obvious misadventure in Iraq.
The forgotten reason for the whole mission was to respond to the 9/11 attacks, and they were not a Taliban project. The Taliban hosted Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda camps, but we could have bypassed the hosts and gone directly after our real enemy, if we had so chosen.
Instead, from the start, the Bush administration turned our response to 9/11 into a misguided attempt at nation building - as misguided, and as much a failure, as the more obvious misadventure in Iraq.
5
Grenier is both right and wrong.
He is right that Muslims have to decide they do not wish to be merciless killer.
He is right that they are not an existential threat yet.
But he is wrong to think they will change and therefore they will be an existential threat eventually.
We could and should cleanse the infection from afar. Fire is a good disinfectant.
We should start Afghanistan burning and Pakistan following up with Syria Iraq and Iran. We could then transplant our illegal aliens there and see how they do.
He is right that Muslims have to decide they do not wish to be merciless killer.
He is right that they are not an existential threat yet.
But he is wrong to think they will change and therefore they will be an existential threat eventually.
We could and should cleanse the infection from afar. Fire is a good disinfectant.
We should start Afghanistan burning and Pakistan following up with Syria Iraq and Iran. We could then transplant our illegal aliens there and see how they do.
Yes - now that this is on the table it will probably be the first option considered. The world owes you a great Thank You! for offering this solution.
1
Thank you for writing this article. The US response is always the 'hammer', but this problem isn't a 'nail'. The region has to decide it's own fate, we seem to only add fuel to the fire. Their oil and our need for it, keeps them from creating real economies - until this changes, we will fight. But, we aren't winning and neither is anyone there. Saudis get a pass and their behavior is no better other than they aren't taking land. ISIS is an idea, you can't bomb an idea, just like education is the only thing no one can take from you.
3
"We should remember that the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one."
We should also remember that the threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential one.
We should also remember that the threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential one.
5
Really? It's funny how Iran has not armed terrorists with biological and chemical weapons to use against Israel. Israel is physically small, so such weapons would be devastating. Surely the Iranians haven't been deterred by Israeli nukes. They are madmen, remember?
4
In the hands of its extremist Prime Minister, Israel's nuclear monopoly also poses an existential threat to the interests of the United States in the Mideast. Part of being wise is to not continually and deliberately confuse and conflate American interests with the goals of fanatical West Bank settlers or the Likud Party.
25
I couldn't agree more. I am convinced that our military efforts in, for instance, Iraq, will someday go down as some of the most globally destructive actions ever taken in the name of "helping". And our globally destructive actions-- the killing of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure, the destabilizing of entire regions and countries-- has been fueling and will continue to fuel a huge movement AGAINST the US, from within the Arab and Muslim world, for a long time to come. If we get involved in any way that seeks to shape the future of regions other than our own, we become the evil and corrupt superpower we are believed to be by our enemies. (And we are likely, in most instances, to make further missteps in attempting to "implement" forms of government that are either inappropriate or simply unrealistic for the regions in question).
That said, the wanton targeting of ethnic minorities by ISIS does, for me, draw parallels to other genocides, and leaves me feeling that we at least, as either a country or as concerned individuals, need to find a way to stand up for and perhaps protect those minorities (i.e., for instance, Assyrian Christians) whose sole crime is being themselves. I am not a strategist, so I don't know the answers here, but I think there must be some way to aid or protect minorities without pursuing an entire war...
That said, the wanton targeting of ethnic minorities by ISIS does, for me, draw parallels to other genocides, and leaves me feeling that we at least, as either a country or as concerned individuals, need to find a way to stand up for and perhaps protect those minorities (i.e., for instance, Assyrian Christians) whose sole crime is being themselves. I am not a strategist, so I don't know the answers here, but I think there must be some way to aid or protect minorities without pursuing an entire war...
5
The '...war against radical Islamic militancy' is our 'fight' but as a member of the global community.
A reason why the U.S. has been 'losing' open ended wars largely since Korea has not been the competence of our military or, though very arguably, the dubious justifications given for entering (or, in the case of Iraq, initiating) specific wars.
One primary reason why the U.S. 'loses' such open ended conflicts is that the nation still brings a WWII and Cold War styled mindset and military strategy to battles which look, are now motivated by and constructed very differently.
'Landing on the beach/dropping airborne troops' is long gone based on current geopolitical realities &, even more certainly, as a way to respond effectively to the large borderless paramilitary criminal gangs like ISIS who bring a perverted form of Islam to justify horrific conduct.
ISIS is far less religious than political &, increasingly likely, a proxy for huge, covert & remarkably wealthy Middle East political cells looking to replace regional dictatorships with themselves.
It is the existing Islamic dictatorships who suffocate their own citizens which drives ISIS recruitment rather than achieving some self styled Islamic nirvana. ISIS has slaughtered & brutalized exponentially more fellow Muslims than they ever could the West.
Anti-West & even anti-Israel actions are also more theatrical & fund raising sideshows than the main performance. As part of the global community, we have to respond
A reason why the U.S. has been 'losing' open ended wars largely since Korea has not been the competence of our military or, though very arguably, the dubious justifications given for entering (or, in the case of Iraq, initiating) specific wars.
One primary reason why the U.S. 'loses' such open ended conflicts is that the nation still brings a WWII and Cold War styled mindset and military strategy to battles which look, are now motivated by and constructed very differently.
'Landing on the beach/dropping airborne troops' is long gone based on current geopolitical realities &, even more certainly, as a way to respond effectively to the large borderless paramilitary criminal gangs like ISIS who bring a perverted form of Islam to justify horrific conduct.
ISIS is far less religious than political &, increasingly likely, a proxy for huge, covert & remarkably wealthy Middle East political cells looking to replace regional dictatorships with themselves.
It is the existing Islamic dictatorships who suffocate their own citizens which drives ISIS recruitment rather than achieving some self styled Islamic nirvana. ISIS has slaughtered & brutalized exponentially more fellow Muslims than they ever could the West.
Anti-West & even anti-Israel actions are also more theatrical & fund raising sideshows than the main performance. As part of the global community, we have to respond
1
Yes let's all wait, do nothing until ISIS takes over enough of the Middle East to becomes an existential threat to the US and Europe. Sounds like a strategy that O'bama would endorse.
3
Andrew
I hope you and your family members are ready to join the military and put your lives on the line in the Middle East. As soon as you are in uniform let us know so that we can take seriously your belief that this is an existential threat.
I hope you and your family members are ready to join the military and put your lives on the line in the Middle East. As soon as you are in uniform let us know so that we can take seriously your belief that this is an existential threat.
3
This opinion piece has some merit, but americans should be very careful putting too much faith in the words-- whatever they are, no matter the viewpoint- of anyone from the CIA.
1
If you value reason, don't obsess over the mouth that speaks it.
We use the term "existential threat" so loosely. The term actually means "threat to our vert existence." The emergence of ISIS hardly fits that category.
So why do those in the media puff up the so called threats often repeating the language used by politicians without any critical analysis of what they're are really saying? Even this article which purports to urge some measure of restraint simply accepts certain premises about ISIS and "radical Islam" and merely counsels for limited military activity rather than direct troop engagement.
In may ways this difference in form but not in substance mirrors the views of Dem's and the GOP. But these superficial assumptions do a grave disservice to the reading public who rightfully expect more probing and depth from our reporters. We know politicians lie, but the role of journalists is to not let them get away with it.
Beneath the surface of these "do we bomb and how much" obfuscations lies a deeper geo-political policy of our own government that goes unexplored. "Radical Islam" as religion has been around for centuries. So why has it only manifested as attacks against the US in the last 30 years? Why has it coincided with our creation of the Mujahedeen in the 80's? Why did Al Qaeda emerge only after the Gulf Oil War of 1993? Why did US policy makers discuss the dismembering of Iraq as early as 2000?
The answers to these questions are necessary context to current discussions about Iraq, so why doesn't our media tell us more?
So why do those in the media puff up the so called threats often repeating the language used by politicians without any critical analysis of what they're are really saying? Even this article which purports to urge some measure of restraint simply accepts certain premises about ISIS and "radical Islam" and merely counsels for limited military activity rather than direct troop engagement.
In may ways this difference in form but not in substance mirrors the views of Dem's and the GOP. But these superficial assumptions do a grave disservice to the reading public who rightfully expect more probing and depth from our reporters. We know politicians lie, but the role of journalists is to not let them get away with it.
Beneath the surface of these "do we bomb and how much" obfuscations lies a deeper geo-political policy of our own government that goes unexplored. "Radical Islam" as religion has been around for centuries. So why has it only manifested as attacks against the US in the last 30 years? Why has it coincided with our creation of the Mujahedeen in the 80's? Why did Al Qaeda emerge only after the Gulf Oil War of 1993? Why did US policy makers discuss the dismembering of Iraq as early as 2000?
The answers to these questions are necessary context to current discussions about Iraq, so why doesn't our media tell us more?
4
This article hits several long-ignored nails squarely on the held. No damage inflicted upon America by Al Qaeda and its ilk compares to the damage inflicted by American impatience, in responding to Al Qaeda (itself partly a blowback result of prior U.S. blunders).
And yet even more damaging (and less excusable) than the deficit of patience has been the deficit of common sense, and this America suffered already on September 11, 2011, and during the whole rush to immediately invade Afghanistan. A top priority, in going in there, should have been how and when to get out, and not how it could be most expeditiously, and with minimal scruples, be used as an excuse for invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al Qaeda).
To seek wisdom as a people is a laudable (if, disgracefully often, all but ignored) goal, and Robert Grenier is to be commended for thoughtfully, yet powerfully, invoking it here.
More realistically, however, can we not even more readily and effectively push back harder against incessant American stupidity, and ignorance about the rest of the world?
And yet even more damaging (and less excusable) than the deficit of patience has been the deficit of common sense, and this America suffered already on September 11, 2011, and during the whole rush to immediately invade Afghanistan. A top priority, in going in there, should have been how and when to get out, and not how it could be most expeditiously, and with minimal scruples, be used as an excuse for invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al Qaeda).
To seek wisdom as a people is a laudable (if, disgracefully often, all but ignored) goal, and Robert Grenier is to be commended for thoughtfully, yet powerfully, invoking it here.
More realistically, however, can we not even more readily and effectively push back harder against incessant American stupidity, and ignorance about the rest of the world?
37
Our entering Afghanistan was to get bin Laden for his criminal behavior. We had him cornered, or caved, but then withdrew and turned on Iraq. At least a double blunder. We were close to apprehending bid Laden as a criminal, with much of the world with us in this. But we backed off and instead invaded Iraq for no good reason, with most of the world appalled. We let police work turn into war. And we stirred up much of the Middle East against us, giving ISIS an opening and a rationale.
The "compelling national interest" of which Mr. Grenier speaks is access to Middle East oil. I would have more respect for him and his plan if he would make that clear instead of beating around the "Bush", so to speak.
The western lifestyle that many in the world covet and which we in the U.S. take for granted requires dependable supplies of oil. ISIS already controls some Iraqi fields and are trying to take even larger fields away from the Kurds in the north. Because they are a threat to the oil supply, we will continue to be involved militarily in one form or another for years to come. U.S. "energy independence" is a short term fix, at most lasting 20 years and at great environmental cost.
I resent that none of our political, military or government leaders have come out of the shadows to explain the real reasons for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are still involved. Perhaps, if they did, the destructive consequences of unending war and climate change caused by fossil fuel would penetrate into the consciousness of the majority. Maybe then, the need for conservation and development of renewable energy would be treated as the primary national security interest that it is instead of war.
The western lifestyle that many in the world covet and which we in the U.S. take for granted requires dependable supplies of oil. ISIS already controls some Iraqi fields and are trying to take even larger fields away from the Kurds in the north. Because they are a threat to the oil supply, we will continue to be involved militarily in one form or another for years to come. U.S. "energy independence" is a short term fix, at most lasting 20 years and at great environmental cost.
I resent that none of our political, military or government leaders have come out of the shadows to explain the real reasons for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are still involved. Perhaps, if they did, the destructive consequences of unending war and climate change caused by fossil fuel would penetrate into the consciousness of the majority. Maybe then, the need for conservation and development of renewable energy would be treated as the primary national security interest that it is instead of war.
46
MAJ T. E. Lawrence put it quite well in 1917 when offering advice to British officers serving as advisers to Arab forces in what is today Jordan, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria. Such advice goes against the very core of the American way of war but is as true today as it was almost a hundred years ago.
"Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is".
In Afghanistan I witnessed little at the diplomatic, information, military and economic operational and tactical level that demonstrated any appreciation of Lawrence's advice offered in his 1917 "Twenty Seven Articles". In the middle east and Afghanistan, Lawrence's Articles should be memorized by every officer, embassy/interagency staff officer, and NGO worker before being allowed to leave the compound for the real world outside the cultural bubble we live and operate in.
"Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is".
In Afghanistan I witnessed little at the diplomatic, information, military and economic operational and tactical level that demonstrated any appreciation of Lawrence's advice offered in his 1917 "Twenty Seven Articles". In the middle east and Afghanistan, Lawrence's Articles should be memorized by every officer, embassy/interagency staff officer, and NGO worker before being allowed to leave the compound for the real world outside the cultural bubble we live and operate in.
3
ISIS is an assemblage of discontents that contains the seeds of its own destruction. Containment rather than a frontal attack seems a more 'patient', 'wise ' and prudent policy.
However, it is also a handy issue for certain politicians on the make to garner attention and the lime light with feckless and overblown rhetoric.
Interestingly, many of these same people have been continuously wrong in their foreign policy prescriptions for the past fifteen years and yet continue to assume a mantle of credibility.
Also, one must account for the dysfunction of our military in confronting broad insurgencies. Indeed, they generally make them worse by clumsily adding fuel to the fire.
So perhaps wisdom and patience in regard to ISIS is not a bad idea after all unless you reside in the U. S. Senate.
However, it is also a handy issue for certain politicians on the make to garner attention and the lime light with feckless and overblown rhetoric.
Interestingly, many of these same people have been continuously wrong in their foreign policy prescriptions for the past fifteen years and yet continue to assume a mantle of credibility.
Also, one must account for the dysfunction of our military in confronting broad insurgencies. Indeed, they generally make them worse by clumsily adding fuel to the fire.
So perhaps wisdom and patience in regard to ISIS is not a bad idea after all unless you reside in the U. S. Senate.
20
While ISIS could not pose any significant threat to the US, they certainly could get a foothold in Europe. The Europeans have spent little on defense for the last 50 years, relying on the US to defend them. It would be pretty embarrassing to us if they managed to conquer even a small part of Italy or Spain.
2
Europe has a long border, muslims are just streaming in. This is no task for an army. I think, there is not even a chance to stop the radicals by any means.
We have to endure that.
After all, this threat is not existential. It is frustrating, but they are just some barbarians, we are a society of 350 millions, we will outlast them.
We have to endure that.
After all, this threat is not existential. It is frustrating, but they are just some barbarians, we are a society of 350 millions, we will outlast them.
2
The goal of ISIS is to establish a Caliphate, re-creating the actions of the Prophet. The don't seek to fight the west but to draw the west into a conflict that rallies followers to their support in a war of ideologoly. What makes you think they have any interest on "attacking" the west? They clearly know that militarily they would be wiped out in due time by any country with a conventional military force. You clearly overstate their goals and misinterpret their intentions. The frightening part is how many calling for this fight know so little about the conflict.
16
It makes absolutely no sense to expect ISIS to be able to conquer even the smallest sliver of European soil. Europe is still a major military power, especially compared to an insurgent army like ISIS. The biggest fear for Europe are attacks by some of the many lone wolves and terrorist cells we have here. It is impossible to stop them and I unfortunately think it is a matter of months before we'll see another major terrorist attack.
6
Totally agree. No one wants American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq more than ISIS. Muslims have a major battle on their hands, but it is more an argument about which interpretations of Islam are legitimate rather than a battle of arms. Our active engagement in anything beyond a supporting role in this battle strengthens the hand of those who either advocate violent extremism or see it as a legitimate interpretation of Islam.
13
Excellent piece and could not agree more. Your assessment of US strategy is spot on. I witnessed the same theory of American hegemony during the Iraq war. US leaders, while well meaning, did not understand that Iraqi’s would need to decide, craft and run their country. It didn’t help that we were the ones who destroyed their civil society; however, it was foolish to think that we could then swoop in, use a magic pill coupled with billions of dollars and turn the country into a middle east Disneyland. To this day I remember arguing with the brigade executive officer who he grew frustrated with my questioning saying “Don’t you think we are here to build a western society for them?”, to which I replied “No, I think we should let them decide their future”. It quickly went downhill from there.
Most Americans, including members of congress, have never served in the military, so it is easy for them to say “Send in the troops!”. This is the hight of hubris, strategically naive and profoundly ignorant of the world and its cultures. We need people in leadership positions that can understand nuance and view the long war. Tactical, kinetic action is for amateurs, professionals speak about the long term implications.
Most Americans, including members of congress, have never served in the military, so it is easy for them to say “Send in the troops!”. This is the hight of hubris, strategically naive and profoundly ignorant of the world and its cultures. We need people in leadership positions that can understand nuance and view the long war. Tactical, kinetic action is for amateurs, professionals speak about the long term implications.
56
We should note that a real strength of ISIL lies in its ability to moderately and severely test our patience. Kidnapping and murdering Americans or Western allies or anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time obviously touches a very sensitive nerve in nearly all of us; our natural instinct is to want to hit back with all the ferocity we can muster while still keeping our eyes on the objective. Similarly, ISIL attempts to scare us to death by its recruiting efforts, which lead to horror stories of young girls departing for Syria like the one that shocked London a week or so ago, cajoling us to believe if we don't do something--fast--millions of radicalized Westerners will follow latter-day Pied Pipers to Raqqa to restore the caliphate, soon posing an existential threat to us on par with Nazi Germany. Fortunately, it is clear to 99.99% of the world that ISIL is a murderous death cult, scarcely different than al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, offering its "brothers and sisters" a hellish existence, a short lifespan, and disgrace to themselves and shame on their families. None of this does anything, however, for the family of Kayla Mueller and other victims. They have suffered terrible losses. For many of them counseling patience with ISIL rings very hollow. We can't destroy the ideas that give ISIL life, though, only Muslims can do that.
3
Mr. Grenier is not making an "apples to apples" comparison between Afghanistan and the current ISIS situation. In the former tribes were battling tribes for a piece of the opium and corruption pie and territory.ISIS striving to impose its medieval mores on all those folks it encounters. Until those folks show willingness to resist their captors, I am afraid that our involvement will be in vain.
1
Mr. Grenier makes some excellent points (e.g., "the threat posed to us by radical Islam, while real, is not an existential one"). But he suffers from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He tries too hard to be "nuanced".
Wars are never nuanced. Americans are right to think "the United States should marshal overwhelming force, win decisive victory, and get out quickly" when we decide to go to war, which should be very rare. In fact, we should not have fought any of the (stupid) wars we fought since World War II.
"very few American civilians have fallen victim to Islamic terror since 9/11". Right again. Instead of worrying about the mites known as ISIS, we should keep our eyes on Russia and China, plus their proxy, North Korea. These rogue nations are the real existential threats.
Had we spent the $Trillions on building a bullet-proof Strategic Defense Initiative instead of fighting other peoples' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans would be much more secure today.
Wars are never nuanced. Americans are right to think "the United States should marshal overwhelming force, win decisive victory, and get out quickly" when we decide to go to war, which should be very rare. In fact, we should not have fought any of the (stupid) wars we fought since World War II.
"very few American civilians have fallen victim to Islamic terror since 9/11". Right again. Instead of worrying about the mites known as ISIS, we should keep our eyes on Russia and China, plus their proxy, North Korea. These rogue nations are the real existential threats.
Had we spent the $Trillions on building a bullet-proof Strategic Defense Initiative instead of fighting other peoples' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans would be much more secure today.
1
In the meantime, how do we sit back while genocide against Christians and ethnic minorities takes place on a daily basis and increases every day? Is this not Nazism redux?
5
I ask the same question(s). So, aside from the fact that Muslims should fight their own wars (but won't), don't we feel a moral obligation to intervene when we see genocide being committed?
1
Impulsiveness is what made ISIS possible. Saudi, Qatari efforts to overthrow Assad and Shia dominance in Syria funded ISIS. Saudi Wahhabi education and training created the narrative foundation of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
American impulsiveness, coupled with Israeli encouragement and Bush revenge fantasies led to our unjust invasion of Iraq. As a result, the entire region is set aflame, kindled by ancient Sunni-Shia enmity.
Patience is the requirement of a winning strategy. McCain, Graham, Lieberman and the Netanyahu members of our Congress are unwilling, unable, or just too driven by impulse to be listened to or reasoned with.
Patience is more courageous than reactive impulse behavior. Patience is "thinking slow" in the lexicon of Daniel Kahneman who demonstrates pitfalls of "thinking fast" or impulsive behavior. Governments exist to prevent "thinking fast" behavior. Government enables us to be patient and prevents us from behaving impatiently, like a mob. Unfortunately, democracy makes it possible to elect representatives that want to turn our country into a mob by evoking fear, terror, hatred, jealousy, racism, sexism, and war. We are witnessing the attempt to unravel the social fabric in America. The leaders of this effort are of the same mind as the leaders of ISIS. They exploit the prejudices, the impulses of our fearful or greedy to seize power and oppress opponents. Shortly, we will learn if the patience that government can exert will prevail.
American impulsiveness, coupled with Israeli encouragement and Bush revenge fantasies led to our unjust invasion of Iraq. As a result, the entire region is set aflame, kindled by ancient Sunni-Shia enmity.
Patience is the requirement of a winning strategy. McCain, Graham, Lieberman and the Netanyahu members of our Congress are unwilling, unable, or just too driven by impulse to be listened to or reasoned with.
Patience is more courageous than reactive impulse behavior. Patience is "thinking slow" in the lexicon of Daniel Kahneman who demonstrates pitfalls of "thinking fast" or impulsive behavior. Governments exist to prevent "thinking fast" behavior. Government enables us to be patient and prevents us from behaving impatiently, like a mob. Unfortunately, democracy makes it possible to elect representatives that want to turn our country into a mob by evoking fear, terror, hatred, jealousy, racism, sexism, and war. We are witnessing the attempt to unravel the social fabric in America. The leaders of this effort are of the same mind as the leaders of ISIS. They exploit the prejudices, the impulses of our fearful or greedy to seize power and oppress opponents. Shortly, we will learn if the patience that government can exert will prevail.
20
• Sadly, America has learned very little from the experience in Afghanistan. Just listen now to the impatient voices emanating from the right concerning the Islamic State.... ISIS poses a clear threat to American security, they insist: If others will not, or cannot defeat it, we should not be afraid to step forward ourselves to crush it.
THESE SENTIMENTS PLAY TO THE INSTINCTS OF MANY AMERICANS, AND THEY MUST BE RESISTED AT ALL COST.*
• The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world. In the end, only Muslims can determine the outcome.
So says the senior C.I.A. officer in the region from 1999 to 2002. Who am I to disagree?
Against ISIS, try getting out of the Middle East and its Holy Wars ... (or is it too late?).
THESE SENTIMENTS PLAY TO THE INSTINCTS OF MANY AMERICANS, AND THEY MUST BE RESISTED AT ALL COST.*
• The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world. In the end, only Muslims can determine the outcome.
So says the senior C.I.A. officer in the region from 1999 to 2002. Who am I to disagree?
Against ISIS, try getting out of the Middle East and its Holy Wars ... (or is it too late?).
6
Let's not forget, we armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and they morphed into the Taliban. We armed the Iraqi's and ISIL is now drive the trucks we paid for. The truest statement in this article:
"The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world."
"The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world."
82
"The war against radical Islamic militancy is not our fight. It is a struggle among Muslims for the soul and the future of the Muslim world."
OK., that stated, how many America's must be killed by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight? Ten, a hundred ,or ten thousand?
How many Christian's Kurds, and Coptics must be killed in the ME or Nigeria by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight?
How many Jews in France, India, America and Israel must be killed by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight?
OK., that stated, how many America's must be killed by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight? Ten, a hundred ,or ten thousand?
How many Christian's Kurds, and Coptics must be killed in the ME or Nigeria by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight?
How many Jews in France, India, America and Israel must be killed by Islamic Jihadists before it becomes our fight?
Will it still be not our fight when, God forbid, Isis orchestrates another 9/11 style attack, or even worse gets their hands on a nuke? Should we be patient till then? Just asking.
6
Heavens to Betsy! It's our fight, thanks to nearly a century of US foreign policy. But it's better that it be an intelligent fight rather than a succession of rolling brawls.
1
well, your GOP leader GW was certainly patient-- he ignored bold type warnings just days before the 9-11attack. Perhaps behind the scenes Obama is not doing that turning of the cheek.
1
Mr. Robert Grenier makes a well considered case for restraint but has little detail to offer towards a strategy for the long term. I realize this would necessarily involve the ME in its entirety thus is quite complicated but it is what is needed.
The tragedy is that the countries involved seem to have no inhibitions when it comes to creating implacable problems while displaying little will to do anything about them.
There are really no right answers when the parties involved are religious/political zealots unwilling to meet their neighbors halfway.
And Grenier is correct of course in predicting the lack of patience in the public and more especially in those who use unfortunate events for their own political posturing. That would mostly be those on the bankrupt right who would throw our American youth into another meat grinder with no practical long term goal. One tragedy after another at the hands of intellectual incompetents world wide will perpetuate our dystopian present and future. So here we go towards an utterly horrible degraded society that is headed toward irreversible oblivion powered by religious crackpots backed by corporatist entities with near state like powers. One would think/hope that Americans would perceive the parallels in our own dysfunctional GOP and the fact of environmental degradation perpetrated by those corporate interest.
The tragedy is that the countries involved seem to have no inhibitions when it comes to creating implacable problems while displaying little will to do anything about them.
There are really no right answers when the parties involved are religious/political zealots unwilling to meet their neighbors halfway.
And Grenier is correct of course in predicting the lack of patience in the public and more especially in those who use unfortunate events for their own political posturing. That would mostly be those on the bankrupt right who would throw our American youth into another meat grinder with no practical long term goal. One tragedy after another at the hands of intellectual incompetents world wide will perpetuate our dystopian present and future. So here we go towards an utterly horrible degraded society that is headed toward irreversible oblivion powered by religious crackpots backed by corporatist entities with near state like powers. One would think/hope that Americans would perceive the parallels in our own dysfunctional GOP and the fact of environmental degradation perpetrated by those corporate interest.
4
Patience is a strategy. If you want tactics, you're on the wrong side of history.
1
Dear Mr. Grenier,
Let me get this straight; you were the C.I.A. "station chief" in Islamabad yet write an entire column, including the Pashtun region, without even a mention of "Pakistan"?
No wonder we never know "what's going on".
Let me get this straight; you were the C.I.A. "station chief" in Islamabad yet write an entire column, including the Pashtun region, without even a mention of "Pakistan"?
No wonder we never know "what's going on".
5
It's one thing to accept that ISIS is not an existential threat to the US. It's another to bide our time while ISIS beheads captives, enslaves Assyrian Christians, and perpetrates all manner of other atrocities. I guess we didn't react to the Rwanda massacre because it also wasn't an existential threat to our country. Ebola wasn't either.
17
Ebola was, actually. We bide our time while Central Africa is a blood bath, while Sudan is another, and while the Maghreb slips further into chaos. But we're not the fire department of the world, and we can't allow our priorities to be set by oil companies.
6
Excellent, excellent article. Yes, many want to see massive forces in the field, air, and on sea. But both Germany and Japan were state actors dependent on national economies etc. Vietnam should have taught lessons, but the noise machine represented the debacle as the fault of politicians "who tied our hands."
Unless we want permanent war--and some do---we need to showcase a successful American philosophy of life and living, not just of consuming and killing.
Unless we want permanent war--and some do---we need to showcase a successful American philosophy of life and living, not just of consuming and killing.
71
"War is a mere continuation of policy by other means",
"War is never an isolated act." - Clausewitz
Thus, sometimes a soldier can tell you more about the purpose of a war than some politicians, which sometimes do believe all needed to achieve is a quick victory.
"War is never an isolated act." - Clausewitz
Thus, sometimes a soldier can tell you more about the purpose of a war than some politicians, which sometimes do believe all needed to achieve is a quick victory.
4
I say "Hats off to Alexander the Great".
He;s the only one that ever came up with a straight-forward practical solution to a complex Middle Eastern problem.
He chopped the Gordian Knot in half.
Of two years later, Alexander the Great was dead in Baghdad, possibly assasinated by poison by his Afghani wife.