Good to hear that you are voting for Clinton.
15
If Hilary Clinton gets it, why do we have to wait for the next president to act? Why does not President Obama act? Mr Brooks or anyone please explain how Obama's own ex secretary of state( maybe the person responsible for flubbing things in Ben Gazzi) has a course of action, but the President has nothing. He seems instead disengaged!
3
For years I read Frank Rich's column as he slowly but surely saw what was happening to his party, the Republican Party. It's not that Frank crossed over, it's that his patriotism mattered more and he ended up recognizing that the big picture was getting bigger as the GOP tent got smaller...and frankly, less informed. (I miss reading his column in this paper.) Nor am I assuming that you are crossing the aisle. Your conservative colleague, Ross Douthat's been making intellectual sense too lately.... so this is to acknowledge your clear thinking, observation, and understanding of the region. We do not need to be a big bully strong-man right now. The stronger leader observes, collaborates in strategy, and looks to problem-resolution, not WWIII. Well done. Please continue!
19
Oh my how liberals and the NYTimes editorial board squirm when one of their own suddenly supports a more robust foreign policy. Recall the pitiful left lamenting the ostracizing of the brazen saboteur Mr. Snowden for blowing the whistle on our security agencies. I supported with all my being the civil rights laws of the l960s but I like to think I can sense a threat to national security.
While I confess I could not write a thesis on modern Jihad, I do remember the day when liberals recognized a national threat. I recall the interventionist-isolationist debate in the family newsstand in the 1930s. FDR sensed the threat but settled initially for "lend-lease" to England. Reinhold Niebuhr, a former socialist and pacifist argued there was a greater good in stopping fascism than reforming capitalism. The crusade against the Axis powers began. It was a definitive victory for Liberalism.
That liberal sense of reality apparently disappeared as the "new left" during the Vietnam war demonized the U.S as just another bloated imperialist power. Is this somehow a source of President Obama's stumbling and incoherent approach to Isis? Sure, I voted for him twice; The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld American "exceptionalism" is an abomination morally and geopolitically.
.
The Hillary-Brooks combination pleases me while I realize, following Niebuhr's Christian realism, it wouldn't be easy. We live in the most dangerous time since 1942.
While I confess I could not write a thesis on modern Jihad, I do remember the day when liberals recognized a national threat. I recall the interventionist-isolationist debate in the family newsstand in the 1930s. FDR sensed the threat but settled initially for "lend-lease" to England. Reinhold Niebuhr, a former socialist and pacifist argued there was a greater good in stopping fascism than reforming capitalism. The crusade against the Axis powers began. It was a definitive victory for Liberalism.
That liberal sense of reality apparently disappeared as the "new left" during the Vietnam war demonized the U.S as just another bloated imperialist power. Is this somehow a source of President Obama's stumbling and incoherent approach to Isis? Sure, I voted for him twice; The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld American "exceptionalism" is an abomination morally and geopolitically.
.
The Hillary-Brooks combination pleases me while I realize, following Niebuhr's Christian realism, it wouldn't be easy. We live in the most dangerous time since 1942.
11
I am glad to see you that you found Mrs. Clinton's strategy impressive with some reservations. Just a few pointers though. Yes, Assad stated the nightmare ( but it would'nt have, if Sunni insurgents had not provoked, aided by us ). But that was then and here is now. The ISIS clearly walked into the power vacuum and having been holding court ever since - in the Middle East and now here. They are the existential, immediate threat to us, not Assad. He is already been declawed and defanged. For now, he too is fighting the ISIS, just like us, France and now Russia who supports Assad. But Russia has been throwing big hints of regime change in Syria, removing Assad. So perhaps, they would join forces with us for a no-fly zone in north Syria if we leave Assad alone for now. As for the Republican rhetorical diehards, they have only one callous, kneejerk solution - American boots on the ground! I would agree to it, if these Republicans put their kith and kin on the front lines first and not let their rich mommy/papa help them dodge out of serving their country.
4
Dave and Hillary are correct in one thing - ISIS has gone on long enough and the initial strategy of letting its hatred burn out has failed in that it has survived long enough to spawn intricately planned and coordinated guerrilla squad attacks that can defeat advanced security apparatus; hit major Western capitals.
While I certainly don't agree with all Dave and Hillary's prescriptions for anti-ISIS/Assad strategy, they at least have a handle on the complexity of the issue that goes far beyond anything being discussed amongst serious Republican candidates for the Presidency. And importantly they don't call for increased "homeland security" policies.
They are right in that it's not simply a matter of force at this point. They are a bit off base in failure to comprehend the root causes of terrorism beyond a simple "power vacuum."
Terrorism thrives on claims of State cruelty, real or imagined. It is fueled by poverty and, in Syria's case, an extended drought that has wiped out much farming income.
In this atmosphere it is important to fight the ISIS/Assad fighters in a way that will not deal more damage to the image of the West as a fair partner in peace and not an imperial force of the oppressors. Close the Turkish border. Get all parties directed at ISIS and Assad positions only.
While I certainly don't agree with all Dave and Hillary's prescriptions for anti-ISIS/Assad strategy, they at least have a handle on the complexity of the issue that goes far beyond anything being discussed amongst serious Republican candidates for the Presidency. And importantly they don't call for increased "homeland security" policies.
They are right in that it's not simply a matter of force at this point. They are a bit off base in failure to comprehend the root causes of terrorism beyond a simple "power vacuum."
Terrorism thrives on claims of State cruelty, real or imagined. It is fueled by poverty and, in Syria's case, an extended drought that has wiped out much farming income.
In this atmosphere it is important to fight the ISIS/Assad fighters in a way that will not deal more damage to the image of the West as a fair partner in peace and not an imperial force of the oppressors. Close the Turkish border. Get all parties directed at ISIS and Assad positions only.
6
Bravo, David. From a strictly political perspective, your column is (a) deservedly praising of Hillary Clinton and (b) a wake-up call to the Republicans. But will any Republicans listen to you? For the country's sake, I hope so. Meanwhile, on national security issues, not to mention the host of other issues, there is ample reason to vote for Clinton and the Democrats in 2016.
9
The civil war in Syria is over. Assad won. We should not be giving the Syrian Rebels any weapons, not a single shell. We should be giving them aid and safe passage to a safe zone/refugee camp (with Putin's help with Assad we can cut a safe zone pact outside of Syria). The Syrian Rebels should drop their guns and walk to a UN created refugee camp as soon as possible. If they choose not to; they will be killed by Assad and his allies. Ugly reality. Movies are Magic - Real Life is Tragic. Deal with Assad when the dust settles. He's Putin's problem. The sooner we realize we have to work hand in hand with Putin the better.
4
So these so-called diplomats like MS. Clinton go to other countries with cultures that have ethics and taboos that are thousands of years old; and while there, they have the nerve to tell these people that they must change their moral concepts. Do they really believe that there is going to be a positive reaction to their interfering in the daily lives of these very old cultures? Who is responsible for the terrorism? Try the feminists. They have stuck America's head into a hornets' nest. But who is expected to fight and die in this "war on terrorism"? For sure not women or gays.
2
While Mrs Clinton's policy looks good on paper, the problem with it is best exemplified by what is happening in Egypt, Libya, etc.
Fundamentalism propels itself in power and shows up in the form of sharia law based on literal and narrow interpretation of certain parts of the Holy Quran instead of its overarching message of brotherhood, tolerance, peace, diversity, etc. Vicious corruption continues and the plight of the citizens remains where it was before the change (or likely worsens) .
The only successful transformation that we hear about is in Tunisia. And that's difficult to achieve but must be brought into reckoning.
Fundamentalism propels itself in power and shows up in the form of sharia law based on literal and narrow interpretation of certain parts of the Holy Quran instead of its overarching message of brotherhood, tolerance, peace, diversity, etc. Vicious corruption continues and the plight of the citizens remains where it was before the change (or likely worsens) .
The only successful transformation that we hear about is in Tunisia. And that's difficult to achieve but must be brought into reckoning.
It is hoped that the Islamic religious leaders and the political leadership in the Middle East will be able to minimize their differences and maximize their cooperative agreements for the larger community of average citizens.
1
That former Secretary Clinton is the only candidate to grasp the Middle East miasma is mostly a comment on the rest of the field. It does not make her more correct–only more nuanced. She remains the same pro-war politician who voted to invade Iraq. She changed nothing during her tenure at State. We would be fools to expect anything other than the same failed policies were she elected President.
4
Brooks is no booster for Hillary, he wants the Republicans to address the problems we face with considered thoughtfulness instead of dismissing them with bluster and tough sounding talk intended to impress people with their conviction and decisiveness. It will not help much because Trump, Carson, et al are playing on people's feelings instead of their reasoning capacity, partially because it works and partially because presenting a case as did Hillary can lead to criticism that can be hard to manage well.
1
ISIL is but the latest iteration of radical islam unrest. We have shown little ability to affect the underlying cause of radicalization nor have the "leaders" in the region. With more aggressive military action, we may be able to quash this movement but will not solve the issue. The only real way is to marginalize their power through through a policy of energy independence that makes the region irrelevant. We must eliminate the economic stranglehold that oil represents. In the short term, instead of making military expenditures in the region a general tax, convert it to a tax on imported oil from the region. If we have to maintain military supply lines then show its true costs and if other forms of energy be they carbon or green are more affordable, we should strive to replace military costs with alternative energy supply
Dear Mr. Brooks, I think it is incorrect to say that Assad created the vacuum in which Daesh is able to flourish. I believe that vacuum was created by the US invasion of Iraq. Just sayin'.
20
There was no mention of bombing ISIS's source of income, such as the oil fields under ISIS control. A recent Frontline program on PBS said that ISIS is recruiting fighters by paying them $700 per month, principally from oil revenue. Many of theses fighters are more attracted to the money than the theology of ISIS. If I was advising Mrs Clinton, I would recommend she include bombing the oil fields as a significant part of her policy of fighting the ISIS threat.
3
What do we do about ISIS? Is David right? Is Hillary right? Is Bernie right? The Republicans? The hawks? The Doves?
I don't know & I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what to do now.
For future reference, though, I believe we should remember that there was a time when there was a group of people who KNEW what to do, or what NOT to do, I should say. These were thoughtful, rational & compassionate people, conservatives & liberals, who felt that MORAL justification for war and the fundamental defensive/nonmilitaristic/noninterventionist principles America was founded on should be given serious consideration in the decision as to whether America should embark on a war. These were the minority of Americans who in 2003, said do NOT start an unnecessary war in Iraq. But they were shouted down & vilified.
And as I said, NO ONE seems to know what to do now.
I don't know & I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what to do now.
For future reference, though, I believe we should remember that there was a time when there was a group of people who KNEW what to do, or what NOT to do, I should say. These were thoughtful, rational & compassionate people, conservatives & liberals, who felt that MORAL justification for war and the fundamental defensive/nonmilitaristic/noninterventionist principles America was founded on should be given serious consideration in the decision as to whether America should embark on a war. These were the minority of Americans who in 2003, said do NOT start an unnecessary war in Iraq. But they were shouted down & vilified.
And as I said, NO ONE seems to know what to do now.
4
Mr Brooks , rather than pushing Clinton's regime change views, how about appealing to the Saudis to stop supporting ISIS?
10
There you go again with the US military option. The reality is Assad will have to stay, for awhile. You don't address what will happen if Assad is forced out, have you thought that thru or are you like the Bush bunch that believe everything will be hunky dory after he's gone? Now wake up and smell the gun powder because what is going on IS a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. Saudi Arabia created ISIS with the help of America's overthrow of Saddam and with the Saudi funding of Wahabiism. ISIS is the threat to us and the western world not Assad. And ISIS is Sunni.
8
After you read David Brooks, spend a few more minutes on the page of the New York Times and read an OP-ED by an honest man. Jimmy Carter: A Five-Nation Plan to End the Syrian Crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/jimmy-carter-a-five-nation-pla...
“National identities and boundaries enabled Sunnis and Shiites to live together peaceably.” Anyone who appreciates history knows it was Saddam Hussein who kept national identities, boundaries, and extremism in check. Everyone who knows history understands we were lied, without consequence for the liars, into a War of Regime Change; Bush & Cheney destabilized the region. Period.
“the Sunni Awakening that toppled Al Qaeda in Iraq” I suggest anyone who thinks this should watch the new Frontline episode that aired a few nights ago, Nov. 17th, 2015, entitled Isis in Afghanistan. Why is Al Qaeda less of a presence? Because members are ‘defecting’ and joining ISIS. What is a main recruiting tool? Videos, shown daily, to kids of occupying forces killing Muslims. Again Bush & Cheney.
“Vladimir Putin will want concessions as a price for backing off his aggression in the Middle East.” While true, the characterization of Putin as aggressor and the USA as ‘liberator’ is appealing it is also part of the problem; an untruthful narrative. We will not ‘defeat’ ISIS until we are honest about our history while we develop a long-term plan to address hopelessness and loss of opportunity in the Middle-East.
“National identities and boundaries enabled Sunnis and Shiites to live together peaceably.” Anyone who appreciates history knows it was Saddam Hussein who kept national identities, boundaries, and extremism in check. Everyone who knows history understands we were lied, without consequence for the liars, into a War of Regime Change; Bush & Cheney destabilized the region. Period.
“the Sunni Awakening that toppled Al Qaeda in Iraq” I suggest anyone who thinks this should watch the new Frontline episode that aired a few nights ago, Nov. 17th, 2015, entitled Isis in Afghanistan. Why is Al Qaeda less of a presence? Because members are ‘defecting’ and joining ISIS. What is a main recruiting tool? Videos, shown daily, to kids of occupying forces killing Muslims. Again Bush & Cheney.
“Vladimir Putin will want concessions as a price for backing off his aggression in the Middle East.” While true, the characterization of Putin as aggressor and the USA as ‘liberator’ is appealing it is also part of the problem; an untruthful narrative. We will not ‘defeat’ ISIS until we are honest about our history while we develop a long-term plan to address hopelessness and loss of opportunity in the Middle-East.
12
“Candidate Clinton laid out a supple and sophisticated approach. The next president will have to provide the action.”
There is a lot of substance in this column by David Brooks, but the two-sentence final paragraph (quoted above) seems to suggest that the plan outlined by Hillary Clinton is good and ought to be followed by a Republican president. Let’s assume that Mr. Brooks is simply reluctant to predict who the next president will be, but he believes that whoever sits in the Oval Office will need to have more creativity than any of the other announced candidates have demonstrated.
The approach suggested by Mrs. Clinton does show maturity and judgment, but one aspect needs refinement in view of the time-urgent fallout from Paris. We ought to be able to reach agreement with Russia and its client, Bashar al-Assad, to provide a zone of safety for non-ISIS Syrians. The agreement would end the barrel bombs with an announcement by Assad that he stepping down and leaving the country in return for an agreement by the United States, Russia and their European allies to defend and protect the Alawite people.
Getting Iran to sign off formally would not be wise, because Turkey would demand similar deference, as would the financial sponsor of ISIS, Saudi Arabia. Since there are no people whom ISIS enjoys killing more than the Iranian Shiites, seen by ISIS as apostates and heretics, Iran is likely to agree enthusiastically to join the fight against the radical Sunni jihadists.
There is a lot of substance in this column by David Brooks, but the two-sentence final paragraph (quoted above) seems to suggest that the plan outlined by Hillary Clinton is good and ought to be followed by a Republican president. Let’s assume that Mr. Brooks is simply reluctant to predict who the next president will be, but he believes that whoever sits in the Oval Office will need to have more creativity than any of the other announced candidates have demonstrated.
The approach suggested by Mrs. Clinton does show maturity and judgment, but one aspect needs refinement in view of the time-urgent fallout from Paris. We ought to be able to reach agreement with Russia and its client, Bashar al-Assad, to provide a zone of safety for non-ISIS Syrians. The agreement would end the barrel bombs with an announcement by Assad that he stepping down and leaving the country in return for an agreement by the United States, Russia and their European allies to defend and protect the Alawite people.
Getting Iran to sign off formally would not be wise, because Turkey would demand similar deference, as would the financial sponsor of ISIS, Saudi Arabia. Since there are no people whom ISIS enjoys killing more than the Iranian Shiites, seen by ISIS as apostates and heretics, Iran is likely to agree enthusiastically to join the fight against the radical Sunni jihadists.
The best barometers for when the neoconservatives have gone too far is when David Brooks denounces them & praises a Democrat. Or John McCain, e.g., on torture policy. None of the other pandering, yes-men/women of the militaristic plutocracy will do that.
5
Hillary Clinton will be that next President.
You can be very, very sure of that.
You can be very, very sure of that.
6
I just have to wonder....does Sykes-Picot really offer the solution to the problems it created?
Possibly. Possibly the only, if imperfect, solution.
I suppose the region wasn't exactly peaceful or forward looking for, say, 1000 years before the end of WWI. It's just, no one cared until the beginning of the petroleum era.
Possibly. Possibly the only, if imperfect, solution.
I suppose the region wasn't exactly peaceful or forward looking for, say, 1000 years before the end of WWI. It's just, no one cared until the beginning of the petroleum era.
2
Hillary's comprehensive strategy in Libya was to get rid of Ghaddafi. Unfortunately, looked what replaced him ------anarchy.
Her comprehensive strategy in Syria is to get rid of Assad. Same results as Libya.
Both Hillary and Brooks are complete fools.
Her comprehensive strategy in Syria is to get rid of Assad. Same results as Libya.
Both Hillary and Brooks are complete fools.
4
David- great job! Your unbiased review is excellent. Compared to the clowns on the Republican side, Hillary brings a fresh air. It is a disgrace that the Grand Obstruction Party has become a true symbol of stupidity, ignorance, racism, xenophobia and a pawn of some of the Wall Street crooks. Alas, the so called "white" republicans cannot see the true color of the party and how they are destroying our great nation.
2
When Hillary mentions national institutional reform, the classic nation state is not possible in Syria and Iraq. Sectarian and Ethnic partition, with international guarantees of shared oil revenues seems most plausible. The Arab nation-states were created by European colonialism after WWI. The artificial national boundaries cut across the basic Sunni -Shia sectarian fault lines. The centripetal force holding them together was a dictator who could cement the fault lines.In the Middle East, when these leaders are removed or weakened sectarian fault lines( with the Kurds its cultural) become the dominant forces.Sunni or Shia,not the artificial nation state, become the primary allegiance. The Arab Spring and social media exacerbated the centrifugal forces tearing nations apart. It would seem that a new national paradigm is needed for Iraq and Syria.
Mrs. Clinton presented a well thought out strategy that addresses the complexity of the region..The GOP is howling that we need a strategy and Mrs. Clinton has given them one. Compare this to the GOP rhetoric that passes as strategy : 1. build a wall, 2. bomb, 3.block refugees, and 4. don't cooperate with Russia or Iran in getting rid of ISIS.
At some point David Brooks, like other establishment republicans is going to have to admit to himself that the party he has supported for all his adult life no longer exists. Today's GOP runs the gamut from reactionaries to outright fascists appealing to the craven fears and prejudices of an alarmed public conditioned by a drumbeat of fear and prejudice created over 35 years by the GOP themselves, starting with Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox News, et al.
At some point David Brooks, like other establishment republicans is going to have to admit to himself that the party he has supported for all his adult life no longer exists. Today's GOP runs the gamut from reactionaries to outright fascists appealing to the craven fears and prejudices of an alarmed public conditioned by a drumbeat of fear and prejudice created over 35 years by the GOP themselves, starting with Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox News, et al.
6
I agree with Hilary, but I'm sure all these ideas have occurred and been presented to Obama. Isn't he actually doing the same other than a no fly zone, which is not as simple as stated. We cannot set up a humanitarian zone without hundreds of thousands of troops to protect it.
1
Hillary is the first of the candidates to propose a detailed strategy for destroying ISIS, as opposed to the mostly ill-informed bombast of her Republican opponents. Her proposal appears in large part to be more a speeding up and intensification of what the Obama administration is already doing, although it does have some puzzling elements that go beyond what the administration would do. For example, I'm a little confused about what the no-fly zone would be for, as ISIS has no air force. I wouldn't want to get into the business of shooting down aircraft that are bombing Kurds or Syrian forces we support (read: Turkey, Russia, Syria). Also, it would of course be desirable to establish a safe haven for Syrian refugees in order to encourage them to go there and not to Europe, but that would require ground troops. So, there are a few holes in Hillary's carefully-crafted, carefully vague plan. Still, it's a start.
1
Clinton's ability to synthesize information and apply her knowledge and experience in it's articulation is so vastly, intellectually, above the populist unthoughtful blatherings of the GOP candidates as to be embarrassing in comparison.
America is now a nation divided by intellect more than economics!
America is now a nation divided by intellect more than economics!
5
Nice words about a C!inton! Oh Boy, he's going to get flack about that! But he still doesn't get the problem. The problem is the fantasy states imposed by the colonial powers without regard to ethnicity, religion, or history. These states are stable only under nondemocratic regimes. In the middle east Britain adopted Ottoman (hated by arabs) administrative districts not Arab historical divisions. In Africa physical features (rivers, mountains) were used. In greater Asia language groups and or what was militarily defensible were the standards. In all cases it didn't work very well it at all.
1
Regarding David Brooks' ideas, How to deal with the Syrian Crisis, I suggest that President Obama appoint David Brooks to negotiate: "The grand strategy of American Policy in the Middle East. Namely, that we(United States) should do "what we can can to revive and reform Arab nations to help them become functioning governing units."
It's unfair to compare Hillary Clinton to the Republican presidential candidates because she is not saddled with a base consisting of idiots and bigots. If you're a racist or xenophobe, where are you going to go but to the Republican party, which welcomes you warmly. Mix in the gun nuts and you see the problem that confronts the Republican candidates and not Mrs. Clinton. The problem is not the Republican candidates per se; it's who they appease.
3
Major problem. Overthrow Assad and who takes over? Thats the same problem we had in Iraq, Afghanistan and lybia. Sure getting rid of a thug can be done but a bigger group of thugs seems to take over, Until we know who can bring about a change we should be very cautious. I have not heard anyone name any group that would be the alternative. Sadam and Gadfai were bad guys but they sure kept the lid on things.
2
If these nations wanted peace they would not need any help. War is their meat and bread. The most certainly do not want us as a guest at their table.
The jihadists are full of nonsense and are a danger that must not be ignored.
The destruction of ISIS shall not end that threat. It will end A threat.
That is all one can ever ask for.
The jihadists are full of nonsense and are a danger that must not be ignored.
The destruction of ISIS shall not end that threat. It will end A threat.
That is all one can ever ask for.
Thanks, David. The check from Hillary's campaign is in the mail. The notion that Hillary is the only wise and thoughtful candidate in the room can be refuted with one word: Libya.
2
I agree with Russia and Iran. Assad isn't going anywhere. He's not going to kill 200,000 people in a desperate attempt to hang onto power and then agree to a peaceful transition. That's a fantasy. Unfortunately we can't stop a civil war. Let's keep our eye on the ball this time. These tribes will be at war for years, but we need to show ISIS that they had best leave us out of it.
1
There is one more factor which is being overlooked, the 4 million people who have become refugees from Syria because they want to live peaceful, normal lives rather than to contribute to the war by supporting Assad or the Sunni resistance to Assad. We seem to think that to have this war resolved in a way that leads to what the U.S. wants, some freedom loving force will have to defeat Assad and ISIS, both. What we really want is a population of people who simply will not put up with Assad, ISIS, nor war because they want to live normal lives. Those 4 million refugees want what we want.
Clinton has been part of the Obama administration; she is part of the problem, and now trying to divorce herself from Obama.
Another thoughtful column about the Middle East, defining the problem, and
looking at a feasible solution. Brooks is trying to use reason, not raw nativists emotion to examine problems/solutions.
A good example to the voting public, thanks David, you are doing the true calling of a journalist.
looking at a feasible solution. Brooks is trying to use reason, not raw nativists emotion to examine problems/solutions.
A good example to the voting public, thanks David, you are doing the true calling of a journalist.
2
The mistake is taking any of the so-called governments in the Middle East seriously. They are an assortment of criminal gangs, family businesses and political grifters who take up valuable parking spaces when they come to the UN in New York. It is up to a coalition of NATO and Russia to wipe out the crazies and demand order from our 'clients'. The people of the Middle East have to find a solution for themselves: de empahsizing religion and ethnicity in their lives would be a great place to start. Educating themselves would also be useful. Stopping the flow of weapons and shutting down illicit money flows would also help. Anyone who thinks the Middle East is better off without Sadaam Hussein or Assad or even Ghadaffi forgets how peaceful things were. Sure Sadaam invaded Kuwait, but who cares other than the Kuwaiti royal famil y and the oil companies? (Where are the Kuwaitis in the fight against ISIS? Cringing behind their Maseratis?) Rather than fomenting international conflict we should have fomented internal revolutions and supported the people. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam which is a pretty decent place these days despite our best efforts to bomb it back to the stone age.
2
Republicans who read Brook's commentary on Clinton's views will divide into a couple of groups, one that considers him a supporter of Hillary and one that considers him a critic of the lack of anyone running for the Republican nomination showing as much foreign policy credibility as Hillary. If the Republicans do consider how astute Hillary happens to be they will start focusing on Republicans who have worked has hard and as long as Hillary to grasp the real world, candidates like Kasich or Graham.
2
Yes David, Hillary Clinton is the logical choice to deal with terrorism because she is the only Presidential candidate who has had direct dealings with the complex problem of terrorism. She was a very able Secretary of State. She is the sensible, intelligent, politically savvy, cool headed, and well informed candidate who should be the next President of this country if the electorate will bother to inform themselves.
It will take the co-operation of many nations through the U.N. and NATO working in sync to try and bring ISIS to its knees. Bombastic declarations and political posturing will do nothing to address the problem of terrorism. It will only exacerbate them. Any of the Republican candidates would become part of the problem, and not the solution.
It will take the co-operation of many nations through the U.N. and NATO working in sync to try and bring ISIS to its knees. Bombastic declarations and political posturing will do nothing to address the problem of terrorism. It will only exacerbate them. Any of the Republican candidates would become part of the problem, and not the solution.
2
At least one Republican, David Brooks, values common sense, experience and expertise from the other side of the aisle. I hope Brooks leads the way out of mindless fanaticism and into choosing leaders who really know what they're talking about. I'm sorry but I don't see any Republican candidates who qualify.
1
Sorry, but no "light footprint" campaign will succeed in dislodging Assad and crushing ISIS. This will be simply more of the same, and will play into the narrative of ISIS' war of civilizations and aid recruiting efforts.
The only way to accomplish this end is to send in the grunts and Marines, in force and with lots of Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks. Then you'll get the result of a cleared battle space and a lot of dead combatants, and we can start the rebuilding process.
It will be messy, it will cost a lot and we will lose a lot of Americans.
Although no politician wants to face this, and it probably couldn't happen unless we get a major attack on US soil, I think most know that this is the reality.
Steely resolve to commit a few more Special Forces and policy wonks won't change anything.
The only way to accomplish this end is to send in the grunts and Marines, in force and with lots of Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks. Then you'll get the result of a cleared battle space and a lot of dead combatants, and we can start the rebuilding process.
It will be messy, it will cost a lot and we will lose a lot of Americans.
Although no politician wants to face this, and it probably couldn't happen unless we get a major attack on US soil, I think most know that this is the reality.
Steely resolve to commit a few more Special Forces and policy wonks won't change anything.
1
It is becoming more obvious to even Mr. Brooks that Republicans are too scary to vote for in the presidential race. This Republican presidential primary season is really a double down on their bad behavior in the last go around.
1
Mr. Brooks:
It strikes me a more than a bit disingenuous that our staunch"ally" Saudi Arabia seems to get a pass whenever solutions are bandied about. Whether funding their side of the terrorist conflicts or closing theit borders to refugees, the Saudi's are never part of any solution. Evidently, they are in no need of reform and have no responsibility to aquit.
It is apparent to me that unless we get support from some of the nation states still standing in the Middle East this conflict will be an ongoing nightmare for all concerned. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors diplomatically, but, there isn't much pressure publically on these non-players
to step up. Until such time comes when the real opposition to ISIS comes from the Muslim world, there won't be a solution of any consequence.
It may sound forthright and resolute to talk of better governance from top to bottom, but, is that feasible? Is that a humanitarian goal or a political one?
Are they one ad the same? Does anyone really think the Muslim world would accept that scenario? How is that working out in Afganistan?
It strikes me a more than a bit disingenuous that our staunch"ally" Saudi Arabia seems to get a pass whenever solutions are bandied about. Whether funding their side of the terrorist conflicts or closing theit borders to refugees, the Saudi's are never part of any solution. Evidently, they are in no need of reform and have no responsibility to aquit.
It is apparent to me that unless we get support from some of the nation states still standing in the Middle East this conflict will be an ongoing nightmare for all concerned. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors diplomatically, but, there isn't much pressure publically on these non-players
to step up. Until such time comes when the real opposition to ISIS comes from the Muslim world, there won't be a solution of any consequence.
It may sound forthright and resolute to talk of better governance from top to bottom, but, is that feasible? Is that a humanitarian goal or a political one?
Are they one ad the same? Does anyone really think the Muslim world would accept that scenario? How is that working out in Afganistan?
Truth: Clinton is the only adult in the room. We will have sunk to unimaginable lows if our next president is picked because they are an "outsider" with no experience. People may not like Hillary or democrats in general, but the reality is she is the only legitimate contender for president. It is embarrassing that there are no other credible contenders. Thank god she's running
4
Hillary Clinton is far ahead of any of the other candidates. None of them have the experience or knowledge to even come close in offering specific, well-thought out solutions to foreign policy problems. The best they can do is offer sound bytes that appeal to some segments of the electorate, mostly based on fear. Unfortunately, most voters don't read anything deeper than a sound byte.
4
It would be helpful if this paper put forth a detailed and accurate description of what exactly a no-fly zone is. According to Rand Paul, a no-fly zone in Syria could lead to the US bombing Russian planes, and vice versa. I find this definition when I Google it: "a designated area over which aircraft may not fly without risk of interception, especially during a conflict."
I not as informed as I would like to be on the current state of world terrorism or Mideast geopolitics. I am also not a supporter of Hillary Clinton; however even I can recognize that she articulates an informed and thoughtful policy in response to both the immediate crisis and ongoing regional turmoil. In the absence of any coherent proposal from other candidates, I find myself thinking more and more about how I can nurture respect for the person who will most likely become our next president. This is a good first step.....
2
With Clinton's grasp on foreign policy, I don't mind her being Secretary of State again, or even Vice President, but President? I don't know. I feel like with every step we've taken in the Middle East, things have gone from bad to worse, all the while neglecting the serious democracy troubles we have at home. Corporate greed, prejudice, denial of science and reality, a do-nothing Congress. Maybe we should vote the reactionaries out of politics first before we start giving these terrorists the tools they need to carry out their master plan.
1
The really big picture is that Islamic culture is a museum
piece. Thinkers who look to non-Western societies for antidotes
to the purported toxic effects of Western individualism properly
focus on the Far East. It's an ongoing debate, and a worthy one.
The Middle East, by contrast, has nothing to offer but absolute
monarchies, tribal warfare and subjection of women. Instead of
propping up Arab states, their whole system should be unwound
as gracefully as possible. President Clinton will do well to
appoint a Secretary of State whose intellect is greater than
her own.
piece. Thinkers who look to non-Western societies for antidotes
to the purported toxic effects of Western individualism properly
focus on the Far East. It's an ongoing debate, and a worthy one.
The Middle East, by contrast, has nothing to offer but absolute
monarchies, tribal warfare and subjection of women. Instead of
propping up Arab states, their whole system should be unwound
as gracefully as possible. President Clinton will do well to
appoint a Secretary of State whose intellect is greater than
her own.
Could Mr. Brooks' column be a harbinger for a sea change in elite conservative opinion? Watching the entropic side show of the GOP race may enthrall the general public, but party leaders have to be utterly dismayed and assessing their options. As so many of us have wisely pointed out, HRC is a conservative by any other name, with ties and stances that please the military and finance industries to no end. In this odd election cycle, conservatives may continue to see Hillary as a viable option as the GOP continues to devolve.
Foreign policy experience is important, but it's not nearly enough. Far more important is a commitment to the American people to reestablish our social contracts and infrastructure. Far more important is a leader not beholden to special interests. Bernie Sanders is all those things and more and is advocating for a Muslim-led coalition to confront radicalism, is calling out Saudi Arabia, et al, for their support of the Salafist movement, and acknowledges the role that climate change has in destabilizing the region. While I am glad to see a conservative begin to reach across party lines, Mr. Brooks is reaching toward the wrong candidate. Feel the Bern.
Foreign policy experience is important, but it's not nearly enough. Far more important is a commitment to the American people to reestablish our social contracts and infrastructure. Far more important is a leader not beholden to special interests. Bernie Sanders is all those things and more and is advocating for a Muslim-led coalition to confront radicalism, is calling out Saudi Arabia, et al, for their support of the Salafist movement, and acknowledges the role that climate change has in destabilizing the region. While I am glad to see a conservative begin to reach across party lines, Mr. Brooks is reaching toward the wrong candidate. Feel the Bern.
Glad you linked to it--many are commenting without actually looking at what she said. I heard it and read the transcript. It is a multi-layered approach that recognizes that different actors in the region have different priorities and that the American approach needs to address that. Despite what some think, there wasn't a bellicose call to arms, although Clinton is clearly prepared to use it if necessary.
While the Iraq War doubtless had some effect, the Arab Spring had even more. In some many countries, the people rejected authoritarian governments and lack of opportunity. Americans have to ask ourselves if we prefer to be disengaged and walled off or do we support people who are fighting for freedom we take for granted.
One thing for sure--it will require a clear and careful definition of what the problems are, how they reinforce each other and how we deal with them. It's not an option to think that it will go away if we ignore it. Clinton made her case and all serious candidates should be doing it as well.
While the Iraq War doubtless had some effect, the Arab Spring had even more. In some many countries, the people rejected authoritarian governments and lack of opportunity. Americans have to ask ourselves if we prefer to be disengaged and walled off or do we support people who are fighting for freedom we take for granted.
One thing for sure--it will require a clear and careful definition of what the problems are, how they reinforce each other and how we deal with them. It's not an option to think that it will go away if we ignore it. Clinton made her case and all serious candidates should be doing it as well.
It's a sad fact that so called Conservative voters reading Brook's piece doesn't realize it's not so much a praising of Hillary Clinton, but a criticism of the clown show that the Republican party has become; from State Governors to Congressional leadership.
What is more telling, those who are providing the most insightful interviews and responses are retired Generals, ex-State Department and intelligence agency staffers who are not on the payroll of a media company or political think tank.
The finger pointing, scapegoating, pure racist and ignorant responses coming out of half our political leadership and Presidential candidates is a reflection of the backwards slide this country has taken. The country my father fought for wasn't one that locked its doors and hid under a blanket when danger arouse. But, also the country my father fought for was also a country that lost hundreds of thousands of lives in quagmires that we didn't understand.
It's sad that it seems like one half of our political party system is fully of mediocrity and ignorance, who instead of bashing education and government should be studying it more.
I'm not a huge fan of Hilary, but as Mr Brooks outlined, she is the only one who has come out with responses that show the depth of understanding we need to ensure that our blood and treasure aren't thrown into a fight where our allies will turn into our enemies when the fighting is done.
What is more telling, those who are providing the most insightful interviews and responses are retired Generals, ex-State Department and intelligence agency staffers who are not on the payroll of a media company or political think tank.
The finger pointing, scapegoating, pure racist and ignorant responses coming out of half our political leadership and Presidential candidates is a reflection of the backwards slide this country has taken. The country my father fought for wasn't one that locked its doors and hid under a blanket when danger arouse. But, also the country my father fought for was also a country that lost hundreds of thousands of lives in quagmires that we didn't understand.
It's sad that it seems like one half of our political party system is fully of mediocrity and ignorance, who instead of bashing education and government should be studying it more.
I'm not a huge fan of Hilary, but as Mr Brooks outlined, she is the only one who has come out with responses that show the depth of understanding we need to ensure that our blood and treasure aren't thrown into a fight where our allies will turn into our enemies when the fighting is done.
1
Required reading for anyone truly interested in understanding the difficulties that would confront the U.S. in Syria and Iraq at this time is the newly released study prepared after consultation with our key military leaders. Its entitled "Lessons Encountered: Learning from the Long War" and can be downloaded for free or purchased as an E Book at less than $10
A huge problem is the lack of anything resembling a stable entity capable of governing areas seized militarily. There are many different ethnic sects that are almost totally hostile to each other. As President Obama said during his press conference, a successful military operation would require the military to stay for the foreseeable future to maintain some sort of stability. And we are well aware of the major problems that entails, including continued violence from insurgents.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will solve the problems in the Middle East in the short term. That is why it may well be best to continue the current strategy with only minor modifications. The experience in World War II and Vietnam tells us that massive bombing does not bring success. I cringed when I saw former CIA Director Woolsey complain about planes not dropping more bombs. What is appropriate is strategic bombing of oil supply lines, air support of ground actions by the Kurds and the use of drones to selectively target key ISIS leaders.
A huge problem is the lack of anything resembling a stable entity capable of governing areas seized militarily. There are many different ethnic sects that are almost totally hostile to each other. As President Obama said during his press conference, a successful military operation would require the military to stay for the foreseeable future to maintain some sort of stability. And we are well aware of the major problems that entails, including continued violence from insurgents.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will solve the problems in the Middle East in the short term. That is why it may well be best to continue the current strategy with only minor modifications. The experience in World War II and Vietnam tells us that massive bombing does not bring success. I cringed when I saw former CIA Director Woolsey complain about planes not dropping more bombs. What is appropriate is strategic bombing of oil supply lines, air support of ground actions by the Kurds and the use of drones to selectively target key ISIS leaders.
Everyone wants the Gulf Sunni Arabs to do more. That is almost a throw away line in the Pres. campaign. Let's see. The Saudis flew their last ISIS mission in Sept., Bahrain in Feb., UAE in March, and even Jordan flew last in August.
Why? Well with our financial assistance and approval, they are all busy in Yemen. And how are they doing? Well Al Qaeda has seized control over all of Southwestern Yemen, so they are far stronger now. Iran will have the Houthis fight until they end and they laugh in Teheran as they watch the U.S. and the Gulf Arabs drain finances in Yemen. The result to date is that 25 million Yemeni refugees have been created due to the blockade. Quite a strategy.
Since the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda attacked and produced the Charlie Hebdo Massacre last January, the U.S, and others were to form a coalition to finally destroy Al-Qaeda. Whatever happened to that war? Possibly there was no Presidential campaign yet.
Both Republicans and Democrats may wish to improve their campaign rhetoric with some fact checking before they make policy pronouncements which would be humorous, if they were not dangerous and tragic!
Why? Well with our financial assistance and approval, they are all busy in Yemen. And how are they doing? Well Al Qaeda has seized control over all of Southwestern Yemen, so they are far stronger now. Iran will have the Houthis fight until they end and they laugh in Teheran as they watch the U.S. and the Gulf Arabs drain finances in Yemen. The result to date is that 25 million Yemeni refugees have been created due to the blockade. Quite a strategy.
Since the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda attacked and produced the Charlie Hebdo Massacre last January, the U.S, and others were to form a coalition to finally destroy Al-Qaeda. Whatever happened to that war? Possibly there was no Presidential campaign yet.
Both Republicans and Democrats may wish to improve their campaign rhetoric with some fact checking before they make policy pronouncements which would be humorous, if they were not dangerous and tragic!
1
I think it's OK if Candidate Clinton doesn't have all the answers regarding specific operations and tactics. A President Clinton-45 will need to develop that plan in coordination with her Cabinet secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, and other diplomatic and military advisors, in response to future conditions that can't all be foreseen at present.
Most important is whether she knows what the questions are. The Republicans don't. They seem to think this conflict has something to do with preserving a white Christian way of life, and asserting mindless dominance for the sake of saying we gots the biggest stick. They don't think strategically at all. Ms. Clinton has been playing a long game for a very long time: she knows what strategy is, she doesn't mistake it for tactics, and she knows that you don't give up a good strategy when you fumble the tactics in the short term. Because she knows the difference between losing a battle and winning a war, she isn't driven to respond incommensurately, as Republican loudmouths are.
Which is not to say I always agree with her. But yes, as many are increasingly saying, she is by far the most presidential of all the candidates on both sides. She's the only one I can readily imagine going toe-to-toe with Putin, or any other head of state.
Most important is whether she knows what the questions are. The Republicans don't. They seem to think this conflict has something to do with preserving a white Christian way of life, and asserting mindless dominance for the sake of saying we gots the biggest stick. They don't think strategically at all. Ms. Clinton has been playing a long game for a very long time: she knows what strategy is, she doesn't mistake it for tactics, and she knows that you don't give up a good strategy when you fumble the tactics in the short term. Because she knows the difference between losing a battle and winning a war, she isn't driven to respond incommensurately, as Republican loudmouths are.
Which is not to say I always agree with her. But yes, as many are increasingly saying, she is by far the most presidential of all the candidates on both sides. She's the only one I can readily imagine going toe-to-toe with Putin, or any other head of state.
3
I would like to see President David Brooks take on the terrorists. He would blather them into submission, pointlessly quoting books from his recent bedtime reading. Soon, the jihadists would be seeking their Inner Peace and gratitude, and they would settle down to the life of Pursuing Small things in Big Data.
1
Kudos for recognizing grown ups and front runners. One exception to the analysis is the assumption that the Humpty Dumpty nation states can be reassembled. The Balkans fractioned into historic ethnic coherence and are members of the EU and Nato. What institutions exist for the aspirational non crazies?
Pressure for recognition of a pan Kurdish state formation would counter the mono focus on the Sunni Vs Shia aspect, support a coherent governance model and correct historic subjugation. You may be able to prop up the historic regime in Yemen with Saudi bombs , but real legitimacy? And Libya.....hmmm maybe the Pascha pirate regime of 1803 were not so bad. Nation States in the 1919 sense of tidy borders are gone, ask South Sudan.
Pressure for recognition of a pan Kurdish state formation would counter the mono focus on the Sunni Vs Shia aspect, support a coherent governance model and correct historic subjugation. You may be able to prop up the historic regime in Yemen with Saudi bombs , but real legitimacy? And Libya.....hmmm maybe the Pascha pirate regime of 1803 were not so bad. Nation States in the 1919 sense of tidy borders are gone, ask South Sudan.
It would help many of us decide upon an appropriate strategy if we had a clear understanding of precisely what U.S. interests are at stake. Aside from the obvious need to check international terrorism, keeping rogues from obtaining WMA’s, and the general benefits of world peace and stability, can someone please identify the specific “dog we have in this fight?”
1
Clinton is largely responsible for the Syrian crisis. She, Ann Marie Slaughter, and the other naive and inexperienced officials assembled by Obama managed to destabilize Egypt, Syria, and Libya. To then have the Times and David Brooks praise her for her "solution" is irony in the extreme.
"...it was possible to argue that time was on our side, that we could sit back and let ISIS collapse under the weight of its own craziness."
David, you may want to save this prose for somewhere around March 2016. The only change you would make would be to substitute "Republican Party" for "ISIS".
David, you may want to save this prose for somewhere around March 2016. The only change you would make would be to substitute "Republican Party" for "ISIS".
Finally, a column I can agree with. I would go one step further in outlining a way forward. In addition to creating a no-fly zone in northern Syria, I would advocate two new states created from Syria and Iraq. One of the new states would include the territory across northern Syria and northern Iraq where the Kurds are in the majority. The other new state would include the territory below Kurdistan where the Sunnis are in the majority, basically the territory controlled by ISIS now. The Shia areas of Syria and Iraq would remain Syria and Iraq. It seems to me this is the only way to give the moderate Sunnis across Syria and Iraq something to fight for. And, hopefully, it would establish a framework for Kurds, Sunnis and Shia in the region to live together peacefully.
How do you maintain a no-fly zone in Syria when the Russians are bombing the very area that Assad is pleased to see bombed?
What is so often lost in the conversations I hear about ISIS, is the role the disenfranchised young men and women they recruit have in carrying out their acts of slaughter in their own country, especially in France.
Would ISIS have that ability if those first and second and sometimes third generation from Algeria and Morocco and other third world countries were accepted as equal citizens in their new country and given a better chance for a productive life?
Would ISIS have that ability if those first and second and sometimes third generation from Algeria and Morocco and other third world countries were accepted as equal citizens in their new country and given a better chance for a productive life?
You are so right, Clinton is the answer, she knows the world like no other candidate and is smart enough to come up with a solution. Unless we want to conquer ISIS by throwing around cliches which is all the republicans seem to be able to offer (like Dana Milbank's column yesterday).
1
Thanks David. I have found Trump entertaining, but his latest call to register all "muslims" is just completely anti- American, not to mention totally pointless.
"Some Republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia."
Not some. All. Every single one of the presidential candidates and every single member of the house. Do you know who else is stained with refugee xenophobia? David Brooks. Perhaps he hasn't spouted hatred directly, but he has supported Republicans throughout his career as a columnist and is responsible for what he has sown. Some lukewarm praise is not enough to remove that stain. Mr. Brooks, if you want to sit on a mantle of decency then you must renounce all Republicans.
Not some. All. Every single one of the presidential candidates and every single member of the house. Do you know who else is stained with refugee xenophobia? David Brooks. Perhaps he hasn't spouted hatred directly, but he has supported Republicans throughout his career as a columnist and is responsible for what he has sown. Some lukewarm praise is not enough to remove that stain. Mr. Brooks, if you want to sit on a mantle of decency then you must renounce all Republicans.
1
The recent massacre in Paris and ensuing GOP reaction proved Voltaire’s observation — “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
1
Those artificial secular nation states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) kept the genie in the bottle until they were destabilized (some by us).
Completely mono-sectarian states might work in the Arab World, but even that is questionable (see Libya). And how to split Iraq three ways (Sunnis, Kurds, Shiites) when there are only two oil producing areas -- which one loses in the oil "musical chairs"?
The most viable model of political organization for the Arab World is the city-state confederation. It works spectacularly well in the U.A.E., only some of which have oil. It was the model that emerged under the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, where one spoke of "Ramadians" and "Fallujahians". And it is the model that sprung up from the ruins of Libya (Sirt/Misrata/ Tripoli/Benghazi/Tobruk and Syria (Damascus/Aleppo/Raqqa).
The successful Gulf Monarchies are already basically city-states (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman). Morocco works reasonably well, having been traditionally organized that way (Casablanca + The Four Royal Cities), and of course, there is Yemen (Sanaa and Aden), which did a "Hewlett-Packard/Compaq", and just like HP, is now splitting up again.
And yes, even Saudi Arabia would work better broken up. A cosmopolitan state based in Jeddah would rival Dubai, or Beirut in its heyday. A Shiite state could form in the East. Mecca would be administered collectively by the Arab Union; and Riyadh, Buraidah and Taif could be free to pursue there extreme form of strict observance Islam.
Completely mono-sectarian states might work in the Arab World, but even that is questionable (see Libya). And how to split Iraq three ways (Sunnis, Kurds, Shiites) when there are only two oil producing areas -- which one loses in the oil "musical chairs"?
The most viable model of political organization for the Arab World is the city-state confederation. It works spectacularly well in the U.A.E., only some of which have oil. It was the model that emerged under the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, where one spoke of "Ramadians" and "Fallujahians". And it is the model that sprung up from the ruins of Libya (Sirt/Misrata/ Tripoli/Benghazi/Tobruk and Syria (Damascus/Aleppo/Raqqa).
The successful Gulf Monarchies are already basically city-states (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman). Morocco works reasonably well, having been traditionally organized that way (Casablanca + The Four Royal Cities), and of course, there is Yemen (Sanaa and Aden), which did a "Hewlett-Packard/Compaq", and just like HP, is now splitting up again.
And yes, even Saudi Arabia would work better broken up. A cosmopolitan state based in Jeddah would rival Dubai, or Beirut in its heyday. A Shiite state could form in the East. Mecca would be administered collectively by the Arab Union; and Riyadh, Buraidah and Taif could be free to pursue there extreme form of strict observance Islam.
1
Thank you, David. Another grown-up has entered the room.
Mr. Brooks - there are so many things wrong with your piece. 1. No fly zones are foolish. ISIS doesn't have planes, and are we're not going to shoot down Russian planes. 2. No successor to Assad. Remember, the rebels are Sunni extremists who have long despised Alawite (a sect of Shia Islam) rule in Syria. So if they get rid of Assad (who is Alawite) they will impose Sunni rule and abuse the Alawite population. We should consider dealing with Assad - he gets to stay as long as he accepts some limited democratic reforms and helps to fight ISIS. 3. No proposals on stopping ISIS oil. ISIS is financially supporting itself by illegally selling oil. Punish the countries who buy that oil. 4. No proposals to include Saudi Arabia's military. The Saudis must be on the front lines of this fight. 5. No provisions to stop Turkey's fight with Kurds. We give Turkey an enormous amount of resources to fight ISIS and they use those resources to fight Kurds. I could go on. Also, Mr. Brooks, could you be more obvious in your support for Clinton's campaign?
So, now David Brooks wants a strategy based on the fantasy that we can get rid of Assad first when for the last 5 years we have done almost nothing to accomplish his demise. Furthermore, now that Russia has come into the civil war on his side it is in more unlikely than ever that we can topple him. Is the price for Assad to be the freedom of the Ukrainian people? Now that Assad has won, Brook’s discovers that he is the linchpin to defeating ISIS; it is a little too late for that realization. Brooks like the Republican Presidential clown car has a very loose hold on reality.
Apparently, the times editorial board and Mr. Brooks interpreted Secretary Clinton’s remarks differently since they said, “Perhaps her sharpest break with Obama policies was a declaration that the fight in Syria is no longer about first ousting Mr. Assad … ” but luckily, there is CSPAN on-line.
And of course, this is the 21st century Times, so both Brooks and the Board heard what they wanted to hear and got it wrong. Secretary Clinton displayed a comprehensive understanding of the situation but her policies, except for a no-fly zone and arming Iraqi Sunnis, are not much different from President Obama’s policies.
Like Obama, she thinks she can pull off a diplomatic hat trick and engineer a settlement to the Syrian civil war that gets rid of Assad, but who will be her Richard Holbrooke, and more importantly what does Vladimir Putin want.
Apparently, the times editorial board and Mr. Brooks interpreted Secretary Clinton’s remarks differently since they said, “Perhaps her sharpest break with Obama policies was a declaration that the fight in Syria is no longer about first ousting Mr. Assad … ” but luckily, there is CSPAN on-line.
And of course, this is the 21st century Times, so both Brooks and the Board heard what they wanted to hear and got it wrong. Secretary Clinton displayed a comprehensive understanding of the situation but her policies, except for a no-fly zone and arming Iraqi Sunnis, are not much different from President Obama’s policies.
Like Obama, she thinks she can pull off a diplomatic hat trick and engineer a settlement to the Syrian civil war that gets rid of Assad, but who will be her Richard Holbrooke, and more importantly what does Vladimir Putin want.
1
Please STOP using the term "ISIS" and use "Daesh". ISIS legitimizes them. thank you.
4
'Assad created the failed state and the power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill.'
No, David. The aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq created the power vacuum and talent pool that allowed ISIS to recruit from and develop out of.
No, David. The aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq created the power vacuum and talent pool that allowed ISIS to recruit from and develop out of.
3
Hillary Clinton claims that the UN needs to tighten laws in order to sanction rogue states like ISIS, but the US has been exercising the right to sanction finances through the Treasury Department, since March of 2008 against Iran. She was a Secretary of the State during this regime of sanctions. So really now, who is kidding who? I have been embarrassed to be an American since 9/11, when Americans proved to the world that we are a nation of easily baffled temperamental bedwetters. That Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are Presidential Candidates serves as an indictment of American Society, and a portent of failures yet to come.
It is time to stop backing our Saudi Allies who are supporting ISIS, and we should continue to bomb the concentrations of ISIS troops, which are well known to our military, along with fixed sites for refining oil and transportation convoys, which cannot be hidden.
If the US sends American troops to Syria they will depose Assad in the interest of the Sunni Royals. Then we will declare victory, and pull out. Inside of a year ISIS will own the country and have a piece of strategically vital coastline on the Mediterranean, but if we allow Russia and France to back Assad, then his boys can root out ISIS for good. Yeah, I know propaganda has it that Assad is a butcher, but when was the last time that Assad terrorized Paris?
Why not crush ISIS, and trust that Assad is secular and cosmopolitan. It's either Assad or ISIS. Which is the greater terror threat?
It is time to stop backing our Saudi Allies who are supporting ISIS, and we should continue to bomb the concentrations of ISIS troops, which are well known to our military, along with fixed sites for refining oil and transportation convoys, which cannot be hidden.
If the US sends American troops to Syria they will depose Assad in the interest of the Sunni Royals. Then we will declare victory, and pull out. Inside of a year ISIS will own the country and have a piece of strategically vital coastline on the Mediterranean, but if we allow Russia and France to back Assad, then his boys can root out ISIS for good. Yeah, I know propaganda has it that Assad is a butcher, but when was the last time that Assad terrorized Paris?
Why not crush ISIS, and trust that Assad is secular and cosmopolitan. It's either Assad or ISIS. Which is the greater terror threat?
1
Clinton is one of the main architects of Obama's failed foreign policy, you know it, she knows it and so does everyone in the country who is paying attention.
3
David Brooks's praise for Hillary Clinton's position on Syria is perhaps the best evidence that it is rotten.
Clinton's call for a no-fly zone contradicts both her claim to prioritize fighting ISIS over ousting Assad and her supposed opposition to putting more troops on the ground.
The main effect of a no-fly zone would be to increase the likelihood of conflict between US forces and those of Russia, Iran or the Syrian government. ISIS doesn't have an air force. Imposing a no-fly zone really mean increasing US entanglement in the civil war between the Syrian government and the fractious and largely Islamist "rebels" the US has been supporting to no particular positive end for the past several years. A no-fly zone would also almost certainly require sending more US troops into both Iraq and Syria to enforce it, if not at the outset then soon enough as the conflicts with everybody but ISIS that it would spark would demand US responses to "protect refugees" or to "stand up to Russia/Iran" or whatever else.
Secretary Clinton is not a fool. She knows all this. She is just betting that we won't and that by seizing on the current outrage over the ISIS attack in Paris that she can advance her larger belligerent agenda of seeking o impose US power in Syria.
Clinton's call for a no-fly zone contradicts both her claim to prioritize fighting ISIS over ousting Assad and her supposed opposition to putting more troops on the ground.
The main effect of a no-fly zone would be to increase the likelihood of conflict between US forces and those of Russia, Iran or the Syrian government. ISIS doesn't have an air force. Imposing a no-fly zone really mean increasing US entanglement in the civil war between the Syrian government and the fractious and largely Islamist "rebels" the US has been supporting to no particular positive end for the past several years. A no-fly zone would also almost certainly require sending more US troops into both Iraq and Syria to enforce it, if not at the outset then soon enough as the conflicts with everybody but ISIS that it would spark would demand US responses to "protect refugees" or to "stand up to Russia/Iran" or whatever else.
Secretary Clinton is not a fool. She knows all this. She is just betting that we won't and that by seizing on the current outrage over the ISIS attack in Paris that she can advance her larger belligerent agenda of seeking o impose US power in Syria.
1
David, the history of past civil wars are very clear - either victory of one side or political accommodation of both sides with drawing of new national boundary. As Mrs Clinton correctly identified, the outright victory over ISIS is not possible as long as Asad is in power, we have to look to second option.
Under UN, Russia and West should curve out a Sunni state in Syria and Iraq to start the process. This new state then negotiate the boundary of the Asad's teritory. The fate of Asad should be left to the people of new country of Asad that may have majority of Alwad and other Shia groups. To start the process the gaining control of ISIS territory in Syria is first step. A military victory over ISIS on Raqua is the starting step of this strategy.
Under UN, Russia and West should curve out a Sunni state in Syria and Iraq to start the process. This new state then negotiate the boundary of the Asad's teritory. The fate of Asad should be left to the people of new country of Asad that may have majority of Alwad and other Shia groups. To start the process the gaining control of ISIS territory in Syria is first step. A military victory over ISIS on Raqua is the starting step of this strategy.
Do you really believe what you're written, Mr. Brooks, or are you simply shilling for the sake of political advantage?
"There has to be a Sunni Awakening against ISIS in 2016, like the Sunni Awakening that toppled Al Qaeda in Iraq starting in 2007."
Why would the Sunnis ever trust us again? We abandoned them in 2010. We have no leverage or credibility. The Obama administration foolishly declared victory (not unlike his predecessor) and we packed up and left.
Why would the Sunnis ever trust us again? We abandoned them in 2010. We have no leverage or credibility. The Obama administration foolishly declared victory (not unlike his predecessor) and we packed up and left.
1
Mr. Brooks, are you impressed by a speech? What about her four years as secretary of state? Hillary Rodham Clinton is the ninny who brought a plastic prop (the reset button) to a geopolitical summit, whereupon Putin invaded Ukraine. She is the architect of disaster at Benghazi. She is the architect of disaster in Libya.
You are impressed by a speech? Surely, you jest.
You are impressed by a speech? Surely, you jest.
4
As I sit here and write this comment there is yet another hostage situation breaking in Mali with the culprits yelling "God is great" in Arabic. Reports are that Al Queada has a stronghold in that area. Are we now looking at a jealous-for-the-spotlight terrorist competition and if so where is the solution for all of this?
It took the massacre of 129 people for France to steadily bomb so-called ISIS strongholds in Syria. How do they know where to target without hitting Assad strongholds and what's the difference?
The miasmic and confusing panoply of terror in the world is almost impossible to understand much less conquer. ISIS, Al Quaeda, al Nusra, Hezbollah, Assad, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. All terrorists. All vying for the spotlight to further their cause.
I saw Clinton's speech. I am not impressed. America needs to protect itself, but lead a worldwide war on terror? I'm not so sure. Might be better to follow for the first time in recent history and let others take the locomotive on this terror train. I'm happy with the caboose position.
It took the massacre of 129 people for France to steadily bomb so-called ISIS strongholds in Syria. How do they know where to target without hitting Assad strongholds and what's the difference?
The miasmic and confusing panoply of terror in the world is almost impossible to understand much less conquer. ISIS, Al Quaeda, al Nusra, Hezbollah, Assad, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. All terrorists. All vying for the spotlight to further their cause.
I saw Clinton's speech. I am not impressed. America needs to protect itself, but lead a worldwide war on terror? I'm not so sure. Might be better to follow for the first time in recent history and let others take the locomotive on this terror train. I'm happy with the caboose position.
1
'Let others take the locomotive on this terror trip' and who will come for us?
David Brooke's praise of Clinton's warmongering is as ringing an endorsement of Bernie Sanders as you are likely to find in the New York Times.
2
Day late, dollar short Hillary strikes again. She waffles until the noise level becomes too loud. Then she takes her motorcade to a safe front where she can appear to be in a leading position.
In this case she had four years to forge a Syrian solution....and failed.
In this case she had four years to forge a Syrian solution....and failed.
Mr. Brooks has lost all credibility and has become another pundit out of touch with reality. So you endorse Hillary's military push? Who will replace Assad? What about Book Haram? She has learned nothing from the past and directly contributed to the mess we are in. So let's make her president and let her make things worse. This has turned into a global problem that cannot be stopped with toppling another regime. But, you and people like you will not be ducking bullets, so who cares. You should be ashamed, and you are no military or foreign policy expert. And judging hillarys past record, she is not either.
After 600 messages and a bomb blowing a big hole in the wall of the Benghazi compound, Secretary of State Clinton still did not know there was a security problem.
She was wrong about invading iraq, Libya and Syria.
She will say anything that the polls reflect.
She will say anything that the polls reflect.
In all of the discussions that I have read, I have seen very little discussion of how to shut off revenues flowing to ISIS. Unless we cut off the source of funding for terrorism, we have little chance of ending it. I hope that someone puts forth a plan to stop the oil revenues ending up in the ISIS treasury.
1
Foreign fighters can't reach Syria without crossing Turkey. Where is the Syrian oil being sold? To date only the Kurds (arch enemies of Turkey) have proved to be effective in fighting against ISIS. Turkey is Sunni, Assad is Shia; ISIS is Sunni fighting against Assad. Does that help to clarify the problem?
Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a contest for control of the heart of Islam. Saudis are Sunni, Iran is Shia. Sunni and Shia have been at war for 1300 years. Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war in Yemen. Iran is openly backing Assad, they have sent proxy forces from Lebanon. Guess who the Saudis are supporting financially in Syria?
The bottom line is that our two most important allies(?) in the region are Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and they both have strong reasons to support ISIS. Iran and Russia (not exactly our best friends) support Assad who is fighting against ISIS. Its a mess with no good options.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a contest for control of the heart of Islam. Saudis are Sunni, Iran is Shia. Sunni and Shia have been at war for 1300 years. Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war in Yemen. Iran is openly backing Assad, they have sent proxy forces from Lebanon. Guess who the Saudis are supporting financially in Syria?
The bottom line is that our two most important allies(?) in the region are Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and they both have strong reasons to support ISIS. Iran and Russia (not exactly our best friends) support Assad who is fighting against ISIS. Its a mess with no good options.
I'm baffled as to why the Bernie Sanders supporters come here to bash Hillary Clinton. Yes Bernie gave a dynamic speech yesterday about what a Democratic Socialist is; ok now move on - those who wanted to know what it meant did their due diligence and listened. Those of us who actually wanted to hear a devise plan on defeating one of the most dangerous threats to the world tuned into Hillary Clinton, and now there was a piece written about it. Don't hate Hillary just because you dont think Bernie is getting the attention you guys think he should get. grow up
3
Nothing positive will come out of Hillary's proposals if she fails to get two players in her corner: Putin and Netanyahu. She's spitting in the wind if she thinks that any American-Arab alliance will work. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, etc. will not play ball with Hillary, but the triumvirate of USA-Russia-Israel can wipe out ISIS.
"And it also means supporting institutional reform, as Clinton said, throughout the Arab world, to revitalize nations as functioning units." Well David do you have any idea how to bring that about?
So Clinton would get rid of Assad? Curious. Would she bomb the thousands of Russian troops to do it? Shoot down their 25 heavy bombers used in raids, not to mention the various fighters, etc.
Heck, I'm all for bombing the heck out of myriad Islamic groups, and countries for that matter, but she's not bombing the Russians risking WWIII.
Assad's not going anywhere. Obama's weakness guaranteed it, and drew Russian into Syria. So bomb and destory ISIS all you want, but she's nuts if any of her plan involves ousting Assad.
Heck, I'm all for bombing the heck out of myriad Islamic groups, and countries for that matter, but she's not bombing the Russians risking WWIII.
Assad's not going anywhere. Obama's weakness guaranteed it, and drew Russian into Syria. So bomb and destory ISIS all you want, but she's nuts if any of her plan involves ousting Assad.
This also suggests to me that "Uncle Joe" was correct when he was thinking of partitions for Iraq. As long as it is Sunni/Shia, it will remain a "religious war." No matter what one attempts, it will be messy. At least the HRC response was not just daily talk show pablum.
Good analysis of the speech. I was happy with it. “Obamaesqe” I’ll take anytime, and I suspect that, apart from that obligatory shot at Obama, DB can live with it too. This is among the best analyses I’ve seen of the interlaced issues, from Russia and Ukraine, to Saudi and Iran, and to Assad and his tyranny.
“Nation-state?” I don’t know what that means now. I think it used to mean a state whose people were ethnically quite homogeneous. Applying that to a swathe of the globe from Chechnya and the Stans to the Atlantic Ocean, and to many parts of Europe, is problematic. Certainly, states as hitherto constituted, are failing. But that’s been common throughout history. WWI wasn’t the only time the map was redrawn.
I try to imagine 100K American troops on the Syrian ground (and half that number in support and as reserves and replacements). Falluja redux and multiplied. I remember reading that when the US army “neutralized” an Apache leader, Mangas Coloradas, it was by inviting him to parley under a flag of truce. They killed him there, and went after another chief, Cochise. In the end, he had maybe 20-25 warriors while the army had 5,000 men in the field. But Cochise was not “brought down.” He was “brought in” by a white friend. Republicans need to read this history (and forget Hollywood). I wish Republicans would learn the good Yiddish word “mensch.”
“Nation-state?” I don’t know what that means now. I think it used to mean a state whose people were ethnically quite homogeneous. Applying that to a swathe of the globe from Chechnya and the Stans to the Atlantic Ocean, and to many parts of Europe, is problematic. Certainly, states as hitherto constituted, are failing. But that’s been common throughout history. WWI wasn’t the only time the map was redrawn.
I try to imagine 100K American troops on the Syrian ground (and half that number in support and as reserves and replacements). Falluja redux and multiplied. I remember reading that when the US army “neutralized” an Apache leader, Mangas Coloradas, it was by inviting him to parley under a flag of truce. They killed him there, and went after another chief, Cochise. In the end, he had maybe 20-25 warriors while the army had 5,000 men in the field. But Cochise was not “brought down.” He was “brought in” by a white friend. Republicans need to read this history (and forget Hollywood). I wish Republicans would learn the good Yiddish word “mensch.”
3
Is Brooks laying the groundwork for an endorsement of Hillary? This piece, along with recent condemnations of the craziness in the GOP, seem to point in that direction.
1
Writing a century ago T.E. Lawrence said this about the Arabs. "It is their war,and you are to help them, not win it for them."This incredibly prescient advice should be the rubric which determines all U.S. Policy in the Middle East.
1
Blithely saying that no-fly zones are required in Syria ignores the Russian Air Force there. I suppose we could just tell the Russians don't fly here or you will be shot down by the US Air Force. That seems a bit too likely to cause escalation we cannot control that could lead to skirmishes or War in Europe. Not a good side effect.
The assertion that allowing Assad's survival as a petty tyrant means ISIS also survives is an unwarranted assumption. ISIS can be destroyed in place by applying force. That is a question of political will.
Failure to act is likely to lead in a few months to ISIS possessing and using nerve gas and weaponized anthrax. We know they have personnel now with practical experience and training and they have captured production facilities, plus they can build hidden labs. We dare not give them time. Then we will face not hundreds of dead in terrorist attacks, then we will suffer hundreds of thousands or millions of dead.
We unfortunately missed our chance to get rid of Assad and now we need to make a deal with the Russians due to a shared interest in stopping ISIS. Time to get over regrets and do what needs to be done
Effective action to end ISIS's control of territory is needed very soon or we will face much worse than the Paris attacks.
The assertion that allowing Assad's survival as a petty tyrant means ISIS also survives is an unwarranted assumption. ISIS can be destroyed in place by applying force. That is a question of political will.
Failure to act is likely to lead in a few months to ISIS possessing and using nerve gas and weaponized anthrax. We know they have personnel now with practical experience and training and they have captured production facilities, plus they can build hidden labs. We dare not give them time. Then we will face not hundreds of dead in terrorist attacks, then we will suffer hundreds of thousands or millions of dead.
We unfortunately missed our chance to get rid of Assad and now we need to make a deal with the Russians due to a shared interest in stopping ISIS. Time to get over regrets and do what needs to be done
Effective action to end ISIS's control of territory is needed very soon or we will face much worse than the Paris attacks.
It seems to me like you can't just chuck out Assad and his government without having any idea what to put in in its place. That would create a vacuum which is exactly where ISIS thrives. This is what the US did in Iraq: we chucked out Saddam Hussein having no idea what we would do next. So we got Paul Bremer disbanding Saddam's army and planting the seeds of ISIS and Abu Ghraib and a failed state. The US has to face the fact that we need to work with Assad and Russia, and other allies, to stabilize Syria and defeat ISIS, if we don't want ISIS to be another failed state. Bernie's right: US driven regime change does not work.
1
It is wise for Mrs. Clinton to distance herself from Mr. Obama. She must show strength where he shows dismissiveness and weakness. She recognizes that in this period of world chaos that stating, "ISIL is contained" as Obama did the very day that they stain Paris with blood, is unimaginable and a poor read of what's taking place world-wide. "ISIL is the JV", another clever Obama utterance, attempts to minimize their threat and in some arcane way boost our image of ourselves in contrast. What is the man thinking?
Regardless, of Mr. Obama's tone deafness, it is welcome that Mrs. Clinton wears the pants and has the courage to suggest a non-passive response to Jihadi terror. I do not generally favor war above diplomacy, but Daesh is not a state. It is an anarchic group of terrorists and must be squelched - JV, or not.
Regardless, of Mr. Obama's tone deafness, it is welcome that Mrs. Clinton wears the pants and has the courage to suggest a non-passive response to Jihadi terror. I do not generally favor war above diplomacy, but Daesh is not a state. It is an anarchic group of terrorists and must be squelched - JV, or not.
1
The President hears extremely well and also listens. It is the People who become deaf and then go off on a rampage, more divided than ever. He addressed the Nation on Daesh in September of 2014. He told us to be prepared, and what we should know about these terrorists. No Country, no civilized nation will recognize them, they have no religion.
This is not even a war, this is a fight to save Humanity and our children. Mrs. Clinton is prepared to increase U.S. military air strikes to get them to spill out like rats into the desert. No boots on the ground are proposed yet, but we should be prepared for this to take place.
We drag our heels when the President seeks to caution us. He does not want to cause a panic. And, this human plague is spreading much faster than a year ago. It is growing in momentum. We may be facing one of our darkest hours in history, and if we do not bring to the fore some viable solutions to defeat this evil than our children may not be left with much of a legacy. or a vision for the future.
The President, Mrs. Clinton and others are working around the clock to do their bit. Somewhere, I believe, a universal youth movement, with brains and spirit, is coming together, and we should be prepared to make some sacrifices during this dark passage because we are running out of time.
This is not even a war, this is a fight to save Humanity and our children. Mrs. Clinton is prepared to increase U.S. military air strikes to get them to spill out like rats into the desert. No boots on the ground are proposed yet, but we should be prepared for this to take place.
We drag our heels when the President seeks to caution us. He does not want to cause a panic. And, this human plague is spreading much faster than a year ago. It is growing in momentum. We may be facing one of our darkest hours in history, and if we do not bring to the fore some viable solutions to defeat this evil than our children may not be left with much of a legacy. or a vision for the future.
The President, Mrs. Clinton and others are working around the clock to do their bit. Somewhere, I believe, a universal youth movement, with brains and spirit, is coming together, and we should be prepared to make some sacrifices during this dark passage because we are running out of time.
You say, "Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations proposes a campaign like the one that allowed the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban after 9/11 — a light footprint campaign using Special Operations forces and C.I.A. paramilitaries to direct allied bombing in support of locals on the ground."
I don't know if it will work against ISIS but it sure didn't work against the Taliban. Perhaps you missed recent headlines that the Taliban is making gains in Afghanistan. A western official was quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article as saying, "“The Taliban movement is stronger than ever since 2001."
Oh, the Taliban also "approved" of the Paris attacks by ISIS.
I don't know if it will work against ISIS but it sure didn't work against the Taliban. Perhaps you missed recent headlines that the Taliban is making gains in Afghanistan. A western official was quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article as saying, "“The Taliban movement is stronger than ever since 2001."
Oh, the Taliban also "approved" of the Paris attacks by ISIS.
“Not unsustainable stab at nation-building, but better governance from top to bottom”. So DB now prefer an autocracy ruling in contrast to 2003 when he was advocating for the Iraq invasion to topple the autocracy of Sadam Hussein and replace it by a bottom to top ruling. This just show how shallow are pundits and politicians regarding the deep matters of the Middle East.
You can kill people but you can't kill an idea. We did not learn that in Vietnam where we were beaten by peasants in black pajamas. Remember Curtis "bomb them back to the Stone Age" Lemay?
We have to admit that we really do not have a "dog in this fight" except for the military industrial complex, our self image as the divinely inspired guardians of all that is good and free, and our alliances with countries having all matter of conflicting interests.
When we invaded Iraq the average American and even the average Neocon had no idea of all the conflicts within Islam, the effects of colonialism, the tribalism of people in the middle east, and who were the "good guys" or the "bad guys".
Perhaps if we still had a military draft we would not be so inclined to saber rattling.
We have to admit that we really do not have a "dog in this fight" except for the military industrial complex, our self image as the divinely inspired guardians of all that is good and free, and our alliances with countries having all matter of conflicting interests.
When we invaded Iraq the average American and even the average Neocon had no idea of all the conflicts within Islam, the effects of colonialism, the tribalism of people in the middle east, and who were the "good guys" or the "bad guys".
Perhaps if we still had a military draft we would not be so inclined to saber rattling.
Gee whiz, how can the hag wonder throw Assad under the bus when just so few years ago she reveled in his glow of reformer, savior of the Middle East quagmire? What could possibly have happened to evolve her craven position?
These are perilous times.
They remind us that we entrust the president w/ our very survival.
Consider:
– 2/3 of voters view HRC as dishonest & untrustworthy
– the prima facie case of violations of Fed. Records/Espionage Acts, Russia uranium deal/other sellout schemes–direct via million-dollar speeches, personal appearances & sinecures & indirect via Clinton Foundation
– Paris put Benghazi malpractice/malfeasance into stark relief
– HRC is architect of the global Armageddon King Abdullah, the Pope & the Generals call WWIII
– Clintons have a long history of unleashing global terror (ISIS precursor)
– Post-Paris all women, rich & poor, young & old, black, white & brown, red & blue, are security moms.
The obvious question:
Is there anyone left to vote for this woman?
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a 2nd plane has hit the tower.' I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the 1st thing I said…I thought that my virtual obsession w/ him was well placed & I was full of regret I didn't get him."
B.Clinton
9/3/02
LKL
"You know, the job which we should have done, which should have been our primary focus, to find bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."
H.Clinton
1/28/06
to J.Pauley
“The president denies facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Clinton, Sandy Berger & Richard Clarke refused to kill him. [T]hey had 8-10 chances & they refused to try."
M.Scheuer
CIA bin Laden tracking unit, chief–1996-99, advisor–9/01-11/04
They remind us that we entrust the president w/ our very survival.
Consider:
– 2/3 of voters view HRC as dishonest & untrustworthy
– the prima facie case of violations of Fed. Records/Espionage Acts, Russia uranium deal/other sellout schemes–direct via million-dollar speeches, personal appearances & sinecures & indirect via Clinton Foundation
– Paris put Benghazi malpractice/malfeasance into stark relief
– HRC is architect of the global Armageddon King Abdullah, the Pope & the Generals call WWIII
– Clintons have a long history of unleashing global terror (ISIS precursor)
– Post-Paris all women, rich & poor, young & old, black, white & brown, red & blue, are security moms.
The obvious question:
Is there anyone left to vote for this woman?
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a 2nd plane has hit the tower.' I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the 1st thing I said…I thought that my virtual obsession w/ him was well placed & I was full of regret I didn't get him."
B.Clinton
9/3/02
LKL
"You know, the job which we should have done, which should have been our primary focus, to find bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."
H.Clinton
1/28/06
to J.Pauley
“The president denies facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Clinton, Sandy Berger & Richard Clarke refused to kill him. [T]hey had 8-10 chances & they refused to try."
M.Scheuer
CIA bin Laden tracking unit, chief–1996-99, advisor–9/01-11/04
2
Brooks and Hillary are both Neocons. Both supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Both supported the overthrow of Gaddaffi and the resulting mayhem. Both avid supporters of Israeli interests. Both utterly discredited by the abject failure of their proscriptions. Now, we are supposed to believe that a no-fly zone is a way to defeat ISIS and not see that it constitutes an illegal act of war against the Assad government which just happens to be an obstacle to Israel's absorption of the Golan, not to mention an ally of Iran, enemy of Saudi Wahabis. Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen.
2
Obviously Mrs. Clinton's experience on the world stage puts her way ahead of every Republican running for their nomination. Not one of them is capable of dealing with this important issue. Trump has even come out with a Muslim data base plan. Crazy!!!
2
Seriously, we need some real proof this time that ISIS has biological weapons and/or sophisticated chemical weapons. What's next, ISIS now has tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger and has aluminum tubes? For someone to claim that ISIS is at work building biological weapons is absurd?
Can we really belive anything that Hillary says? Come on.
1
I'm afraid what we're seeing here is Hillary Clinton imagining that she's JFK, facing down the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What will really happen is that France, the United States and Russia will force Assad to negotiate a truce with the Syrian rebels so that we can destroy Daesh/ISIS in Syria.
Candidate Clinton has given us Tuzla, the 3:00 AM phone call, the idea that the most serious crisis she ever faced was not Benghazi -- it was watching President Obama decide whether or not to send the Seals in after bin Laden. Now she gives us the prospect of a stand-off with Putin when Obama may be trying to find a way to join the French and Russian fight against Daesh/ISIS. Regime change in Syria, and Mrs. Clinton's fantasies, should take a back seat to that.
Candidate Clinton has given us Tuzla, the 3:00 AM phone call, the idea that the most serious crisis she ever faced was not Benghazi -- it was watching President Obama decide whether or not to send the Seals in after bin Laden. Now she gives us the prospect of a stand-off with Putin when Obama may be trying to find a way to join the French and Russian fight against Daesh/ISIS. Regime change in Syria, and Mrs. Clinton's fantasies, should take a back seat to that.
1
Sounds more like a strategy for playing the Parker Brothers board game, Risk.
Have we learned nothing?
We do not 'own' the world.
We do not get to bomb our way to 'owning' the world.
Our track record at 'influencing' policy/governments in the middle east is miserable.
How about acknowledging that it's not ours to control.
We never will. They mostly hate us already. They want nothing to do with our so-called way of life.
Change the things you can.
Accept that some things you cannot change.
Centuries of theocratic, despotic, and or tribal rule are not going to yield to our muscle.
Have we learned nothing?
We do not 'own' the world.
We do not get to bomb our way to 'owning' the world.
Our track record at 'influencing' policy/governments in the middle east is miserable.
How about acknowledging that it's not ours to control.
We never will. They mostly hate us already. They want nothing to do with our so-called way of life.
Change the things you can.
Accept that some things you cannot change.
Centuries of theocratic, despotic, and or tribal rule are not going to yield to our muscle.
2
This is the only time a presidential candidate has talked soberly and seriously about IS. In my view, however, there is a dimension of the question which too needs attention. It is wholly apposite to suggest that USA should offer resolute opposition to IS and use all possible means to launch military opposition to it (finer details need not detain us – we leave them to the military men). USA and other great powers have all been indulging in double talk and double dealing. We declare our opposition to terror but we go on supporting and extolling states which are known to support and use terror as an instrument of their policies. In this respect there isn’t much to choose between the great powers: all of them are guilty of playing on both sides of the line. A call to serious action against IS is in order but such action should not be limited to IS: it must extend to all instances of terror. And that’s a tall order. Hillary Clinton to her credit said once that you cannot rear serpents in your backyard and expect that they will bite only your neighbours. That’s the kind of attitude that will do credit to her now. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 20 Nov 2015, 1815 IST
It's really nice that Clinton understands that Assad is a part of the problem and he needs to go before the ISIS situation will be solved.
However, the question becomes (which I did not see addressed) is WHAT exactly is she planning to do about the Assad situation??? Sounds like let the Muslim countries deal with it, which they have been doing unsuccessfully for centuries. Good luck Hillary.
However, the question becomes (which I did not see addressed) is WHAT exactly is she planning to do about the Assad situation??? Sounds like let the Muslim countries deal with it, which they have been doing unsuccessfully for centuries. Good luck Hillary.
"Assad created the failed state and the power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill."
Give credit where credit is due, David. Assad created HALF the failed state and power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill. The other--and arguably more important half--was created in Iraq by George W Bush with a vote of support from Hilary Clinton.
Give credit where credit is due, David. Assad created HALF the failed state and power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill. The other--and arguably more important half--was created in Iraq by George W Bush with a vote of support from Hilary Clinton.
2
POLITICAL AMBITION . . .
...while most in the civilized world (to some degree) are personally concerned about the events and its implications in Paris, France, Belgium and the entire world concerning the barbaric behavior by ISISI ... for Mrs. Clinton there is for her prime. overriding and especial concern on what she should say to help her get elected president.
What ever she decides could prove to be a seminal moment for her campaign. Her approach will follow the dictates of Machiavelli as it seems to be for all people running for office or wanting to maintain power which is addictive.
Be loyal to Obama ... or be more hawkish ... or more (if possible) take a more moderate stance.
Yes, above any genuine ideological concerns, her prime decision is all about pragmatic considerers which will bring her back to the White House, this time as the chief executive.
This is real politics ... and the only persons I can think of involved in this area who would just 'say it as he actually believed it' is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a few others.
This is the way almost all political calculus are arrived at and is as per usual.
We will see.
...while most in the civilized world (to some degree) are personally concerned about the events and its implications in Paris, France, Belgium and the entire world concerning the barbaric behavior by ISISI ... for Mrs. Clinton there is for her prime. overriding and especial concern on what she should say to help her get elected president.
What ever she decides could prove to be a seminal moment for her campaign. Her approach will follow the dictates of Machiavelli as it seems to be for all people running for office or wanting to maintain power which is addictive.
Be loyal to Obama ... or be more hawkish ... or more (if possible) take a more moderate stance.
Yes, above any genuine ideological concerns, her prime decision is all about pragmatic considerers which will bring her back to the White House, this time as the chief executive.
This is real politics ... and the only persons I can think of involved in this area who would just 'say it as he actually believed it' is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a few others.
This is the way almost all political calculus are arrived at and is as per usual.
We will see.
1
What's next? Warm and fuzzy from Maureen Dowd?
Did Mrs Clinton talk about The money. Where is ISIS getting the funds? They can't make anything. They don't know how to manufacture bullets. Besides the ones we left behind they sure have lots of weapons. We have to stop the flow of money and make public anyone one who's helping them.
We were paying Sunnis not to fight in IRAQ, probably in the billions. Now ISIL is paying them. They are also paying Taliban now in Afghanistan to switch over. Where are they getting all the cash? Some places they are actually collecting taxes where they hold land. But it's not nearly enough to finance them.
And Max Boot, Gee .... lets listen to him. He's like John Bolton, never been right about anything.
We were paying Sunnis not to fight in IRAQ, probably in the billions. Now ISIL is paying them. They are also paying Taliban now in Afghanistan to switch over. Where are they getting all the cash? Some places they are actually collecting taxes where they hold land. But it's not nearly enough to finance them.
And Max Boot, Gee .... lets listen to him. He's like John Bolton, never been right about anything.
1
Why are we wedded to the idea that Assad has to go?
That is a Saudi objective. Why is it ours? Why are we helping the Saudis extend their influence?
What has Saudi influence gained us in the past? Terrorism. Decades and decades of terrorism.
I don't care about Assad. He isn't our enemy. Our enemy is Sunni Islamic Terrorism- created and supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and others.
Not Assad. Not Iran. Not Alawites and not Shiites.
That is a Saudi objective. Why is it ours? Why are we helping the Saudis extend their influence?
What has Saudi influence gained us in the past? Terrorism. Decades and decades of terrorism.
I don't care about Assad. He isn't our enemy. Our enemy is Sunni Islamic Terrorism- created and supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and others.
Not Assad. Not Iran. Not Alawites and not Shiites.
3
Hilary Clinton’s approach may well accomplish three core objectives: (1) Improve U.S.’s effectiveness in the Middle East by catalyzing determinative moves by Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia; (2) broaden her political appeal among republicans and independents; and (3) differentiate her from Obama's unimpressive record there. Overall, this was an excellent and well-timed policy initiative.
Everyone .... read Karen Garcia! She has it just right!! Please .... we need Bernie!! Go Bernie!!!
2
At least Mrs. Clinton has backtracked from her debate position that "This is not America's fight". It's amazing what insight the morning after can produce.
"It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep.
But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing.
Something's happening in the world.
Your vote will decide who answers that call.
Whether it's someone who already knows the world's
leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready
to lead in a dangerous world.
It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep
Who do you want answering the phone?"
After Paris, this haunting Hillary Clinton political ad from the past came profoundly into view. In this column Mr. Brooks wisely appears to supply the answer.
But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing.
Something's happening in the world.
Your vote will decide who answers that call.
Whether it's someone who already knows the world's
leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready
to lead in a dangerous world.
It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep
Who do you want answering the phone?"
After Paris, this haunting Hillary Clinton political ad from the past came profoundly into view. In this column Mr. Brooks wisely appears to supply the answer.
3
Mr. Brooks,
The rise of ISIS is directly related to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent US policies that alienated the Sunnis. Also, the refugee problem is part of the vacuum created by US policies in Iraq. Americans have conveniently forgotten Colin Powell's admonition about the pottery barn rule " you break it , you own it".
The rise of ISIS is directly related to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent US policies that alienated the Sunnis. Also, the refugee problem is part of the vacuum created by US policies in Iraq. Americans have conveniently forgotten Colin Powell's admonition about the pottery barn rule " you break it , you own it".
1
You can't believe anything Clinton says. She's a liar.
Brooks: "The F.B.I. already has over 900 active Islamic State investigations ongoing. Lord knows what sort of biological or other weapons the group can get its hands on."
The answer to your concern regarding "other weapons the group can get its hands on" was provided by Francis X. Clines in the NY Times (11.18.2015): "An egregious loophole that Congress has failed to close has allowed over 2,000 suspects on the federal terrorist watch list to freely buy firearms and explosives across a 10-year span."
According to the GAO, as noted by Clines in the same article: "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law.”
So, DB, you can perhaps do your part by calling on the Republican-controlled Congress to close the "egregious loophole that Congress has failed to close" if you are that concerned about "other weapons the group can get its hands on."
The answer to your concern regarding "other weapons the group can get its hands on" was provided by Francis X. Clines in the NY Times (11.18.2015): "An egregious loophole that Congress has failed to close has allowed over 2,000 suspects on the federal terrorist watch list to freely buy firearms and explosives across a 10-year span."
According to the GAO, as noted by Clines in the same article: "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law.”
So, DB, you can perhaps do your part by calling on the Republican-controlled Congress to close the "egregious loophole that Congress has failed to close" if you are that concerned about "other weapons the group can get its hands on."
2
This is one of the few times that I've wholeheartedly agreed with one of Brooks' columns. Hillary is the only candidate who can navigate the complexity.
3
The premise, that ousting Assad is needed for a Sunni uprising against ISIS, is likely flawed: it might not suffice. Iraq's Sunni's were perfectly happy for Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, to be in power. Absent Assad, Syria's Sunnis will likely clamor for a Sunni dictatorship to replace him, and who better - for them - than ISIS?
Besides, all this talk of Putin throwing Assad under the bus is wishful thinking. Not going to happen. If Putin abandons Assad, Putin's allies will no longer be his allies (Just as our allies no longer trust us - after we threw Mubarak & Gaddaffi under the bus).
Besides, all this talk of Putin throwing Assad under the bus is wishful thinking. Not going to happen. If Putin abandons Assad, Putin's allies will no longer be his allies (Just as our allies no longer trust us - after we threw Mubarak & Gaddaffi under the bus).
It is hard to take seriously the comments of a man who describes the clandestine actions of the CIA and blunt force of Special Operations units as a "light footprint campaign." It makes them seem like Native Americans wearing soft leather Moccasins trying to resist the gunfire of American Colonialists with bow and arrows.
If we drop the "Assad must go" bumper sticker, the possibilities for progress open up dramatically. We can't let those three words continue to constrain our options. The world evolves, positions morph. Let's get on with some kind of rapprochement that lets NATO and Russia/Iran deal with the issue at hand.
What this tells me is that the crazies have taken over the Republican party, Hillary is essentially a moderate Republican that Brooks can support, and we have no viable left in this country, except Bernie Sanders. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
2
Oh brother, another "Sunni Awakening" we drop billions on hoping we can control their military efforts like a guided missile without their appearing to be our lackeys. And even assuming this theoretical Awakening succeeds militarily, then what? The "Awakening" sheiks serve as the core for a democratically elected government that includes all the disparate Syrian religious and political groups? Sounds like a tale beyond even the brothers Grimm's imagination.
Mr. Brooks has in fact identified a Candidate who won't fade when it comes to addressing not only Americas role in defeating terrorism, but the overall actions to do so. Assad must go, Allies in the Middle East had best man up so to speak in contributing to his overthrow as well as joining in contributing it's offensive forces to solving both problems. Turkey should give up its political efforts to disparage the Kurds in it's Country in order for a Despot to retain his power in that Nation, - meaning more than just offering 2 Airbases to the U.S. for use in the battle against Terrorism, - including the ouster of Assad in Syria, as well as an all out attacking of ISIS forces, not just denying Kurd Forces in Iraq the ability to fight that terrorist force. Saudi Arabia it seems is only keen in putting pressure on Shia Terrorists in their Country as opposed to attacking ISIS and Assad in their neighboring Countries.
Russia is an outlier in the battle against both Assad and ISIS. Putins Country is in a big Economic battle in it's homeland, so he takes on the role of a strongman in showing the World that only he can mount Offensive War to save the World. (NOTE: his Air force fighting for the survival of Assad cannot even keep their Aircraft maintained in a Desert Environment in order to fly the sorties necessary to keep him in power. They are now flying a very old 4 engine turbo prop Bomber from great distances in order give one the impression of Russias' great strength.
Russia is an outlier in the battle against both Assad and ISIS. Putins Country is in a big Economic battle in it's homeland, so he takes on the role of a strongman in showing the World that only he can mount Offensive War to save the World. (NOTE: his Air force fighting for the survival of Assad cannot even keep their Aircraft maintained in a Desert Environment in order to fly the sorties necessary to keep him in power. They are now flying a very old 4 engine turbo prop Bomber from great distances in order give one the impression of Russias' great strength.
Hillary Clinton may have articulated a reasonable path to deal with ISIS. I admire David Brooks, a Republican, in supporting her point of view on this issue. I agree Assad needs to go but then we thought Saddam needed to go too and he did after we invaded Iraq to remove the imaginary WMD. And we are not better off now! Middle East is a riddle and it always has been. I agree that none of the current Republican candidates for the Oval office can match Hillary Clinton in terms of foriegn policy experience. Isn't it sad that we do not have any other viable Presidential candidate?
45
Syria is already a mess - Assad going won't make it worse. Iraq was a functioning society when we took out Saddam and it unleashed the dormant beasts within the Iraqi society. So the two situations are not similar. One can find fault with any plan regarding middle east, but Clinton plan is the best one could come up with given the level of chaos within the Middle East.
Regular readers of Mr. Brooks columns will be hard pressed to decide whether that want to direct their usual ire towards Secretary Clinton for making sense, or Mr Brooks for pointing out that fact.
2
The next president? Why does Mr. Brooks continue to deny that President Obama is pursuing a tough, reasoned policy to clean up the mess created by the Republican neocon axis of arrogance?
5
HRC came to the table with a plan, something no other candidate has done, may not be capable of doing. She wants the people in the neighborhood to do their own housecleaning, we and others will help, but they must protect their countries. She addressed the role of Turkey, a country that plays fast and loose with everyone's safety. You may not agree with all she has to say, but you cannot deny her preparedness nor her intellect.
105
The takeaway:
"Everything is connected. Which is why the presidency is for grown-ups, not rank outsiders."
"Everything is connected. Which is why the presidency is for grown-ups, not rank outsiders."
2
It should be noted that Hillary was the mastermind behind the idea to remove Qhadaffi believing it would foment a free society. How did that work out? It created a vaccuum that Assad, ISIS and terror was able to fill in. Similar to Bush in Iraq - remoinvg Saddam seemed like a step forward but in reality as bad as he has, he was all that was standing between his people and chaos (even if he had to gas them once in a while).
While I don't doubt that removing Assad might help, I completely doubt that Hillary is the best person to lead the way. She botched opportunity number one. Let's not give her the keys for four years.
While I don't doubt that removing Assad might help, I completely doubt that Hillary is the best person to lead the way. She botched opportunity number one. Let's not give her the keys for four years.
"The next president will have to provide the action."
Mr. Brooks, like his colleague, Mr. Cohen, was a vocal advocate of all the destructive attacks by the USA into the Middle East and adjoining regions since at least the Bush Junior Administration's wanton destruction of Iraq from 2002 onwards. Mr. Cohen likely an advocate of earlier and similar attacks perpetrated by USA Administrations from the first Reagan Administration on.
As many others point out in this and other venues, it is just those military attacks and the accompanying senseless destruction and mass murder of some "other", usually Muslim, population that gives rise to terror.
The hyping of the deaths in Paris by politicians and by most USA media, including the NYTimes, is despicable. The behavior of televised, so-called "news" programs is beyond the Pale because done solely for commercial - i.e. increased viewership through sensationalism - reasons.
Mr. Brooks, Mr. Cohen, not to mention the even worse advocates of more mass murder and destruction among Republicans and in neo-conservatives, are reprehensible.
Mr. Brooks, like his colleague, Mr. Cohen, was a vocal advocate of all the destructive attacks by the USA into the Middle East and adjoining regions since at least the Bush Junior Administration's wanton destruction of Iraq from 2002 onwards. Mr. Cohen likely an advocate of earlier and similar attacks perpetrated by USA Administrations from the first Reagan Administration on.
As many others point out in this and other venues, it is just those military attacks and the accompanying senseless destruction and mass murder of some "other", usually Muslim, population that gives rise to terror.
The hyping of the deaths in Paris by politicians and by most USA media, including the NYTimes, is despicable. The behavior of televised, so-called "news" programs is beyond the Pale because done solely for commercial - i.e. increased viewership through sensationalism - reasons.
Mr. Brooks, Mr. Cohen, not to mention the even worse advocates of more mass murder and destruction among Republicans and in neo-conservatives, are reprehensible.
1
"The next president will have to provide the action."
She will.
She will.
1
Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate who is turnkey when it comes to a war on terror policy.
4
Another day, another Hillary love letter, courtesy of her biggest cheerleader, the NYT opinion board.
This woman would like do do this:
* A no-fly zone, so she can shoot Russian planes. Do you really think Putin will hear about it and turn tail and go home? Not to mention they are there at the request of the president of Syria, and no one has invited us in. Our planes are bombing a foreign country illegally, and she wants more of that.
* Help old governments go away and instill a sense of national pride. The current countries were created by Europe and were not there prior to that, how can they feel a sense of national pride, when their nations were drawn by foreign powers?
* She is describing another Arabian Spring as the solution. Yea that has worked out so well so far.
* She wants the advisers in Iraq to take more of an active roll, that is Viet-Nam 65 all over again! come one! serious?
* She wants to lecture Turkey on being nice to Kurds, how about stop giving Turkey bombs to use against Kurds?
What's wrong with this woman?????
This woman would like do do this:
* A no-fly zone, so she can shoot Russian planes. Do you really think Putin will hear about it and turn tail and go home? Not to mention they are there at the request of the president of Syria, and no one has invited us in. Our planes are bombing a foreign country illegally, and she wants more of that.
* Help old governments go away and instill a sense of national pride. The current countries were created by Europe and were not there prior to that, how can they feel a sense of national pride, when their nations were drawn by foreign powers?
* She is describing another Arabian Spring as the solution. Yea that has worked out so well so far.
* She wants the advisers in Iraq to take more of an active roll, that is Viet-Nam 65 all over again! come one! serious?
* She wants to lecture Turkey on being nice to Kurds, how about stop giving Turkey bombs to use against Kurds?
What's wrong with this woman?????
2
Brook's fawning article would choke a buzzard. He gets his place on liberal editorial pages as the token "moderate." (He once worked for the Reagan or Bush administration). But as this article proves, he's just another liberal.
While he rhapsodizes about Hillary's impressive speech ("Clinton offered multilayered but coherent framework, not only dealing with ISIS but also putting that threat within the crosscutting conflicts that are inflaming the Middle East."), he fails to note the obvious - that she was directly involved in creating the disaster we're now dealing with in Syria. Furthermore, she won't even use the term "Islamic terrorists."
It gets worse: She supports importing 10,000 Muslim refugees from Syria, and she's all for keeping our southern border wide open to import more Hispanics to improve Democrats' chances of being elected.
What liberals says doesn't matter. Their impressive speeches don't matter. What matters is what they do, or don't do.
While he rhapsodizes about Hillary's impressive speech ("Clinton offered multilayered but coherent framework, not only dealing with ISIS but also putting that threat within the crosscutting conflicts that are inflaming the Middle East."), he fails to note the obvious - that she was directly involved in creating the disaster we're now dealing with in Syria. Furthermore, she won't even use the term "Islamic terrorists."
It gets worse: She supports importing 10,000 Muslim refugees from Syria, and she's all for keeping our southern border wide open to import more Hispanics to improve Democrats' chances of being elected.
What liberals says doesn't matter. Their impressive speeches don't matter. What matters is what they do, or don't do.
4
"Which is why the presidency is for grown-ups, not rank outsiders." Like George Bush.
Sunnis woke up because we sent pallets of hundred dollar bills to the former Baathist military who were thrown out by Viceroy Brenner. I know because my best friend delivered the money to the Sunnis during his tour with the Army's transportation corps.
In the shattering aftermath of the Iraq War, Arab and Persian democracy, not nationalism, withered because it was Bushraqed by Knights with Korans and Kalashnikovs firing on ordinary citizens (as in Iran's Green Revolution, Egypt's Tahir Square, and Syrian's Friday Prayer Protests).
I suppose I'd rather the next president to be the one who really knows what the definition of IS IS than anyone in the political party of the one whose war finally brought the two together to screw the military, like my best friend who died of post traumatic stress injury, and the people who believed what we encouraged and abandoned.
Sunnis woke up because we sent pallets of hundred dollar bills to the former Baathist military who were thrown out by Viceroy Brenner. I know because my best friend delivered the money to the Sunnis during his tour with the Army's transportation corps.
In the shattering aftermath of the Iraq War, Arab and Persian democracy, not nationalism, withered because it was Bushraqed by Knights with Korans and Kalashnikovs firing on ordinary citizens (as in Iran's Green Revolution, Egypt's Tahir Square, and Syrian's Friday Prayer Protests).
I suppose I'd rather the next president to be the one who really knows what the definition of IS IS than anyone in the political party of the one whose war finally brought the two together to screw the military, like my best friend who died of post traumatic stress injury, and the people who believed what we encouraged and abandoned.
Both Senator Sanders and Ms Clinton gave major speeches yesterday, but you would be hard pressed to find such evidence in the "liberal" NY Times, just like the recent polling that shows Bernie beating all Republican candidates- most by a larger margin than Ms Clinton.
Mr Brooks likes Hillary because she is essentially a Republican like he is. She is not a progressive, but likes to play one on TV. Her voting record on national security places her in line with Republicans - not progressive Democrats. Bernie supposedly has no foreign policy red- despite his solid voting record of not giving the Bush Era NeoCons a blank check in either Bush Administration.
Hillary is more of the same tragic and misdirected foreign policy that has left our nation is a bad place. Her time as Secretary of State looks like amateur hour and so will a Clinton Administration.
Sorry Hillary, we know your record.
Mr Brooks likes Hillary because she is essentially a Republican like he is. She is not a progressive, but likes to play one on TV. Her voting record on national security places her in line with Republicans - not progressive Democrats. Bernie supposedly has no foreign policy red- despite his solid voting record of not giving the Bush Era NeoCons a blank check in either Bush Administration.
Hillary is more of the same tragic and misdirected foreign policy that has left our nation is a bad place. Her time as Secretary of State looks like amateur hour and so will a Clinton Administration.
Sorry Hillary, we know your record.
1
As you've stated sir, "some republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia" is exemplified in the recent comments by republican candidates using the the Paris attack for political reasons. One suggestion made was for entering Muslims into a data base and issuing identification cards noting their religious affiliation; another likened the Syrian refugees "to dogs" stating some of them might be "rabid" which was reason to keep them out. Another claims only let Christians refugees in. Another stated were part of a "class of civilizations" lumping the Paris attackers as a product of the Muslim society and not a radical group that it is.
Even after 9/11 attacks we did not here this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. Bush at the time claimed that Islam is a religion of peace.
It's disgusting to witness this display of nonsense and idiocy from these candidates, using the Paris attacks to prey on the fears of the general public to advance themselves.
I applaud your reasoned and thoughtful column Mr. Brooks. In giving Hillary Clinton some praise for her recent speech, also point out the mindless rhetoric that any candidate preaches to placate the fears of the voters for political gain. It's a method that many have used in human history to gain power.
Even after 9/11 attacks we did not here this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. Bush at the time claimed that Islam is a religion of peace.
It's disgusting to witness this display of nonsense and idiocy from these candidates, using the Paris attacks to prey on the fears of the general public to advance themselves.
I applaud your reasoned and thoughtful column Mr. Brooks. In giving Hillary Clinton some praise for her recent speech, also point out the mindless rhetoric that any candidate preaches to placate the fears of the voters for political gain. It's a method that many have used in human history to gain power.
3
Mr. Brooks is right, failed nation states in the Middle East are a breeding ground for terrorism and other forces opposed to civilization. I wonder if he has ever reversed stance on his cheerleading for the destruction of the Iraqi nation.
I remember one time Mr. Brooks took a half-step in that direction. He expressed regret at having been misled into supporting the Iraq war in his column. But of course at the time of the invasion he was pretending to be a thought leader, condescending to the rest of us about our lack of insight into these complex problems.
I remember one time Mr. Brooks took a half-step in that direction. He expressed regret at having been misled into supporting the Iraq war in his column. But of course at the time of the invasion he was pretending to be a thought leader, condescending to the rest of us about our lack of insight into these complex problems.
1
Addendum to my reply to Ms.Mcmorrow: We need fewer diplomats or secretaries of state who can't communicate in Arabic, and more who have studied the language and understand the culture behind it. Good example is Chris Ross, former US Ambassador to Algeria whom I came to know back in early 1990's who spoke Arabic well, and could even carry on an interview with Algerian journalists in the language. HRC was in over her head as sec. of state. Obama appointed her to the post, but with misgivings.
Mr. Brooks admires the neocon sensibility of Hillary Clinton, and applauds her plans to continue our misguided meddling in the Middle East, including overthrowing the leader of Syria. It all seems so logical and appropriate----after all, the last few leaders we helped overthrow created the context for current middle east peace and prosperity in each of those nations, no?
That Putin and Russia will stop supporting Assad if only we surrender some crumpet of pittance is fallacy. Syria and Assad are first rank Client States going far back in the past. Not to mention, Russia has gained a new Large Aircraft capable airfield and expanded facilities at Tartus. These facilities are of enormous value to intelligence gathering, exerting control, administering aide to other client states; and training parties Russia chooses. At stake is Russian prestige and power in Southern Europe, Africa and the approaches to the Indian Ocean. Putin and Russia will never tolerate removing Assad. PERIOD. It would be like the USA surrendering Israel for a few cheap political baubles.
It frightens me to think Mr. Brooks is on board with Ms. Clinton. Hillary has admitted she made a huge mistake when voting for war in Iraq. I'm not sure her current plan deviates very far from the ethos that got us in this mess, but I do agree that she has at least laid out a plan.
What I want to hear from other conservatives is their admission that the invasion of Iraq was a monumental blunder. Jeb!, to be certain, has stated that his brother kept us safe. Anyone with a functioning brain knows this is pure fantasy. Other Republican candidates have not, to my knowledge, used that statement to their advantage. By not do so, they are in effect, proving they were complicit in the march toward GWB's Iraqi war.
How deluded are those who still think this way? It seems to me to be of the same mindset that now wants to refuse admittance to Syrian refugees who are victims of that war conservatives created. How much more credible it would be if one, just one, Republican seeking nomination, stood up against the hyperbole and said, as Ms. Clinton has, the invasion of Iraq is the reason this mess exists, that Colin Powell was dead-right, that if you break it, you own it.
Conservatives own this mega-mess, yet try by hook or crook, to claim they are the ones who will eventually extricate us from the Middle East, leaving it "peaceable", to use David's definition.
What I want to hear from other conservatives is their admission that the invasion of Iraq was a monumental blunder. Jeb!, to be certain, has stated that his brother kept us safe. Anyone with a functioning brain knows this is pure fantasy. Other Republican candidates have not, to my knowledge, used that statement to their advantage. By not do so, they are in effect, proving they were complicit in the march toward GWB's Iraqi war.
How deluded are those who still think this way? It seems to me to be of the same mindset that now wants to refuse admittance to Syrian refugees who are victims of that war conservatives created. How much more credible it would be if one, just one, Republican seeking nomination, stood up against the hyperbole and said, as Ms. Clinton has, the invasion of Iraq is the reason this mess exists, that Colin Powell was dead-right, that if you break it, you own it.
Conservatives own this mega-mess, yet try by hook or crook, to claim they are the ones who will eventually extricate us from the Middle East, leaving it "peaceable", to use David's definition.
My problem with Hillary is that she is partly responsible for what is going on in Libya and Iraq, and even Syria. She is a flawed war hawk and no she wants to take down what she has partly put together due to her policy stances. Bernie is right, no more quagmires.
Would that Islam, the "Muslim world" of the Middle East in all its incarnations, and its diaspora, literally inhabited its own world --its own planet with its own sun.
But it doesn't, and the next leader (Trump???, Clinton??, Chance the Gardener?) of the free world (our favorite term for us, the U.S., though it has kinda lost some of its force) will with wind-blown hair, Armor-all underwear, and rearing, snorting charger lead us into the quicksand of religious war. As if we didn't already have enough of that here at home.
If David is showing his cards and will vote for Hillary, then I think the next election is settled before the dust even starts to fly.
But it doesn't, and the next leader (Trump???, Clinton??, Chance the Gardener?) of the free world (our favorite term for us, the U.S., though it has kinda lost some of its force) will with wind-blown hair, Armor-all underwear, and rearing, snorting charger lead us into the quicksand of religious war. As if we didn't already have enough of that here at home.
If David is showing his cards and will vote for Hillary, then I think the next election is settled before the dust even starts to fly.
Not necessarily saying I advocate but we never hear another alternative debated. What if we just leave the Middle East? T-total pull-out and let "them" (i.e. anyone but us) fix their own mess. We take care of #1 and mend our own country.
Why zero debate about that? Is it an impossibility?
Why zero debate about that? Is it an impossibility?
The old blood lust is on Dave, and it stirs his blood. No more the brooding pundit, pondering whether the poor are sinful because they don't read the Bible or if they are just poor because they are sinful. No, Dave feels young and invigorated, ready once again to call out for other people to go get killed so he can feel virile once again.
I follow David Brooks columns because he is the most articulate oxymoron I know. What is a "Reasonable" Republican going to choose? He's still a trickle-down supply-sider, but if this is his endorsement of Clinton over the GOP Conga Line running for president he's answered my question. Nowadays the only thing a reasonable adult Republican can do is vote Democrat.
1
It's refreshing to see a balanced, clear analysis that is not persuasive writing or filled with agenda - other than the good of our nation.
My wish is that more of this publication's writers could have a dialogue without impugning the character of those with different views. Bravo, Mr. Brooks, for always modeling rationality and civility.
My wish is that more of this publication's writers could have a dialogue without impugning the character of those with different views. Bravo, Mr. Brooks, for always modeling rationality and civility.
You can almost see the gears moving behind this speech: She has assumed that she's got the nomination, and is now moving to the center. What better way than to exhibit her neo-con tendencies to coral David Brooks and other members of the Republican elite and their thinkers. They are fearful they will lose control of the Party and would feel more comfortable supporting a neo-con democrat--a la Henry Jackson or Joe Lieberman--than Donald Trump or Dr. Carson.
"The grand strategy of American policy in the Middle East, therefore, should be to do what we can to revive and reform Arab nations"
What if this was an opportunity for the ethnic people of the region to from an organic state not revive the artificial state that failed ?
What if this was an opportunity for the ethnic people of the region to from an organic state not revive the artificial state that failed ?
The thing that worries me most about a president Hillary Clinton is her general acceptance of military intervention as an acceptable foreign policy. Given the high costs and meager results of fourteen years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the prospect of deeper military engagement in Syria is disturbing. I see no reason to expect a better outcome in Syria, nor do I see Syria as an American problem to resolve. I'll give Ms. Clinton this: at least she is thinking seriously about the situation unlike the cast of clowns and blowhards on the republican side. I thank Mr. Brooks for admitting as much.
1
Not even David Brooks can stomach the Republican maniacs currently vying for nomination. And pigs will fly when he endorses Bernie Sanders. So, I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the Establishment has finally come to the most obvious conclusion that their best chance for order is Secretary and Senator Clinton. This column says it all.
What was the name of the Presidential Candidate who has stated in this weeks Democratic debate that creating regime change has not served us well in the Middle East and is not in favor of continuing that policy? It was not Hilary. We all know who it is. Hope he still has a voice come November.
Let's get it right. After the 09-11 attacks we went into Afghanistan. Many more US soldiers were killed than were killed in 09-11. And we spent over $1 trillion. For what? Bin Ladin was not there. But there are still terrorists there. Then in search of weapons of mass destruction, we went into Iraq. Several thousand US soldiers were killed, and more wounded. And we spent over a $trillion again. Check Wikipedia. A president who said we must balance the budget in every State of the Union address borrowed mony for those wars. But terrorists are still in both countries. And now some Republicans are calling for the same thing.
Wow. No mention of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US. No mention of the vacuum created by removing Saddam Hussein, dissolving the Iraqi government and disarming the Iraqi army. American policy in the Middle East is easily predicted - "Remove" leaders - Mosaddegh in 1953, Saddam in 2003, Gadaffi in 2011 and on and on. The resulting instability is always blamed on someone else. Now it is Assad's turn to go. Countries that are known to fund terrorists (a large oil producer comes to mind) are considered allies because they have a precious natural resource.
It is high time the US stopped determining who should lead which nation and left them to fend for themselves
It is high time the US stopped determining who should lead which nation and left them to fend for themselves
1
The writer suggests we emulate the strategy used in the onset of the war in Afghanistan, a war we're still mired in after 15 years, with no indication of any sort of "victory" in sight. Does he believe the methods will work significantly better in Syria, or is he suggesting we commit to decades of indefinite occupation? He says we need to get rid of both ISIS and Assad, and we also need to help foster nation-states in the Middle East. If the aim is to destroy the country's major political institutions, and end up with a viable nation-state, I assume he's pushing for an extended occupation, a fact that goes unmentioned in his article or Hillary's speech.
1
Al these opinions... The experts can't agree. Most of us want peace. So while we, the citizens of this country are waiting around, let's at least look deeply into our own behavior. Communities must set up discussions about NVC- non violent communication- and yes there are courses out there. Our collective consciousness has to evolve and change begins from within each of us.
Americans concerned about our future and terrorist are aware that the best candidate is always an experienced one. Hillary comes with a knowledgeable former President of the United States, who is aware of all the countries, policies and personally knows many of their leaders. She also brings with her a vice president.
The fundamental problem with Mr. Brooks' suggestion is that the "nation states," which he seeks to restore and strengthen, are artificial lines on maps drawn by Western colonialists that ignore tribal identities. Iraq, for example, is an artificial conglomeration of multiple tribes that have no linkage and have historically been competitors.
A more logical approach is the redrawing of boundaries so that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds have homelands. Without such a reconfiguration, there will never be intertribal peace.
A more logical approach is the redrawing of boundaries so that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds have homelands. Without such a reconfiguration, there will never be intertribal peace.
1
Most of Assad's army are Sunni. In addition, of the 11 million displaced civilians 7 million moved to government controlled areas. Hiw are we to believe then that Sunnis prefer ISIS?
In addition, your comment on casualties is incorrect, according to the Syrian Observatory (a UK intelligence front), the majority of casualties have been government forces.
Your arguments are simply based on the regime change position of the US government and its allies. Only the Syrian people should chose their leader - not external third parties with there own interests.
In addition, your comment on casualties is incorrect, according to the Syrian Observatory (a UK intelligence front), the majority of casualties have been government forces.
Your arguments are simply based on the regime change position of the US government and its allies. Only the Syrian people should chose their leader - not external third parties with there own interests.
1
At no time in our history is it more important for the President to have a grasp on world events and a working relationship and understanding of and with world leaders. Jingoism sells to the conservative base, but It offers no answers. To the right, it is the answer and seemingly all they need. We need an adult in the White House. Go Hillary!
1
I wonder what Assads price is. His reported net worth is $550M. He's 50, so still pretty young. Would $1B to go away be enticing ? $10B?
The cost per day of just the Iraq war is estimated at $720M (source Wash Post) but that's just the money cost. Doesn't factor in opportunity cost, costs to fight future wars in other countries resulting from your actions in Syria, costs to employers and families who have their employees and loved ones away (or dead), or the price of oil as it skyrockets due to a war in the middle east.
The cost per day of just the Iraq war is estimated at $720M (source Wash Post) but that's just the money cost. Doesn't factor in opportunity cost, costs to fight future wars in other countries resulting from your actions in Syria, costs to employers and families who have their employees and loved ones away (or dead), or the price of oil as it skyrockets due to a war in the middle east.
Lovely. time to change strategy as "Don't do stupid things" did not work.
Don't worry - Putin will get it under control. French are already allying with him and soon others will join too.
The stupidity of this whole proposal is that it fails to identify who to align with in a serious war. I wonder what the results of WW2 would've been if FDR decided that he needed to fight both Russia and Germany.
Don't worry - Putin will get it under control. French are already allying with him and soon others will join too.
The stupidity of this whole proposal is that it fails to identify who to align with in a serious war. I wonder what the results of WW2 would've been if FDR decided that he needed to fight both Russia and Germany.
Yes, Hillary is a seasoned observer and a very capable "statesman." Yet unfortunately she has an uphill climb as a woman in Muslim culture. Since the media is a lot more vocal than politicians about terrorism, isn't it about time it's roll is analyzed?
How the media could shoulder some responsibility - It could easily stop honoring terrorists with their chosen name, instead describe them, example - vicious pigs. Why do all of our media give them what they want, a valuable brand name for recruiting immature brains? Because coverage grabs viewers and listeners, and advertisers pay for that.
We fight kidnapping by not giving ransome money. We fight gang warfare by cleaning up territorial tags. Terrorism used to be slow and contained violence before it became televised 24/7. Now our industrialized media gives them celebrity cult status, great for recruiting rebels without a cause.
How the media could shoulder some responsibility - It could easily stop honoring terrorists with their chosen name, instead describe them, example - vicious pigs. Why do all of our media give them what they want, a valuable brand name for recruiting immature brains? Because coverage grabs viewers and listeners, and advertisers pay for that.
We fight kidnapping by not giving ransome money. We fight gang warfare by cleaning up territorial tags. Terrorism used to be slow and contained violence before it became televised 24/7. Now our industrialized media gives them celebrity cult status, great for recruiting rebels without a cause.
It is encouraging to hear Mrs.Clinton and her plan for the Middle East. Other candidates have not put out their options other than vague statements.
The Middle East could not be worse and this is under a democratic leadership. This shows how difficult the problem of terrorism and restoration of civilian law and order is, Hope the President is listening and willing to incorporate her plan instead of waiting till after the election.
The Middle East could not be worse and this is under a democratic leadership. This shows how difficult the problem of terrorism and restoration of civilian law and order is, Hope the President is listening and willing to incorporate her plan instead of waiting till after the election.
1
I agree with your comments on Mrs. Clinton being the grownup in this race. I don't understand your comments of the failed nation states. Nation states are such because their people share a common nationality. The middle eastern states are mere lines drawn on a map by outside forces in a hurry to let go of a hot potatoes. This, not Islam, is the heart of the crises. It is obviously not a problem we can solve. We should stop trying. It's a tar baby that attaches us to the madness. Our wise people should be telling us this but our belief in our exceptionalism scares them into silence.
It's good to know that republican David Brooks is beginning to realize how irrational his party has become on foreign policy even if he doesn't realize that it is equally irrational on domestic affairs.
The candidate that he will probably endorse is Marco Rubio who said last month that he "would risk war with Russia to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria."
For the good of our country and the world, we must elect a democrat next year.
The candidate that he will probably endorse is Marco Rubio who said last month that he "would risk war with Russia to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria."
For the good of our country and the world, we must elect a democrat next year.
1
Those of us on planet earth know that sometimes action is needed to preserve our security. And that leadership has the duty of filling the voids left by the widesperead preference for inaction.
I'm often surprised and always disgusted by the level of NIMBYism that afflicts so many Times commenters.
We can laugh at the buffoons, but when we mock the serious adults, too, we invite the kinds of insecurity that have defined our age.
Ladiers and gentlemen, an adult has stepped out with something serious to say. Respect must be paid.
I'm often surprised and always disgusted by the level of NIMBYism that afflicts so many Times commenters.
We can laugh at the buffoons, but when we mock the serious adults, too, we invite the kinds of insecurity that have defined our age.
Ladiers and gentlemen, an adult has stepped out with something serious to say. Respect must be paid.
1
Some commenters are saying that Brooks is praising a Democrat. Actually he is praising another Republican, Hillary Clinton. I for one would rather the trilllions of dollars that an escalation of our involvement in the Middle East would involve go instead to building up our crumbling bridges and helping people here, including refugees from war torn Syria. Clinton, has always been a hawk and obviously plans on continuing to be a hawk. How much good has our hawkish mideast policies done for us, the mideast or the world.
5
David, I watched HRC's speech and now I've read your analysis. I can agree with you that her "plan" is detailed and it is comprehensive. But the number of details in it, the number of words or pages it contained, or the earnest way it was presented (better word is staged) does not make it a winning strategy. You, like many of her supporters - say it ain't so, David - are making the mistake of believing that a person who failed in every aspect of her State Department stewardship can suddenly be a sage on the issues confronting the Middle East. She cannot even bring herself to accurately describe the enemy! France is emerging as the pragmatic Western leader in the battle against ISIS, quickly recognizing that Assad is not the most important enemy now and that Russian coordination/participation is key to any success in the region. It will take a brave candidate of any party to say these things. HRC articulated only a newer, more polished version of the current losing strategy.
The nation states you refer to were arbitrary divisions designed by retreating Western colonial powers. They ignored natural tribal and ethnic boundaries. As a result these states were created with inherent internal tensions. Most of them were held together by strong autocratic leaders but that is falling away.
Add to that the complexity of the intertwined religion and state systems in the region and you have a perfect political storm.
Add to that the complexity of the intertwined religion and state systems in the region and you have a perfect political storm.
2
Hillary, in effect, acknowledges that there isn't a lot we can do until the locals decide to back somebody who offers order with some degree of tolerance and competent governance. That stance is admirable in being honest, but depressing in presenting no real solution. I don't think any long term solution presents itself today. All we can do is to avoid making the situation worse.
38
The so called nation states were successful in maintaining order within their own boundaries while frustrated dissidents committed acts of subterfuge against other national interests with complicit approval of their governments as long as they didn't create mayhem within their own borders (aka Saudi Arabia.) In today's paper Clinton appears to prioritize interventions against ISIS. Her calls for a no fly zone ring hollow as their are not any clear demarcation lines that made the policy so successful in the Bosnia conflict. Though Obama was wrong in calling distinctly for Assad's removal when he was not in a position to do anything about it; he is right in containing the conflict and letting it play out and not give in to the current populist rhetoric including Ms. Clinton's.
1
When people fear enough (and in the internet age fear's communication is much faster, more powerful, and wider spread than ever in history), they will turn to the meanest, stupidest, toughest-talking bully around, and give him all the powers he wants. History shows that, with only once in a millennium exceptions, the result is a long-lasting catastrophe for everyone involved, except the bully, his cronies, and his family unto several generations. US voters face such a choice: on the one hand, sanity with Hilary or Bernie; on the other, catastrophe with any of the Republican candidates.
1
There is more to the Syrian war than politicians who wish to make further war there depict in their exceptionalist speeches, as Senator Sanders, and others. honestly depict. There is a drought, water resources increasingly low and small farmers, defeated by climate change, are moving into Syria causing further instability there. This isn't the first we have heard of global devastation of natural resources, and it wont be the last. Clinton advocates a process that I have expected from she and the Republicans since she began her presidential campaign, gnashing of teeth and rattling the sabre that she used in voting for the Iraq war, which, as we know, has birthed ISIS for all to rue. Will America move toward insight, reason, by admitting women, children, two percent men, ten-thousand, comprehensively screened for eighteen months before assimilation, those who have suffered from America's misguided interventions in combination with dwindling natural resources. And will we attempt to build consensus between middle eastern countries that possess political power to end the ISIS reign of terror, or will we again, self defeat in our long clung to hatred and fear that in fact, makes many commenters I have read in the NYT sound, again, overwhelmed, panic stricken by fear that unleashes the desire to lash out. Clinton is war foolish for corporatist power, global land grab and global natural resource depletion by the wealthiest among us, and they support her handsomely in her efforts
The faulty assumptions and willful omissions from this column are so profound it's hard to figure out where to start.
The vacuum that ISIS seized was created by our unjustified invasion and failed occupation of Iraq, not Syrian or Russian policies.
The unraveling of Arab nation states has been a US policy called regime change over four administrations. Only we expected to oust non-compliant strong men with those of our own choosing. Instead we got blowback.
Brooks speaks of Russian aggression when they respond to a request from an actual government for aid, but omits our arming a violent opposition movement in Syria that morphed into a civil war and simply destroying Libya with no legal justification at all.
His real applause for Clinton comes from her signaling her commitment to marginalize Russia and move it off the stage of major international players. We can't have them playing counterweight to US plans as they did in the cold war.
And what are those plans really? They are what they've always been, control of energy resources from the Gulf states to Kazakhstan. Why else do we wink and nod at the human rights atrocities in Saudi Arabia while going to covert war against Syria? This is not a game being played for the benefit of the American people and certainly not for democracy or the Arab spring. It's a cold, calculated strategic move for domination through control of energy and super profit by playing policeman for American energy companies. I for one vote no.
The vacuum that ISIS seized was created by our unjustified invasion and failed occupation of Iraq, not Syrian or Russian policies.
The unraveling of Arab nation states has been a US policy called regime change over four administrations. Only we expected to oust non-compliant strong men with those of our own choosing. Instead we got blowback.
Brooks speaks of Russian aggression when they respond to a request from an actual government for aid, but omits our arming a violent opposition movement in Syria that morphed into a civil war and simply destroying Libya with no legal justification at all.
His real applause for Clinton comes from her signaling her commitment to marginalize Russia and move it off the stage of major international players. We can't have them playing counterweight to US plans as they did in the cold war.
And what are those plans really? They are what they've always been, control of energy resources from the Gulf states to Kazakhstan. Why else do we wink and nod at the human rights atrocities in Saudi Arabia while going to covert war against Syria? This is not a game being played for the benefit of the American people and certainly not for democracy or the Arab spring. It's a cold, calculated strategic move for domination through control of energy and super profit by playing policeman for American energy companies. I for one vote no.
1
This was strangely refreshing. It's been a long time since we've heard the middle East, or, for that matter, almost any issue in this campaign discussed by adults. This is an extremely complex situation whose roots can be traced back to Napoleonic times, if you want to get technical, and any solution that would conceivably work will not fit on a bumper sticker or into a Tweet. The problems will not be solved overnight. Compromises will have to be made. This will require adults to sit down with adults to find a solution that we all can live with.
Thank you Mr. Brooks for a welcome and even-handed analysis It's people like you who make me think that Conservatives might be redeemable after all.
Thank you Mr. Brooks for a welcome and even-handed analysis It's people like you who make me think that Conservatives might be redeemable after all.
Neocons usually appreciate a good neolib speech, and Clinton gave a nice interventionist speech tailor made for the Council of Foreign Relations and their corporate sponsors.
I think she believes it, too. Clinton believes more forceful military intervention in the middle east will produce favorable results. There is hardly any logic or evidence to support this supposition but, most politicians in this country, besides Obama, are operating on pure emotion.
I think she believes it, too. Clinton believes more forceful military intervention in the middle east will produce favorable results. There is hardly any logic or evidence to support this supposition but, most politicians in this country, besides Obama, are operating on pure emotion.
Hillary Clinton should talk to her husband and together create a gentler less violent world. "What Mrs Clinton needs to do is, not push war. Instead listen to the Clinton Foundation's own mission statement, "Established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. CGI Annual Meetings have brought together 190 sitting and former heads of state, more than 20 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and members of the media. To date, members of the CGI community have made more than 3,400 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries."
1
So, Brooks supports (and will vote for) Clinton? He directly contrasts the ineptitude of the Republican candidates with Clinton's plan to deal with ISIS and Assad ("multilayered but coherent"). Brooks has progressed from being a reliable conservative Republican, to a RINO, and soon ex-Republican if not Democrat? Stranger things have happened.
I agree that Clinton was deeply knowledgeable and sophisticated in her thinking; standing out above all candidates, Democrat and Republican, in that regard. Though I believe she did actually suggest more special ops forces.
She also encouraged a multi-pronged approach that included aid, development, and diplomacy, as well as force.
There was a sense, though, of possibly being so thick in the weeds of policy that an even deeper level might be being ignored--seeing people on all sides as actual human beings and doing things to foster that shared connection.
She also encouraged a multi-pronged approach that included aid, development, and diplomacy, as well as force.
There was a sense, though, of possibly being so thick in the weeds of policy that an even deeper level might be being ignored--seeing people on all sides as actual human beings and doing things to foster that shared connection.
20
Good recap for consideration. In the meantime a lot of startegic issues are in place by the current administration. One, Obama says his model is working., no changes forthcoming. Second, we have a deal with Iran, a state sponsor of Terrorism. Third, Saudi also sponsors their choice of Terrorism. So with that said, Bill and Hillary will face a major challenge, if they choose to change, or even just modify, Obama's vision and conditions put in place. Modifying or changing marching orders with our military complex take forever. Our Democratic system in time of war becomes very very complicated. Especially when Americans are war weary. Our model never includes winning just engage , organize in our vision, then leave.
The only way that I can see this situation being solved in the middle east is to force all of the players there to work together. When Iranian and Saudi diplomats refuse to even look each other in the eye when trying to negotiate a solution to the ISIS problem, I think it speaks volumes on how difficult this will be. The western nations that have created this problem by indiscriminately drawing boundaries for these states after WWI do share a responsibility to assist in the solution. However, if we try to force a solution on the region how long will it be before we are back to where we are now? Forcing enemies to live together within a nations borders and then expecting them to have a flourishing democracy within a couple of years is the height of lunacy. Our republic is still a work in progress almost 250 years after its founding. Remember the Civil War we had? Or how more than half of the citizens of our country couldn't vote in a representative democracy for well over the first 100 years of its existence?
1
Good to see some solid rational thinking.
However, the delusion that there is any certain or viable path to 'nation building' at any level in the Middle East is sheer fantasy. The underlying tribal and sectarian hostility that has been seething for centuries and will not go quietly into the night.
The availability of universal opportunity, and dignity may help to rebuild the TRUST that is needed to allow these folks to federate and progress, but the underlying fragmentation of relatively minor differences in faith, traditions, practices coupled with centuries of bigotry and hate present clear and present obstacles.
AND, this is only one of the many problematic collections of dis-integrated populations around the world. It would appear that the process of globalization (aka the unification of our species, aka the advancement of human civiilization) is going to play out on a rough and rocky road.
We should all prefer the 'Obama doctrine' over it's alternatives, but the temptation to give in to 'quick draw' response to these problems is palpable.
However, the delusion that there is any certain or viable path to 'nation building' at any level in the Middle East is sheer fantasy. The underlying tribal and sectarian hostility that has been seething for centuries and will not go quietly into the night.
The availability of universal opportunity, and dignity may help to rebuild the TRUST that is needed to allow these folks to federate and progress, but the underlying fragmentation of relatively minor differences in faith, traditions, practices coupled with centuries of bigotry and hate present clear and present obstacles.
AND, this is only one of the many problematic collections of dis-integrated populations around the world. It would appear that the process of globalization (aka the unification of our species, aka the advancement of human civiilization) is going to play out on a rough and rocky road.
We should all prefer the 'Obama doctrine' over it's alternatives, but the temptation to give in to 'quick draw' response to these problems is palpable.
2
I will leave the substance of the plan to others, but I have a prediction about the politics. There is a reason that politicians running for office avoid substance: they don't have to defend it, and voters can read their own beliefs into vague statements. Not only will Secretary Clinton have to defend statements and misstatements made by political opponents, but I predict that she will be faulted for even laying out a substantive approach. Trump et al:"I am not going to reveal my strategy to terrorists." Therefore the very act of formulating a coherent strategy is a mistake.
Former Scy. Clinton's speech was impressive. It is impossible to envision any other current candidate speaking with her command of the subject, whether or not one agrees with all points. Agreement in the public sphere is impossible and will usually break down on predictable partisan, tribal lines, but it is good to read Mr. Brook's comments. It has also been recognized elsewhere that the speech had a mostly non-partisan perspective: "Hillary Clinton Backs Ramped-Up U.S. Response to Islamic State" ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-backs-ramped-up-u-s-response-to-isla... ). Even Bernie Sanders agrees that ISIS needs to be physically destroyed (in addition to the complexities of changing minds and escalated cybersecurity).
Will the USA be frozen until the next presidential election? I hope not. Can we hear something more analytically complex from candidates besides Ms. Clinton?
We should not expect advance public notice of strategic and tactical decisions, and their implementations, to appear in the public press.
Will the USA be frozen until the next presidential election? I hope not. Can we hear something more analytically complex from candidates besides Ms. Clinton?
We should not expect advance public notice of strategic and tactical decisions, and their implementations, to appear in the public press.
1
I was struck by Mr. Brooks' focus on Assad. It seems to me that U.S. policy has its place among other factors for the humanitarian disaster that continues in Syria. By making Assad’s ouster fundamental without acting to decide events, we have helped to bring about a deadly stalemate. Our satisfaction must be that we have not backed a dictator. If this is not enough, U.S. policy should reverse itself with regard to Assad. We should join with Russia to suppress rebellious elements within Syria.
The laws of nations have forever been an object of contempt when compared to what passes for integrity among citizens. To insist on congruency here is hubris, and, when we accept the private virtue/public vice axiom elsewhere, ridiculous. Moreover, the price of bringing Putin to our way of thinking about Assad seems trivial only when left unstated. It will be too high to estimate in print beforehand. Yet a strategy that does not address Putin as well as Assad cannot be called clear.
The laws of nations have forever been an object of contempt when compared to what passes for integrity among citizens. To insist on congruency here is hubris, and, when we accept the private virtue/public vice axiom elsewhere, ridiculous. Moreover, the price of bringing Putin to our way of thinking about Assad seems trivial only when left unstated. It will be too high to estimate in print beforehand. Yet a strategy that does not address Putin as well as Assad cannot be called clear.
13
If bombing, occupation, no fly zones, drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, spying and endless created peace, we would be living in the most peaceful time in history. Brooks' endorsement of Clinton's plan merely establishes the bipartisan nature of foreign policy in which bombs and killing are considered the only pathway to peace.
The war strategy has really has not worked well the past 6 decades, but if we give it just one more chance, properly executed it will . . .
The war strategy has really has not worked well the past 6 decades, but if we give it just one more chance, properly executed it will . . .
1
Clinton does not even begin to understand IS, let alone has an idea how to get rid of it.
Gung Ho actions will not help.
Yes, certainly, bombing Raqqa will provide nice video footage for FOX News and some stupid audience/voters but nothing else.
IS is not just a criminal organization like Al Queda anymore, IS is a cult and a very rich state.
A Sunni uprise would be great, but as IS stands in very high regard in the Sunni world, that is not an option.
Getting rid of Assad has nothing to do with IS or a solution of the situation but is no more than another proof that Clinton does not understand the political mechanics in the region.
Assad is the only string person left that actually can support and end to the crisis.
Take Assad out and Syria will become worse than Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan together as Syrian then will become the staging ground for an Islamic crusade against Turkey, Europe and Russia.
But maybe that is what Clinton wants.
Calling for a "No Fly Zone" over Syria only goes to show that Clinton's idea is not about Syria but about limiting the operational range of Russia.
That is only the announcement of a yet another US attack on Russia which is direly needed as an ally in the region.
So no, Clinton has no plan but only a deep rooted inability to understand the region, IS and the conflict.
Putting Clinton in power would be the same massive mistake and global loss that Obama is.
But quite frankly, Trump is even worse.
Gung Ho actions will not help.
Yes, certainly, bombing Raqqa will provide nice video footage for FOX News and some stupid audience/voters but nothing else.
IS is not just a criminal organization like Al Queda anymore, IS is a cult and a very rich state.
A Sunni uprise would be great, but as IS stands in very high regard in the Sunni world, that is not an option.
Getting rid of Assad has nothing to do with IS or a solution of the situation but is no more than another proof that Clinton does not understand the political mechanics in the region.
Assad is the only string person left that actually can support and end to the crisis.
Take Assad out and Syria will become worse than Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan together as Syrian then will become the staging ground for an Islamic crusade against Turkey, Europe and Russia.
But maybe that is what Clinton wants.
Calling for a "No Fly Zone" over Syria only goes to show that Clinton's idea is not about Syria but about limiting the operational range of Russia.
That is only the announcement of a yet another US attack on Russia which is direly needed as an ally in the region.
So no, Clinton has no plan but only a deep rooted inability to understand the region, IS and the conflict.
Putting Clinton in power would be the same massive mistake and global loss that Obama is.
But quite frankly, Trump is even worse.
Interesting perspective, but it sounds like you didn't actually hear the speech and follow-up.
2
We're really going to go with a plan to replay all the mistakes in Iraq that bred Isis in the first place? Another Sunni uprising - because that divisive picking a winner worked out so well in the end? We have to stop thinking that capitalizing on tribalism will win us some friends and buy us influence in the Middle East.
2
Topple Assad, check.
Topple ISIS, check.
Antagonize Russia, check.
Infuriate Sunnis, check.
Establish rational nation states across Middle East, check.
Easy-peasy.
Topple ISIS, check.
Antagonize Russia, check.
Infuriate Sunnis, check.
Establish rational nation states across Middle East, check.
Easy-peasy.
2
The Republicans have no one who can match Hillary Clinton's acumen in foreign affairs -- experience and intelligence matters.
David Brooks is pro American security: what's wrong with that? Other Republicans should also see it that way. Why bother considering GOP candidates who have no experience in Government?
The GOP is a collection of preachers, salesmen and debaters who are subject to the rhetoric of their advisors for real thinking.
David Brooks is pro American security: what's wrong with that? Other Republicans should also see it that way. Why bother considering GOP candidates who have no experience in Government?
The GOP is a collection of preachers, salesmen and debaters who are subject to the rhetoric of their advisors for real thinking.
3
The problem at hand is Wahhabism/Salafism, that other great dirty Saudi Arabian and Middle Eastern export which is funded by Middle eastern oil.
There is an Islamic cult of death flourishing throughout the failed Middle East, all of it religious in nature.
But we shouldn't be so surprised, because all religion at its core peddles a fear of death to prospective infantile recruits.
The main selling point of religion is that it is a guaranteed entrance ticket to 'heaven'.
But the price of admission to religion is belief in the unbelievable, submission to the supernatural, and turning off reality in deference to fantasy.
So we shouldn't be surprised that religion effectively short-circuits the brain and obviously causes brain damage that causes ISIS soldiers to become psychotic, irrational and murderous.
What do people expect when irrationality is forcefed to the human brain ?
ISIS is a religious phenomenon gone wild.
But all religion is irrationality gone wild.
Religion has been civilization's intellectual bowling ball for millennia.
Part of the strategy of beating ISIS must be to discredit the insidious effects of religion on the brain.
Islam and the Middle East still seem comfortable in the 8th century.
Maybe the best ISIS strategy is to pick up the alternative energy balls of natural gas, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, geothermal and tell our good Middle Eastern Wahhabist/Salafist friends to drink all their oil that funds their global cult of Islamic death.
There is an Islamic cult of death flourishing throughout the failed Middle East, all of it religious in nature.
But we shouldn't be so surprised, because all religion at its core peddles a fear of death to prospective infantile recruits.
The main selling point of religion is that it is a guaranteed entrance ticket to 'heaven'.
But the price of admission to religion is belief in the unbelievable, submission to the supernatural, and turning off reality in deference to fantasy.
So we shouldn't be surprised that religion effectively short-circuits the brain and obviously causes brain damage that causes ISIS soldiers to become psychotic, irrational and murderous.
What do people expect when irrationality is forcefed to the human brain ?
ISIS is a religious phenomenon gone wild.
But all religion is irrationality gone wild.
Religion has been civilization's intellectual bowling ball for millennia.
Part of the strategy of beating ISIS must be to discredit the insidious effects of religion on the brain.
Islam and the Middle East still seem comfortable in the 8th century.
Maybe the best ISIS strategy is to pick up the alternative energy balls of natural gas, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, geothermal and tell our good Middle Eastern Wahhabist/Salafist friends to drink all their oil that funds their global cult of Islamic death.
69
The next question is "Who or what would replace Assad's dictatorship". Develop that outcome before toppling Assad.
4
Here's my plan: we distance ourselves from Arabs, we encourage Arabs who feel a need to leave their homelands to go to Saudi, Oman, Emirates and other Gulf states while the Syrians can migrate to Russia and hang with their old buddies and sponsors. Leave the rest of us alone.
5
She's the only one, on either side, who knows anything.
5
Mr Brooks seems to have discovered that it might be useful to have our next president be someone with proven capability in the international arena, rather than some wet-behind-the-ears Republican neophyte pol who is all bluster, like Mr Rubio or Mr Cruz. Bravo.
4
Mr. Brooks, congrats to you. You are the only one writing for the Times that has offered some answers on this ISIS " thing". I continually refer to it as a "thing" given the lack of urgency screaming from your colleagues, thank you.
1
I think it is time to have a frank talk about religion, the ages, those who have profited, and at whose expense. All religions!
2
"Candidate Clinton laid out a supple and sophisticated approach. The next president will have to provide the action."
***********
At least Candidate Clinton has a good grasp of what is happening, what can happen, and what might and/or should happen involving a multi-complex situation involving not just ISIS, Assad and Russia, but every single nation involved.
So far, we have heard very little if anything from the Republican candidates that even remotely gives anyone the assurance they have any concept of what the next president will face and how complicated and convoluted everything is going to be for the foreseeable future. They do offer platitudes and jingoistic comments, expecting voters to be appeased and, unfortunately, many are..
***********
At least Candidate Clinton has a good grasp of what is happening, what can happen, and what might and/or should happen involving a multi-complex situation involving not just ISIS, Assad and Russia, but every single nation involved.
So far, we have heard very little if anything from the Republican candidates that even remotely gives anyone the assurance they have any concept of what the next president will face and how complicated and convoluted everything is going to be for the foreseeable future. They do offer platitudes and jingoistic comments, expecting voters to be appeased and, unfortunately, many are..
1
War. Every Republican loves it, and as Hillary inches closer, she gets a Republican endorsement!! But, Assad's departure isn't about Syria or the Syria people, it's about Israel and the west's demand that Assad play ball which means, kowtowing to American and Israeli interests. But I'm so tired of the war mongering that I'll stop protesting war when I see Republican leaders with sons and daughters in harm's way, instead of ensconced in ivy league schools with summer jobs planning soirees. And by the way, when Hillary Clinton's daughter is serving in the infantry, I'll take Clinton seriously.
Feel the Bern. Clinton is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Feel the Bern. Clinton is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
4
This was a thoughtful and articulate piece which could be written only because a single of all Presidential candidates presented a developed strategy for addressing the ISIS issue. It's hard to write such a piece when the only strategy, as it is from almost all the other candidates, is "get tough." That is usually a prescription for the deaths and/or maiming of American soldiers. Which is why I say, no action until we restore the draft. The American public will then have some sense knocked into it when their own children and grandchildren become fodder for "getting tough."
99
In a land that has been spreading the gospel of follow the money how come the road never leads to Riyadh?
I remember the 1970s terrorist attacks we called the oil embargo and how we capitulated by electing the great coward and communicator. Back then the terror originated in Dallas, Houston and the Arab Gulf. We responded by isolating Iran.
Pogo was correct.
I remember the 1970s terrorist attacks we called the oil embargo and how we capitulated by electing the great coward and communicator. Back then the terror originated in Dallas, Houston and the Arab Gulf. We responded by isolating Iran.
Pogo was correct.
3
There is much to like and to dislike in this article. For me, the most important is that conservative intellectuals are beginning to realize how scary the GOP base has become.
13
You mean she's will do better than she did with Libya and Iraq?
With respect to the butchery of Assad, sorry, but it cannot be worse than the butchery of ISIS, which includes the holocaust against the Yazdis and the enslavement of Christians.
Once again, the New York Times "conservative" columnist sings the praises of a very flawed Hillary Clinton.
With respect to the butchery of Assad, sorry, but it cannot be worse than the butchery of ISIS, which includes the holocaust against the Yazdis and the enslavement of Christians.
Once again, the New York Times "conservative" columnist sings the praises of a very flawed Hillary Clinton.
1
Candidate Clinton, Mr. Brooks, has proposed that we slide down an extremely slippery slope - supporting one ethnic faction we still don't fully understand over another. There can be no doubt that her "plan" will lead to further instability and chaos in the region.
2
Whether you support Hillary Clinton or not, is there even one Republican candidate who is capable of presenting a similar coherent understanding of the Middle East quagmire or offering a comprehensive strategy to deal with it? On the topic of the Middle East, every Republican simplistically blathers, "we must get tough!" But, keep in mind America, many people who vote in elections respond very favorably to Republican blathering.
160
Assad has to go. He's the biggest impediment to peace as he's the only thing that unites the opposition and they won't negotiate with him. But Sec. Clinton also said that she doesn't want to destroy Assad's military and political structure. She wants to keep that in place to be part of a settlement for power sharing with the majority Sunnis. This represents something I hope we all learned from the dismantlement Saddam Hussein's military and civilian infrastructure. Since that led directly to that country's disintegration.
39
Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. But what a short memory you have, "Grandma!"
Hillary's assumption that by destroying ISIS in Syria we can prevent another terrorist slaughter of innocents like ocurred in Paris, is false.The would-be Jihadi's are embedded in Europe or will be, their alienation is real, and the feeling of empowerment and purpose produced in disaffected young Muslin males, by committing acts of terror,is unmatched.These despicable acts will continue regardless of what happens to ISIS in Syria.The issues in Syria are Geo-Political and involve the major powers.The issues in the Paris massacre are individual and idealogical. The two should not be conflated.
I
I
1
"There has to be a Sunni Awakening against ISIS in 2016, like the Sunni Awakening that toppled Al Qaeda in Iraq starting in 2007." The Sunni Awakening, which could have been more accurately the Sunni Payoff as it hinged entirely on cash payments....which when they ended resulted in ISIS.
"Some Republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia"really? Name ONE who has not tainted him/herself.
"Lord knows what sort of biological or other weapons the group can get its hands on." says Mr. Brooks, strangely unwilling to be the last Republican to taint himself by throwing a little terror on the terrorist fire.
What Hillary and David overlook is the essential factor that unites Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram: Sunni Wahhabi Salafist indoctrination and funding of their schools and Mosques by Gulf monarchs. Until the money flowing to these schools and mosques ends, until all banking relationships are severed, until individuals and organizations are arrested for providing material support to the enemy, we will find ourselves fighting these terrorists and the next iteration of a Salafist cult. Americans are starting to recognize a pattern of behavior that demonstrates tolerance of allies who betray us, and for military policies that perpetuate wars that benefit the oil and the defense industry.
Hillary's distinction from Obama can loose the election if it goes too far. Democrats ran away from Obama on the propaganda line that he was unpopular and they lost the Senate.
"Some Republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia"really? Name ONE who has not tainted him/herself.
"Lord knows what sort of biological or other weapons the group can get its hands on." says Mr. Brooks, strangely unwilling to be the last Republican to taint himself by throwing a little terror on the terrorist fire.
What Hillary and David overlook is the essential factor that unites Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram: Sunni Wahhabi Salafist indoctrination and funding of their schools and Mosques by Gulf monarchs. Until the money flowing to these schools and mosques ends, until all banking relationships are severed, until individuals and organizations are arrested for providing material support to the enemy, we will find ourselves fighting these terrorists and the next iteration of a Salafist cult. Americans are starting to recognize a pattern of behavior that demonstrates tolerance of allies who betray us, and for military policies that perpetuate wars that benefit the oil and the defense industry.
Hillary's distinction from Obama can loose the election if it goes too far. Democrats ran away from Obama on the propaganda line that he was unpopular and they lost the Senate.
4
Some of the readers seem shocked that Mr. Brooks is praising Hillary, but why should they be shocked?
Hillary is basically a neocon in Democrat clothing. This week she also started tacking to the right on progressive domestic issues now that she thinks she has neutralized Bernie.
Let's not forget that her husband, Bill, was the originator of triangulation and allowed the right to implement their ideas, from repealing Glass Steagall to allowing the incarceration of blacks in massive numbers.
And, let's not forget that she voted to invade Iraq, which David Brooks somehow manages to forget in his analysis of what led to the formation of Isis.
At least she seems more informed about the players in this horrible mess, created through our policies from arming Bin Laden under Reagan to invading Iraq to toppling Sadaam and leaving a vacuum to be filled, but to what end?
The one small, and mind you it's very small consolation, is that her Supreme Court nominees will not be as terrible as a Scalia, Thomas or Alito.
The military industrial complex must be breathing a sigh of relief.
Hillary is basically a neocon in Democrat clothing. This week she also started tacking to the right on progressive domestic issues now that she thinks she has neutralized Bernie.
Let's not forget that her husband, Bill, was the originator of triangulation and allowed the right to implement their ideas, from repealing Glass Steagall to allowing the incarceration of blacks in massive numbers.
And, let's not forget that she voted to invade Iraq, which David Brooks somehow manages to forget in his analysis of what led to the formation of Isis.
At least she seems more informed about the players in this horrible mess, created through our policies from arming Bin Laden under Reagan to invading Iraq to toppling Sadaam and leaving a vacuum to be filled, but to what end?
The one small, and mind you it's very small consolation, is that her Supreme Court nominees will not be as terrible as a Scalia, Thomas or Alito.
The military industrial complex must be breathing a sigh of relief.
5
Historically "No Fly Zones" have worked well in managing conflicts in the Middle East. No fly zones accompanied by substantive and strategic diplomacy will saves lives while providing meaningful a foundation to rebuild peace in the region.
Thank you David for your mindful and inclusive articulations on this matter from both a political and logical perspective.
Thank you David for your mindful and inclusive articulations on this matter from both a political and logical perspective.
1
Hiliary Clinton is a war monger. She is very connected to the problems in Syria. She doesn't have any room to talk in my opinion. We have funneled weapons to Syria to appease the Saudi's and also to squeeze out their only remaining ally of Russia. But mostly it is was originally about control of the distribution of oil and gas. Today, Iran and Russia support Assad, and with what HIliary Clinton proposes with a no fly zone, we would be asking for a giant confrontation with the Russians. She has no sense at all. The truth is, we needn't be in Syria at all. Turkey is allowing weapons to go to both sides in the conflict I understand. The people that want Clinton to "take on" ISIS are looking for profits made in war. Shame on David Brooks. Shame on the NYTimes for not calling a spade a spade. If we had left Iraq alone, little of this woud have transpired. If the NYTimes had had any courage after 9/11 and told the truth then, which was well known and reported by Democracy Now, we would not have killed hundreds of thousands of people including our own soldiers and would be trillions of dollars less in debt. Meanwhile, while the media blames encryption and Snowden for Paris, gobs of money spent by the NSA, CIA, etc, failed to stop ever any terrorist attack. It's almost as if it was better for the war business to have the attacks. Pope Francis is right…wars make lots of money.
5
More proof that Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE to be our next President of the United States of America. Republicans are trying to make America a more dangerous place with their messages of hate, anger, fear, racism and attacks on Muslims and the vast majority of us are fed up with it. They do not represent the America WE want to live in or present to the world. It is good news that President Putin has aligned with France to take on the terrorists is Syria and he also has plenty of problems with them in his own country. The whole world has to stand up and say NO to mentally deranged terrorists who would destroy the world with their archaic religious philosophy. And that goes for the Koch brothers/ ALEC radical christian philosophy, too, here at home and around the world.
29
I wonder if a person or persons will ever emerge who will begin a discussion between these bitter enemies, Sunnis and Chia's. The area will be forever in turmoil unless these two splinters of Islam discuss ways to merge, to stop fighting what is essentially a claim to legitimacy and has become an infinite source of wars. Moreover, it also has offered a cover to ambitious men and has given legitimacy to dictators. I have the hope that in the future the Muslims who live in the US may start this debate and come to create a "Reformed" Islam group. One that throws out savage practices and promotes not only tolerance but also unity.
5
We clearly see the reality of Hillary by who likes and does not like her so-specific policy proposals for more war. Brooks likes it.
Brooks likes "as Clinton said, throughout the Arab world, to revitalize nations." He says it is not nation building, only building the institutions of those countries.
Hey, that is what "nation building" is, re-building the institutions of the countries. The only thing he has changed is the name he uses for it.
Brooks likes the idea of a larger war in Syria, not just ISIS but Assad too at the same time, and Russia and Iran too for supporting him.
Well I don't like the idea of yet another larger war in the Middle East. More and bigger wars won't kill our way out of the problems made by the last wars, they'll just make it all worse.
Hillary is a hawk, of the old school of Cold Warriors that produced the neocons. She is war and more war. And she panders to big money to get those wars.
She is a Republican. If she runs our choices will all be Republicans. They win, even before the election. "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Brooks likes "as Clinton said, throughout the Arab world, to revitalize nations." He says it is not nation building, only building the institutions of those countries.
Hey, that is what "nation building" is, re-building the institutions of the countries. The only thing he has changed is the name he uses for it.
Brooks likes the idea of a larger war in Syria, not just ISIS but Assad too at the same time, and Russia and Iran too for supporting him.
Well I don't like the idea of yet another larger war in the Middle East. More and bigger wars won't kill our way out of the problems made by the last wars, they'll just make it all worse.
Hillary is a hawk, of the old school of Cold Warriors that produced the neocons. She is war and more war. And she panders to big money to get those wars.
She is a Republican. If she runs our choices will all be Republicans. They win, even before the election. "Heads I win, tails you lose."
20
David Brooks is a fantacist--he wants a two or three front war that America cannot possibly win.
2
From what I can see, Ms Clinton's plan for dealing with ISIS is that same as that presently being followed with little result. It is also fatuous to set US policy as being that Assad has to be removed and we will therefore not ally with Russia. Since Russia seems pretty determined to keep him in power, this is simply a recipe for either stalemate or conflict with Russia.
Rather than dismissing Russia's interests and assistance out of hand, wouldn't we be better advised to see how much they are locked into Assad the person, as opposed to the Baathist regime in general? Since their major aim is to preserve their influence and bases, would their interests be better served by a secure Baathist regime than by continued conflict to prop up Assad specifically?
We should approach them with a grand bargain. They retire Assad, in return for which we use our influence to fold the rebels into the Baathist regime, whose legitimacy we recognize. Then we, NATO, the Saudis, Turks, and Jordanians eliminate ISIS in conjunction with the Russians. At the end of which the Sunni powers help establish security on behalf of the regime while we withdraw, leaving Russian influence in place. ISIS is eliminated, the Sunni powers get Assad's ouster and protection for Sunni populations, Russia's influence in the area is more secure than it is now for less effort, and we create a Sunni buffer between Iran and the Mediterranean.
We have to work with the Russians to bring peace to Syria.
Rather than dismissing Russia's interests and assistance out of hand, wouldn't we be better advised to see how much they are locked into Assad the person, as opposed to the Baathist regime in general? Since their major aim is to preserve their influence and bases, would their interests be better served by a secure Baathist regime than by continued conflict to prop up Assad specifically?
We should approach them with a grand bargain. They retire Assad, in return for which we use our influence to fold the rebels into the Baathist regime, whose legitimacy we recognize. Then we, NATO, the Saudis, Turks, and Jordanians eliminate ISIS in conjunction with the Russians. At the end of which the Sunni powers help establish security on behalf of the regime while we withdraw, leaving Russian influence in place. ISIS is eliminated, the Sunni powers get Assad's ouster and protection for Sunni populations, Russia's influence in the area is more secure than it is now for less effort, and we create a Sunni buffer between Iran and the Mediterranean.
We have to work with the Russians to bring peace to Syria.
9
"Since their major aim is to preserve their influence and bases"
That is not their aim. They put no money behind it when they could. The base is neglected. The "influcence" has never been pushed apart from this.
Their aim is what Putin has said it is, the insurgents of all flavors who could turn on Russia in the near future. Perhaps that is part of the reason the US supports them, because it sure isn't working in Syria for Syrians.
That is not their aim. They put no money behind it when they could. The base is neglected. The "influcence" has never been pushed apart from this.
Their aim is what Putin has said it is, the insurgents of all flavors who could turn on Russia in the near future. Perhaps that is part of the reason the US supports them, because it sure isn't working in Syria for Syrians.
We protected the Kurds from Saddam for years with an absolute no-fly zone. Assad is the same sort of dictator, trying to cling to power so his minority sect, the Alawites, will survive what would no doubt be a bloody retribution. So use our air-power, which should be overwhelming, to enforce a large no-fly zone including Aleppo and as much of Northern Syria as can be wrested from ISIS, Set up several million housing units or tents to take pressure off Jordan and Lebanon, and allow Syrian refugees to stay in Syria, even if there are no jobs. A well-run refugee "nation" provides schooling, has some farming, bazaars, bartering, and recreation. This will be expensive for the West, but nothing like the cost of clamping down on terrorism, resettling millions of refugees in Europe, and patrolling the coastlines to stop human smuggling. Not to mention taking pressure off the good guys in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey so we don't add more failed states to the Mid-East disaster. There is already a few tent cities in the desert in Jordan where hundreds of thousands of refugees live, administered by the UN and paid for largely by the USA. Why not scale this up, keep Syrians in Syria, and give them a safe place to wait for a eventual end to Assad and ISIS?
1
To david gilvarg:
The problem is that we are not talking about enforcing a no-fly zone against Assad, we are enforcing it against Russia when it sees its interests as directly affected such that it has deployed significant air power to the region, Which it is mostly using to bomb those we would seek to protect. At some point this will lead to conflict. And meanwhile we are doing absolutely nothing to destroy ISIS.
Maybe the Russians aren't interested in a deal. At which time we would have to revisit the idea. But doesn't it make sense to see if we can find common ground to end the conflict and not just ameliorate it by securing more refugee centers within Syria?
The problem is that we are not talking about enforcing a no-fly zone against Assad, we are enforcing it against Russia when it sees its interests as directly affected such that it has deployed significant air power to the region, Which it is mostly using to bomb those we would seek to protect. At some point this will lead to conflict. And meanwhile we are doing absolutely nothing to destroy ISIS.
Maybe the Russians aren't interested in a deal. At which time we would have to revisit the idea. But doesn't it make sense to see if we can find common ground to end the conflict and not just ameliorate it by securing more refugee centers within Syria?
1
David, I spend my days helping young bankers construct pitch books that propose mergers and acquisitions. As part of these books, they often include bios of potential CEOs and Boards of Directors.
David, if Assad is removed, who are the candidates to be CEO of Syria? Who will be on its Board of Directors?
It strikes me that before we start pushing for regime change in Syria, we produce credible intelligence that the next gal or guy will actually be an improvement - and have the political capital to do what is necessary to stabilize the country.
We failed to ascertain this in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt - and ended up with situations not to our liking. What makes anyone think that the result of regime change in Syria will any different?
The simple truth is that United States lacks both the requisite intelligence and leverage to guarantee a success transition from the Assad regime - and anyone pretending otherwise is making stuff up, including Hillary.
David, I'm not opposed to a United States role in stabilizing either Syria or the region, but the fact remains that the people on the ground have to want that to happen - and there are powerful people in the Muslim world who have yet to buy in, like our alleged allies in Saudi Arabia.
Islam is desperately in need of Reformation - and right now we have alleged allies in Saudi Arabia instead actively promoting and funding Counter-Reformation. Fix that and you have a chance to eventually fix everything.
David, if Assad is removed, who are the candidates to be CEO of Syria? Who will be on its Board of Directors?
It strikes me that before we start pushing for regime change in Syria, we produce credible intelligence that the next gal or guy will actually be an improvement - and have the political capital to do what is necessary to stabilize the country.
We failed to ascertain this in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt - and ended up with situations not to our liking. What makes anyone think that the result of regime change in Syria will any different?
The simple truth is that United States lacks both the requisite intelligence and leverage to guarantee a success transition from the Assad regime - and anyone pretending otherwise is making stuff up, including Hillary.
David, I'm not opposed to a United States role in stabilizing either Syria or the region, but the fact remains that the people on the ground have to want that to happen - and there are powerful people in the Muslim world who have yet to buy in, like our alleged allies in Saudi Arabia.
Islam is desperately in need of Reformation - and right now we have alleged allies in Saudi Arabia instead actively promoting and funding Counter-Reformation. Fix that and you have a chance to eventually fix everything.
125
"It strikes me that before we start pushing for regime change in Syria, we produce credible intelligence that the next gal or guy will actually be an improvement"
True, but it isn't "before" anymore. We are four years in to the bloody destruction of a country, with almost its whole population on the move and half of that refugees now or soon.
What have we done? Why? Really, why did we do this, the real reasons? It certainly hasn't "saved Syrians."
True, but it isn't "before" anymore. We are four years in to the bloody destruction of a country, with almost its whole population on the move and half of that refugees now or soon.
What have we done? Why? Really, why did we do this, the real reasons? It certainly hasn't "saved Syrians."
6
The analogy is apt - but for a different reason. As with mergers, there is a big cash out initially, but little evidence to show long term equity build. The benefit of scale and synergies on paper are often overtaken by complexity, redundancies, and cultural misalignment in reality.
Unless there is structural change to the organizing principles of the State, it does not really matter who the figure head may be. Tribalism and theology are not stable organizing principles of a State, rather, representative participatory political institutions are. Not talking about Jeffersonian democracy, but rather a functional sovereignty. Get that wrong and it does not matter who the CEO or President it.
Clinton is a new democrat on social and domestic issues (not really a progressive) and a fairly interventional neocon in foreign policy.
It may well be that we should be realpolitikers with Assad and Putin now and longer term incremental neoconers for the long haul. More Kirkpatrick, less Wolfowitz.
Unless there is structural change to the organizing principles of the State, it does not really matter who the figure head may be. Tribalism and theology are not stable organizing principles of a State, rather, representative participatory political institutions are. Not talking about Jeffersonian democracy, but rather a functional sovereignty. Get that wrong and it does not matter who the CEO or President it.
Clinton is a new democrat on social and domestic issues (not really a progressive) and a fairly interventional neocon in foreign policy.
It may well be that we should be realpolitikers with Assad and Putin now and longer term incremental neoconers for the long haul. More Kirkpatrick, less Wolfowitz.
1
It is clear that the US is driven by dead enders of the Cold War and the Israel Lobby. Neocons and Neolibs converge nicely on these two issues. Hence, Brooks and Clinton in total agreement.
2
HRC envisioning a grand strategy is fine and shows a command of foreign affairs that we should expect from a former Secretary of State. For the near term, we should really focus all our effort and capability on ISIS, which presents a clear and present danger to America and the West. Once ISIS is largely destroyed (terrorist organizations are similar criminal organizations, they will never completely be eradicated, others will always fill the vacuum), then whomever is the President can shift focus on the next greatest threat. This seems eerily similar to the situation we faced in 2001. Afghanistan, led by the Taliban and harboring al Qaed, was the clear threat, but we got distracted by the WMD theory (which was a widely held belief at the time) and pushed into Iraq. If we can learn anything from the last decade, we should pursue limited goals (which does not mean limiting capability): destroy ISIS wherever they raise their flag.
17
Pushed into Iraq?????
1
Wow.
Mr Brooks has identified the person as most able to deal with ISIS as being the one who (coincidentally) was the Secretary of State during the rise of ISIS. The person who was asleep at the switch is now deemed by him to be the person to whom the switch should be given.
Woe.
Mr Brooks has identified the person as most able to deal with ISIS as being the one who (coincidentally) was the Secretary of State during the rise of ISIS. The person who was asleep at the switch is now deemed by him to be the person to whom the switch should be given.
Woe.
27
She wasn't asleep at that switch. She kept trying to flip that switch to "WAR" again and again, more and more. Obama wouldn't let her, at least not always. Now she wants a big red button too, and it doesn't say "reset."
6
@Alex—That's a rather simplistic analysis. Clinton was indeed SOS but not President. The SOS ultimately executes the presidents foreign policy strategy and doesn't create foreign policy. And in fact, we know that Clinton did press for a more agressive stance towards fighting Isis that was rejected by the president.
1
How refreshing that Obama is no longer the world's deadliest villain. It's Hillary.
1
Experience and thoughtfulness matter. She'd be better at governing than campaigning. Now if she would only appoint Mike Bloomberg as Prime Minister...
6
I really can not see how the West can solve the problems of the middle east, I think no matter what we do, in the end it will just have to run its course. That said at least Hillary has a plan, I do not think many in the GOP world even know where the middle east is. I could sleep at night with her in charge.
39
I once sent Hillary a part of an old Irish piece of schmaltz, a song with the following verse:
The strangers came and tried to teach us their way
And scorned us too for being what we are
But they might as well try and catch a moonbeam
Or light a penny candle from a star.
Of course, the strangers in Ireland and the Middle East weren't there primarily to teach. They were there for resources and wealth.
The strangers came and tried to teach us their way
And scorned us too for being what we are
But they might as well try and catch a moonbeam
Or light a penny candle from a star.
Of course, the strangers in Ireland and the Middle East weren't there primarily to teach. They were there for resources and wealth.
See and I could sleep nights knowing that when the 3am calls came, she refused them.
That David Brooks effectively endorses Hillary Clinton speaks volumes for how genuinely unstable and unqualified the 2016 GOP candidates are. Hats off for acknowledging that the country needs better than your Party is offering, and that our collective future should be guided by adults rather than tantrum-driven children.
172
Actually, it speaks volumes for how much Hillary is a Republican in sheep's clothing.
They're both a disaster. We have a broken record when it comes to the Middle East- regime change, no fly zones. Enough already.
Mr Brooks seems to think that using U.S. military forces in the Middle East will make things better. History tells us that while we can make a temporary difference in the region. Republicans like to talk about how effective 'The Surge' was in Iraq, but let's face it, as soon as our troop levels where reduced the problems returned. Not only that, but as we 'solved' the problems in Iraq, terrorists popped up in other places - Yemen.
Using military force in the Middle East to 'fix things' would require close to 1 million U.S. troop engaged across the entire Middle East for at least a generation to keep the entire area under control. Anything less that that is just some politician trying to satisfy the public's desire that we do something. Honestly, 1 million troops in the Middle East is not something that the U.S. is going to do, so we should stop with the halfhearted attempts.
Using military force in the Middle East to 'fix things' would require close to 1 million U.S. troop engaged across the entire Middle East for at least a generation to keep the entire area under control. Anything less that that is just some politician trying to satisfy the public's desire that we do something. Honestly, 1 million troops in the Middle East is not something that the U.S. is going to do, so we should stop with the halfhearted attempts.
12
My Islamic terrorist plan to increase confrontation between the West and Islam by the grace of God Allah:
1) Become as strategic as possible as to targets--target museums, religious institutions (Vatican). Go directly to heights of culture just as we went to height of America's pride, skyscraper twin towers.
2) The West politically seems incapable of falling just yet to enough right wing action to drive apocalyptic confrontation between the West and Islam, but all political proposals such as the recent left wing one by Hillary Clinton assume not only will the West not have to become more right wing and confrontational but that the Islamic world can be changed. Even worse for the infidels: THEY ASSUME THEY HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD.
3) Time is on our side. No reform of Islam to the West's desires will outrun terrorist attack after terrorist attack--each attack becoming increasingly strategically sophisticated. We do not need to kill a large number of people--we just need to bring down the Sistine Chapel, destroy the Mona Lisa, drop the Eiffel Tower.
4) Certainly it appears to be even if we cannot provoke Apocalyptic confrontation between the West and Islam we can provoke right wing reaction to the point of bringing down left wings in the West, provoke need for surveillance state in the West, have our fellow Muslims in the West driven home to our world here on the sands and before God, and a great barrier set up between Islam and the West In the name of God Allah.
1) Become as strategic as possible as to targets--target museums, religious institutions (Vatican). Go directly to heights of culture just as we went to height of America's pride, skyscraper twin towers.
2) The West politically seems incapable of falling just yet to enough right wing action to drive apocalyptic confrontation between the West and Islam, but all political proposals such as the recent left wing one by Hillary Clinton assume not only will the West not have to become more right wing and confrontational but that the Islamic world can be changed. Even worse for the infidels: THEY ASSUME THEY HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD.
3) Time is on our side. No reform of Islam to the West's desires will outrun terrorist attack after terrorist attack--each attack becoming increasingly strategically sophisticated. We do not need to kill a large number of people--we just need to bring down the Sistine Chapel, destroy the Mona Lisa, drop the Eiffel Tower.
4) Certainly it appears to be even if we cannot provoke Apocalyptic confrontation between the West and Islam we can provoke right wing reaction to the point of bringing down left wings in the West, provoke need for surveillance state in the West, have our fellow Muslims in the West driven home to our world here on the sands and before God, and a great barrier set up between Islam and the West In the name of God Allah.
1
Dream on, my friend, dream on. Delusion is what Islam thrives on...
"The grand strategy of American policy in the Middle East, therefore, should be to do what we can to revive and reform Arab nations, to help them become functioning governing units."
By all means, let's preserve the Sykes-Picot status quo, which was designed to create weak, fractured states only governable by strongmen who could be co-opted by western commercial interests.
Some foreign policy experts see a reconfigured Syria and Iraq, along Alewite, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite lines, as more stable and governable.
And others believe, beyond any shred of evidence, that Syria is governable in its current form. The minority Assad dynasty has managed to rule Syria only through terror. Imagine the reprisals against the minority Alewites if a Sunni government takes over. That would be exchanging one bloodbath for another.
By all means, let's preserve the Sykes-Picot status quo, which was designed to create weak, fractured states only governable by strongmen who could be co-opted by western commercial interests.
Some foreign policy experts see a reconfigured Syria and Iraq, along Alewite, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite lines, as more stable and governable.
And others believe, beyond any shred of evidence, that Syria is governable in its current form. The minority Assad dynasty has managed to rule Syria only through terror. Imagine the reprisals against the minority Alewites if a Sunni government takes over. That would be exchanging one bloodbath for another.
13
"Some foreign policy experts see a reconfigured Syria and Iraq, along Alewite, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite lines, as more stable and governable."
Those same "experts" also see a much larger Israel benefiting from breaking up the area by taking pieces for itself, Golan, a bigger Golan even, and Lebanon to the Litani River for the water. They also see expelling unwanted Arabs to the new creations outside the larger borders. THAT is a recipe for generations of war, which may be to them feature rather than flaw.
They also see a much smaller Turkey, deeply troubled and likely a military coup there, both things they see as features not flaws out of their hostility to Turkey.
There is a good reason why the post-colonial settlement kept the lousy borders: the process of re-drawing all the borders would be worse, a nightmare of wars.
Those same "experts" also see a much larger Israel benefiting from breaking up the area by taking pieces for itself, Golan, a bigger Golan even, and Lebanon to the Litani River for the water. They also see expelling unwanted Arabs to the new creations outside the larger borders. THAT is a recipe for generations of war, which may be to them feature rather than flaw.
They also see a much smaller Turkey, deeply troubled and likely a military coup there, both things they see as features not flaws out of their hostility to Turkey.
There is a good reason why the post-colonial settlement kept the lousy borders: the process of re-drawing all the borders would be worse, a nightmare of wars.
4
Nation states? Where do you get that? There was never anything there but tribal fiefdoms (some of them swollen to imperial dimensions) held together by brutal force and in constant conflict with each other. The only true nation state, with government by consent of the governed, that has EVER existed in the region is Israel.
Unless we're ready to apply the same level of tyranny that Hussein, Quaddafy, and the Ottomans were willing to use, we have no business sending a single American child into that region to fight a war with no clear purpose, no workable strategy, and no hope of success.
Unless we're ready to apply the same level of tyranny that Hussein, Quaddafy, and the Ottomans were willing to use, we have no business sending a single American child into that region to fight a war with no clear purpose, no workable strategy, and no hope of success.
22
You are forgetting Iran under Mossadegh in the 1950's. Evidently the U.S. and Great Britain didn't like having a nation state controlling their own resources and so we overthrew that government and installed a dictator who we could control. Also, it would now appear that Hussein's tyranny was preferable to the awful human tragedy we have inflicted on Iraq.
David, good analysis of the the secretary's speech.
But David what does the US do now? No critique about Obama's present policy which we will have to endure for the next 13 months.
But David what does the US do now? No critique about Obama's present policy which we will have to endure for the next 13 months.
2
The GOP looks really childish compared to Clinton.
77
Gee, not much different than Obama's strategy(?)
5
Saudi Arabia is not our friend.
But the interests of America as a whole are in conflict with the interests of the oligarchs.
It's 10 to 1 that the oligarchs led by HRC will get their way.
But the interests of America as a whole are in conflict with the interests of the oligarchs.
It's 10 to 1 that the oligarchs led by HRC will get their way.
22
Sadly, you are probably correct.
One has this image of Hillary, proudly attired in plate and athwart a sturdy steed borrowed from the shade of Jeanne D'Arc, arm extended with épée de chevalerie, blonde hair windblown, causing the Islamist jihadi to halt even as he’s about to cut off another head to add to a growing pile. Heady image.
Some were expecting that she would open up space between Mr. Obama’s positions and hers as soon as she secured the nomination, in order to counter perceptions of greater Republican toughness just as she’s moved left during the primary season to protect against being blindsided by anyone on HER left. But she’s started early. To me that’s very smart, and dangerous for Republicans.
Yet one view has it that Assad DID NOT create the power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill, but that we did that by exiting Iraq too soon, manipulating their government into kicking us out with unacceptable Status of Forces Agreement terms. And some suggest that Syria CAN be managed serially, first by containing then destroying ISIS, THEN dealing with Assad. Me, I’m not so sure Assad can be dealt with at a wearable cost given his ties to Russia. Perhaps it’s time to dicker with Russia and Assad on a Syrian confederation that isolates ISIS and introduces U.N. troops to buffer the parties to the confederation.
Hillary is offering good governance theatre at a time when House Republicans are insisting that Syrian refugees endure electron microscopy of the spaces between their teeth. Very smart indeed.
Some were expecting that she would open up space between Mr. Obama’s positions and hers as soon as she secured the nomination, in order to counter perceptions of greater Republican toughness just as she’s moved left during the primary season to protect against being blindsided by anyone on HER left. But she’s started early. To me that’s very smart, and dangerous for Republicans.
Yet one view has it that Assad DID NOT create the power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill, but that we did that by exiting Iraq too soon, manipulating their government into kicking us out with unacceptable Status of Forces Agreement terms. And some suggest that Syria CAN be managed serially, first by containing then destroying ISIS, THEN dealing with Assad. Me, I’m not so sure Assad can be dealt with at a wearable cost given his ties to Russia. Perhaps it’s time to dicker with Russia and Assad on a Syrian confederation that isolates ISIS and introduces U.N. troops to buffer the parties to the confederation.
Hillary is offering good governance theatre at a time when House Republicans are insisting that Syrian refugees endure electron microscopy of the spaces between their teeth. Very smart indeed.
13
While the Republican candidates propose anything from an iron border for the US to bombing the middle east back to the stone age, all aided and abetted by the fear mongering right and their petrified voters. As to Clinton, her nuanced approach goes right over the head of the public because it doesn't conveniently fit in a sound bite.
71
In just two sentences, Tom summed it all up perfectly.
1
My feelings for W. were always so negative, just one look and i wanted to throw up. With Hillary it is the same.
I believe in Bernie, but all in vain.
Our system in tatters, we have lost our way.
What Israel wants, is all that matters.
I believe in Bernie, but all in vain.
Our system in tatters, we have lost our way.
What Israel wants, is all that matters.
100
Oh please. If anything, it's what the oil companies want.
Now Israel is blamed for the rise of ISIS?
Will the anti-Israel prejudice never stop?!
Will the anti-Israel prejudice never stop?!
1
Breaking news, breaking news - It is now official, NYT columnist Mr. Brooks has left the GOP.
112
I think he is devastated no Republican candidate is able to propose a logical policy about anything. Hillary, 50 or so years ago, would have been considered a right-wing Republican, so she is the closest he can get to "traditional" conservative values.
More likely it's that Brooks has not changed, but the parties have. The radical and neocon Republicans are inept and unlikely candidates. Clinton still clings to the principles of the former centrist Republicans. If only she were not "owned" by the banksters.
1
Someone with half a brain would realize that the GOP has no solutions, except for knee jerk, blustery, reactionary band aids to serious and complicated problems.
3
Brooks understands that the Republican pretenders to the throne will offer nothing more than the usual neoconservative madness that led us into our present house of horrors.
Regime change sounds great in theory; in practice, not so much.
So Mubarak was overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in a fair contest. Whoops...then we did not stop General Sisi from taking over in coup. So much for democracy.
Then the fools in the Obama regime thought it would be a good idea to have democracy in Libya. Whoops, again.
Nothing need be added regarding Iraq and what happened 12 years ago. Big, big, whoops.
So, before we think about getting rid of Assad, and go through another farce with pictures of little old ladies in hijabs flashing purple thumbs, let's pause a minute or two and think this through, huh?
Regime change sounds great in theory; in practice, not so much.
So Mubarak was overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in a fair contest. Whoops...then we did not stop General Sisi from taking over in coup. So much for democracy.
Then the fools in the Obama regime thought it would be a good idea to have democracy in Libya. Whoops, again.
Nothing need be added regarding Iraq and what happened 12 years ago. Big, big, whoops.
So, before we think about getting rid of Assad, and go through another farce with pictures of little old ladies in hijabs flashing purple thumbs, let's pause a minute or two and think this through, huh?
81
The Muslim Brotherhood is actually Al Qaeda, and many from that terrorist group branched out into ISIS (or as President Obama likes to call them, ISIL).
1
There is pretty much only one country in the world that has been consistently opposed to Assad and Daesh from the start (and willing to back up words with actions) and that country is France. There was one country that was willing to intervene immediately in Mali to prevent Islamists from seizing control of the north of the country and that was France. It's getting a little lonely over here!
174
One caveat, I believe it is a former French colony. They have been quick to act in their former colonies/possessions. But I agree with what you say.
So the Republicans are xenophobes and rank outsiders, not grown-ups? I typically see this sort of name-calling on Facebook, not in columns by David Brooks.
8
seems like there's more than enough concrete evidence to support Brooks' claim here.
2
He's not happy about it, but he's working on evidence. Kasich is the only one of the bunch that shows any signs of having escaped the clutches of middle school, and even he has been swayed to take positions that even a 14-year-old would understand are silly.
2
Its not name calling, it observation.
3
She is such a liar. Why didn't she do any of this when she was Secretary of State? Why does her boss protect Muslims over Christians?
14
President Obama rescued thousands of Sinjar christians when they were close to being slaughtered in Syria. President Obama protects ALL our citizens equally: muslims, christians, jews, hindus, buddhists,1%-ers, 47%-ers, bankers, laborers, the unemployed.
America is (only in today's news cycle) becoming Christian-centric with the calls of the Republican leaders. How pathetic that their vision of the future is limited to today's soundbite.
there is little semblance of republican responsibility regarding the presentation of the truth as it is. Rather, throw out some vague rhetoric rather than offer some thoughtful insight.
The Obama presidency, which I consider greatly effective, has been one of constant slurs and disrespect by republicans. It is a testament to President Obama's enduring legacy that he endured it with grace, intelligence and dignity.
The republicans have attempted to hobble President Obama from (literally) day one with their avowed purpose of making him a one-term president. In the process, they held back the bigger opportunity of success and sullied it with personal attacks that had no merit.
President Obama has performed admirably as president - and I would happily have him serve again. We need intelligence and enlightened thought for leadership, not republicans who want to score a point with Faux News network.
Let's not forsake the very reasons of this country's existence to the barren calls of fear and prejudice by the republicans.
America is (only in today's news cycle) becoming Christian-centric with the calls of the Republican leaders. How pathetic that their vision of the future is limited to today's soundbite.
there is little semblance of republican responsibility regarding the presentation of the truth as it is. Rather, throw out some vague rhetoric rather than offer some thoughtful insight.
The Obama presidency, which I consider greatly effective, has been one of constant slurs and disrespect by republicans. It is a testament to President Obama's enduring legacy that he endured it with grace, intelligence and dignity.
The republicans have attempted to hobble President Obama from (literally) day one with their avowed purpose of making him a one-term president. In the process, they held back the bigger opportunity of success and sullied it with personal attacks that had no merit.
President Obama has performed admirably as president - and I would happily have him serve again. We need intelligence and enlightened thought for leadership, not republicans who want to score a point with Faux News network.
Let's not forsake the very reasons of this country's existence to the barren calls of fear and prejudice by the republicans.
5
Well, she did advocate for a more active role for us in Syria, but as Secretary of State she couldn't DO those things. That was up to her boss. But I doubt my saying this is going to have any effect on your thinking.
2
Yes..let's just go ahead and elect someone like Cruz to head our Christian theocracy and then openly have religious wars. We will have prayer warriors on our side. We could call our international efforts..hmmm..wait a minute..the Crusades!
3
Daesh moving to standard terrorism tactics and away from state building is a change born from a realization that their initial claimed goal and identity is a failure. Daesh's grandiose plans to build a new califate are being replaced by mundane, low complexity attacks on civilians outside of their claimed territory. We'll see how well that works out for them.
8
Instead of a war in the Middle East on ISIS, we should have a war in the United States on poverty.
Max Boot wants another war like the one we are still fighting in Afghanistan. That is insane.
ISIS is an evil, barbaric Islamic entity, but they have not attacked the United States. Instead of increasing our military footprint in the Middle East, we should completely withdraw all troops and stop providing aid to that region. Killing Muslims just makes all Muslims hate America more.
We should also put an end to all immigration of Muslims from the Middle East, and not take in any refugees from Syria. We should expel all foreign Muslim students, and ban all Muslim tourists from other countries.
Islam is a threat to the United States. Until it is reformed, we need to keep Muslims out of our country.
We also need to end all foreign aid to Islamic nations, especially Pakistan and Egypt. We should also step up pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop funding terrorism.
Max Boot wants another war like the one we are still fighting in Afghanistan. That is insane.
ISIS is an evil, barbaric Islamic entity, but they have not attacked the United States. Instead of increasing our military footprint in the Middle East, we should completely withdraw all troops and stop providing aid to that region. Killing Muslims just makes all Muslims hate America more.
We should also put an end to all immigration of Muslims from the Middle East, and not take in any refugees from Syria. We should expel all foreign Muslim students, and ban all Muslim tourists from other countries.
Islam is a threat to the United States. Until it is reformed, we need to keep Muslims out of our country.
We also need to end all foreign aid to Islamic nations, especially Pakistan and Egypt. We should also step up pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop funding terrorism.
6
The US is not under attack yet Islam is a threat? Explain.
1
I see, so you would prefer to wait for them to attack the United States. In the meantime they will get stronger and commit more acts of barbarism elsewhere in the world.
You forgot to mention breaking any ties to Saudi Arabia - the principal funders of these terrorist gangs. Since we no longer need their oil, there is really little reason to keep a relationship.
David Brooks has never seen a conflict in the Middle East that he does not endorse more war as the solution.
Always with Americans bleeding, dying and wasting trillions.
He is one more tough talking republican blowhard who has never been IN a war.
Never seen the butchery, never seen and smelled the incinerated corpses of women, children and old people, the Collateral Damage family.
Meanwhile, a son of his is serving in the military.
The Israeli Defence Force.
Always with Americans bleeding, dying and wasting trillions.
He is one more tough talking republican blowhard who has never been IN a war.
Never seen the butchery, never seen and smelled the incinerated corpses of women, children and old people, the Collateral Damage family.
Meanwhile, a son of his is serving in the military.
The Israeli Defence Force.
133
Don't ever let facts get in the way of opinion. Nice call.
So Craig, what do you conclude from your "analysis?" You've left it hanging. I've seen these points made before and no one has drawn a conclusion from them. The only one I can see is that neither father nor son are averse to the use of force. . . . . No kidding. What else is new?
1
Bonnie, violence is never the answer, history has taught us over and over again. And fighting for another country as an American dual citizen? Imagine if every "immigrant dual citizen" of the world did that, fight for their country of origin rather than their country of naturalization or birth ie USA?
3
Oh jeez - the omnipotent US will enter this fray and all will be well once the Middle East ingrates accept this omnipotence and aligns with the US plan. Dream on, David. What you are proposing is idealistic clap trap. The minds involved in the conflict are warped, deranged, brutal, and singularly opposed to any resolution that falls short of total victory of theirs and annialation of everyone else's.
The best bet for the US is a plan that isolates us from a conflict that has no immediate resolution and is likely to span decades - probably longer. Let's hear that plan from the very intelligent David Brooks.
The best bet for the US is a plan that isolates us from a conflict that has no immediate resolution and is likely to span decades - probably longer. Let's hear that plan from the very intelligent David Brooks.
74
Even if it does take decades or longer to resolve these issues, I'm mindful that the last two major threats to peace and security for free people, The Third Reich and the U.S.S.R., did not confine their ambitions to one area of the planet. Do we isolate and wait or do we try to lead the rational forces among
our friends and adversaries toward a way our?
our friends and adversaries toward a way our?
Tom, I would enjoy hearing about "a plan that isolates us from a conflict that has no immediate resolution and is likely to span decades..." How is it possible to isolate ourselves from ISIS and other extremist in today's world, especially when looking at the process used in Paris last week and in Mali today?
1
It's not surprising that DB might agree with HC here. After all, she is quite hawkish.
I hope that, in this election, folks remember what she said in 2008: If Iran would "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Her words, in a follow-up interview about the question. Never mind that Israel has its own nuclear arsenal. Never mind that if we or anyone launched enough weapons to "totally obliterate" an entire nation, it would kill millions of civilians, and render the entire region (if not the earth) uninhabitable.
Would most Americans actually want us to make such a nuclear strike? I can't believe that we would.
For sure, HC would be better than anyone running on the other side. But I hope the Democrats will let her know in a big way, that they do not support such extreme views.
I hope that, in this election, folks remember what she said in 2008: If Iran would "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Her words, in a follow-up interview about the question. Never mind that Israel has its own nuclear arsenal. Never mind that if we or anyone launched enough weapons to "totally obliterate" an entire nation, it would kill millions of civilians, and render the entire region (if not the earth) uninhabitable.
Would most Americans actually want us to make such a nuclear strike? I can't believe that we would.
For sure, HC would be better than anyone running on the other side. But I hope the Democrats will let her know in a big way, that they do not support such extreme views.
23
'Assad has to go' from a humanitarian relief worker on her return from a meeting in Africa to America. We can start beefing up the security at airports where a Middle Eastern man was shouting at the top of his lungs at her stop-over in London, and nary a security guard in sight.
'We are going to have to make some sacrifices', feeble and vague words on my part to a sibling in Monaco. Some of us in America are already having trouble putting food on the table for our young ones.
Perhaps we should 'overestimate' these sewers of global terrorism, and quietly reflect that Humanity is facing its darkest hour in contemporary history. We need the oration of a Charles Dickens to unite and bring back Patriotism.
Target the most vulnerable among us susceptible to walking into the jaws of this ruthless maw. 'Aslan' the great lion by C.S. Lewis and Harry Potter, all to the good, everything written is political. Educate children of all cultures and religions to basic core values. Teach our students some history and geography, and take a refresher course in the process.
This spreading Blob, this Cult cannot be contained and following in the foot-steps of the President and Hillary Clinton, while the Media to be more responsible. David has a measured 'Brookaresque' tone where he is authentic as he can be. It is a beginning.
'We are going to have to make some sacrifices', feeble and vague words on my part to a sibling in Monaco. Some of us in America are already having trouble putting food on the table for our young ones.
Perhaps we should 'overestimate' these sewers of global terrorism, and quietly reflect that Humanity is facing its darkest hour in contemporary history. We need the oration of a Charles Dickens to unite and bring back Patriotism.
Target the most vulnerable among us susceptible to walking into the jaws of this ruthless maw. 'Aslan' the great lion by C.S. Lewis and Harry Potter, all to the good, everything written is political. Educate children of all cultures and religions to basic core values. Teach our students some history and geography, and take a refresher course in the process.
This spreading Blob, this Cult cannot be contained and following in the foot-steps of the President and Hillary Clinton, while the Media to be more responsible. David has a measured 'Brookaresque' tone where he is authentic as he can be. It is a beginning.
An unusually thoughtful opinion piece from David Brooks. It looks like he is lamenting the fact that she is not the GOP candidate while the GOP is saddled with such a sorry lot for 2016. A number of commentaries from Bernie supporters feel the need to bash Hillary for too much bellicosity. That misses the point that at this time outlining a strategy for defeating ISIS is essential to counteract the chest puffing of the GOP candidates. I am a big fan of Bernie but not starry eyed. The only conceivable path for Bernie to the presidency in this country is for Trump to be the GOP candidate and Hillary supporters abandoning her in droves. Just not going to happen. Bernie has yet to confront the GOP swiift-boating which you can be sure will be ferocious. Most of the country is not ready for democratic socialism.
19
This is one of the best columns written on the subject by NYT columnists in general and by Mr. Brooks in particular. There are many points worth noting from the POV of domestic politics, i.e., presidential campaign, and foreign policy, i.e., Middle East dynamics, for the columnist to channel Sec. Clinton's nuanced approach
For one thing, you need a third dimensional president. Without reiterating Trump's hate baiting and Carlson's brainless worldview etc., there is no one else, whether one be Republican or Democrat, currently in the presidential campaign circus, really qualifies to deal with the dilemma. And for Jeb Bush's to repeat his brother's neocons approach is downright dangerous to the health of the civilized world
To put it in simple layman terms, you don't fight extremists with other extremists. President George H.W. Bush played that and ended up unleashing Desert Storm. At least he got good sense of pulling back from the abyss at the last minute. His son, with the usurpation of power by the neocons, was not so fortunate. The only way he could avoid being the worst president in the U.S. history would be one of the clowns in the GOP camp became the next president!
There are some good models in the Middle East though, like Jordan. Also, while the Saudi's Wahabi strategy is instrumental of leading to the current mess, the rise of the young technocats in that country is worth watching
Mrs. Clinton is offering up a pragmatic hard nose perspective showing her maturity
For one thing, you need a third dimensional president. Without reiterating Trump's hate baiting and Carlson's brainless worldview etc., there is no one else, whether one be Republican or Democrat, currently in the presidential campaign circus, really qualifies to deal with the dilemma. And for Jeb Bush's to repeat his brother's neocons approach is downright dangerous to the health of the civilized world
To put it in simple layman terms, you don't fight extremists with other extremists. President George H.W. Bush played that and ended up unleashing Desert Storm. At least he got good sense of pulling back from the abyss at the last minute. His son, with the usurpation of power by the neocons, was not so fortunate. The only way he could avoid being the worst president in the U.S. history would be one of the clowns in the GOP camp became the next president!
There are some good models in the Middle East though, like Jordan. Also, while the Saudi's Wahabi strategy is instrumental of leading to the current mess, the rise of the young technocats in that country is worth watching
Mrs. Clinton is offering up a pragmatic hard nose perspective showing her maturity
26
Reforming Arab nations begins with getting tough with existing rulers and elites who block reform, particularly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If we are not going to do this, we are headed for long-term failure and should consider withdrawal from the area to the extent possible.
9
Isis was not created by Assad or as a backflash of Assad. You don't get to lie about that Mr. Brooks.
Isis was a direct result of America's invasion of Iraq. The head of Isis is a man named Al Baghdadi, (meaning from Baghdad). He was in an American jail. He taught classes on Islam while in that jail, and came in contact with elements of the disbanded Iraq army - which was all Sunni under Saddam.
Your fellow Neocons had a theory: conquer Iraq and there would be a ripple effect of American style democracy through out the region.
Meanwhile Hosni Mubarek had a theory: depose Saddam and you give birth to 10,000 Al Qaida's.
Syria had a drought. That lead to massive instability. That lead to Assad's reaction. His reaction backfired in the midst of the Arab spring. Isis: a combination of Al Bagdadi's ideology and the Iraqi military came in from the east blind siding the various opposition groups.
At this point any new theory on something new in the middle east has little credibility, especially if it comes out of the mind of an American Neocon. Their ideas are worth less than dirt. Putin's embrace of Assad is simply pragmatic - strong men are the only thing that has been known to work. Your position for Syria looks a lot like the Neocon theory that lead us to war in Iraq.
Assad has never been a threat to the US, just to Syrians. Iran has no sleeper cells in the West. Saudi's sponsorship of Sunni Salafi madrassas has made Isis possible, and jihadist cells world wide.
Isis was a direct result of America's invasion of Iraq. The head of Isis is a man named Al Baghdadi, (meaning from Baghdad). He was in an American jail. He taught classes on Islam while in that jail, and came in contact with elements of the disbanded Iraq army - which was all Sunni under Saddam.
Your fellow Neocons had a theory: conquer Iraq and there would be a ripple effect of American style democracy through out the region.
Meanwhile Hosni Mubarek had a theory: depose Saddam and you give birth to 10,000 Al Qaida's.
Syria had a drought. That lead to massive instability. That lead to Assad's reaction. His reaction backfired in the midst of the Arab spring. Isis: a combination of Al Bagdadi's ideology and the Iraqi military came in from the east blind siding the various opposition groups.
At this point any new theory on something new in the middle east has little credibility, especially if it comes out of the mind of an American Neocon. Their ideas are worth less than dirt. Putin's embrace of Assad is simply pragmatic - strong men are the only thing that has been known to work. Your position for Syria looks a lot like the Neocon theory that lead us to war in Iraq.
Assad has never been a threat to the US, just to Syrians. Iran has no sleeper cells in the West. Saudi's sponsorship of Sunni Salafi madrassas has made Isis possible, and jihadist cells world wide.
418
And let's not forget that Hillary Clinton strongly supported that invasion.
If corporatism and corruption had not destroyed democracy in this country, Hillary Clinton would be running as the true Republican she is. Wall Street is for her, the generals are for her, the multinationals laundering money through her family foundation are for her, and David Brooks is for her.
And in a general election, Bernie Sanders (or any true liberal for that matter) would probably beat her. Because like Bernie says, we are sick and tired of getting screwed by a de facto oligarchy, which is only good at expelling people once it has extracted every last minute of underpaid labor from them. We're tired of being ground into human mulch before being tossed in the refuse dump of disposable people.
Many of us are too busy or tired to care that a multimillionaire politician has a smarter, wonkier plan for waging war and shedding blood. And if we actually are paying attention, we are thoroughly disgusted that this is what electoral politics has come to. We have no choice about whether we want war or not. We are only invited to pick which corrupt politician we'd prefer to do the killing (euphemized as surgical drone strikes and the like.)
Hillary Clinton, appearing before an elite think tank run by corporations, generals and bankers and the media shills who serve them, hilariously declared that the aftermath of the Paris attacks "is no time to be scoring political points." And then she cynically proceeded to score political points.
It's disgusting, and it's horrifying.
And in a general election, Bernie Sanders (or any true liberal for that matter) would probably beat her. Because like Bernie says, we are sick and tired of getting screwed by a de facto oligarchy, which is only good at expelling people once it has extracted every last minute of underpaid labor from them. We're tired of being ground into human mulch before being tossed in the refuse dump of disposable people.
Many of us are too busy or tired to care that a multimillionaire politician has a smarter, wonkier plan for waging war and shedding blood. And if we actually are paying attention, we are thoroughly disgusted that this is what electoral politics has come to. We have no choice about whether we want war or not. We are only invited to pick which corrupt politician we'd prefer to do the killing (euphemized as surgical drone strikes and the like.)
Hillary Clinton, appearing before an elite think tank run by corporations, generals and bankers and the media shills who serve them, hilariously declared that the aftermath of the Paris attacks "is no time to be scoring political points." And then she cynically proceeded to score political points.
It's disgusting, and it's horrifying.
283
"And in a general election, Bernie Sanders (or any true liberal for that matter) would probably beat her."
Perhaps in New Palz, but fortunately there is an entire USA out there. Bernie will never win the nomination let alone the general election. Try to get out more.
Perhaps in New Palz, but fortunately there is an entire USA out there. Bernie will never win the nomination let alone the general election. Try to get out more.
3
Karin Garcia, you are an influencer on these pages. Yes, support Bernie, but be very careful with your rhetoric against Hillary. She may well be the Dem nominee, and then what will you do, vote Repub or stay home? You may be encouraging others to do that with your harsh words. The difference between an administration led by Hillary and one led by any of the Repub candidates would be huge and terrifying. Remember the Supreme Court, and keep a lid on your hyperbole, which almost equals that of the other side.
5
Well, they maybe you would like to sign on to "make America Great Again" with Donald Trump because he is the real alternative. Oh and yesterday, he called for the government to "register" all muslims. Karen, you don't get to stand at the sideline wishing this was "Denmark" because it clearly isn't! I think if you fail to support Hilary you will be the enemy of all freedom we have left.
4
There has to be a Sunni Awakening against ISIS in 2016, like the Sunni Awakening that toppled Al Qaeda in Iraq starting in 2007. That will not happen while President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is spreading mayhem, terror and genocide. As long as they find themselves in the grips of a horrific civil war, even sensible Sunnis will feel that they need ISIS as a counterpoint to the butchery coming out of Damascus.
---------------------------------
Do you read your stuff, man? Or just assume you -- so far removed -- know more? "Sensible Sunnis" will not be persuaded, until they are. If they see ISIS as a bulwark, who are we to change their minds?
We need to play defense: to use reason and intelligence to prevent any attacks of innocents on American soil. That's what is in our national security interest, like stopping and reforming criminal gang activity in America. WE cannot afford to remake the world, even if we were capable of doing it, which we are not. Not from this distance. Geopolitically, we are not Israel, remember...
---------------------------------
Do you read your stuff, man? Or just assume you -- so far removed -- know more? "Sensible Sunnis" will not be persuaded, until they are. If they see ISIS as a bulwark, who are we to change their minds?
We need to play defense: to use reason and intelligence to prevent any attacks of innocents on American soil. That's what is in our national security interest, like stopping and reforming criminal gang activity in America. WE cannot afford to remake the world, even if we were capable of doing it, which we are not. Not from this distance. Geopolitically, we are not Israel, remember...
5
The sunni awakening was just throwing a bunch of money at people not to shoot you. As long wa the money was coming in - they didnt shoot you - then they went back to being ISIS or al qaida - its not sustainable.
The real answer would be to lean on US alllies KSA and Turkey and Qatat and kuwait - to stop material and financial support to wahhabi and salafi terror groups.
The real answer would be to lean on US alllies KSA and Turkey and Qatat and kuwait - to stop material and financial support to wahhabi and salafi terror groups.
1
"The real answer would be to lean on US alllies KSA and Turkey and Qatat and kuwait - to stop material and financial support"
Face it, we do the opposite. We coordinate that support for them. Those camps in Turkey are run by the CIA. Notice they escorted McCain across the border, from those camps. The CIA operates in Turkey, a much larger operation than the Army one in Jordan.
Face it, we do the opposite. We coordinate that support for them. Those camps in Turkey are run by the CIA. Notice they escorted McCain across the border, from those camps. The CIA operates in Turkey, a much larger operation than the Army one in Jordan.
2
Sorry, Mr. Brooks! The rise of ISIS is a direct result of the vacuum in Iraq after the idiot boy king, Bush, toppled Saddam Hussein in a vanity war brought on by Doug Feith and his merry band of war mongers in the state Dept. aided by Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld!
473
How is this comment helpful in any way? Does it help solve the problem that ISIS faces? Regardless of how ISIS began, the civilized world has to deal with them.
Stop your childish whining about past events and offer something productive, or else keep your mouth shut.
Stop your childish whining about past events and offer something productive, or else keep your mouth shut.
Quibbling about history provides no guidance on what to do now.
And Richard, don't forget L. PAUL BREMER, now safely ensconced in charming Chester, VT dabbling in oils. I know he was just following orders, but his actions speak for themselves.
It feels odd to read it David Brooks column that essentially praises Hillary Clinton. But in this unusual campaign and are even more unusual times, the usual assumptions and reactions have been upended.
Hillary's level of detail and understanding of one of the most complicated region in the world does not surprise me. The woman does her homework. She seems to realize, unlike the clowns with their simplistic statements ranting on GOP stage, that any solution is multi layered as David puts it.
The really can be no doubt that after her tenure at state--and her unflappable performance at the BenghaziGrand Inquisition-- that Hillary knows her stuff. I applaud her understanding of so many moving parts that need to be provided for.
There really is only one adult in the room when it comes to foreign policy prefold proposals. And the other thing I like about Hillary's approach is her ability to say, " I'll consider it. " Our next president needs to have a firm handle on the unintended consequences of every tactic on the table--but also be flexible. She's laid out a set of principles regarding the Middle East while Reassuring the American people she's not locked in or wedded to any one particular simplistic strategy..
Hillary's level of detail and understanding of one of the most complicated region in the world does not surprise me. The woman does her homework. She seems to realize, unlike the clowns with their simplistic statements ranting on GOP stage, that any solution is multi layered as David puts it.
The really can be no doubt that after her tenure at state--and her unflappable performance at the BenghaziGrand Inquisition-- that Hillary knows her stuff. I applaud her understanding of so many moving parts that need to be provided for.
There really is only one adult in the room when it comes to foreign policy prefold proposals. And the other thing I like about Hillary's approach is her ability to say, " I'll consider it. " Our next president needs to have a firm handle on the unintended consequences of every tactic on the table--but also be flexible. She's laid out a set of principles regarding the Middle East while Reassuring the American people she's not locked in or wedded to any one particular simplistic strategy..
670
David Brooks is becoming a closet conservative Democrat, because the Republicans are developing the institutional equivalent of madness. But he is not (yet) ready to come out of the closet.
70
We'll she's a neoliberal, and he's a neoconservative, and the GOP is a clown car that is slowly and irreversibly taking on water. Anyway he's a chickenhawk who wants to send more American boys and girls to their deaths along with the expense of trillions of dollars for the sake of a solution he though up in between a couple of bathroom breaks, ie. arm chair quarterbacking.
10
"David Brooks is becoming a closet conservative Democrat"
No, Hillary is a closet Republican, of the sort Brooks would like to find and support.
No, Hillary is a closet Republican, of the sort Brooks would like to find and support.
3
Brooks is completely overlooking, and downplaying the strength of current Arab states in the Middle East. There are many states, none of which of course fits any kind of liberal, democratic ideal, which are far from unstable. The small states UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon are stable, and so are the big players: Iran and Saudi Arabia serve as a counterpoint to each other that many of the other conflicts revolve upon. By intervening more, as suggested, but in a largely cursory way as suggested by Brooks, it is not at all the case if terrorism can be dealt with, when terrorism is not the same as state interests.
The problem is not that states are not not functioning, the problem is that the interests and ideologies of the powerful states are part and parcel of a complex network of ties that influences the behavior of other factions. It is not clear at all if the states there are not already influenced by their own interests using religion to propagate it in the first place. Terrorism, on the other hand, is using religion as a means to justify claims to legitimacy beyond the state. Some of it is due to the weakening of states, in others, it is due to organized elements that is part of the state.
The problem is not that states are not not functioning, the problem is that the interests and ideologies of the powerful states are part and parcel of a complex network of ties that influences the behavior of other factions. It is not clear at all if the states there are not already influenced by their own interests using religion to propagate it in the first place. Terrorism, on the other hand, is using religion as a means to justify claims to legitimacy beyond the state. Some of it is due to the weakening of states, in others, it is due to organized elements that is part of the state.
55
brooks...the taliban is stronger than ever, after over a decade of US invasion/occupation....hello? your suggested foriegn policy is exactly, precisely what was just shown in iraq and afghanistan...to be a total disaster....with this horrible, mean spirited, doomed policy, you could run for president
12
Tunisia is close to Democratic. It is the one exceptions.
As I have remarked in pub. comments, political science, world affairs, do not constitute DB's "point fort," and he should stick to what he knows best, affairs of the heart. Best piece was "hearts broke open." Neither does he speak Arabic; nor has he spent considerable time in ME countries. Same goes for HRC. If, as Sec. of State, she were incapable of responding intelligently and with compassion to the crisis in Libya, indirectly causing the death of 4 US diplomats, then lying about it, why does she merit DB's trust when she speaks out on the ME? If Assad is still in power, whose fault is that but her mentor,O, who drew a red line in the sand, and then, under pressure from IRAN, balked.Put the blame where it belongs. We need professionals running our ME strategy and the country. They r not to be found within the liberal ranks of the Democratic Party.For all his love of Islam, O never learned Arabic in order to understand the mindset and culture of Arab peoples.Likewise for HRC,whose incompetence and unawareness led to the deaths of the abovementioned foreign service officers, about whose deaths she then lied. There is an expression in French,"pecher dans les eaux inconnues(to go fishing in unknown waters),"which is what HRC and her mentor, O r doing. DB should recognize this weakness in both of them, but then he is an aficionado when it comes to political science and ME affairs as well.
'
'
2
Is that you real first name or did you just misspell it
1
This presidency is definitely for grownups—I finally agree with Brooks. And grownups are in short supply since the Gop breeds thoughtless adolescent egotists. Hillary is very grown up. As are Sanders an O’Malley.
What a complicated situation. Hillary appears tough but cautious. She was impressive in this speech, like with the Benghazi Committee. This woman is one of the most poised, organized, and intelligent politicians I’ve ever seen, agree or disagree with her.
No one can know how any alternatives will turn out right now. She seems to favor action with flexible reevaluation. Yes, supple and sophisticated are the apt words.
Plus thoughtful, non hysterical, aware of history and the needs of different factions. She was superior to most of the blather on TV since the Paris attacks.
Good conversation with Fareed Zakaria, too. Worth a look at the transcript, since the speech was dense with facts and actual reasoning, and was non sensational and adult. We haven’t heard much of that in the media.
Hollande and Obama meet soon. Should be interesting.
What a complicated situation. Hillary appears tough but cautious. She was impressive in this speech, like with the Benghazi Committee. This woman is one of the most poised, organized, and intelligent politicians I’ve ever seen, agree or disagree with her.
No one can know how any alternatives will turn out right now. She seems to favor action with flexible reevaluation. Yes, supple and sophisticated are the apt words.
Plus thoughtful, non hysterical, aware of history and the needs of different factions. She was superior to most of the blather on TV since the Paris attacks.
Good conversation with Fareed Zakaria, too. Worth a look at the transcript, since the speech was dense with facts and actual reasoning, and was non sensational and adult. We haven’t heard much of that in the media.
Hollande and Obama meet soon. Should be interesting.
45
For Brooks, almost honest is stunning.
"Some Republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia, but there’s a bigger story"
Uh, weasel misdirection. EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS STAINED THEMSELVES. So, change the subject to....nation states? Aiiiyiiieyie.
"Some Republicans have stained themselves with refugee xenophobia, but there’s a bigger story"
Uh, weasel misdirection. EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS STAINED THEMSELVES. So, change the subject to....nation states? Aiiiyiiieyie.
39
We know you are anti Iran and Russia David as well as pro everything Israel but dragging out the" Lord only knows what kind of chemical weapons these people have" is really beneath what I have come to expect of you, I should think by now that you as well as Cohen and Nicholas would not be beating the drums for boots on the ground, our President is for once acting in the best interest of all Americans not just the ones that can cut big checks from aipac or Wall Street. We don't need another w.m.d. Moment followed by an invasion by other people's children and paid for with middle class dollars. Russia and Iran, as apparently everyone but us knows, would be enormously helpful in solving the Middle East mess we created., and one more thing Kolomoisky, Taruta and the other oligarchies in the Ukraine with Israeli connections and masquerading as scrappy little freedom fighters don't need our money to continue the coup that we helped create by destabilizing and overthrowing their duly elected President, enough already David we are supposed to be Americans concerned with what is good for America not puppets for special interests. I sometimes feel that I get a more balanced narrative from the excellent Israeli daily Harratz than I do the Times, at least until Adelson puts them out of business with his free daily newspaper.
27
Hello Ted - Did you see the news from Paris last Friday night?
1
We do indeed need a Sunni awakening. At this point, there is no indication that Saudi Arabia, which should be the driver for the awakening is awake. Instead they are part of the problem not only in the Middle East but around the world as their people fund world-wide terrorism and teach hatred toward the west.
58
First off Assad did not create the failed regime that allowed Daesh to form. We ( USA) did. The nation-state has never been a good fit for the Middle East. The best governance the area has had was the Ottomans. Being part of a large, transnational grouping with Islamic leaders seems to be what suits them best. Maybe the best we can hope for is better Islamic leaders. To call the Arab nation states dictated by Sykes/Picot remotely successful is fantasy.
11
There must be some reason that Mr. Brooks failed to mention that Saudi Arabia is the source of the ISIS ideology and one of the main financiers of ISIS.
Mr. Brooks preoccupation with Assad mirrors Saudi Arabia preoccupation with Assad and Iran.
Mr. Brooks preoccupation with Assad mirrors Saudi Arabia preoccupation with Assad and Iran.
220
Well he's a Neocon. They are allied with Saudi's. Perhaps their foundations also get funding from the Saudis.
7
And Obama just did a 1.5 million dollar arms deal with SA this week.
Then SA sells the arms to IS.
This conscious dissonance is truly crazy making and so dysfunctional in regard to the IS attacks in Paris .
If our leadership really wanted to stop IS they would stop arms deals with SA.
War at the expense of many is just too profitable for a few who think they know best.
Then SA sells the arms to IS.
This conscious dissonance is truly crazy making and so dysfunctional in regard to the IS attacks in Paris .
If our leadership really wanted to stop IS they would stop arms deals with SA.
War at the expense of many is just too profitable for a few who think they know best.
1
As someone with experience with this part of the Middle East going back thru my childhood, (I'm American, my father was a senior oil executive, and most of my experience was with Jordan, first with British tutors, then as a U.S. Army officeer, and now as an observer), my thought is, "Wow! Finally, someone is clearly explaining the complexities and how they are all tied together and doing so from the persepective of the people living there."
A problem best solved by first accurately definining it, which you have done. The situation is dire for people living in Syria, nearly dire for Jordan and Lebanon with huge Syrian refugee camps, and urgent for the West. I, too, know the West's failures in the region, which are baked into the current problem. Sec. Clinton gets it right. You get it right. Our best security is in resolving the complexities and thus taking away ISIS time an space to entrench.
A problem best solved by first accurately definining it, which you have done. The situation is dire for people living in Syria, nearly dire for Jordan and Lebanon with huge Syrian refugee camps, and urgent for the West. I, too, know the West's failures in the region, which are baked into the current problem. Sec. Clinton gets it right. You get it right. Our best security is in resolving the complexities and thus taking away ISIS time an space to entrench.
67
One word has yet to be written from this paper other then a commenter here mention about the AMAZING speech Senator Sanders gave at Georgetown U. yesterday.
Two hours and question and answer session.
Hillary is a Republican in theory and that is why Brooks is in her camp.
Two hours and question and answer session.
Hillary is a Republican in theory and that is why Brooks is in her camp.
49
Baloney. Clinton is not recommending panic, sending refugees back or massive bombing. That is what the Republicans are advocating.
Did you read the article Brooks wrote?
Did you read the article Brooks wrote?
32
By all means, W, elucidate us, because Hillary's speech and Mr. Brooks' review and elaboration of its points seems like an oasis of reason to me in the morass of the new anti-refugee agit-propaganda law and the rabid "we the people"-anti immigrant populism just a few clicks away over at Geert Wilders' Op Ed. That's where you find Republican "solutions," not here. Nothing in this Op Ed points to Hillary as a "Republican in theory and I have new found respect for Mr. Brooks for highlighting the merits of a speech that actually proposes strategy instead of pitchforks, even if, no doubt, it will be drowned out by the "Obama wants to let terrorists into our country" crowd.
18
It's not clear to me that ISIS is getting stronger; it's just shifted some tactics to make its presence felt in the West. It's territory is under siege from several fronts and is loosing ground. The mastermind of Paris (and probably the failed train shooting) is dead. His ability to recruit and plan assaults gone. A massive round up of potential terrorists is underway in France and Belgium. France, Russia and the US are all, at least taking about a coordinated solution. Let's not jump to the conclusion that we are loosing the war, just because the enemy won a "battle" or skirmish. There were plenty of setbacks in WWII and we still prevailed.
9
ISIS is organised crime. Iraq and Syria let it grow. Who is the biggest problem?
2
Iraq and Syria let it grow?!
3
Clinton is the only candidate who puts changing Assad regime on back burner and puts ISIS, Saudis, Turks, Kurds and Russians in the forefront! This is the most intelligent approach, I have seen from anyone!
36
Mr. Brooks, when you're leading the cheers for the party across the aisle, methinks you protest too much. We've seen your zeal for the imperialist reach before. I could be very wrong here but weren't you one of the offensive coordinators upstairs in the booth urging scorched-earth military intervention in the region post-9/11? You were among the loudest, most persuasive in the chorus on the Right who swallowed Dick Cheney's "WMD's in Iraq" siren and look where that got us. Your recent toe-in-the-water pieces about your party's complete and utter failure as a responsible co-governing partner with Democrats was a hopeful sign that perhaps you were purged of the poisonous effects of the extremism that has overrun a once-viable GOP. Alas, Secretary Clinton's blueprint for getting on top of ISIS has no chance of succeeding. Not only will Comrade Putin call a second President Clinton's bluff, he will raise his Ukrainian chip and make her put her hand on the table. A "no-fly zone"? Enforced by whom? Even if Assad is "removed" from the equation, who replaces him? Mrs. Clinton is [again] making the case for continued American involvement in this tar baby of Cheney's [oh, sorry, I meant W's] creation. It's not our fight and until the rest of the civilized world gets all-in to "crush ISIS," I'll pass on this very tired leitmotif of "American exceptionalism," You're letting your slip show by [again] banging the drums of war.
12
The newly forming alliance between Russia and the USA against ISIS along
with the declaration of France's war against ISIS...and the support of Jordan
will determine the outcome of the dissolution of the Assad regime.
France leads the way...and I think Francois Holland is the leader we all now
trust...because Obama has not had the sentiments that such a leader would
be expected to have in light of the threats on our homeland.
Bernie Sanders and O'Malley can be trusted to reflect the views of the
French...Personally I do not have such trust in Hillary...since she speaks what
Holland speaks...but I have doubt...and doubt about Hillary....does not work
in such dire circumstances.
with the declaration of France's war against ISIS...and the support of Jordan
will determine the outcome of the dissolution of the Assad regime.
France leads the way...and I think Francois Holland is the leader we all now
trust...because Obama has not had the sentiments that such a leader would
be expected to have in light of the threats on our homeland.
Bernie Sanders and O'Malley can be trusted to reflect the views of the
French...Personally I do not have such trust in Hillary...since she speaks what
Holland speaks...but I have doubt...and doubt about Hillary....does not work
in such dire circumstances.
3
I'm happy to see Mr Brooks continuing the useful lie. There is lots money to be made by decapitating the Syrian government, many ways to profit from the disorder. For one thing, Saudi Arabia has promised good baksheesh if Syria is put under a Syrian, born, raised, and educated in Saudi Arabia, who is a devout Wahabbi.
The puritanical, intolerant sect of Sunni Islam is called Salafi, which is subdivided into three sub-sects: The Wahabbi believe in the Divine Right of Kings, and that the King of Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and temporal leader of all Islam; the Brotherhood believe in democracy, where the Brotherhood decides who can run for office and who can vote; finally, the Caliphatists want a Caliph selected by their Ummah. All the Salafis agree that a Salafi government is better than any other, even if it's one of the other sub-sects.
Most Syrians are non-Salafi Sunni, so most Syrians support the current government as the least bad of the available alternatives. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-f...
They do NOT want a Salafi government. But Western leaders who install a Wahabbi government will be well rewarded by the Saudis.
And probably the columnists who scream for the US to decapitate Syria and put in a good Wahabbi dictator can expect some baksheesh as well.
The puritanical, intolerant sect of Sunni Islam is called Salafi, which is subdivided into three sub-sects: The Wahabbi believe in the Divine Right of Kings, and that the King of Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and temporal leader of all Islam; the Brotherhood believe in democracy, where the Brotherhood decides who can run for office and who can vote; finally, the Caliphatists want a Caliph selected by their Ummah. All the Salafis agree that a Salafi government is better than any other, even if it's one of the other sub-sects.
Most Syrians are non-Salafi Sunni, so most Syrians support the current government as the least bad of the available alternatives. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-f...
They do NOT want a Salafi government. But Western leaders who install a Wahabbi government will be well rewarded by the Saudis.
And probably the columnists who scream for the US to decapitate Syria and put in a good Wahabbi dictator can expect some baksheesh as well.
5
Need I point out that Neocons believe that government should be controlled by them (atheist philosophers), and that they should control the masses using excessive religiosity. As it is, the Saudis are a model state for the Neocons. Maybe a little rough around the edges with the decapitations and what not, but otherwise, that's their big idea. That's what David Brooks wants to see for our society (unless he's quit being a Neocon, which I see no evidence that he has) and all of his fellow travelers. Another is Netanyahu. And they all appear to be allied with the Saudis. Maybe even their foundations and think tanks and what not are sponsored and kept alive by money sourced from the Saudis.
What David Brooks recommends sounds very much like the Iraqi `SURGE' on steroids but for the entire mid-east region. In theory that really does make sense. But in execution, the Iraqi experiment showed very clearly that the success of a SURGE requires that those who inhabit and will inherit the region will need to step up, themselves, and implement lasting order. To date, they have not. Given that, notions of regional SURGE equal notions of long term western occupation. Yikes.
5
When David Brooks starts praising Hillary Clinton over the Republicans he’s devoted his life to supporting, you know we’re in uncharted territory. Normal rules of engagement don’t apply.
But there will never be enough bullets, bombs and boots on the ground to eliminate ISIS as a threat. We have to defend ourselves, but waging a shooting war against an army that can seep through the pores of civil society doesn’t seem possible. How do we deter an enemy that embraces death with the threat of death? When you stand on a street corner firing an automatic weapon into a café, you have every expectation of being killed. But you do it gleefully, knowing you’re going to heaven while you’re sending freedom-loving, decadent apostates to hell.
I can’t offer a solution, but I can offer a lamentation. It’s inevitable that this misogynistic, homophobic messianic religious cult will one day acquire apocalyptic weapons and demonstrate the full flowering of their religious freedom. What argument do we make to those who expect to get their 72 virgins in heaven when we believe in harps and angels? How to we condemn the homophobia and the misogyny and the abject credulous belief of ISIS radicals when we preach these things from every pulpit in America?
We make war in the Middle East, we ignore climate change, we disparage science and we embrace religion. There is a cost to denying reality, and it’s coming home to roost.
But there will never be enough bullets, bombs and boots on the ground to eliminate ISIS as a threat. We have to defend ourselves, but waging a shooting war against an army that can seep through the pores of civil society doesn’t seem possible. How do we deter an enemy that embraces death with the threat of death? When you stand on a street corner firing an automatic weapon into a café, you have every expectation of being killed. But you do it gleefully, knowing you’re going to heaven while you’re sending freedom-loving, decadent apostates to hell.
I can’t offer a solution, but I can offer a lamentation. It’s inevitable that this misogynistic, homophobic messianic religious cult will one day acquire apocalyptic weapons and demonstrate the full flowering of their religious freedom. What argument do we make to those who expect to get their 72 virgins in heaven when we believe in harps and angels? How to we condemn the homophobia and the misogyny and the abject credulous belief of ISIS radicals when we preach these things from every pulpit in America?
We make war in the Middle East, we ignore climate change, we disparage science and we embrace religion. There is a cost to denying reality, and it’s coming home to roost.
562
Gemli,
"But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners."
Bernie Sanders at Georgetown U.
The solution is that this is not our fight or our solution to mete out. Every time we've taken a side or meted out what we decided was right for someone else, we radicalized the other side. In this case, leading means supporting.
"But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners."
Bernie Sanders at Georgetown U.
The solution is that this is not our fight or our solution to mete out. Every time we've taken a side or meted out what we decided was right for someone else, we radicalized the other side. In this case, leading means supporting.
130
Ultimately its an ideological war. You have to make sure your ideology is better than their ideology. In WWII and the Cold War we had a better idea, and so our side won.
In the intervening years, the GOP has succeeded in destroying the American social contract, so now our idea has us giving ever more tax cuts to the rich, 51% of black youth unemployed, growing self destructiveness of whites in the prime years of their lies. This is not a healthy, wealthy or wise society full positioned to confront a violent system in an ideological war.
Idle hands are the devils playground. People can't get jobs they start to self destruct, or worse. The Jihadist can't offer you a job, but they do offer you a God sanctioned orgy if you position your self destructiveness in such a way that it helps their cause. Its kind of pathetic if you can't beat such an ideology in a battle of ideas, but I'm not convinced we can. I think we've been lucky the jihadist haven't found a way to connect with the afflicted in the west. All this while champagne glasses are clinking in the Hamptons and in Aspen at fund raisers for Hillary's campaign.
We need to make sure that our idea is better than their idea, and our system is better than it is now. The GOP means a throw back to catastrophic failure of the Bush years. Hillary means continuation of the status quo. Only Bernie offers a way out by fixing our social contract. Then we'll have an idea to sell that will outbid and succeed against any other idea.
In the intervening years, the GOP has succeeded in destroying the American social contract, so now our idea has us giving ever more tax cuts to the rich, 51% of black youth unemployed, growing self destructiveness of whites in the prime years of their lies. This is not a healthy, wealthy or wise society full positioned to confront a violent system in an ideological war.
Idle hands are the devils playground. People can't get jobs they start to self destruct, or worse. The Jihadist can't offer you a job, but they do offer you a God sanctioned orgy if you position your self destructiveness in such a way that it helps their cause. Its kind of pathetic if you can't beat such an ideology in a battle of ideas, but I'm not convinced we can. I think we've been lucky the jihadist haven't found a way to connect with the afflicted in the west. All this while champagne glasses are clinking in the Hamptons and in Aspen at fund raisers for Hillary's campaign.
We need to make sure that our idea is better than their idea, and our system is better than it is now. The GOP means a throw back to catastrophic failure of the Bush years. Hillary means continuation of the status quo. Only Bernie offers a way out by fixing our social contract. Then we'll have an idea to sell that will outbid and succeed against any other idea.
22
Gemli, while joining you in 'Where Have The Flowers Gone', it brings to mind my late father, reported at a dinner party to have slept with over 2000 women. His few female detractors were proud to have resisted his charm. There were no bullets in this picture, and no violence, I am pleased to acknowledge.
Can we begin by repairing the mistrust breach among the People? Lean heavily on the Media and Entertainment World on what they are offering us as fare, and remind all of us that we have a mind of our own. We need a Leader, and the Republican party is making us wait to show a viable presidential candidate to redress the two-Party system of our Country.
Since we are now more in tune with the visual, this American is saving pennies to give a copy of 'Photo Nomad' to all friends of different cultures, religions and political affiliations. It is a portrait of true Humanity.
An elderly French friend, having lived two wars, has just sent a request for pumpkin pie and I have forwarded one with bourbon by Julia Child. Wishing you, wishing all good people of all ages a quiet Thanksgiving. Solidarity, safety, laced with sobriety, a big bird on the table for each and every one.
Here I plan to indulge in a small can of tuna with a delicate fork, while counting blessings and taking a deep breath. Thank you for writing, a New York admirer of yours and greetings to Boston, a favorite City of mine.
Can we begin by repairing the mistrust breach among the People? Lean heavily on the Media and Entertainment World on what they are offering us as fare, and remind all of us that we have a mind of our own. We need a Leader, and the Republican party is making us wait to show a viable presidential candidate to redress the two-Party system of our Country.
Since we are now more in tune with the visual, this American is saving pennies to give a copy of 'Photo Nomad' to all friends of different cultures, religions and political affiliations. It is a portrait of true Humanity.
An elderly French friend, having lived two wars, has just sent a request for pumpkin pie and I have forwarded one with bourbon by Julia Child. Wishing you, wishing all good people of all ages a quiet Thanksgiving. Solidarity, safety, laced with sobriety, a big bird on the table for each and every one.
Here I plan to indulge in a small can of tuna with a delicate fork, while counting blessings and taking a deep breath. Thank you for writing, a New York admirer of yours and greetings to Boston, a favorite City of mine.
2
Why not bring back Cheney and Rummy,
The war monger and pince nez'd dummy,
With that Repub team
Wise moves are a dream,
Is David with Hill'ry now chummy?
The war monger and pince nez'd dummy,
With that Repub team
Wise moves are a dream,
Is David with Hill'ry now chummy?
21
The time has long past when the West needed to acknowledge that the arbitrary borders drawn by the West after WW I do not and cannot define nation-states that will ever be workable. The major factions of Islam simple refuse to tolerate each other.
Those original borders were totally dependent on brutal dictators to surpass factional conflict. Those borders were chosen to deliberately conflict with factional population distributions in the hope of keeping those factions weak and under the control of dictators superficially friendly to the West.
The land needs to be redistributed among factional governments who can attract the loyalty of their populations. Let each major faction have their own nation-state which should go a long way towards eliminating the need for brutal dictators.
This means Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians. Then the world can enforce those borders to protect each faction. (I deliberately left out the Alawites and the Wahhabis as both too small and too unworthy.)
Those original borders were totally dependent on brutal dictators to surpass factional conflict. Those borders were chosen to deliberately conflict with factional population distributions in the hope of keeping those factions weak and under the control of dictators superficially friendly to the West.
The land needs to be redistributed among factional governments who can attract the loyalty of their populations. Let each major faction have their own nation-state which should go a long way towards eliminating the need for brutal dictators.
This means Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians. Then the world can enforce those borders to protect each faction. (I deliberately left out the Alawites and the Wahhabis as both too small and too unworthy.)
13
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you'd come for Hillary when it comes to perpetuating the hawkish foreign policy we've engaged in over the last twenty years plus. Those policies are why we have an ISIS terrorizing not only the people of Syria and Iraq, but now the entire world. Western hegemony in the Middle East has spawned a hatred and resentment of Western supremacy that her prescriptions and those of the GOP will only heighten, not lessen, and certainly not resolve.
The wise adult in the room when it comes to dealing with ISIS is Bernie Sanders who gave his own speech today to rousing ovations at Georgetown University yesterday:
"Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgment that unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated."
Hillary Clinton, like the GOP, still doesn't get it.
--
Bernie at GU: http://tinyurl.com/oan3btl
The wise adult in the room when it comes to dealing with ISIS is Bernie Sanders who gave his own speech today to rousing ovations at Georgetown University yesterday:
"Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgment that unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated."
Hillary Clinton, like the GOP, still doesn't get it.
--
Bernie at GU: http://tinyurl.com/oan3btl
246
I love Bernie, but the part of his speech quoted states the obvious and contains no prescription for dealing with ISIL. All thinking people know the Iraq War was a disastrous mistake that led to the situation we are faced with in the Middle East. Bernie needs to do more than talk about the policy failures of the past. He needs to talk about what what he thinks we should do in the future.
51
Thanks Rima, Sanders' speech was excellent and well worth listening to again.
There is no question he would make the best choice for the USA at this time or we will have truly failed as a nation........because NOTHING will change with Hillary or any of the totally unqualified Rep.
There is no question he would make the best choice for the USA at this time or we will have truly failed as a nation........because NOTHING will change with Hillary or any of the totally unqualified Rep.
25
JAS,
I curated the video of Sanders' speech at Georgetown along with the full text of his prepared remarks on my blog and provided the link in my main comment.
I chose to quote the first relevant paragraph on ISIS as it homes in on where we began to take wrong turns. The speech is just under 5000 words long.
He did provide his prescriptions for what we should and shouldn't do when it comes to dealing with ISIS, and he went into great detail, much to the appreciation of his audience.
I urge you to watch or read the speech. It was quite thoughtful and remarkable.
I curated the video of Sanders' speech at Georgetown along with the full text of his prepared remarks on my blog and provided the link in my main comment.
I chose to quote the first relevant paragraph on ISIS as it homes in on where we began to take wrong turns. The speech is just under 5000 words long.
He did provide his prescriptions for what we should and shouldn't do when it comes to dealing with ISIS, and he went into great detail, much to the appreciation of his audience.
I urge you to watch or read the speech. It was quite thoughtful and remarkable.
12