It's about time we talk about Syria...

[kandrathe]

I was getting a bit tired of seeing the SPAM topic at the top.

As for ISIL, I'm a little disappointed that we are back at war intervening in the middle east. I'm very disappointed with the 180,000 or so dead in Syria, and the 2.5 million refugees who've fled and the 6.5 million internally displaced. I very rarely find myself in agreement with Bill Maher, but I don't think the world can live harmoniously with this extremist element. I'm not sure they are all Wahabist, but it seems to be the root. Much like Nazism, this root must be ripped up, debunked, and never be allowed to grow again.

Again, our troubles in Syria seem to also stem from our unwillingness to either get into bed with Assad to tamp down his internal security issues, or fully get behind any number of those who seek to uproot Assad's regime. Then, coupled with our inability to persuade middle east Sunni nations to rein in their citizens (or perhaps national) heedless support of sectarian violent extremists. It might even be the case that our own covert policy was to encourage middle east nations to secretly support the insurgency in Syria to destabilize Assad.

But, here we are with a bigger, better armed, better funded bunch of barbaric cut-throats running amok in Syria, which was one of the oblique reasons the US had justified taking out Saddam in Iraq. That was, if we recall, to prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. It is as if we never learned the lesson, from Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc., that wherever extremists can find shelter and grow, they will. In my mind, this administrations mostly hands off approach to unrest in Libya, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere is the example of how not to transact foreign policy. Much like our inaction on Ebola in Liberia, we wait until it becomes a crisis before we begin to act. Whereas, had we formulated a better foreign policy plan for Syria 2 years ago, we'd be in a better place today.

No, I don't mean military intervention, however if I were Obama, I'd never take those cards off the table. It is better for your opponents to be left guessing what you may do, and in that vein, crazy man Ronald Raygun was able to use that tangible unhinged fear of reprisal to finally end the cold war. Would Putin march over Ukraine if he were not certain of the inaction of the US, and the rest of NATO? I doubt it. We've projected an aura of inaction, and weakness, which has emboldened the despots of this world to move violently to grab what they want.

I'm not a big fan of a bellicose and jack booted US projection of threat, and force around the globe, but neither do I think we need to bury our heads under the pillows while the world burns.

[Taem]

I don't think the world can live harmoniously with this extremist element. I'm not sure they are all Wahabist, but it seems to be the root. Much like Nazism, this root must be ripped up, debunked, and never be allowed to grow again.

I like your word, "debunked", but I digress, squelching one off-shoot of a religion - such as Mormonism from Christianity - would have no more effect then annexing Mormonism from Christianity... it would have no effect and essentially propel this otherwise obscure denomination into mainstream. An much better approach would be, in my humble opinion, to disprove the existence of religion entirely, thus negating all forms of religious war, turmoil, and subjugation due to extremists views of all religions and cults - which is really what all religions really are anyways.

In my mind, this administrations mostly hands off approach to unrest in Libya, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere is the example of how not to transact foreign policy. Much like our inaction on Ebola in Liberia, we wait until it becomes a crisis before we begin to act. Whereas, had we formulated a better foreign policy plan for Syria 2 years ago, we'd be in a better place today.

.... are you seriously suggesting permanent occupation? That was tried with Bush Jr. in Iraq under the pretense we would eventually leave, but was so unpopular, when Obama brought the troops home and promised to close Guantanamo Bay, Obama's ratings surged. From this point on, no president in their right mind would leave a permanent occupying force in this area if they wanted to stay in office more than one term!

[kandrathe]

...much better approach would be, in my humble opinion, to disprove the existence of religion entirely, thus negating all forms of religious war, turmoil, and subjugation due to extremists views of all religions and cults - which is really what all religions really are anyways.

People have all kinds of odd ideas and beliefs. As long they aren't harmful, live and let live. Some ideas like burning witches, or genocide are too dangerous to let run wild. Or even Nigerian mystical penis thievery when it leads to lynch mobs. The short answer, from Bill Maher recently was, "To Claim Islam Is Like Other Religions Is Naive And Plain Wrong". The risks of you traveling to Jerusalem, Tehran, or Amman are very different than your risks in traveling to Cairo, or Riyad. Keeping the war ravaged nations out of it... Comparatively, we don't have much to fear from Mormons, unless you are a teen aged girl whose father is in the minority FLDS.

I don't think we need occupation. Just an intolerance for a homicidal extremist ideology, and a plan for seeing it is bounded. But, not such a simple thing when you have a regional ally (Saudi Arabia) founded, and steeped in it. I feel sad for those who suffer, and I abhor the barbarity, the stonings, beheadings, mutilation, public whipping, and slavery. The extremists feel it's justified to kill you, an unbeliever, wherever you are in this world. In Europe, and the US, where we have a long tradition of the separation of church and state, we are facing an increasing number of people who do not understand the rationale, history, and so do not share that value. -- Islamic Law in a Modern World.

Nine things you’ll learn from Pew’s poll of the world’s Muslims.

[DeeBye]

the US, where we have a long tradition of the separation of church and state

On paper that might be true. In reality, not so much.

[Taem]

...much better approach would be, in my humble opinion, to disprove the existence of religion entirely, thus negating all forms of religious war, turmoil, and subjugation due to extremists views of all religions and cults - which is really what all religions really are anyways.

People have all kinds of odd ideas and beliefs. As long they aren't harmful, live and let live. Some ideas like burning witches, or genocide are too dangerous to let run wild. Or even Nigerian mystical penis thievery when it leads to lynch mobs. The short answer, from Bill Maher recently was, "To Claim Islam Is Like Other Religions Is Naive And Plain Wrong". The risks of you traveling to Jerusalem, Tehran, or Amman are very different than your risks in traveling to Cairo, or Riyad. Keeping the war ravaged nations out of it... Comparatively, we don't have much to fear from Mormons, unless you are a teen aged girl whose father is in the minority FLDS.

I don't think we need occupation. Just an intolerance for a homicidal extremist ideology, and a plan for seeing it is bounded. But, not such a simple thing when you have a regional ally (Saudi Arabia) founded, and steeped in it. I feel sad for those who suffer, and I abhor the barbarity, the stonings, beheadings, mutilation, public whipping, and slavery. The extremists feel it's justified to kill you, an unbeliever, wherever you are in this world. In Europe, and the US, where we have a long tradition of the separation of church and state, we are facing an increasing number of people who do not understand the rationale, history, and so do not share that value. -- Islamic Law in a Modern World.

Nine things you’ll learn from Pew’s poll of the world’s Muslims.

I read your post yesterday. I reread it this afternoon. I read it again just now. It's interesting that I got something a little different each time I read it. I suppose that's why communicating via internet can be a confusing place. Not where I was going with this at all, but wanted to mention it nonetheless.

Anyway, I feel like you are nudging us (the readers) to make a statement for/against Muslims so you can respond to that reaction with your own opinion.

The reasons I believe this, starting from the top of your post, are because three of your four provided links either poke fun at or examine how Islam will not work in a modern society; because your analogy of world travel pits hotbed terrorist/civil rights activists areas with Islam agendas versus previous hotbed areas that are no longer as volatile in an attempt to draw attention to how Islam must be the cause for all this anger in the world; because you tie all this to a "we", pulling the reader into your cause, and finishing with an absolute: "should be intolerant of homicidal extremist ideology"... no shit, but you just tied it all to Islam with that one statement, rather true or not; because you then enlighten us to the atrocities committed by, oh, I don't know, like every terrorist organization out there, including the Lords Resistance Army and even drug cartels in Mexico (i.e. "barbarity such as stoning, beheading, mutilation, slavery..."), and then go on to tie this extremism again to religious fanatics who want to destroy unbelievers, strongly hinting at Islam without actually pointing the finger; and because in your final sentence, you are playing coy with the innuendo that Europe and the US do not share the values of Islam, which on it's own is a complete falsehood since in both nations religion and state are separate, but when combined with the rest of your assertions paints a bleak picture of Islam. Versus what, your point of view?

Rather or not I agree/disagree with your statement is irreverent to what I see as a poor way of presenting an argument, and a prime example of manipulative coercion. You direct the reader down your narrow vision then provoke them into a verbal trap where any response they make will prove your point further. It's clear to me that you don't agree with Islam. I don't like any organization that calls itself a religion, period. I get your point and I agree extremism should be stamped out, but I disagree on pinpointing any single group. My issue with Islam is that it stemmed from the Judeo-faith and thus all religions based on that one religion should be dismantled in my opinion. I can make quite the convincing argument on how this huge faith, with it's many offshoots, has distorted the ethics of morality the world over and is either the direct cause or main reason for much of the inequality, sexism, and xenophobia in this world today including many laws directly influenced by this religion.

While I do agree Islam has it's fair share of fanatics, I don't blame this off-shoot directly, and I don't believe stopping this one zealous group of believers would solve the long term issues with faith; no, I blame the entire religious system itself which I think should be dismantled with something so simple... truth! I'll stop there because I feel a serious rant coming on, and I don't need to nitpick facts when I've done the research myself and would be happy to share if asked.

[kandrathe]

I was careful to not conflate Islam with these extremists. I also provided a link from an Islamic scholar who demonstrates how to reconcile Sharia with more twentieth century values. The Bill Maher link, and the other one about mystical beliefs in Nigeria are there for flavor, but it shows how varied thought can be on any topic.

I don't think it's possible to teach or police the "wrong-headed", or in other words the ones who don't think as you do and attempting to do so would most likely make more war. I also think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, however illogical, unscientific, or backwards we might find it. With the exception of those things that incite violence or cause harms. There are plenty of other examples, but you can look at KKK, or Nazis, or Headhunters if you like.

Where I draw the parallel is that for the extremists, they believe non-Muslims should be put to the sword(and many Muslims who don't agree with them), and all the other 6th century barbarity. In fact, I heard a story the other day about an ISIL fighter who quit them, having had to find the right time to sneak away, and is still in fear for their life. He recounted the many ISIL fighter doubters who were killed by ISIL for questioning their brutal tactics.

The core of Salafist or Wahabi fundamentalism is to reject modernity, and take Islam back to the days of Mohammed, before Islam was altered into a "the religion of peace". I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I'm pretty certain most Madhaahib abhor the extremists as much as we do. If you had read the article on the Pew survey, you'd have understood that in Islamic nations the people fear their own fundamentalists more that any other external threat.

I view myself as mostly a pacifist. Where, for me, the only just cause for war is to otherwise prevent a holocaust. Which, back to Syria, is why I feel we've already failed. The human toll is already too high, and we acted too late. Plus, now we have an extremist insurgency marching on Baghdad, Turkey, Jordan, and of course Israel.

P.S. Also, you thought... "because your analogy of world travel pits hotbed terrorist/civil rights activists areas with Islam agendas versus previous hotbed areas that are no longer as volatile in an attempt to draw attention to how Islam must be the cause for all this anger in the world;" Actually, not in the least. I looked at the State departments guide for which countries in the middle east were safe to travel. At first I was going to compare some middle eastern to western, but that seemed too biased against the middle east. So, indeed, I found that, yes, there are some middle eastern nations where Westerners can travel safely without undo fear of being targeted by extremists (including Tehran, which was a surprise for me).

I would also invite you to read about the Amman Message where 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries of many "creeds" of Islam made a statement seeking to create more common unity within Islam. It would be like the Catholic Pope, and leading protestants from hundreds of denominations getting together to agree to stop bickering about nuances of interpretation.

[Bolty]

Which, back to Syria, is why I feel we've already failed. The human toll is already too high, and we acted too late. Plus, now we have an extremist insurgency marching on Baghdad, Turkey, Jordan, and of course Israel.

Side track: I'm interested in what kind of intervention you feel the USA could have done in Syria that would have any significant improvement in its situation. I just don't see it. From my perspective, it was lose-lose for everyone there. By not intervening, the rebels lost. But an intervention would have resulted in far more death, destruction, and misery for the general population.

[kandrathe]

Side track: I'm interested in what kind of intervention you feel the USA could have done in Syria that would have any significant improvement in its situation. I just don't see it. From my perspective, it was lose-lose for everyone there. By not intervening, the rebels lost. But an intervention would have resulted in far more death, destruction, and misery for the general population.

The politicians wanted to exit, but we didn't care what exit meant. First and foremost, we took our eyes off the ball again. Once OBL was killed, we mentally put up the "Mission Accomplished" banners and started figuring out how to pack up and get out.

The way we beat the insurgency in Iraq was to stop commuting to the fighting, embed the forces in the towns with the people, and make sure you are bigger and tougher than any tribe in the region. We left. It was a gap that the extremists found easy to fill. Not that we should never leave, but our exit was a political move rather than a measured, and well planned military move. When we leave an area, we need to be sure what we leave behind is self sustained and capable, that it has an adequate means of supply, and administratively is tied into as a part of the larger whole. That means for Iraq needs to have checks and balances to prevent corruption, especially if those oil revenues are going to flow equitably.

Once we left Anbar province, ISIL began to regroup, and to grow. Malaki didn't help, drove a wedge of suspicion into the Sunni tribes and so much of the "fault" lies with him. They wanted us out, and we didn't resist exiting very hard. If you believe the "We broke it..." Then we didn't do very good by leaving Malaki running the store.

Our other big problem in Iraq is that we didn't leave them with a very functional political system -- they need more of a federation of tribes, with a parliament. Some way that a confederation of disparate tribes can feel that Iraq is their nation, and not Western Persia, or Southern Kurdistan, or The Levant.

Then... Syria. There was a time a few years ago when we might have negotiated with Assad -- as hard as it would be to shore him up, it was better than chaos. Instead, we adopted the Arab spring ideology, where democracy would tear down the bad guys. We blustered about crossing a fuzzy red line on chemical weapons, and then once crossed tripped all over our rhetoric about how, where, and when something happened. But, the bottom line is we signaled just how willing we were to do anything in Syria. The extremists rejoiced. It was another Beirut barracks.

So, that Arab spring ideology sort of worked out OK in Egypt, but we shall see in the long run. Our on again, off again support for the Muslim Brotherhood and all. But, the it didn't go so well in Libya, north Africa and not so much in Syria. They went more the way of civil war. We might have gone on that side of the fence, but it was pretty clear we weren't invited to that party. It's a hard pill to swallow, but a strong military regime however bellicose that we can live with who keeps things in line seems to be better than utter chaos.

Or, we might have fallen onto the other side of the fence and come down hard and quick, then do what we always do. Set up a moderate puppet regime, and deal with the eventual insurgency until the puppets are strong enough to keep their people in check. That option would have never happened with our current President, and the mood of the US toward yet another war in the middle east.

Back to the beginning. We took our eyes off the ball. We lost the big picture, which is we can't allow extremists a safe haven. So we need an international coalition, with all the current supposed actors who've once again come together to destroy ISIL. When it comes to that international level of cooperation, diplomacy, and shared vision of peace, we should have never stopped fighting the fire. We all went home while there were still embers smoldering, and now we need to get back together and figure out how to fight this raging blaze that's reignited having killed 1/4 of a million, and displaced 6-7 million more.

[kandrathe]

Well, you know Obama's is in trouble when not even Piers Morgan will stand behind him from this Oct 1 2014 Daily Mail article.

The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away.

There were clear, unambiguous public warnings made nearly a year ago in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee that ISIS was on the march in Syria and Iraq.

But perhaps Obama missed them.

A slapdash Secret Service detail isn't what's wrong with the White House - the real scandal is a President who is so complacent about protecting Americans

[FireIceTalon]

Can't say I have been following the current events in the Middle East closely so details are still sketchy to me; been working full time and tending to a new girlfriend whom I have fallen deeply in love with thus politics have kind of been put on the back burner (other than the intellectual discussions me and her have had).

One thing that is bugging me though is how the federal government is yappin' about how broke they are and slashed over $8 billion dollars on food stamps, yet somehow came up with $20 billion+ to fight ISIS. Of course, the same windbags shouting for austerity now were quieter than a fucking church mouse when the GOP occupied the White House. Actually no, they weren't quiet, they were shouting "spend spend spend!!!". Go figure. And btw, ISIS is no threat to US interests whatsoever. They are a fly on our ass, and far less of a threat to US interests than the established states (Iran, Syria, etc).

[kandrathe]

...working full time and tending to a new girlfriend whom I have fallen deeply in love with thus politics have kind of been put on the back burner...

Its funny how that Real Life™ priorities stuff happens.

Next thing you know, you're beloved t-shirts (she hates) are off to the Goodwill. And... you won't really care.

[FireIceTalon]

...working full time and tending to a new girlfriend whom I have fallen deeply in love with thus politics have kind of been put on the back burner...

Its funny how that Real Life™ priorities stuff happens.

Next thing you know, you're beloved t-shirts (she hates) are off to the Goodwill. And... you won't really care.

Well, I don't own such t-shirts, but even if I did, I doubt it would be an issue. We have pretty similar politics. She is a feminist, has very far left views, and has read at least part of The Manifesto as well as Engel's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Pretty much a socialist at heart, or at the very least she is certainly sympathetic towards it.

One mistake a lot of people make in a relationship is dating someone with too different of political views as your own. People view such things as more of a bonus than a necessity, when it should be the other way around - you could love someone with all your heart but the relationship is probably not going to work if you guys clash all the time due to differences in politics. I was fortunate enough to find someone who is a great person all around, that shares my interests and has views very similar to my own.

Us having similar politics I think was also part of the reason we fell in love as quickly as we did, among other things too private to discuss here. We talked about them extensively on our first date, and I felt like I could talk to this woman forever, about anything. Of course, having the same values and lifestyle certainly helps too

I am quite certain I have found my soulmate.

[kandrathe]

I am quite certain I have found my soulmate.

Me too. Mine was in 1983.

I wasn't considering her politics would be different. It's just that our spouses don't always value things the same way we do having not been privy to the sentiments that soaked into them.