Brian4Liberty
06-18-2014, 11:34 AM
Do the Sunni Arabs of northern Iraq share ideology with the ISIS extremists? Common sense would dictate that the average Sunni wants to prosper and does not want war, death and destruction. On the other hand, it is also likely that they welcome a separation from the Shiite dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki. The arrival of the ISIS fighters provided the catalyst for the rapid and relatively peaceful withdrawal of Maliki's forces from Sunni areas.
The ISIS fighters have served their purpose, and are no longer useful to the average northern Sunni. The only thing that would give ISIS a further purpose is a military attack from outside forces. Why should the US give ISIS that help?
One supposed justification for US action that has been used by Lindsey Graham and friends is that these extremists pose an "existential threat to America". Osama Bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan is often cited as a example. This argument holds water like a pasta strainer. Bin Laden or other plotters could be anywhere at any time. They could be meeting and scheming in Kabul, Paris, London or New York. The location doesn't matter, and the threat neither increases or decreases based upon the outcome of sectarian battles on the other side of the world.
The US would be better served if reported and identified threats such as the Tsarnaev brothers who detonated homemade bombs in Boston were followed up on by Homeland Security. As there was probable cause, supported by affirmation, and identifying specific persons, an investigation of the brothers would actually be Constitutional. Of course the last thing that Lindsey Graham and friends want is to take actions and make policy consistent with the Constitution. That is far too limiting for their taste, a sentiment they share with Obama and the authoritarian progressives.
An excerpt from The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america/) on the ISIS "threat":
ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America
As the Islamic warriors of ISIS rolled down the road from Mosul... “We are now facing an existential threat to the security of the United States of America,” said McCain. But nothing that happens in Mesopotamia is going to threaten the existence of the United States. As for the terrorist threat from ISIS, for us it is neither greater nor less than it was a week ago.
The existential threat here is to Iraq. Its survival as one nation is now in question, with the possibility it could be torn apart in a civil and sectarian war. But this is preeminently Iraq’s problem, not ours. And if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his 900,000-man army, and Shia militia cannot defend Baghdad from a few thousand Islamist warriors, America is under no obligation to do it for them. Maliki told us to go home three years ago. We did. And before we plunge back into that misbegotten war, let us consider what the real threats are—to America.
...
...ISIS has as allies in the north and west of Iraq Sunnis who detest Maliki and wish to be rid of him. But these Sunni are not demanding a Taliban regime to abolish smoking and drinking. Nor are they fighting to cut off the heads of their Shia countrymen. If ISIS goes beyond the liberation of the Sunni triangle to trying to take over all of Iraq, they will lose many Sunni allies and find themselves facing Iraq’s Shia majority, backed up by Iranian forces, virtually alone.
But while the Iraqi army and Shia militia may well hold Baghdad, it is hard to see how Maliki can soon reconquer the Sunni provinces. For the Sunnis want no part of him or his regime. Nor does Maliki seem capable of taking back Kirkuk, which the Kurds seized in the chaos as a step toward independence. What should America do? Take a hard look at our entire Middle East policy.
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america/
The ISIS fighters have served their purpose, and are no longer useful to the average northern Sunni. The only thing that would give ISIS a further purpose is a military attack from outside forces. Why should the US give ISIS that help?
One supposed justification for US action that has been used by Lindsey Graham and friends is that these extremists pose an "existential threat to America". Osama Bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan is often cited as a example. This argument holds water like a pasta strainer. Bin Laden or other plotters could be anywhere at any time. They could be meeting and scheming in Kabul, Paris, London or New York. The location doesn't matter, and the threat neither increases or decreases based upon the outcome of sectarian battles on the other side of the world.
The US would be better served if reported and identified threats such as the Tsarnaev brothers who detonated homemade bombs in Boston were followed up on by Homeland Security. As there was probable cause, supported by affirmation, and identifying specific persons, an investigation of the brothers would actually be Constitutional. Of course the last thing that Lindsey Graham and friends want is to take actions and make policy consistent with the Constitution. That is far too limiting for their taste, a sentiment they share with Obama and the authoritarian progressives.
An excerpt from The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america/) on the ISIS "threat":
ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America
As the Islamic warriors of ISIS rolled down the road from Mosul... “We are now facing an existential threat to the security of the United States of America,” said McCain. But nothing that happens in Mesopotamia is going to threaten the existence of the United States. As for the terrorist threat from ISIS, for us it is neither greater nor less than it was a week ago.
The existential threat here is to Iraq. Its survival as one nation is now in question, with the possibility it could be torn apart in a civil and sectarian war. But this is preeminently Iraq’s problem, not ours. And if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his 900,000-man army, and Shia militia cannot defend Baghdad from a few thousand Islamist warriors, America is under no obligation to do it for them. Maliki told us to go home three years ago. We did. And before we plunge back into that misbegotten war, let us consider what the real threats are—to America.
...
...ISIS has as allies in the north and west of Iraq Sunnis who detest Maliki and wish to be rid of him. But these Sunni are not demanding a Taliban regime to abolish smoking and drinking. Nor are they fighting to cut off the heads of their Shia countrymen. If ISIS goes beyond the liberation of the Sunni triangle to trying to take over all of Iraq, they will lose many Sunni allies and find themselves facing Iraq’s Shia majority, backed up by Iranian forces, virtually alone.
But while the Iraqi army and Shia militia may well hold Baghdad, it is hard to see how Maliki can soon reconquer the Sunni provinces. For the Sunnis want no part of him or his regime. Nor does Maliki seem capable of taking back Kirkuk, which the Kurds seized in the chaos as a step toward independence. What should America do? Take a hard look at our entire Middle East policy.
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america/