Washington Post Editorial Board: Put boots on ground to stop IS

[tsai3904]

The Obama administration must put boots on the ground to stop the Islamic State

By Editorial Board August 25 at 6:59 PM

After years of downplaying the gathering threat from Islamist extremists in Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration seems to be swinging toward a view that the self-styled Islamic State must be stopped. This new appreciation is welcome, if it is shared by President Obama and accompanied by a seriousness of purpose.

Earlier this year, Mr. Obama was dismissing al-Qaeda offshoots as the junior varsity of terrorism and promising Americans that the tide of war was receding. Now his secretary of state, John F. Kerry, calls the Islamic State an “evil” that must “be destroyed.” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says it is “as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen . . . beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it “will eventually have to be defeated.”

What would it take to defeat the Islamic State, which continues to rack up military victories in Iraq and Syria, including the capture of another air base Sunday? When Mr. Obama was urged to support the moderate opposition in Syria three years ago, one reason given was that a failure to do so would leave an opening for more radical factions that would eventually spill out of Syria and threaten the region. The longer the president waited, the more the need for action would become obvious — but the more unappetizing his options would be.

...

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...093_story.html

[Brian4Liberty]

No surprise, The Washington Post is a neoconservative outlet:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tives-The-List

[HOLLYWOOD]

By Editorial Board August 25

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...IscO_page.html

Fred Hiatt;
Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor;
Jo-Ann Armao, who specializes in education and District affairs;
Jonathan Capehart, who focuses on national politics;
Lee Hockstader, who writes about political and other issues affecting Virginia and Maryland;
Charles Lane, who concentrates on economic policy, trade and globalization;
Stephen Stromberg, who specializes in energy, the environment, public health and other federal policy;
Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist
Michael Larabee Post Local Letters and Opinions Editor
Liz Sly, Middle East
Adam Goldman, Middle East

[Muwahid]

The big question is why does the Islamic State need to be stopped?

As in do they even remotely pose a security threat to the United States? In fact one could argue if they become a full fledged state, they will be less dangerous because they will try to preserve the land they capture.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...IscO_page.html

Fred Hiatt;
Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor;

Both neoconservatives.

[Kords21]

So when are they going? Will they enlist John McCain and Graham as their generals?

[Acala]

The big question is why does the Islamic State need to be stopped?

As in do they even remotely pose a security threat to the United States? In fact one could argue if they become a full fledged state, they will be less dangerous because they will try to preserve the land they capture.

Agreed that they are not a security threat to the US. And that is the end of the question as far as US government involvement is concerned.

However, I think theocracy tends to be a terrible form of government so I am not optimisitc for those who will fall under their power.

[Acala]

Boots on the ground. That phrase needs to be phased out and replaced by "young Americans in harm's way on a geopolitical whim".

[69360]

The big question is why does the Islamic State need to be stopped?

As in do they even remotely pose a security threat to the United States? In fact one could argue if they become a full fledged state, they will be less dangerous because they will try to preserve the land they capture.

They didn't need to be stopped. I could have cared less, not my problem.

They weren't a security threat to the US until Obama bombed them. Now they are threatening the US. Obama MADE them a threat.

Agreed that they are not a security threat to the US. And that is the end of the question as far as US government involvement is concerned.

However, I think theocracy tends to be a terrible form of government so I am not optimisitc for those who will fall under their power.

Now they are a security threat to the US, since they have been bombed they have been threatening the US.

Their rule will be similar to the Taliban, but worse. I feel bad for those who have to live in IS held areas, but still not my problem.

Something is going to have to be done. I can't see a group like IS accepting an apology and leaving the US alone. But who knows? If they keep making threats or act on them, they are going to have to be taken out. Sucks because this is a situation created by Obama.

[Acala]

Now they are a security threat to the US, since they have been bombed they have been threatening the US.

We must have a vastly different idea of what it means to be a security threat.

To me security threat does not mean that somebody hates the US and makes verbal threats against us. That would include most of the world. Decades of global bullying has made us rather unpopular. But this does not amount to a threat to the future liberty or prosperity of the USA.

Even an actual attack - like 9/11 - is of no material consequence. I feel bad for the innocent people who died and their families, but let's be honest - more people die in an average two months of traffic accidents in the US than died on 9/11. Equally innocent and tragic, but not a threat to national security. And two outdated buildings were destroyed. And it took ten years of planning to make it happen. The future of American liberty and prosperity was entirely unaffected by 9/11 (although our own government used it as an opportunity to attack our freedom). So even a credible threat of individual acts of terrorism is not a national security issue. It is a criminal justice issue.

A national security issue is the threat of imminent invasion or nuclear attack by an industrial power. That's it. Everything else is a put on.

IS is NOT a threat to national security.

[DFF]

The owner of Amazon.com Jeff Bezos who purchased the Washington Post, is a Libertarian.

Obviously, however, this call for another invasion is about as non-Libertarian as you can get.

[69360]

We must have a vastly different idea of what it means to be a security threat.

To me security threat does not mean that somebody hates the US and makes verbal threats against us. That would include most of the world. Decades of global bullying has made us rather unpopular. But this does not amount to a threat to the future liberty or prosperity of the USA.

Even an actual attack - like 9/11 - is of no material consequence. I feel bad for the innocent people who died and their families, but let's be honest - more people die in an average two months of traffic accidents in the US than died on 9/11. Equally innocent and tragic, but not a threat to national security. And two outdated buildings were destroyed. And it took ten years of planning to make it happen. The future of American liberty and prosperity was entirely unaffected by 9/11 (although our own government used it as an opportunity to attack our freedom). So even a credible threat of individual acts of terrorism is not a national security issue. It is a criminal justice issue.

A national security issue is the threat of imminent invasion or nuclear attack by an industrial power. That's it. Everything else is a put on.

IS is NOT a threat to national security.

They have 2 billion in cash and we have borders anyone can walk across. They could commit an act of terror that makes 9/11 look like childs play. Nobody is suggesting IS could invade the US or be a threat militarily.

2 Billion could buy chemical or bio weapons, maybe even some loose ex-soviet nukes or a dirty bomb.

Another terror attack on the US would plunge the country into another decade of war. We all know that's not possible monetarily without crashing the financial system or sacrifice on the scale of WW2.

So yes IS really is a threat.

[torchbearer]

Message to that editor, "You First"

[green73]

No surprise, The Washington Post is a neoconservative outlet:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tives-The-List

Come on, Brian. Time to break out of the left/right paradigm. The Washington Post is a tentacle of the State.

[vita3]

I have no problem bombing ISIS in Syria as long as Assad's Gov approves & is informed.

[thoughtomator]

They have 2 billion in cash and we have borders anyone can walk across. They could commit an act of terror that makes 9/11 look like childs play. Nobody is suggesting IS could invade the US or be a threat militarily.

2 Billion could buy chemical or bio weapons, maybe even some loose ex-soviet nukes or a dirty bomb.

Another terror attack on the US would plunge the country into another decade of war. We all know that's not possible monetarily without crashing the financial system or sacrifice on the scale of WW2.

So yes IS really is a threat.

Anyone can be a threat, with just a couple of plane tickets. One to Sierra Leone, and another to the Western nation of their choice.

And continuing down the path of being realistic, there is no threat to US national security greater than that from its own rogue agencies - DHS, CIA, FBI, etc. You don't see ISIS ordering a billion rounds of hollow-point ammo for use inside the borders of the USA. ISIS didn't bankrupt us and hollow out our economy and give all our defense secrets to the Chinese. ISIS wasn't the one that deliberately made it next-to-impossible to secure anything over a network. ISIS isn't facilitating the invasion of millions of Central Americans, nor is it forcing Americans at gunpoint to fund its own enemies. ISIS didn't bring a new strain of Ebola to Atlanta and to Maine.

[Brian4Liberty]

Come on, Brian. Time to break out of the left/right paradigm. The Washington Post is a tentacle of the State.

A neoconservative tentacle.

[green73]

A neoconservative tentacle.

That's simply not true. They support whatever makes the state grow and whatever protects it.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's simply not true. They support whatever makes the state grow and whatever protects it.

They do that too. But every last employee does not have to be neoconservative (or neo-liberal interventionist) for them to carry water for that agenda. Enough of the key players are, especially on foreign policy, which is the primary obsession of neoconservatives. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

It's more than just Jen Rubin. Gerson is an ex-Bush Administration neocon. Then there are the guys that run the editorial board.

There are links in this thread:

- Washington Post (Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, Fred Hiatt, Jackson Diehl)

And more:

Indeed, the neocon fanatic who runs the Post‘s Editorial Page, Fred Hiatt, predictably defended and praised Rubin, calling her “an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter” who “is often the target of unjustified criticism.”

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/why_...ennifer_rubin/

[pcosmar]

However, I think theocracy tends to be a terrible form of government so I am not optimisitc for those who will fall under their power.

I think that depends.
National socialism is a worse form of Government,, but we seem to support that being imposed.
A Oppressive Dictatorship is worse,, and we have imposed enough of those.

We aren't bombing Saudi Arabia,, or the Gulf States that have Theocratic Governments. Iran would be thriving if not for the sanctions on them.

I am looking forward to a perfect Theocracy one day.

[pcosmar]

I have no problem bombing ISIS in Syria as long as Assad's Gov approves & is informed.

But that would be helping Assad,, and we armed the Islamists to fight him. (which never made any good sense)

[Muwahid]

I think that depends.
National socialism is a worse form of Government,, but we seem to support that being imposed.
A Oppressive Dictatorship is worse,, and we have imposed enough of those.

We aren't bombing Saudi Arabia,, or the Gulf States that have Theocratic Governments. Iran would be thriving if not for the sanctions on them.

I am looking forward to a perfect Theocracy one day.

I agree it does depend.

I believe the government should reflect the people, if the people are staunch theists, then a theocracy will work for them, if they're staunch atheists, a secular-based system would work. Even some social-democracies tend to work, because of the homogenous nature of the citizens, unlike here where federally imposed social services don't make sense, because many Americans don't want to pay for certain social services they don't personally agree with (making a voluntary system more viable here).

The idea there's a one size fits all is pretty naive. What would be wrong with a Muslim majority nation imposing their ideas of divinely inspired laws, or even a Christian or Jewish majority nation doing the same? If it works for them and peace is maintained others shouldn't impose their idealisms on other nations.

At the end of the day people universally want to live in peace and prosperity if their government is oppressive or unprosperous, eventually, people will rise up to change it. They don't need intervention.

[69360]

I agree it does depend.

I believe the government should reflect the people, if the people are staunch theists, then a theocracy will work for them, if they're staunch atheists, a secular-based system would work. Even some social-democracies tend to work, because of the homogenous nature of the citizens, unlike here where federally imposed social services don't make sense, because many Americans don't want to pay for certain social services they don't personally agree with (making a voluntary system more viable here).

The idea there's a one size fits all is pretty naive. What would be wrong with a Muslim majority nation imposing their ideas of divinely inspired laws, or even a Christian or Jewish majority nation doing the same? If it works for them and peace is maintained others shouldn't impose their idealisms on other nations.

At the end of the day people universally want to live in peace and prosperity if their government is oppressive or unprosperous, eventually, people will rise up to change it. They don't need intervention.

Tyranny of the majority is the argument against it.

But if it as working for a country, who am I to be concerned about it.

[Muwahid]

Tyranny of the majority is the argument against it.

But if it as working for a country, who am I to be concerned about it.

The flipside of say, forcing secularization or western-esque governments over people, is it creates a schism between the people and their government. The values of the government should directly reflect the values of the general populace. In the Middle East where governments were essentially forced to be secular/prowestern the people are under constant suspicion because they are not inherently secular or prowestern and probably never will be.

Having ample representation for minorities is a must though, but it's no guarantee in the long run. I don't think a perfect incorruptible system will ever exist we can only make the best of what we've got.

[Miss Annie]

Tyranny of the majority is the argument against it.

But if it as working for a country, who am I to be concerned about it.

Assad is fighting against religious tyranny...

Syrian President Assad calls for separation of ‘political Islam’ and state

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/0...lam-and-state/

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, April 7, 2014 18:34 EDT

The “project of political Islam has failed,” Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad said on Monday, calling for the separation of religion from politics, state television said.

Assad’s regime has been battling an uprising that has come to be dominated by Islamists, ranging from moderates to radicals, who want to see Syria run as an Islamic state.

“The project of political Islam has failed, and there should be no mixing between political and religious work,” he said in comments on the 67th anniversary of the founding of his Baath party.

Assad refers to all those fighting against him as “terrorists” and has said that he is battling extremists with retrograde ideas.

The president has repeatedly stressed the need for all parts of Syrian society to challenge “extremism”.

Assad said his government was also “continuing with the process of reconciliation, because what concerns us is ending the bloodshed and the destruction of infrastructure”.

In recent months, Assad’s government has negotiated limited ceasefires with rebels who agree to raise the government’s flag in their neighbourhoods, and in many cases turn over their weapons.

The deals usually follow months-long sieges by the army, which have contributed to humanitarian crises in parts of the country.

Syria’s conflict, which began in March 2011, has left more than 150,000 people dead.

[Image via Agence France-Presse]

[Muwahid]

Assad is fighting against religious tyranny...

Do you know how corrupt Syria was before the civil war? Bashar al Assad and his father were tyrants who have murdered thousands of men women and children, and tortured thousands of others in their secret prisons.

[enhanced_deficit]

Washington Post Editorial Board: Put boots on ground to stop IS

On a different historic note, some past WaPo Editorials citations.


Washington Post Editorial Page Misses Iraq War Anniversary

Posted: 03/20/2013 11:50 am EDT Updated: 03/20/2013 5:34 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- In the months leading up to the Iraq War, The Washington Post ran 27 editorials in favor of invasion, according to a count by veteran PBS journalist Bill Moyers. This week, around the 10-year anniversary of the war, it has yet to print any editorials or columns on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2915608.html


(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, FEBRUARY 1, 1972)

NIXON: “Newsweek” is totally — it's all run by Jews and dominated by them in their editorial pages. The “New York Times, the “Washington Post”, totally Jewish too.

GRAHAM: And they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. But this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.

NIXON: Do you believe that?

GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

NIXON: I can't ever say it, but I believe it.

GRAHAM: But if you get elected a second time, we might be able to do something.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

http://www.raghidadergham.com/archiv...pt3_26_02.html



If above claims have any factual basis, does Israel factor play role in wapo editorials when it comes to Iraq/ISNOTISIS/USTF foreign occupations etc?

[Miss Annie]

Do you know how corrupt Syria was before the civil war? Bashar al Assad and his father were tyrants who have murdered thousands of men women and children, and tortured thousands of others in their secret prisons.

Do you know how tyrannical theocracies are?

[Muwahid]

Do you know how tyrannical theocracies are?

They're not inherently tyrannical. Like all forms of government they become corrupted by men.

[Miss Annie]

They're not inherently tyrannical. Like all forms of government they become corrupted by men.

Are you pro liberty?