President Obama is speaking now about the necessity of going after ISIL, currently the most rabid of death-eaters of the Middle East.
ISIL is terrible, and terrible for the people of Iraq and Syria.
The US, by waging war on and in Iraq, has helped (but did not solely) prepare the ground on which ISIL arose. The Iraqi government, thru spectacular mismanagement and churlish policies toward its Sunni citizens, fertilized that ground, and Syrian President Assad, by emptying his jails of militants, gleefully seeded it.
Whatever the US responsibility for ISIL’s rise, however, it is not at all clear that we have the competence to clean up our own mess.
I wasn’t opposed to the limited bombing in support of the evacuation of the Yazidis, largely because it was limited in time and place and for a specific purpose, and for which the alternatives, including doing nothing, were unlikely to work in preventing a massacre.
But this, this expanded campaign to “degrade, and ultimately destroy” ISIL?
No.
The president’s speech was short, and of the parts which weren’t filled with the usual boo-yah blather, strove for a combination of modesty and determination: no ground troops, working with allies, humanitarian assistance, strikes in Syria (not modest!), all geared toward long-term peace.
Peace—what a lovely idea.
But if we are determined to eliminate ISIL, modesty likely will not do, and I am concerned that if these modest efforts don’t work or work as well or as quickly as the war-bangers want, then we’ll hear—are already hearing—that determination requires immodesty, and by gum the US is weak, weak, I tell ya!, unless we’re willing to kill and die and kill some more.
As I’ve mentioned before, I do not believe that we act ably or well in our military endeavors in the Middle East.
It’s not so much that I fear that we might fail as believe that we have already failed, and with this re-engagement, are about to amplify that failure.
AbsurdBeats 