• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When I was faster i was always behind.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Donald Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Books are my comfort food!

Radicalized white males who support Trump are pitching a tent in the abyss.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Bark louder, little dog.

People are weird.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

You cannot love your country only when you win.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Early Morning Open Thread — Post-Speech Reax

Early Morning Open Thread — Post-Speech Reax

by Betty Cracker|  September 11, 20146:52 am| 192 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, War

FacebookTweetEmail

The US can drone and weaken isis, but a decade has shown, the US is not qualified to mediate sunni shiite divide.

— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) September 11, 2014

Does anyone disagree with Mr. Engel here? I watched the speech last night. As usual, PBO seemed refreshingly rational. Unlike his predecessor, PBO doesn’t have grandiose delusions about the US stomping through the region all Godzilla-like to alter the course of history.

But, for me, at least, it keeps coming back to this: Is widening US involvement in the Middle East a good idea? Does it serve our interests? And, for me, at least, the answer is: NOPE.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread: Reddit and Weep
Next Post: Doctor Owned Hospitals – a reader’s request »

Reader Interactions

192Comments

  1. 1.

    Comrade Jake

    September 11, 2014 at 6:56 am

    I thought Juan Cole’s take was one of the more intriguing ones:

    Invoking Yemen and Somalia is a signal of minimalism in every way. On MSNBC, veteran, experienced and brilliant correspondent Richard Engel took apart this analogy. He pointed out that Yemen and Somalia are holding actions but that in Iraq the US and its allies would have to take territory.

    But what if Obama is talking big but carrying a soft stick? What if he really does mean he has a Yemen-like situation in mind?
    What if Obama wants to prevent the fall of Baghdad, Erbil and even Riyadh? What if he is privately skeptical about Baghdad recovering Mosul any time soon? He has after all used drones in Waziristan in northwest Pakistan not to inflict military defeat but for tactical advantage. Iraq and Syria are the new Waziristan.

    The whole thing is worth a read.

  2. 2.

    WereBear

    September 11, 2014 at 7:02 am

    We been “intervening” since Lawrence of Arabia. Can’t see that we’ve done any good. And that’s not even the purpose, most of the time.

  3. 3.

    Mustang Bobby

    September 11, 2014 at 7:04 am

    I know I’m not the only one to think this, but President Obama promised no American combat troops will be involved. Well, unless all the airstrikes are coming from drones, there have been and will be American combat troops involved in the fight. The fact that they’re not “on the ground” but in the air seems a semantic point at best. And when that first plane and crew is shot down, let’s see how long our combat troops will stay out.

  4. 4.

    Matt McIrvin

    September 11, 2014 at 7:06 am

    I’d have greatly preferred a containment strategy rather than vowing to crush them somehow: that’s setting us up for all sorts of failure. But containment doesn’t play in Peoria, I guess.

  5. 5.

    Matt McIrvin

    September 11, 2014 at 7:09 am

    …and Juan Cole argues that he is in fact proposing containment and phrasing it in expansive terms for the cameras. We’ll see, I guess.

  6. 6.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:11 am

    My hunch is that the real goal will be to try to get ISIL out of Iraq and give their new government a chance to be successful.

  7. 7.

    Elizabelle

    September 11, 2014 at 7:12 am

    @Baud:

    Exactly. And I think that’s a worthy goal.

  8. 8.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:13 am

    not qualified to mediate sunni shiite divide.

    BTW, I have no idea what this means with respect to what we’re doing.

  9. 9.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:19 am

    Unlike his predecessor, PBO doesn’t have grandiose delusions about the US stomping through the region all Godzilla-like to alter the course of history.

    Apart from the decision to invade in the first place, isn’t the root of all these problems Bush’s decision to de-Baathify Iraqi governing institutions?

  10. 10.

    debbie

    September 11, 2014 at 7:19 am

    I think Muslims themselves need to take an upfront role and really condemn these extremists who have twisted Islam into this violent, warped thing. Where are the religious leaders and the politicians in all this? Sure, intervention has made things worse, but the silence from the Muslim world makes them complicit in all this.

  11. 11.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 7:21 am

    @Baud: We’ve been trying to give that government a chance to be successful for the better part of a decade, and the reason it keeps falling apart is the Sunni – Shia divide Engel was referring to in his tweet.

  12. 12.

    NorthLeft12

    September 11, 2014 at 7:22 am

    On the way in to work this morning I listened to a Detroit morning radio show where the three personalities all agreed that something [violent was unspoken] had to be done about these terrorists who wanted to destroy America because they are jealous and/or hate the American way of life.

    One of these personalities did opine momentarily that maybe it was not a good idea to interfere in other countries internal affairs, but in a minute he was on the “they hate our way of life” schtick.

    I never heard any mention of any ongoing meddling in the Middle East [ie. drone strikes, unqualified support of Israel/Saudi Arabia, military occupations/presence in other countries, other support of despised governments or groups, etc.], but they did lament that they should have got out of Iraq as soon as they caught Sadaam. Then presumedly none of this blowback would have happened.

    History is very hard. So are current events for that matter.

  13. 13.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:24 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    Well, a large part of the problem was Maliki, no? They’ve only had one government since we left.

  14. 14.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    September 11, 2014 at 7:29 am

    @debbie: I think the Christians really need to take an upfront role and condemn these American extremists who have twisted Christianity into this violent, warped war machine. Where are the religious leaders in all this? Sure, extremism in the Middle East has made things worse, but the silence from the Christian world makes them complicit in all this.

    Sounds pretty silly that way, doesn’t it?

    On top of everything else, the idea that “the Muslim world” is silent about ISIS is really pretty ridiculous. Obama has entire countries now joining a coalition with him against them.

  15. 15.

    JMG

    September 11, 2014 at 7:31 am

    @NorthLeft12: Just a reflection of the mindset of most Americans which makes it impossible for the country to have a coherent foreign policy. We demand all the power and privileges of empire while rejecting the expenditures of blood and (especially) treasure that empires require.

  16. 16.

    jonas

    September 11, 2014 at 7:32 am

    @debbie: A bigger problem seems to be that when, in fact, Muslims and Islamic organizations around the world *do* routinely condemn ISIS and other radical groups, nobody seems to pay attention.

  17. 17.

    brantl

    September 11, 2014 at 7:32 am

    It’s really time for us to actually work in a humanitarian way, that we have always claimed were what motivated us in the first place. The Jekyll-Hyde of those “humanitarian” motivations with our “national security interests” have shown us to be obvously Machiavellian in our foreign policy, except that Machiavelli would have been more graceful. We constantly give the impression that we will step in anywhere if our “security interests” are in play, and that involves any military considerations, and any economic considerations, as well, and I don’t think that’s morally defensible. Other people are perfectly entitled to buy the short supply of whatever it is, that we want, instead of us being able to buy it.

  18. 18.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 7:32 am

    @Baud: That’s the company line, but the divisions within that society are deeper than one corrupt politician. The reason ISIS was able to roll through such a large chunk of territory is that the Sunnis didn’t see any bank in opposing them. Think about that. They hated their own government so much they preferred those psychotic fucks to Baghdad.

  19. 19.

    debbie

    September 11, 2014 at 7:35 am

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    Actually, that doesn’t sound silly either.

  20. 20.

    seabe

    September 11, 2014 at 7:35 am

    Is there any talk whatsoever of lifting sanctions on the Kurdish PKK militia? You know, the only group with a lot of success in kicking ISIS ass? Stuff like that tells me how serious the president is about confronting this supposed threat to the US. Otherwise, it’s just more liberal interventionist hubris.

  21. 21.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:37 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    I’m not saying there are no divisions or that it won’t be difficult for them to achieve stability. But I can see wanting to give this new coalition a chance before turning Iraq (including the Kurds) over to ISIL.

  22. 22.

    debbie

    September 11, 2014 at 7:40 am

    @jonas:

    This should be getting a lot more press, I agree (and I”m not happy about the company I seem to be keeping).

  23. 23.

    Keith G

    September 11, 2014 at 7:41 am

    @Betty Cracker: Bush’s policy of de-Bathification effectively made the political class of Sunnis outsiders in their own land. After that, feelings of alienation spread throughout the Sunni population – helped by anti Sunni actions on the part of a Shia government propped up by the US.

  24. 24.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 7:44 am

    @Baud: How many Friedman Units are you willing to invest in that endeavor? How much money? How many US lives? Not you personally — the US in general, I guess.

    Me, I’m done pouring money and blood down that rat hole. In fact, I suspect that propping the various factions up will just string the problem along indefinitely.

  25. 25.

    WereBear

    September 11, 2014 at 7:45 am

    @Baud: quote from tweet: not qualified to mediate sunni shiite divide.

    It’s a religious war, from a split that developed since Prophet Mohammed died. They have to learn tolerance, or continue to kill each other.

    The only realistic goal is “They must learn tolerance,” and that’s an impossible goal, isn’t it? Militarily speaking. So intervening will do nothing except kill people.

  26. 26.

    Keith G

    September 11, 2014 at 7:46 am

    @Baud:

    But I can see wanting to give this new coalition a chance before turning Iraq (including the Kurds) over to ISIL.

    I think there might be a chance for short term success as a coalition strengthens to deal with a common threat. Of course, once the threat is mitigated, I doubt Kumbaya will be heard echoing throughout the land.

  27. 27.

    debbie

    September 11, 2014 at 7:50 am

    @jonas:

    Though I can’t tell where it is that they’re speaking up. It needs to be said to and heard by people living in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, etc.

  28. 28.

    Schlemazel [was Schlemizel till NotMax taught me proper yiddish!]

    September 11, 2014 at 7:50 am

    @Baud:
    No, all these problems started because of Boy Blunders decision to invade Iraq in the first place. Debathhification was just the pustual cherry on his shit sundae.

  29. 29.

    Iowa Old Lady

    September 11, 2014 at 7:54 am

    This may be OT but maybe not. An article on self-affirming organizational stupidity in the Journal of Management Studies:

    http://jourhavandesociolog.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/joms1072.pdf#

    A sample: “we call functional stupidity are an equally important if
    under-recognized part of organizational life. Functional stupidity refers to an absence of
    reflexivity, a refusal to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and avoidance
    of justifications. We argue that functional stupidity is prevalent in contexts dominated by
    economy in persuasion which emphasizes image and symbolic manipulation”

  30. 30.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 7:56 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    Do you just feel that way about Iraq, or all of the world’s problems? I don’t have chart that tells me when we should stop, but right now I’m not opposed to the current attempt to improve the situation.

  31. 31.

    Patricia Kayden

    September 11, 2014 at 7:57 am

    Laurence O’Donnell was asking the same thing: what would happen if the US did nothing about ISIS?

    The bottom line is that fighting Al-qaeda or ISIS is a never ending story. It’s fighting an ideology and not an actual entity. But according to polls, it appears that Americans are okay with airstrikes so that’s where we are.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/what-explains-the-publics-support-for-air-strikes-against-isis-the-terrorism-nerve/

  32. 32.

    Hal

    September 11, 2014 at 8:00 am

    The never forgetters are up early and making sure social media users never forget. Gosh, 911 rings a bell, but I’ve forgotten why. If only someone would remind me.

  33. 33.

    Randy P

    September 11, 2014 at 8:01 am

    Why do you people talk as if Bush had any input in Cheney’s foreign policy? I’ll bet if you asked him point blank about “de-Baathification” he’d think you were saying something about removing the bathtubs from his house.

  34. 34.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:02 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    Is widening US involvement in the Middle East a good idea? Does it serve our interests? And, for me, at least, the answer is: NOPE.

    Military “involvement”? Other “involvement”?

  35. 35.

    NorthLeft12

    September 11, 2014 at 8:04 am

    @JMG: I will respectfully disagree with part of your response.. “reject the expenditures of blood and treasure that empires require.”

    Your elected officials never seem to have a problem in sacrificing US soldiers or billions and billions of dollars to that end. And the US public continues to re-elect those same officials to continue that policy.
    At least, that is exactly how it looks to an outsider [I am Canadian].

  36. 36.

    OzarkHillbilly

    September 11, 2014 at 8:05 am

    But, for me, at least, it keeps coming back to this: Is widening US involvement in the Middle East a good idea? Does it serve our interests? And, for me, at least, the answer is: NOPE.

    Amen.

  37. 37.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 8:09 am

    It somehow seemed fitting that the speech was the night before 9/11. We seem to have come full circle in what is happening in the Middle East. It makes one want to take a Rip Van Winkle pill, pull up the covers and hope things are a bit better in 20 years.

    This part of the world has been a swamp of conflicting political and religious ambitions for centuries. One hundred years ago the Ottoman empire was referred to as the sick man of Europe. We are still dealing with the fallout from the collapse of the Ottomans. In 1923 Churchill said that the occupation of Iraq was like siting on an angry volcano and paying 8 million pounds a year to do it. Richard Engel tweeted that the US has been unable to manage the Sunni/Shia divide. Why is that surprising since its only been in the last decade that the Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland has settled into an uneasy peace.

    George Bush can’t be blamed for this Pandora’s box but he certainly bears full responsibility for having kicked the box open without a single thought to the consequences of 1500 years of history. Even if the Bushes had followed the State Dept. post invasion plan we would still be in this mess. It was our plan not the Iraqi’s. The Shia majority had their own ideas of what a post-Sadaam Iraq would look like and when given to opportunity they implemented those plans. Why are we surprised!!!!!

    Why do we think that we can bring peace to this region when we can’t even bridge the gap between the red and the blue states in this country. For the GOP base Obama is a bigger enemy than ISIS. The knuckle dragger Gingrich last night aid that this was Obama’s most pro-American speech. What a flaming jerk. But this is the mindset of the GOP – Obama is a traitor, he is un-American, he is an ally of the jihadists. If we can’t bridge that gap, they getting to Sunni and Shia to play nice together is way way way beyond our ability.

    Maybe I’ll take 2 pills and see every one in 40 years

  38. 38.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 8:12 am

    @Iowa Old Lady: A long high faulting way of saying ‘I’ve made up my mind don’t bother me with the fact’.

  39. 39.

    Kay

    September 11, 2014 at 8:12 am

    @JMG:

    They’re jumping the gun on that polling, though, don’t you think? They’ve been heavily promoting the threat for weeks, they got the polling result that validates their coverage and now they’re heavily promoting that.

    This is a little too circular for my tastes. I’m not ready to go full-on ‘the American people are making irrational demands” just yet. I’m not clear we have evidence of a demand, let alone one so specific.

  40. 40.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 8:24 am

    @Baud: Each hot spot needs to be assessed on its own merits, but in general, I favor less world policing.

  41. 41.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Just another game of whack-a-mole to keep the insatiable war machine fed. Nothing more.

  42. 42.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:33 am

    @Kay:

    They’re jumping the gun on that polling, though, don’t you think? They’ve been heavily promoting the threat for weeks, they got the polling result that validates their coverage and now they’re heavily promoting that

    Exactly. It’s been ISIS evil, ISIS beheading, ISIS evil, beheading, beheading, beheading, evil, evil, evil nonstop for weeks. Of course the people are going to react to that.

  43. 43.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:36 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    I favor less world policing.

    I favor no world policing at this point. We can work through the UN and similar global agencies, but being the world’s cop has to stop.

  44. 44.

    Belafon

    September 11, 2014 at 8:38 am

    @Betty Cracker: Do you think it was wrong for Obama to help track down the group in Africa that is killing people?

    Considering the fact that we fucked up the middle east with the actions of the last president, completely dropping out would not bode well either. And Obama is getting countries in the area involved.

  45. 45.

    Baud

    September 11, 2014 at 8:39 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    I agree with that principle.

  46. 46.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 8:40 am

    @Comrade Jake: I was going to cut and paste the same piece from the article. It is well worth reading. We can’t bomb ideas out of existence. The society where the idea is flourishing has to root it out. The Shia-Sunni divide has to be worked out by the Muslim community. The proper power sharing between the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds in Iraq have to be worked out by the three groups. Sure the US can offer some helpful hints and some technical expertise but the hard work of running a coalition government must be done by the Iraqi’s. And before we get to high and mighty remember that between 30-40 of the American electorate does not recognize the legitimacy of the Obama presidency and has spent the past 6 years trying to destroy it, regardless of the impact on the country. So why should we think the Iraqi, or Syrians or Egyptians can do any better

  47. 47.

    askew

    September 11, 2014 at 8:46 am

    I think Engel is way off base. He’s kind of lost the plot after his experience in Syria. He seems incredibly angry about the ME and sneers at any possible foreign policy actions by Obama admin. He was dismissive of Obama doing nothing in Syria. He was dismissive of Obama negotiating for CW surrender and humanitarian relief. He was dismissive of air strikes. He has zero solutions and an unending amount of bile for Obama. Now, I understand his experience in Syria was life-altering but at this point he isn’t adding anything useful to the discussion because he isn’t even listening to what the admin/Obama is saying or paying attention to what they are doing. Of course, that could be said of the entire MSNBC panel last night except for Al Sharpton. All of them had their talking points ready to go last night and none of them had anything to do with what the president actually said.

  48. 48.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 8:46 am

    As I understand the plan it is a huge gamble with a high chance of failure AND it is also the least worst option. Engel is being an idiot in his tweet as there are more interests at play than just the Sunni Shiite divide and if anything the administration has made an impressive effort to not be seen as taking sides in a Sunni Shiite divide. The whole reason for waiting to do airstrikes in Iraq was not because the President was keen to be seen as weak and dithering, rather it was to not be seen as Maliki’s air force.

    I am cautiously optimistic about some of the coordination I am seeing with Iran. Also do not think that just leaving it alone is an option much as I would like it to be. I’m very concerned for Jordan for example if they are left to deal with an impossible refugee crisis after decades of impossible refugee crises.

  49. 49.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 8:47 am

    @Belafon: I’m not sure which incident in Africa you’re referring to, so I can’t answer that question.

    I understand your point about being obligated to remain embroiled in Iraq because of GWB’s massive fuck-up, but in my view, our continuing involvement isn’t necessarily helping. Yes, we screwed up that country. No, we can’t fix it, IMO.

    The people who have a direct stake in the outcome in Iraq, i.e., Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kurdistan, Iraq, Turkey, etc. — they and the Iraqi factions need to sort this shit out, in my opinion. If we put our thumb on the scales in favor of any particular faction, that just delays the reckoning that must eventually happen among those factions.

  50. 50.

    Southern Beale

    September 11, 2014 at 8:48 am

    But … but … but … OIL!!!!!

  51. 51.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:48 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    “Policing” is a much-too-benign term for what American foreign policy actually does.

    Unless maybe you’re thinking of the kind of “policing” we saw in Ferguson recently — but even that understates the problem.

  52. 52.

    Paul W.

    September 11, 2014 at 8:48 am

    @Comrade Jake:

    This is my take as well, it will be much more akin to the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation (where we have quite approval to make strikes, but no ground troops) than to anything else we’ve seen previously.

    PBO has been extremely firm on not making ground troop commitments, and while I respect Engel for his knowledge he is just not giving PBO enough credit for the fact that he has NEVER tried to make the argument that America can do this alone. Either we have willing partners in the region or we eventually get out (see Iraq before ISIL and see Afghanistan).

  53. 53.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 8:50 am

    @Belafon:

    I’ve heard first hand some of the vile things that Al Shabaab does. Not a mistake at all to take that guy out.

  54. 54.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 8:54 am

    @Betty Cracker: What about WWII? Do you think that the US involvement in the European theater was unnecessary too?

  55. 55.

    askew

    September 11, 2014 at 8:55 am

    @Belafon:

    Obama is using U.S. military in a much more restrained way than the past 2 presidents and he makes sure that we are not going it alone on any intervention. That has worked so far. I don’t think we can pull back further than we have now in world affairs. And if anyone else was president right now, we’d have boots on the ground in Iraq and possibly Syria and Ukraine. I shudder to think of what the next president will do in foreign policy. I expect a lot more aggressive military action from whoever it will be.

  56. 56.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 8:56 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    The people who have a direct stake in the outcome in Iraq, i.e., Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kurdistan, Iraq, Turkey, etc. — they and the Iraqi factions need to sort this shit out, in my opinion. If we put our thumb on the scales in favor of any particular faction, that just delays the reckoning that must eventually happen among those factions.

    There used to be a pan-Arab movement. How it evolved — and how US policy-makers responded to it, and why — these questions may be worth re-visiting.

  57. 57.

    raven

    September 11, 2014 at 8:58 am

    @Betty Cracker: So you would have left those people on that mountain?

  58. 58.

    OzarkHillbilly

    September 11, 2014 at 8:59 am

    “It” didn’t start with Ws grand adventure. That was just the latest round of meddling in other people’s business for our own enrichment. Many like to pin point it with the end of WW! and England and France’s divvying up of the Middle East. I suspect it precedes that, but really, who cares? The whole Shia/Sunni divide strikes as just more class warfare by another name, or to put a different shade of lipstick on the pig, those in power play up and use the religious differences for their own low purposes (power and the desire for it)

    I was thinking the other day, that our extremists (both right and left, Christian, other) are relegated to the very fringes of society, while their extremists are able to bring themselves to the very core of society. Our extremists are little more than jokes (dangerous on an individual level, but societal? Hee hee…) while theirs’ shake gov’ts to the core. The reason is pretty obvious: Egality. While our societies in the West are far from perfect, nearly all of us are invested in them to some extent with certain rewards bestowed, however unequally. The same can not be said of much of the Middle East (or Africa).

    Much is made of the evils of ISIS/ISIL and the truly terrible things they have, are, and will do. But since their emergence, who talks about the evils of Assad, or Maliki or the truly terrible things they have, are, and will do? Crickets…. (Much the same dynamic plays out between the Israeli right and Hamas.)

    The truth is that radical Islam is filling a void that those societies do not. Like it or not radical Islam is offering the poor, the disenfranchised, the abused, the hungry, the afflicted, the desperate something that their own gov’ts do not: Hope. They do it by reaching into an idealized past and saying they will bring it back. The Islamists are lying of course, they just want power like all the rest. Hope is just a tool they use.

    But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we are on the side of right in the ME. We aren’t. We don’t even care enuf face what the real problems are much less trying to solve those problems All we are doing is aligning ourselves with those currently in power because…. Oil I guess, tho whoever is in power will want to sell it too.

    I certainly don’t know how to fix what ails the ME, but bombing the poor, the disenfranchised, the abused, the hungry, the afflicted, the desperate isn’t going to fix it. Bombing the House of Saud wouldn’t either… But it would be a start.

  59. 59.

    Paul W.

    September 11, 2014 at 9:00 am

    @askew: And let’s be honest, we were never going to intervene in Syria short of a major WMD usage (much bigger than the one that happened).

    It is a civil war, and PBO no longer wants the US to get in the middle of those even if we have a preference of what side should lose… the fact of the matter is that picking a winner is never easy or even as beneficial as we think.

    He accomplished the narrow goal of, successfully mind you, getting rid of Assad’s chemical weapons and really…. what else can we do until we have more actual allies in the region who aren’t undermining our every move?

  60. 60.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 9:00 am

    @MomSense:

    Engel is being an idiot in his tweet as there are more interests at play than just the Sunni Shiite divide and if anything the administration has made an impressive effort to not be seen as taking sides in a Sunni Shiite divide.

    I think Engel is spot-on. Yes, the administration has taken pains to not be seen as taking sides, but it’s not perceived that way on the ground, as Engel well knows. There’s always more to any situation in the Middle East than the Sunni-Shia divide — oil comes to mind! But the divide is the axis on which it all turns, and like Engel says, we’re in no position to solve that problem for them.

  61. 61.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 9:01 am

    @askew:

    Can’t add much to this statement, except that I agree 100%.

  62. 62.

    Cacti

    September 11, 2014 at 9:01 am

    I understand why the POTUS is doing what he’s doing, I just think that in the end, it will be as fruitless as just about everything else we’ve done in Iraq to date.

  63. 63.

    raven

    September 11, 2014 at 9:02 am

    @OzarkHillbilly: So, to sum it up:

    Private Eightball : Personally, I think, uh… they don’t really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean… they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gooks, you know. But they don’t want it. They’d rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.

    Animal Mother : Well, if you ask me, uh, we’re shooting the wrong gooks.

  64. 64.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:03 am

    @raven:

    The Yazidis were rescued, more or less.

    But here’s a question: after they were rescued, how long did it take before the USAF was again “providing air support” in the vicinity?

  65. 65.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 9:03 am

    @Betty Cracker: Look at the map of the region. ISIL occupies a l;andlocked stretch of desert surrounded by all of the countries that you mentioned. If boots onb the ground are necessary, then some boots from each of those countries squeerzing ISIL from their own border region might be a good tactic. Jordan handles the Jordanian border area, Turkey the Turkish area, etc. At the same time each country increase its border security to cut down on the flow of foeign fighters. The US provides intelligence, drones, airstrikes, high tech weapons and maybe command and control. But the boots will be Middle eastern Muslims fighting other Middle eastern Muslims not American Christian Crusaders. It won’t be easy and it won’t be quick but it will keep ISIL occupied with enemies in every direction.

    I do plead guilty to oversimplifying the military approach but it has to be a local solution.

  66. 66.

    raven

    September 11, 2014 at 9:04 am

    @Cervantes: Yea, we should have just split.

  67. 67.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 9:04 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: No.

    @raven: I think you could make a credible case for a limited action to avert a humanitarian crisis / stop a genocide. That’s a whole other kettle of fish, IMO.

  68. 68.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 9:07 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    This may be my own ignorance here, but after watching the speech, and reading articles about the various backstage diplomacy that’s going on, I never got the impression that we are trying to mediate a Sunni-Shia rapprochement. In fact, what we are doing now (with the exception of possible air-strikes in Syria) is nothing different than what we’ve been doing for the past few weeks: 1). air-strike ISIS targets, 2). provide intelligence/weapons to the Peshmerga and other forces on the ground 3). Provide humanitarian aid 4). Intense diplomatic work in the region.

  69. 69.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:08 am

    @raven:

    Yes, and why didn’t “we”?

  70. 70.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 9:08 am

    @Betty Cracker: Why not? The Europeans had been fighting and killing each other for centuries too.

  71. 71.

    El Caganer

    September 11, 2014 at 9:09 am

    @raven: Are you referring to the Yazidis’ escape from the Sinjar Mountains, or something biblical? ‘Cause the Yazidis were led to safety by the PKK, which we consider a terrorist organization.

  72. 72.

    Paul W.

    September 11, 2014 at 9:10 am

    @Betty Cracker: Honest to god, there is no way that is what PBO is trying to do.

    Every statement he has made is about helping people in the region see that different nations and peoples would be better off if they stopped vilifying and attacking one another and instead moved to live and let live. This is in addition to strengthening the rule of law so that minorities get better protections and sectarian governments can’t/don’t prey on those peoples.

    All of those are long term diplomatic goals, and the air strikes are supposed to give them that space by eliminating parties which try to amplify the sectarian violence and force violent reactions back.

    Whether we succeed or not, and whether there is regional buy in by the governments is the only thing that matters. PBO should not be worrying about what the mood on the ground is at all, no offense to Engel.

  73. 73.

    Jado

    September 11, 2014 at 9:10 am

    @Baud:

    “…Bush’s decision…”

    While he may have stated outright that he was the “decider”, I don’t think anyone believes that Shrub had a strategy, as opposed to rubber-stamping the ideas of really cool Conservative wunderkind policy wonks who thought it would be easy to stomp thru the middle east all Godzilla-like.

    I can just imagine Shrub saying something like, “That young guy has good ideas. We’re gonna do it the way he thinks. He’s a good conservative, great team player. This will work out just fine.”

    Shrub’s Great Middle-East Adventure was magical thinking at it’s finest, and the only way we would EVER affect true change would be if we were willing to CONQUER and OCCUPY for at least 50 years, until the generations that remembered died out.

    I don’t have a particular desire to do that.

  74. 74.

    raven

    September 11, 2014 at 9:11 am

    @Cervantes: Oh gee, I don’t know. Why don’t you tell us. Obviously Obama is a bloodthirsty capitalist pig.

  75. 75.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 9:16 am

    @Paul W.: PBO isn’t trying to mediate the Shia-Sunni divide as an ostensible goal, but that’s the only damn thing that will solve the crisis there, and he, unlike Bush, knows it, hence minority protections, encouragement of sectarianism, etc. I couldn’t disagree more about the relevance of the mood on the ground; it matters a great deal since it’s impossible to succeed if people don’t perceive you as an honest broker.

  76. 76.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 9:16 am

    @Comrade Jake:

    Thanks for the link.

  77. 77.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:17 am

    @MomSense:

    Engel is being an idiot in his tweet as there are more interests at play than just the Sunni Shiite divide and if anything the administration has made an impressive effort to not be seen as taking sides in a Sunni Shiite divide.

    As you say, there is a divide between the Sunni and Shiite communities, and there are other divides, e. g., between nationalists and sectarians in each community.

    As for “tweets,” it seems to me they may have been designed to convey idiocy — in small doses, thank goodness.

  78. 78.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 9:21 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: That would be a good question for a pacifist. I’m not one. If there’s a compelling national interest for war — a clear and present danger to the US, an enemy who can be decisively defeated, allies who are united in wanting and needing our help, etc., as there was in WWII — going in can be right thing to do.

  79. 79.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:21 am

    @raven:

    You agreed that we should have left after helping the Yazidis. I asked why we did not — and the question upsets you?

  80. 80.

    raven

    September 11, 2014 at 9:25 am

    @Cervantes: Who’s upset? I think it

  81. 81.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:26 am

    @El Caganer: Right.

  82. 82.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 9:28 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    I think Engel is spot-on. Yes, the administration has taken pains to not be seen as taking sides, but it’s not perceived that way on the ground, as Engel well knows.

    Which ground? Depending on which slice of ground you are standing on and the people on that slice of ground-you are going to hear different things. There is not one “on the ground” in the ME. If there were we wouldn’t be talking about divides.

    There’s always more to any situation in the Middle East than the Sunni-Shia divide — oil comes to mind! But the divide is the axis on which it all turns, and like Engel says, we’re in no position to solve that problem for them.

    I didn’t hear anything about solving that problem from the President. But look there have always been religious divides in that region and yet there have been trade relations and shared military interests as well–long before oil even came into the picture.

    I just think that there are times when the risks in not acting are as great as risks to acting and this is one of those cases. I don’t see indiscriminate actions on the part of this President. Again, this is a huge gamble that is high risk. Not dealing with this however is not going to result in a better outcome which is why I would characterize the Obama administration actions as the least worst option.

  83. 83.

    Anya

    September 11, 2014 at 9:28 am

    I am seriously tired of the lefties always going to the default “Obama must be stupid” because he doesn’t get this simple statement I just made. POTUS knows the difference between Somalia, Yemen and ISIL (ISIS doesn’t make sense since “Al-sham” refers to a larger geographic area that includes Syria, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and some parts of Turkey.)

    I can actually deal with the lefties who always think anything POTUS does is evil. They’re just wired that way and they mistrust all establishment, but they “Obama is stupid” camp hurt my soul. They are just consenting assholes. They don’t pay attention to where their believe that Obama is a stupid man who constantly needs to be schooled by them is coming from.

  84. 84.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 9:33 am

    @Anya:

    They don’t pay attention to where their believe that Obama is a stupid man who constantly needs to be schooled by them is coming from.

    Afuckingmen!

  85. 85.

    gene108

    September 11, 2014 at 9:33 am

    @D58826:

    Turkey, Jordan, etc. are good at keeping the crazy from spilling into their borders, which is the totality of their concern. Lebanon had a 20 year civil war that was largely contained and did not become a regional conflict, because Lebanon’s neighbors kept it from spilling over into their borders.

    Jordan once took a bunch of Palestinian/PLO refugees, but when the PLO’s actions seemed like it would get Jordan into a conflict with Israel, Jordanian security forces massacred the PLO.

    There seems to be a good deal of IGMFY with countries in that region, where any large scale Arab League force – like the African Union uses in parts of Africa – seems unlikely to materialize.

  86. 86.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    September 11, 2014 at 9:34 am

    @askew:

    All of them had their talking points ready to go last night and none of them had anything to do with what the president actually said.

    That can go for 99% of the Internet and the commentariat here as well.

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    I was thinking the other day, that our extremists (both right and left, Christian, other) are relegated to the very fringes of society, while their extremists are able to bring themselves to the very core of society. Our extremists are little more than jokes (dangerous on an individual level, but societal? Hee hee…) while theirs’ shake gov’ts to the core.

    If you call pretty much the entirety of rural America and a controlling interest in the Republican party the ‘fringe of society’, sure. I’d recommend getting out of your suburb once in a while and seeing what the rest of our country is like before you continue on with this line of thought, though.

  87. 87.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 9:34 am

    @Betty Cracker: ISIL can seriously destabilize the Middle East, a major source of the world’s oil supply. Economies of most countries are fragile right now and an oil shock like the one in seventies could send everything into a tail spin. That is a compelling national interest, YMMV.

    ETA: I don’t think the President has a choice here, he has to intervene, not doing so is also not exactly cost free.

  88. 88.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:34 am

    @Paul W.:

    Whether we succeed or not, and whether there is regional buy in by the governments is the only thing that matters. PBO should not be worrying about what the mood on the ground is at all, no offense to Engel.

    The care and feeding of those “governments,” to the exclusion of what actual populations want, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Plus re Iraq and Syria, it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say that there are governments to begin with.

  89. 89.

    Anya

    September 11, 2014 at 9:38 am

    @Anya: fuck auto correct! Obviously, I mean to say condescending not consenting.

  90. 90.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 9:40 am

    @Anya:

    I actually read it the way you meant and not the way you wrote it. Great comment!!!

  91. 91.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 9:40 am

    As for the Shia-Sunni divide? Don’t Sunnis outnumber the Shias almost everywhere except Iran and may be parts of Iraq? Speaking of religious divides, how much blood was spilled because of the Protestant-Catholic divide? As religions go Islam is quite young,so this too shall pass.
    I also don’t think that all the troubles the middle-east and Pakistan-Afghanistan is having, and ISIL in particular can be reduced to religion. There are complex forces at play here.

  92. 92.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 9:43 am

    @MomSense: Hatred and mistrust of the U.S. is probably one of the few things the warring factions in the ME agree on.

    @Anya: Por exemplo?

    @schrodinger’s cat: I think if we kept our snouts out of it for a change, the parties who need to reconcile for lasting peace would have the motivation to do so. YMMV.

  93. 93.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 9:45 am

    It seems to me that much of what has driven American policy and colored American opinion over the past 15 years is an over reaction to 9/11. Let me be perfectly clear, it was a horrible day and the US was correct in taking certain actions to punish the guilty and prevent it from happening again. BUT, AQ was never a major threat to the US homeland or interests in most of the world, unlike the Axis is the 1940s and the USSR during the cold war. Even in 2001, the average American stood a better chance of being killed by one of those bad guys with a gun that the NRA keeps talking about. And that guy would have been an American not some foreigner. I’m not trying to minimize the loss to the families involved but as a country we have to base our policy choices on facts and not emotions or one off events. At the moment ISIL’s threat to the US homeland is even less than AQ’s in 2001. It doesn’t mean that we bury our heads in the sand and do nothing but we have to fit the policy to the threat and at the moment ISIL is a bigger threat to the locals in Syria and Iraq than the US. It doesn’t help when Lindsey Graham talks about an existential threat to the US or Rick Perry talks about the ISIL invasion across the Rio Grande. I realize that is good red meat for the base but it creates a public perception that can push policy makers into making bad decisions because they don’t want to be seen as soft on terror. It appears that we haven’t learned from or progressed very far from the yellow journalism of the ‘remember the Maine’ days of 1898.

  94. 94.

    OzarkHillbilly

    September 11, 2014 at 9:45 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    If you call pretty much the entirety of rural America and a controlling interest in the Republican party the ‘fringe of society’, sure. I’d recommend getting out of your suburb once in a while and seeing what the rest of our country is like before you continue on with this line of thought, though.

    BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA…. gasp….wheeze…. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHAAA…

    Stop it, stop it, yer killing me over here.

    You can’t be that stupid, can you?

  95. 95.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 9:48 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: I live in a fairly rural area, with actual farms and such and the people here are more liberal than the exurbs of Boston.

  96. 96.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 9:50 am

    @Betty Cracker: The Middle East is too important to ignore. We routinely ignore the horrible stuff in the world, for example Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, etc. etc.,

  97. 97.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 9:51 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    Hatred and mistrust of the U.S. is probably one of the few things the warring factions in the ME agree on.

    I don’t actually agree with that and it’s a vague statement. Which warring factions? Are all the factions in the ME warring?

  98. 98.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:54 am

    @Anya:

    I am seriously tired of the lefties…

    I’m seriously tired of people punching lefties. Pick another straw man, please.

  99. 99.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 9:56 am

    @Betty Cracker:

    I think if we kept our snouts out of it for a change, the parties who need to reconcile for lasting peace would have the motivation to do so. YMMV.

    Again, I think this is the fallacy of thinking that every action we take is worse than no action. We were trying to keep our snouts out of Iraq when the ISIL shit hit the fan. I don’t think the US can solve every problem or create lasting peace by taking military action. I also don’t believe that the US taking no action will lead to lasting peace. I don’t think lasting peace is even in consideration right now.

  100. 100.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:56 am

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    The Middle East is too important to ignore.

    The Middle East is too important because we’re too lazy to kick our oil habit. Perhaps we should start there instead of jabbing another stick into the hornets nest.

  101. 101.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 9:58 am

    @MomSense:

    I also don’t believe that the US taking no action will lead to lasting peace. I don’t think lasting peace is even in consideration right now.

    Then let’s just annex the place and be done with it.

  102. 102.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 9:58 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: I think there is a world of difference between ignoring the Middle East and running around screaming the sky is falling in the sky is falling in every time a group of thugs posts a beheading video on the internet. That is the exact emotional reaction that they are hoping for and emotional reactions, alas, lead to bad decision making.

  103. 103.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 10:00 am

    @C.V. Danes:

    Then let’s just annex the place and be done with it.

    Why the fuck would we want to do that??

  104. 104.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 10:00 am

    @D58826:

    It seems to me that much of what has driven American policy and colored American opinion over the past 15 years is an over reaction to 9/11.

    While much of what you say may be true, let’s not forget that the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq was contemplated before September 11, 2001.

    On that day, a bare six hours after the towers fell, Condoleeza Rice was asking how we should “capitalize on these opportunities.” Donald Rumsfeld scribbled that we should “hit” Iraq: “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Six days later, Bush instructed the Pentagon to complete plans for invasion and put them into motion. Soon afterwards he was secretly and illegally diverting towards his Iraq scheme hundreds of millions of dollars that had been allocated for a campaign against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    In short the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not a mere “over reaction to 9/11.” It was far worse than that.

  105. 105.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:02 am

    @D58826: I didn’t sense the sky is falling reaction from the President, McCain and his tire swing buddies are a different matter altogether.

  106. 106.

    Mike in NC

    September 11, 2014 at 10:05 am

    @D58826:

    It appears that we haven’t learned from or progressed very far from the yellow journalism of the ‘remember the Maine’ days of 1898.

    That set the standard of the media’s “if it bleeds, it leads” mindset, which hasn’t changed one iota.

    This would be a very good day to not go anywhere near a TV, where they’re busy wallowing in the 9/11 p0rn again.

  107. 107.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:05 am

    @C.V. Danes: In the long run, yes that should be the strategy but we are not there yet.
    BTW we import more oil from Canada than the middle-east. An oil shock would hurt other countries like India and those in Europe, for example much harder than it would the United States.

  108. 108.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 10:16 am

    @Cervantes: I agree that the neocons had been itching for a war since 1991 but I’m not sure they would have been able to sell it as easily without the shock of 9/11. And since then every pipsqueak with an ak47 is painted as the next 9/11 mastermind

    @schrodinger’s cat: It is McNutts an Butters that are leading the charge but more than a few Democrats are getting skittish. esp. in an election year, as well and may be pushing Obama a bit further than he would like to go..

  109. 109.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 10:17 am

    @C.V. Danes:

    The Middle East is too important because we’re too lazy to kick our oil habit. Perhaps we should start there instead of jabbing another stick into the hornets nest.

    The oil business utilizes politics — not excluding terrorism and war — to serve its own interests, and not only in the United States.

    Still, ignoring all that and just looking at what individuals can do most directly, kicking the oil habit would be a good thing for various reasons, I agree.

  110. 110.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:23 am

    @D58826: Who is Butters? Graham?

  111. 111.

    catclub

    September 11, 2014 at 10:25 am

    @Baud: Between installing Maliki and the de-Baathification, the Iraq project under Bush was a rousing success.

    And Bush has gotten a fairly free pass for those two bits.

  112. 112.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 10:26 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: Then let them deal with it. Personally, I think $6-per-gallon gas in the US would be a net-plus in the long run. Yes, people would freak the fuck out. They’d also use less gas. Good!

  113. 113.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 10:28 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: yes

  114. 114.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 10:28 am

    @MomSense: I don’t think every action we (the US) take is worse than no action. I think in this case it is.

  115. 115.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:35 am

    @Betty Cracker: If gas is $6 a gallon then food prices will increase too. When so many people are already hurting an oil shock induced recession will not be pretty.

    ETA: Do you think China butting in would be better?

  116. 116.

    srv

    September 11, 2014 at 10:39 am

    the US is not qualified to mediate sunni shiite divide.

    Mr. Engel may be right – but who does he suggest mediate that divide? LoLcats? Underpants gnomes?

    We broke it, we own it.

  117. 117.

    burnspbesq

    September 11, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Anybody else struggling with the idea that action against ISIS is authorized under the 2001 AUMF?

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/09/2001-aumf-isil/

  118. 118.

    burnspbesq

    September 11, 2014 at 10:43 am

    @C.V. Danes:

    I’m seriously tired of people punching lefties

    Then encourage your fellow lefties to stop saying stupid shit that justifies and invites the punches.

  119. 119.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 10:44 am

    @Betty Cracker: I’m not sure that Obama has the ‘right’ approach mainly because I’m not sure there is a right approach. I think we have to be flexible and try and pick the least worst options as we move forward. This isn’t like WWII where the path to victory lead thru Berlin. There is no ‘Berlin’. We push the Taliban in Afghanistan and they move to Pakistan. We hunt down the Somali terrorists and they slip away to some other mountain to hide on. ISIL will be the same thing. As long as the Taliban are only a threat to their fellow Afghans, AQ in Yemen remains on the run from US drones and ISIL is confined to the desert region along the Syrian/Iraqi border, then I think that is about as good as the US can do. Now if we can get the Sunni’s in Anbar province to flip again and take on ISIL then maybe there will be a better outcome. Either way it is going to be a long term holding action in military terms and hopefully political and economic reforms by the regional players that takes the ‘romance’ out of jihad.

  120. 120.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:48 am

    @D58826: Obama’s approach is the least worst among a set of bad options.

  121. 121.

    KXB

    September 11, 2014 at 10:49 am

    The Middle East is too large for the US to have any coherent, consistent strategy. That, by itself, is not the main problem – the US made many mistakes by thinking Region A was just like Region B, so we should use similar methods. But, not only does the US have conflicting goals and interest, so do the nations in the region. The Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, & Turks all have varying interests. Then, factor in the populations of these countries, which often carry themselves in ways the governments do not want. Saudi Arabia is only now starting to crack down on groups that fund ISIL. Yet, there are groups in Saudi Arabia that feel ISIL will prevent a rising Shia nexus of Iraq-Iran from taking shape.

    More US military action is unlikely to solve any of this, Yet, even if we adopt a Yemen/Waziristan approach, and rely on droning our opponents, it is going to be a perpetual low-level war. That may be fine for US domestic politics, but it can create overseas problems that develop over time.

  122. 122.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 10:52 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: No. One of my primary objections to OUR butting in is that it will prevent the combatants from sorting shit out for themselves. Meddling from any other outside power would have the same drawback.

    Meanwhile, China is improving its infrastructure while we continue to pour billions after the $1 trillion already disappeared down the Iraq / Afghanistan rat hole. We’re used to our crumbling bridges, shitty public transportation and arguing over every nickel spent on education, welfare and healthcare.

  123. 123.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 10:53 am

    @srv: The Shia/Sunni divide goes back to the 7th century. We may have broken 21st century Iraq but we are not responsible for the religious divides within Islam. While Christians may well live more or less in peace in Europe today, there was plenty of religious blood letting in the post reformation era. And just like then with Christianity, Islam has to find its own way to deal with the divide.

  124. 124.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:55 am

    @Betty Cracker: Power abhors vacuum, as long as the Middle East remains resource rich, someone else will butt in. Before us it was the British. I agree with you about infrastructure development. We should do it, even if it means deficit spending and raising taxes.

  125. 125.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 10:58 am

    @D58826: I think that’s what Obama is trying to do, let them sort out their own shit but contain it so that it does not become a global crisis.

  126. 126.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:01 am

    @burnspbesq:

    Anybody else struggling with the idea that action against ISIS is authorized under the 2001 AUMF?

    No, I don’t see how it is authorized by either of the AUMFs, 2001 or 2002.

    The 2001 license to kill was issued against Al-Qaeda; ISIS is not Al-Qaeda at this point, nor did it even exist in 2001, so attacking it can’t be covered by the 2001 license. And the 2002 license authorized an attack on the state of Iraq; which is presumably not an action being contemplated or urged.

  127. 127.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Well the ‘broad coalition’ just got a bit narrower. Turkey has announced it will not take part in combat operations against the militants nor will it allow the use of its airbases for military operations by others
    Now I have a question for all of the neocon interventionists, well actually 2:
    1. if the countries most affected/threatened by ISIL will not stand up and fight why should we?
    2. Since there is no great rush to allow the US to use military bases in the region, exactly where do the neocons figure to base the avenging American army? You can only do so much with naval airpower and trying to launch sustained large scale land operations from the Med or the Persian Gulf is hardily practical. Remember ISIL occupies a chuck of real estate hundreds of miles from the ocean.

  128. 128.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 11:07 am

    @D58826:

    Excellent point.

    To some of the other discussion around scope of this, I believe that the President plans to “manage” this threat rather than undertake a large scale, deep intervention. I think that he totally “gets” that containment is the best strategy and that ultimately, this is the work of Islam to figure out. It gets at the central issue of nation states — can they support Iraq’s and Syria’s existence. It is largely up to them, not us. Where they (ISIS and others), threaten our interests, we will act aggressively but in matters that aren’t central to that, you will see us and the West step back. That to me is appropriate. I think that this was what Obama has always wanted to do but he forgot to use threatenning and aggressive language to cover himself well enough and so had to do clean up yesterday. He is no fool. Frankly, I don’t even think that the stupid white boys on the right actually want some upscaling of boots on the ground either. I think that they want the US to look like we have the biggest dick in the room and to talk rough.

    Anyway, that is my take. ISIS management and containment with theatrical language and posturing periodically for the homies.

  129. 129.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:08 am

    @srv:

    We broke it, we own it.

    Sure. I’m all for sending Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Yoo, Kristol, Beinart, and their associated gang of thugs, murderers, and profiteers.

    You want to add Clinton, Kerry, and the like? Sure, suit them up, too.

    No troops, no money. Just send them over there, right now. They broke it, they own it. Right?

  130. 130.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 11:11 am

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    That’s my impression as well. As much as the President talked about ‘destroying’ ISIL, the program really sounds more like a program of containment-prevent them from spreading and taking over Iraqi Kurdistan, Baghdad, Riyadh,Amman, etc.

  131. 131.

    Paul W.

    September 11, 2014 at 11:14 am

    @Betty Cracker: I’m sorry Betty but I’m just going to respectfully disagree and point you to http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/9/10/215520/614

    If you’re looking at the Middle East ONLY as a Sunni/Shia divide, which is of course important to see, but not questioning the WHY of how it is manifesting then you are doing it wrong. The governments in charge of the region’s nations are more or less not answering to the public but their own self interests, and they utilize ethnic divisions to A) control their own population B) insulate themselves from public opinion on their regime C) interact with/control other allies in the region. If you can convince them that their own self interests are furthered by eliminating IS and cooperating with each other just enough to prevent a new IS from arriving then we are making progress.

    To throw up our hands is to condemn the region to another century of infighting, upheaval and expose ourselves to violence that would possibly come out of that region. The only way to improve these things is to continue to invest time and money in solving them, especially when we ARE getting progress made with Iran and with ousting the Maliki government.

    You want to stay out, and I respect that, but I don’t think it is a good long term decision. I also don’t give PBO a blank check, if the region doesn’t seem to want to solve this problem and work together then fuck’em, lets get out. Iran is a better partner to have in the region than the Saudis, but if we can get back to being seen as not having an interest (aka, occupying countries in the region) we might be able to play broker to some improvement to the lives of the 100s of millions who live in the middle east. Just my 2 cents.

  132. 132.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:15 am

    @Cervantes: From a very cynical perspective I think Obama should go to Congress and get the required authorization – make the GOP put up or shut up. They have been demanding action in the Middle East, complaining that Obama rules by decree and that he ignores Congress. Well if Obama goes to Congress on this then the GOP can vote to approve the actions and therefore become co-owners Or they can vote it down and the next time McCain or Gohmert or the King twin s opens their mouth, the WH can simply tell them to STFU!

  133. 133.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 11:15 am

    @C.V. Danes:

    I think that she explained why she said that.It was a more thoughtful comment than your “punching bag” statement implies.

  134. 134.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 11:19 am

    @D58826:

    In Turkey’s case, it might be because ISIL is holding 40 Turkish workers in Iraq hostage right now. One article I read recently (sorry, can’t remember where-I think it was in the NYT. Yes, it would help if I could actually post a link!), mentioned that publicly Turkey is taking a hands-off approach to combating ISIL, because of concerns for the hostages, but in private they have pushing for greater targeting of ISIL.

  135. 135.

    El Caganer

    September 11, 2014 at 11:20 am

    @D58826: I don’t find that cynical at all. Congress should be the government branch authorizing the use of force, and if the Republicans were serious about the US putting the wood to ISIS, they’d be happy to vote on it…..HAHAHAHAHAHA.

  136. 136.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 11:22 am

    @D58826:

    Ok, but Turkey has been launching air strikes against ISIL in Iraq since January. Saying that the US can’t stage out of Turkey doesn’t mean that they aren’t working with us.

  137. 137.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:24 am

    @Paul W.: Complicated isn’t it. Certainly not the John Wayne western of the white hats vs the black hats.

    @Lady Bug: Hope your right but at some point these countries have to put up or shut up. Sometimes you have to risk the lives of your citizens. It isn’t nice but that is war

  138. 138.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:25 am

    @MomSense: The AP dispatch said they would not take part in combat operations. So maybe one more party playing 11 dimensional chess. See comment above about ‘complicated’

  139. 139.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 11:25 am

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    Pretty good article… thanks for sharing…

  140. 140.

    Manyakitty

    September 11, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Somewhat tangentially:

    I keep hearing about how ISIL is bringing in billions of dollars in oil money every day. How is it that they can sell their oil, but the Iraqi Kurds can’t?

  141. 141.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:29 am

    @D58826: How is it cynical to follow the law?

  142. 142.

    srv

    September 11, 2014 at 11:32 am

    @D58826: Nihilism Is Not An Option.

    What Paul W. says. The Brits managed. Either be daddy or give them a common enemy to fight against (us).

    Personally, I’m for a more pro-active approach. A military coup in Turkey, a mysterious car bombing of a Qatari Emir and threats to normalize with Iran might get the big players in line.

  143. 143.

    Patrick

    September 11, 2014 at 11:34 am

    @Cervantes:

    We broke it, we own it.

    Sure. I’m all for sending Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Yoo, Kristol, Beinart, and their associated gang of thugs, murderers, and profiteers. You want to add Clinton, Kerry, and the like? Sure, suit them up, too. No troops, no money. Just send them over there, right now. They broke it, they own it. Right?

    Amen. I would also add sending the 66% who approved of the war back in 2003. They also helped break it. Let them deal with the consequences of their approval for this idiotic war.

  144. 144.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:36 am

    The ‘cynical’ part is trying to getting the GOP to put up or shut up. and since they won’t shut up from CNN today:

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is” on CNN.
    “The President’s plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world’s largest, richest terrorist army,” McCain said in a subsequent statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
    House Speaker John Boehner, too, essentially complained that Obama isn’t moving toward actual war decisively enough:
    It is also a cause for concern that the president appears to view the effort against ISIL as an isolated counterterrorism campaign, rather than as what it must be: an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand.

    So if the GOP doesn’t like the plan let them come up with their own and pass it in the House and try to pass it in the Senate. These people are great at running their mouths but seem to be real short when it comes details. If you listened to the elephant echo chamber you would think ISIL fighters are ten feet tall, can kill with x-ray beams from their super gizmo helmets and can walk on water.

  145. 145.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 11:37 am

    @Paul W.: Booman hardly gives a ringing endorsement of the administration strategy in that post you linked. It could really bolster either position.

    Ultimately, it comes down to how optimistic you are about the factions overcoming their urge to kill each other, and yes, along sectarian lines, though obviously other factors are involved. I am a glass-all-the-way-empty gal on that question, so yeah, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  146. 146.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:37 am

    @srv:

    Personally, I’m for a more pro-active approach.

    How “personally” pro-active? Are you in Kirkuk?

  147. 147.

    srv

    September 11, 2014 at 11:38 am

    @Manyakitty: I doubt billions, but the Turks will take it from anyone.

    Remember, Saddam got around sanctions by trucking oil to Turkey via Kurdish intermediaries. It’s the benefit of having two major Kurdish factions. You can gas one and bribe the other. When the other side gets too greedy, swap. Rinse, repeat.

  148. 148.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 11:39 am

    @D58826:

    Everyone involved is going to say certain things for domestic consumption and ISIL has a bunch of Turkish hostages. Then there is the sticky situation with our arming Kurds in Iraq. Turkey doesn’t want ISIL to make any more gains though so I bet they will continue to take action but on the down low.

    It’s complicated is an understatement.

  149. 149.

    El Caganer

    September 11, 2014 at 11:40 am

    @srv: Nihilism? Fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism….

  150. 150.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 11:41 am

    @Manyakitty:

    Honest question here, if they aren’t allowed to sell the oil, then how are they able to financially support Iraqi-Kurdistan?

  151. 151.

    Emma

    September 11, 2014 at 11:42 am

    @Betty Cracker: Sure. If what you want is a Republican government for fifty years or so. If you think that the powers that be, political and economic, won’t go full blast “COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST” against any president that does that, you’re dreaming. And we, as a country, are easily convinced.

  152. 152.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 11:46 am

    @MomSense: Yep. Turkey isn’t exactly in favor of the new country Kurdistan. Gives their own Kurds ideas. The entire issue of a Kurdish homeland cuts across several countries in the region.

  153. 153.

    Darkrose

    September 11, 2014 at 11:47 am

    @schrodinger’s cat: An important point, especially with food prices already on the rise due to the CA drought.

    $6 gas hurts the working poor the most. When you need your car to get to work, $6 a gallon gas means that you cut back on other things, like going to the doctor.

  154. 154.

    Manyakitty

    September 11, 2014 at 11:52 am

    @Lady Bug: First, your nym makes me smile because it’s another of our many names for a most excellent cat, Madame Curie, who we also call Manya.

    Otherwise, good question. I think that disruption has been one of their biggest issues of late.

    @srv: Sigh. Yeah. No good answers anywhere.

  155. 155.

    Patrick

    September 11, 2014 at 11:55 am

    @Darkrose:

    $6 gas hurts the working poor the most. When you need your car to get to work, $6 a gallon gas means that you cut back on other things, like going to the doctor.

    The gas is $10 in Europe. We need better mass transit, like the Europeans have.

  156. 156.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:58 am

    @MomSense: Because at this point in time, what other option do we have? We’ve f’d up everything else, so might as well just own it. If we don’t want to do that, then just pull out and leave them alone.

  157. 157.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 11:59 am

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    An oil shock would hurt other countries like India and those in Europe, for example much harder than it would the United States.

    Perhaps we should pass the baton to them then, no?

  158. 158.

    Lady Bug

    September 11, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    @Manyakitty:

    Thank you!

  159. 159.

    C.V. Danes

    September 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    @Elie: That may be true, but if people had listened to the “lefties” prior to the invasion of Iraq, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now, as well as many others. If you want to punch someone, how about the people who have been consistently wrong, who continue to be consistently wrong, and yet seem to keep getting all the air time while people make fun of the dirty hippies.

  160. 160.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    The Republicans were always going to complain that the President is not doing enough and the media will echo that for him. No one will present a better alternative and truly no one wants us to send big time troops on the ground. They just want to beat him up (surprise!)

    My counter to them is that the Republicans and George Bush own this and should be the last folks to argue for more intervention. They want the American people to forget that this was their shitpile and we can’t let them.

  161. 161.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    @C.V. Danes:

    I hear you — but I don’t think that she was advocating for their position. She (I think) was stating that sometimes the left blindly criticize Obama almost as a reflex rather than to a well thought out reaction. Sometimes, the criticism is utopian to the point of ridiculousness — as though the US should have no international interests that we must influence. That is not realistic in this world.

  162. 162.

    srv

    September 11, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    @Cervantes: Well, the royal we doesn’t need all those boots if we take out all the real actors.

  163. 163.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    @srv: Not what I’d call a straight answer.

  164. 164.

    chopper

    September 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    @C.V. Danes:

    you make it sound like we only get one punch.

  165. 165.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    @Elie:

    And Obama was one of the lefties opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

  166. 166.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    @Elie:

    She (I think) was stating that sometimes the left blindly criticize Obama almost as a reflex rather than to a well thought out reaction.

    Except that she was asked for a specific example, and so far … nothing.

    You have an example you’d like to share? I notice you have not provided one, either.

  167. 167.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    @Emma: Like the communist hellholes known as Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, the UK, etc., you mean? Just to be clear, I’m not saying the president should raise gas prices to $6, which he can’t do even if he wanted to. I’m just saying that an oil shock isn’t all downside — it gets people to conserve energy, which is a good thing.

  168. 168.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    All those communist hellholes have fantastic public transportation. Working people can get to work and home without having to drive long distances in their vehicles.

  169. 169.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Doing nothing is not a risk free option, either. Gas prices is not the only thing that will go up if the price of crude goes up. It is the raw material for many industrial products including many plastics. Unpredictable gas shortages are not the same as a policy decision to increase the price of gas. It could send the global economy into a tailspin, which in turn could give rise a lot of conflict.

  170. 170.

    Pococurante

    September 11, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    Me, I’m done pouring money and blood down that rat hole. In fact, I suspect that propping the various factions up will just string the problem along indefinitely.

    Exactly the perspective the world took towards Afghanistan in 1986,

    ISIL is not the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

  171. 171.

    Emma

    September 11, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Yes, just like that. Come on, where have you been? Any politician using Europe as an example will get blasted. Americans don’t like to be told another country has a better way. They certainly will not like to be told that they need to use public transportation as a matter of savings, especially since the US has shitty public transportation. They MOST certainly won’t like to hear that they can’t drive three blocks to the nearest Publix.

  172. 172.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    @Pococurante: ISIL may not be but it certainly seems to describe many members of the Congressional GOP.

    Which really is what I find so frustrating about this issue. ISIL fighters are not 10 feet tall, they are not immune to bullets and they are not walking across the Atlantic Ocean to attack us in our beds.

  173. 173.

    Pococurante

    September 11, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Agreed. The only threat posed is should some return home fully radicalized and attempt another atrocity on home soil. More likely to happen to Western Europe though.

    I think a lot of folks miss that there are those who joined early on thinking they were rebuilding a Sunni caliphate, only to find out how bugfuck crazy the core Chechen/Baathist ISIL is and that they will bring down more ruin on the cause. They went in thinking thinking Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb and instead found only Iblīs and Shayṭān .

  174. 174.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    @Emma: Somehow you missed it when I said I’m not suggesting that the president should raise the price of gas. I also never suggested that the president should go on national TV and praise the European Way. My point was that oil shocks have upside as well as downside. This is a documented fact.

  175. 175.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    @MomSense: I wonder why those countries chose to invest in massive public transportation systems. Could it be because they’ve always paid a lot more for gas than we do?

  176. 176.

    LAC

    September 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    @C.V. Danes: and I’m seriously tired of lefties whinging about hippy punching when they are asked to be accountable for the basis of their opinions and hand wringing at the slightest provocation. And if you need an example, go back to the time concerning Syria’s chemical weapons on this board.

    The Pandora’s box that the bush administration opened with its reckless war has never fully shut. This is what world we are living in now. The president made a measured narrow speech about proposed actions and to put the 24 news cycle of fear in perspective. That is what I heard in the speech. But maybe next time I will just wait to hear what the MSNBC or CNN panel or Richard engel have to say instead. Or maybe Luke Russert because, shut up…

  177. 177.

    MomSense

    September 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    Um yeah, of course they invested in public transportation. We invested post WWII in the highway system. I guess I’m not sure where you are going with this. Higher gas prices still would be a hardship for working people both in terms of commuting costs and that prices for food and other essentials would increase, no?

    I actually worked on a research project many moons ago that dealt with gas prices and how we could transition to greater use of public transportation so I get it. We couldn’t even get Gov. Christie to use federal funds for commuter rails from Jersey to NYC. I think all Emma and I are saying is that higher gas prices will hurt people who are already struggling.

  178. 178.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Those countries are also much tinier. Public transport does not make sense in areas of low population density, that said it can and should be better in many midsized cities than it is now.

  179. 179.

    Elie

    September 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    @LAC:

    Well said

  180. 180.

    askew

    September 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Yep. Also, public transportation isn’t going to help in a lot of suburban areas where people live in one suburb and work in another, which is quite common in the U.S.

  181. 181.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    @MomSense: You know what else hurts people who are already struggling? Pouring a trillion dollars down the Iraq / Afghanistan rat hole over the past 13 years. That’s money that can’t be spent on education or public transportation or pre-school or healthcare or climate change mitigation or college scholarships or healthier school lunches or better elder care, etc.

    As for where I’m going with this, I was simply making the point that if the ME does go to hell in a hand-basket (which it seems determined to do), and one result is higher gas prices, that isn’t a 100% bad thing; there’s an upside too. I’m surprised that’s a controversial point since it’s a documented fact.

  182. 182.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    @askew: Having lived in a pre-WWII inner ring suburb with an extensive transit system and now in a post war sunbelt city trying to build a transit system, what people seem to forget is the word ‘mass’ in mass transit. It works in New York, Philly, Boston because of the population density in the city and the inner ring suburbs. New sunbelt cities with the population spread all over the map don’t have the density for mass transit. In addition in the older cities and suburbs there were quaint things called sidewalks because people walked to stores, schools, shops and transit stops. I live to far from the bus stop to walk and if there is no park and ride lot then it is easier to just bit the bullet and drive to the office.

  183. 183.

    chopper

    September 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    I’m surprised that’s a controversial point

    i think it’s seen that way because a crazy blow-up of the oil market would have far worse downsides than the upside of less gas usage, at least in the short-to-medium term (and at least from the point of view of most people here).

    it’s like seeing a friend of yours in 2008 lose their job and their house and have to move their family in with mom and saying ‘well hey, you get to spend more time with your family.’ it’s true, but the dude isn’t likely to see it that way. and truth be told if you were in his place you probably wouldn’t either.

    $6/gal gas is certainly good for curtailing consumption, but it would blow a hole in our country’s economy and cause no end of horrible shit to befall. and a bunch of people would suffer for it. it’s unfortunate both ways.

    our country and its infrastructure was built on cheap gas and the premise that it would always be thus. we’re due for a pointy reckoning when that is no longer the case. personally (and i’m cynical), i’d rather it happen now than later.

  184. 184.

    schrodinger's cat

    September 11, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    @Betty Cracker: You are equating a policy decision of pricing gas higher to erratic and sudden changes in the global oil supply.

  185. 185.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    @chopper: there have been proposals, mostly in the 70’s before the anti-tax mania took over, that the gas tax be raised to $5.00 per gallon. The money would stay in the economy because it would either be funneled back into infrastructure construction or a tax credit to lower income folks. While it seems somewhat like taking money from your left pocket and putting it back in your right, the assumption was that seeing that 6,7 or 8 dollars per gallon at the pump would encourage folks to buy more fuel efficient cars. But then came the Reagan revolution and the SUV and the idea died an orphan.

    If on the other hand we just let the ‘free market’ do the job then the money winds up in oil companies profits or some Saudi prince’s bank account.

  186. 186.

    chopper

    September 11, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    @D58826:

    there have been proposals, mostly in the 70’s before the anti-tax mania took over, that the gas tax be raised to $5.00 per gallon

    the time to do something like that would have been long ago, unfortunately.

    jesus, we haven’t raised the federal gas tax in what, 20 years? since it isn’t a percent or tied to inflation it’s the equivalent of back-then 11 cents/gal. the shit has gone down every year, not up.

  187. 187.

    askew

    September 11, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    @D58826:

    Yep, when I lived in Chicago I took mass transit to work every day. When I moved back to Minnesota and tried to take mass transit from my Minneapolis suburb to St. Paul. It involved 2 different buses and a van. In the end, I just drove. Now, I work at home so I don’t have to worry about that nonsense, which makes me much happier.

  188. 188.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    @D58826:

    New sunbelt cities with the population spread all over the map don’t have the density for mass transit.

    Didn’t just happen. It was a choice.

    Not that you aren’t aware of that.

  189. 189.

    Betty Cracker

    September 11, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    @schrodinger’s cat: Nope, I’m really, really not. I never once said anything about a policy decision on gas prices; I just made the observation that volatility in the oil market wouldn’t result in ALL downside and ZERO upside as a counterweight to the suggestion that we should make policy decisions to keep oil prices artificially low.

    Chopper’s right above when he says “we’re due for a pointy reckoning.” We can keep spending trillions to try to stave it off via military force and corporate shenanigans, or we can face facts and invest in alternate sources. It’s pretty clear what choice we, as a country, have made. It’s the wrong one, IMO.

  190. 190.

    Cervantes

    September 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    @Elie:

    Well said

    Yet still devoid of a specific example.

  191. 191.

    D58826

    September 11, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    @Cervantes: Yep it was a choice – see the usa in your Chevrolet!!!!!

  192. 192.

    Dave

    September 12, 2014 at 12:01 am

    @Lady Bug: I agree with this but I think they really can’t at least not for more than the immediate short term (which would be fairly awful for the residents of those areas). The Pesh for example used to be pretty tough the PKK still is. Any occupation by ISIL forces would create conditions where this was again the case. And would do so quickly. ISIL has the ability to be quite brutal and some pretty capable people at different levels but it can’t bring stable overwhelming force it would need to in order to hold these ares. Now I don’t want them to take these areas and agree with the president’s actions to prevent those but I admit it’s somewhat personal as I spent some time in the Kurdish provinces as well as Ninewa and know and like quite a few of the people that are living there and so it’s not a cold blooded analysis on my part.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Deputinize America - Moorea 2024 2
Image by Deputinize America (7/14/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:55am)
  • prostratedragon on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:53am)
  • Suzanne on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:51am)
  • Professor Bigfoot on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:42am)
  • no body no name on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:41am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!