. . .whatever perps actually attack us must be pursued, but it's not reasonable to expect that we should engage in war over it. Nor is it proven anywhere that preemptive wars are the best way to prevent such terrorism.
If anything, the evidence is that military involvement in Iraq, in particular, actually increases that threat against the U.S,. our interests, or our allies, by encouraging even more individuals bent on revenge or other animosity against America to join or aid in that violent cause.
I'd think we'd understand that, but I can see that many Americans do not. There's a tendency to look at our seemingly overwhelminf military forces and believe they can wipe out movements and insurgencies like ISIS by bombing campaigns, or even full-blown war. That hasn't been proven at all.
We are still under threat from individuals who have associated themselves with al-Qaeda in the past or present.In fact, many of those in the leadership in ISIS are said to have been prisoners in the military prisons in Iraq where hundreds of thousands were detained, many tortured, without charges or trial for an indefinite period.
We used to understand, progressives here and elsewhere who glossed over the U.S. military response to the humanitarian crisis atop that mountain in northern Iraq. Glossing over the latest fight to stop insurgents in Iraq; glossing over the fact we should know well, that our military presence and action in Iraq is an irresistible lure for individuals looking to do battle with America; in this case, individuals who view America as an enemy of their religion.
What doesn't seem to be understood by progressives here who are rightly concerned about the spread of terrorism is that the U.S. military attacks - our country's military presence and activities - are ultimately counterproductive to the goals of eliminating any threat that comes from the fundamentalist groups fomenting violence in Iraq - or anywhere else, for that matter.
Opposition to U.S. military action in Iraq goes deeper than just advocating non-violence. It's an opposition to exactly the same 'dumb-war' behavior that President Obama correctly described early in his presidency. It's the misguided notion that the U.S. is indispensable in these matters.
It's the twisted logic that 'we broke it,' therefore, we have to fix it. Except, fixing it means to this administration and military - as it meant to the Bush administration and military - fomenting even more violence in the vain and hopeless aim of ending it.
It's not a matter of just leaving people to die, as many describe the position of opponents of U.S. military intervention - or letting terrorists prevail. Other nations are more suited to help them and we should use our energy and whatever influence we have to encourage them.
It's about the realization that our country, having already broken the country with our destabilizing, destructive, and opportunistic war waged for greed and petty political purposes, can scarcely hope to repair it using the same destabilizing and destructive violence.
To understand the counterproductive effect of military activity in Iraq against this group, you need look no further then our own intelligence agency's conclusions. Our own military actions in Iraq make it worse. That's not just rhetoric, it's proven by conclusions Bush's and Obama's own intelligence agencies . . .
As Bush's own spy agencies correctly cautioned in their 2006 intelligence estimate, our military activity in Iraq had the effect of fostering and fueling even more individuals bent on violent resistance to U.S., our allies, and our interests, than they were able to put down.
It should be no surprise at all to see the report last month from this President's intelligence agencies that our military presence and activity in Iraq - however altruistic the mission - is having the exact same effect of drawing more individuals looking to do battle with our nation, from around the globe, to rally to this emerging insurgent group's deadly cause.
from WaPo Aug. 9:
US intel sees defections from AQ affiliates as fighters flock to ISIS. Q whether strikes will "increase the spigot" …
Fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates to join Islamic State, U.S. officials say
U.S. spy agencies have begun to see groups of fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join the rival Islamist organization that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and been targeted in American airstrikes, U.S. officials said.
The movements are seen by U.S. counterterrorism analysts as a worrisome indication of the expanding appeal of a group known as the Islamic State that has overwhelmed military forces in the region and may now see itself in direct conflict with the United States.
. . . The launching of U.S. airstrikes has raised new questions, including whether the bombings will hurt the Islamic State’s ability to draw recruits or elevate its status among jihadists. “Does that increase the spigot or close it?” said a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity and noted that U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have crippled al-Qaeda but also served as rallying cries against the United States.
Longer-term, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Islamic State, which so far has been focused predominantly on its goal of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate, may now place greater emphasis on carrying out attacks against the United States and its allies.
. . .and, so it goes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
was really quite unnecessary.
