Stop the ISIS War Before It Gets Worse!

[cali]

(Jeffrey Sachs and Michael Shank)

Too many times in recent history the United States has responded militarily to provocations and threats in ways that have resulted in spiraling war and violence at great long-term cost to the American people. We believe that the latest escalation of US attacks on ISIL (also known as Islamic State or ISIS) threatens such an open-ended, costly and ultimately unsuccessful path. We do not doubt the dangers of ISIL in the region, but we believe that U.S.-led bombing is most likely to create further instability, spiraling violence, and new recruits for radical military groups.

The right strategy, we believe, is for regional powers including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others to lead the response to ISIL under the umbrella of the U.N. Security Council. In this way, the U.S. would avoid the trap of being viewed, once again, as the leader of an anti-Islamic crusade. Anti-American hate, and hence the vulnerability of U.S. individuals and property to terrorist attacks, is already running very high. A U.S. escalation of bombing in Iraq and Syria would send it soaring.

We note that ISIL is vastly outnumbered by the regional powers. ISIL’s advances reflect political disarray, the Syrian civil war, and pockets of local support in Sunni regions. They do not reflect any intrinsic or insurmountable military advantage.

The problems are much deeper than military. They are fundamentally social, political, and economic. Moreover, the spiraling wars in the region, including the recent U.S. bombing, take us farther from real solutions, not closer. We believe that the U.S. backing for the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria has greatly and unnecessarily contributed to the current disarray, weakening the Assad regime and thereby opening up the space for ISIL to insert itself on the ground. We strongly urge the U.S. to stop its efforts to overthrow the Assad regime and rather to seek a political solution in the U.N. Security Council context that does not count on Assad’s removal as a precondition (hence bringing Russia and China on board in a cooperative UNSC mandate).

<snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/17/stop-the-isis-war-before-it-gets-worse.html

[CJCRANE]

1. Agreed. We now have a genuine opportunity

to bring the world together under international law.

[KurtNYC]

2. "Saudi Arabia, Turkey, .... lead the response to ISIL " -- NOT

Saudi Arabia is likely funding ISIL and the oil that ISIL sells is moving through Turkey. The Saudis want Assad out and Iran's influence in Syria contained.

In June 2014, Steve Clemons wrote in the Atlantic reported that Saudi Prince Bandar (Sunni) created a covert operation to help ISIL to expand into Syria from Iraq:

...two of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra [al-Qaeda in Syria] and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they [ISIL] have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Qatar did not deny they fund both al-Qaeda groups, ISIL and Front, but they told Steve Clemons of the Atlantic that ISIL is a covert project of Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/16/1330029/-Saudis-Lobbied-John-McCain-Lindsey-Graham-to-sell-War

Turkey

Western intelligence officials say they can track the Islamic State oil shipments as they move across Iraq and into Turkey’s southern border regions. Despite extensive discussions inside the Pentagon, US forces have not attacked the tanker trucks, though a senior administration official said Friday “that remains an option.”

In public, the administration has been unwilling to criticize Turkey, which insists it has little control over the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria across its borders or the flow of oil back out.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/09/13/seeks-turkey-help-starve-islamic-state-oil-revenue/IQIx3EPqamJ4iMfwEhQ7wI/story.html

[Laelth]

5. Saudi Arabia almost certainly WAS funding IS at one point.

In fact, we may have encouraged SA to do so. At THIS point, however, it seems clear that SA and SA's satellite Gulf States have abandoned IS. In fact, they've now offered to aid the United States in its campaign against IS.

-Laelth

[whatchamacallit]

3. ISIL isn't the reason, it's the excuse n/t

[fadedrose]

4. Last night I re-watched the Generals on C-Span talking to the Senate

when all was quiet and listening was not a job in itself. I had the feeling my President is not in control of things lately. It all came about after the beheadings when the public (me included) thought "Go Get'em," but since then the complications have been revealed.

Then, I put on the replay of Rachel Maddow's program. She had the same reaction as me, that the Generals are saying surprising things in a low-key way that is so soft one does not sense the drastic measures they plan to take. They say they first want to get rid of ISIS, and then worry about Assad who is supported by those who voted for him and despised by those who didn't...

Your link also has one about the Generals,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/17/are-obama-and-his-generals-on-the-same-war-plan.html

and I think that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Cheney, other hawks, are poisoning the minds of peaceful democrats, including my President. He never wanted to enter any more wars but he also knows that the people elected him and the people are showing signs of wanting to take extreme action. Too much "Obama is losing Iraq after Bush won it," which is BS.

The best thing to come out of the hearings is the strong belief of Congressman/Senators that WAR is their responsibility and that the short authority that the President had to continue our attacks is expiring, having protected US interests and people in Iraq and garnering support from other countries to form a coalition. Some countries are willing to go only so far because enemies have friends, and some of these are mutual friends. Too confusing to mess with. A war entered into by the Congress would have boundaries determined by civilians.

I'm going to write another email to the President and remind him that business suits are in charge of the military, not the military in charge of business...and if he has do, well, we know what happened to Gen. McCarther when he wanted to bomb China. The song came out, "Old Soldiers Never Die, They Just Fade Away." It could be updated.

Thanks for your OP.