Obama Authorizes Air Strikes on "ISIS", and Inevitably Many Civilians

[ckaihatsu]

Not to defend US imperialism or dismiss the fact that Obama has the blood of many civilians on his hands, but my impression is that the strikes against ISIS thus far have been isolated from civilian areas and that generally the targeting of ISIS militants has avoided civilian deaths due to their location and more easily distinguishable activities.

Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.

[RedSonRising]

Their fighters are on the offensive for the moment so of course they are separated from civilians, but whats going to happen when they go on the defensive inside of the territory they control?

Are people really foolish enough to think anything about the combat doctrine of the US has changed with administrations? what a joke.

Well the dynamic and the strategy might change once they recede. But you're probably right, it could devolve into the same

Nobody has suggested the "combat doctrine" has changed, only that the circumstances allow for a current avoidance of civilian deaths.

I notice that you live in New York. It seems to me to be quite far from the Middle East. Now I don't know if the targeting of US bombs has improved, but the last time that they were dropping 'smart bombs' on Iraq, more than a few of them happened to land in Turkey. Now if a bomb is so 'smart' that it can't land in the country that it is intended to, I personally fail to see how they can manage to 'avoid civilian casualties'.

That is not even the point though. It is imperialist intervention that has caused this monster we have now, and every bomb they drop on ISIS ultimately will lead in the long term to more recruits to radical islamicist groups. If you fail to see this you are probably so shortsighted that you could get a job in the state department.

The position for western communist to take is quite simple; against your own countries intervention. All of the liberal heart wringing about dealing with ISIS ignores the fact that it is america's one creation.

It's not a difficult idea to understand; stop dropping bombs on the Middle East.

Devrim

Yes, New York is quite far from the Middle East. Congratulations on that observation!

The inaccuracies of military violence have caused civilian casualties numerous times throughout the last decade in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean such gross errors are commonplace. The US often uses drones to kill their targets without disregard for civilian life, which is undoubtedly true. But my only point was that at the moment, targets seem to be more isolated from civilians than the preceding number of insurgent groups which have born the brunt of US airstrikes.

I also never contradicted the fact that US military action in the region won't inflame terrorist activity and create a new generation of Islamist terrorists. That's a clear pattern seen throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan and Syria and Yemen. So your implication of my "shortsightedness" is a mere strawman.

At the end of the day, I also think it's best to adopt the position that the United States drop no more bombs on the Middle East. Although I also don't remember stating that my position was otherwise.

Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.

Also true. I think there is far too much hostility against ISIS's brand of extremism in the region for them to last in any case. Their model of organization is not sustainable and their widespread intolerance and threats of expansion simply won't fly.

[Solarstone]

Obama will drag this for another 10 years...obviously he wants to drive the oil prices up and boost arms industries along with eliminating crazy lunatics in the middle east.

[ckaihatsu]

Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.

Also true. I think there is far too much hostility against ISIS's brand of extremism in the region for them to last in any case. Their model of organization is not sustainable and their widespread intolerance and threats of expansion simply won't fly.

I roundly disagree here -- fortunately someone else just posted an apt analysis at another thread:

Comrade, it looks like ISIS is becoming the Khmer Rouge of the Middle East. You can thank the U.S. bombing and killing. In other words, the war that U.S. imperialism have waged has created a major Frankenstein. Now ISIS is attracting crazy Jihadists from all over the Muslim world and even from the Western non-Muslim countries. Like the Khmer Rouge, Isis is going to end up killing millions of people.

Consider that geopolitical conditions are becoming similar to those of the '70s where there was economic stagnation and the U.S. hegemon decidedly faltered. In such an environment petty opportunism will blossom, now out from under the shadow of world empire.

I'd rather see ISIS shunned on the ground and annihilated from above rather than a new Khmer-Rouge-like element gain traction and carve out a dominion of its own with unchecked bloodletting.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting position:


---


VoteVets opposes arming the Syrian rebels

VoteVets.org

Chris -

Almost one year ago, we asked VoteVets supporters to write their Members of Congress urging them to oppose military intervention in Syria.

Over 50,000 of you did.

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night with great interest, and believe he made a compelling case for the pursuit and destruction of ISIS.

But, once again, VoteVets cannot support sending arms to Syrian rebels that many reports continue to suggest are still fighting alongside some of the same groups we fought against in Iraq, and are even reportedly entering into truces with ISIS. (1) (2)

Additionally, to think that training and providing equipment to the Free Syrian Army is a decisive course of action in Syria is flawed. The United States has spent $25 billion to train and equip Iraqi Security forces (3) which were overrun by ISIS earlier this year. $500 million in arms and training to a less effective force only guarantees, at best, a stalemate that is passed to the next president. Or, worse, potentially obligate even more U.S. forces in the region at a later date.

We don’t oppose using force to attack ISIS, but the idea of utilizing the Free Syrian Army to carry the load in Syria is unrealistic.

As one of the final advisors out of Northern Iraq, I fully supported President Obama’s efforts to hold the Kurdish line and protect the slaughter of tens of thousands of Yezidis on Mount Sinjar. I applaud efforts to be more inclusive of country’s Sunni minority in a new, post-Maliki government in Iraq.

But we risk making some of the same mistakes in Syria we made during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq, and today, I cannot support that.

Tell me what you think:

http://action.votevets.org/thoughts

Adding to this, it’s important to note just how tall of an ask this is of the American people, and those who serve, in light of recent efforts by some in Congress to block money meant to improve veterans’ health care, education, and job training.

The cost of war doesn’t end when the last soldier returns home, or missile system is sent to an enemy of our enemy. Any money Congress authorizes to expand our operations into Syria should be matched by an investment in the care of those who have fought our previous wars.

Thanks for sounding off,

Jon Soltz
Iraq War Veteran and Chairman
VoteVets.org





(1) http://www.ibtimes.com/us-backed-mod...eports-1687662

(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5814128.html

(3) https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/sta...00061137911808












PAID FOR BY VOTEVETS ACTION FUND
This email was sent to [email protected]. If that is not your preferred email address, click here. Click here if you'd like to unsubscribe. We try to send only the most important information and opportunities to participate via email. To sustain VoteVets with a contribution click here.

[Slavic]

Obama will drag this for another 10 years...obviously he wants to drive the oil prices up and boost arms industries along with eliminating crazy lunatics in the middle east.

I hardly doubt that is the case. Washington wants powerful allies in the middle east so they they can project their military and keep markets open, ala Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc.

ISIS is a direct threat against the US's allies and could destabilize these countries and open the ground for more anti-us fundamentalists taking power. The sooner ISIS and Assad are eliminated, the sooner the US can have their client and allied states in the region open up their market and resources unhindered.

[Bolshevik800]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

I have to disagree with you Comrade on the fact being being Americas capitalist regime is ruling the world am I right , also America is NATO what America say's goes' basically with there corrupt friends the ; British-Imperial-Capitalistic-War-Machine they make money through terror and killing for the corrupt city of London .

[Slavic]

I have to disagree with you Comrade on the fact being being Americas capitalist regime is ruling the world am I right , also America is NATO what America say's goes' basically with there corrupt friends the ; British-Imperial-Capitalistic-War-Machine they make money through terror and killing for the corrupt city of London .

Yes blame the state, of course, but what hrafn is saying is that Obama isn't the sole reason for these air strikes and to think of the US president wielding executive power like a king is silly

[Rottenfruit]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nst-isis-syria

Well, looking like there will be more air strikes in the Middle East by the US. My thoughts are with all the civilians who might be affected by this. Fuck Obama, his imperialist agenda, and his warmongering and blatant disregard for civilian casualties.

something has to be done about isis, yes bombing will kill civilians but allowing isis to be left alone will result in them committing genocide and raving and destroying iraq. So if it takes "imperalism" to stop another Rwanda so be it

[Rottenfruit]

Bombing or invading only helps them do that.

it already save the lifes of thousand of yazidis and the bombing of isis prevented them to go in kirkuk to slaughter the turkmen minority

[Scheveningen]

if it takes "imperalism" to stop another Rwanda so be it

Keep in mind that imperialism caused this (and Rwanda) in first place, that its actions strengthen ISIS or anyway further destabilize the region (airstrikes fight them as a military opponent, but an irregular army is never just that), that it keeps propping up the same regimes which support and help spreading religious extremism and movements like ISIS, or which create the conditions for this type of slaughter with their sectarian and repressive policies.

[Creative Destruction]

I'm getting tired of the response on the radical left of being kneejerkingly "Imperialism caused this." Okay, we all know that, but what then? Taking the position that absolutely nothing should be done or that the only thing anyone should do is to keep their home countries from bombing ISIS isn't exactly endearing. And the matter of fact is that bombings did help hinder ISIS from committing a complete genocide against the Yazidi, so it is not as clear cut as "NO TO IMPERIALIST BOMBINGS." That's not particularly inspiring when you're offering up fuck all as to what to do to prevent the genocidal activities of these nutcases.

Nonetheless, we get it. Imperialism started it. More bombings may inflame the situation. The question facing leftists right now, in order to be at all relevant, is what can be done about it (besides the weak ass answer "Keep your home countries out of it")? What is our alternative to this emergency? ISIS is an imperialist force as well. Literally, their stated aim is to create a strict medieval-like Islamic empire. To ask this question and to discuss it isn't like being a Hitchens-esque turncoat.

So, turn away from that kind of kneejerk response. We're all anti-imperialist. We should be anti-Islamic imperialists as well. What to do next? Should be start taking up collections for the PKK and the Syrian and Iraqi communists and radicals? Let's start framing the discussion like that. Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.

[Per Levy]

I'm getting tired of the response on the radical left of being kneejerkingly "Imperialism caused this." Okay, we all know that, but what then? Taking the position that absolutely nothing should be done or that the only thing anyone should do is to keep their home countries from bombing ISIS isn't exactly endearing. And the matter of fact is that bombings did help hinder ISIS from committing a complete genocide against the Yazidi, so it is not as clear cut as "NO TO IMPERIALIST BOMBINGS." That's not particularly inspiring when you're offering up fuck all as to what to do to prevent the genocidal activities of these nutcases.

so instead of arguing that more bombs, more weapons and more intervention will make everything worse we should say yes to all those things who made isis what they are today? makes sense.

Nonetheless, we get it. Imperialism started it. More bombings may inflame the situation. The question facing leftists right now, in order to be at all relevant, is what can be done about it (besides the weak ass answer "Keep your home countries out of it")? What is our alternative to this emergency? ISIS is an imperialist force as well. Literally, their stated aim is to create a strict medieval-like Islamic empire. To ask this question and to discuss it isn't like being a Hitchens-esque turncoat.

leftists groups arnt relavent and wont become more relavent when they adopt a position you agree on.

So, turn away from that kind of kneejerk response. We're all anti-imperialist. We should be anti-Islamic imperialists as well. What to do next? Should be start taking up collections for the PKK and the Syrian and Iraqi communists and radicals? Let's start framing the discussion like that.

so you are saying we should give money and support to nationalists(pkk), supporters of assad(syrian communist partys) and people who supported the invasion of iraq(communist party of iraq)?

Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.

devrim seems to has hit a nerve, wich judging by your politcs doesnt suprise all that much. but tell me again why you label yourself a council communist when you adhere to prety much nothing that tendency stands for?

[khad]

Just yesterday, there were reports coming out of Hasakah that the Kurdish YPG executed 45 "civilians" in a village raid. I put that in quotation marks because I haven't seen all the bodies to ascertain whether or not they were civilians or militants. What I do know is that Tal Hamis is a forward position used by the Islamic State to pressure Qamishli. And in the recently-liberated town of Amerli in Iraq, you hear similar reports of "civilian" executions and mass expulsions by local Shia and Kurdish forces.

Since these various local militias that the USA is keen on supporting don't have the power to effectively police areas retaken from the Islamic State, it shouldn't be all that surprising that they would resort to wholesale removal of these populations. And since these local militias (who have every reason to get payback for the atrocities committed against them) are such a cornerstone of Obama's "coalition" to defeat IS, you can probably expect more of this in the future.

If you say you want to destroy the Islamic State, then just say you want to kill them and drown their children in the Euprhates. If you can't accept civilian casualties, then just don't go to war or prance around beating the drums. Trying to cloak the reasons for war in humanitarian baggage is just pathetic, in my opinion. The only question is whose civilians die for whose military objectives.

Are those military objectives ultimately worth it? And for whom? Ending IS, toppling the Syrian government, independent Kurdistan, further embargoes on Iran, stop Saudi terror funding, etc... What's the endgame here, and who's going to pick up the pieces?

Just what are the objectives here? I really don't see discussion of this in concrete terms, not from the left, and certainly not from the Obama regime--as tempting as it is to just throw bombs at whatever bad shit seems to be happening.

[Creative Destruction]

so instead of arguing that more bombs, more weapons and more intervention will make everything worse we should say yes to all those things who made isis what they are today? makes sense.

Nope! Never made that argument, you incredibly stupid jackass. I said that leftists aren't actually dealing with the reality of the situation, and it's a lot messier than making a simple piddly assed argument about not actually doing anything.

leftists groups arnt relavent and wont become more relavent when they adopt a position you agree on.

I never said they had to adopt "my position," you incredibly stupid jackass. I said the conversation needs to be more than "Well, golly gee, ISIS is a product of imperialism and the only thing we should do is say our home countries shouldn't get involved." That's dreck. The conversation needs to move into a different direction, because it's a non-starter as it is now.

so you are saying we should give money and support to nationalists(pkk), supporters of assad(syrian communist partys) and people who supported the invasion of iraq(communist party of iraq)?

Nope, you incredibly stupid jackass, that's not necessarily what I'm saying or proposing. I'm saying we need to discuss this at a deeper and more meaningful level than Leftist 101 masturbation about anti-imperialism. We're all anti-imperialists. That's not exactly a groundbreaking or useful argument to make. It's incredibly banal and incredibly unhelpful.

devrim seems to has hit a nerve, wich judging by your politcs doesnt suprise all that much. but tell me again why you label yourself a council communist when you adhere to prety much nothing that tendency stands for?

Yes. When people posting on message boards from the comforts of their home, separated from a situation where thousands of people are being massacred, and then limits the conversation to a "do nothing" approach... it does hit a nerve. It's part of why the radical left is incredibly irrelevant and only obsessed with gazing at their own navels.

But hit me again on my tendency! Because that's an incredible argument that has worked before, you incredibly stupid jackass. I do adhere to council communism. Nothing I've said has run contrary to that. So, do you want to be a useless moron in this discussion or do you actually want to have a productive conversation that moves beyond revleft platitudes?

[Devrim]

Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.

Yes. When people posting on message boards from the comforts of their home, separated from a situation where thousands of people are being massacred, and then limits the conversation to a "do nothing" approach... it does hit a nerve. It's part of why the radical left is incredibly irrelevant and only obsessed with gazing at their own navels.

I'd imagine that I am sitting here in the comforts of my own home slightly closer to where all this is happening than you are, and I'd imagine that I knew slightly more people who have been killed in the Middle Easts various wars than you do. Even at a considerable distance, the suffering caused by these events is visible to me on a daily basis if only in the huge amount of refugees begging in the streets.

Yes, people are being slaughtered. Unfortunately it's nothing new. As you say imperialist intervention in the Middle East is the root cause of this, and in particular the destabilization of Syria and Iraq. ISIS is not some supreme military power that is going to sweep all before it, and commit genocide against millions. It's a movement that managed to step into the power vacuum created by the imperialist interventions, and expand rapidly. It seems that it has reached the limits of its expansion, and over the last three weeks it has been, slowly, losing ground.

In my opinion dropping bombs on Iraq, and Syria, and sending more arms into the region acts as a further destablising force. Not only will it, just like ISIS, murder more people, but also it will add to the instability of the region by pumping weapons into it, and increasing the number of willing recruits to Islamicist organisations. My belief is that in the long term further intervention will result in more massacres. None of this would be happening if the US and its allies hadn't decided to support the destablising of Syria.

Nope, you incredibly stupid jackass, that's not necessarily what I'm saying or proposing. I'm saying we need to discuss this at a deeper and more meaningful level than Leftist 101 masturbation about anti-imperialism. We're all anti-imperialists. That's not exactly a groundbreaking or useful argument to make. It's incredibly banal and incredibly unhelpful.

You're not an anti-imperialist. You are talking about supporting the imperialist interventions of your own state.

Devrim

[Creative Destruction]

You're not an anti-imperialist. You are talking about supporting the imperialist interventions of your own state.

What use is it to have a conversation with you if you're going to straight-up, baldface lie?

[Zukunftsmusik]

If not supporting an imperialist intervention by your own state as such, you did put forth the idea of supporting groups that are parts of American and Western imperialism in the region. Do you really think it's a good idea for anti-imperialists to get into that sort of activity? Is it indeed an anti-imperialist activity?

[Creative Destruction]

If not supporting an imperialist intervention by your own state as such, you did put forth the idea of supporting groups that are parts of American and Western imperialism
in the region. Do you really think it's a good idea for anti-imperialists to get into that sort of activity? Is it indeed an anti-imperialist activity?

Holy fucking shit. Is there some rule here on RevLeft where it is encouraged to set up and beat down straw men? Good lord.

The Idiot's Guide version of my post: we need to move the conversation in a direction that doesn't brickwall at "Don't support your home country's bombing activities." Fine, that's not up for debate. No one here does. Because of that, it's a non-starter. The question should be, what should the radical left community do? The questions I asked about the PKK, or Iraqi and Syrian communists were examples..not proposals. If they aren't acceptable people to support in a struggle like this, then who would be? I'd even be fine with an answer, at the end of it all, "Well, there's nothing we really can do as Western leftists" but after some sort of discussion and hashing shit out.

[Scheveningen]

do you actually want to have a productive conversation

Coming from someone who calls people useless morons, idiots and incredibly stupid jackasses, this must be a joke (and I'm a moron who uses ad hominems, I imagine).