The normally thoughtful, or at least, non-insane Roger Cohen of the Times denounces ISIS with a vigor and commitment we applaud. However, his closing sentence is terrifying:
Here There Is No Why
For ISIS, Slaughter Is an End in Itself
...
One other thing: In this fight, I would say, all means are good. The Soviet Union, an ideological rival, was a key ally of the United States in defeating Nazism. It is obvious which nation today can play that role against ISIS. Its name is Iran.
The enemy of my enemy remains my enemy. As a bit of an aside, the notion that the Soviet Union was our ally against Hitler somewhat reverses cause and effect - Stalin was allied with Hitler while Germany crushed France and bombed Britain; the US was still neutral when Hitler invaded the USSR, prompting Stalin to switch sides. And in contemplating the relative death tolls amongst Soviets and Americans, one might say that we were their ally. Or, judged by the aftermath, Stalin came away with a new empire in Eastern Europe, and the US got NATO, the Marshall Plan, and the Pax Americana; one might say we helped Stalin a lot more than he helped us.
And we might manage the same trick with Iran. Siding with Shiite Iran and putting them on a path that might lead to their establishment as the dominant Middle Easter power is, hmm, crazy. And having the Iranians and their Shiite militias in charge of liberating Sunni Iraq? OMG, LOL, and WTF.
Saudi Arabia or Jordan ought to be able to supply competent Special Forces type spotters for US coalition air power if Obama remains committed to a 'no US boots on the ground' theory of victory. Or of course Turkey is an historic power in the region, and ought to be interested in pre-empting an Iranian ascent.
There are a lot of other places I would look for help against ISIS before I turned to Iran. However, my impression is that Mr. Cohen is well-respected on his side of the aisle (and ought to be), so his willingness to snuggle up with Iran is a troubling straw in the wind. Set aside the US for a moment, and think how much of the Euro-elite would love to stop these annoying Iranian embargoes and get on with the business of making money and dumping Israel. Then think about the number of ISIS members with European passports. Europe arguably has a bigger ISIS problem then we do, and less interest in cutting Iran out of a solution.
That's just 20th century thinking.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | September 30, 2014 at 11:16 AM
This is how wars are fought in the 21st century. Or something.
Posted by: MarkO | September 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM
I presume most of you have seen the latest Harf embarrassment:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/115357.php
There's a ridiculous substantive point, her claim that the "will to fight" (as opposed to "capability") is a "really tough thing to assess." Yeah, who'd have thought that ISIS was really motivated? And of course she drops in the fact that she worked at the CIA so she really knows this stuff.
But what's also odd is the insistence on "ISIL." Blitzer would say "ISIS" in his question (pronounced eye-sis) and she would respond using "ISIL" (eye-sil). Weird. It's also obvious that she's memorized some lines as opposed to responding in the moment to the questions. Her eyes have that faraway look of recalling memorized lines rather than actually interacting with Blitzer.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM
History only goes back two years, no risk of repeating it. Ask the Veitor dude.
Posted by: henry | September 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM
--It is obvious which nation today can play that role against ISIS. Its name is Iran.--
This seems sound.
Let's ally with a country that is developing the ability to destroy our cities or our allies' cities or launch an EMP attack through a massive nuclear weapons project, to defeat some guys who are developing the ability to put a better bomb in a shoe or some guy's* underpants.
*Not Some Guy's underpants, just some guy's.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM
You people know this but it's worth reiterating, the admin is deliberately using ISIL rather than ISIS because the last 'S' refers to...Syria. The 'L' refers to the Levant. Must not let the rubes get any ideas that Barry effed this thing up in Syria. Most of the drooling LIVs have no idea what/where the Levant is.
Posted by: lyle | September 30, 2014 at 12:10 PM
I am wondering if that is the canard Obama used to get the Arab allies on board. Help me, or I will turn to Iran.
Posted by: Bori | September 30, 2014 at 12:30 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/30/obama-has-spent-more-time-playing-golf-than-in-intel-briefings/
According to DCaller.
Posted by: Stephanie accidentally OnT? | September 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM
If 404 uses ISIL then ISIS is what intelligent people should employ.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM
I'd rather we just use al Qaeda instead if ISIL, ISIS or IS. I don't think we should refer to them as an Islamic state of any kind-- it concedes what we want to stop. Second, it is al Qaeda in Iraq. Third it reminds everyone that we apparently haven't decimated al Qaeda or decimation doesn't mean what I think it means.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | September 30, 2014 at 04:50 PM
Well "decimated" actually means "reduced by 1/10th" which is probably a somewhat pessimistic characterization -- I think we've probably got them down below 90% of what they were...
Posted by: cathyf | October 01, 2014 at 10:40 AM
"I don't think we should refer to them as an Islamic state of any kind...."
So true, Barry Dauphin.
Posted by: BR | October 03, 2014 at 05:25 AM