As Kobane Falls to ISIS, No Ground Troops From Turkey

Turkey has the second biggest army in Nato. If it wanted to take out ISIS, it could, without any help from anyone else.

Turkey has not sent ground troops to Syria to fight ISIS, and probably won't enter Syria, unless ISIS attacks its special monument.

The U.S. (hopefully) will continue to reject the the use of ground force against ISIS in Syria.

The end result, according to news headlines, is that it would be a travesty if Kobane falls to ISIS. Perhaps to Turkey, where the Kurds and Turks might return to fighting each other. But not to us. And if it would be a travesty for Turkey and the Kurds, why aren't Turkey and other countries in the region offering ground troops to prevent it?


It is not our responsibility to save every country around the world from being taken over by a group whose politics and methods we don't like. The duty belongs to the countries Isis is trying to take. Turkey has to put on its big boy pants and try to stop ISIS, or stop b*tching about it. Kobane falling is Turkey's problem, not our problem.

The U.S. is not the World's global police force. Obama has already gone farther than I would. He authorized air strikes - I would not, except perhaps to save the Yazedis, which turned out not to be necessary, according to the advance teams.

When ISIS takes Kobane, it will do what it does everywhere else: Give out pamphlets explaining Sharia law, and inform the citizens of the region that cigarettes, drugs and liquor are banned, and women must appropriately cover themselves. ISIS will take over the tax system. It will restore public services like water, courts, police and traffic control. It will collect a tax from the wealthy. It will set up nursing homes and deliver toys and foods to the poor and orphans. ISIS will provide jobs and pay the workers.

Maybe the people of the Middle East, who I assume are predominately muslim, should ask themselves: How bad is it to live in under ISIS, before panicking. Is it worse than living under Bashar? There are non-democratic systems that are livable. Let them work it out. We gave what we could: airstrikes and intelligence and tons of arms that cost us a billion or more dollars in the past few months and more each day.

We need our money here at home. For social security and medicare, for education, to repair our infrastructures so bridges don't collapse killing our citizens, and for research so we can cure diseases. Those billions another war would cost us are better spent providing better care for Americans at home. We, the people of America, should be our nation's top priority.

ISIS has said if the U.S. minds its own business, it won't come after us. Fanboys don't speak for ISIS. ISIS doesn't provide mail order training -- like al Qaeda. ISIS and AQ are at odds. ISIS is at odds with JaN. Let them kill each other off. We should have no role in their civil war, particularly since it's going to take a lot more than air strikes to take out ISIS. They are already in the 7th inning. We're starting way too late.

We didn't go to Rwanda, we didn't go to Darfur, or to Syria last year. We don't go around the world to impose democracy any more because when we do, we lose-- lives as well as dollars.

And this is no longer 1966. Country Joe's line "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box" is outdated. Our troops won't come home in coffins. They'll be lucky to get their heads shipped back. Most likely, their remains won't come home at all.

Finally, the writing is practically on the wall that the Afghan Taliban are back in action, and Iraq is a mess. We can't fight in all these places. Bush's unfortunate decision to go to war in Iraq has left Obama with a sense that we owe it to Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them from falling into extremist hands. I disagree, but if he capitulates, and decides to send troops anywhere, it should be against al Qaida, whose grand mission remains to strike the U.S.

We have led Turkey to the water with our airstrikes. If they aren't willing to drink, there's nothing else we can or should do.

We should strive to be the beacon of liberty at home. The rest of the world needs to fight its own battles.

Staying out of ISIS' business will also reduce the chances of lone wolf attacks at home. I have an idea on how to further reduce such attacks, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It seems to me we are being used by all (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 08:31:13 AM EST
    parties for their own ends. If Turkey is fine with ISIS on their border, then I guess I am too. if they are just sitting back and trying to make us do their dirty work, I hope we don't fall into that trap.

    Why is Jimmy Carter jumping (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    into the fray?



    If ISIS takes Kobane (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    There will be a Kurdish genocide.

    Realistically, does Turkey care if (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    there is a Kurdish genocide?

    Turkey has been battling what they consider a "Kurdish problem" for decades.


    They do not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    If they did they'd be fighting ISIS already.

    Also they do not want to stir up Islamists at home who probably could care less what ISIS is doing.

    Fighting ISIS means fighting the Islamist element in your own country.

    We've seen this inertia for a while when it comes to Islamic nations truly confronting groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.    


    No (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    That has always been their plan.  That is why they supported ISIL

    I think that ISIL and the Turks... (none / 0) (#43)
    by desertswine on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:04:17 PM EST
    have cut a deal. That's how they do things.

    It looks like we may have a buffer zone (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    For Kurds to survive in.  It's either that or boots on the ground.  Most commenters here seem to think the U.S. is the only help involved too, or they like to think that depending on the issue discussed.  Allies and the UN are also involved.  It is not uniquely Americans to attempt to stop a genocide.

    Sorry...uniquely American (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    I don't see the coalition, the UN, or NATO (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    On board for observing a genocide either.  ISIL doesn't seem capable of taking the town without tank coverage from the Kurdish fighters.  And tanks are easily taken out with airstrikes.

    Is this a mistake? (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    "ISIL doesn't seem capable of taking the town without tank coverage from the Kurdish fighters."  

    Why would the Kurds provide tank coverage for their enemy?

    or, am I reading it wrong?


    Change the sentence to read (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    ISIL doesn't seem capable of taking the town from the Kurdish fighters without tank coverage.

    I would have suggested some (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    well-placed commas, but good punctuation is more reviled here than Sarah Palin.

    Slightly OT, but I offer this:

    So what happened to the comma in this process? Well, between the 16th century and the present day, it became a kind of scary grammatical sheepdog. As we shall shortly see, the comma has so many jobs as a 'separator' (punctuation marks are traditionally either 'separators' or 'terminators') that it tears about on the hillside of language, endlessly organising words into sensible groups and making them stay put: sorting and dividing; circling and herding; and of course darting off with a peremptory 'woof' to round up any wayward subordinate clause that makes a futile bolt for semantic freedom. Commas, if you don't whistle at them to calm down, are unstoppably enthusiastic at this job. Luckily the trend in the 20th century (starting with H. W. Fowler's The King's English in 1906) has been towards ever-simpler punctuation, with fewer and fewer commas; but take any passage from a non-contemporary writer and you can't help seeing the constituent words as so many defeated sheep that have been successfully corralled with the gate slammed shut by good old Comma the Sheepdog."
    ― Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation

    Very Good! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    My four favorites, on all my desktops:

    1. nounplus.net
    2. grammarbook.com
    3. grammarly.com
    4. thesaurus.com

    I, also, agree with you about the strange backlash whenever grammar is mentioned here. Of course, there's a right way, and, a wrong way to point these out. Unfortunately, and, from the comments I've read here, the recipients of the advice (hardly) ever accept it graciously. It's always returned with a thinly veiled (snotty, actually) retort, such as, "People make too big a deal about good punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say, it's your problem, not mine."

    And, to make matters worse, the inevitable clapping that follows, often turns into a standing ovation.

    Now, as is so often the case, I want to clarify a couple of points. I'm not talking about nit picking minor errors: occasional colons vs semi-colons, or, whether a comma should be used in any particular case. Sometimes, talking trashy, irreverently, and, with street lingo, and, poor grammar, is the way to go. Of course getting the meaning out is the most important thing. And, no one always gets it right, all the time. That's no big deal.

    And, you can believe me when I say that the person doing the correcting is much more sensitive to, and, nervous about, pointing out an error. I always lashed back whenever someone pointed out my errors. Now, I don't. I appreciate someone letting me know, I know it was done with some trepidation on their part, and, I know it was done from a good heart, with the intention of my avoiding a potential future embarrassment.

    (The following is for general consumption, not you, specifically, Anne)

    Just one more thought. I've done a lot of employee hiring in my career. And, in the past few decades, it was mostly done at an executive level. And, if you don't think good grammar, and, proper use of words is important, it may explain why you're not an executive. And, if I know the difference between, "imply," and, "infer," and, when each should be used, so should you. So, if you don't know that "irregardless" is not a word, you probably don't know you're not getting this job either.

    Finally, Anne, and, for what it's worth, always feel free to correct me. In my haste I'm certain I've made a ton of mistakes in this comment here. And, to wrap things up, just one small caveat: I would be quite generous in overlooking small errors in certain settings like, obviously, Blogs.


    Cripes! Sorry, (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    Thought this was an open thread. Eek!

    Commas... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by unitron on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    ...are for things that are almost but not quite parenthetical expressions, and to indicate where you would very briefly pause, and possibly employ very slightly different tone of voice, if reading the text aloud.

    I wish the founding fathers had know that.


    Anne, thanks for this info and (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:15:35 PM EST
    I'm going to take the rest of the afternoon to memorize it.  I tend to be a stream of conscience writer that goes back with a hand full of commas sprinkling them all over the place, or I forget to do that and just send it off comma less.

    So What Should Obama Have Done Instead? (none / 0) (#6)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    "We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria," Carter said. "Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn't object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned."

    It is not at all clear that using air power earlier would have made much of a difference.  


    Air power when ISIS seized all the Iraqi/US (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    weapons in northern Iraq in June, would have made a significant difference. The targets/strikes would have been relatively easy, i.e. weapons on transport vehicles head to Syria. Now the Iraqis, Kurds and coalition are fighting against extremely well-armed ISIS fighters and are often out-manned with these seized weapons.

    Hillary, Panetta, Carter and others are convinced that the US should have acted in Syria long ago.

    The US needs more special forces on the ground to better direct the airstrikes. While there are political reasons not to have boots on the ground, or more of them, virtually everyone who understands the airstrikes seems to believe US military on the ground would make the airstrikes much more effective.


    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    get the impression that you have taken in much of what Jeralyn wrote above.

    And here you are, urging that our soldiers be sent in to this quagmire - a quagmire that should engage States like Turkey, but doesn't as long as they can rely on chumps like us.


    Former President Carter (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    has criticized the president on previous occasions, such as on drones and surveillance.  But, it does seem curious that he does so now, especially since most of what Mr. Carter feels needs to be accomplished is in progress (albeit belatedly in his view), with the big exception of adding "some" ground troops.

     In addition to  haziness on troop numbers, it was not mentioned if those ground troops should be US or other.  Moreover, his advocacy of some ground troops to do follow-up (not advance work) when we do bombing, is proffered as  a "possibility of success" in Iraq.

    Apparently, he does seem, also, to be agreeing with the president that the airstrikes inside Syria are part of an Iraq policy and not Syrian policy.  As for Syria, that is a different kettle of fish, including the impact on the Syrian civil war even if, or because of, that possibility of Iraqi success is actually realized.

    President Carter laments the "shifts in policy" but he, as well as any, should know that in that turbulent region, policy is more situational than strategic, no matter how much foreign policy experts might like otherwise.

    Although Jimmy Carter is an elder statesman, in my view, the political weathervane is still existent in both he and his partner, Rosalyn Carter.  Moreover, there is Georgia politics in the dynamics--the Carter's grandson, Jason Carter, is presently in a heated and close battle with incumbent Republican governor, Nathan Deal.

    And, Michelle Nunn, daughter of former Democratic senator Sam Nunn, is in a close race for US senator against the Republican David Perdue.  It is not beyond question that a timely criticism (actually criticism at any time) of President Obama would run well with many Georgians.


    Former President Carter: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 06:40:49 PM EST
    Had not thought about (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 05:33:34 PM EST
    GA.  that's very smart.   And not unlikely.

    My problem is Obama once again (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    is all rhetoric and little action.

    Like the redline before he is talking tough and then pulling back.

    The goal was to destroy ISIS...according to Obama himself.

    If that was the goal then he should do it.   Instead he wants to appear to do it for political reasons but doesn't want to get too invovled for the opposite political reasons.

    Again he wants to have it both ways.   That leads to no real change on the ground and the Kurds will be murdered by ISIS while our air forces floats around in the Mediterranean.

    By claiming he was going to act he is now accountable for the failures of this actions.

    If he had been clearer what the real goals were or had decided not to get involved at all that would have been leadership.

    Instead we have this half ass campaign that will result in little difference on the ground.  

    If the real goal is only to appear to be doing something why bother?

    I have to agree (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    I have a lot of doubts about the practicality of even attempting to "destroy ISIS", as I have said, but he should not have stated it as our goal if wh was not prepared to deliver.

    This is what thepresident should have said... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    My fellow Americans.   The recent actions of ISIS are horrible and an affront to our way of life.  We call on the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other Muslim nations in the region to confront this threat immediately.   We pledge our intelligence and financial support to the people of this region.   This will include immediately arming our friends the Kurds as they confront this threat.

    However we cannot intervene militarily.   We cannot afford nor justify putting the lives of Americans at risk to confront a threat that is the primary concern of the people in that region.   We cannot and will not again intervene militarily when doing so results in us taking the responsibility to reshape and rebuild the governments of sovereign nations when we are done with military objectives.  

    The past two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that while we can achieve military goals we cannot spend precious time and treasure putting in place new governments and political systems once our military objectives are complete.

    Etc.. Etc... God Bless America.

    That is what he thinks.  At least if you gave him truth serum and forced him to tell the truth.  IMHO.

    If he'd have said that he'd be hearing from the same Hawkish critics but at least we and the rest of the world would know where he stood.

    Instead we're muddling around bombing yet another Muslim nation with no strategic goals and affecting little to no change.



    On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#11)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Which of the hawks have made the best case for the US to use its own troops to defeat ISIS?  Do they have anything better to offer than, "If we keep ignoring ISIS, the whole middle ease will be in flames and the price of oil will quadruple."?

    The majority of current and former (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    US government and military people/experts who have spoken out, seem to be saying that ISIS is a current threat to US/Western interests and, if left unchecked, will be a direct threat to the US and the West. Many of the ISIS leaders are avowed haters of the US, according to what I have read. Even if not currently being planned, sooner or later, ISIS is going to be, or support people who will be, a direct threat to the US and West, in my view. I truly don't understand how people can think that ISIS, if left unchecked, will not eventually to a sponsor of direct threats to the US/West.

    "A majority of the other top Islamic State leaders were also former prisoners, including: Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, Abu Louay, Abu Kassem, Abu Jurnas, Abu Shema and Abu Suja.

    Before their detention, Mr. al-Baghdadi and others were violent radicals, intent on attacking America. Their time in prison deepened their extremism and gave them opportunities to broaden their following."

    It makes no sense that these leaders, who were previously intent on attacking the US, have now forgotten about the US and their prior views.

    NYTimes article.


    The Threat is Still Vague (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    OK, lets accept the thesis that the ISIS leaders hate the US and had recruited followers while in prison.  Is there any chance that these guys can actually conquer countries and then turn the resources of those countries into harm to the US?  How much of their success is due to a marriage of convenience between them and people who hate the current regimes running Iraq and Syria?  Do they have any plans to choke off the supply of ME oil to western countries?  To me, the idea that they will unabatedly take over the ME and launch attacks against the US, seems far fetched.  The Neocons have relied too much on the metastasizing cancer metaphor.

    Here here (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    I agree.  

    Here's my issue with this arguement (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    How is ISIS any different then the governments of other countries in the Middle East?

    Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, even the leaders of Saudi Arabia.

    All of these actual governments (Pakistan even has nuclear weapons) are a threat to us and we have proof of Iran and Pakistan supporting terrorists directly against interests.

    Point being is how could ISIS become anymore dangerous then these countries already are?   Either by directly or indirectly supporting Islamic terrorists?

    No one is more critical of the Islamic world then me (see all my posts on the subject) but I have come to understand that we can't bomb our way to peace with that part of the world.    Also we have way overacted to the threat of terrorism both domestically and militarily since 9/11 and threats of future action are just noise to me now.

    We defeated communism with ideas and economic prosperity.  We can do the same to Islamic radicalism without constantly invading and bombing other countries.

    Obama should stick with his gut and pull the F&*K out.   I'm tired of the Hawkish argument against some sort of future threat.  

    Even if they're right what we've been doing the last decade or so to counter act this threat militarily hasn't worked.


    Has the sun (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    started rising in the West?  I agree.  ;-)

    And Furthermore (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    Take a look at this poll if you think ISIS has any real grass roots support in the ME.  The poll was apparently taken before ISIS was front and center in public consciousness but undoubtredly the results also apply to ISIS.

    Clinton didn't do that in Kosvo (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    So why do you think Obama will do it here???

    Obama doesn't understand that we are under attack by radical Islamists.

    Killing them now will be magnitudes easier than after Iran has a nuke.


    I suggest (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    that you read Jeralyn's post above.

    I did (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    My point was is and will be correct.

    What point (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    is that, exactly?

    Jim, I'v tried to not disagree with you (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 09:01:31 PM EST
    for months now, please read Jeralyn's post and then stop the comments you think mean something. She took hours to write her post and you took seconds to be stupid.

    Your comments are repetitive and tedious. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    The fact you have to keep repeating yourself should tell you that your arguments are not convincing anyone.  

    Wow. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Killing them now will be magnitudes easier than after Iran has a nuke."

    You know, I really don't think it's healthy for someone your age to be downing multiple Cuervo shots in rapid succession.


    Not sure what Iran has to do with ISIL (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 11:52:03 PM EST
    ISIL is Sunni and Iran is Shia. Two distinct and separate entities.

    You and your fellow crusaders just want your holy war with Iran.


    Actually Iran figures in quite prominantly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 12:20:21 AM EST
    with respect to the Khorasan fighters who the U.S. says were planning an imminent attack here and are part of al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra, ISIS' now rival. At least according to the U.S. government. I wrote up the whole story here. That being said, I don't buy the government's sales pitch.

    Sorry still doesn't make sense to me (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 01:51:38 AM EST
    Even after reading your linked post, I can't see the relationship between ISIL and Iran.

    Juan Cole:

    ISIS is a more potent threat both to Israel and to Iran than the latter two are to each other

    Political Reasons ? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    I don't like how you are using 'political reasons' as if they are some abstract thoughts of an ambitious politician.

    Those reasons include the American public not wanting to see more of its youth come back from another war disfigured, mentally broken, and dead.

    Nor do they want throw more money down the rabbit hole in hopes that this time will somehow work when it has failed in the past, time after time, knowing that when the bill is due, their retirement safety net will be put on the chopping block.

    And lastly, the past has proven that we can not defeat terrorism in the middle east and that all of our efforts have done nothing but increase the threat of terrorism worldwide.

    If you want to call those 'political reason', fine, but please don't dismiss them.  Those are damn solid reasons not to go to war in the Middle East, again.

    At some point the Middle East is going to have to figure out how to keep their religious radicals in check.  Christians in America will never defeat muslim radicals in the Middle East, period.

    Had people realized this 12 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess, many of our young boys would be alive and whole, and we would have a trillion and change less in debt.

    Either way, it would be nice if every 'lets get into another war' person would forfeit their right to shut down the government, act like a deficit hawk, or grandstand and proselytize about the horrors of government programs that benefit needy Americans.

    Those of us who don't want war should be immune to any cuts in government programs like social security or unemployment insurance.  Let the war mongers sacrifice their futures to wage war in the middle east.


    President Obama, in his (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    speech of September 10, 2014, said that "we will degrade ISIL and, ultimately, destroy it."   A two part goal.  The degradation is  reasonably attainable. Expectations for destruction much less so, especially since this is only October 8, 2014.

    Moreover, the president did state that ISIL is no immediate threat, so that being the case, a steady pace toward degradation in tandem with muscular political and diplomatic efforts seem more prudent than undertaking a naked military intervention with an unrealistic goal to destroy.  

    The hawks have big criticisms but little of substance to offer--do what you are doing, but you should have done it sooner is about the best out there.  

    My hope, too, is that President Obama adheres to his gut feelings--despite being buffeted about by armchair bombers, both within and without the administration. Shrieking their discredited chorus of  when in doubt, bomb. And, when that does not work, it is not those clowns who are sent in,  we send in the troops.


    We also live in an age of ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    ... instant gratification, with accompanying short attention spans and unrealistic expectations of what can and / or should be accomplished within a given period of time.

    Last night, I heard a GOP Congressman on one of the CSPAN channels posit that President George H.W. Bush managed to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in only six weeks during the 1991 Persian Gulf War (aka "Operation Desert Storm"), implying that had a Republican been in the White House instead of Barack Obama, this current operation against ISIS / ISIL would be just about wrapped up by now.

    It was a terribly silly argument to be making publicly because it ignores that war's actual history, by wholly failing to account for the fact that it took almost six months prior to its outbreak of hostilities in Jan. 1991 to first amass a sufficient preponderance of armed forces in-theatre (aka "Operation Desert Shield"), which ultimately proved decisive in ensuring that otherwise quick battlefield victory.

    During the Second World War, it took our country, Great Britain and Canada over two years to deploy a sufficient number of combat divisions, ships, planes and equipment / supplies in southern England, which proved necessary to achieve the successful Allied invasion of German-occupied northern France. (And neither did Americans secure Omaha Beach during D-Day in only 25 minutes, as was the case in Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan.")

    Military operations almost always take considerable time in both planning and logistics, and if we truly desire a successful outcome, then we need to show both the patience and the fortitude necessary to achieve it. Otherwise, we shouldn't even bother.



    Absolutely brilliant, (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    thorough, rational and compassionate post.

    From your writing - to the ears and hearts of the powers that be.

    One can only hope.

    Congratulations and thank you, Jeralyn.

    The Turkish government has its own ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    ... significant domestic issues that it's constantly trying to balance, with a growing internal Islamic movement on one hand, and a very large and long-restless Kurdish minority on the other. Further, Arabs south of its border have long been wary of any hints of Turkish interventionism or resurgent militarism, which is residue from the days of the former Ottoman Empire.

    And then, there are the Greeks -- not only in Greece itself but also in Cyprus, and there's certainly no love lost between Greeks and Turks, their mutual NATO membership notwithstanding. Despite the recent relative quiet on that front, they've had a longstanding blood feud which goes back several centuries, and the threat of renewed military hostilities has reared its head several times since the end of the brutal Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22.

    Further, memories of the July 1974 Turkish military invasion of Cyprus, prompted by the overthrow of the late Archbishop Makarios' Cypriot government by ethnic Greeks seeking that country's wholesale annexation by Greece, remains a volatile sore point between the two neighbors. Cyprus also has a large ethnic Turkish minority which resides on the northern part of the island, and the Turkish military occupation has neatly cleaved the country in two. (The Turkish-controlled "Republic of Northern Cyprus" is recognized only by Ankara.)

    All that said, resident Kurds may yet force Turkey's hand with ISIS in Syria. The Los Angeles Times reports that at least 19 were killed and scores wounded in numerous street clashes throughout the country last night between Turkish security forces and ethnic Kurdish protesters, who've clamoring for Turkish military intervention to break the Islamic State's siege of Kobane.

    The Turkish government really cannot afford to court rebellion in the country's southeastern quadrant, not to mention within the significant Kurdish populations in Istanbul and Ankara. If only to pacify its own Kurdish citizens, Turkey may soon feel that it has no choice but to intervene in Syria.


    Our own fault (none / 0) (#41)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 08:53:41 PM EST
    An assertive President Obama would have winked and nudged Turkey to invade Syria to remove Assad when Assad crossed the red line.  Turkey has been itching to remove Assad since the start.  Then, no ISIS.

    Why does ISIL want a Syrian Kurdish city? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jack203 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    It seems a shift in strategy for ISIL to start attacking the Kurds these last couple months.

    Until I see evidence of anything else, I think this is just naked aggression and wanton slaughter mostly for the sake of keeping the illusion of winning.

    I agreed mostly with Jeralyn's post, but I have my doubts ISIL will treat the Kurdish population the same as the population of a Sunni city.  The early reports are not good.

    Tales of torture, mutilation and rape as Isis targets key town of Kobani
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/turkey-troops-isis-siege-kobani-refugees-rape-and-murde r

    Hopefully our air strikes are damaging them over there.  ISIL in Syria have made Kobane a priority.   I would prefer ISIL suffers a costly loss over a costly win.

    One explanation (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 01:16:49 AM EST
    is here. I can't say whether it's correct, only that it makes sense.

    Obvious (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 01:50:02 AM EST

    ...why aren't Turkey and other countries in the region offering ground troops to prevent it?

    They are following Obama's lead on the issue of ground troops.  

    "Obvious" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    That was seriously funny.

    Abdul, as it has already been stated, (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 09, 2014 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    if Turkey crossed the border their multi ethnic groups would erupt and cause even more problems.  It seems quite simple to me, and I'm just a fisherman.