One question, two options, and no right answer
Having exhausted the various versions of Benghazi, the imagined disasters of the ACA, and even the never-ending issue of that pesky birth certificate, the talking heads in Washington have moved back onto old familiar ground, discussing and dissing the actions the government has taken in the Middle East.
The question is what to do about ISIS, or ISIL, or just plain IS. There are, in fact, two possible answers. Both of them are pretty straightforward, but appear to offer much different outcomes. In fact, however, there are no options. Not even one!
Let's look at the possibilities...
Option one is simple.
Put boots on the ground and blast the hell out of them. Massive firepower...Shock and Awe II. That will work. Once they're all dead the problem will be solved. Easy peasy.
Option two is equally appealing.
Gather up a bunch of allies and let them do the heavy lifting. Supply only the weapons, and maybe a bit of airpower, and let them fight it out. Costs less, probably won't be many casualties in our military, and the outcome is about the same. Hopefully.
So...those are the basic options. There is, of course, a third option. Sorta. In a world less crazy the ideal would be to sit down and talk to these folks about our differences, hopefully finding some middle ground where both sides could learn to co-exist.
Okay, that third option, while definitely the best course for all concerned, isn't going to happen. These guys don't wish to talk, and they sure are interested in listening. But...then again...neither are we. Talking is pretty much out. I should add that many of our politicians don't believe in talking about anything, let alone talking about something like this where the differences are so pronounced. And sure as hell nobody wants to actually listen.
Come to think of it, they won't even talk with people who aren't really different at all. Such is life!
So...let's look at a little history.
There is little question that if the US decided to apply the might of the military the outcome isn't in doubt. It would have been true in Vietnam. It could have been true in any number of other little wars. It was true in Afghanistan. It was certainly true in Iraq I and moreso in Iraq II. Even the most ardent doves admitted that there was no possibility that Saddam could muster forces to oppose the "coalition of the willing." In truth, although some others contributed, most notably the British, that was a US war.
The problem was not that we couldn't win the war. Like Vietnam and lots of other places, the problem was, and remains, that we cannot possibly win the peace!
There is only one possible way we could force a peace upon the region, and that is to become permanent occupiers. We could establish a US dictatorship and keep the lid on the pressure cooker, not significantly different than the government of Saddam or Assad. Yup, lock up or kill all those folks who disagree with you and you'll be just fine. Use the military as a police force, and get the playbook from the Gestapo or the STASI. THAT would work! There would be a relative peace.
Now, since that's out, there's really...yup...no answer. The region is filled with traditional feuds, religious differences, tribal allegiances, and petty warlords. Just as we "discovered" in Iraq II, once you free the people all those squabbles start up again. Does anybody really believe that the Sunni and Shia will suddenly become buddies if nobody else is there? Do we really fantasize that the Kurds will suddenly receive equality, or that they will stop working for their own homeland?
The exact same problem exists should we somehow lead a coalition into battle. The Kurds are fighting for the Kurds. The Sunni are fighting to establish hegemony in the area, as are the Shia. Whichever side "loses" that fight will simply import more fighters and start up again. The "moderates" will fight with the "extremists" and amongst themselves, fueled by the words of their chosen holy men. Some of the neighboring countries don't want to get into this because they fear upsetting the religious minorities in their own countries. Honestly I can't say that I blame them, because the whole region is just one big civil war waiting to happen.
And, although it's not really on the table, let us not forget that just around the corner is the place they all hate. Israel doesn't have a dog in this fight, but they certainly don't want more extremists in the neighborhood.
So...while our politicians argue about whether we're doing enough, or too much, or just not the right things, the truth is there are no good options, and that also completely ignores the costs, both in dollars and lives. I'm all for supporting freedom and democracy, but at some point the truth must be confronted. You simply cannot go into a country and install democracy. We've seen that proved over and over again. History only repeats itself because people keep making the same mistakes, deluding themselves that somehow, this time, it will end differently.
It won't!
The question is what to do about ISIS, or ISIL, or just plain IS. There are, in fact, two possible answers. Both of them are pretty straightforward, but appear to offer much different outcomes. In fact, however, there are no options. Not even one!
Let's look at the possibilities...
Option one is simple.
Put boots on the ground and blast the hell out of them. Massive firepower...Shock and Awe II. That will work. Once they're all dead the problem will be solved. Easy peasy.
Option two is equally appealing.
Gather up a bunch of allies and let them do the heavy lifting. Supply only the weapons, and maybe a bit of airpower, and let them fight it out. Costs less, probably won't be many casualties in our military, and the outcome is about the same. Hopefully.
So...those are the basic options. There is, of course, a third option. Sorta. In a world less crazy the ideal would be to sit down and talk to these folks about our differences, hopefully finding some middle ground where both sides could learn to co-exist.
Okay, that third option, while definitely the best course for all concerned, isn't going to happen. These guys don't wish to talk, and they sure are interested in listening. But...then again...neither are we. Talking is pretty much out. I should add that many of our politicians don't believe in talking about anything, let alone talking about something like this where the differences are so pronounced. And sure as hell nobody wants to actually listen.
Come to think of it, they won't even talk with people who aren't really different at all. Such is life!
So...let's look at a little history.
There is little question that if the US decided to apply the might of the military the outcome isn't in doubt. It would have been true in Vietnam. It could have been true in any number of other little wars. It was true in Afghanistan. It was certainly true in Iraq I and moreso in Iraq II. Even the most ardent doves admitted that there was no possibility that Saddam could muster forces to oppose the "coalition of the willing." In truth, although some others contributed, most notably the British, that was a US war.
The problem was not that we couldn't win the war. Like Vietnam and lots of other places, the problem was, and remains, that we cannot possibly win the peace!
There is only one possible way we could force a peace upon the region, and that is to become permanent occupiers. We could establish a US dictatorship and keep the lid on the pressure cooker, not significantly different than the government of Saddam or Assad. Yup, lock up or kill all those folks who disagree with you and you'll be just fine. Use the military as a police force, and get the playbook from the Gestapo or the STASI. THAT would work! There would be a relative peace.
Now, since that's out, there's really...yup...no answer. The region is filled with traditional feuds, religious differences, tribal allegiances, and petty warlords. Just as we "discovered" in Iraq II, once you free the people all those squabbles start up again. Does anybody really believe that the Sunni and Shia will suddenly become buddies if nobody else is there? Do we really fantasize that the Kurds will suddenly receive equality, or that they will stop working for their own homeland?
The exact same problem exists should we somehow lead a coalition into battle. The Kurds are fighting for the Kurds. The Sunni are fighting to establish hegemony in the area, as are the Shia. Whichever side "loses" that fight will simply import more fighters and start up again. The "moderates" will fight with the "extremists" and amongst themselves, fueled by the words of their chosen holy men. Some of the neighboring countries don't want to get into this because they fear upsetting the religious minorities in their own countries. Honestly I can't say that I blame them, because the whole region is just one big civil war waiting to happen.
And, although it's not really on the table, let us not forget that just around the corner is the place they all hate. Israel doesn't have a dog in this fight, but they certainly don't want more extremists in the neighborhood.
So...while our politicians argue about whether we're doing enough, or too much, or just not the right things, the truth is there are no good options, and that also completely ignores the costs, both in dollars and lives. I'm all for supporting freedom and democracy, but at some point the truth must be confronted. You simply cannot go into a country and install democracy. We've seen that proved over and over again. History only repeats itself because people keep making the same mistakes, deluding themselves that somehow, this time, it will end differently.
It won't!