Election 2016

[BurtReynolds]

"The nazis have taken over continental Europe. The real question is, How can we not make this worse?" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Europe was full of viable partners who could stabley govern the regions liberated from the nazis, and the people who did the liberating (in the west) had a long history of cooperation and broadly shared values. So basically the situation is perfectly analogous to today.

Europe was in a near constant state of war since the fall of Rome and the period was rife with wildly different and incompatible ideas on how society should work, so I find your post extremely debatable to say the least. The nazis were so terrible that everyone unified against it and took action despite a long history of animosity, which is very similar to the situation with ISIS. As far as capable governors, you may be right, but I'm not sure.

I also think ISIS is far more susceptible to miltary action than Al Qaeda was, and it isn't a forgone conclusion (as many here seem to believe) that it would just lead to something worse down the road (and what could be worse?) I'm not saying we should, but to dismiss military action ( or apparently any action) for fear of making things worse is almost as dumb as saying "nuke the middle east".

[LoathedVermin72]

A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument

Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.

I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.

If reevaluating our morals results in positive action, it can't be all bad. we should probably always be doing that.

This part is true. But trying to decide whose lives matter and whose don't is gonna be uuuuuugly.

No one matters

[BurtReynolds]

A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument

Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.

I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.

If reevaluating our morals results in positive action, it can't be all bad. we should probably always be doing that.

This part is true. But trying to decide whose lives matter and whose don't is gonna be uuuuuugly.

No one matters

This guy gets it.

[LoathedVermin72]

[BurtReynolds]

It's immoral to bring a human life into this world.

[stip]

"The nazis have taken over continental Europe. The real question is, How can we not make this worse?" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Europe was full of viable partners who could stabley govern the regions liberated from the nazis, and the people who did the liberating (in the west) had a long history of cooperation and broadly shared values. So basically the situation is perfectly analogous to today.

Europe was in a near constant state of war since the fall of Rome and the period was wife with wildly different and incompatible ideas on how society should work, so I find your post extremely debatable to say the least. The nazis were so terrible that everyone unified against it and took action despite a long history of animosity, which is very similar to the situation with ISIS. As far as capable governors, you may be right, but I'm not sure.

I also think ISIS is far more susceptible to miltary action than Al Qaeda was, and it isn't a forgone conclusion (as many here seem to believe) that it would just lead to something worse down the road (and what could be worse?) I'm not saying we should, but to dismiss military action ( or apparently any action) for fear of making things worse is almost as dumb as saying "nuke the middle east".

The nature of europe's wars in the generations prior to WW2 were hardly ideological - they were national, and so alliances shifted easily and differences were rarely set in stone. The ideological differences that existed largely cut across the various nations, and cultural, economic, and political elites cooperated all the time.

I am not categorically dismissing military action against ISIS. But I think it is important for us to be well aware of the limits of its efficacy, the blowback it can cause, and the ways in which the short term benefits are frequently illusory, and likely to create long term consequences. And we would be better off if we were prepared to admit that some problems don't have neat solutions, or solutions at all, at least in the short term.

Just once, it would be helpful if our response to crisis was a realistic assessment of the limitations of our own power. With the exception of Bosnia basically every American military intervention of the last 40 plus years has made things worse, and usually plants the seeds for the next tragedy.

But we need to do something because nazis.

And, in all probability, here we go again...

[stip]

And Burt, the comparison between Europe circa 1935 and the Middle East today is practically nonsensical.

[stip]

For starters, the wars did not disrupt civil society in the same way the wars in the Middle East have, no participant saw itself as a liberator of an oppressed people (prior to WW2) and the aspiring liberators were not people with a long and bloody and recent history of colonization, regional exploitation, civilian massacres, and vulnerable to plausible accusations of religious persecution.

[BurtReynolds]

"The nazis have taken over continental Europe. The real question is, How can we not make this worse?" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Europe was full of viable partners who could stabley govern the regions liberated from the nazis, and the people who did the liberating (in the west) had a long history of cooperation and broadly shared values. So basically the situation is perfectly analogous to today.

Europe was in a near constant state of war since the fall of Rome and the period was wife with wildly different and incompatible ideas on how society should work, so I find your post extremely debatable to say the least. The nazis were so terrible that everyone unified against it and took action despite a long history of animosity, which is very similar to the situation with ISIS. As far as capable governors, you may be right, but I'm not sure.

I also think ISIS is far more susceptible to miltary action than Al Qaeda was, and it isn't a forgone conclusion (as many here seem to believe) that it would just lead to something worse down the road (and what could be worse?) I'm not saying we should, but to dismiss military action ( or apparently any action) for fear of making things worse is almost as dumb as saying "nuke the middle east".

The nature of europe's wars in the generations prior to WW2 were hardly ideological - they were national, and so alliances shifted easily and differences were rarely set in stone. The ideological differences that existed largely cut across the various nations, and cultural, economic, and political elites cooperated all the time.

The generation prior to WW2, yes, was largely national, though plenty of animosity was created. You don't fight a "Hundred Year War" and not develop deep and long lasting animosity. WW2 was largely ideological though, at least as much as this is.

The ideological differences that existed largely cut across the various nations, and cultural, economic, and political elites cooperated all the time.

This is different than now, how? We cooperate with middle eastern groups all the time.

I am not categorically dismissing military action against ISIS. But I think it is important for us to be well aware of the limits of its efficacy, the blowback it can cause, and the ways in which the short term benefits are frequently illusory, and likely to create long term consequences. And we would be better off if we were prepared to admit that some problems don't have neat solutions, or solutions at all, at least in the short term.

Just once, it would be helpful if our response to crisis was a realistic assessment of the limitations of our own power. With the exception of Bosnia basically every American military intervention of the last 40 plus years has made things worse, and usually plants the seeds for the next tragedy.

But we need to do something because nazis.

And, in all probability, here we go again...

We do need to do something because nazis! This isn't a perfect analogy (not that I said it was though you went straight to that), but I think I don't think its an absurd comparison at all. We should assess everything, but I don't see anything to suggest we don't have the power to solve this, and if we can't, its only going to get worse anyway.

[BurtReynolds]

And Burt, the comparison between Europe circa 1935 and the Middle East today is practically nonsensical.

ok then. I guess they didn't have Facebook back then, so maybe you're right.

[stip]

Based on recent history any attack by the west will kill hundreds of civilians, be spun successfully by ISIS as yet another western war of aggression against Islam, and prop up the legitimacy of a regime that can only earn it by casting itself as a defender of innocent Muslims against rampaging outsiders intent on harming the region.

Even if we were prepared to commit the money, troops, and time (and the cost of innocent lives that will vastly eclipse what happened in France - ST's collateral damage) the end result will likely be a power vacumn that might make things worse for the people in the region, empower some other group that might be almost as problematic (though Isis is particularly loathsome) and the whole process perpetuates itself.

[BurtReynolds]

For starters, the wars did not disrupt civil society in the same way the wars in the Middle East have, no participant saw itself as a liberator of an oppressed people (prior to WW2) and the aspiring liberators were not people with a long and bloody and recent history of colonization, regional exploitation, civilian massacres, and vulnerable to plausible accusations of religious persecution.

I think Napolean disproves most of those points.

[stip]

Burt, France and England hadn't fought in a hundred years prior to WW2. I think they somehow managed to find a way to move on from the Hundred Years' War...

[stip]

For starters, the wars did not disrupt civil society in the same way the wars in the Middle East have, no participant saw itself as a liberator of an oppressed people (prior to WW2) and the aspiring liberators were not people with a long and bloody and recent history of colonization, regional exploitation, civilian massacres, and vulnerable to plausible accusations of religious persecution.

I think Napolean disproves most of those points.

Go on...

And even if you are right (and I believe you are not) that is still several generations removed from the WW2 era.

[Simple Torture]

Able was I ere I saw Elba.

[stip]

If we could just determine the appropriate ethical ratio between dead western civilians and dead middle eastern civilians all this would become much easier

[BurtReynolds]

Based on recent history any attack by the west will kill hundreds of civilians, be spun successfully by ISIS as yet another western war of aggression against Islam, and prop up the legitimacy of a regime that can only earn it by casting itself as a defender of innocent Muslims against rampaging outsiders intent on harming the region.

Even if we were prepared to commit the money, troops, and time (and the cost of innocent lives that will vastly eclipse what happened in France - ST's collateral damage) the end result will likely be a power vacumn that might make things worse for the people in the region, empower some other group that might be almost as problematic (though Isis is particularly loathsome) and the whole process perpetuates itself.

That's certainly a possibility. I wouldn't say likely, though many seem convinced it is a certainty. Another possibility, and I think recent statements and events in the middle East suggest this, is that ISIS has no legitimacy as defenders of Islam, and the vast majority of the Middle East see them as a larger threat than us. It's very possible that eradicating ISIS could result in a more stable region. Wait, how could it be MORE unstable?

I can't imagine a regime coming to power that is somehow worse than the current one. I suppose if Nazi Zombie Hitler swept into power and installed a new Reich, that might be worse, but I don't see it.

[Norah]

I can't imagine a regime coming to power that is somehow worse than the current one.

[stip]

They might be bad enough you just roll the dice and say fuck it. But the rest of your post is kind of my point. Right now they have essentially no credibility. Given time, and empowering the other stable actors in the region, and Isis might very well implode. It'll take time, and there is little revenge killing unit,so it won't be satisfying. But it could work. But if we attack we give them a wonderful opportunity to change the narrative about themselves, and help grant them the legitimacy they could never get on their own.

There is an understandable degree of narcissism after tragedies like this (or 911), where we imagine that we are the primary target and audience. This has likely always been (at least at the strategic level) about bolstering their position for their local audience. We just have to play our part

[BurtReynolds]

Burt, France and England hadn't fought in a hundred years prior to WW2. I think they somehow managed to find a way to move on from the Hundred Years' War...

You don't fight that long and still pretend its "strictly business". Real hatreds are formed. The fact that they got over it is proof that The West's relationship with many groups in the Middle East can similarly be improved. Obviously it's not a perfect analogy, but surely you must see similarities?