Are we heading for another GW Bush moment? Irreversible geopolitical
catastrophe?
An editorial in today's NY Times (9/21/14) sensibly asked:
"The Unlikeliest of Coalitions: Can Adversaries Become Allies to Fight
ISIS?"
After summing up the formidable obstacles in the way of an
American war aimed at the destruction of ISIS — a war that must orchestrate
unity among historically fractious powers of the Middle-East, doesn't call on
American ground troops, and did not engender more Islamist terrorism than it deters
— the editorial concluded that things would go just fine provided that there
were "some kind of political settlement in Syria, an inclusive government
in Iraq and some reduction in the Sunni-Shiite tensions that created space for
ISIS to grow."
Right.
There isn't, nor is there likely to be any time soon, such a
thing as a, "political settlement in Syria." Too much blood has been
spilled, and this notion of a Syrian force that that stands above the
Sunni-Shiah parties of that terrible blood-letting is tooth fairy nonsense.
As for a "reduction in the Sunni-Shiite tensions that
created space for ISIS to grow," I can only ask who does the Times think
it's kidding?
Itself, subject to correction?
My experience is that the Times initially throws in with all
our wars, when presidentially decreed. Then, just as predictably, it recants.
The Times cheered on the War in Vietnam. Later it published reportage
by David Habersham among others that buttressed the anti-war movement.
The Times published warmongering fabrications by Judith Miller that recruited readers
to think there was more than enough reason to invade Iraq. Later it abjured
Judith Miller and apologized for her presence in its pages.
Is the Times now green lighting the war to destroy ISIS only
with a mind for later reconsideration?
A reduction "in the Sunni-Shiite tensions that created
space for ISIS to grow."
Please.
But there was another piece in the Times that got through
the film-flam. It was by conservative columnist Ross Douthat, "Grand
Illusion in Syria". I don't usually find myself agreeing with him, but he
nailed this. I will quote his conclusion. (Note well the distinction he draws
between containment/attrition of ISIS and the idea of its destruction.)
There is still time for the president to reconsider, to fall
back on the containment-and-attrition strategy in Iraq and avoid a major
commitment inside Syria. That strategy does not promise the satisfaction of the
Islamic State's immediate elimination. But neither does it require magically
summoning up a reliable ally amid Syrian civil strife, making a deal with the
region's bloodiest dictator, or returning once again to ground warfare and
nation-building in a region where our efforts have so often been in vain.
It does not traffic, in other words, in the fond illusions
that we took with us into Iraq in 2003, and that hard experience should have
disabused us of by now.
But some illusions are apparently just too powerful for
America to shake.
A writing comment: good use of "Right." And "Please."
ReplyDeleteRP
trying to avoid "lol" which works nicely
ReplyDeleteAfter reducing Sunni-Shia tensions, accomplishing a political settlement in Syria, and forming an inclusive government in Iraq, the Times predicted that President Obama would turn his newfound powers on some domestic ailments, so that the blind will see, and the lame shall walk.
ReplyDelete