War on ISIS

Quick thought provoking quote from my dad's blog here:

The US successfully ignored the deadliest war since World War Two (the first and follow-on second Congo Wars). It stayed out of the Syrian civil war. It won't dare provoke the North Koreans. It ignores Boko Haram. It has manifestly failed to tackle its drug problem and the Mexican cartels. It ignores the plight of the Palestinians. In short the US is very selective about the reasons why it picks some fights and says schtumm on others.

Why is the US so upset about ISIS in particular? Why are all the other nations of the world super upset about ISIS and not so much various other atrocities that happen around the world?

As supported by my facebook pals lol, reposted from a random guy I know from Weta Digital:

why aren't we attacking Boko Haram in Nigeria or Al Shabab in Kenya given the level of atrocities committed by the forces there?

admin: First off, the Syrian War is not the deadliest war since WW2. ISIS formed in America's former ozone, Iraq. Considering half of Americans supported a war there, and the soldiers who thought it, ISIS causes more of a fuss than Boko Haram in Nigeria.

admin: Many americans would support war with Boko Haram or Al Shabab (which is in Somalia). It's just uncanny to get the middle to support more than one war at a time.

I would also like to point out that Boko Haram is fighting on a different playing field than ISIS. These guys are ruthless. I suppose their intention is to cause fear though.

Blackflag: Boko Haram is pretty ruthless. They too intend to cause fear. I mean, from what I gather, ISIS primarily consists of everyone from the region with nothing better to do than go shoot people. I think they're trying to get themselves killed like a troll tries to get themselves banned.

Interesting with the multiple wars at a time. How come America had no problem doing that with invasion of Iraq then? I seem to remember America was fighting another war at that time. I mean, let's also be realistic - I remember well about 3 years ago just how many people wanted America to do more to fight Kony, so this strikes me as a weird test.

And that post didn't say it was the deadliest war (it said the Congo wars were). Just to clear that up.

admin: Boko Haram is pretty ruthless. They too intend to cause fear. I mean, from what I gather, ISIS primarily consists of everyone from the region with nothing better to do than go shoot people. I think they're trying to get themselves killed like a troll tries to get themselves banned.
Lol, I agree. ISIS is a lot of people who are spiteful at the west and want to see how many times they can poke the bear (and a lot of people with nothing better to do)

Interesting with the multiple wars at a time. How come America had no problem doing that with invasion of Iraq then? I seem to remember America was fighting another war at that time. I mean, let's also be realistic - I remember well about 3 years ago just how many people wanted America to do more to fight Kony, so this strikes me as a weird test.

There was a lot of anger and resentment towards Muslims and terrorism at the time. It pushed congress into invading Afghanistan. Iraq was a profitable venture for Bush and a lot of his fellow oil barons, and considering he can be liked towards the leader of the Republicans, it took little sway to convince congress to go to war.

admin: The US successfully ignored the deadliest war since World War Two (the first and follow-on second Congo Wars). It stayed out of the Syrian civil war. It won't dare provoke the North Koreans. It ignores Boko Haram. It has manifestly failed to tackle its drug problem and the Mexican cartels. It ignores the plight of the Palestinians. In short the US is very selective about the reasons why it picks some fights and says schtumm on others.

There are a number of fundamental flaws in this line of reasoning. One, that the US should fight in any war in which any injustice is preset (regardless of degree, context, etc.) Two, and therefore, that all wars with any injustice are inherently in the US interest to fight. Three, that an invasion is the only way to combat any injustice.

These are, at face value, fundamentally flawed in that its a reasoning that would keep the US perpetually and unendingly at war. Not good. We can see this by examining the cases.

#1 - The Congo Wars. Putting aside the fact that the Congo wars happened right after the US intervention in Somalia, where the US found itself embroiled in a blood feud between tribes, who cared little about the people who were starving to death and that the US and UN were there to help. That factors into the decisions regarding the rest of Africa. Another notable difference is geography (the bane of any military intervention.) Somalia is accessible through many ports, which means you can seize them with ground forces, and then have huge container ships (where 97% of material trade moves) show up with aid. Congo is different. The interior is not accessible by port, or, as often as not, by road. It can take weeks to get to the interior of the country where the violence was most acute, where you then find a tangle of inter-tribal rivalries made worse by one of the most corrupt systems on earth - syphoning off money to enrich an elite who are themselves protected by brutal 'security forces'. So who exactly was the bad guys? Who exactly are we supposed to kill with an invasion? Which side do we empower? Which side accepts rule of law and will transcend tribal politics?

Why not instead allow the AU (African Union) an date UN to send peacekeeping forces that can secure critical nodes and infrastructure to allow a normative peace to take hold centers of government where aid can flow from these centers of stability and where diplomats can bring the warring factions to the table to strike deals - slowly alienating the violent and unappeasable and strengthening indigenous forces who will remain empowered after the intervention instead?

Or a full scale invasion ala Iraq, which turned out so well without millions of square miles of jungle to hide in ... does anyone realize how big and vast Africa is? How diverse? How big the Congo is in Africa? What it would take in terms of local security forces paired with Western forces to subdue a country that size? to improve its infrastructure to the point where its military feasible to control and police the vast Western swath of the Congo that hid rebel militias and insurgents? Where Congo National Army was literally swamped by poorly trained LRA and others? Where tiny Rawanda could dominate vast swaths of the territory?

Again, what injustice would compel us into that mess? With what aim or end?

#2 - Syrian Civil War. Which side should we be on? Assad's? or ISIS? Well, it would seem that we have sided with Assad at last, because we are bombing the hell out of ISIS, ignoring moderate Suna tribes, and helping the Kurds. The reduction of ISIS is the goal. The repair of Iraq's borders. How exactly are we staying out?

#3 - Why WOULD we provoke the North Koreans into a war? And ostensibly the Chinese? Might South Korea have a say in the matter given that they will not only bear the brunt of the combat, but will have to absorb the North after the war? Or do we just go it alone all the time whenever injustice rears its head? You are aware that North Korea has nuclear weapons as well right? I'm sure Seoul is unaware as well.

#4 - Mexican Cartels. Once again, how exactly would invading Mexico help the MexicanGovernment combat corruption that fuels the drug war? Did Pershing help with Poncho Villa? Perhaps we could help with Law Enforcement and intelligence to screen the new National Police Forces and Army Commander's to ensure they are free of corrupting influences from the drug lords? Work to professionalize the forces? Bring transparency to the political process? Extradite and Try the drug lords? Would that not seem like a better option? Just might be what SOUTHCOM and the DOS is involved in?

#5 - Palestine. How exactly do we ignore Palestine? It's all over the US, and John Kerry has been heavily involved in trying to establish a two state solution. In case you missed it, BiBi has a say in the matter. Every time a local politician gets in the way, should we launch a full scale invasion? Notably, the US has not stood in the way of Palestinian efforts to seek statehood. It sounds off publicly, but has yet to use its influence in the UN to stop Palestine's actions. Perhaps the real culprit here is BiBi not the US?

Perhaps the reason the US is not involved in every fight is because not every fight is worth getting into. That may very well include many of the fights we do get ourselves involved in. Each situation is different, and the true danger is attempting to simplify the decisions to go war as ... well, simple. Its not, and there are a great many things that can, will, and should influence the decision to go to war.

BTW - Al Shabab is in Somalia and we are attacking them - we are working heavily with the Kenyans to shore up their military. Nigeria is a different case, where the Nigerian Army is every bit as brutal as Boko. The regional forces, like Chad, are deploying forces to combat Boko Haram. The Biafra War in Nigeria in the 1960's was very similar. The US didn't get involved in that either. Should it have?

I'm with gree on this one. Your father is basing arguments off of hypocripsy, which is oversimplifying the situations.

Why not instead allow the AU (African Union) an date UN to send peacekeeping forces that can secure critical nodes and infrastructure to allow a normative peace to take hold centers of government where aid can flow from these centers of stability and where diplomats can bring the warring factions to the table to strike deals
Lol, tried and failed. The UN security forces aren't capable of holding major cities in any conflict without military support.

Or a full scale invasion ala Iraq, which turned out so well without millions of square miles of jungle to hide in ... does anyone realize how big and vast Africa is? How diverse? How big the Congo is in Africa? What it would take in terms of local security forces paired with Western forces to subdue a country that size? to improve its infrastructure to the point where its military feasible to control and police the vast Western swath of the Congo that hid rebel militias and insurgents? Where Congo National Army was literally swamped by poorly trained LRA and others? Where tiny Rawanda could dominate vast swaths of the territory?

So the US should not enter wars that are too difficult?

Palestine. How exactly do we ignore Palestine? It's all over the US, and John Kerry has been heavily involved in trying to establish a two state solution. In case you missed it, BiBi has a say in the matter. Every time a local politician gets in the way, should we launch a full scale invasion? Notably, the US has not stood in the way of Palestinian efforts to seek statehood. It sounds off publicly, but has yet to use its influence in the UN to stop Palestine's actions. Perhaps the real culprit here is BiBi not the US?
Out of curiosity, do you think the two state solution failed because Palestinians want independence?

Blackflag: Lol, tried and failed. The UN security forces aren't capable of holding major cities in any conflict without military support.

You mean like that whole Korean War thing? Exactly what do you think makes up UN armies? Why ... the Nations of the world. In fact, it a method of professionalizing many African Armies, who, in exchange for their service are often plied with money, arms ... and training ... its been quite successful in both Congo and Somalia, where the LRA is on its last legs (Uganda has pretty much finished it off) and Al Shabab has been pushed back in to the hinterlands of Somalia and estranged even from Al Qaeda.

But I am sure your prejudices with forces you have never worked with and little understand is what needs to be taken into consideration.

So the US should not enter wars that are too difficult?

Agh no ... why on earth would you? You enter wars to win them and win them quickly. I don;t think you understand how war is supposed to work ... any better than how UN peacekeeping forces work ...

Out of curiosity, do you think the two state solution failed because Palestinians want independence?

Does that question even make sense? Boy o boy, the US is pushing for a two state solution which would grant ... er, independence to Palestine ... and ... what?

Stag seriously, are you merely attempting to goad me? Or just reflexively disagree?

But I am sure your prejudices with forces you have never worked with and little understand is what needs to be taken into consideration
Prejudices?

Agh no ... why on earth would you? You enter wars to win them and win them quickly. I don;t think you understand how war is supposed to work ... any better than how UN peacekeeping forces work ...
Well you did claim in the past war needs to happen sometimes. WW2 was a difficult war, yet you claim it had to be fought. Was WW2 the exception to the rule?

Exactly what do you think makes up UN armies?
I think I should also clarify for you that the UN security force is made up of service volunteers and is commanded independently. That means the UN doesn't have a huge arsenal of Blackhawks and Destroyers at its disposal to make the enemy give a damn in combat. A good example would be..... every single war the UN security force has been involved in. Its proper role is peacekeeping and holding millitary installations behind friendly lines.

If the UN security force was equipped for actual combat, they wouldn't of retreated at the sight of combat in Ethiopia, Iraq, and Rwanda.

Gree, out of curiosity, what is your ranking in the army?

Blackflag: Out of curiosity, as I have asked you many times not to ask personal questions, why do you insist on asking personal questions rather than simply making a case? You know, supporting a position as in a discussion or a debate?

Generally, when posters insist on making the other person the subject rather than ... you know, the discussion being the point, its called trolling.

gree0232: Your wish is my command

Blackflag: I think I should also clarify for you that the UN security force is made up of service volunteers and is commanded independently. That means the UN doesn't have a huge arsenal of Blackhawks and Destroyers at its disposal to make the enemy give a damn in combat. A good example would be..... every single war the UN security force has been involved in. Its proper role is peacekeeping and holding millitary installations behind friendly lines.

If the UN security force was equipped for actual combat, they wouldn't of retreated at the sight of combat in Ethiopia, Iraq, and Rwanda.

No, its not. It is made up on CONTRIBUTING FORCES (i.e. the military forces of whatever Nations happen to provide the forces - others provide money, etc.). A unified command (A Joint/Coalition Task Force) is then place in charge of the overall operation, and includes Land, Naval, and Air Forces components, as well International Aid and Diplomatic bodies to coordinate the effort. That is why Japanese Cargo planes can fly into an airport in Haiti, controlled by a US controller, and deliver aid into a multi-national system. The same happens for African Union forces, which provides contributing forces, land, air, and are often reinforced by Western logistics and training under the command of an African General. Often, the US/NATO will set up their own Joint Task Force to support the operations and the flow of equipment and logistics into the combatant area.

The UN is a coordinating agency - not a military force.

Thank you for once again letting us know that you don't have any idea how the UN works, how coalition warfare is fought in the age of coalitions, and that you have a hard time conceding valid points. Before you go publicly telling people how the UN works, you may want to actually study up on how the UN works.

The UN military is the world's military. When placed under a unified command, it could include Russian Mig's, US Apache's, Chinese tanks, and Indian Soldiers. Its all determined by requirements against the mission and the Nations willing to contribute. There are no UN troops in Ethiopia (it has one of the best Armies in Africa), Iraq, or Rwanda (which, we should remember was controlling vast swaths of the Congo in earlier posts).

Blackflag: Your wish is my command

Apparently not, as I keep having to ask you to stop ...

Blackflag: Prejudices?

Yes, you have an opinion of the UN that is not supported by facts.

Definition of prejudice? "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

As the UN has been successfully involved in MANY of the conflicts listed in the OP, and continues to be heavily engaged in Africa ... well, if you think its unsuccessful ... you might want to back it up. You might try Srebrenica - 8,000 innocents slaughtered - failure right? Not of the UN. There was a Dutch Infantry Battalion sitting in the city (almost a 1,000 Soldiers) and THEIR Commander ordered them to stand down as the slaughter happened - its now considered a National Stain on the Dutch Military - and, at the time, there were many, many fighter air craft overhead that were just waiting to drop bombs to help - and they were, as a result of the ground commander's orders, held off. Thousands died as a result ... The UN could not (indeed cannot) override the National Command structure of the Dutch even if they wanted too.

So, try making a case rather than just statement.

Well you did claim in the past war needs to happen sometimes. WW2 was a difficult war, yet you claim it had to be fought. Was WW2 the exception to the rule?

You know, if you are going to partially quote people from different threads, you should at least attempt to do so accurately and not in a fallacious manner that effectively begs the question and introduces a straw man.

That wars need to happen does not dictate that they MUST be difficult or that they SHOULD be avoided just because they are difficult. Perhaps, while boning up on the UN, you could try boning up on Clausewitz? There you would note that war is a violent act of politics - and the intent is to induce enough pain in your adversary that he suspends his resistance and you can emplace an EQUITABLE solution. Generally speaking, the use of violence is to be avoided, but if it cannot be avoided, then we generally want the war to be as one sided and as lopsided as possible so that it is quick, and the bloodletting stop QUICKLY.

Good example? Bismarck and the Austro-Prussian War - settled which empire would rule Germany - or what would become Germany at any rate.

Bad example? WWI a war born of Nationalist Sentiment with no real point than ended with a terrible peace that virtually guaranteed another war.

You see how a fuller appreciation of the subject is expressed here? And why a solid case in generally better than a partial and deliberately inaccurate quote in which you are attempting to express someone else's opinion rather than your own?

So what exactly ARE you claiming? Other than stating that a rule that war is sometimes necessary means we should strive to make it as difficult and as deadly as possible? Which should have been addressed in the Just War Doctrine if not US military doctrine .... Long, destructive, wars are bad - particularly when they are not in your Nation's interest.

As the UN has been successfully involved in MANY of the conflicts listed in the OP, and continues to be heavily engaged in Africa ... well, if you think its unsuccessful ... you might want to back it up. You might try Srebrenica - 8,000 innocents slaughtered - failure right? Not of the UN. There was a Dutch Infantry Battalion sitting in the city (almost a 1,000 Soldiers) and THEIR Commander ordered them to stand down as the slaughter happened - its now considered a National Stain on the Dutch Military - and, at the time, there were many, many fighter air craft overhead that were just waiting to drop bombs to help - and they were, as a result of the ground commander's orders, held off. Thousands died as a result ... The UN could not (indeed cannot) override the National Command structure of the Dutch even if they wanted too.
Did you just argue in favor of the UN Peacekeeping Forces by giving a vague example of an unrelated Dutch Military failure? Well done.
There is a difference between the forces the UN raises for a conflict and its peacekeeping security forces. You cannot use them interchangeably.

You know, if you are going to partially quote people from different threads, you should at least attempt to do so accurately and not in a fallacious manner that effectively begs the question and introduces a straw man.
You DID claim we had to fight WW2, and it was a difficult war. Am I REALLY jumping to conclusions?

Generally speaking, the use of violence is to be avoided, but if it cannot be avoided, then we generally want the war to be as one sided and as lopsided as possible so that it is quick, and the bloodletting stop QUICKLY.
Okay, so you now feel it is okay to get into a difficult war if there is an equitable solution. Is there nothing equitable about saving millions of lives, and how many examples do you think I could give where the US military or UN has avoided doing so?

So what exactly ARE you claiming?
Nothing. Am I allowed to ask questions without arguing?