NYTimes ISIS Editorial

What bugs me is that they are the Watchmen, aren't they?

And, how would the Times respond if a Presidential candidate framed the argument the way the Times does, as a critical, can't lose effort against a treat to humanity, determined to decimate communities, and ethnically cleanse the area they control of religious and ethnic groups they find alien to the pure Islamic State, but who then didn't propose any plan to achieve the goals he laid out in this critical effort?

They would demand he/she tell us what they proposed, and, most especially if it required boots on the ground.

The Times should tell us what they think is required to win this monumental battle, and call on President Obama to take the necessary steps.

 

Why would it have to be an increase in US military action? Why couldn't it be, say, an increase in British military action? Or Russian military action? Or French (!) military action? Or ... Iraqi and Syrian military action?

 

Are Syria and/or Iraq part of the West? Is Russia?

If they think French or British military action is what's required, they didn't say it.

But, thanks again for lacking the courage to simply answer a question about the Times editorial. Why is is always a word game with you?

Seriously, can you just tell me if you think the Times editorial makes sense?

 

Well, you know how the French and Russians would answer that question? "You guys are the ones who created this problem after we adamantly told you not to in the UN, and you did so in complete violation of international law, so you guys should be the ones primarily responsible for fixing it." And you know, they'd have a point.

 

Yep, they would, with the French asking if they'd like some Freedom Fries with that slice of humble pie.

 

Yes, it does make sense. They're merely saying that the West should continue to do what they've been doing. They're not telling them to do more. They're not telling them to do less.

Now, why is that? Because they're not going to cheerlead sending in more troops, risking their lives, in that fight. What the final paragraph says, pretty much is "Yeah, this sucks, and these people can be stopped. But we're not going to do any more than what we have to, because that region is such a fucking mess."

Now, the big question is, what do you want the Times to do?

 

So basically your understanding is the Times wants us to keep doing what isn't working?

 

What are the other alternatives?

 

I really never thought I'd have to ask this:

If it's not working, why keep doing it?

 

What makes you think a different method would work? Especially with our recent track record in the region?

 

That doesn't answer my question.

If what we're doing now is not working, why keep doing it? As YankeeFan notes not only does the Times not have the balls to call for more, it also doesn't have the balls to call for less. "Keep on failing, but don't fail too miserably" seems to be what they are saying.

 

It doesn't take balls to call for more. It takes balls to be one of the people to be going over there.

We could, I suppose, just up and leave and tell the Iraqis and Syrians to give us a call when they're serious about getting rid of them. But of course, the warmongers would be screaming about how we're cutting and running, or leading from behind, or any other useless slogan that they love to use.