57% now support sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS

[bedstuy]

You can never permanently stabilize a country with ground troops.  You can temporarily stabilize a country, but eventually you have to leave.  That was the folly of Iraq.  Our troops just sort of aimlessly patrolled the country while the country's civil society and political leadership failed to find a coherent government that could keep the trains running on time.  That isn't different now.  People get this attitude that, "something has to be done!"  Unfortunately, it's not enough to do something, "something" needs to be part of a long term strategy that makes sense and gives our military an achievable goal.

At the same time, sometimes there's no good solution to a problem.  With ISIS, we can't just sit by and hope things turn out.  It's clear that governments in the Middle East are incompetent and afraid of their own Islamist elements.  They would prefer if someone else stepped to the plate.  It's a moral hazard problem if we become the world's police.  Instead, I think Obama is taking the best course of action.  We're still the straw that stirs the drink, by providing our air force and logistics, but we need the local players to buy in and do the heavy lifting on the ground.

As for this whole anti-war/ Iraq War redux nonsense, give me a break.  It's not nearly that simple.  We can't snap our fingers and unilaterally have a peaceful world.  And, war is not some fungible thing.  A war that costs $2 trillion is different from a war that costs $5 billion.  A war that costs a handful of American lives is different from a war that costs thousands of American lives.  If you don't factor those obvious points into your analysis, you're just a whiner, a moaner and an annoying "activist." 

[bedstuy]

1.  How did you get that I support the 2003 Invasion of Iraq based on what I wrote?  I explicitly criticized it.  And, I think it was a horrible idea.

2.  It's not true that the US is the major source of problems in the Middle East.  That's just fantastical.  ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar groups are Islamic jihadist groups.  They aren't anti-American freedom fighters.  They see a battle of civilization between Islam and the West, and we can never appease them on that score.  We just have to defend ourselves, kill them when necessary and work towards stable Middle Eastern governments who can control their Islamic extremist groups.

But, the underlying problem is truly within the Middle East and the Muslim world.  The US and Israel are scapegoats for their own failures.  They can't admit that they need to adapt to the 21st century and adopt Western values like the rule of law and civil rights to create thriving, economically developed states.  That's the main problem, not the United States. 

[bedstuy]

2.  It's not true that the US is the major source of problems in the Middle East.  That's just fantastical.  ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar groups are Islamic jihadist groups.  They aren't anti-American freedom fighters. 

you're looking at the situation ahistorically.  the current flavors of Islamic fundamentalism came about as resistance movements, to both American and Russian imperialism, as early as the 19th Century.  the current-current flavor got a big boost when the US backed the Afghan anti-Soviet resistance, which of course grew into the Taliban, and you can take it from there. 

Right.  That's not really true at true.  We didn't create the Taliban.  We could talk about the history, but I disagree and think you're oversimplifying completely. 

They see a battle of civilization between Islam and the West, and we can never appease them on that score.  We just have to defend ourselves, kill them when necessary and work towards stable Middle Eastern governments who can control their Islamic extremist groups.

defend ourselves?  this is truly Orwellian nonsense.  if we are on defense when dropping bombs halfway around the world, then offense has no meaning.

We are defending ourselves when we kill people in Al Qaeda.  They've engaged in armed attacks against the United States.  In a globalized world, distance stops mattering anyway.  They're not coming over here in an armada of galleons.

But, the underlying problem is truly within the Middle East and the Muslim world.  The US and Israel are scapegoats for their own failures.  They can't admit that they need to adapt to the 21st century and adopt Western values like the rule of law and civil rights to create thriving, economically developed states.  That's the main problem, not the United States. 

yes, they need to be exactly like us and Goddammit we're gonna bomb the sh**t out of them until they do.

They have to stop trying to blow up the city I live in.  And, they're going to be terrible, undeveloped cesspools of human misery until they change to become more open, democratic and liberal.  I can't force them to change.  Sure, I'd be fine if they continued being miserable, as long as they didn't try to attack my country.   I don't want to continue the Bush doctrine or wasting money of foreign adventures.  But, we also need to reserve the right to defend ourselves.  You unfortunately are under the illusion that everyone outside the Western world is a peaceful noble savage.  If only we think of Al Qaeda and ISIS as anti-imperialist Chomskyites, that's why they'll be.  That's a fantasy. 

[bedstuy]

there's no dialog left here.  you accord the USA with a right to use violence around the world in order to spread "liberal, democratic values".  you believe every society around the world has to accept these values or they'll be subject to invasion.  and you believe that so long as anyone (not even a state) is plotting or thinking of plotting some violent act within the US, the US has the right to use violence in attempt to stop it, without consulting anyone else.

it's all Imperial mentality 101, shared by doves and hawks.  the only real factor is whether it's "worth it" in terms of financial and human cost.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force.  

I understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

[bedstuy]

there's no dialog left here.  you accord the USA with a right to use violence around the world in order to spread "liberal, democratic values".  you believe every society around the world has to accept these values or they'll be subject to invasion.  and you believe that so long as anyone (not even a state) is plotting or thinking of plotting some violent act within the US, the US has the right to use violence in attempt to stop it, without consulting anyone else.

it's all Imperial mentality 101, shared by doves and hawks.  the only real factor is whether it's "worth it" in terms of financial and human cost.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force.  

I understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

Very lazy, slipshod thinking there. 

There are a few failed states around the world that pose a terrorist threat to the US.  Yemen and Somalia are the two purest examples.  The US didn't exactly prop those governments up.  Both were Soviet aligned during the Cold War.  We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

And, is our dealing with corrupt dictators a major source of terrorism?  No.  I don't see much connection.  The fact that we had an embargo on Iraq garnered us much more criticism in the Arab world than our brief military dealings during the Iran-Iraq War.  Muslims fanatics hate democracy anyway, so would they want to punish the US for support anti-democratic regimes? 

By your logic, the US should be seeing terrorist attacks from Chile, Indonesia and Nicaragua as revenge for our misdeeds in the Cold War.  And, indeed, that hasn't happened.  Islamic terrorism isn't revenge against the United States for what we've done wrong. 

I think we in the US tend to look at our own agenda and cast the rest of the world as purely reacting to us.  That's pretty ignorant.  Foreign terrorist groups mostly care about their own countries and they have objectives of their own. 

[bedstuy]

What I meant is that US foreign policy decisions over a number of decades haven't exactly garnered the US and its allies much support for the "Global War on Terror" within many Islamic countries (or many other countries in general). I'm not saying its all our fault, but if we are serious about changing hearts and minds...

I don't know what you're suggesting.  If we are serious about changing hearts and minds, then what? 

Do we try to undermine every Muslim regime that has questionable human rights practices?  Would that necessarily help?  Would taking away the foreign aid to these countries win us any friends?  What happens if that backfires and we get a failed state situation like in Syria, Iraq or Somalia?  And, if we're not selling fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, won't someone else?  And, how do we know that the media and public opinion will treat us fairly even if we are kinder and gentler?

It's not that simple, right?  There isn't a one-size fits all answer.  For me, it's a balancing act where you have all these different concerns, security, stability, human rights, fairness, etc., and you ought to be realistic and tough.   

[bedstuy]

If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force. 

I'd like to go back to this.  so if the US (only the executive branch of the US, mind you) unilaterally deides that "al Qaeda" is operative in Yemen without the Yemeni state doing anything about it, the US can drop bombs in Yemen, without consulting the Yemeni state at all, in an attempt to kill the alleged terrorists (their guilt not established by due process of law, only by the deliberations of the executive).

reverse the situation.  Yemen comes to the conclusion that a non-statal person or group within the USA is plotting to carry out some violent act within Yemen.  is Yemen justified in drone-bombing Lincoln, Nebraska, where they believe this dangerous element is located?

You're creating this hypothetical situation when in fact we have bombed Yemen.  Yes, that was legal under the rules of war.  We're at war with Al Qaeda according to the rules of war, we can defend ourselves.  I don't see what your problem is.

[bedstuy]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

[bedstuy]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

If the US wants to go to war in Yemen it should issue a formal declaration of war instead of just killing people on a sovereign nations territory. Not even recognizing that you are violating their sovereignty and just treating it as if the US government has jurisdiction all over the world is the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is that US actions in Yemen are based on the "because we can" principle. Nothing else. Great powers have always done that, but at least you should be honest about it instead of hiding behind a bogus interpretation of international law.

Yemen is violating our sovereignty.  They're allowing Al Qaeda to operate from their territory. 

Think of it this way, did the US need to declare war on France before D-Day?  Of course not.  If France didn't want us to land there, they should have tossed the Nazis out.  Same with Yemen, if they're not going to deal with Al Qaeda, we have the prerogative to deal with Al Qaeda.

And, let's sort out this "declare war" business.  Declaring war is one way to enter an armed conflict.  It's from the days of Clausewitzian warfare with a more gentlemanly, European conception of war in the 18th and 19th century.  But, even then, declaring war was not a threshold requirement to have a war, it was one diplomatic means to enter a war.  If you are at peace with someone, you would declare war to start hostilities, as opposed to a surprise attack which was thought of as immoral and against the rules of Christian warfare.  It was a means of going from state of peace to state of war in a fair, open way.  And, history shows this, most US wars have not been "declared" wars.  It would certainly not be required in the case that you were already engaged in hostilities. 

In this case, we are in a state of war with an NGO, Al Qaeda.  We don't need to declare war on Al Qaeda, because we are already at war with Al Qaeda.  They attacked us to begin with.  Wherever Al Qaeda operates, we can use whatever means are prudent to fight back.  If Al Qaeda has an operative in Denmark, we can call up Denmark and demand that they arrest this person.  If we could do that in Yemen, there would be no problem for anyone.  But, we can't because Yemen is a failed state, so we can use a proportional, prudent method to deal with Al Qaeda there.

Get it?

[bedstuy]

France was also under invasion by a foreign power, with probably hundreds of thousands of German troops occupying.  al Qaeda is a media buzzword for "any Arab the US might consider dangerous or simply wants out of the way".  states have the right to harbor people the USA does not like.  the comparison fails.

if you want to legally do something about it a) indict specific people for crimes and attempt extradition; or b) go to the UN and seek a resolution, for a multinational force to enter Yemen. 

unilateral action, ie drone bombing of people who have never been charged with or proven guilty of any crime, is a war crime.  punishable by death, if the Nuremberg standards had held.

Nope. 

Al Qaeda exists, specifically Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States which are well-documented.  These are facts.

And, you don't need to indict people of a crime first, if you're fighting a war.  When has that ever been true?  Warfare isn't a punishment against individuals, it's a tactic against a state or NGO. 

Is warfare nice or gentle?  No.  But, it's not our fault.  If Al Qaeda would renounce violence against the US and disband, we would have not problems.  If Al Qaeda would abide by the Geneva Convention, this would also be simpler and cleaner.  Unfortunately, we're dealing with post-modern warfare waged by religious fanatics.