"Arm The Rebels!!"

[simplemoss]

Mind your own business isn't a real option. No Democrat or Republican would allow Isis to take over the middle eyet, using our tanks and humvees. Back in 2002 I would've agreed with you but USA has made a long probably 100 year commitment to Iraq. Hell we still haven't left Germany and Japan yet.

[DeistPaladin]

We could mind our own fucking business for a change and let the local powers handle it or let them kill each other.

I fear that ship sailed in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. The case for invasion was bullshit but I'm genuinely fearful that these nuts will seek to destroy more than just their neighborhood.

An ironic alliance with Iran and Syria might serve us well to contain ISIS with minimal direct involvement on our part.

[Anomalocaris]

The key is when we went into Iraq in 2003, there was no shale oil or gas in anyone's planning horizon. US relied on imported oil as much as Europe and China, and stability in the Middle East was vital to predictable and stable flow of oil around the world, even if the actual oil we import were not mostly from the middle east. So everyone else can stand back because they know the U.S. can not escape from having to stabilize the Middle East for the sake of American economy.

In 2014 the picture has drastically changed for the U.S. Shale oil and gas has happened. The U.S. Would no longer needs to import energy within a few years. Stability in the Middle East is now of secondary importance to the U.S. BUT, things have not changed for Europe and China because both were late to the shale oil and gas revolution. So, either Europe and China sit back, and absorb the blow to their economies that would result as Middle East submerges in turmoil, Or one or the other of them takes the lead instead of the U.S. to try to stabilize the Middle East, and absorb the blow to their economy from the cost of the effort.

Either way, it now benefits the U.S. to let other take the lead, or let no one take the lead and have shit hit the fan.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's nothing wrong with arming rebels, as long as you're willing to train them how to use the arms you give them. Dumping weapons on a mob doesn't create an army, it simply creates a better armed mob.

Boru

Our aid doesn't seem to buy us any influence. The weapons we gave the Afghan jihadis installed a government which gave ObL a base of operations.

The moderates in Syria, as the article pointed out, are in some cases defecting. No amount of training will dampen the will to survive, and on the battlefield, weaponry is only as good as the soldier wielding them. That includes not only training, but more importantly, motivation. History is rife with examples of motivated warriors defeating better-equipped enemies.

Those are the two reasons I think my original point sound.

---

Either way, it now benefits the U.S. to let other take the lead, or let no one take the lead and have shit hit the fan.

And even if ISIL wins out, they'll find that governance is a vastly different kettle of fish than fighting a war, and most likely to their detriment. Unlike the Taliban winning in Afghanistan to govern an agrarian country, Syria is a bit more modern, and Syrians themselves more sophisticated.

[Minimalist]

The case for invasion was bullshit but I'm genuinely fearful that these nuts will seek to destroy more than just their neighborhood.

As long as we pretend that Iraq is a real "nation" and that the people who live there think of themselves as "Iraqis" first and "Sunni" "Shia" or "Kurd" second we will never be free of the Bush debacle. We are trying to do CPR on a mummy.

Let them blow the living shit out of each other.... and then execute the survivor!