(November 30, 2015 at 11:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(November 30, 2015 at 11:15 pm)Cato Wrote: Funny, you sound like a Rand Paul foreign policy adviser. I suppose it's a good thing that the French didn't think the same in 1778.
Absent the ability to wage a decisive intervention, what mission would you assign any putative deployment?
Glad you asked. The non-interventionist approach is a very sound strategy if the goal is to kick the problem to the next generation; a la Reagan and Mitterrand after the '83 Beirut barracks attack. That's right, the U.S. GOP messiah and a devout socialist both cutting bait. ISIS (some say ISIL or DAESH as if calling them something different changes reality) are the same assholes, although there's more of them now and they actually control a swath of geography. They've been around since 1740 and in case anybody was wondering their political ally is the house of Saud. Any ignorant bastard proclaiming that KSA doesn't have a dog in this fight and actually deserves their place on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council is a deluded fuckwit.
Leveraging recent events we can develop a coalition that includes at least 4/5ths of the permanent U.N. security council or we can take a non-interventionist approach and let the next generation deal with it. Judging by the videos and pictures of the refugees and how many of those are men of fighting age suggests that the locals cannot be rallied around geography or idea. Let's be honest, would you put your ass on the line for an idea if you knew it was practiced by matter of law just a sojourn away?
If I were President, the commitment of American troops to the coalition would be contingent on toppling KSA and ending the state sponsor of Wahhabism.
