T Nation

Anyone Not Support War with Islamic State?


I see lots of support for the airstrikes and also for going to the next step of boots on the ground. I really disagree. I think western intervention is simply prolonging what needs to happen, which is civil wars within the muslim world between the Islamists and the rest of the population.

My stance has both selfish but also altruistic points attached to it:

  1. Our people should not be dying over there
  2. Our interventions install governments that are never going to last once we leave
  3. The Muslim people of the region need to fight these wars and establish change that had popular mandate over there

I saw Bill Maher mentioned this recently and while I don't think bill is very close to me on most issues, he has a correct stance, in my opinion, on the middle east.


It's definitely a tricky question. On the one hand it sucks to sit back while they're going around chopping off heads, but on the other hand intervention probably won't achieve much. It's like fighting the hydra - you take out one of these groups, it splinters up and reorganises into a new one and comes back and does the same shit.

That said, I support limited intervention from a distance - Destroying their sources of income, decapitation strikes against their leadership using drones, special operations forces, etc. Hell, let PMC's in there to do their thing. I'd be fine with volunteers going over there if they wanted to, we could even have a bounty system or something to make it fun. Give them grief but without going all out and starting another Iraq war.


When the Islamists win this civil war, do you support war then?


I think I am with you , that is Europe's problem . Russia and Iran should be able to handle this and if they can't they have the ability to ask for help . I find it hard that all the Corporations that profit hugely from war are not at the Crux of America's desire to involve ourselves .

Look at this board every one worried about the 50 factions and who is right and who is wrong , we can never understand this conflict , it has been going on since the dawn of civilization



When they do this, you end up with radicals ruling Iran, & people like the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS ruling.

That's their definition of popular. I can't see how it's a good thing for the international community when these groups globally export terrorism.


Why is their foreign policy, which is exactly the same as our foreign policy ok while ours is not? You would support Russian and Iranian intervention and not US intervention? What happens if Russian & Iranian intervention does not stop ISIS but in 10 years creates something even worse?


Intervention is the only thing standing between me and being required by law to wear a towel on my head and to change my name to Alibaba Akbar Ali, so of course I support it! Plus, and this is no small factor in my support, I know a lot of guys in the military, and they're really nice people. If you don't support intervention, nothing is stopping you from moving to ISIS. 'Murica, bitches!


Because it effects their country a lot more than it effect ours .

It would be like Russia inserting itself into the Mexican Drug War or some conflict that borders America



How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?




When has a isolationist/reactive foreign policy worked before?

Worked great in Iraq after we withdrew.


what map are you looking at? it's like your saying events in Peru effect us directly because of geography.

Geography has never stopped the Russians from meddling in our back yard regardless.


2,500 Russians are fighting for ISIL. A faction of the separatist Caucus Emirate has declared itself territory of ISIL. ISIL published a Ruddian language newsletter aimed at recruiting Russian citizens. Russia has access to strategically vital air and naval bases on Syria's west Coast.


What do you see as an isolationist foreign policy?


Yep, Iraq is a great example of the dangers of isolationism. If only we hadn't been so isolationist. What were we thinking, isolationistically cooking up a phony case for war, toppling a dictator, and igniting a sectarian civil war during which IS developed into what it is today? So stupid, that isolationism.



well, I guess we're done trying to train Syrian rebels.


There's been more ISIS inspired attacks or plots in the US than in Russia. Check out this chart:

I don't see Russia on there at all.


Big difference between isolationism and playing world police/acting as if everything that happens requires a military response.

What would work great in Iraq would be a time machine to not fucking go in there.