As much as many people are of the opinion that the US and allies should not become involved in yet another issue outside our own borders and therefore none of our business, I would answer that ship sailed many decades and several wars ago. Even as we become more involved and thus provoke idiots from extremist countries to align with ISIL, we and our allies (willing or not) are already inextricably involved in the outcome of this mess. If we stand by for too long we will have repeated the mistake of WWII and allowed ourselves to believe that that this war is not our problem.
The sad truth of the post-modern age is that unless we periodically intervene militarily (with allied aid), sometimes even when the reasoning to do so is a path down a slippery slope, we will eventually become entangled in the long run. The US, as the single country that devotes more of its resources to the military machine, has become the target of other countries, religious sects, political splinter groups, etc. who are willing to engage our Goliath. The surefire way to ensure return action is to enrage our citizens with barbaric acts, large and small scale. These beheadings surely guarantee more boots on the ground than exist now. The public will demand it in the short term, at least until bodies start coming home in caskets draped with flags.
Nuclear reaction, while tempting and popular as a reaction, is a dangerous escalation. Once our our missiles are airborne other countries missiles will be milliseconds behind our launch. The escalation at such a large scale won't be pretty, even as tempting as making the desert a mound of glass may be. Imagine the fallout clouds drifting westward into allied countries, or worse, Russia. Then we have war escalation to the scale of WWIII.
As it is ISIL is recruiting idiots who live in our own countries, those not necessarily of far eastern decent. Even though the Oklahoma bombing was perpetrated by backwoods hicks and not motivated by outside international political affairs, it was extremely successful (especially in view of the IQ of these people). Imagine what misguided people recruited by ISIL
within our borders of more educated means are capable of achieving.
All these years later lets look at some new attack methods derived from old ideas. Suicide bombers no longer have to worry about being screened for weapons. All they need is the immediate window between exposure to deadly disease (think Ebola, although I'm sure there are others) and symptoms showing. Then all they do is fly into major metropolitan areas. If they have learned from past attacks by other antagonist entities, multiple instances of such covert disease carriers landing in many major cities and targeting large groups of people in mass gatherings happening at precisely the same time... Such a low tech, low cost attack method would prove devastating.
Now think of the many weak points of the US.
Ports, power grids, water supplies, food supplies, communications towers, to name a few. Add in the growing list of countries who aren't as reticent about using the nuclear weapons they either already possess or are in the process of developing. It becomes apparent, at least to me, that standing idly by is not much of option anymore. Maybe at one point it was, but too many genies have been let out of the bottle and too many groups are ready and willing to fight for complete power.
In direct answer to the original post:
Quote:So, I won't post links to the story all over the news today about Peter Kassig and others beheaded. The story is the same, with different names.
Are we headed for war? If so, it will escalate this time. It has all the earmarks of a spark.
For the record, Islam is not on trial. ISIS is a tiny fraction of that religion, and yes, they are indeed a part, but extremists, and not representative.
How much responsibility do sister states in the region bear for not taking more decisive military action in their own sphere?
What is a realistic strategy for the Western powers to follow? It has gotten past the point of letting it fester further. It's not the body count I mean, but the drum beat.
How can we avoid the escalation to war? What happens when ISIL, who have already threatened to do so, kills the remaining US hostage who happens to be female? Imagine the outrage. I don't want to see it happen. There's no way in hell I want that. But those fools are moronic animals.
And it is true that the religion of Islam isn't on trial. Still it's tough to think of a religion that doesn't have an extremist splinter group. So where exactly do we start to draw the line between the well meaning religion that is non-violent (which is debatable, not only from Quran quotes, but the Bible isn't exactly immune to reinterpretation), and the groups that take religion at it's literal word? Another a slippery slope...
As for sister states? Where are converts to ISIL coming from? True one shouldn't blame entire country's for the actions of smaller groups of their citizens, but then the question becomes when do you start holding them accountable for their citizens actions? Are they doing
anything to dissuade their citizens from becoming complete fools ready to throw away all common sense in exchange for a desperate need not to feel powerless?
So unfortunately I have to consider the effects of religion, poverty, and a lack of unadulterated education in these surrounding countries. Citizens of these "sister" countries often martyr themselves because of decades of propaganda issued clerics of impermeable, static religion. How can any country hope to remain viable when state religions completely refuse to learn to adapt, to change when we recognize the world isn't flat, or that the Earth isn't just six thousand years old, when we realize virgins can't have babies and water isn't wine? Those sister countries each have clerics inciting people to act. They outlaw and kill women who attempt to educate themselves. Most education is couched firmly in religion. And it probably isn't very difficult to whip up hatred among the impoverished against the rich, "imperialist" countries "invading" them and their way of life (religion). It's a known fact that any intervention from any outside country provokes people in those countries to join the ranks of the extremist groups.
For the record,
I hate war. I don't understand the need for mankind to turn on itself. I don't understand the need for any single person, or group of people, to need to feel
right at any cost. Debate is healthy. War... isn't. But it isn't a drumbeat anymore. It is more akin to the Kodō drumming troupe whipping up military river dancers into a frenzy which only has one inevitable choreography. (How do you like those mixed metaphors?)
I don't think there is much of a strategy, except in the short term. We've been going to war without an endgame strategy for decades (think Vietnam). Governments are quick to rush into the fray without any thought of clear outcome. Ignoring economic profitability from certain groups in public and private sectors, (a lot to ignore), we do it because watching people die in the cruelest of ways is impossible to stomach, impossible to ignore. So we come full circle here... How can we avoid war when people see other people beheading innocent bystanders? My answer is I don't think we can. It's horribly unfortunate. It's worse to even think of sending men and women into deadly conflict against people so determined to kill based on unwavering certitude of belief that nothing is off the table in terms of weapons.
I hate thinking that armed conflict is the only resolution. But like our own congress, no one is talking, no one is compromising. It may not currently be our concern. But people are as mistaken now as they were when the US dragged its heels for so long before getting involved in WWII if we don't realize that we must become proactive. The whole ugly mess is eventually going to wind up on our doorstep whether we want it to or not. Having set ourselves up as a military super power has also empowered our opponent's need to poke the stick into the military beehive to show superiority. Our opponent's advantage is that they don't seem to give a good crap about how many of their own die because the ends to justify the means. Who knows what kind of weapon that may lead to.
Call me a fear monger. The tone of my post probably warrants that assertion. I'm open to debate though. I'm open to compromise. I don't need to be right. I don't even want to be right on this subject. Others will have more even tempered responses, solutions. I hope so.
I'm interested to hear what former servicemen have to say about this. They have more on the line than the rest of we armchair pundits.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
