I don't actually want a war with ISIL. I just think it's happening anyway. When Vice-President Biden says we will follow ISIS to the Gates of Hell, he's being the "nudge" that telegraphs where the debate is. And if it has to happen because the ball is rolling and tongues have starting writing checks that American asses will have to cash, I pretty damn well want to see a thorough job of it. And I'm coming around to the idea that there is something very poisonous about this particular group.
They spread their territory quickly and cast their influence wide (they have tentacles in Egypt and Libya), in some ways superseding al-Qaeda's influence in the hip'n'with-it fucking shit up set. They aren't pre-modern shit-fucker-uppers: they're POMO. They're attracting young westerners who aren't necessarily that well-versed yet in the particulars of their faith by promising them meaning by attaching the figure of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to a grand concept of a caliphate, which is basically crazypants. If he's the 12th imam, I'm Mary Poppins. But in any case, this shit is moving too quickly, and quite possibly in some disturbing directions.
This group just doesn't seem to have a good side. It's not like you can say: "If not for the kidnappings, the massacres, the rapes, and the ethnic cleansing, there's so much good they could be doing." They are down with some sick destructive ethos, and as far as I'm concerned, I don't think we have time for that. It doesn't make us on the side of Assad, or Iran, it just means we can all basically agree these guys are something else, and letting them prosper is letting good folks die.
We can settle up with anyone else later. But there's reasons to nip these characters right off now. And I think comparing them to Aum Shinrikyo or any other cult fixated on death isn't far wrong. They are absurd. But more is needed than simply trying to make sense of them.
3 comments:
Hi Vixen, good post.
Biden may be re-defining the argument for Democrats, but on the right we are already there.
Welcome to the new initiative. I pray we do not drop the ball. Some things demand politicization, but we get so caught up in politics that we forget many things we need to meet as a unified country.
I live in a border state, and ISIS is coming across the border with illegals. They are in contact with drug cartels that make billions of dollars a year and have no limitations on what they can afford. The Zetas are an important drug gang that were originally trained by American special forces. They decided to detach themselves from the Sinaloa cartel and operate on their own. They cut off as many heads as ISIS, and then like to hang them from bridges and other places that offer colorful display.
The border is one of those areas where necessity clashes with political agendas and makes the United States a lot less safe and turns our citizens into prey.
Is there any confusion about why I am down on political parties?
There's a reasonable question about why the US is willing to militarize against ISIL, but isn't in a hurry over equally barbaric gangs just outside/inside our borders:
http://joshuafoust.com/violence-and-threat/
I wish I had an answer for that, because it would mean I thought political figures made rational conjectures about things. Rick Perry recently tried to explain that he thought ISIL was capable of making inroads in the US across the border, and was made a figure of fun because of it. I know there is some downright lunacy broadcast by figures like Louie Gohmert.
But when it is more plausibly broadcast that there is a possibility ISIL reps could enter the US via the border, I get a little concerned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/opinion/isis-deep-in-the-heart-of-texas.html
I still say, ISIS connected or not--Sinaloa and them are bad news and we need to find a way to target the folks who have actually ensured that a way greater number of our citizens are fucked up addicted to heroin. When I thought about Central American drugs, I used to think about MJ and Cocaine--not heroin. Those drugs are almost livable compared to heroin.
This bitch-ass impasse where Obama is allegedly extending a deportation amnesty to avoid Congress doing their thing avoids the scenario where, under Boehner, there is no certainty about whether the house would even try to do anything about immigration and the border. I don't know if they can't get their shit together in an election year, or they just don't understand how to formulate a cogent plan to secure the border and plausibly halt illegal immigration and drugs.
I feel like some conservatives can talk about potential crises, but they aren't good at promoting logical plans to fix them. Liberals are good at making bureaucratic plans, but aren't always seeing all the problems. This is why I wish we had better communication. We could be more effective at confronting the problems we really have if we communicated better. If liberals were better aware of warnings. If conservatives were more accepting of group solutions. I think political parties kind of hand us fake solutions, but aren't up for tackling things in a controversial but systematic and effective way.
And yet, if anyone talked to us like adults, we might even sanction hard calls, like violence. Just because we understood why. It would just be nice if we were briefed and given the opportunity to sign off--democratically. It's why I'd rather like additional strikes on ISIL to be Congress-sanctioned. It would make it seem so much more unified.
Good luck with the surgery. Your voice will will be missed--take care of yourself, too.
Post a Comment