Forget invasions and nation building that hasn't worked out to well.

If a nation or some group is openly hostile, threatening with real violence, not just shooting their mouths off: Take them out with prejudice -- fast and clean.


"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." American president Theodore Roosevelt

It is not one American journalist at issue -- IS (ISIL ISIS) has been mass murdering their adversities, not tantamount to a genocide yet, but heading that way, in that that direction. e.g.; stop the genocide of the Yazdi minority by IS (ISIL ISIS). Another Rwanda will not help US standing in the world.

There are serious tactical issues in fighting a guerilla war with terrorists. They are not an easily identifiable army. But with "death squads" comprised of locals on the ground calling in drone attacks, we could off them like killing rats -- and that is what they are -- vermin.

This is the only way to stop these assholes. Do you really believe they will be satisfied with domination of a 'sand lot'?

There is no need to carpet bomb or use indiscriminate measures. They are starting to shit bricks and murder Americans because the US air strikes have targeted a few light weapons vehicles -- they ain't seen shit yet.

See, they are already shittin' bricks without a shot fired - go in for the kill and be done with them.

Who are you going to isolate?

http://3mp1r3.cam500.com/img/boards/see-no-evil.gif

Establishing a cordon sanitaire sounds nice but in reality it won't work. You can isolate a country's government but not a faction that are participants in a terrorist campaign.

The very places you want to isolate have their peoples living in fear of these Jihadists. So you say leave them to their own means and condemn them to subjugation or death.

This is the problem with interventionist and isolationist theory. Either way you get condemned.

Sanctions, embargoes, or isolationism are not going to help. Someone has to get blood on their hands. If their are locals ready to fight equip them to do it. A more certain solution would be a possibly apocalyptic one, and that is a no gain equation -- that might trigger the last war ...

What if; IS would just consolidate their holdings in the middle east and extort the oil price to over $200/barrel? Other oil exporters would just match the new market price.

Economic warfare with the rest of the world may be their end game too. There is more than one way to hand the world "heads in a bag." If this will be the case, a massive economic extortion: The last great recession that we are recovering from may be seen as a holiday picnic in retrospect.

Invasion is out of the question as there is no regular army to defeat. The local fighter ally will have a police action for years to control the Jihadists. So, there must be an organized local defense.

The Assad government has invited foreign military intervention to its assistance with ISIS in Syria but only with coordination with the Syrian government. The Syrians seem to think us foreigners need their permission even if Syria goes down the toilet alone with their false pride.

If no one does anything -- this will not turn out pretty. If we do take an interventionist position -- this will not turn out pretty. Either way, it is a lose - lose deal. So, which is the most palatable loss?

At times, you have to do your own dirty work or suffer the consequences.

And again, you have to deal with the lose-lose scenario.

Then there is the Neville Chamberlain school of thought -- appeasement. That worked out well with Hitler when the Nazis took most of Europe ... Heads-in-the-sand in its outcome.

No matter how you play it this will be a lose -- lose deal.

I don't think there is that great of a threat domestically -- those claims of another 9/11 are 99% scare tactics.

The economic threat outlined above is more credible. One more oil shock to the world economy might cause another real war. That is the real threat here. The US could withstand an oil shock, there is enough domestic production (or reserve) here to minimize the damage. Europe would be in worse shape. Asia, especially China and Japan would have real problems.

How might the Chinese might react? To appease IS and pay ransom for oil or simply attack? The Chinese should be taking a more proactive position in the resistance of IS tactics or are they somehow behind it? That seems doubtful as they have great economic risk too.

Look at the big picture and not sound bites of youtube wisdom.

Clinton could have nipped this in the bud but he was busy being impeached of getting a blow job in the oval office closet. GW Bush played cowboy and avenged his daddy's attempted assassins leaving this mess to happen. Obama withdrew our troops to create the vacuum in which these Jihadists now flourish. So no matter what is done it is lose -- lose in the new Islamic State.

Meantime, the UN has declared IS (ISIS, ISIL) guilty of war crimes setting the ball in motion for justification of intervention. A new "Winds of War". I don't like this anymore that you do. But it is what it is.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ima...03.24/main.png

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15531

And what of Shia Iran and Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State's sworn enemies -- even closer and within reach as compared to far off China and the United States. The Saudis and Iranians are silent. (In horror of events?) The Saudis and Iranians are big mouth ballsy attacking the Israelis with rhetoric but when someone is a real threat they hide under their women's skirts like little girls.

It seems the House of Saud has hired the Egyptians to do the dirty work in Libya