Some thoughts of mine on Obama's options and constraints re: ISIS

[YoungDemCA]

The official policy of the United States government is to not negotiate with terrorists. ISIS is an incredibly malicious and sadistic terrorist group; consequently, negotiations with such a group are an obvious non-starter.

However, sending tons of American troops into Iraq (again) is also a non-starter. Gone are the Cold War days of having the resources and the domestic political will to mobilize many hundreds of thousands of troops (to be sent nearly anywhere in the world, potentially). America simply has neither the resources/power nor the public will to fight in large-scale conflicts anymore, certainly not nearly to the extent it did even 10 years ago (let alone 50...)

On the other hand, a policy of strict non-interventionism in foreign conflicts is also a non-starter, because 1) the United States as a country has many, many interests around the world; 2) American withdrawal from the rest of the world would have all kinds of negative, unintended consequences, and 3) the American public may not (generally speaking) have the stomach for war in 2014, but they still want their leaders in government to "do something" about horrific situations in the rest of the word where huge numbers of people are suffering as a result of war, genocide, terrorism, famine, disease, or any other humanitarian catastrophes.


Which brings us back to the original point about how the US government, as official policy (of course this policy is disregarded at times...) does not negotiate with terrorists. Additional diplomacy in response to terrorist groups is thus, also a non-starter. We aren't going to send hundreds of thousands of troops into every country that harbors terrorists (taken to the broader level, the US and the UK "harbor" terrorists too! ), we aren't going to negotiate with ISIS or similar groups, we certainly aren't going to sit on our hands and do nothing, so....what options does President Obama-or indeed, any potential President of any party (whether it be Hillary Clinton or anyone else)-have? He doesn't have much "wiggle room", so to speak...

Curious to read any comments, responses, insights into this.

Thanks!

[YvonneCa]

1. I think he must start with the assumption...

...that much of the public does not understand his ME policy and explain it to them in simple terms.
1) Reasons for not negotiating with terrorists go beyond just tradition. The US often finds itself in the position of funding both sides of a given conflict...IMO, not a winning policy. If we pay millions of $$ to a group like ISIS, we fund their continued brutal activities. At the same time, we send $$ supplies weapons and training for opposition forces to ISIS. How can that be a good idea?
2) As to the solution of sending troops to fight ISIS, the problem with that is that this is what ISIS is aiming to force us to do. Terrorists win by the US being drawn in to their war. Then they can make us the target and use our occupation as a recruiting tool. That is why President
Obama brought us OUT of Iraq.
It has nothing to do with isolationism. Obama has never chosen to be an isolationist...just to be smart about when and how we intervene.
I agree with you that our country will not and should not become isolationist. We intervene and will continue to do so for all the reasons you stated. We are a world leader and we do need to lead.
3) The nations in the ME region must be supported to remove the terrorists in their midst. I think we are seeing that power struggle now. The US can do a lot, short of putting the target back on our soldiers, to enable that to happen...including diplomacy, sanctions, negotiating, etc.
Because of the disastrous policies of GWB, we face very difficult options. I DO think we are lucky to have both current and hopefully future leaders who are intelligent and will exercise better judgement in choosing options than Bush did.

[YoungDemCA]

2. Thoughtful post!

I'll definitely revisit it and respond in more detail.

[YvonneCa]

3. Thanks! Looking forward...

...to it.

[hopemountain]

4. ^^^ +++ all 3 of your points hit the nails on the head

for my thoughts, exactly. great post!

[treestar]

5. that's the problem with the war on terror

There is no one to negotiate with, resulting in endless war, and that benefits only the MIC.

IMHO maybe the idea of negotiating with terrorists should become more acceptable. If it were an actual country then we'd negotiate. And that would actually be worse.

Also "terrorists" are people who take planes hostage. ISIS sounds more like an army.