CNN - Domestic Terror, Bigger threat than ISIS?

[texas_ex2000]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html

Ummm...No.

"Washington (CNN) They're carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.

A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.
...
The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010."

Wow. 24 violent attacks from soveriegn citizen folks over the past 5 years. I bet if you take away College Station on a single Saturday night that number falls to zero.

 

[Clean]

I guess when your boss thinks that the threat from the Big, Bad Wolf, Islamic Terrorism, is less threatening than global warming, you find yourself a stray dog to kick, just so it looks like you're doing something.

The DHS is getting nuttier and more paranoid that the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

[zork]

Where do the Occupy or Anarchist movements fit in this spectrum of bad actors? ISIS/ISIL will no question be the worst if they are not quelled. It won't even be close.

 

[Musburger1]

ISIS is practically zero threat to the US mainland. At some point in the future, probably the near future, anyone who publically dissents from the government will be considered a potential domestic terrorist.

 

[theiioftx]

Zero threat? Umm, ok.

 

[Musburger1]

Zero threat? Umm, ok.

ISIS, from a military standpoint is absolutely zero threat to the US. They posses no air force, and no navy. They do not manufacture their own armament. They have no legitimate functioning economy. As an organization, they are almost entirely dependent on outside funding. Their internal economy consists of ransom money for hostages and black market revenue generated from stolen oil sales. Sure, they could inspire like minded Islamic zealots to attempt terror attacks within the United States, but in the scheme of things, any damage caused by terror attacks is likely to pale against everyday disasters such as hurricanes, fires, and traffic accidents for that matter. Emotionally and politically however, such attacks would make the populace fearful and tend to rally people around the government, thus making it easier for the government to take on more power and shape policy.

The evidence shows it is more likely that the growth of ISIS is largely due to US policy. Increasingly during the Obama Presidency, the US has armed, trained, and funded Jihadists - in cooperation with the Saudi's Qatar, and Kuwait - to be used as a Vanguard to destabilize and overthrow governments such as Libya and Syria. This has been justified to the public by vilifying those regimes and falsely labeling the Jihadists trained to overthrow these regimes as "moderate Muslims" when they are actually foreign Wahabbi extremists of the worse sort.

 

[theiioftx]

Then we agree? They are definitely a threat - even if it will not be by aircraft carrier. It is not if they strike in the US, but when. This narrative of them being the JV or not a threat is naive at best and hinders the government from defending US citizens.

 

[Musburger1]

The best way to defend the US against terror attacks would be to cut off arms sales to the Middle East, and abort the CIA programs where we train Muslims to fight our clandestine, proxy wars. So far, we have managed to turn Libya into a terrorist haven that can be used as a launching pad for ISIS into Africa. We have forced hundreds of thousands of Syrian citizens to become refugees. I suppose for the military-industrial complex, and perhaps for some companies that will receive lucrative government reconstructive contracts following infrastructure destruction this is a winning proposition, but for the average American it does nothing and it means death and the destruction of homes for millions of innocent citizens that get caught in the wash.

As serious a problem as ISIS is to the Middle East, the US interventionist policies in Ukraine have the potential to create an even more serious crisis down the road. Unlike ISIS, Russia does have the ability to strike the US heartland, and if the US continues to wage war on Russia - economically, as well as militarily - the possibility of such a catastrophe increases.

And please don't argue that the US is coming to the aid of Ukraine to stop a Russian invasion. That is total US propaganda and 180 degrees from reality.

 

[theiioftx]

I think this has strayed off point. ISIS and other terrorists are a direct threat to the US homeland. They openly state their objective is to attack on the US mainland and even today, the terrorists who struck the African mall have made a direct threat on the Mall of America.

This administration's politically correct, soft approach will cost American civilian lives. If they do not actively take the war to ISIS, ISIS a will bring it here.

 

[Musburger1]

So what do you propose?

1. Deploy US ground troops? A massive commitment of US troops should extract ISIS from the areas they've taken. To keep them out the US would have to permanently occupy the area at a cost of several hundred billion annually. The human cost on our military would be endless tours, a steady stream of casualties from terror attacks directed toward US troops, and eventual hostility from the people native to the area who would initially be grateful to the US for removing ISIS, but would soon tire of our presence on there land.
2. Nuke the region as a preemptive strike? This is a ridiculous choice that appeals to many people, but then what does that make us?

 

[theiioftx]

I would prefer that we fight them there versus here. Give the military one order - do whatever it takes to eliminate ISIS - then get out of their way.

 

[Musburger1]

I would prefer that we fight them there versus here. Give the military one order - do whatever it takes to eliminate ISIS - then get out of their way.

By now, you should now how this works. ISIS would embed themselves within the general population. To defeat that, you either conduct guerrilla warfare and absorb losses over a long period, or you wipe out the area, destroy the infrastructure, and kill civilians along with the enemy. This of course creates new enemies and you end up back where you started.

 

[theiioftx]

So the option is leave them alone, let them grow to the point where they do have the aforementioned military assets, then fight them?

No thanks. Go in now and eliminate the long term threat. Sooner or later, it will have to be done.

 

[Lancehorn]

And please don't argue that the US is coming to the aid of Ukraine to stop a Russian invasion. That is total US propaganda and 180 degrees from reality.


So in reality Ukraine is launching attacks into Russia to claim Russian territory as part of Ukraine? Where do you get this?

 

[Musburger1]

And please don't argue that the US is coming to the aid of Ukraine to stop a Russian invasion. That is total US propaganda and 180 degrees from reality.


So in reality Ukraine is launching attacks into Russia to claim Russian territory as part of Ukraine? Where do you get this?

Here's a good primer for those who just follow the headlines.

 

[texas_ex2000]

We should deploy ground troops. You kill as many of them as quickly as possible. If they go guerrilla, which would be difficult considering everybody hates them, then you go covert and kill as many of them that way.

You do this as long as it takes. Because if we don't and just throw our hands up, they win. And they'll strengthen to the point where it'll be 10x more difficult to roll them back. Think of that counter-ISIL covert operation, but worldwide with asymmetric weaponry. They're counting on the Musburgers of the US to wimp out. Will it cost a lot of money? Yes. Will it cost more American lives, unfortunately yes. Thankfully, as Admiral McRaven has also stated, we have the world's best military with the finest volunteer warriors history has ever known and have the capability to defeat this enemy. They volunteer because they believe there are things in this country bigger than themselves worth fighting and sacrificing for.

Musburger sounds just like Chamberlain..."It's too hard. This enemy is too determined. We should just make a deal with them. You stay there. Agree? Okay, peace in our time."

Well f%&* that $h!^. We need to be completely dedicated to destroying these burning, beheading, raping, child enslaving f^%$#s. You can't kill your way to victory. That's clear and there has to be more to this effort than just military operations. But you can keep the enemy down if you engage them.

 

[Musburger1]

Musburger sounds just like Chamberlain..."It's too hard. This enemy is too determined. We should just make a deal with them. You stay there. Agree? Okay, peace in our time."

You don't make deals with them. They do not make deals. The Shiites (Iran, Hezbolloh, and Assad's forces) are strong enough to stop their advancement, and in the long run, that is enough to defeat them. Whenever ISIS can no longer expand their territory, the Caliphate will collapse because outside of conquest, they have no other way to sustain a caliphate. They have no industry to speak of and produce nothing of value. They would be doing well to feed themselves. Sending in US ground troops is a losing proposition. ISIS can be defeated without doing that. It just takes: 1) patience, 2) ending the nonsense CIA programs where we train and arm "moderate" Muslims, and 3) stop selling armament to the Saudi's, Qatar, and Kuwait. That's all the US needs to do.

 

[texas_ex2000]

You don't make deals with them. They do not make deals.

Your deal is not sending in the Marines to kill them. They're getting exactly what they want from you.

The Shiites (Iran, Hezbolloh, and Assad's forces) are strong enough to stop their advancement, and in the long run, that is enough to defeat them.

Thanks for the laugh on that one. Even in some bizarro Musburger world where they could beat these guys, a Middle-East run by the Ayatollah, Hezbollah, or Syria isn't a win either.

They have no industry to speak of and produce nothing of value.

Neither did the Nazis. They do have a lot of revenues. And asymmetric weapons don't cost anything these days.

Sending in US ground troops is a losing proposition. ISIS can be defeated without doing that.

You know what's a losing proposition? Not chasing and killing them with everything we have. If you let them off the ropes and don't finish them off, they'll stick around. And a group with this radicalism sticking around in this era of globalization and technology is 1,000x deadlier than a group such as the IRA from 60 years ago.

At the very least we should be conducting a persistent 24 hour all-out Kosovo style air campaign against ISIL. Right now, only the Carl Vinson is deployed to 5th Fleet. Not enough.

 

[Musburger1]

Why should the US do the fighting for Iran and the Shiites? Fighting ISIS weakens them too as it uses up their resources. And it's not like Syria and Iran are taking over anything. Apparently you haven't looked at any maps. It's Syria and Shia Iraq that have lost territory, they just want to regain what they've lost and not concede more.

The Nazis were a war machine and US corporations helped to supply the regime during much of Hitler's expansion. In a similar way, much of the US arms sales to the Arab states wind up in the hands of ISIS.

And Your last point about not having the spine to go over there and kill them. I say, feel free to volunteer your services. The army can probably use some otherwise useless idiot as canon fodder.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Why should the US do the fighting for Iran and the Shiites? Fighting ISIS weakens them too as it uses up their resources. And it's not like Syria and Iran are taking over anything. Apparently you haven't looked at any maps. It's Syria and Shia Iraq that have lost territory, they just want to regain what they've lost and not concede more.

You want Iran in Syria and Iraq? Hezbollah garrisoned in Syria? That's a plan alright.

The Nazis were a war machine and US corporations helped to supply the regime during much of Hitler's expansion. In a similar way, much of the US arms sales to the Arab states wind up in the hands of ISIS.

You're talking like this is a conflict from the Cold War. You don't need corporations or industry to acquire or develop, weaponize, and deliver mass casualty asymmetric weapons.

And Your last point about not having the spine to go over there and kill them. I say, feel free to volunteer your services. The army can probably use some otherwise useless idiot as canon fodder.

I called the recruiter about coming back after watching the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive. Unfortunately, I failed my last physical in the Navy in 2005 due to hearing loss after my second tour of duty in Al Basra. She said with my hearing, I'd probably just wind up as reserve augment to a watch floor in DC. Maybe they didn't want this useless idiot back.

You threw that out as if with some position of rank. I'm assuming, then, your opinions are formed from firsthand experiences in Iraq, dealing with Shiites, interrogating captured AQI, on security patrols of polling stations and pipelines, having you plane/helo shot at, or escaping an IED attack, etc. and not from just reading Atlantic articles. What was your service?

I don't believe there's a single American in the military who could be called cannon fodder.

 

[Musburger1]

Your ignorance seems to have no bounds. Iran is already in Iraq by invitation of the Iraq government. Syria and Iran or allies and Hezbollah is lending support to Assad.

As far as cannon fodder, I'll refer to the thousands of Gulf War vets exposed to chemicals in the first War whose illness has been dismissed. Then I'll mention those soldiers exposed to depleted Uranium suffering maladies. And next the thousands of men with head injuries caused by explosive trauma. Finally, the soaring number of suicides of vets that is ongoing. And yet, ignorant people as yourself continue to wave the flag even as they have no concept of the actual facts in play.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Your ignorance seems to have no bounds. Iran is already in Iraq by invitation of the Iraq government. Syria and Iran or allies and Hezbollah is lending support to Assad.

As far as cannon fodder, I'll refer to the thousands of Gulf War vets exposed to chemicals in the first War whose illness has been dismissed. Then I'll mention those soldiers exposed to depleted Uranium suffering maladies. And next the thousands of men with head injuries caused by explosive trauma. Finally, the soaring number of suicides of vets that is ongoing. And yet, ignorant people as yourself continue to wave the flag even as they have no concept of the actual facts in play.

Musburger, you need to read this thread again. I said Iran does not have the capability to defeat ISIL. I also said Iran in Iraq is a bad situation (do you disagree?). I know what's happening there. I've been there.

I'm not waving the flag. If you think I'm useless cannon fodder because I believe that our miitary is capable of defeating ISIL and, unfortunately we're the only ones who can defeat them, and that we should commit ourselves fully to defeating them because they are a clear and present danger to Americans abroad and at home, then you can call Admiral McRaven a useless idot also.

And please, don't insult me and yourself by lecturing me on what happens in and after combat. While I wasn't a real snake eater like our Marines and soldiers, I've been there. I've been shot at. I escaped an IED ambush. I had to take the anthrax vaccine and was waterboarded at SERE school. I lost aviator friends in aviation mishaps and intel friends from assassinations in the streets. You should do well to listen to veterans and their perspectives on what's worth fighting for.

 

[theiioftx]

I am thankful for heroes like 2000 and others, including family members and close friends, who defend our freedoms and safety. Also thankful they defend idiots like Musberger who bury their heads in the sand..

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm thankful to 2000 and others, but I wouldn't call Musburger an idiot. He may be misguided and overly cynical of the wrong people on some foreign policy issues, but he's not an idiot.

 

[theiioftx]

Nor is 2000 ignorant. While I am sure Mus is no idiot, he is making idiotic statements on this issue.

 

[Musburger1]

Musburger, you need to read this thread again. I said Iran does not have the capability to defeat ISIL. I also said Iran in Iraq is a bad situation (do you disagree?). I know what's happening there. I've been there.

Iran doesn't have to defeat ISIS. Think of ISIS as a cancer. As long as the cancer can feast upon living cells, it will continue to expand and grow stronger. Once there is no more source to feed on, the cancer withers and dies. In order to defeat ISIS, all those under attack need to do is stop ISIS advancement. If they can achieve than, ISIS would have to collapse. Conquest is what provides ISIS with the fuel to expand. Without that, it will shrivel and die. The ideology will still be there, but the caliphate will not be able to sustain itself.

Iraq is in the situation it is in because of our invasion in the early 2000's. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq because we were told:
1) Iraq was in collusion with Al Qaeda, and had helped train them.
2) Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons.
3) Saddam was playing a shell game with inspectors, denying them access and so forth.

The first two were flat out false, and the latter appears to be a case of Saddam wanting his neighbors to believe he did possess lethal weapons. At least that was one explanation given.

The end result of the American occupation was that the majority Shia were able to gain control of the new Iraq government and schisms within the Islamic factions came to the surface. Radical elements from other Gulf States poured into Iraq, fought the US for a while (until we made deals with some of the Sunni's to side with us against them), and later have reconstituted to join the ISIS movement. The Kurds became semi-autonomous in Northern Iraq, the Shia now control Baghdadand the South, and the rest of the country is no man's land with ISIS now in control.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, and much of the Middle East has long been a powder keg waiting for the proper catalyst to set it off. The US has provided that catalyst multiple times.

Initially, the US and Saudi Arabia supported the Mujahedin in Afghanistan for the purpose of extricating the Soviet Union from that country. In the short term, the strategy was successful, but eventually the Taliban took over the country and Al Qaeda was formed.

The invasion of Iraq by George Bush in the early 2000s would be the second catalyst which I briefly described above.

Obama's war on Libya was another major factor for the emergence of ISIS. By destabilizing the country, the radical Islamists were able to get a foothold there where they can now launch terrorist operations throughout Northern Africa.

And finally, Obama's war on Syria solidified ISIS as a viable military threat. With the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait) providing the jihadist manpower and financial backing, and the CIA collaborated with Jordan to train foreign fighters to fight against Assad, the ISIS steamroller was able to form. Turkey also sided against Assad. Although Turkey is part of NATO, it is a Muslim country and is Sunni, not Shia. The three states, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria border one another. The jihadists were able to fight in this common area and grow outward from there.

So none of the US incursions did anything to stabilize the area. In fact. all of our actions to date have only increased instability. There are reasons why the US government would choose this path. If you want to go there, we can. This post is probably enough for now.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Admiral McRaven at Goldman Sachs.

You can skip to the 8:00 mark. He really hits it home in 10:30 and at the 11:00.

Musburger, you can go on your diatribe about training other factions as allies in this fight in your other thread. I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're trying to make there. I don't agree we should completely stop. The Kurds have been very good allies to the US. But, your point about the Mujahadeen and other Shiites has merit.

But that's not what this thread is about. One of my favorite lines in Lonesome Dove is from Captain Call, "I hate rude behavior in a man,' he explained in his quiet, unassuming drawl. 'I won't tolerate it.' He politely tipped his hat, and rode away.” Fundamentally, however we approach ISIL, AQ, Boko Haram (where my position is similar and still driven by the same principles, but with a different strategy to fit the different threat) isn't about them or even the other muslims they're terrorizing. It's about us. What exactly do Americans stand for? I don't think we can be this capitalist cultural technology superpower and pretend that we can just live behind and defend our own ramparts. There's something about leaders doing the right thing because it's the right thing...even if you can't guarantee success, and even if you're vilified for it, leaders chose to do what is the right thing. It's a matter of, pardon the antiquated term, honor. It's antiquated because it is rare. And the fact there are few people with that makes it extremely admirable.

The US, whether we like it or not, are leaders in this world. We could live in a country that isn't a leader, but that country wouldn't be nearly as great a place to raise your kids. It is a burden, but sometimes, that's what being an American is about. That's what the Admiral was getting at in that interview.

Now, I don't believe we should go willy nilly into every little hotspot. I am a firm supporter of the Powell Doctrine in the rare situations (ISIL being one) when we go full kinetic and also a proponent of supporting other allies when that would be enough for success.

There is nothing false about ISIL beheading people, raping women, enslaving children. As the Chancellor says, standing up to bullies who burn people alive in your town is easier said than done. Equating ISIL to a cancer and waiting for them to die implies the consumption and death of more people who can't fight them. Cancer also spreads.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nor is 2000 ignorant.

He certainly isn't ignorant. I hope no one construed my suggestion that Musberger isn't an idiot to suggest that I thought 2000 was an idiot. He's definitely not.

 

[NJlonghorn]

If I thought that a military assault on ISIS would make things better, I'd be all for it -- cost be damned. I accept the idea that the US is a world leader and we have a moral obligation to do what we can to fix the world's worst problems. But I think a militaristic approach will make things worse, not better.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, disillusioned pre-teen in Syria. You grew up being taught to hate American, but your feelings aren't intense enough to do anything about it. Then the American military decimates your community and kills your dad, or your older brother, or a few uncles, or maybe just a bunch of family friends. Or maybe all of the above. Some or all of the dead may have been terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, but you just knew them as people in your life. A recruiter now comes into your crumbled home and asks you to join in the war against the American murderers. You sign up without batting an eye, as does every kid in your neighborhood.

I don't know what the solution is, but large-scale military involvement would be worse than doing nothing. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

 

[Musburger1]

Admiral McRaven at Goldman Sachs.

You can skip to the 8:00 mark. He really hits it home in 10:30 and at the 11:00.

Musburger, you can go on your diatribe about training other factions as allies in this fight in your other thread. I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're trying to make there. I don't agree we should completely stop. The Kurds have been very good allies to the US. But, your point about the Mujahadeen and other Shiites has merit.

But that's not what this thread is about. One of my favorite lines in Lonesome Dove is from Captain Call, "I hate rude behavior in a man,' he explained in his quiet, unassuming drawl. 'I won't tolerate it.' He politely tipped his hat, and rode away.” Fundamentally, however we approach ISIL, AQ, Boko Haram (where my position is similar and still driven by the same principles, but with a different strategy to fit the different threat) isn't about them or even the other muslims they're terrorizing. It's about us. What exactly do Americans stand for? I don't think we can be this capitalist cultural technology superpower and pretend that we can just live behind and defend our own ramparts. There's something about leaders doing the right thing because it's the right thing...even if you can't guarantee success, and even if you're vilified for it, leaders chose to do what is the right thing. It's a matter of, pardon the antiquated term, honor. It's antiquated because it is rare. And the fact there are few people with that makes it extremely admirable.

The US, whether we like it or not, are leaders in this world. We could live in a country that isn't a leader, but that country wouldn't be nearly as great a place to raise your kids. It is a burden, but sometimes, that's what being an American is about. That's what the Admiral was getting at in that interview.

Now, I don't believe we should go willy nilly into every little hotspot. I am a firm supporter of the Powell Doctrine in the rare situations (ISIL being one) when we go full kinetic and also a proponent of supporting other allies when that would be enough for success.

There is nothing false about ISIL beheading people, raping women, enslaving children. As the Chancellor says, standing up to bullies who burn people alive in your town is easier said than done. Equating ISIL to a cancer and waiting for them to die implies the consumption and death of more people who can't fight them. Cancer also spreads.

Thanks for the video. I watched the entire interview.

McRaven is the most charismatic military figure I've seen in a long time. At this point he could opt to become a top notch salesman, educator, or even politician if he so chooses. If you were going to choose a commandeer, he would be the guy because he's professional, knowledgeable, and persuasive.

Having said that, there are things in the interview I disagree with. McRaven made the argument that it is the duty of the United States to use its superior military abilities to enforce morality. He said we have the ability to do that and its the right thing to do. Obviously, a large and growing movement that advocates crucifixion, beheadings, and the like fall into the category of something that needs to be eliminated. With respect to ISIS, he admitted that ISIS does not worry him in terms of a direct threat to the United States, but that we should put boots on the ground (I'm paraphrasing) to save lives, set an example, and make a difference in the world because what happens in other places eventually effects us.

First of all, there is quite a bit of hiprocracy here if you think about it. Bottom line is that our government implements policy based on economic self interest above morality. Outside of ISIS, a few African states, and probably N.Korea, the Saudi regime is probably the worst violator of human rights on the planet. We've imposed sanctions for far less against Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and Iran. With the Saudi's, we don't have leverage because of their vast supply of petroleum reserves. So we sell them billions of dollars of weapons and they continue to export their Wahabbi teachings worldwide. When there were civil demonstrations against the Bahrain government last year, the US ignored it, the press chose to give little coverage, and the Saudi's provided weapons so that the Bahrain government could clamp down on any peaceful dissent that would threaten the Suni leadership (Just the opposite of what we saw in Ukraine where the US helped to rally dissenters in order to overthrow a government by force). We tolerate this because they agree to require anyone that purchases their oil to do so in US dollars.

Libya, unlike Saudi Arabia, did not tow the US line of selling oil in dollars. Qaddafi was no friend of America, but the country was stable and the living standards were 2nd on the continent behind only the nation of South Africa, and Libya certainly posed no security threat to the United States. In order to "help the people from Qaddafi's oppressive regime" we bombed the country to smithereens and turned Libya into a 3rd world hell hole that now has become a haven for terrorists. Since when does destroying a country and creating refugees equate to morality, making lives better, and reflect American values?

We've discussed Syria already, but its worth bringing it up again. Just as with Libya, the administration chose to justify intervention in Syria as the moral thing to do in order to bring relief to the people from Assad's oppression. I don't know how bad Assad is - probably pretty bad - but I do know that Syria, and the people who live there (or used to live there; many, no homeless, have fled) are far worse off today than before we helped bring in "moderate Muslims" to kill Assad and save the people. Not only do they still have Assad, but now they have ISIS to deal with.

McRaven did make the point that if we don't defeat ISIS, and can continue to occupy the territory afterward, ISIS isn't going anywhere. His solution is to send in a big force, take over the territory now occupied by ISIS, and then implement perpetual low-grade warfare to keep them from reconstituting. He feels like we can win over the citizenry and save lives doing this and that its part of our obligation as Americans. This is totally opposite of what Thomas Jefferson and most of the Constitutional founders advocated.

With respect to ISIS, I disagree with his viewpoint. While I do agree that we should continue to strike them from the air, I think letting the Shia Iraq army from the South, Syria from North, and Lebanon(Hezbollah) contain them is a better strategy because ISIS will eventually bleed to death when they can no longer advance. In all due respect, America's primary duty is to this Americans. And while there are no doubt innocent victims in Iraq, I'm tired of hearing about soldiers committing suicide, have limbs amputated, and addicted to drugs. And just about every recent intervention we've taken part of has only worsened, not helped, the living standards of the populace. Afghanistan now produces more heroine than they ever did before. Even Karzai, a former US puppet, wants us out of the country.

McRaven's point of intervention may make more sense with respect to Africa. Unlike in Syria/Iraq, I dont' think the surrounding countries in Africa are as well equipped to stop Boko Harum type expansion as are the Shia surrounding ISIS.

But in one sense McRaven may be correct when it comes to a policy of intervention all over the globe. The United States has morphed into a type of empire. We are not energy independent anymore and never will be again. As such, if the government wishes to maintain the status quo, or at least prolong it, we probably do have to intervene throughout the globe or the system would implode. Rome operated this way in the end and kept it going several centuries. Now we live in a nuclear age, and the stakes are higher for all humanity. I don't think the American empire - and yes, it really is a type of empire - will last as long. If not, that doesn't necessarily mean everything has to go to hell.