At least he is discussing a strategy for victory; rather than a strategy for "degrading" or "containing" or merely putting out a few press releases and photo ops for distribution by an incurious press. The current strategy is accomplishing its goal: If you don't actually do anything, then no one can accuse you of having done anything.

France's bombing of ISIS headquarters, training camp, etc. indicates that our bombing efforts are purposely being rendered ineffective by Obama.

No proof but how else do you explain it. I know, "Come on Bob!".

But explain it for me please.

Part and parcel of ISIS success comes from gaining and then holding land: they have become a state, and more than a few of the organizations pledging their loyalty did so because of this.

They've looted banks and other monetary repositories along the way, and are also selling oil on the black market. Money that funds their efforts.

It also gives them space to train. That right there is reason enough to flatten them where they are. Yes, you're right, that won't stop the wannabees in cyberspace from carrying out an attack.

But they will be poorly trained, will not have effective leadership, and will not be nearly as able to carry out a coordinated attack.

If they want to be a state, force them to spend blood and money defending it. And the more ISIS members who get turned into blood pudding in the middle east means fewer that are available to attack in other places.

There is a reason that Isis never gained traction when the US held Iraq.

They never had a safe space for training camps, and the money and logistical support to maintain them.

All the internet presence in the world goes nowhere if you don't have a secure geographical area to train, and arm your volunteers.

And the financial means to move them to intended targets with the weapons and support they need to do a lot of damage.

You know what is far less effective than going after them militarily?

Wringing your hands, and railing about radical Islam, and cyberspace as the problems....

IRA-DA and Isab have it right I think, we have to fight them where they are. That means in Syria and Iraq and wherever in "conventional" military ways, and just bombs from planes or drones probably won't do it. It also means more local counter-terrorism and intelligence work, since no doubt they are here too.

So the NY times thinks a military response is a reasonable reaction to terrorist attacks?

Just four days ago they had a years long tradition of condemning the US and Israel for holding that same position.

"Just four days ago they had a years long tradition of condemning the US and Israel for holding that same position." lujlp

Oh, don't worry... once this gets real, they will be back to condemnation... the fact that France is responding by pounding ISIS CCC ... will cause the condemnation is approximately a week or so, as I've read elsewhere with a ruefull headshake... and I believe it will happen, just that way.

Right now they won't criticize France for retaliating, but that is coming. From not only the NYT but probably every other news outlet.

:shrug: this is hard, because it is guerrilla war, where the "other side" is difficult to find. Sure, it'd be handy to retake Iraq, for everyone. But, the small attacks will continue, because that's how it works.

I say retaking Iraq, but it's not like that will not be a nightmare, because there are regional powers that certainly want ISIS Daesh to keep it unstable...

Many don't wish to look at it this way, but the withdrawal of all troops in Iraq was a sign of weakness to everyone in theater... and as with other places you have to go fight it again, because they were stupid. Afghanistan will be the same if we walk away.

This is why you don't START land wars in asia... like the tiger, it's as hard to hold on, as to let go.

You misunderstand the nuanced position of the NY Times Lujlp. Attacks on left wing targets calls for a military response. Killing of anyone else calls for a strongly worded letter.

Also, the on-line jihadis may have a bigger problem: Anonymous has declared war on ISIS.

Whoops.

Well, bombing the fuck out of ISIS might discourage potential new recruits. Job safety would be a major issue, and there's no retirement.

"At least he is discussing a strategy for victory;"

No, he's not. That's not a strategy for victory, that's a strategy for endless war in the armpit of humanity.

He and his "solution" are a good example of what you get when you have civilians talking abut starting wars. It's all so simple for them, and anyway they have no actual skin in the game.

"IRA-DA and Isab have it right I think, we have to fight them where they are. "

Yep. They are on the internet. that's where they recruit, and without recruits they will collapse.We also have to rub out their bases in Iraq and Syria, and that's out airstrikes and Kurdish ground troops.

"At least he is discussing a strategy for victory;"

No, he's not. That's not a strategy for victory, that's a strategy for endless war in the armpit of humanity.

He and his "solution" are a good example of what you get when you have civilians talking abut starting wars. It's all so simple for them, and anyway they have no actual skin in the game.

"IRA-DA and Isab have it right I think, we have to fight them where they are. "

Yep. They are on the internet. that's where they recruit, and without recruits they will collapse.We also have to rub out their bases in Iraq and Syria, and that's out airstrikes and Kurdish ground troops.

"So, no, bombing the fuck out of ISIS will not stop terrorism."

Correct. Killing them all does. Open season. No Gitmos. Shot on site. One kills savages, there is no other way.

@Jim: I said that at least he was talking about victory, not that the strategy proposed wasn't crap. It is - I hope - significant that a Progressive with the NYT is considering that we should figure out how to win, and not proposing a jobs program, as the solution to dealing with ISIS. (However, I wouldn't be surprised if Cohen soon reverts to type and proposes an ISIS studies program for colleges).

Operation Wrath of God. It is not pretty, it is not PC and innocents often get killed unintentionally. Eliminating savages in not easy nor pretty. They are at war with us, we do not want this war.

There's a three-pronged strategy that needs to be pursued. I see the first two being talked about in isolation; no one's talking about the third one. They are:

1. We have to fight ISIS where they are, and we have to commit to total war in order to do it. A lot of people will object to this because it will be ugly and brutal and things that happen will shock people. Well, unfortunately, that's what war is. And we are fighting an enemy that has no respect for the morals of "civilized" war under which Western nations have engaged in the past. We cannot let their tactics stop us, but this means collateral damage until they realize that those tactics aren't working any more.

2. We must be secure in our own borders. Europe has just shown us what happens when we aren't.

3. We must have a rigorous intellectual and moral defense of the values of Western civilization. This may be the hardest part, because it is where our ruling-elite intelligentsia is working for the other side. We must promote Westernism and convince people, both in the West and elsewhere, that Western civilization is better than Islamic theocracy. (And we have to base it on something other than just "the West has more bling".)