Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
My point was more that ISIS is doing things that are happening in other parts of the world as well. So is ISIS the only one worth stopping? Or shouldn't we try and stop them all?
|
I would say it's a cost benefit analysis - where can good be done for the lowest losses. Let's not get into that silly "I can't feasibly donate 100% of my salary to charity so I'll donate none" line of reasoning.
Quote:
|
There's also the catch: Intervening in the Middle East in any way is likely to be a spectacular failure barring a permanent intervention of establishing bases over there again. As we just saw, when the West leaves it's just gonna go to #### again. We went to Afghanistan to beat the Taliban, and after the yeas and money wasted... the Taliban is likely to be running it again in some form soon. It was a staggering waste of money. , it always is when the West gets involved.
|
This may be true, or there may be better ways of going about it. Suggesting that any intervention, however structured, in an area vaguely continguous to previous interventions will necessarily produce the same results is clearly an oversimplification. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're right and there's just no military or peacekeeping option there that's worth the cost right now, but I'm not sure that's true and if it is it certainly can't be true forever.
But I didn't claim to have a solution; I just think that in the hypothetical situation where we were confident that we
could intervene to some effect, that I'd have a hard time saying, "that's just not our problem".