Ms. Cheney: Declare war!

Just a simple question...where does it end? The Middle East isn't the only place where genocide and slaughter are common practice. ISIS isn't the only emergent threat to stability and peace. Are we going to "fix" Africa next...how about Mexico? It's considered "conventional wisdom" that you cannot win these kinds of wars from the air alone, and (in my opinion) the U.S. is unlikely to ever use nuclear weapons for any situations short of a retaliatory, or preemptive strike against another nuclear aggressor. That means putting people on the ground...who are those people? Our infantry forces are undermanned (according to last July's numbers), and our special operations forces are (according to all recent reports) running thin too. The DOD is throwing money in the form of bonuses, and re-vamping training requirements (much to the concern of some in the special operations community) to keep up...without apparent movement of the needle. Meanwhile, defense contractors are raking in billions (if not trillions)...with so many peripheral streams of revenue; "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" is beginning to sound like an anthem. The VA's already a quagmire...and (forgive me for stating what I feel in my heart of hearts) becoming as bloated and mismanaged as any other "welfare" program.

So what DO we do?

As I've stated elsewhere; one option would be total war-Deploy in force with minimal to no "rules of engagement", and crush radical Islamic ideology into the dust so that it will be another millennia before it rears its head again. Obviously, we won't/can't do that. Another option would be to demand NATO and other allies do their part-Exactly what is our leverage at this point? A third (admittedly unpopular) option would be a treaty with the Russian Federation towards military cooperation. They have friends, we have friends...they control one neighborhood, we control the other. Trouble is, no one wants to support a corrupt, pseudo-dictatorship with a strong anti-progressive culture, and imperial nostalgia just because it "makes sense" in many economic and strategic ways.

Then, there's the fourth option (and maybe the "third rail"); we can make a decision based on rhetoric and "feelings" (not to mention profit)...and throw our weight in on the side of the Kurds. Remember when we supported the Mujahideen? Anyone really believe the Kurds aren't just as capable of transitioning from freedom fighters to radical terrorists? What about when the British fought the Turks back in WWI? How did that "Arab League" thing turn out? We (meaning the West) keep trying to "fix" this region by backing the underdogs...thing is, underdogs often have a mean bite, and find it hard to forgive those who kicked them.

My vote is that we do this one in the board room, not the battlefield. Putin has an axe to grind with Turkey; NATO is worried about Putin (and Kurdish exiles coming to Europe); we want to protect the Kurds. Let's get all the "big kids" on the block on one side...Erdogan will play nice in the sandbox.

Maybe her dad still has his hands in that KBR honeypot.

If you want us there, vote for War!