Nigerian Taliban goes nuts kills scores.

[Valmy]

That is half the problem though - people who exaggerate the problem way out of scale in order to conclude that it is hopeless and we cannot possibly do anything, so why bother?

Perhaps we are talking past each other.  How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam?  We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.

[Berkut]

That is half the problem though - people who exaggerate the problem way out of scale in order to conclude that it is hopeless and we cannot possibly do anything, so why bother?

Perhaps we are talking past each other.  How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam?  We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.

I don't think that is the problem the author is talking about.

He is talking about intervening in places like Darfur or Nigeria or even Georgia. Hell, even Iraq is a great example - that has actually turned out relatively well, and look how certain everyone was that it was utterly hopeless.

Most people a few years ago were saying that not only was Iraq managed amazingly badly, even if it had been managed well it was still utterly hopeless. Funny, even with the horrendously bad execution, it has still turned out much better than most thought even possible.

[Valmy]

Hell, even Iraq is a great example - that has actually turned out relatively well, and look how certain everyone was that it was utterly hopeless.

Most people a few years ago were saying that not only was Iraq managed amazingly badly, even if it had been managed well it was still utterly hopeless. Funny, even with the horrendously bad execution, it has still turned out much better than most thought even possible.

I think the Jury is still out on that one Berkut.  There are reasons for optimism but we still have yet to see if the thing can hold together once we leave.

What I mostly heard from people is that the place will eventually come under control of another strong man...and that certainly could happen yet.  Obviously the people saying the war would start the next global Jihad were simply nutters.

But how is it a great example?  The costs in blood and treasure and political capital have been very high.  Further it split the Western alliance badly.  It seems to suggest that an enormous commitment is required for something not to go the way of Somalia.  It does not strike me as something easily repeatable.

Of course every operation is different and nothing we do in the future will look anything like Iraq, and further it was not even an intervention in the traditional sense.  The sort of intervention the second article was talking about is not going in and overthrowing governments and so forth like the Iraq operation consisted of.

I don't think that is the problem the author is talking about.

Alrighty there are two articles being discussed in this thread.  Strix was responding to me talking to Tim about the first article about the business in Nigeria.  That did not strike me as something worth invading over.  We were not talking about the second article which was about the end of interventionism which is what you are talking about.

[Savonarola]

Perhaps we are talking past each other.  How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam?  We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.

Like we would need to import killers from overseas.     Our domestic industry works just fine.

[Berkut]

That is just it - the cost in blood and treasure in Iraq was not that high, compared to the resources of the West. It was pretty expensive for the US to bear, but could have been very easily handled if the West had worked together.

And it splitting the Western Alliance is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The reason it split the alliance is that the West has lost its balls to do anything, and would rather just sit back and whine and bitch rather than act, and even if someone DOES act, they make it as expensive and painful as possible. But these are consequences of the disease, not consequences of the action itself.

[The Brain]

What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?

[Berkut]

What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?

Not a thing. Isolationism has a long and successful track record throughout Western history.

[The Brain]

What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?

Not a thing. Isolationism has a long and successful track record throughout Western history.

Indeed. We scrambled out of Africa for a reason.