I enjoyed the article's historical detail, although I am not sure that exiting the Middle East would result in "peace in our time", so to speak. I admit I find it somewhat reminiscent of Churchill's conceding Czechoslovakia to Hitler in WWII. While the aggression of the Muslim radicals may well be directed at the US due to intervention, it is not therefore obvious that a lack of intervention would lead to a more propitious result. As Herb says, it is madness - not rationality - with which we are dealing. As such, we cannot simply remove a cause and expect the result to be a measurable improvement. Of course, we want to avoid a third world war. And I appreciate that sentiment. However, it cannot mean that we abandon allies in the region, who, for example, develop stem cell treatments, novel chip packaging technologies, and state-of-the-art defense applications.

Well, it is very confusing to me. We try to do right
over there, and then find that the side we thought
was right is also doing evil. Mainly, I think it would
be best to stay out of it. It seem that when one of
those nations overthrows a dictator, it just gets a
worse one. But we have been attacked. And
possibly may be again. We have to be on our
guard. And that may possibly be a reason to be
involved in what goes on over there. And it
looks like Israel is the only ally we can really
count on.

Ironically, the victory of the Greeks at Marathon may have been one of the worst things to happen to Western civilization. A Persian victory would have resulted in the spread of Zoroastrianism as the primary religion (although the Persians were more accommodating to other religions than Islam), and the installation of an efficient bureaucracy. There's an interesting alternate history thread!

That makes no sense.
We all need protection from evil.

India has them as well.

And let's not forget that due to Obama's deal with Iran, they'll have them in <10 now.

But, when you come right down to it, all wars are tinged with insanity. Even if you are against a particular war, you may be forced into it in order to defend yourself.

Thanks.

sometimes I think of this Gulch as Sturm and Drang :)

So we should hate any Muslim and treat them as 'dirt beneath our mighty feet' is what I gather you think.

LolLol.

Robert; Excellent observations. The only thing I would add is that I personally convinced that the US directly and covertly pushes the 'Arab Spring'. But the most important issue is that we have entered into the fringes of an interminable state of war with an enemy that we have to create, motivate, and arm.

Welcome. I figured it was a good historical illustration of Mideast religious madness predating Islam.

Making sense.
One problem is that Americans have never dealt with an enemy so deeply steeped in irrationality. They really believe, in their ignorance that a glorious heaven awaits them. After all, it must be better to die for Allah, since this world is so covered in shit for them.

Thanks for the elucidation. As I recall, Tamerlane (Timur e leng) used pretty much the same tactics. When the problem was the stubbornness of the town to capitulate He merely raided the town, captured some leaders and decapitated them trabucheting the heads into the town. They go the message. Ah yes, those were the good old days. It saved him the expense in men, horses and weapons. How similar ISIS is to the ancient warriors.

Definitely no refugees and no money to support them or rescue them

We shouldn't take sides - destroy all who are defending fanatical Islam; i.e. stand on a principle, not on who we might pragmatically prefer at any point in time. They won't come here if we don't provide the opportunity; e.g. Syria refugees.

Maybe I can help out a bit here. I've read several biographies on Alexander The Great and even have a few in my home library. I'm not home right now and won't be for a couple of months or I'd supply which biography this story came from. Here's the story:

Just before Alexander was to embark on his Eastern campaign to India two religious factions within the area we call Iraq opened hostilities against each other (think Shiite vs Sunni today - also recall Babylon was his capitol at the time). A religious civil war behind him would disrupt supply lines to his army so he had to crush the problem asap. He picked a town where hostilities had broken out and sent representatives demanding the priests of both factions meet him in his camp outside the town. When the priests arrived they tried to persuade Alexander to take their respective side against the other. Alexander had other plans. He had the priests of both sides put into a cage and had it placed on a high hill overlooking the town. At daybreak he sent in his army with orders to kill every man, woman, child, and every animal that walked or crawled. The army was allowed to loot what they wanted, the rest was piled in the center of the town and burned. Then the rest of the town was burned. After nearly a week of slaughter and torch, he then released the priests and told them to go to their followers in other towns and tell them what has happened here and any town that was not at peace will meet the same fate. He had no more trouble.

There's something else missing. The root or seeds of violence are based on the writings in the Koran itself. Contrary to the propaganda that even our leaders have swallowed is that Islam is a religion of peace. Perhaps among some muslims. But the Koran mandates conquest of the world by peaceful or violent means. We hear it from the muslims themselves. There is no "I'm okay, you're okay."

So Isis represents the SUNNI side of the religious war over there. We backed Shiite side against saddam who was Sunni. So the defeated Sunnis formed Isis. Now we fight the Isis . I say wait for them to come here

Nonsense. Iran declared war in 1979 when they bombed our embassy. And they have since been the greatest supporter of terrorism throughout the M.E. The ideology of all terrorist regimes is what we need to fear, not merely "stirring them up."