ISIS may not be the panic-worthy threat that Lindsay Graham is wetting himself over. Still, they are damned awful, and the US has decided to get involved in attacking them.
But I have trouble taking seriously the bluster of US politicians--the President included--about attacking ISIS, when I read stuff like this:
[I]f ISIL is making $3 million per day [through smuggling oil from wells in areas it controls, and extortion of populations it dominates]—at the higher end of the various estimates out there—then it makes slightly more than $1 billion per year. Just to be conservative, in case ISIL is doing more business than we’re aware of, let’s double that to $2 billion per year. …
There is little that outside forces can do to halt the extortion and skimming that take place within ISIL territory. Oil smuggling, though, can be disrupted, at least to an extent. Intelligence resources from the United States, Iraq and any other country that takes on ISIL should be focused on identifying middlemen and buyers for the smuggled fuel and using any means necessary to halt those purchases.
It would be counterproductive to destroy oil field infrastructure, since repairs would be expensive and legitimate governments will need those oil revenues when they reestablish control. But mobile refineries should be targeted, and roads and other pathways that tanker trucks use to transport oil to and from oil fields should be made impassable by military means. The refineries and roads can be easily repaired when the time comes, but for now, ISIL should find it very difficult to move oil from fields.
Emphasis added. More over the fold.
The author seems to think that ISIS is a nuisance that will eventually be cleared up, allowing "legitimate government" to return. For my part, I think oil wells make perfect stationary targets for US aircraft, and passively letting ISIS have $1 billion in revenue per year guarantees prolonging ISIS' existence, delaying the day that "legitimate government"--whatever that term means in the Middle East--can reestablish control.
So if someone tells me that the US wants to "degrade" and "destroy" ISIS without putting US boots on the ground, I want the government and military to go on record about why we don't attack ISIS in the pocketbook first.
If the President and the war hawks want to make the tactical or strategic case for this approach, have at it. Preservation of Iraqi property captured by ISIS means nothing to me; preservation of US blood and treasure does.
A note, too, about arming Syrian "good guy" rebels. I am pleased Sen. Warren voted against that particular clusterfuck; I wish more had joined her.
Over the past 35 years, the US has a terrible record in deciding who its friends should be in the Middle East.
The CIA deciding to arm Osama bin Ladin against the Soviets in Afghanistan is Exhibit A in the history of the US doing a bad job of picking friends in that part of the world, but the list goes on.
Supporting the return of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979.
Supporting Saddam during the Reagan administration.
Selling arms to Iran to free hostages and illegally fund the Contras during the Reagan administration.
Relying on Afghan Northern Alliance and Pakistani allies to secure the border over which bin Ladin escaped when the US assaulted Afghanistan post-9/11.
Training an incompetent Iraqi army and providing them arms for ISIS to steal.
And with friends like our Saudi allies who needs enemies?