ISIS is now clearly the most dangerous foe America, no, the world has ever faced. More dangerous than Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army,
worse than the Soviets or the Nazis, worse than Darth Vader and the entire intergalactic empire. You should fear them.
This is all coming not from me, but from the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. He's gonna lay out in a video that you're about to see how dangerous they are and what we should do to contain them, if it's even possible.
"They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. This is beyond anything that we've seen, so we must prepare for everything.
And the only way you do that is you take a cool, steely, hard look at it and get ready."
They've trained with Slytherin and they are coming for us. So it's very dangerous, obviously, he's very concerned about it, but it's not just Chuck Hagel.
There have been a number of members of what used to be the organized neocons back during the last Iraq War like they're coming out of the woodwork again to hype up the threat of ISIS and get us ready, perhaps for a large scale military intervention.
- Wait, wait. Neocons are trying to fearmonger about a terrorist group. - They're trying a new tactic. - That's weird. - Yeah. - OK.
Now here's a twist in this story, and this is where it gets interesting. He's a little bit right.
- Yeah, he is. This isn't like Dianne Feinstein saying there are terrorists out there with bombs, really big bombs. - Big bombs. - Yeah. - They go boom.
There is some legitimacy to what he's saying, but the question is what should be the US's reaction be to it.
- OK, so no one has an answer to that except for one person. And you're looking at it.
- I have an answer. - Please. So I was listening to radio earlier today and one of the hosts asked one of the commentators / experts like "So, what should we do?" And she literally went "Ummm, yeah."
OK? And then she was like "Oh, it's complicated, it's nuanced, I don't know", right?
So, OK. We're gonna do John's ideas first and I'll do mine in a second, but first, look, all kidding aside, the reason why they're so dangerous - and remember, Hagel barely voted for the Iraq War, he's a Republican,
he was a Republican senator, right? But he's like "This is not a good idea. But like all other times, I'm gonna vote with Bush anyway", OK? So it's not like Hagel and Obama wanna go back into Iraq.
Historically, they have not wanted to go there. They had a funny way of showing it sometimes, obviously, right? So they're not part of the neocons. The neocons are pushing in that direction and this is manna from heaven for them.
"Oh, a really bad guy that's taking over territory, terrific". Now, the real reason why they're bad:
Al-Qaeda did not have territory. OK, now think about how important this is, OK?
So they had to constantly be asking people for things: "Hey, Taliban in Afghanistan, can we just kinda like hang out on your couch for a while?"
"Hey, rich Saudi dudes, can we grab a couple of million or billion off of you, so we can conduct our affairs?"
Now, ISIS at this point has territory. And not only it doesn't have to ask for permission, it's its own boss, right? Not only do they have territory, they have resources, infrastructure and permanent level resources because they have oil,
they took over banks, they have cold, hard cash, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, alright? So they don't need to ask anybody for anything. And they're going old Mongo style, so they're not doing the beheadings on YouTube
and the amputations on Twitter by accident, it's by design, it is to intimidate the locals twofold, intimidate the locals trying to resist them to the point where like the Mongos did in the old days where people just bowed their heads
"Hey, whatever you do, don't chop my head off, OK, you win, you win". Remember, they went into Mosul with only 800 guys and they beat an army with 30000, partly because the Iraqi army was scared out of their minds
and then secondly, its victory begets victory. And they've already gotten a lot of victories. So now they're gettin' Muslims for so long - even if they wanted to be radicalized, obviously this doesn't apply to 99% of Muslims.
But for the people who are angry and wanted to do something and fight the West and fight the power, but in a violent way, they really had no realistic outlet. You can go blow yourself up with al-Qaeda, but what was that gonna do?
You knew that you weren't gonna win. With ISIS, they have won. They have won battles, they have won territory, they have wiped out a border. They now control land in Syria and Iraq, so it is gathering up Muslims who were ready to be radicalized -
again, it's a small number, but it's a pretty decent-sized army when you gather up those people, 'cause even the smallest percentage of Sunni Muslims can get you a big number.
So now and they grow and they grow, so it is a real issue.
- So going back to the comment you made about locals joining ISIS because of that intimidation and that fear, how much of it is also attributed to the fact that - you know - the locals might be disillusioned or - you know - upset with US foreign policy.
So in a lot of ways our response to terrorism - you know, internationally - is also helping ISIS's cause.
- So, a couple of important notes there. First of all, a lot of the former Iraqi military, including high-leveled trained officers, have joined ISIS now.
They did not join other forces earlier, they are only joining now because victory begets victory and they're excited and they're like "We're winning! I'm in, I'm in.", OK? Those guys used to be secular.
They're now with a group so radical al-Qaeda disowns them. And why is that? Because we blundered into Iraq, but let's review the really important facts here.
Before we went into Iraq, no connection to al-Qaeda. Now we have a group worse than al-Qaeda that has a significant chunk of Iraq
and has the former Iraqi military, a lot of its top commanders with them. It is a debacle of epic proportions. I'm not just saying that it's not a hyperbole. It is a historic mistake what we did in Iraq. We have created something worse than al-Qaeda and now it has accumulated power.
- Look, that's the main reason that I was mocking Chuck Hagel, I didn't mean to imply that he was allied with the neocons from the last time around. But when he talks about how big of a threat they are and how we need to take a steely look at it and do something,
well then, what is that supposed to lead us to do beyond the limited number of troops that we've sent back to Iraq and the airstrikes that we've been conducting in north and north-west Iraq?
Does it mean we go back in? That seems like sort of a silly solution to a problem that was caused by us going in in the first place.
And stimulating al-Qaeda activity, stimulating the growth and development of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was then defeated and then created ISIS, that's a ridiculous course of action and that's why what Chuck Hagel is saying there is kind of laughable.
I think you could be right in what you're saying but I do disagree with a couple of parts. I think that right now the reason that they have the support - you know, that people are like sort of allying with themselves because of the victory -
is not that people support at all what they say religiously, I don't think they support the religious fundamentalism in Iraq, it's just that they've been disenfranchised for so long that they think "Well, look, it seems like they can possibly take over."
and you know, they're Sunnis as well and so a lot will ally with them. And while as you say possessing the territory does bring with it some advantages, in some cases oil, though the parts of Iraq that they possessed are not the richest in terms of oil reserves,
they now also have a massive responsibility to a huge number of people and when they can't actually provide for them, when they are starved out by the international community and even the limited amount of oil that they're able to drill might not be able to be sold internationally,
which is - you know - that's an open question, then I think their inability to - I guess provide for the expectations that the Sunnis that have now allied with them, I think that that could long-term cause them major problems.
And they have won some battles, I'm not gonna say that they haven't won any, but sending in 800 people like we portray it as them defeating the Iraqi army there, but they didn't. The Iraqi army fled because they had no interest in defending the territory
when they've actually fought in our organized military force like in north Iraq where we've just trounced them with our airstrikes and things like that, they don't have the experience to stand against an organized army. - No, no, no, I disagree on several fronts.
I agree in some parts. So when they were winning with 800 guys in Mosul, yes, the Iraqi army ran, part of the reason is they don't care about that area, we talked about that a lot,
but the other part of the reason is because the strategy of ISIS worked, which was scaring the bejesus out of them. So that's why they literally stripped down and threw away their uniforms on the highway as they were running out of town, OK?
That means "I am scared, I gotta get out of here!", OK? That strategy worked. Second of all, they actually have won a major battle, they won against the Peshmerga. That's what scared the bejesus out of us. It wasn't just that we wanted to save the Yazidi,
we were like "Holy sh*t, the Kurdish Peshmerga with their militia, which is supposed to be bad*ss just got their *ss kicked by ISIS." That's when we were like "Send in the jets.", OK? So they lost to us because we have fighter jets and they were sittin' at the bottom of the mountain
exposed, so of course they were gonna lose in that situation, we have a massive advantage there, but once we go on the ground, we lose that advantage.
The answer is not going back in, we all agree with that. In fact, the fact that we bombed them is what has led them to both direct violence and threat of further violence against us.
Like, everybody always is like "ISIS", as if they attacked us. We have to remember like "I got". Obviously, we all hate ISIS, they're the most barbaric people we've seen in a long, long time.
But let's be accurate. We attacked them first. Now they're attacking our allies and by the way our enemies. They were fighting against Bashar al-Assad. Now were such in panic, we're like "Maybe we should help the dictator Assad who killed all those people in Syria", right?
Like, 'cause we're so scared of ISIS now, right? But we bombed them first when they were trying to kill the Yazidi and I'm glad we bombed them. I think we were right to bomb them. But we did bomb them first.
Then they beheaded James Foley, which still turns my stomach, when I think about it, and they say now - they put out a statement saying: "Oh, by the way, you'll wash yourself in your own blood. That's what we're gonna do to you, 'cause we're coming."
So then that sets everybody here in a panic, that gets the neocons all excited like "Yes, another disastrous war that will only lead to more death and destruction." So what's the answer?
Now we know how bad it is. There's gotta be an answer and the answer is in ground troops. You want to take a crack out of it? Or was that your own - OK, I think we can pretty much just box up local police departments, we're already armed for war, send them to Iraq, they're ready to go.
- That's a really good idea. - Soon it will be "general go f*ck yourself". - So that's not such a bad idea. OK, look, two things. One we'll not be able to accomplish, unfortunately: I think that doing a decapitation strike on al-Baghdadi, their leader, is the correct path.
It might be - now they killed Foley, he's an American citizen, you might have some legal justification for - before we would have no legal justification for it - I know, Obama doesn't care at all, but if I was president, I might have pushed that button anyway, and then resign, saying
"I killed him, I shouldn't have killed him, it was an extrajudicial killing, ISIS never attacked us, but I had to do it and I'll see you guys later", OK?
Now, it doesn't matter - OK, they killed Foley, it's a good enough excuse to go get him, right? Because al-Baghdadi, their leader, is really, really smart, OK? Now, that sucks for us. We haven't had an adversary this capable in a long, long time.
But they will not be able to carry on without him in the ways that they are. Now the problem is: what happened to the CIA? We used to have spies. Remember all those movies where we go into the KGB in Russia and we do this and we do a poison pen and the guy is dead and we win and -
where the hell are they, right? This is when we need the CIA. Get the f*ck inside ISIS. It's chaos there anyway, we don't have a single Muslim American guy who can be brave enough to get in there. I've always been shocked that we couldn't get inside al-Qaeda enough to
kill Zawahiri and bin Laden. Eventually we would kill bin Laden, but from the outside, right? But you gotta get somebody inside, you gotta find Baghdadi. Now, I don't think they're capable of doing that.
So, then you got to - you know - pursue the second strategy. I would do both strategies. I would do a massive humanitarian effort in the region. Now, I know, the neocons in the world and the mainstream media are gonna go "How naive, this liberal's gonna hand out roses, you're such an idiot."
No, I just told you, for God's sake, kill their leader. Otherwise we're screwed and this is gonna grow and grow. No, they're winning in a bizarre way hearts and minds or ripping their hearts and minds out, right?
We've gotta go in there and be overwhelmingly good to the point where people go "Wait a minute now, why do we go with the beheading, guys? When these guys every time my hand got hurt, US guys showed up, doctors showed up.
Every time my kid needed a book, US guys showed up and gave him a book, right? Every time I needed something, the US was here for me. So like the Yazidi on top of that mountain with ISIS, you see, we already know it works. When US airplanes started flying over Mt. Sinjar,
for the first time in anybody's memory, somebody in the Middle East looked up at an American airplane and said "Thank God, the Americans are here."
If we could get the Middle East - and it's a long project - but if we can get the Middle East to say "Thank God, the Americans are here", which by the way they used to say during the Marshall plan, that's how we got to have this great brand of America and freedom and hope and opportunity,
'cause we actually delivered that after World War Two, we built up our enemies Germany and Japan, they're our top allies now, we built up Turkey, we built up Greece, we did the Marshall plan and it worked.
It was the most liberal thing in the world, it was the most practical thing in the world. It turned the whole world in favor of us instead of against us. So, we gotta endanger our lives, we gotta spend a lot of money, we gotta do whatever we gotta do to make sure that when ISIS comes, people go
"God d*mn it, I hope the Americans help."
And not help by bombing us from the sky indiscriminately, but actually help. - Yeah, I think that that could totally work so long as we also put massive pressure on the Iraqi government to distribute political power more equitably.
The gifts and everything, that definitely could help for economic growth and things like that, but if they still see the Iraqi government as inherently their enemies as opposed to potentially their saviors, I don't think that in the long-term it could do enough.
- And be practical, so not just have the Iraqi government work with all the different Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds and all the different sects, but honestly, realistically, probably break up the country. It's already broken up between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
Be realistic about it. And we already headed in that direction, 'cause we basically told the Kurds "OK, handle it", right? And we're gonna help you handle it and instead of giving military equipment to the Iraqi government which then comes to you we're just gonna give it directly to you.
Once we made that decision, it was already over, we had already decided Iraq is gonna get split up. 'Cause we're not going through the Iraqi central government anymore. I agree with that as well. So there's a lot of elements to this that you gotta do right.
'Cause I don't think we're gonna get Baghdadi, I think they're gonna grow, I think they're gonna be a fearsome force and I'm really afraid of what happens next if they get beyond Iraq and Syria. Those two countries are in chaos.
If they go to a third country that is not currently in chaos and create that chaos, then we're off to the races and we do really have a massive problem. And then if our neocons react by bombing them, meaning "Oops, we bombed a lot of your civilians, too",
you're only gonna help them. You're gonna help them and then we're really f*cked, right? - Or if they get too hungry, if they get too overambitious and they start to push it to the borders of a more organized, more structurely sound country like Saudi Arabia or in Iran,
they could find themselves up against a military that they can't take out with their gorilla tactics that have worked in Iraq. - Well, we're gonna test out my theory about whether al-Baghdadi is as smart as I think he is.
'Cause you go to Iran and you're gonna reap the whirlwind, OK? Iran is a giant country with a significant military, they're Shiite, they don't like you anyway, because ISIS is Sunni. If you go into Turkey, it's a NATO country and they have a giant army
I mean, look, if you pull NATO in, it might actually help you in some ways, but you're messing with a really strong force. Saudi Arabia is full of sh*t, they can't fly those jets. They buy all this military equipment from the US, they don't know what they're doing with it.
If they go into Saudi Arabia, they will make massive advances fairly quickly. When they do, we will go in, guns blazing. You think Israel's our top ally? You think Britain's our top ally? Canada? No, it's Saudi Arabia. They're the ones that provide the oil, that's why we let them get away with murder, sometimes literally.
Sometimes 9/11. If they go into Saudi Arabia, we will go in guns blazing, we'll be back in the Middle East with ground troops and then we fell right into their trap.
Now they turn to all the Sunnis in the Middle East go "See, here's the Americans again. And they wanna take your Holy Land from you. They're gonna occupy Saudi Arabia. They're gonna occupy Mecca.
My God, the Americans are here, all the Sunnis in the world unite. Look, we already beat them, we're already halfway to Mecca. You're gotta help us."
Whoever was gonna get radicalized gets radicalized and we're in the middle of a sh*tstorm we haven't seen in a long, long time.