“The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence.”

by Joe Scarry

I’ve predicted that ISIS is one of two topics that presidential candidates are going to have to address in the 2016 election cycle. (The other isBlackLivesMatter.)

(See What Will Dominate Election 2016? (ANSWER: ISIS and #BlackLivesMatter) )

Since I wrote that, I’ve been researching and thinking about the intricacies of the places that, in the 20th century, had names like Iraq and Syria (and Jordan and Lebanon and Israel and Turkey and . . . ).

It’s fascinating to become absorbed in the complexity.

But today it occurred to me that the solution is probably simple.  So simple, in fact, that we can’t see it even though it is staring us in the face.

“I’ll bet . . . . ” said I to myself, “I’ll bet you can find a hundred articles on alternative ways to deal with ISIS — ways that don’t involve military attacks or other violence — if you just go and Google it.”

Is it possible that the starting point is to say,

“The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence.”


Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you’ve got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

So this will be an ongoing post — we’ve got a lot of election 2016 left to go — dedicated to the proposition that, “The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence.” I’ll fill in the details periodically.

With the help of Google.

Starting today.

July 31, 2015

See “ISIS: Nonviolent Resistance?” by Eli S. McCarthy in the Huffington Post, March 9, 2015.

Related posts

It will be the 2016 presidential election that will provide the main form of entertainment and distraction to the U.S. populace between now an the end of next year. An enormous amount of political fluff will fill our lives — pushing aside, I suppose, vast amounts of sports fluff and shopping fluff and celebrity fluff and — well, you get the point.

(See What Will Dominate Election 2016? (ANSWER: ISIS and #BlackLivesMatter) )

Isn’t “adviser” just another word for “pre-escalation”?

(See Military Advisers to Iraq: What Could Go Wrong? )

It’s way too easy to launch U.S. missiles. (Maybe if it were a little more costly, challenging, or painful to carry out these attacks, they would at least require someone to give an explanation that makes sense first.)

(See AMERICANS: Happy As Long As They’re Blowing Something Up )

“Humanitarian intervention” — the great pretext for US intervention in Africa. Glenn Greenwald gave an outstanding talk in Chicago in May, 2012, in which he warned against humanitarian interventions: “The US — no, everybodyalways says the reason for military intervention is ‘humanitarian.’  . . . ”

(See Greenwald Was Right: “Humanitarian” War in Syria? It’s Just More War)

There’s no question that for the next 18 months, we members of the general public will be deluged with media about the 2016 presidential election. Maddeningly, 99 and 44/100% of that media will make no mention of the need to end U.S. wars, occupations, imperialism, and militarism.

(See I Support Antiwar Candidates! (Know Any?) )

This entry was posted in Iraq, The Left's Challenge, The New Peace Movement, The Right's Challange, World War III and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence.”

  1. Reblogged this on Rise Up Times and commented:
    Joe Scarry of #NoNukesTuesday weighs in on ISIS and nonviolence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s