Froomkin points out McClatchy laying down a marker on ISIS
For those who came in late, in 2003 or so there were basically two voices pointing out how insane the Bush administration was; you had to be there, and if you were, you remember how amazing it was to find a voice of sanity. One such voice was Krugman, for which he still deserves huge credit, in my book; and the other was Dan Froomkin, who ran a blog, in the days when blogs were new, that was quite literally the only reason to read WaPo, where it appeared. And there was also only one newspaper (or newspaper chain) that called bullshit on Iraq: Knight-Ridder, now McClatchy, significantly a chain of papers, all based outside the Acela corridor, also called their shot on Iraq, correctly, alone among all media. So here we go again. Dan Froomkin, The Intercept:
One notable exception to the stenography and conventional wisdom was a story filed Friday evening by Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay of the McClatchy Newspapers Washington bureau. They called it like this:
The U.S.-led international strategy to combat the Islamic State that President Barack Obama sketched out Friday is likely to require years of thorny diplomacy and deeper U.S. military involvement in conflicts that he’s struggled to avoid…
Even limited success for this new effort, analysts say, hinges on an unenviable to-do list for the Obama administration: foster cozier relations with Iran, gamble on the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, strong-arm Iraq’s Shiite Muslim leaders into power-sharing with the Sunni Muslim minority, and persuade Sunni-ruled nations in the Persian Gulf region not to undermine the whole effort by striking out on their own.
Allam and Landay describe all sorts of other challenges, including the fact that the Saudis and their pals may still see the Islamic State — the supremely brutal Sunni extremists also known as ISIS and ISIL — as a potential Sunni asset in the eternal proxy war between Sunnis and Shiiites. Indeed, the most likely option for a relaxation of those hostilities, they wrote, could be a de facto swap of sorts, where previously Sunni-run Iraq formally joins the Shiite team, and currently-Shiite-dominated Syria signs up with the Sunnis.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
It's like the powers that be figure it's been ten years since they ran the terror/Iraq/WMD/AUMF play, so we will have forgotten, so they're running the same play again.