re: #78 Charles Johnson

At some level he probably rationalizes this as being a realist position. That there’s no US interest in intervening to save the lives of the Yezidi or stopping the ISIS advance even though the group has already shown its willingness to engage in ethnic cleansing and indicates genocidal intent against anyone who doesn’t adhere to their view of Islam.

The problem is that his worldview doesn’t include reality. There are legitimate reasons for the US and the rest of the world to intervene against ISIS and put them down as a bunch of rabid dogs. Their acts in furtherance of committing genocide being chief among them. Realism is about power politics, and it is in the US interest to protect the Yezidi and Kurds and these oppressed groups. The President is doing just enough to provide assistance without entangling us once again in the ground fight or nation building. We’re giving these groups a chance to hold their own, and maybe even give the Maliki government a chance to get in the game and get their own house in order to take the fight to ISIS and push them out altogether.

US presidents come in with rhetoric that harken to every other kind of political theory out there about international affairs, but once in office, it almost always comes back to realism/neo-realism - power politics, balance of powers, and identifying foreign interests that align with US interests and doing what is necessary to maintain and strengthen those ties. Obama is doing what his predecessors have done - and taking acts where necessary.

Greenwald seems offended by this - that the US acts in furthering its own interests.