by Jack
ISIS now controls 80% of the land mass of Iraq, in previous times this would mean victory is close at hand, Iraq is finished. But, they are barely hanging on, for how long, nobody can say, certainly nobody in Washington.
In neighboring Syria ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and the Free Syrian Army are fighting against President Assad’s national army that is heavily supplied by the Russians. In recent weeks the battle lines have changed little and it appears there’s a temporary stalemate unless the US steps up the aid to the rebel forces. But, which one and how much and how do we guarantee the weapons supplied will not wind up being used against the last stronghold (Baghdad) in Iraq?
U.S. officials are considering a dangerous plan, striking Jabhat al-Nusra inside Syria because they are a faction of ISIS. However, this is risky because they’re generally well liked by the local Syrians in that region and they are also against Assad’s regime. By bombing Al Nusra we might weaken ISIS but it would anger the locals and it would be helping Assad. ISIS is the prime threat to the continued existence of Iraq and in that respect we’ve hardly done anything. The U.S. focus on the Islamic State has angered the Free Syrian Army (rebels we support), which believes that the airstrikes are hurting them because they are helping Assad. Despite the skirmishes last weekend between the Free Syrian Army and al-Nusra fighters, some elements of the moderate opposition still consider al-Nusra an ally in their fight against Assad.
Meanwhile, the battle for Kabani (aka Kobane) continues. This is the little border town inside Syria near Turkey, occupied by mostly Kurds. ISIS forces have been slugging it out with the Kurdish Peshmerga who are being resupplied by US air drops, but hampered by Turkey’s obstruction of to re-supply routes through their territory. Turkey fears if they assist the Kurds and/or hurt ISIS in any way this could open them up to widespread violence along the border and perhaps spark ISIS terrorism inside their country. Many Turks are sympathetic to ISIS and see them as the key to defeating the Assad regime, but if they did it would come at the price of forming the new radical Islamic state of ISIL.
France’s foreign minister (Fabius) has called for the US-led coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to help rebels in Syria’s second city Aleppo hold out against the Damascus regime. “Some 300,000 Aleppans are holding on, threatened with the same death and destruction that the regime has inflicted on Homs and the suburbs of Damascus.” France is involved in strikes against ISIL fighters in Iraq but has so far kept out of the air campaign in neighboring Syria, where it has hoped to support moderate rebels without resorting to military action that could help the Assad regime.
Fabius said France would not resign itself to the breakup of Syria and would work towards supporting moderate rebels in Aleppo and protecting its civilian population, without detailing how.
“Abandoning Aleppo would mean condemning Syria to years of violence. It would mean the death of any political future,” he wrote.
His article echoed the words of French President Francois Hollande on Friday, who described Aleppo as “key” to the conflict.
It also comes after sustained criticism of the coalition campaign in Syria from NATO ally Turkey, which has refused to take part in action in its southern neighbor until Washington draws up a broad strategy to deal with both ISIL and the Assad regime. So far the Obama administration has not developed any sort of comprehensive strategy or taken a leadership position to coordinate a strategy. Obama seems to be in gridlock and has made a series of tactical errors that has made the situation worse. Among those errors was a concession on sanctions (Iran’s nuclear program) in order to gain Iran’s support to keep Baghdad from falling to ISIS.
The whole confusing situation is very fragile with ISIS atrocities mounting daily in captured Iraqi cities and villages. The latest being the slaughter of about 300 Sunni’s. According to a CNN report, some of the 322 people executed were women and children. Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights said the dead belonged to the Albu Nimr tribe. The reason for the slaughter, they refused to join ISIS.
“We will not get dragged into another ground war,” declared Obama last week. His only plan calls for air strikes in two countries, a multinational coalition, and the deployment of four hundred and seventy-five more special forces to Iraq, but, he said, those troops “will not have a combat mission.” They will execute a “counterterrorism campaign.”
That campaign seemed to both swell and contract as the President described it. He called ISIS a “small group of killers.” Killers they are, small they are not.
(Excerpts from the Washington Post and Examiner.)
Unfortunately his default policy is to cooperate with and arm terrorists and supporters of terrorism. Progressives think they can make friends with terrorists and persuade the tribal factions to make friends.
Progressives are hostile and intolerant toward conservative fellow Americans.
Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.
Mary Landrieu, are you paying attention?
And, again:
“Observing the latest bout of irrational fear and stupidity over Ebola and the radical jihad group ISIS, I’m reminded of my own innate fear, an emotion that drove my politics and infected my life until I was almost middle-aged. I am ashamed to confess, but I can only control the anxiety and paranoia now because I first admit it and then seek to understand it. When I was a conservative, I fretted about people and issues from faraway places that had zero actual impact on my daily life. The terror was both illogical and very real. The feelings were so intense that they left no room for me to consider the motivations and opinions of other people, which is the defining characteristic of modern conservative politics.”
***
Radical thought here … try to grasp it … the doings of ISIS in Iraq have nothing to do with you … nothing at all.
Jack … ponder the ubiquitous cop insecurity … an armed cop against 25 enraged and unarmed citizens hasn’t a rat’s ass chance in hell.
There are a million-plus citizens of Mosul, and 20,000 members of ISIS. Do you get it?
We are waiting on the million-plus … and we will wait for as long as it takes. You need to get yourself some distraction … the repeal of the ACA!
The hawks among us (MaCain must be retired) will insist that we must preempt ISIS accomplishing a nation state. But you know, while they have a great facility with the raping and pillaging, governance and and tax-collecting from a stable state is how you gather the wherewithal to make war … especially on us … and they don’t seem to have it in ’em.
We will chill … and you will be restrained.
Libby, it’s not about me being restrained. I’m not in power and I don’t wish to resume the war in Iraq if I was. What I would like… as a taxpayer and a citizen… is to see some kind of coherent strategy coming from the White House that will help stop the ISIS genocide and rid the world of an army of zealots that kills anyone they like. Surely you want that too, don’t you? You don’t want to see ISIS taking city after city, beheading anyone that resists them, right?
However, if you are waiting on random citizens in an ISSI occupied city like Mosul to organize into an army to crush ISIS, it will never happen. You will go to your grave waiting and meanwhile thousands of people will die needlessly.
Libby you need only look at history to see how pathetic your popular uprising plan is, cause it sure as Hell didn’t work under Saddam Hussein. When ruthless dictators beat down the locals, they crush any hint of organized resistance, this is how it went in Nazi Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, and in so many other places where power was in the hands of fanatics. Ordinary people are too fearful risk resisting. They don’t want their children to die.
Geez, when in modern history do you think that has ever happened against zealot army? Sometimes you don’t think very deep and other times you don’t think at all… I know you sure haven’t learned a thing from history!
“… is to see some kind of coherent strategy coming from the White House that will help stop the ISIS genocide and rid the world of an army of zealots.”
Yeah, we know. But this is not a simple problem. No “marching in and taking over” is going to fix it. I mean, McCain really does seem to have lost whatever sense he ever had. Either that, or he’s shilling for the M-I Complex, and hopes to bring up the national economy by sending 200,000 of your children off the the Middle East to play tyrant and/or die.
I don’t think that’s a plan at all.
Come on, Jack … respond. What chance do 200,000 U. S. soldiers have against the million in Mosul who think ISIS is the better option?
Tell us.
Libby, I was wondering how you know they (Mosul) favor ISIS domination? I heard initially some places welcomed them because of the idiot Shiite in Baghdad that treated them like dirt, but then I heard that after a few atrocities and bullying, those folks wised up and now wish they were gone…this was on the news, I have no other deeper knowledge on this subject other than that…so, do you know more than what the news is saying?
Jack, you haven’t been reading any of the stuff speculating about consequences if we really did manage to knock off what’s-his-name. Interesting stuff. Not that we seem to know much for sure, but, as near as we can tell, upper management Iraq is now all former Baathist military, and they know their business: the subjection of the populace.
Some little while back, when we “marched in” and removed the Baathists, how did the civilian population react? Come on, you remember? Did they rise up and organize a republican utopia?
Not that I recall.
Nothing has changed, and to get back into this is the purest insanity.
Libby, okay, we made a mess out of Iraq. Bush did some and Obama did some. We were not prepared for the job, we made far too many mistakes out of ignorance and we created chaos. We removed the power structure, brutal as it was, and released something far worse. We inadvertently opened the door for a radicalized Iraq when we let loose 700 years of pent up hostilities towards various segments of the Iraqi population and did nothing as ISIS rose from the ashes to be even more barbaric than Al Qaeda, our original enemy. Now we’re fighting a force larger and strong than Al Qaeda ever was. Regarding the in-fighting in Iraq and the ISSI take over and slaughter, some might argue, so let em kill each other who cares? But, the reality is, the last thing we need is a wealthy, powerful radicalized Islamic caliphate state with WMDs in their future. Obama had several opportunities to save the situation, but he did nothing. We’re seen as weak by Iran, nobody fears us or respects us from the middle east to Russia. We’re basically screwed as the world implodes and we can thank your man Obama for most of that.
“Obama had several opportunities to save the situation, ….”
What? … a la Superman? That’s total horsepucky.
I mean, … name one.
Back in January, when they took Fallujah, we were supposed to invade? … an ostensibly sovereign nation that one might reasonably suppose could muster the wherewithal to deal with the situation itself?
(Wrong there, but did we know that then?)
Invade? … with absolutely no Congressional or political support (and don’t you dare try and “revise” your own position; it’s in print).
“But, the reality is, the last thing we need is a wealthy, ….”
Again, you need to step back. They are splendid robbers. Every town they take, they sack. But an impoverished populace is not productive. After you’ve stolen everything, reduced your population to beggary, then what?
In fact, that’s something the OA’s been making progress on, tracking and putting pressure on international sources of funding. (Lord knows, the Saudis have seen the error of their ways.)
It will take a while; they’ve stolen lots. However, by early next year maybe we’ll be seeing signs of fiscal distress.
Libby, it’s not horsepucky, but I guess that won’t stop you from saying it.
The National Review wrote this about the O-man: “Like the rest of the world, the U.S. government appeared to have been taken aback last month when Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, fell to an offensive by jihadis of the Islamic State that triggered the collapse of five Iraqi army divisions and carried the extremists to the threshold of Baghdad.
A review of the record shows, however, that the Obama administration wasn’t surprised at all.
In congressional testimony as far back as November, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials made clear that the United States had been closely tracking the al Qaida spinoff since 2012, when it enlarged its operations from Iraq to civil war-torn Syria, seized an oil-rich province there and signed up thousands of foreign fighters who’d infiltrated Syria through NATO ally Turkey.
The testimony, which received little news media attention at the time, also showed that Obama administration officials were well aware of the group’s declared intention to turn its Syrian sanctuary into a springboard from which it would send men and materiel back into Iraq and unleash waves of suicide bombings there. And they knew that the Iraqi security forces couldn’t handle it.”
There you go…Obama had an opportunity to stop ISIS before it became the massive threat it is today and before that he had an opportunity to apply strong pressure on the idiot Maliki, the shill for Iran. But, in both cases he opted for his typical “wait and see” approach. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. it’s a tough world and timing and action can mean the difference between war and no war. A guy with his ability ought to speak in low tones and stay away from the media. Obama is seen by the whole world as a laughing stock a big chicken S! You know, chicken s, the word one of O’s advisers called Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Obama has no diplomatic skill short of appeasement, he knows nothing about running a country. When he arrived in Washington the only thing Obama brought was his car and a big sack of BS. What he lacks in intelligence, he more than makes up for in stupidity. NOBODY respects him or the USA anymore, we’re totally compromised because of Obama. The bad guys see as weak, vulnerable and lacking in will… and that’s not good on any level of national security.
I wonder what they will put on Obama’s tombstone, I have suggestion: “He lived a hypocrite and died a traitor.”
“There you go … Obama had an opportunity to stop ISIS before it became the massive threat it is today ….”
I see. By invading and occupying Syria. And the the Congressional and political will do do that existed … exactly when?
I’m afraid you are still leaning on the Superman scenario, childish, and not quite attuned to any political reality at all.
And you would stop with the “no one respects him” blather. You don’t respect him, and we are well aware of that.
But it would seem that he’s been able to put together a large and fairly effective international coalition, which has begun work in both Syria and Iraq. Would they do that for a fella they did not respect.
I did some checking up for the post. Turkey won’t join, but because their afraid of Kurdish consequences. Iran won’t join (no surprises there), but otherwise the undertaking is quite global.
You can’t see past your prejudice.
No prejudice Libby and it’s not just my singular opinion. It’s an opinion share by more intelligent people than not.
Jack, what objective evidence exists that Obama is not well respected around the world compared to other presidents? Actual polling data shows that Obama’s approval ratings at home and abroad are higher than Bush’s. I understand you mostly keep yourself situated in the right wing echo chamber but that seems to be clouding your perception of what the rest of the world actually thinks.
Chris, perhaps it does. Let me go out into the world and see, and I’ll come back in a few minutes and report what I have seen. BRB…
Well Chris, I did a little scout out and nope, my opinion doesn’t appear to be overly slanted, seems I am in right in with the mainstream of thinkers and the polls tend to reflect that. Seems you might be a bit biased seeing it through those dark, thick democrat made glasses.
Feb. 2014 – Time Israel – Obama Approval Ratings Dive. Less than a year after President Obama left Israel to the sound of loud cheering after he assured Israelis in Hebrew that they “are not alone,” a new poll has found that 70% of Jewish Israelis do not trust Obama to safeguard their nation’s vital interests in negotiations with the Palestinians.
July 16, 2014, CNN “He is far more popular than his predecessor George W. Bush. But the bloom is definitely off the Obama rose.”
July 30th 2014, Washington Times – “Benjamin Netanyahu’s favorability hits 82 percent, Obama’s at 40 percent.
Nov. `14 Gallup Poll – Obama has dropped to 40% approval rating at home. At this point Bush was 36%. The average American President since 1914 was 53%.
Oct. 15 2014 – Politco “Poll: Obama hits lowest approval” (40%)
Germany Transatlantic Trends – Sept. 2014 For the first time a majority said they would prefer their country take an approach in security and diplomatic affairs that was more independent from the United States (57%, up 17 percentage points from 2013). In the United States, however, a 34% plurality would like the relationship to become closer; only 19% in Germany wanted the same.
A little more than half of EU respondents (56%) said it was desirable that the United States exert strong leadership in world affairs, almost unchanged from 2013. Favorable opinion of the United States dropped three percentage points in Europe from last year, to 67%. The favorability of the United States in Germany however dropped from 68% in 2013 to 58% this year.
The Perspective – Nov. 14th – “Is President Obama really America’s worst president? This would seem like the definitive conclusion of the American people based on recent events. A poll came out a few months ago that rated Obama at the bottom of all modern US presidents. President Bush, whose approval rating stood at 22 percent when he left office, was declared a better president than Obama according to that poll. Another poll concluded that the American people believed Mitt Romney would have made a better president. The Press even created the scurrilous title of “Liar of the Year” purposely to confer upon Obama. This onslaught against Obama culminated in a historic defeat of the Democratic Party in the midterm elections where republicans increased their majority in the House of Representatives and toppled the Democrat-led Senate to become the new Senate majority.”
Jack, what to these miscellaneous stats have to do with the fact that that O-Man has garnered global support and is working toward a goal you claim to support, the eradication of ISIS?
Your stats reflect mostly just that Boehner and McConnell have got their heels dug in … but they, and their constituencies, are imbeciles.
“Your stats reflect mostly just that Boehner and McConnell have got their heels dug in … but they, and their constituencies, are imbeciles.”
Libby, my head is spinning…where in #@$%^& do you get…oh, never mind, it’s way to early in the morning to start.
Note to self: NEVER try to explain anything to liberals on a good faith assumption they actually want to know the answer. They do not. They will only do bait and switch; no answer is ever good enough, unless it is one that agrees with their liberal assumptions on how things are. Theirs is an impregnable world, buttressed against new information and bolstered by some crazy pseudo-intellectual indoctrination that probably occurred in their formative years.
No, Jack.
What have Netanyahu’s numbers got to do with anything?
What have the Shrub’s numbers (at a particular point in time) got to do with anything?
Your “transatlantic trends” notwithstanding, the EU is fully committed to deal with ISIS.
Germany is onboard re ISIS.
Your stats are specious.
Libby, they are not my stats. I simply grabbed random samples from the net that were written by people who seemed to know what they are talking about. But, this topic is morphing into something I didn’t say, it’s not about foreign powers resisting ISIS, it was about Obama’s falling influence among his peers in Europe.
What’s going on with this thread? I’m seeing posts dated Nov. 14 and 15 that definitely were not showing up for me yesterday or the day before, and some of my comments are completely gone.
Jack, I’m seeing the polls you brought up now and I apologize if some glitch was preventing me from seeing them before. I admit that Obama’s numbers are low compared to the historical average for presidents, but your own sources show that they are still higher than his predecessor’s. I don’t really think it is fair to blame Obama for lowering the U.S.’s standing in the world when it is pretty clear that most of the fault for that lies with Bush. Obama is more respected by our allies than his predecessor.
My bad; I mixed this thread with the other one in which we were discussing Obama’s international approval ratings. In that thread Jack claimed he had already shown me evidence that Obama’s global approval was low, and since he posted that evidence here, I was very confused.
I still think the fact that Bush’s global approval ratings were much lower renders that argument pretty dull, however.
And Jack … don’t you change the subject. Disrespected world leaders do not put together global coalitions to deal with … whatsoever.
Either he is or he isn’t … and if he has … he isn’t. Except in your eyes, and, as I say … we knew that already.
I know you’d like to think that your opinions are universally held … but they’re not. Live with it.
Kudos Jack: “Theirs is an impregnable world, buttressed against new information and bolstered by some crazy pseudo-intellectual indoctrination that probably occurred in their formative years.”
Re 22 Chris : “My bad; I mixed this thread with the other one …”
It doesn’t really matter.