Posted on 09/05/2014 3:53:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
By releasing the grisly videos of the beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, ISIS has altered the political landscape here and across the Middle East.
America is on fire.
"This is beyond anything that we've seen," said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, "ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. ... They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess."
Sen. Lindsey Graham calls ISIS an "existential threat."
Even Rand Paul has caught the war fever: "If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek Congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
Polls show Republicans turning back toward interventionism. Joe Biden, among the more doveish in the Obama camp, says we are going to chase ISIS to "the gates of hell."
Why would ISIS show themselves engaged in what decent men regard as barbarities, such as the beheadings of innocents and the mass execution of Syrian and Iraqi prisoners, with their hands tied behind their backs?
Though undeniably evil, the men of ISIS are not stupid. And our reaction is playing directly into their hand.
America's recoil, which revealed to the world how the United States has been wounded, enraged and alarmed by ISIS' savagery and success, sends to the most extreme of America-haters in the Islamic world a clear message.
Given our horrified and hyperbolic reaction, ISIS can credibly make this boast to the jihadists from Nigeria to the Hindu Kush, from Libya to Iraq, from Somalia to Syria:
"ISIS is the enemy the Great Satan fears and hates most. ISIS is the Islamist organization that strikes fear into NATO. Not al-Qaida, not Boko Haram, not Ansar al-Sharia, not the al Nusra Front -- ISIS. If you would join the climactic battle for the future of mankind, if you would be in the front lines of the martyrs' brigades changing the world and creating the caliphate of the Prophet, join us. ISIS wants you!"
Thanks to the West's stunned and shocked reaction, ISIS has eclipsed al-Qaida. America daily confirms it. ISIS is today receiving the attention Osama once got for bringing down the twin towers and inflicting the worst blow to America since Pearl Harbor.
Unfortunately, what we view as horrifying, our worst enemies in the Islamic world view as the mark of authenticity, of uncompromising faith.
But while our natural and normal response to these videos is hot-blooded, hopefully, in our retribution, we will be more cool-headed than we have been in the recent past.
U.S. policy should be designed to do the maximum damage to ISIS and the least damage to us. Which means we ought not plunge back into Iraq or drop the 82nd Airborne into Syria. That is what ISIS seeks, to be seen by the Islamic world engaging American soldiers on Islamic lands.
The Turks have 400,000 men under arms. Assad has hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The Kurds have thousands of fighters. Iraq has hundreds of thousands. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of planes.
No need for U.S. boots on the ground.
What course should the United States pursue?
While President Obama may not have a strategy yet for Syria, his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. After its sweeping gains following the capture of Mosul, ISIS has suffered four straight defeats.
The move into Kurdistan has been halted. The Mosul dam has been retaken from ISIS. The Yazidis on Mount Sinjar were rescued from ISIS. The Turkmen in Amerli were rescued by Kurdish peshmerga, Shia militia that Americans fought years ago and the Iraqi army.
Moreover, the Kurdish PKK, whom we regard as terrorists, and military officers of Iran were apparently among the forces helping inflict the defeats on ISIS, along with the decisive use of U.S. air power.
In short, a coalition is forming in Iraq that can provide the ground troops for the steady attrition of ISIS and recapture of the Sunni lands it has taken, while the U.S. strikes from the air.
Syria is another matter.
The United States has to ask itself whom do we prefer in Damascus: Bashar al Assad or ISIS? For in the near term, these are the only realistic options.
Second, if ISIS is the main enemy, the principal enemy, the enemy with whom reconciliation is impossible, are we prepared to work not only with Assad, but his allies -- Iran, Hezbollah, the PKK, and Vladimir Putin's Russia, for the defeat of ISIS?
But before President Obama takes any action in Syria, he should force Congress to vote both to authorize and to set the limits of such action.
Obama does not want to destroy ISIS, he wants to manage it
“This is beyond anything that we’ve seen,” said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, “ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen.”
Yeah, especially when you funnel U.S. taxpayer money to it via Benghazi etc and arm it, idiot!
But remember, it’s “smart power”!
Wrap up Hagel, Obama, Jarret, McCain et al and hand them over to Isis.
Worse yet, he simply thinks it’s a rational alternative ideology, no worse than our own. He can’t rationalize that we should actually make a moral judgement here. That is a foreign idea to him. It would be wrong.
Obama is stuck on “standing with the Muslims” against the West. He can’t see a reason to repudiate his earlier statement that he would.
He is essentially an ideological member of ISIS/ISIL.
Maybe this is what Pat meant? Think about it
“his strategy in Iraq is succeeding”
Pat is now completely round the bend. Gibbering, drooling, giggling round the bend.
His “no strategy” is succeeding.
ISIS/ISIL advancements are in accordance with his refusal to come up with a plan.
So yes, his strategy is succeeding, even if it is not a formal strategy announced to the public.
Besides, it is Bush’s fault.
Imagine getting elected to do nothing for eight years other than screw up your own nation, and blame everything on another President.
Mr. _resident, what is your platform?
“Well, it makes no difference. Bush has screwed things up so bad I’ll never be able to accomplish anything.”
Mr. Pres__ent, then why should anyone vote for you?
“Ah..., I don’t really know why. Perhaps they might want Bush to pay for what he did.”
Who pays for you Mr. _resident?
“Well, nobody really. I haven’t done anything wrong. I can prove this, because I haven’t done anything at all.”
Pretty much common sense.
Allen West said as much while covering for Hannity today. There is much than can be done, short of risking more American lives, to reduce ISIS to the point local forces can exterminate them.
Appalling, isn't it? Many voices that are consistently opposed to US foreign manipulations and warmongering want ISIS totally destroyed, ASAP, whatever world resources can help. Meanwhile, the DC/global elite crowd still seems to be looking for political gain.
US policy created the vacuum and armed the rebels who turned against the US and became ISIS. We have an OBLIGATION to destroy them. And, yeah, that includes working with Assad, Iran, Putin, whoever can help achieve that goal.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!
This was how grownups reacted back in the 20th Century.
People like Lindsey Graham (& a lot of FReepers) who use the term "existential threat" about these cave dwellers belong in mental hospitals. Instead, they are taken seriously and America is over.
This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Jimmy Carter SOU before Congress Jan 23rd, 1980.
Also known as the Carter Doctrine.
Somebody needs to ask Obama and all in his cabinet, every day...:
Does the Carter Doctrine remain US policy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.