Well, as of today there are TWO sides in the Syrian civil war that the President has used eliminationist rhetoric against. It’s not presidential to make threats and then not carry them out.
Well, let’s see what Obama says on Wed. He’s scheduled to give a speech on his plans for dealing with ISIL. I think he really, really does not want to get involved in Syria, and I don’t blame him.
Maybe he can make a deal with Putin where we let him have Ukraine if he steps in and gets rid of ISIL in Syria. 
It depends on what he thinks the threat is. The mission has to be defined on what the threat is, not on what we’re willing to do about it. If ISIL is like Al Qaeda, then we fight them wherever they are. If they aren’t, then we should just help the Iraqis at about the same rate that we’re doing now.
Ok, but the guy who thinks he is Napoleon lives in a padded cell. ISIS controls thousands of square miles of territory, an airfield, tanks, artillery, an army, oil wells, central authority and a revenue stream worth billions. They’re closer to Napoleon thinking he is Napoleon.
I don’t know if it matters if infidels recognize the Islamic State. If they don’t get destroyed, they’re going to be a state.
Yep, I read that on the news as well.
However, eternal optimist that I am, I assume the president and his team of advisors get their intelligence information from sources other than the 24 hour news cycle. Unlike us internet pundits who speculate on to dated, incomplete and often incorrect information while pretending we’ve got our fingers on the pulse.
I’m not sure how comforting that is given our intelligence agencies’ history in that region of the world. Their ability to predict things is worse than mine.
They are not in the business of prediction.
Sometimes they are. Like determining whether ISIS poses a threat to the homeland. Kinda important if we’re to figure out what course of action we need to take.
Also wouldn’t hurt to know if they got their hands on any chemical weapons in Syria, but I think we both know our intelligence won’t tell us much useful about that.
That will take time and more intelligence gathering. Demanding to know right this minute and then taking the admnistration to task for not already knowing (of fully disclosing), given the complexities involved, is absurd.
How do “we” know that? And what would “we” do with that information, for example?
I’m not advocating that the gov’t hide all vital information. On the other hand, actionable information that is part of an ongoing military mission is generally classified. If for no other reason than preventing the enemy from knowing what we know before we get a chance to do something about it.
For example, nobody published OSM’s address before the SEALS paid him a surprise visit, right?
Thomas Friedman’s comment today about ISIS seems intelligent.
Friedman would be considered hawkish, I think, but endorses Obama’s waiting to develop a strategy:
Certainly a refreshing change from FoxNews and GOP rants which often seem to treat this horrid crisis as just another excuse to dump on our President.
What, no ill informed but strongly opined speculation on how Obama’s gonna roll with his new “game plan”? Not even criticism that it’s likely to be different than what he said two weeks before?
This is going to be a boring thread for the next couple of days. 
I’m not taking them to task. This has been a problem forever. My point is simply that our intelligence agencies’ track record on the Mideast is probably worse than CNN’s.
I know this is a clever sound bite for a FOX News audience and Denis Miller would get a room full of guffaws with that punch line, but it’s undermined by the simple fact that the same intelligence you criticize is able to routinely identify, track and eliminate key leadership of enemy combatants by various advanced surveillance means without getting a single US soldier killed.
I’m impressed by that. Even if you’re not.
Maybe I’m just easily impressed.
No, you’re right, that has been a major accomplishment post-9/11. What is still missing though is information about their intentions. The intelligence community completely missed the invasion of Iraq and I’m sure the President didn’t judge them “junior varsity” all by himself. Do we have any idea if they intend to attack the West? The Brits seem pretty positive that they will.
Cite? Specifically, is it British intelligence who says that, or British pols, or the British press, or who?
What does that even mean?
Do you mean “do we have any idea if the intend to attack the West other than the videotaped threats to the United States and declarations by senior ISIS officials that they intend to do so”?
there was no warning that we know of about ISIS’s intention to move into IRaq in force.
Well, I agree with you if you mean that they are going to attack the US. Which means we have to fight them wherever they are.