Anyway, Obama is speaking tonight about his plan to deal with ISIL (that’s the phrase the WH uses to describe ISIS/ISIL/IS).
What should he say? What will he say?
I wish he would say that ISIL isn’t a threat to the US, but he’s willing to put together a coalition of forces, comprised mainly of regional military might, to drive ISIL out of Iraq. I wish he would admit that we have no business going into Syria right now, as they are a sovereign nation and, like it or not, we can’t just go and bomb any country in the world we choose.
I’m afraid he will say that we are going be in the lead of whatever military action is taken, although with some help from regional players. I’m also afraid he’s going to say that he is going after ISIL in Syria, as well. Apparently, he thinks he can do that without Congressional authorization (and I guess the 2001 AUMF is broad enough to be interpreted that way).
The only way I would possibly support troops on the ground in the Middle East is if it was an overwhelming international coalition, like the first war in Iraq (and even then, I’m not sure if I would support it). Otherwise, I definitely oppose it.
Of course I realize that. I just so happen to think we shouldn’t. That is, not unless the country is a direct, imminent threat to us.
I will admit that Syria, being a failed state at this point, isn’t the same as Germany or Australia. But they are still a sovereign nation, and without working through the UNSC, we are acting as a rogue state.
The thing about that though, is most countries probably won’t mind us bombing ISIS in Syria. Syria probably won’t mind us bombing ISIS in Syria…its bombing Assad won’t have to do, and when the innocent civilians inevitably get killed, people will get upset with us rather than him. So that probably won’t be a problem.
Sure we can. As Captain Amazing pointed out, we already do. Whether we SHOULD or not is the key issue (and I agree with you…we shouldn’t).
In the case of Syria, however, I THINK that Assad et al would be fine with us bombing the crap out of ISIS/ISIL even in Syrian, since it will help them out.
I think he should reassure people that the level of threat is minimal to the US directly but that the military and the government are keeping a close eye on the situation, blah blah blah. And also lay out exactly what his plans are to deal with ISIS/ISIL, what the goals are and what the US and administration hopes to achieve. That’s what I’d like to know and hear, basically. Something calm, reasoned and to the point…and that has a point.
Guess we’ll see. Like everyone else, I’ll be watching to see what’s up.
Since ISIL stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and since the president’s main objective is to gather a coalition of countries in the area in whose best interest it is to defeat ISIL, and since Israel is part of the Levant… Is Israel being considered as part of this coalition that is being built and will Israel be asked to participate in this mission to defeat ISIL?
It does not seem that Assad has any concern about being criticized for civilians being killed. He’s already racked up about 150,000.
And I’m not so sure Assad is going to be happy with us bombing his country. We might decide to hit some of his forces, if they are threatening the so-called “vetted rebels”. We did the same in Libya just a few years ago. You don’t invite the 800 lb gorilla into your living room just because he promises to be careful with the family china.
Had not heard, but no way. Maybe they could privately provide some intelligence, but I can’t see the Arab states agreeing to allow Israel to participate militarily.
At least he’s learned not to ask for permission that he isn’t going to get. It will be interesting if he says he is going to put together a coalition, or go it alone. If he tries a coalition, no one else will go along with it (except maybe the French). Maybe he has figured out that the fact that he isn’t Bush doesn’t really buy the US anything in terms of international cooperation.
So maybe go it alone, and hope in twenty years nobody complains about the US propping up Middle Eastern dictators.
I’m still on the fence about crossing the border into Syria to go after ISIL. The US chose to stay out of that civil war for good reasons in the past. I’m not sure that ISIL presents a strong enough justification for reversing that decision.
I’ve no doubt the US is surveilling the hell out of Syria and the various players on the ground. I’ve no doubt the US feels they have a good picture of friend and foe to conduct bombing raids on ISIL while sparing vetted rebels and Syria’s regular army. Still, it feels like a mistake to get involved in that mess.
As for Israel, I was pretty sure they would not be included in this coalition. Too risky. But what a first that would be if it could be pulled off.
The country is in favor of bombing Syria this time. They weren’t last time, so I think this is different. But this whole thing is being driven by the 2 beheaddings. As horrible as they were, that does not mean ISIL is a threat to the US. I really hate to see us going off half-cocked like this because 2 Americans were killed. That shouldn’t be driving our policy.
And I really want Obama to tell us how the UN fits into this. It doesn’t appear that we are doing anything thru the UNSC, unless I missed it.
Israel at least in the short term has something of an alignment of interests with ISIS. The hysteria around ISIS and attendant hawkish zeitgeist gives them political cover for the Gaza War and playing hardball with Abbas. ISIS is also a foil to Israel’s regional foes, including Iran. According to ISIS’ Twitter feed (via Haaretz), ISIS is more interested in killing perceived apostates than going after Israel.
I also agree that bringing in Israel at least openly as a coalition member needlessly undermines getting Arab states on board.
It’s too serious a speech to do what I want him to do- after every time he says the word “Syria” he should say “did you hear that, Chuck Todd?”
I want him to first of all explain why he uses the term ISIL. Already the right wing nut factory is spewing out crazy shit about why he doesn’t use ISIS like everybody else. I want him to explain that he is working with Congress on the issue and that he has a consensus. I want him to calm down the panic over this and that ISIS is not a grave threat to national security but is a regional destabilizing force that must be contained in order to protect innocent people. Then I want him to emphasize that we are not at war with the Muslim religion, just those that commit crimes against humanity in its name. Then, I know it’s too much to ask, end the speech without the phrase “and may God bless the United States of America”.