Right. It would be pointless, especially with the tension currently between NATO/US and Russia over the Ukraine. Not that there is ever much point in going to the UNSC for anything.
Air support, intelligence and diplomatic support to the local nations defending themselves. They need to defend themselves and take the brunt of the effort from the start. If ISIL establishes clear military bases and such, well, then there are targets that can be considered.
Really? Air support for Assad? Or are you thinking the SFA (Syrian Free Army)?
I would like him to say we have no plans for an attack in the near future, even if we do.
I would like him to not say anything specific about our strategy or plans.
I would like him to say that we are prepared to destroy ISISL if they become a direct immediate threat, and for that to be true.
Then I would like him to say that we are done with Iraq, we support an independent Kurdistan, that we have no problem making a deal with Iran to support our interests in that region, and that Saudi Arabia can start defending themselves since they haven’t been any help to us.
I disagree. China and Russia have more to fear from ISIL than we do. Obama and Putin cooperated on the Chemical Weapons stuff, maybe Russia can step in and do in Syria what we’re doing in Iraq.
According to reports,Israel is already providing intelligence.
Beyond that, Israel will probably stay out - unless its own interests are threatened, in which case it will probably respond in whatever way it sees fit.
The problem is IS is not a big enough threat to Assad in Syria, right now. Assad and IS are pretty much at a stalemate. If they were a bigger threat to him, Obama could use IS against Assad the same way he did against Malicki in Iraq. Just say to Assad, “you’re not getting much help from us until you do XYZ”. Then he could get Assad to step down, or hold elections, or whatever."
There is no defeating IS or any other group like them until the Syrian conflict is settled.
The govt can pick and choose. I have no brief against Assad as to the US. I had none against Saddam Hussein in the 2000s. The coalition of the willing was a dumb ass idea that has lead to the idiotic place we are now. No wars without Congressional approval of military action. This is long past the stage of emergency response, and Congress should go on record of whom to bomb if anyone and how to fund it.
China is simply contrarian to US interests even under the best of circumstances.
Why would Putin lift a finger to help Obama in Syria when Obama has been vocal and instrumental in the sanctions issued against Russia by the western powers?
Good point, in that Assad likes to have ISIL around at least in some capacity to fight the other rebels. I’m not really so sure Assad is going to be happy for the US to take them out even if we doing it cleanly and surgically.
I don’t believe that to be true, but if you some cites to prove that, I can be convinced. China has a legitimate concern when it comes to Islamist fighters for the same reason Russia does-- their native Muslim populations are not too happy with the central authority are easily exploitable by Jihadis.
Maybe he gets Obama to back away form the sanctions, or maybe he just realizes that ISIL is a threat to Russia, since it is.
To hell with the UNSC. Vladimir Putin has no place saying whether we can engage in military action or not.
Then we are acting as a rogue state. No wonder so many people hate us.
Neither China nor Russia have ever acted in manner that would indicate that they care about Islamist threats on the world stage except as it directly impacts them.
Here is a recent exampleof how China has handled problems with Uyghurs. We just need to look to Chechnia to see how Putin/Russia handles these issues.
Neither one talks of building coalitions. Both seem particularly brutal in their treatment of Muslims when it comes to matters of national security.
Would they? Russia is an ally of Assad, but who is (openly) an ally of ISIS?
ISIL directly impacts them. They are actively recruiting foreign Muslims to join their cause, training them and the sending them back to their home countries. This is much more of an issue for countries like Russia, China and the EU than it is for the US.
I’m comfortable with being a rogue state if Russia and China are who you consider to be the voices of reason.
China might remain neutral (i.e abstain) in any sort of UNSC binding resolution type vote on engaging in military action in Syria (I doubt it, but it might happen), but Russia certainly wouldn’t, even if it was clear the military action would be directed solely at ISIS/ISIL and not at Assad and Syria.
As for Russia’s perception of ISIS/ISIL being a direct threat to them, I’ve read nothing indicating they see it that way (nor have I seen anything indicating China views it as a threat to them either). Do you have any cites demonstrating that this is the case (I ask to fight my own ignorance since I haven’t seen anything along these lines and it would be interesting to know)?
I don’t see a lot (or any) benefit in trying to go through UN channels (especially UNSC) to do anything about ISIS/ISIL directly. Obama and the US would be better served simply going directly to the international community and seeing what, if any international support there is for direct military intervention against the group in either Iraq or Syria. If there is none (or very little) then we should re-think our options, especially wrt any sort of direct intervention in Syria (and I’m talking here of air strikes or maybe other direct or indirect support, not boots on the ground in either case).
Personally, I’d love to see these ISIS/ISIL clowns get pounded on, but it doesn’t HAVE to be the US that always does the pounding. If the international community doesn’t see them as a threat or something that needs to be directly addressed then maybe we should sit this one out and see what happens, especially in Syria (we have the Iraqi’s directly requesting aid, so I think we are on safe ground there giving them what aid we can while keeping our troops firmly out of the mess).
And of course I never said that.
Why would Putin agree to have the US meddling in the (admittedly tenuous) balance of power in Syria by allowing Obama to supply arms to the FSA? What assurance could anyone provide that once ISIS is defeated, those arms won’t be turned against Assad’s army?