When will the local Sunni ‘allies’ on Iraq be called to account for being accessories to murder and mayhem?
Ummm, I don’t know? What’s your point?
American Power Blog who are “Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don’t have to!” Strange bedfellows you got, NFBW.
Once again I must ask: Do you read your own cites? Here’s what the first line says, emphasis added:
So, no, I don’ need those types of cites to see what’s going on.
In the long run it almost certainly will not, there just isn’t enough political support on the ground for such a thing. But at present, its advantage is that ISIS is for the moment fortunate in its enemies. The Iraqi and Syrian governments and forces are in no shape to fight it effectively, the other Syrian rebels are not better positioned, the Kurds have an ammo-and-supply problem, and the civilians chafing under ISIS rule are, well, civilians.
There’s a weird dynamic going on in Syria. To some extent, Assad benefits from ISIL. He can say he’s “fighting terrorists, not legit rebels”. He has actually been known to provide some air support* for ISIL if the more moderate rebels start gaining the upper hand. And as long as they are fighting each other, they’re not fighting him.
*Syrian aircraft suddenly show up and bomb the moderates to keep the stalemate going
For Pete’s sake, you said it would be smart for Turkey to engage the ISIL. Can you defend that position or not?
Easy: The only power in the region that could crush ISIS in short order is Turkey; doing so would save them headaches down the road regardless of ISIS’ long-term prospects without Turkish intervention. The longer ISIS lasts, the more refugees Turkey gets, the longer the whole regional economy remains destabilized, etc.
Not that I’m a big fan of Iran, but why wouldn’t they be considered a regional power that could crush ISIS? And why do you think Turkey could do it ‘in short order’??
Because they’re a lot closer to the ISIS-controlled territories and their intervention (in Syria as well as Iraq) will not complicate things or upset Western powers nearly as much as if Iran did it.
Yeah, Turkish planes bombing targets in Iraq and Syria wouldn’t complicate things at all.
Its not difficult. The Sunnis are allied with ‘terrorists’ who have shot unarmed captured soldiers in the head - machine gun prisoners in mass graves:
The Sunnis allied with these terrorist barbarians are not treated as barbarians themselves.
Despite the fact that Bush was not justified in any way to invade Iraq the reality is there is an elected government in sovereign Iraq that is justified in defending itself from a foreign based terrorist organization and threat.
Why do Iraq’s Sunnis get a pass for aligning their political dissatisfaction with terrorists murderers and thieves?
.
Not nearly as much as if they were Iranian (or Russian, or Saudi, or Israeli, or American) planes, at any rate.
The point presented was an opinion in the Wall Sreet Journal:
A Plan to Save Iraq From ISIS and Iran. Baghdad can be protected with American help and a counteroffensive launched to retake captured territory. By Jack Keane And Danielle Pletka. Updated June 16, 2014 7:44 p.m. ET
Key phrase “like them or not” … I opposed the invasion that forced the security committment, so Im on the ‘not like’ side, but reality is what still needs to be dealt with.
(“…the security investments made by the U.S. over the past decade—like them or not—are being frittered away”)
I cited those points because they best summarized what appears to be the military strategy and tactics and immediate fixes that the White House has already put in place.
That harsh reality is that thoughts and opinion from the pro-invasion Republican neocon right wing think tanks from 2003 and the current US national security team at the White House have arrived at near identical policy ideas in dealing with the ISIS threat to Iraq. And that does not make Obama a bedfellow with the neocons. Does it?
If a determination that a certain military and intelligence response to the ISIS threat is the best course of action it surely can’t be rejected because neocons at the AEI happen to agree. Should it?
And think how far the neocons have come since 2003 in they are not calling for sending ground troops in for a preemptive war and probably won’t do so again for a long time.
Invading Iraq in 2003 was not justified and anyone that said it was is dead wrong. But doing something to counter the ISIS threat today has absolutely no connection to that unjustifiable decision that Bush made back in 2003 caused all this in the first place.
Putin to the rescue again:
US Special Ops helping to spot terrorist den targets for Iraqi fighter pilots flying in second hand Russian MIGs.
You gotta admire the international flavor of the counterterrorist offensive getting underway right now in Iraq to smash the ISIS barbarians.
I wonder if Maliki will cancel this contract or if he’s already paid too much in advance for 36 F16s.
** Sticker Shock: Iraqi F-16s $165 Million Each. By Mark Thompson**. Sept. 28, 2011
Not surprising the US military industrial complex would hold out for more money while people die. But can fighter pilots transition to Russian jets that quickly?
Perhaps they come with a free in country 90 day demonstration on how to light up terrorist white Toyota’s pickips with rocket launchers in the truck bed or a stolen US made Humvee heading across the border into Syria.
If expect any fighter pilot could catch on fairly quickly to an unsophisticated flying machine of any brand.
Just IMHO, but jets never get the job done. They can inflict pain but - other than nukes and such - can’t wipe out ground forces. If you actually think they’ll ‘wipe out terrorist dens’ you can dissuade yourself of that straightaway.
Jets, like artillery, support the groundpounders. They can’t replace them. Until infantry goes in, ISIS will never be truly dealt with, and possibly not even then.
I see with reports of mass graves that the blood bath part is fully under way, with ISIL executing prisoners and the government and/or Shia militia returning the favor by executing Sunnis. It’s ugly already, and only going to get uglier.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Just IMHO, but jets never get the job done. They can inflict pain but - other than nukes and such - can’t wipe out ground forces. If you actually think they’ll ‘wipe out terrorist dens’ you can dissuade yourself of that straightaway.
Jets, like artillery, support the groundpounders. They can’t replace them. Until infantry goes in, ISIS will never be truly dealt with, and possibly not even then.
[/QUOTE]
Leaving aside the fact that no matter how precise it is, air strikes by their very nature are going to wreak collateral damage, especially in the close fighting going on, you are right…by itself air power isn’t going to be decisive unless you also have ground pounders willing to go in and take and hold the ground or stand and fight while the air strikes come in support.
Perhaps the question should be: What should Spain do about ISIL?