The only solution the Middle East is going to get is going to have to be political and religious, not military. We can bomb the hell out of ISIS as long as we want and eventually it will become a recruiting issue for them. That s not to say that we should stop, but that we must solve the political and religious problems as well as the military, or there will be no military solution. Of course the military solution would be hastened if we put boots on the ground but the endgame wouldn’t.
Lest any of the neocons forget, Bush created this mess for oil. That oil is now being sold through Turkey, not by us, but by ISIS, which is something we have to get the Turks to stop. They can shut off a big source of ISIS funding just by stopping the oil convoys at the border. Maybe now that their hostages are released, and they have gotten over their distain for letting Kurdish forces cross through their territory, we can get on with a serious ground game in this war.
When the Europeans gave up their empires we stepped in looking for influence and raw materials, mostly oil. We got some influence and lots of oil but the costs have been way out of proportion to the benefits. Now we have to step back and let the rest of the world, primarily Europe, and the Middle East do the heavy lifting. We don’t need the Middle East any more. We produce almost as much oil as they do and more gas. Hopefully we will produce all the renewable energy we need in the coming years. The proliferation of the Middle East’s main source of income will only lead to more poisonous air and global warming so it would be better for the planet to just walk away an let them return to the nomadic desert kingdoms they have been since the beginning of time.
As expected of what’s left of the Iraqi army when we finally got Maliki out of the way, has rallied to reoccupy Amnarci and push ISIS out but it’s still not much of an army. The whole thing boils down to a coalition with us as the air force, the Kurds, the shattered Iraqi army and maybe a mercenary force made up of troops from the other friendly Arab nations and Turkey, This same group could sweep through Iraq and then into Syria making the need to hook up with any of the current Syrian forces unnecessary. This kind of force could eliminate Assad and ISIS at the same time because it would have the overwhelming power that is now missing on the ground to go with the overpowering air support that we provide.
But none of that changes the fact that we haven’t had a strategy about the Middle East for over forty years. We make decisions on tactics but we have had no overall strategy.
Tom Cole, ® Oklahoma, not my favorite politician, gave a calm reasoned, logical explanation of the whole Middle East mess, speaking to how the President was, in this case, doing the right thing by moving slowly and trying, to get it right on a whole policy .
Onfortunately Martha Raddatz reacted to Cole with panic, raving about why aren’t we doing something right now? The answer to that is because we don’t know the right move right now and we won’t until we talk to all the players and find out how many we can count on to go along with us.
NATO is met last week in England and that should give us a reading on the European community and how much backing we can get from them. Frankly, if we can’t get some dependable help we should step aside, forcing the Muslim populations of the NARO nations to take up the fight or be overrun.
Congressman Adam Smith, (D) Washington, head of the House Armed Services Committee lays out one of the most comprehensive outlines of what has happened, is happening and what we want to happen in this conflict. He starts by pointing out that we need reliable partners in the area. He uses Iraq as a bad example where we had only Maliki as a partner and we all know what he was and saw what he did. What we really need in Iraq and in Syria is to partner with moderate Sunnis, if in fact, something like that exists. When we were able to partner with the Kurds it worked so maybe we can find some reliable Sunni’s to deal with.
In Syria it is far more complicated because for a while Saudi Arabia and Turkey were funding ISSA. Now they see what a horror it is and they have stopped but the Free Syrian Army is nowhere near strong enough to fight either Assad or ISIS so we have to find someone outside Syria to invade it.
Smith points out that it takes time to form a coalition, but that in the meantime we can’t just stop bombing. Then Peter King has his say and of course it’s all about how the President didn’t provide arms for the Syrian opposition. He never mentions that the Syrian opposition became ISIS. Could it be that he really doesn’t know that? Could he be as ignorant as he sounds? Both McCain and King are all about doing something right away; not to wait but to act. That would be fine if we knew how we should act but we don’t.
Diane Feinstein was on the tube talking about Obama being too cautious. She states that the UAE, Lebanon, Jordan, etc, are all under threat from ISIS. Well if that’s true why the hell aren’t they jumping in and forming a coalition to fight them, why are they just sitting on their butts hoping that we’ll save those useless butts once again?
Most of the congressmen are talking about how the President isn’t moving fast enough and the ones who aren’t are talking about suing the President for acting without waiting for them. Well, you can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want the President to act on his own, get the hell back in session and do something yourself. Why is congress out campaigning when it should be in session debating our strategy in this situation?