This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Obama's Strategy Against ISIS Is In Ruins"
Over the weekend, a major shift in the balance of power in Iraq took place when Islamic State forces seized the key Iraqi state of Ramadi after militants detonated a series of car bomb blasts, which forced Iraqi security forces and tribal fighters to retreat to the city's east, they said. The location of Ramadi is shown in the below ISW map.
It took barely one day for the neoconservative cries for an aggressive and powerful response when overnight Kimberly Kagan's hawkish think tank, the Institute for the Study of War, came out with its assessment which was at least partially right that "Obama's strategy against the Islamic State in ruins not only in Iraq but also throughout the Muslim world."
However, the reason why said strategy is in ruins, namely decades of enforcing US presence in countless foreign territories to defend US "national interests" under false military pretenses, was ignored, and instead the ISW demands an immedate escalation of the war in Iraq, to wit:
... the Islamic State remains unable to stand against even a limited deployment of U.S. military forces if those forces are properly resourced and allowed to operate against the enemy. A few thousand additional combat troops, backed by helicopters, armored vehicles and forward air controllers able to embed with Iraqi units at the battalion level, as well as additional Special Forces troops able to move about the countryside, would certainly prevent further gains. They could almost certainly regain Ramadi and other recently lost areas of Anbar, in cooperation with local tribes. They might be able to do more.
Maybe, but they would certainly do enough on behalf of the US military-industrial complex, which would be delighted with the long overdue escalation of the Iraq war, especially since it has taken far too long to drag Syria back into the conflict for the second time in 2 years. We'll also ignore widespread speculation that ISIS is merely a failed joint venture of the CIA and Saudi Arabia, as that would cause a substantial glitch in the narrative matrix.
We won't however, ignore, Obama's "pacificist" image. Or perhaps neither the ISW, nor the president really cares about his Nobel peace prize-winning legacy much, especially since Obama is now openly defending himself against a "fascist" agenda, one in which both the Executive and Legislative branches of government have been taken over by a corporatist agenda in the guise of the TPP.
For what it's worth, here is the full ISW note.
The Fall of Ramadi was Avoidable
The seizure of Ramadi on Sunday leaves President Obama's strategy against the Islamic State in ruins not only in Iraq but also throughout the Muslim world. It means that the Iraqi security forces will almost certainly not be able to recapture Mosul this year and, therefore, that the Islamic State will retain its largest city in Iraq. Worse, it gives the group momentum again in Iraq even as it gains ground in Syria and expands in the Sinai, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This defeat was avoidable. Neither the Islamic State nor any other al-Qaeda offshoot has ever taken a major urban area actively defended by the United States in partnership with local forces. This is what happens when a policy of half-measures, restrictions and posturing meets a skillful and determined enemy on the battlefield. If the president does not change course soon, he will find that his legacy is not peace with Iran and ending wars, but rather the establishment of a terrorist state with the resources to conduct devastating attacks against the United States and a region-engulfing sectarian war.
Obama reacted slowly and reluctantly to the initial Islamic State surge last June from Syria into Mosul and then down the Tigris toward Baghdad. He authorized U.S. air support to assist the defense of the Kurdish capital of Irbil in August and eventually deployed first a few hundred and then a few thousand U.S. advisers. He did not allow those advisers to fight alongside the Iraqi units they were assisting. U.S. airstrikes have destroyed many fixed Islamic State targets and killed its fighters by the thousands since then, mainly in Iraq, but have allowed the group to retain a haven in Syria and even to maneuver freely within Iraq.
The Islamic State maneuver that led up to the fall of Ramadi was sophisticated and many weeks in the making, as a recent publication from the Institute for the Study of War shows. It entailed diversionary attacks in Baiji and Garma, a prison break in Diyala, attacks against pilgrims in Baghdad and raids near Ayn al-Asad air base west of Ramadi, a major hub of U.S. forces and Iraqi training. It was accompanied by a coordinated offensive around Deir ez-Zor, in Syria, that could give the group the ability to operate all along the Euphrates and toward Damascus as well. Numerous Islamic State fighters moved across Iraq and Syria. Although they leveraged poor weather that impedes U.S. reconnaissance, such activity must have created a signature that a properly resourced U.S. force in the region would have detected, and it certainly created a proliferation of targets on the ground for combinations of attack aviation and ground maneuvers - had those resources been available and allowed to operate freely. U.S. military power, properly employed and resourced, can thwart these kinds of maneuvers. The fall of Ramadi was unnecessary and avoidable.
It is also a major strategic setback. The president's strategy has been to support the Iraqi security forces in retaking territory lost to the Islamic State last summer and then, in some unspecified manner, turn to confronting it in Syria (probably in the next president's term). Statements by U.S. and Iraqi leaders this spring made it clear that their plans involved holding in Anbar while focusing on a major operation to retake Mosul sometime this year. That operation would have been an essential precondition for the liberation of the rest of Anbar and for any subsequent operations against the Islamic State in Syria. But discussions about whether the retaking of Mosul would lead to the immediate collapse of the group now appear to have been premature. The disaster in Anbar, along with the fight for Tikrit precipitated by Iranian-backed Shiite militias that ultimately required the diversion of U.S. and Iraqi assets, has certainly derailed any campaign aiming at an early reconquest of Mosul.
Setbacks against the Islamic State in Iraq might not be so devastating if the United States and its allies were on the offensive against that group elsewhere. The president's plan, unfortunately, confined our efforts almost exclusively to Iraq. In the meantime, the group has managed to gain adherents in the Sinai, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even further abroad, as part of its strategy to remain in Iraq and Syria and expand the caliphate. Had the Islamic State been dealt a rapid and crushing blow in Iraq, one might have hoped for a collapse in support for the organization and the dwindling of these various movements, all of which were preexisting organizations that swore allegiance to the Islamic State opportunistically in the hope that they would prove to be early backers of what Osama bin Laden liked to call "the strong horse." The Islamic State's success against the United States in Iraq makes the group look, indeed, like a strong horse and is likely to strengthen its efforts to recruit individuals and groups to its ranks. The fall of Ramadi is a major strategic defeat for the United States and an important victory for the Islamic State, even if it proves ephemeral.
The White House is no doubt abuzz with recommendations, many probably counseling avoiding being sucked further into Iraq. Such recommendations would be completely wrongheaded. We are already sucked into Iraq for the simple reason that an enemy that has claimed credit for lone-wolf attacks in the United States and Australia (which it quite probably inspired, although did not direct) is entrenched there, defeating our local partners, and threatens to establish a quasi-state that controls several large cities. Even at this stage, however, the Islamic State remains unable to stand against even a limited deployment of U.S. military forces if those forces are properly resourced and allowed to operate against the enemy. A few thousand additional combat troops, backed by helicopters, armored vehicles and forward air controllers able to embed with Iraqi units at the battalion level, as well as additional Special Forces troops able to move about the countryside, would certainly prevent further gains. They could almost certainly regain Ramadi and other recently lost areas of Anbar, in cooperation with local tribes. They might be able to do more.
The choice facing Obama is not between a massive deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops and a tightly constrained mission of under-resourced forces. It is, rather, between the serious application of a limited amount of U.S. military power and the establishment of a terrorist state. We submit that it is hard to imagine a serious policy discussion that concludes by favoring the latter outcome.
- 21422 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



so his strategy against the USA is just getting underway with TPP?
His strategy everywhere is working as promised; the world is in ruins.
Yaz. Even the Clintons are broke.
Boo-Hoo.
The only strategy Chimpy has is taking a Viagra and irrigating ben Finkenbinder's colon.
"Obama's Strategy Against ISIS Is In Ruins"It seems pretty clear that Barry plans to enable Iran to do whatever it wants. As Commander in Chief, all he need do is NOTHING and there's nothing anybody can do about it except whine and complain and write silly editorials.
Barry is a Pimp and you are his Ho.
Deconstructing Obama, Pt. 2: 48 Laws of ObamaIf somebody could describe exactly what Obama's stragegy is, maybe I could decide if it's a wild success or a dismal failure.
Maybe the CIA set this up as a way of knocking over Asad while also being the new counter-balance to Iran. Would you really put it past them to do something like that?
If we're so gung-ho to start wars everywhere why are we just flying around overhead and dropping a few bombs (that obviously have done nothing to stop the progress of ISIS, which we armed and trained in the first place)? I don't hear them chanting "death to Israel" nearly as much as the Iranians. I don't see them making moves on Saudi Arabia. What happened to Jordan (they're always up for a war) and their pledge to throw everything they've got at ISIS?
We're supposed to believe Obama is standing alone at the doors of the White House single-handedly beating back the neocons and preventing the US from re-entering Iraq just because he pledged no boots on the ground? I seriously doubt it.
None of this makes any sense. And when nothing makes any sense it usually means somebody's being played. I'm looking around and can't figure out who it is. So it must be me.
Why would Obama have a strategy 'against' ISIS after investing so much 'into' ISIS?
< Obama HAS a strategy?
< Obama's strategy is for ISIS to win?
Obama's strategy is to get Iran to fight ISIS. So far, it isn't working very well.
'Death to Israel.."
Its a myth that significant Iranians leaders have ever uttered that phrase let alone 'chanted' it. Pray show me a top Iranian leader ever saying such a phrase.
NoDebt, do you work for Netanyahu?
Verisimilitude, the appearance of truth, is what this is all about. Obama wants to APPEAR to be struggling mightily against the evil ISIS, but in reality he is their champion. He has to make it look good, kill a few here and there, but nothing substantial...2 steps backward, 1 step forward.
Obama is a mohammedan (and for those who have a problem with that -remember he was a mohammedan in Indonesia, and once in that club, you never leave) he practices TAQUIA, or lying to non-mohammedans to further the goals islam.
He couldn't have done it any better if he was actually trying.
Which, I think he is.
He and his buds really hate white people.
And brown people ....
And ..... oh, never mind ....
I'ma gonna have one mofo beatdown of you peeps but's nuffin a do wifs ya religion, Yo!
Jus bees youse frum dose mdeas ghettos and makes me feel uncumfobul
John McCain's ISIS? the NeoCon TPP ISIS aja Dems and RINOs destroying America's ISIS?
How many American soldeirs and sailros did McCain and his dad kill on the uSS Forrestal, USs Liberty and at Hilary's Benghazi?
The Neocons, NeoLibs, Obola, Dems, Bushes, Clintons all work for the same Z-puppet masters.
Order of out chaos. Exactly as planned.
Actually, Napoleon was good with his own personal money as well as with the French treasury so I don't think the portrait is a good analogy. Moreover, Napoleon was for meritocracy whereas Obama is certainly not.
Perhaps, Obama , could be, 'riding a tank , in the genrral's rank, while the Blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank' as the Nazis invaded Russia.
I think Obama would be be "riding" doggy style, William.
The "JV Team", crossing redlines, kicking ass and taking names ;-)
Thank dog there are no boots on the ground.
Then it would really be humiliating for Obozo.
There is not enough scorn & ridicule in the world to heep on "these people".
"Arab Spring"...lol...his boi Morsi just got sentenced to death, even the people he supports get a death sentence, its like he drags bad karma around with him wherever he goes.
By the law of averages he has to be right about something, sometime, somewhere....
Anyone? Bueller?
Well something percieved as being correct is a relative thing, if what your perception of right is, is the exact opposite of his perception of right & wrong, he's batting a thousand and is a happy camper ;-)
Cut the guy a break! Even the half lives of alpha and gamma radiation are right twice an eternity.
Don't forget the no boots on the ground conveniently forget about what is it, some 40,000 Xe/Blackwater/whomever etc's in the employ of Uncle Uknowho.
Damned convenient.
Let El-DoucheBoy's (DoucheBoy2015) Ayatollah's have Iraq. The Sunnis will bleed Iran forevaaa. For all intensive purposes, the US ceded Iraq in 2011.
Throw in Camden, Ferguson and Baltimore with ISIS amongst His Great Triumphs.
Hey, Iraq looks pretty good in comparison to the others.
Yeah, at least it's now a pluralistic society.
"If I had a country it would look like Iraq!" - Borat Obama
.
If by pluralistic you mean split into multiple warring factions, then yes, that's what it is.
Who is the father of ISIS?
Their banker is UBS.
The Father, Mother and Godparents of ISIS are of "questionable heritage" and a Blended Family, against whom it is unwise and dangerous to protest or act.
Of course, Liberty has NEVER been won by verbal and written complaints alone, but by the sweat, blood and tears of true Patriots. True for any time in history.
"We are already sucked into Iraq for the simple reason that an enemy that has claimed credit for lone-wolf attacks in the United States and Australia (which it quite probably inspired, although did not direct) is entrenched there"
This is a laughable statement. I don't know how anyone could write that bullshit.
Boring lefty DC policy wonks be ZH.
Bzzzzt! No offense intended, but that answer is incorrect.
The laughable bullshit statement was written by someone at the neocon Institute for the Study of War stink tank, as it follows the "For what it's worth, here is the full ISW note" statement made by Tyler.
Neither "left" nor "right" (whatever those terms mean anymore, if anything), the ISW is another one of those inbred "let's you and him fight using American blood and debt" war cheerleader clubs fronted by zionist warmongers and sponsored by MIC welfare queens like Raytheon, General Dynamics, and DynCorp.
Did I mention inbred? ISW is run by Kimberly Kagan, wife of Fred Kagan (a resident "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute), whose brother happens to be Robert Kagan (better known as Mr. Victoria Nuland). Kimberly Kagan's work includes a book called "Rah Rah Rah! The Surge Will Lead Us to Total Victory!" (or something like that), and she also "served" in Afghanistan, slurping the asses of both General McChrystal and General Petraeus.
ISW was also the employer of "Doctor" Elizabeth O'Bagy, whose "research" for the institute was cited by John Kerry and John McCain in senate hearings on how great it would be to go to war with Syria. "Doctor" O'Bagy was let go by the institute after it was revealed that she lied about having a Ph.D. from Georgetown. (Two weeks later, tyrannosaurid-armed war fag John McCain hired her as a "legislative assistant".)
That's who is behind the laughable bullshit.
I thought his strategy was to sell weapons in exchange for oil. What's he doing now?
just wait until zero reads about this in the paper........
he's gonna be so upset and He will get to the bottom of this
That is why everyone should read the Washington Post.
To get Barry's emotional reaction to his own latest cluster fuck.
Sick, bizarre, but true. That's all they've got.
Can't he just make a phone-call and ask the CIA to have them slow-down a bit?
""Obama's Strategy Against ISIS Is In Ruins"
"CIA-Obama's Strategy 'Against' the CIA's ISIS Is on Track"
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"Fooled you once, shame on us. Fooled you again, shame on you. Fooled you again, this is crazy."
it is true. obama wants to be michael corleone in the whatever it was number godfather movie and 'just when i think i am out they pull me back in' when he shouldn't have gone out so fast in the first place. big blame on hillary for putting in iraq people as incompetent as april glaspie formerly was in iraq; the hillary people supported the incometent shia leader of iraq - later booted out - when many others advised he was the wrong guy to lead iraq.
still, if that idiot george bush of the incompetent bush family had played chess instaed of checkers, he would have thought IRAN with an N and not IRAQ with a Q and he woudl not have opened the gates of hell that he did by invading Iraq. we have incometent leaders all around, equal opportunity incometence by party.
What would Oded do?
I'm quite sure that it's not what Jeezus would do.
ISIS is part of American Military like The French Forgein Legion is to France. ISIS is not a real enemy its marketed, articial creation of the WEST.
It's like infecting your colon with your own finger
Nonsense...That's nearly as leftist insane as claiming whites supplied crack to blacks via the CIA.
well, the neocon/zionist collusion between the US and Israel and the Saudis.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94c_1432076112
but yeah.
It is not. This is what he wanted. Marxist love chaos. It is how they gain greater power.
Top down bottom up inside out
Strategy? What strategy?
Then only strategy I saw was to head for home as quickly as possible and demonstrate US disapproval of ISIS by sporadic drone attacks while at the same time arming ISIS in Syria.
On the other hand, I don't really see why the US should care who controls Iraq.
What? The community organizer is out witted by ISIS ? I am shocked, shocked I say. Hey maybe he should have a beer summit with them; it could be a valuable teaching moment. (What a fucking douche bag.)
PS. And don't forget the pipeline, mom.
Hugs and Decapitations,
Love, Barry S
Golly, if only the Iraqi government has a strong leader like Saddam Hussein this would never have happened.
If only there was a way to think about consequences before starting a war.
This is a fairly sweet karmic outcome for the exceptional unipolar hegemon.
Then again, if the US wanted to get rid of ISIS, all they have to do is stop payment on the checks.
Yeah, but what happened as well to Tunisa, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Yeman, and Libya? Saddam and Assad are/were both Baathist and led a very small minority over their respective majorities. Don't be a graduate of the Joseph Biden Graduate School of Int'l amorphisms. A strong leader like Saddam? You support Assad as well? What about the Ayatollah Cumfrommany?
Just keep dropping the drone bombs... she'll come around... you wait and see...
Few people understand Islam is not just a simplistic religion, it is a very sophisticaed political movement.
Its another Cakewalk waiting to happen! Send Nuland over there with some cookies to get the hearts and minds on board
ISIS is useful to many interests and for this reason will continue to receive generous support from many governments internationally (Turkey, logistics and supplies, Israel, safe haven and medical care, Gulf states lots of cash and weapons, Several European countries weapons etc - the list is long and in the public domaine). Initially supported to get rid of Assad in Syria they have grown stronger than expected and also developed an appetite for lands outide Syria. They will exist for as long as regional interests such as the Gulf states and Israel want ISIS to exist. Sending more decent young Americans to die in Iraq is not the solution. The only other way to get rid of ISIS is to publicly expose their backers in the region and in the West - individuals and not just governments - those who provide the money, propaganda, logistics and intelligence that keeps ISIS going. The problem with this option is that their backers are powerful and prefer to operate convertly - and do not like being being publicly exposed!
Very senior US politicians were publicly lauding Assad as a "reformer," and I saw no western calls for his removal before he went medieval on what appeared to be a truly grass roots revolt initially. History didn't begin yesterday. The only US President to openly challenge any Syrian policy was GW Bush regarding the decades long occupation of Lebanon. Syria was forced to remove thousands of security apparatus personnel, after the invasion of Iraq. Of course Lebanon has seen the wholesale cleansing of Christians over the past 30 years, and now Iran's Hezzbullah holds nominal control of the nation.
There was no grass roots movement in Libya or Syria. That's Obama propaganda. Even if Assad went medival a thousand or so would have died and life would go on. Now the country is destroyed and over 200,000 dead and literally millions displaced with the neverending war ongoing. Many of them Iraqi's who fled the US invasion of Iraq. Some claim the US had to invade Iraq to keep Saddam from killing a small number of his people, if true, yet hundreds of thousands died and much of Iraq destroyed in the invasion and occupation. Now it's a total mess as is Libya and Syria with Al Qaeda and it's spawn like ISIS growing rapidly.
Saddam was the roadblock between Iran and the ME. Taking him out helped set the stage for the chaos. With no roadblock to Iran Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the US set up Libya and Syria by seeding the countries with people who would foment uprisings on command. In Benghazi they attacked and burned police stations and killed police. The US lapdog media claimed it was peaceful demonstrations and that Qadaffi was going to massacre them thus the bombing campaign that strangely materialized overnight. Qadaffi said he would massacre anyone taking up arms against him but all others would be safe. He would leave a corridor open to Egypt for all who wanted to leave. Obomber and the press along with the 3 warmonger bitches Hillary, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power were screaming Qadaffi was going to massacre everyone in Benghazi and beyond and the US had to save those people. Now a once prosperous Libya is a failed violent state. In Syria the demonstrations started peaceful but in a preview of Ukraine snipers started shooting both sides and the insurgents across Syria came to life. Then the US propaganda set in claiming Assad overreacted and was "butchering" his people but the reality was he dealing with a foreign backed insurgency. After the fall of Libya the US and it's pals gathered up considerable Libyan weaponry and shipped them, along with Al Qaeda vets from the war, to Syria.
I have been to Syria, as I am sure none of you have. I know a little about that country.
Assad is an Allawi, a moderate, and tolerant to all religions. Sure he can be 'strong man' at times, but every ME leader has to be or he (no she) will soon be deposed.
All the 'opposition parties' in Syria are all radical, like the ISIS people. Assad IS the moderate.
And I disagree that the US is aiding ISIS now.
The US initally set them up, along with the Israelis, which were armed through Benghazi to topple Assad and get the fucking gas pipleline from Oman through. But, with Iraninan and Russia support in Syria it was 'too hard' to fight them so ISIS, Daesh went south in Iraq where conquest was much easier and there were oil fields to exploit. This action brought them the ire of the US/CIA and they turned against ISIS. However, the Israelis are still aiding and abetting ISIS-as ISIS fight Hezbollah, Iran and generally screw up the ME which is to Israelis' long term benefit- which is one of the reasons US/Israeli relations have deteriorated over the past year or so.
The "ISIS Crisis".
Oh, boo hoo hoo! Something that isn't very nice is going on somewhere in the world! Some not-very-nice people somewhere are saying some not-very-nice things! Quick! Mobilize the US government since it is the duty of the US to fix every problem everywhere in the world. Regardless of cost in blood and treasure and regardless of whether the people living in the region care for the US solution.
One American Armored division and one infantry division sea lifted to Iraq and rushed to Baghdad, along with their Air Force support would clean ISIS up. So why don't we do it? As one Iraq politician said "The USA is not so much fighting ISIS as trying to stage manange ISIS operations." The Neocons in Washington and the Zionists in Israel and Washington are using ISIS as a tool to further US interests in the Middle East. That is why no knock out blow is delivered to ISIS. It took three full years of recruitment, transport, arming, training and funding to raise the large ISIS army, all of that was hidden behind the cloak of an Anti Assad Armed Force.
How did ISIS appear from nowhere in a few weeks to sweep across Syria and Iraq? Well, it could not happen without US support. Syria was fighting them. Iraq was hostile to them. Lebanon was hostile. Jordan and Turkey were hosting US training bases, as these are the only places ISIS could have grown so strong, so fast, and so protected.
What is Zionism playing at here? I admit, it is hard to discern what the ultimate Israeli and Washington game is. They had hoped the Anti Assad army would win, but Syria's Army beat them in major battles, and then they just walked away and declared themselves ISIS! Went across the border into Iraq and looted arms, money and resources from Iraq.
The US media has one glaring hole in their hysterical coverage. That is "Where did ISIS come from"? Libya played a role, it became a terrorist safe haven after NATO delivered it up to Islamic Terrorism. Now Libya is an arms, money and recruitment grand central station for radical Islamists seeking Jihad.
ISIS is killing Arabs as fast as it can, it kills any christian it can find, and it leaves untouched Israel and Israeli interests. That should indicate ISIS true center of support.
The purpose is the removal of all the Shia power in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen etc. The Imams preserve the more mystical side of the faith.It is disturbing to see the gradual demolition of the ancient oriental mystical centres that has occured in recent times in Afghanistan, Iraq,Syria, NW Africa, Saudi Arabia, Western China, Tibet, Nepal etc
There is nothing new under the sun regarding the history of ME politics and movements. This is just the latest iteration of the Caliphate. Just a little historical digging will find similar movements from Iran through Syria during the early 20th Century.
I still haven't found why ISIS/ISI/ISIL is in the Israelis' strategic interests. Assad, while a proxy for Iran and a conduit to Hezzbullah, has over the years maintained a relatively quiet border. An ISIS led 'government' in Damascus would put the Israelis at a further disadvantage militarily, and at a very real risk of a chemical attack. Syria does have one of the very most active and advanced chemical weapons programs in the entire world. I suppose one could argue that ISIS controlled Syria would sooner or later battle Hezzbullah, since they might not serve as Iran's client state, but that's a big gamble from an Israeli point of view.
Further, ISIS poses a existential threat to the of Heshimite (sp) western plant...King Abdullah of Jordan. He is, as all the Jordanian Heshimite Monarchs, the decidedly weak man of the Arab nation. Imagine Jordan becoming a unrestrained "palestinian" nation w/o their Monarchy.
The previous Assad acquired a lot of respect for standing up to Israel in Lebanon during the 30 year Lebanese war.
.
Why not ask some of the medical personnel at hospitals in Israel that patch up wounded "Syrian" "rebels"?
Just wake up, Rip Van Winkle? This is not the year 2013.
It kind of makes you wonder why the CIA uses Jordan as a base for both training and supplying ISIS.
By unrestrained "palestinian" nation, did you mean denuded of olive groves overnight, settlements popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm, or supported by welfare entitlements from the US?
That isn't much of a response. I was taking the position of what I think an Israeli strategist might consider, and you've posted bumpersticker comments that don't even attempt to respond in kind to the strategic issues that are involved regardless of the nation.
christ, you need to expand your reading list, although your zionism probably makes that a waste of time.
ISIS has a temporary common interest with Israel - namely defeating the Shiites. Iran has set itself up as the champion of the Palestinians, which makes Iran the mortal enemy of Israel. In order to build its Caliphate, ISIS has to destroy Iran. Of course, after the Shia have been exterminated and the Caliphate has conquered billions, ISIS will attack Israel - as prophesized in the Book of Revelation. But that is years or even decades away. And Israel would love nothing more than to expel the Palestinians in their entirety, and ISIS control of the borderlands would enable this by giving Israel a place to send them to. For now, these common interests make Israel and ISIS frenemies.
I don't know, Jack. i agree the US started Deash but its aim was to take out Assad to get the pipeline through; the plan backfired and now here is the blowback.
The Israelis are still managing ISIS to the US displeasure.
Why does it look just like the battle for Berlin? I guess this will lead to a divided country.
http://junebarbarossa.devhub.com/img/upload/ytytjjyjtu7y6t7_1.jpg
Let me get this straight:
We funded and armed the Jihad's who we are "fighting" (yet supporting still), and destabilized every non-sectarian regime to the point where the most radical violent element could take the nation/country/region back to the stone ages, and we are what? Surprised?
It would be one thing if we had done it with Kazoo's and leaflets, but we did it with Trillions of Dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives.
Mordor on the Potomac!
There were several dozen paramilitary groups in Syria at the beginning of the civil war. What's now referred to as ISIS is Al Nusra, and no they're not being armed and trained by either the IDF or the Family Saud or the Empire. Al Nusra has folded into their span of control other groups that were probably supported by maybe SA and maybe the US, but I rather doubt the Israelis at all.
Many of those other groups and their memberships had to at some point decide whether they were going to be killed by the stronger Al Nusra or fold into their nominal span of control. Reports about the Israelis giving medical treatment to wounded from Syria is openly acknowledged and that's simply HUMIT 101.
Al Nusra and Al Quaeda have quarreled for years; first over who was a franchise or a subordinate to Al Queda Afghanistan and later as to who represented the true Caliphate. AQA claims command of, and the two Al Baghdadis and the other Al Nusra (IS, ISIS, ISIL et al) leaders claim to be the true Caliphate, as does now AQA. Muslim Brotherhood also has connections with Al Nusra.
It's disinformation claiming that the US or anyone else in the West or the Saudis (They should be beheaded in mass for their decades of evil Wahabi crimes against humanity), are behind ISIS/IS/ISIL. That's not to say that incredibility stupid US pols like McCain actually think they and the US intel apparatus, possess sufficient intelligence to vet individuals and nominal groups within Syria and now into Iraq. It's the height of hubris by McCain/Graham and others calling for sending arms to anyone there at this point. They're about 4 years too late to the game, but it's not a game, yet they want to play.
There is considerable public domain information available to get at least a handle as to who is who. Trying to assimilate all the Arabic names of the players, and their a/k/a's takes a lot of time. For instance Al Baghdadi is a title, not actually the name of the last two ISIS commanders.
So what I read is that we should have stayed the hell out of the sectarian clusterfuck and the Middle East quagmire alltogether.
Yeah, but we ain't a government by, for, or of the people so...
"What's now referred to as ISIS is Al Nusra, and no they're not being armed and trained by either the IDF or the Family Saud or the Empire."
This sentence is wrong and your missive gets worse from here. Nusra is an outgrowth mainly of Al Qaeda, and there is no question Israel has been assisting them. None. Many of them went over to 'ISIS' which clearly has state backing, and that is almost certainly the Saudis and Americans and Israelis.
ISIS is a fraud, a golem, meant to weaken Iran and fulfill the Oded Yinon/Clean Break line of plans.
And they surely know that in the CIA- those portions not supplying the AKs and cash.
Saddam is looking down and laughing...
Saddam did not go up.
strategy of tension works all ways.
glad die ohhh my life already
failure is the option and saturn satan needed
oded yinon brookings and chatham houses mappa mundi
ohhh my poor goy you mules are for workin and ridin
When Israel Is Mighty already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY
Is it too soon for one of those "Miss me yet?" memes, but with a picture of Saddam Hussein instead of W?
First and foremost we get Bush #41 and baby Bush #43 indisputable love(? infatuation?) sympathy for Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family!
Iraq war #1 (GHW Bush) and Iraq war #2 (GW Bush) both exempted SA from Kuwait's slant drilling and 9/11 scrutinization (?28 page never-to-be-seen-by-public 9/11 WTC commission report investigation [can somebody say Kean's 'conflict-of-interest? .. making Nixon's missing Watergate minutes a no-brainer? in eternal transparency under the umbrella-clause: National Security!) of a 'No-see-em' WMD!?!
Bush #43's hero was Reagan..aka' The acting President' with 'Trust but Verify' BS!!!
Bush #43 was, and still is a pathological liar. Period! When in doubt, the operative word was/is 9/11. The Bush #43 mantra for everything, 9/11[!] and WMDs!
He drops all attempts of going after OBL and goes into Iraq leaving Afghanistan fragmented, and Pakistan puzzled in 'Tora`Bora'[?] for whomever fallows in his little cowboy footsteps.
Reagans' Mujahideen morphs into the Taliban aligning with al Qaeda and turns a symbiotic anomaly into a newly created genome terrorist cell... with no known CT/ CI antibiotics.
Anti this and anti that, WTF! Terrorism this and Insurgent that...[?], is Obi1's gift from the now defunct neo-con God's, in which he himself is a soul`brother of the fraternal order!?!
The skin in the game is money! and the banks rule!
John McCain has had half-a-Billion donated to his campaigning political life... and guess what[?], the TBTF's are his lunch,... because war is a good thing for a super-unilateral-theocracy?
Summary: Obama's strategy is fucked-up like Bush #43,.. but, unbeknowst to most is that for every 4 year term, the presito produce one-big heist!
ObamaCare (1st Term)
TPP (2nd Term)
jmo
Ps. Bush #43 made a cash-out of $135 million bucks when the Saudi bin Laden family bailed him out of his Texas Oil Company getting a Persian Gulf contract when #41 was President. Both father and son made millions in consultations with the bin Laden family or nefarious Saudi millionairs/ Billionaires financing OBL!
Ps2. Bush #43 had bankrupted three times and his partnership in Harkin would have been #4...
again jmo
iRack - this is just too much...I wonder how the wounded vegetables feel when they're not begging for $19/month donations....
My solution:
1. kill them ALL.
2. Repopulate with civilized humans.
civilisation A
would that be the yahudick
is that what you mean as in rabbi saturn and the synangogue of satan
Mezizah (the practice of orally sucking the bleeding penis with the mouth) is not outmoded or discarded it normal everyday activity
ISIS is really ISO Islamic States of Obama.
Can we cut all the bullshit?
"civilized humans" ??? oxymoron
"We are already sucked into Iraq for the simple reason that an enemy that has claimed credit for lone-wolf attacks in the United States and Australia "
What lone wolf attacks in Australia? surely he does not mean that one mentally ill guy with a shotgun who had an Islamic flag but knew about as much about Islam as you would find on the back of a brochure.
Anyone can wave around an Islamic flag, just as anyone can wave around an American flag, it doesn't make them a Muslim
terror to villify muslims/Israel's foes is at least as likely a source of major terrorism as islamic terror per se.
Charlie Hebdo was quite possibly a mossad op. Patsies are the new black.
Instead of all these Iraq/Isis articles, with graphs and charts, why not just say Military and Military Industry want more money for them and less for The People.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
I'd say the strategy is working perfectly for the Muslim in Chief. The manchurian candidate and his handlers want nothing more than to bring down western society both financially and culturally. A bonus for them would be for all of us to die trying to prevent it.