This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Pretend War: Why Bombing ISIS Won't Solve The Problem
Authored by Andrew J. Bacevich, originally posted at The Spectator,
Not so long ago, David Cameron declared that he was not some "naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet." Just a few weeks after making that speech, Cameron authorised UK forces to join in the bombing of Libya - where the outcome reaffirmed this essential lesson.
This week Cameron asked his parliament to share his ‘firm conviction’ that bombing Raqqa, the Syrian headquarters of the Islamic State, has become ‘imperative’... and they did.
At first glance, the case for doing so appears compelling. The atrocities in Paris certainly warrant a response. With François Hollande having declared his intention to ‘lead a war which will be pitiless’, other western nations can hardly sit on their hands; as with 9/11 and 7/7, the moment calls for solidarity. And since the RAF is already targeting Isis in Iraq, why not extend the operation to the other side of the elided border? What could be easier?
But it’s harder to establish what expanding the existing bombing campaign further will actually accomplish. Is Britain engaged in what deserves to be called a war, a term that implies politically purposeful military action? Or is the Cameron government — and the Hollande government as well — merely venting its anger, and thereby concealing the absence of clear-eyed political purpose?
Britain and France each once claimed a place among the world’s great military powers. Whether either nation today retains the will (or the capacity) to undertake a ‘pitiless’ war — presumably suggesting a decisive outcome at the far end — is doubtful. The greater risk is that, by confusing war with punishment, they exacerbate the regional disorder to which previous western military interventions have contributed.
Even without Britain doing its bit, plenty of others are willing to drop bombs on Isis on either side of the Iraq-Syria frontier. With token assistance from Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, US forces have thus far flown some 57,000 sorties while completing 8,300 air strikes. United States Central Command keeps a running scorecard: 129 Isis tanks destroyed, 670 staging areas and 5,000 fighting positions plastered, and (in a newish development) 260 oil infrastructure facilities struck, with the numbers updated from one day to the next. The campaign that the Americans call Operation Inherent Resolve has been under way now for 17 months. It seems unlikely to end anytime soon.
In Westminster or the Elysée, the Pentagon’s carefully tabulated statistics are unlikely to garner much official attention, and for good reason. All these numbers make a rather depressing point: with plenty of sorties flown, munitions expended and targets hit, the results achieved, even when supplemented with commando raids, training missions and the generous distribution of arms to local forces, amount in sum to little more than military piddling. In the United States, the evident ineffectiveness of the air campaign has triggered calls for outright invasion. Pundits of a bellicose stripe, most of whom got the Iraq war of 2003 wrong, insist that a mere 10,000 or 20,000 ground troops — 50,000 tops! — will make short work of the Islamic State as a fighting force. Victory guaranteed. No sweat.
And who knows? Notwithstanding their record of dubious military prognostications, the proponents of invade-and-occupy just might be right — in the short term. The West can evict Isis from Raqqa if it really wants to. But as we have seen in other recent conflicts, the real problems are likely to present themselves the day after victory. What then? Once in, how will we get out? Competition rather than collaboration describes relations between many of the countries opposing Isis. As Barack Obama pointed out this week, there are now two coalitions converging over Syria: a US-led one, and a Russia-led one that includes Iran. Looking for complications? With Turkey this week having shot down a Russian fighter jet — the first time a Nato member has downed a Kremlin military aircraft for half a century — the subsequent war of words between Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin gives the world a glimpse into how all this could spin out of control.
The threat posed by terrorism is merely symptomatic of larger underlying problems. Crush Isis, whether by bombing or employing boots on the ground, and those problems will still persist. A new Isis, under a different name but probably flying the same banner, will appear in its place, much as Isis itself emerged from the ashes of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Does the West possess the wherewithal to sustain another long war? Only if the allies wage that war exclusively from the air. The British army is now the smallest it has been since the 19th century, Cameron’s government having reduced it by 20 per cent since coming to power. The French army today numbers just over 100,000. London and Paris inevitably look to the United States as the pre-eminent member of the western alliance to take up the slack (the US still spends almost twice as much on defence as all other Nato members put together). But apart from Obama’s evident reluctance to close out his presidency by embarking upon a new war, advocates of a major ground offensive against Isis should note that the United States army is also shrinking. It’s also considerably worn out by the trials of the past dozen or more years. Those who cheer from the bleachers may be eager for action. Those likely to be sent to fight, not to mention citizens who actually care about the wellbeing of their soldiers, may feel less keen.
The fact is that Britain, France, the United States and the other allies face a perplexing strategic conundrum. Collectively, they find themselves locked in a protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism — of which Isis is but one manifestation. Prospects for negotiating an end to that conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning it.
In this conflict, the West as a whole appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at waging it.
Yet time and again the actual deployment of our ostensibly superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success — the ousting of some unsavoury dictator, for example — it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.
Although the comparison may strike some as historically imprecise, the present moment bears at least passing resemblance to the last occasion when British and French leaders got all worked up about taking on obstreperous Arabs. Back in 1956, the specific circumstances differed, of course. Then, the problem attracting the ire of British and French policymakers was the Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who in seizing the Suez canal had committed a seemingly unpardonable offence. And the issue was preserving imperial privilege, not curbing terrorism. But then, as today, in both London and Paris, an emotional thirst for revenge overrode sober calculation.
The vicious Isis attacks in Paris represent another unpardonable offence. Through war, Cameron and Hollande seek to avenge the innocents who were killed and wounded. But as the humiliating outcome of the Suez war reminds us, there are some problems to which war is an unsuitable response.
Across much of the greater Middle East today, we confront one such problem. For western governments to reflexively visit further violence on that region represents not a policy but an abdication of policy. It’s past time to think differently.
* * *
As an afterthought, we were reminded that while Hilary Benn voted for war this week, his father had a very different perspective...
»
- 30 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You have the idea they want to solve the problem. In fact, as Israeli-neocons who all have done war crimes, from 9/11 to the many illegal and anti-constitutional things in their own countries, they will all have their necks in nooses as soon as normal politics is allowed.
So they won't allow it. Chaos is fine. Whatevery advancement of chaos they can get through the system, they will do.
It isn't as if they can actually win, ever. But every day they don't step through the trap door for their final short drop is a win.
This is 'maybe the horse will learn to talk' strategy.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/911-is-the-weak-spot/
9/11 was a False Flag operation by the Israeli-Neocons in the US Government
While this article may or may not be decent reading for the masses to consume, this is rather redundant and innacurrate to post on Zero Hedge.
I'm pretty sure everyone here knows by now that NOT solving the problem in the ME is the precise goal of the United States. The real purpose is the complete opposite: to perpetuate, exacerbate, and escalate the problem with the ultimate goal of creating control over the ME oil supply and a provide an indefinite, never ending banquet of war for the Military Industrial Complex to gorge on.
When you're in the business of war, peace will make you poor.
Why "bombing" ISIS won't solve the problem? Because the West is in bed with ISIS .
And balls deep one might say:
http://goo.gl/7tHnDu
> For western governments to reflexively visit further violence on that region represents not a policy but an abdication of policy. It’s past time to think differently.
Western governments are the world's biggest arms-dealers, so thinking differently might have a serious impact on weapons sales and profits.
~"Why Bombing ISIS Won't Solve The Problem"~
Sounds a lot like the same old problem. One pox, two houses. On one side you have Islam, the Profit Prophet's cult versus the military-industrial complex of the western world. Both sides have fodder to feed the engines of hell and sufficient capital to carry it out. One side has completely indoctrinated followers who think they will be rewarded in the afterlife if they willfully climb into the cannons versus money-grubbing industrialists who understand that the way to gluttonous profits is to supply whichever side has cash to pay with. Trapped in the middle are the little folks who either have no say but simply want to live in peace or the few who see through the insanity of both sides but are powerless to stop it.
I'm curious if Trump will make a difference. He's about the only one who "gets it" and has the courage to call a spade a fucking shovel. I just hope he doesn't turn out to be a fascist once he gets elected.
Sounds a bit like "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia", except that Eurasia here is any convenient Petro-MENA.
Obama and the White House are engaged in their usual and daily business - they are lying.
In fact, in today's world there are two coalitions:
- The coalition against terrorism headed by Russia.
- And the coalition against Assad personally, led by the United States.
All the rest - it's just chatter and lies of Washington, as well as Washington puppets from other "sovereign" countries.
Order out of chaos is one of the main controlling mechanisms used by governments worldwide. They are petrified that the people may raise up and put their heads in the guillotine block, so aim to keep the population in a constant state of fear. As a whole it works pretty well, but occasionally the people wake up and all hell breaks loose....perhaps it is time?
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/road-to-ww3-time-to...
I agree. A solution, or peace is the last thing that the PTB ever want. Their real business is war-mongering with its accompanying bloodshed. The more blood that is shed, the more succesful their campaign according to their real agenda not the publicly stated one.
Skip this article and read or view Ron Paul videos or Ron Paul books...you will learn much more than this article.
Ummmm.... because bombing them may have created the problem in the first place? Just guessin'
Is it just me or is there something wrong with all this "news"? With all the bombing etc. going on....how could there possibly be anything left? This has been smelling like Vietnam for quite awhile. I understand that turkey has been a turd.....even so this makes no sense.
"[...] US forces have thus far flown some 57,000 sorties while completing 8,300 air strikes."
What in the flying fuck were the other 48,700, sightseeing? And of the mythical 8,300, how many involved a 45 minute forewarning? That's roughly 1 in 5. Your tax dollars at work - just ask IS how cheap it is to maintain an active air force, halfway across the planet.
Seems the Russian air campaign has done more in a matter of weeks, though that is not to imply that it or anything else (short of a small run of low-yield nuclear bombs) could "solve" this "problem" in any meaningful non-doublespeakesque way.
This is a jobs program. Going to war against a religion is a hopeless and never-ending task, especially when the religion promotes a quid pro quo Paradise-in -trade- for- murder proposition. But the inventory of bombs, boots, and beans constantly needs replenishing. It's a great business!
This is not a war against religion. This is US war against Eurasia. Religion is only an excuse.
What in the flying fuck were the other 48,700, sightseeing? And of the mythical 8,300, how many involved a 45 minute forewarning?
I think deep down you know the answer.
What in the flying fuck were the other 48,700, sightseeing? And of the mythical 8,300, how many involved a 45 minute forewarning?
They bombed the troops legitimate authority of Syria - Assad army.
They bombed the last two functioning power planets in Aleppo, that ran water pumps, in the government and jihadi halves of the city. No, nobody gets water.
Oh Libya again?!?! Isn't that the one Hillary!, Obama, Hollande and Cameron gave "democroceee" to?
They fixed that one already dammit, now it's off to fixing the entire fucking planet from Paris!
(Sigh)
during the 1956 war,... the only country that won was Israel, gaining a foothold in the 'Gulf of Aqaba' and access to the Red Sea unto the Suez Canal, that had been previously off-limits to the jews shipping commerce.
what most people don't realize was russia and the ussa both condemned this act of war.
but, the british rothschilds bank and french rothschild banks were the entity that orchestrated the deception. it was a ruse to get israel firmly positioned.
period!!!
yeah, the world condemned it,... big fucking deal!
>during the 1956 war,... the only country that won was Israel
The United States also won.
Great Britain lost hegemony over the Middle East and was replaced by the US.
(after Eisenhower unexpectedly withdrew his support for british Prime Minister Eden)
It was the threat of selling BoE Gilts that did it.
Just as well there are no large foreign holders of USTs out there.
Oh wait,,,,,,
"By almost any measure measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger.."
Well, when you bomb one peasants outhouse for an entire week because you don't want to hit your own assets, which you claim to oppose... yes, things will continue this way perpetually until somebody starves the beast or challenges them. It's not that perplexing of a mystery... unless your Don Lemon. Everything is baffling to that guy.
the RAF and USSA have a symbiotic military agreement. as turkey has the largest standing military in NATO only second to the USSA, the british give total access to the RAF airbases for a largess of USSA fighter planes [f-15 oldest/ f-16 getting old fast/ f-22 very expensive and getting even moar uselesser,because of its lack of close combat maneuverability. being stealth doesn't make it invincible. once the payload is disposed it become tracible and an open target. the a-10 warthog in service since the 70's has stopped production because the MIC can sell you 1/f-22 for the cost of 50/ a-10,... and that doesn't put money in their pockets, so to say...[?]
There are not enough NATO troops in Europe to stop Russia. American troops are too widely dispersed to do much without leaving big holes somewhere. The ChiComs could roll over Sourh Korea or Japan at will.
That the UK is adding an 'air war' to this is just a sign that an air war is all that they CAN do.
Tornados? Run away, the Tornados are coming!
This post is like so many others from supposed enlightened thinkers...Pat Buchanan...Ron Paul....etc. They describe the problem accurately but never go on to propose an alternative! I am in their camp but long for specifics beyond just detailing the existing issues - we all know what those are. Until that happens, the neocons and Obama/Cllnton factions rule the day and nothing changes.
Sure dd but a Fistful of Proxy Mercs can't conquer shit in the Desert Sands. Game Over!
In the Killing Fields of the Middle East, Trench Battle-hardened Sons of the Soil are Paramount. The Saudomites , Queertari's and Foreign Mercs & NATO/ZION/WAHHABI are no match for Secular Syria/Hezbollah/Russia & Friends. Toast!!. Israel's soiree's into Syria are a thing of the past. With Eu(ROPE) around your neck economic free-fall Germany needs China/Russia.
1) We can't do a damned thing about ISIS without doing something about KSA, because ISIS *IS* Saudi Arabia -- as demonstrated by our female shooter in California yesterday.
2) We need to do something that protects US, not that blows up goats and wedding parties and an occasional tanker-truck.
3) The way to protect US is to draw a ring-fence around the Middle East and leave the jihadis to try and eat their oil.
4) If we can't learn to do without Gulf oil, we're doomed within 50 years anyway. We might as well start working it out now. THAT would solve our Middle East problem -- by making the Middle East irrelevant.
5) And in the meantime, we need not to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, but to completely ban ALL immigration from the Islamic world. To hell with the bleeding hearts who say we have to "open our doors" to all the world's trash. We don't have enough jobs for the people who are already here; the last thing we need to do is import competitors who hate our guts and pay them their first 8 months' living expenses so they can get settled in on our tab (Google ORR, the Office of Refugee Resettlement) and learn how to work the welfare system. I work in a Dept. of Social Services. I see letters every day from people who have immigrated here and EXPECT to be GIVEN sufficient funds to live comfortably with their hordes of children as well because they "need" it and therefore are entitled to have their needs fulfilled at others' expense. Even my cats are more grateful and less demanding.
Bomb George Soros.
Nice polemic. But really all it proves is that our leaders don't have a clue. No understanding of history. No military strategy. Just a nice suit in front of a teleprompter.
Somewhat on-topic:
Watch for something big to hit the news about VP Biden over the next several days. He'll be in Ukraine early in the week, and will address their parliament.
The news should hit Monday or possibly as early as Sunday. Something having to do with the far-right party in Ukraine, its leader, and Biden. I've been told some 'folks in the know' might break the story Sunday right after the talking heads shows air. Keep in mind his son who was kicked out of the Naval Academy is on the board of Ukraine's national gas company.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of damage control the U.S. government and the Obama Admin try with this one, it's a doozy. I just can't go too much into detail, before the news hits. I don't have enough info as it is to be able to connect all the dots (hint-hint), and I'm sure connecting the dots will be easier once the firestorm hits, so I'll just leave it at that.
If Choo Choo Joey is in Kiev, Jesus TITS that loose cannoned fuckmouth may .....
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus TITS!
Which far right party? Svoboda or Pravy Sektor? Svoboda was behind a recent grenade attack at the Ukraine government. Its leader, Tahnybok, was heckled by Ukrainians when he visited Ukraine expat groups in Britain. Pravy Sektor does (or did) some of Kolomoisky's dirty work. Some of its leaders have strong Jewish connections.
Svoboda.
Another propaganda piece trying to convince people to stop the bombing. Then what? ISIS will pick up it's toys and chopped heads and retire to a life of sunbathing on the Riviera? In Syria and Iraq bomb the hell out them, all rebels including the so called good ones. There will be civilains killed too but it is a price to be paid as the casualties will be far lower than to let ISIS and it's ilk survive. The Assad government is the legitimate government and is the only chance to bring this crap storm to an end and bury it. Problem is the Nobel Bomb Them to Pieces Prize winner is too stupid to know a lost cause and is funneling more cash and weapons into the fray to keep the war going. Clown boy wants Assad gone and won't rest until he is no matter how many Syrians die or how many millions flood Europe. An occupation by foreigners, like Iraq, won't work and with Assad gone complete anarchy will reign and Obama knows that and doesn't care. This whole mess is all about US drive for control.
The Kurds called it when they said this thing could be over within weeks if everybody got on the same page. Clown Obama keeps saying it's a 20 to 30 year war to justify his agenda and it will take that long because he wants it to. The play to end this thing is everyone ally with the Assad regime and bomb the hell out of it's opponents while coordinating with friendly troops on the ground. It's a war so treat it like one. Between Hezbolloh, loyal Syrians, and the Iranians there are enough troops to do the job. Many of those fighting for ISIS are only doing so to either keep theirs and their families heads firmly in place or they fight because ISIS pays well and they need to support their families. If those fighters can see that this new coalition is doing it for the good of Syria they will desert in droves. Iraq too. That is the real heart of the problem. All of the incursions in the ME are not for the benefit of it's people but for outsiders and the citizens know it. The cure for this disease is to get the population on your side by genuinely showing them you are there to help not use them to further your agenda.
China is now playing nice with it's neighbors as it realizes like the Japanese after WW2, confrontation and death is not good for business or prosperity. The Japanese lost militarily but they conquered the US with cars and electronics. Now China is doing it with everything but cars. In Africa the west supported brutal dictators to steal their resources for cheap while people lived in abject poverty or died in wars. The Chinese are buying Africa's minerals plus building infrastructure and huge construction projects that benefit the people. The US is only concearned about selling arms. So China gets the contracts and the US and it's lackies the IMF and World Bank can't destroy African economies with their draconian loan terms that do not benefit the citizens. The intial protests in Egypt and Syria were a direct result of removing subsidies for food and fuel per IMF dictates. Many countries around the world that grew sufficient food for themselves went hungry growing for profit crops and importing food to meet IMF and World Bank dictates. Most of the so called profit was stolen by middlemen and the cost of imported food skyrocketed when speculators, Wall Street and it's clones, got involved.
There's the plan but it won't work because Obama will not sign on. His agenda comes first. He would also have to explain to the voters why he is supporting a tryant instead of "freedom fighters". Imagine having to tell the truth that Assad, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and others were not anti christs but were painted that way by the DC warmongers and the lapdog press to justify regime change. Also tell the truth that the biggest recruiting device for ISIS and the rest are US drones killing innocent people. The truth will never be told but will be spun to justify more killing and destruction with more people turing to terrorism to fight back.
The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped in the whole of World War II.
They used napalm, white phosphorus and agent orange.
The US came home with its tail between its legs.
Oh yeah, I remember now, sophisticated Western weaponry doesn’t work very well when fighting Guerrilla wars.
US and NATO do not have any legal right to decide who should be the leader of other sovereign countries and peoples.
Similarly, the United States and NATO did not have any legal right to decide who of the leader of other sovereign countries and peoples "must go".
US and NATO must go home from the Syria.
Does this include the bombs we dropped on Laos and Cambodia. Some people were our enemy and some were our friends but the girls I screwed there never mentioned politics and I never discriminated.
Yep, same guerilla warfare as learned by the US during the war of independence.
Hide behind a tree, shoot a redcoat, then disappear.
America's intent is to gather an array of 'allies' to present as the 'international community™' in a military presence in and around Syria in order to diminish the influence of Russia and Iran when Putin et al eventually vanquish the assorted mercenary groups and the opportunity to rebuild Syria arises. Obviously if Russia is in command Assad stays and the international community™ is back to square one. The Paris false flag - the attack on NATO - was the pathetic catalyst to enable this illegal manoeuvre.
US and NATO give Russia an ultimatum: Either you are will our vassals and slaves, either we should mutually destroy each other with nuclear weapons.
In fact, Washington put Russia in front of a choice: - Or a world dictatorship of the US without international law - or a world without the United States and NATO.
Of course, in this situation, Russia will have to choose the second option. Amen.
Stupid shits
Bomb away till there is nothing left. Ignore the low intellects who always blame jews or whatever.They have low IQs and cannot help themselves
Authors should stop repeating the term "defense". The USSA, NATO and western nations in general have no "national defense". They have "national offense".
Very offensive offense in fact.
-----
Some reporter should ask these western "leaders" whether they intend to kill 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 or more times as many innocents as died in Paris.
What? Not a relevant question?
The Brits have showed up, article should be read with some Benny Hill music in the backgroud. http://yournewswire.com/raf-airstrikes-deal-a-real-blow-to-syrian-oil-fi...
Two British Royal ISIS Air Force Tornados dropping 6 Paveways somewhere or other - versus - "Just last week, warplanes completed 432 sorties and struck nearly 1.5 thousand strikes on ISIL militants." by the Russians
https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/...
Complete with targettting video - ISIS militants flee like cockroaches
America is grea at using war to solve its problems:
War On Vietnam
War on Cancer
War On Poverty
War On Drugs
Wait a minute. Didn't we lose all of those?
running an empire has it's costs, and Truth goes first.
today I say: War what is it good for? absolutely Nuthin.
Mencken was very right:
"the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
what a fantastic quote that is. and a decent finish by old man Benn in the YouTube clip ATL - shame about his offspring.
We meant to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here and now they're over here we're pretending to fight them over there.
Let's hear it for the Pentagonia/France/UK/German Phoney War.
Damn Russkie spoilsports.
UK carrying out bombing raids on ISIS also justifies at the same time the human rights situation in Turkey / Saudi.
If the latter runs out of control bearing in mind the west support them they will be no better than ISIS or as some people are starting to say ISIS = Turkey = Saudi.
The only difference between them is the level of depravity not the principles.
The middle east produces two products, petroleum energy and muderous radicalism.
The two are clearly connected.
Islamicism is fueled by petroleum sales.
And the Islamicism is utterly, irredeemably, irreconcilably, genocidal.
Take their oil, or take their lives, or dig the ditch in which they will behead and bury you.
They have many justifiable reasons to hate and kill the West. But those reasons are not their motivation. Their motivations are the same as they were 1000 years ago: Subjugation under a religious banner. They find those motivations achievable once again due to oil earned riches. Their methods are the ones learned from the Mongol Horde...the ultimatum of compliance to slavery or death.
Men are not angels. And the only peace Islam is offering is that of the grave.
Can we make a better offer while their offer remains compliance or death?
But you left out the most insane of all: the inbred kharians savages masquearding as jews, perpetrating the largest mass slaughters in history. Why would so obviously overlook them?
I do not mention Jews because I am neither a Jew nor an Arab.
Your quarrels with others are none of my business.
I feel bad about what I say above. But reality is reality.
When the guns are out, there can be no good offers on the table. And by framing its approach to the outside world in Islamic terms, the middle east, like it or not, has packaged in the entire history of 'Convert or Die' with the current conflict. Unfortunately, the West (and east too, for that matter) are for the first time fully capable of simply eliminating the population making the offer. All they need is an equally apocalyptic altarnative to justify the means.
By framing this in Islamic terms, with its history of invading Europe for the purpose of forced conversion, those who want to simply depopulate the middle east for the purpose of taking the energy get their justification gratis.
This is very sad because there are a lot of good people in the middle east, but there is no easy way to divide them, and capitulation is a less acceptable alternative than depopulation.
It is very technically possible to simply wholesale wipe out the cities, then poison the wilderness water supplies...and no more middle east problem.
Horribly apocalyptic. But the alternative offered is also horribly apocalyptic.
When people choose violence, they must choose their field of battle carefully, for when they draw their adversaries there, their capabilities on that field are not necessarily equal.
Holland and Putin now, and Bush before them lie about their goals for the middle east.
If they were sincere in their uncompromising stances you would see no troops, no planes in the middle east. You would see only a streak in the sky followed by a flash...and then you would see no more.
The elites WANT to cut the population.
Quit volunteering.
"clear-cut military superiority"
Perhaps, until Russia gets involved.
No Fraulein?
The British and French governments, like the US government, are in the pockets of the House of Saud and will defend Saudi Arabia at almost any cost.
Neither the Middle East nor the world will be at peace till the House of Saud are removed from power and liquidated, and Arabia's oil wealth firmly in the hands of people less interested in spreading Islam by the sword.
If London and Paris cannot or will not do this, would they kindly not interfere while Putin does it for them. They have nothing to teach him regarding how to pacify unruly Muslims, and much to learn.
It has become glaringly obvious that it depends on who is doing the bombing. The US has been bombing counties over there for the past, what... 15 years? And it seems that with each detonation another canister of barbarians is cracked open. On the other hand, when Russia drops a bomb it hits a valid target, and as would be expected when that happens, the barbarians aren't unleased they are vanished. You'd better believe bombing won't solve the problem when the bombs are deliberately misdirected onto strategic targets with the intention of keeping the war growing and the fat-cats in the military industrial complex reaping in the profits for decades.
History shows when the fiat currency system reaches it's end cycle, there is always a call for war. This one however, will wipe out billions!
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/road-to-ww3-time-to...
Andrew seems to have missed the massive amount of evidence that ISIS is a proxy of the US and its allies. They certainly had not seriously tried to degrade and destroy ISIS before Ivan showed up.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/12/us-caught-faking-it-in-syria/
The war on isis was pretend. But they served to destroy much of Syria and now can be used as a pretext to invade and occupy and Balkanize - which has always been the goal of us policy makers - largely neocon/zionist
http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...
Depends on what problems you're talking about.
These aren't the "Mole People" or the Morlocks. They live, work, steal oil from (as in, the drilling/refining/transporting equip are located), fight above ground - and below the skies.
With sustained Air based Campaigns, ISIL's efforts to destabilize SYR and IRQ can be curtailed until Ground Forces can dispatch them from their Regions. This is what RUS is doing in their effort to support SYR.
The Western Powers obviously kickstarted and are working with ISIL - it's a problem the Western Oligarchs have created to serve their means.
Nation States just need to hunker down; and overcome them.