Attacking ISIS in the Middle East is a serious strategic error

OP

I regret to say that we have to take on jihadists wherever we find them, or they'll get us? We didn't declare this war but the plain fact is that we have to fight it.

 

Yes we probably should get out of the middle east but not before we completely level Syria and Iran at least. Those are 2 of the major terrorists nations and should be completely wiped out leaving nothing but rubble when we leave. That would leave a message that we are tired of turning the other cheek and will not tolerate the bull squat any longer and show that we will do it again if necessary.

 

In the first place our involvement in Yemen is minimal.. and news about Yemen is all over the new every day.

When Assad ordered his soldiers to kill Syrian protestors 10,000 Syrian soldiers defected and took their weapons with them.

In mid 2011 ISIS came from Iraq to fight Assad.

ISIS was NOT selling lots of oil. Syria has very little oil as their production had been declining for 10 years before the start of the Syrian debacle.. Syrian oil is sludge.. very poor quality only suitable for making asphalt. Israel and Turkey and Assad were buying Syrian oil in small quantities basically from bootleggers operating makeshift refineries. A couple of years ago the RAF bombed the only remaining Syrian oilfield.

Salafi and Sunni are NOT synonymous.

 

Not sure who you are referring to by "reporter friend" - perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else ?

You speak of being able to back up your comments but there is nothing that backs up your claims in the post.

1)You claim that the Bush Admin did not create false narratives as a pretext to the Iraq invasion. What about the "mushroom cloud narrative" that the Iraq was an imminent threat to citizens on US soil and this threat was so great that war was required.


2) Previous UN resolutions did not authorize the Iraq war - and anyone who has studied the issue objectively knows this.

Obviously it is you who is "uneducated" on the issues at hand.

 

Not sure what your point is nor is it surprising that Islamist soldiers defected to the Islamist opposition.

Yup - in the form of Al Nusra. Islamists from all over started to pour in.

We are talking about the time period prior to a couple years ago - ISIS was selling "lots" of oil.

I never said they were. Salafi and "Islamist" are ----

 

A better idea is not have armed the Islamist extremists in Syria (including Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Islamic Front and other Islamist groups of the same ilk).

 

Syria never had much oil to sell.. Their oilfields were in serious decline by 2005.

 

"Much" is a relative term. 500 Million a year is a drop in the bucket to a country like Saudi Arabia. To ISIS this was a good deal of money.

500 million a year funding a terrorist state is 500 million too much.

 

AMMAN, Jordan — Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.

continued

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/...supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=0

 

Yeah but, influence from several sources exists within Syria to include Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, several factions of Islamists, Russia, Turkey, and even Iraq. Much of what the Islamic State had after running through Iraq came from captured Iraq Army equipment, we weren't directly funding nor facilitating al-Qaeda. Don't just kneejerk blame the Us for every ill, Giftedone.

 

It is not like it is some big secret that we were funding Islamist's - Salafi Jihadists.

You have no clue about Syria so quit while you are ahead.

 

We need a coalition, NATO, and individual nations. We can leave when we are done. Let Assad have it. Anything is better than ISIS.

We have to clean up the mess Obama left.

 

I'm busy schooling you on Iraq, I might as well school you on its' neighbor as well.

 

You are not that busy - you have yet to say anything illuminating on either Iraq or Syria.

So get schooling Teacher. Please tell me what the "Call to Jihad" was in Syria (what are the Syrian Rebels hoping to accomplish).

 

Gif....let's indeed start with Iraq before jumping to Syria. I had responded to your accusations against Bush II earlier, you ran away....for some reason. I had asked you why we were attacked on 9-11 and never got an answer when I explained to you it had everything to do with Iraq. You and Shanks bolted when your assertions were challenged.

 

Good OP.
Yes, we only create more terrorists when we bomb them. Faith itself (belief w/out a court-room level of evidence, the driving force behind Jihad) must be defeated. If we can't defeat the Jihad then I see our generation as one of the worst generations in US history as our legacy will be to leave our children and grandchildren's generations with endless war!

 

That and he is bogged down with controversies of his own making, and nearly on a daily basis he makes it worse with his damn tweets.

Also, he is a neophyte when it comes military matters. That is what bothers me. He also has a humongous ego that tells him he can solve any problem. Lack of knowledge combined with a super ego could be a potent threat to world peace. Now he is saber-rattling over North Korea. The Chinese President is visiting later this week and we are being told Trump going to tell him to put the clamps on North Korea or else. The Chinese don't respond well to or else threats. Earlier this year Trump found that out when he back down on the Taiwan issue.

BTW, I am aware of drone attacks in Yemen. We don't have any troops in Yemen, none that we know about anyway. We probably have special ops types there acting as drone spotters, maybe some contractors.

 

Speaking of ISIS, you might be interested in this article I wrote today.

The Syrian civil war began six years ago as a part of the Arab Spring protests of 2011. Since then, along with his Russian ally, the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Syrians. In addition, Syria's largest city, Aleppo, a former rebel stronghold, has been totally destroyed. Other cities and Syria's infrastructure have been severely damaged. The Russian air force has played a role in this destruction.

With that as a backdrop, President Trump has shifted the U.S. position from that of the Obama administration. Under President Obama the U.S. position included the removal of Assad from power. Trump's position is that of assisting the Syrian government in fighting ISIS, maintaining that should be the main objective of the U.S. in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President al-Assad.

The Obama administration had armed the rebels in their efforts to remove Assad. The Trump administration wants no part of that strategy, preferring to ally himself with Assad and Russia.

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of ISIS,” he said interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Trump has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.

On March 30, The Trump administration doubled down on prioritizing the fight against ISIS instead of ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of its main protagonist, President Bashar al-Assad -- a suggestion that was swiftly criticized by Republicans on the Hill.

Indicating the shift in US policy on the war in Syria from the days of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on a trip to Turkey that the "longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

In New York, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was even stronger about the Trump administration's decision not to push for Assad's departure. "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told wire reporters.

On April 4, it was reported that the Syrian regime launched a poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, killing at least 65 people — including at least eleven children — and wounding 350, according to the Paris-based Union of Medical Care & Relief Organizations and others. A few hours later, Syrian warplanes launched another airstrike on one of the medical clinics where victims of the first attack were being treated.

Let that sink in for a moment: Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, then bombed those desperately trying to save the lives of those suffering and dying from the chemicals, Vox asserted.

The Trump White House reacted by saying, “Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,"

Then Trump blamed Obama.

“These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution,” Mr Trump said.

 

Syria isn't a threat to us like ISIS is. Honestly the whole situation is a lose-lose. Obama bears a ton of responsibility.

 

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of ISIS,” Trump said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Last Week

The Trump administration doubled down on prioritizing the fight against ISIS instead of ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of its main protagonist, President Bashar al-Assad. Indicating the shift in US policy on the war in Syria from the days of the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on a trip to Turkey that the "longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

In New York, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was even stronger about the Trump administration's decision not to push for Assad's departure. "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told wire reporters.

Trump’s spokesman said removing Assad would be “silly” in the face of the political realities in the country. This was said right around the time Assad was gassing Syrian children.

This week

Following Assad's chemical attack on his people, President Trump said today the images of death inside Syria in the aftermath of the chemical attacks “crosses many lines, beyond a red line, many many lines.” And he said that the death of “innocent children, innocent babies, little babies” has made him reassess the situation and Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

“It’s very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much,” Mr. Trump said.

“What happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity, and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so I guess something should happen,” said Mr Trump today. He declined to outline what action he would take.

“With the acts that he [Mr Assad] has taken, it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people,” Mr Tillerson said. “The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort.”

Asked whether the US would organize an international coalition to pave the way for the removal of Mr Assad from power, he said: “Those steps are under way.”

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he doesn't think it's a coincidence that a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria occurred shortly after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad could remain in power.

Lesson learned

President Trump should not make rash changes in years long U.S. foreign policy. He has been in office for 2 1/2 months with no prior experience on the international stage. That factor should be taken into account, and he should listen to his experienced advisors. In the international game, Mr. Trump is not the boss. Fate is.

As he is learning quickly enough with Syria and North Korea, matters can get out of hand at the drop of a hat, and he has no control over those matters.

 

Last week the Trump administration made a controversial national security decision. The U.S. government would no longer attempt to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria. SecState Tillerson said that was a matter for the Syrian people. That decision changed a five-year old policy decision that was supported by the alliance of Western powers.

With Assad's chemical attack on his people on Tuesday, that turned out to be an incomprehensible policy decision. Mr. Trump removed Mr. Bannon, his chief strategist, from the National Security Council’s cabinet-level “principals committee” on Wednesday.

Coincidence?

 

Respected conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Trump's decision to send 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles towards a Syrian air base as an emotional decision.

One has to wonder what was Trump's real objective in approving the attack. For the first time ever a U.S. President committed a war-like act against a sovereign nation that had not harmed Americans or damaged American property. Did Trump intend to stop the killing of Syrians in the region? Observers say no. Unless Bashar Al-Assad escalates the war or attacks American troops in Syria -- there are approximately 900 -- experts say this is a onetime attack to discourage the Syrian leader from using chemical weapons again.

Others wondered, what changed? Assad has been killing his own people for five years. Why now? Does it really make any difference if Assad kills 500 people with barrel bombs or with chemical weapons? The people are just as dead. The White House and American news media are desperately trying to make a distinction where there isn't any. Did Trump make an emotional decision, as Krauthammer is suggesting, based on those horrible scenes on television? He has a history of making decisions based on what he sees on television. He even has admitted it.

There are Russian troops in bases all over Syria? Noting that steps were taken not to harm Russian soldiers, according to the Pentagon, but one has to wonder if any Russian troops were killed in the action. If this escalates even a little bit, for the first time in history Russian and American forces may clash. Bearing in mind that an intemperate local commander can do something rash, that could be a very volatile mix. A Russian frigate is already heading towards the two American destroyers that launched the cruise missiles.

Two things are certain. One, we know Putin got his man when it comes to the White House. Putin wanted the next President to make a serious mistake, and a novice known as candidate Donald Trump filled Putin's qualifications nicely. It took less than three months for the inexperienced President to exacerbate the American involvement in the Middle East and in the worst possible region, Syria, where no less than ten separate forces are battling over their intentions, including, of course, the U.S. and Russia.

Two, foreign leaders were right to be concerned about Trump in the sense that he was a wild card, subject to one extreme then the very opposite extreme within, literally, the drop of hat.

Last week Trump changed a five-year old U.S. policy goal of removing Assad with SecState Tillerson saying that was a matter for the Syrian people. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley made that intention quite clear, saying, "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out."

This week Tillerson is now saying Assad's removal is in the works. Trump sent 59 cruise missiles Assad's way, and Haley is now saying, "It was time to say 'enough,' but not only say it – it was time to act," Haley told the Security Council. "Bashar al-Assad must never use chemical weapons again. Ever." She ended her remarks by saying, "The United States took a very measured step last night. We are prepared to do more, but we hope that will not be necessary."

There seems to be a general consensus in the White House that our country can send 59 cruises missiles at another country and there will be no repercussions from that act. That assertion belies both history and common sense. There will be retribution. What form it will take? When will it happen? No one knows, but we just got more deeply involved in the Middle East. In terms of America's interests and wellbeing, that is the very last thing we should have done.

Putin got his man, alright.

 

One has to seriously question President's Trump's motives in attacking Syria. Only last week he was supporting Bashar Al-Assad, at least to the extent that the U.S. policy was changed by him. The U.S. would no longer pursue Assad's removal. Suddenly that changed and this week Trump hurled Tomahawk cruise missiles Assad's way. The White House and certain Republican lawmakers are making a big fanfare of the fact that the change was a chemical attack on Syrians. They argue that not responding to a chemical attack is tantamount to approving chemical attacks, which is nonsense. Since Assad has been killing Syrians for five years and the toll is north of 500,000, the distinction doesn't make sense.

Maybe President Trump wanted to end the practice of Muslim killing Muslim. Nope, that doesn't seem to make much sense, either. Muslims have been killing Muslims for centuries, and it seems to be in their DNA. There is no possible way U.S. military forces can end such a practice.

Perhaps, we should look elsewhere for Trump's motivation. Ever since he took office, his administration has been plagued by scandal, much of it Trump's own making. He encouraged the Russians to interfere in our elections, and now there is a FBI criminal investigation into the allegation that members of his campaign staff collaborated with the Russians. House and Senate investigative committees are also looking into the matter and evidence is piling up. Trump fired his first NSA over the issue, and the chairman of the House committee investigating him withdrew himself from the investigation amidst accusations he had become a White House sycophant. Other diversions, such as accusing a former President of a felony, only made things worse for him, and with the Susan Rice episode coinciding with Nunes stepping down this week, things seemed to be coming to a head. The administration is buried in scandal

Time for the biggest diversion of all. Assad conveniently provided a reason for that diversion when he gassed a Syrian town, a rebel stronghold.

President Trump would not be the first President to lob cruise missiles at adversaries during a scandal-ridden administration. Who hasn't heard the lamentation, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." Throughout the entire year of 1998, President Bill Clinton was buried in a House impeachment inquiry.

By August, things were coming to a head, and Clinton wanted to change the subject. On August 7, al-Qaeda teams in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, attacked U.S. embassies simultaneously with truck bombs. On August 20th, he ordered cruise missile attacks on al-Qaeda bases in Khost, Afghanistan, and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan.

Unfortunately for Clinton, impeachment proceedings droned on, and the House was about to move forward with an impeachment vote in mid-December. On the eve of vote, Dec. 16, 1998, Clinton decided it was a good time to launch a four-day assault on Iraq. It didn't work. Although the House delayed its vote, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.

Only President Trump knows if the scandal embroiling his administration played a role in his decision to attack Syria. However, the circumstances are very similar. What we do know for sure is that no one is talking about the suspected collaboration with the Russians ... not yesterday, not today, and probably not tomorrow. Maybe it is all just a big coincidence.

I don't believe in coincidence.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. If Obama knew in 2013 what he knew in 2016, he would have done things a lot different.

Keep in mind it was the Republican-controlled House that prevented him from taking military action in 2013. Wisely, he wanted the Republicans in Congress to share the responsibility for the use of military force in Syria. The Republicans demurred.

 

Would a marginal attack on Syria accomplish any purpose? It will cost about $60 million to replace the cruise missiles that the U.S. military rained on Syrian targets Thursday night.

Not only did the U.S. commander give the Russian advisors a warning, but he also avoided killing Syrian soldiers. We are told only 19 were killed. 58 Tomahawk cruise missiles hit that airbase, and only 19 casualties? That's, um, incredible.

There is an explanation. "The U.S. notified both Russia and Syria about the airstrikes hours before they launched." https://www.axios.com/us-syria-airstrikes-updates-trump-putin-2349024437.html

Also the attack left the runways intact and we being told now that Syrian Mig's attacked that very same town from that very same airbase the very next day. What good is attacking an airbase when the runways are left intact? Warplanes are easily replaced from other airbases. Runways are not so easily replaced. Again that's, um, incredible.

It is certainly plausible that Xi and his military advisors will go over the damage assessment of this attack and decide it was Pyrrhic in nature, meaning that more was lost than was gained. With his planes taking off from Shayrat airbase a day after the attack, it is entirely possible that Assad is laughing off the American attack. It is entirely possible that Xi and his military advisors are not impressed.

The communist leader would only be impressed by a show of strength. Thursday's attack fell far short of an impressive show of strength and may have done more harm than good because of its apparent impotence.