Posted on 08/30/2014 12:22:52 AM PDT by GonzoII
AFTER more than three years, almost 200,000 dead in Syria, the near collapse of Iraq, and the rise of the world’s most sinister terrorist army — the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which has conquered vast swaths of both countries — President Obama’s admission this week that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with this threat is startling. It is also dangerous.
The president clearly wants to move deliberately and consult with allies and Congress as he considers what to do about ISIS. No one disputes that goal. But the threat ISIS poses only grows over time. It cannot be contained. It must be confronted. This requires a comprehensive strategy, presidential leadership and a far greater sense of urgency. If Mr. Obama changes course and adopts a strategic approach to defeat ISIS, he deserves support.
Such a strategy would require our commander in chief to explain to war-weary Americans why we cannot ignore this threat. ISIS is now one of the largest, richest terrorist organizations in history. It occupies a growing safe haven the size of Indiana spanning two countries in the heart of the Middle East, and its ranks are filled with thousands of radicals holding Western passports, including some Americans. They require nothing more than a plane ticket to travel to United States cities.
This is why the secretary of homeland security has called Syria “a matter of homeland security.” His warnings about ISIS have been echoed by the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and, now, the secretary of defense. Americans need to know that ISIS is not just a problem for Iraq and Syria. It is a threat to the United States. Doing too little to combat ISIS has been a problem. Doing less is certainly not the answer now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is the GOP version of “Create a problem, then offer to fix it”.
Why does there even have to a conversation? Call up Israel, Britain and tell them we’re going in, and we’d like support.
Send everything we have and exterminate them all. Pretty much everyone is on-board for exterminating ISIS. So do it.
McCain was saying we had to support these guys not too long ago....
Someone better fix it.
Give ‘em guns, parachutes and chapstick and drop ‘em over Iraq.
Obama is the “father of ISIS.” If it wasn’t for Obama, ISIS would not exist.
According to the article our response should be “comprehensive”. Obviously, this isn’t going to end well. Americans will never learn.
Obama wants to move cautiously and consult congress on any moves on Isis? Since when? BS. He’s more sinister than that simple explanation.
McCain supported, armed, and trained ISIS.
I am neither fan of McCain or Graham. But I do see any attempt to perhaps chide or rally American opinion in the clear facts that we need to kill these ISIS folks now, while most are in the Middle-East, before they do horrible things in our own country. They will come to America and they will grow if permitted by our liberal ignorances to believe they can be ignored. I really don’t care if indigenous forces in the Middle-East with our support do it or if the west consolidates a western coalition and we kill them. I was in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt over 6 years. This is a Crusade we face, the likes of which the world has not seen for a 1000 years. This will take years to end and will be a long war to protect our families, culture and religious freedoms. I hope and pray dearly we won’t be face with another 9-11 attack this coming anniversary. We need to put the jibber jabber aside and get on with the rat killing.
The comments to this article by so-called “readers” of the NYT are instructive. They are so “70’s!” It’s as if every argumen,t or discussion even, can be won merely by saying “remember Vietnam.”
We should remember the lessons of Vietnam, of course,and apply knowledge gained to new situations. But there is certainly debate about what those lessons are. One important lesson came after the last US troops left . . . don’t abandon your friends and allies and leave them without the military hardware to fight back. Another lesson was that a Pol Pot is ready to kill millions of reasonable and defenseless people if you turn your head for an instant.
Alas, military options are not ever easy nor do they by themselves result in pleasing political outcomes. But sometimes strong military actions are THE key component of policy.
IMHO
Oldplayer
BTTT.
No kidding. He has zero credibility on this subject. Go back to playing poker on your phone, John.
I still like the “urgency” that was stated behind supporting the Syrian “rebels” up until and partially after it came out that they were alqeada/alqeada affiliated.
“We have to accept a few bad apples” was floated.
And then the pouting by the curiously suddenly hawkish Obama and McCain when the public outcry of “no boots on the ground in Syria” was heard.
Come to find out they were arming and supporting alqeada/ISIS the entire time.
And might still be doing so on our dime.
:-/
Attacking ISIS might be an attack on some of obama’s muslim brotherhood pals.
It was his brotherhood pals that wanted to overthrow Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. The line between ISIS and the muslim brotherhood would have to be blurry.
Attacking ISIS might be an attack on some of obama’s muslim brotherhood pals.
It was his brotherhood pals that wanted to overthrow Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. The line between ISIS and the muslim brotherhood would have to be blurry.
Well, at least, Bengazi- had nothing to do with those, bad apples.
Didn’t McCain want to bomb Syria in support of ISIS only a few months ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.