Posted on 09/11/2014 9:40:28 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Will bombing Isis, like the Iraq war, prove to be the wrong "war" against the wrong enemy?
America is war weary and will support our action against Isis for a short time and only so long as it is conducted by limited means, that is, without substantial casualties. In effect, America under the leadership of Barack Obama supports airstrikes and no more. What will this accomplish?
While emotionally satisfying to Americans enraged at the horror of their compatriots being decapitated before their eyes, these strikes are very unlikely to accomplish the destruction of Isis or the worldwide Islamic terrorist jihad. They then might be tactically necessary under the present emergent circumstances to deprive Isis of its geographical base, but it will have little long-term strategic value in the war involving terrorism.
We invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan because we conceived of the war on terror in traditional two-dimensional terms. We saw the theater of war as a checkerboard in which we take and hold geography. We heard ourselves say, "we have to fight them over there so they don't attack us over here." We heard ourselves say, "we have to deprive Al Qaeda of a base from which to launch attacks." We did not consider that 19 terrorists armed with box cutters did not need a geographical base from which to organize and launch those attacks on 9/11.
Compare our present dilemma to this ringing declaration:
You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
(Winston Churchill - May 13, 1940, his address to the House of Commons upon taking up his duties as Prime Minister during the calamitous days of the fall of France).
I ask the reader, what is Barack Obama's policy? I ask, what is Barack Obama's aim? Surely, no one can confidently state that Barack Obama's aim is victory over the monstrous tyranny of aggressive Islam; no one can feel confident that his policy is to wage war to gain that end.
Obama has no policy that is identifiable because he is no stated aim and not even an understanding that we are at war or who the enemy might be. At a time that begs for Churchillian clarity we get duplicity. As a proximate result of a failure of policy, that is a failure to conceive a strategy in the von Clausewitz sense, America is bounding off to bomb Isis while it ignores a very real threat next-door.
Bombing Isis might well be a necessary battle tactic in this emergency but it is not a strategy.
There is a development immediately next-door to Iraq which will have profound long-term strategic implications for American survival and it is being ignored. If Iran gets the atomic bomb it will become an existential threat to the United States of American; it will fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf; it will disrupt oil supplies around the world and render oil a first use weapon of terrorism; it will ignite a nuclear arms race in that region; it will expose the United States to nuclear terror within the homeland.
Thus have we utterly mistaken the real threat to the very survival of the United States as a democratic republic. Without arguing in detail, I submit that a few atomic explosions in random American cities could easily bring us to our knees and into submission to sharia. We have an open southern border, we have Iran with the atomic bomb only inches from its fingertips, we have Iran's Association with terrorists but we, and certainly this administration, cannot come to the conclusion that Iran, rather than Isis, is the more dangerous threat. We cannot define the real enemy, we cannot even acknowledge that there is an enemy by name, we cannot even define the nature of the undertaking as "war."
The military challenge of taking out Iran's nuclear program might be daunting but it is at least within the realm of reasonable expectations. There can be no reasonable expectation that bombing the hell out of Isis will eliminate the international threat of Islamic terrorism. It is reasonable to expect that, known difficulties accepted, a well-planned and well executed mission against Iran can eliminate its nuclear potential.
While Obama dithers and fumbles over Isis in Iraq, the existential threat to America posed by Iran is being ignored to our mortal peril.
we need to go after them with FAE’s , white phosphorus , napalm and cluster bombs . All the stuff that makes the world aghast . Short of nukes , we need to give them the Hell they deserve . In large measure . Every town they hold should be leveled . That is the message we need to send . No quarter and no prisoners .
this is also the perfect time to give Israel the green light to go after Iran . They will never see it coming .
If we are not committed to destroying the enemy then we will only succeed in making them stronger.
Obama is not even willing to call this operation a “war”. He has no plan for Victory. He is not even willing to identify the Enemy by name “Islamic....”
This is a lost cause from the get go.
What if Obama gave a war and nobody came?
Obama denies ISIS is Islamic. He’s insane. 25th Amendment, before it’s too late.
See tagline.
It will destroy ISIS. The means of its destruction won’t be pretty, but it will happen. If we had allowed the Northern Alliance to finish off the Taliban, we would have saved thousands of American lives. They would have massacred hundreds of thousands of Pashtuns, and driven millions into Pakistan, but that would have solved the Taliban problem. No Pashtuns in Afghanistan, no Afghan Taliban.
True!!! (I missed it.)
This supposed strike will give great cover for ISIS/ISIL. That is the stage being set.
Did you know that we dropped more bomb tonnage on our enemy in Vietnam than we did in WWII? And we lost. Because war from the air is just part of the way to victory.
It will likely drive Isis out of the desert and into the cities where it will find refuge among Sunni militants. Yes, it will degrade Isis but it probably will not destroy Isis because there will be no boots on the ground ferreting out these fanatics from every hole and corner in Iraq's cities. Later, Isis will emerge and resume its quest for a caliphate.
The way I see it now: There is no God but Allah, and Obama is his prophet. We are in an historical train wreck. My deepest religious belief is that only the one true God can help us now.
Plenty of local infantry, including the Kurds, the Shiites and the Syrian Alawites, available to hold territory. Their problem is Sunni Arabs with heavy weaponry (AA guns, artillery, tanks, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons, MANPADS). North Vietnam was being supplied by China and Russia. We can crush Turkey's and Jordan's economies with a total trade embargo if they continue supplying the rebels. Bottom line is that ISIS are a bunch of midgets puffed up by a hysterical media, mainly because two of theirs had their heads chopped off. But that's all right. If it helps flip the Senate, I'm a happy camper.
Maybe they really want to bomb the original target? Assad. Bombing ISIS is just cover. They want Sunni control of Syria, so rest assured their bombing of ISIS will be faux.
And they will use weapons we supplied to them through Syrian rebels - the cut outs.
I think we should get Toyota to kill their computers in the trucks they’re drivin.
Seriously, you behead, you get morphed into pink spray, with whichever implement works best at the time.
ISIS is a conglomerate, backed by the Sauds. They are not going anywhere, other than the government centrals/entrails of their targets. The supposed targeted bombing, will actually help the bastards. Wake up. The latest version of socialist fascism is being promoted by Our- CIA, State Dept. and all of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
We can't wage "war" anymore; we're broke. Too many "citizens" in this country we are forced to give our borrowed money and taxed dollars too thanks to DC (let alone the friggen illegals) and the un-funded liabilities that range up to the 100 Trillion dollar mark. If we wanted to send a strong message and be done with it, nuke Medina and tell the islamo-kazis publicly "we left you mecca; don't F around". Only problem is we have a muzzie at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, an Iranian advising him, A Dem party bought and paid for by the muzzie brotherhood and a GOP corrupted by muzzie oil money.
It smells far too much like check and mate; only question is, how many moves are left.
The means of destruction can’t be any more ugly than what ISIS has broadcast to the world. So long as they keep publicizing American deaths, our will should remain strong and fairly united. We couldn’t let the Northern Alliance finish off the Taliban because their effective leader Massoud was assassinated at the critical time. Like driving anyone into Pakistan is keeping them from coming back, yikes.
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.