Replies

Strategy is not semantics. You suggest one goal is a strategy? Let’s say we defeated ISIS. Now what?

ISIS is a global movement. It is in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US, Europe, et. al. When they are defeated, we can talk about a world without radical jihadists. It is a long way off.

We had no legitimate reason to depose Assad.

Assad was and probably is still bent on getting a nuclear weapon. Remember Operation Orchard conducted by the Israelis? Assad has joined forces with the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, in supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, though now he denounces them.

He is also aligned with the Russians. Tartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. Tartus is the last Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through straits in Turkey, a NATO member.

We didn't initiate the movement to remove Assad. His own people did.

The humanitarian cost of this administration’s reckless interventionism has far exceeded all of Assad’s alleged atrocities.

Alleged? It is actually a lack of intervention at the beginning of the Syrian civil war that allowed it to spread and attracted jihadists to the struggle. The US is not to blame for the Syrian civil war. Assad and his father are to blame.

Destabilizing Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen was supposed to usher in peace? Only if you believe the Madhi prophecies.

Are you talking about the Arab Spring that started in Tunis and spread? Are you talking about Saddam's invasions of Iran and then Kuwait? Are you talking about OBL who declared war against the US in his 1996 fatwa? Or his 1998 bombings of our two Embassies in East Africa that left 5,000 killed or wounded? Or the 2000 attack against the USS Cole? Or the 1993 and 2001 attacks against the WTC?

Our military leadership is infected with the Stockholm Syndrome. Islam is inherently evil, as are all its true practitioners. It is completely irreconcilable with a pluralistic society.

The military doesn't make policy, it implements it at the behest of the CIC and Congress. Did Clinton or Bush 43 ever say that Islam is inherently evil? Is there any politician of any stripe that says Islam is inherently evil? None is the answer.

Our leaders are liars and cowards all. Obama and his fabulous generals are focused on ensuring penises can wear panties while the world burns.

ISIS is not a global movement. It is a undisguised manifestation of ISLAM. You continue with the same talking points. We shall defeat terrorism! Rah Rah! Bad terrorist; good Islam! If you won’t name the enemy, you can’t defeat it. All one must do to become a terrorist is to emulate Mohamed. There is no misreading of the Koran required.

Funny, your map is the spitting image of Sunni Islam. Of course, that hole in the middle of your nice map is really the epicenter, isn’t it? KSA—the world’s largest sponsor of terror. Shouldn’t that be red? Oh wait, they are pure as driven snow. KSA and Qatar—the good Muslims who would never betray us infidels. Right?

I agree that Assad has never been a good actor, nor was his father. There are plenty of bad actors all over, and we aren’t about to kill them all. Eliminating bad leaders does not solve intractable cultural deficiencies. It creates strategic pressures that require responses. Responses that require commitments we are not willing to make.

All I do know is that we can’t continue the same “strategy” constantly expecting new results. I think Einstein had that nailed. Strategically, the air war is a bust. Allying with the “good” rebels is a bust. Allying with the Mullahs is suicide. Continuing wasting billions makes no sense. I don’t pretend to have an easy answer.

Do we want to enter WWIII over Syria? Do we want to continue to protect pederasts in Afghanistan and punish our troops for maintaining a vestige of morality?

“Is there any politician of any stripe that says Islam is inherently evil?” - K

Good point.

I would say Carson is as close as we have come, with his statement that strict Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, because of its oppressive and intolerant nature.

Do you think Assad could govern in a tolerant and enlightened manner over a society of savages bent on head chopping and eating the organs of their ideological enemies?

Our form of government doesn’t work with a society of savages, IMO.