Posted on 08/22/2014 1:22:52 PM PDT by Mount Athos
...I can’t imagine the US would risk their bombers and drones being shot down by Syrian fighter aircraft or ground-to-air missiles. To avoid that, US strikes would need to be done in co-ordination with Assad. This in turn would require a political somersault of truly dramatic proportions. In the face of Isil, a common enemy, the US and probably the UK would be working with a regime we have been trying to unseat for the better part of three years.
But the harsh truth is that events in what used to be called the Levant and Mesopotamia demand an accommodation with President Assad. The irruption of Isil’s violent Sunni jihadist movement threatens the dismemberment of two sovereign nations, Syria and Iraq. Isil has already seized, with alarming speed, a large part of eastern Syria and north-western Iraq. For the moment it has been prevented from advancing on Baghdad itself.
But the flames of its caliphate ambitions are now licking at the frontiers of Lebanon and Jordan too. There are those in Saudi Arabia who fear they may also be a target one day. If so, it would be an interesting case of Frankenstein’s monster, since much Saudi money has gone to the jihadists, or so we are told. It is hard to remember an insurgency equipped with such a potent mix of violent religious fervour, money, captured modern military equipment, and strategic and tactical nous.
Britain has provided Isil with many of its jihadists and, naturally, is fearful that they will bring their brutality back home. This is one of the reasons why we must establish the British interest in this crisis with the greatest rigour. We must be pragmatic. Forget the Arab Spring. It has run into the sand.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I read another article yesterday that also projected how the Saudis may be forced into action again IS.
If so, it would be an interesting case of Frankenstein’s monster, since much Saudi money has gone to the jihadists, or so we are told.
So we are told??? Wasn't 20 of the 20 9/11 terrorists Saudi Nationals?
To me, a muslim is a muslim is a muslim. And if Saudi fat cats have to get off their rich fat asses and clean up their neighborhood, then fine.
This would be the mother of all U-turns. It would stick in the craw of many. But, as the great Victorian foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston, once said, we have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests
It wouldn’t be the first unsavory ally we’ve ever had.
Saudi Arabians do no work, at all, ever.
That’s easy; “Dear Bashir, we are going to attack the ISIS/ISIL bases in Syria. We will not attack your forces while we accomplish this. Interfere and ALL of Syria is in play.”
First, you have to assume that Obama and the Muzzie Brohood minions with him in the White House disagree with the goals of ISIS.
“...I can’t imagine the US would risk their bombers and drones being shot down by Syrian fighter aircraft or ground-to-air missiles.”
That he or I or anyone else can’t imagine something is the most meaningless statement possible.
The page wouldn’t load, but it looks to me from this post that the author is suggesting accommodation with Assad. Not a bad idea.
First of all, the ME has nothing but dictators, so screaming that Assad is a dictator won’t work. He is, and we just have to make sure that he uses this power to avoid Islamism.
Assad is an Allawite, which is actually a sort of splinter group of Islam and not considered fully orthodox. And while he may have been a dictator, he was not an Islamist, and Christians and other Islamic sects were allowed to exist as long as they didn’t present a problem.
Obama has essentially destroyed the secularist or moderate dictators and replaced them with Islamist warlords, because in his feeble mind, lacking all knowledge of history, this is the way it’s supposed to be. He also knows that this is the most anti-Western and anti-modern conception of power possible, and in his lust to destroy the West and all its political and economic underpinnings, Obama has chosen to side, at least tacitly, with the Islamists.
We need to rethink this. Personally, I think Bambi is planning on bailing on the presidency, so people and their congress critters have to be ready with a policy.
My thought as well. We financed their insurrection against Assad.
Of course, the O will have to test his ‘flexibility’ with Vlad before any US action in Syria, as Vald is the major arms supplier to Asshat - tanks, RPGs, advisers and, so forth.
This guy claims that British national interest lies in stability and order.
Well, if that is the case I should expect the British Army to show up in the few days before my kids go back to school.
Much like Syria, I do not see ISIL threatening our national interest.
Sure, they are blow hards. But so aren’t every Arab organization in the world. It means nothing.
Are they here? Show me some proof? Now we are going to bomb Syria because a guy got his head chopped off for going into their territory?
The folks around here are outraged at IS behavior. I am too. But there is a lot of bad behavior in the world. I do not see where this is in OUR national interest.
I know I am in the minority. But the US does not have the will to do this. Period. Getting rid of ISIL means barbaric rules of engagement. The US is not going to back that.
If it’s just bombing we can do what the Israelis have been doing it. They launch glide bombs from 100 miles away. Also, cruise missiles can hit a lunch box. There is no need to jeopardize pilot’s lives dropping gravity bombs. (As a matter of fact, I expect manned bombers are now relics that will be relegated to safe targets only.)
Working out a deal with Assad is politically unworkable for Obama. Politics is the only thing he cares about, his, not the US’s.
In 1920 the US was fighting the Bolsheviks in Siberia.
In 1942 we were allied with them.
Iraq today; London tomorrow!
Because we really are that incompetent when it comes to middle east politics, and haven't learned a thing.
Yeah, some people have been saying the sane for weeks, months & years especially about the Saudis. The support for Saudis didn’t start with Obama either. And not just the Saudis but also Gulf Sheikhdoms. The British installed the House of Saud decades ago. Cameron has been talking & indirectly comparing Islamic terrorism in th UK with IRA. There is of course no reasonable comparison.
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.