You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Is it too risky for the U.S. to bomb ISIS inside Syria right now?
2014-09-01
[CBSNEWS] As President B.O. contemplates the use of military force to defeat Islamic murderous Moslems in Syria, Congress is still divided on the question.

Two Republican politicians said Sunday on "Face the Nation" that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL) requires a quick and forceful U.S. response - including possible Arclight airstrikes - the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee warned that the region's geopolitics mean the first step must be to build support for defeating the group.

"We do not want to come into Syria now on the side of [President Bashar] Assad. We have got to find other folks, the Free Syria Movement, to work with," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation." "If we go in and appear to be choosing whether Assad's side or the Shia side in a civil war (should win), then we simply drive more Sunnis into the arms of ISIS."

Smith said the U.S. first needs to make sure that moderate Sunnis oppose ISIS, which represents a much more radical strain of Sunni Islam. That will require building a coalition in the Middle East, he said, including potential allies like Turkey and Soddy Arabia
...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face...
that had been funding bully boy groups like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra but now see what a threat it is to the region. It also means the U.S. must insist that the new Shia government in Iraq brings marginalized Sunnis into the fold.
Posted by:Fred

#11  HHHMMMM, HHHHMMMMM, wehell, lets see now ....

As per CNN AM, DIANE FEINSTEIN argues that the Bammer's cautious foreign policy is perhaps TOO CAUTIOUS???

* FREEREPUBLIC, DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > SAUDI KING WARNS [ISIS/ISIL] JIHADISTS COULD ATTACK US, EUROPE WIDIN MONTHS.

ONE MONTH to attack EUROPE, TWO MONTHS for the USA.

* WORLD NEWS > [Times of India] ISIS RECRUITS PLANNING 26/11 [Mumbai] ATTACK IN UK.

VERSUS

* TOPIX > [Arab Times] ISLAMIC STATE FIGHTERS BEGIN TO BLEND IN, DEFEATING THEM IS NO EASY MATTER.

ISIS responds to US airstrikes wid more decntralized flexibility + discretion.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-09-01 22:48  

#10  The last thing we want to do is bomb the wrong flavor of bad guys.
Posted by: SteveS   2014-09-01 21:34  

#9  CrazyFool...LMAOROFL

I can remember a story about a US Company Commander whose forces became "Comingled" with the NVA forces attacking...sort of a eyegouging, e-tool. fist, and K-Bar brawl...and he called in close air support.

The LOAC asked where he wanted them put and the Commander replied...just drop them anywhere, God will have to sort out the body count on this one...
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2014-09-01 17:23  

#8  particularly when my enemy is a ghastly horde of sadists bent on creating mass casualties in the US.

But enough about the Democratic Party and their love-affair with Abortion. I thought this was about Isis.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2014-09-01 13:40  

#7  Barak Hussein Obama has plans and friends already formed in his post-Presidency plans of worldwide fame and prestige. Anything that keeps him from the planed UN leadership role and the large living he sees as his due is unacceptable. He will blather and pontificate and drive domestic politics to enable a permanent one-party rule, and reward his friends with acts of deferred compensation graft, as long as it help "his" people, not the American people. What a disaster this man has been! But act decisively as a "colonial" power, never....
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2014-09-01 12:54  

#6  It should never be considered too risky to kill bad guys. There is another option: kill all factions in Syria. And then kill them when they scatter.
Posted by: Airandee   2014-09-01 06:37  

#5  Long as they [US bombers] keep their distance from the Golan heights...
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2014-09-01 04:15  

#4  There can be a ground component to precision bombing. If you're unwilling to commit the ground component, your potential default is dumb bombs which entail a much larger footprint and commitment. Don't want to chance hitting any of those.... "moderates."

The other possibility is Vlad simply waved him off by threatening other mischief.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-09-01 03:49  

#3  question is, isis working for saudi/turkey or syria?
Posted by: Paul D   2014-09-01 03:15  

#2  Is it too risky for the U.S. to bomb ISIS inside Syria right now?

Depends. Do we have any balls left?
Posted by: gorb   2014-09-01 02:04  

#1  You need to choose your friends very carefully because you do not get to choose your enemies.

That being said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, particularly when my enemy is a ghastly horde of sadists bent on creating mass casualties in the US.
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2014-09-01 00:34  

00:00