John Kerry wrote an op-ed article in yesterday's New York Times about how the USA can confront and deal with ISIS. Okay, to be fair, someone else surely wrote the column, but it appeared under the byline of Kerry who may have read and approved it before it was sent to the Times.
Kerry's main point is that there needs to be the "broadest possible coalition" of nations to confront ISIS. He is heading to Europe to work on this. Then he goes to the Middle East to try to get even more countries involved in this coalition.
I am glad that someone in Washington has, at least, an outline of a strategy for dealing with ISIS. We all know that president Obama told the world just the other day that America had no such strategy. Maybe no one told him about the one Kerry is following. I assume we will hear later that Obama learned of this strategy when he read Kerry's column in the Times (or someone else read it and gave Obama a summary of it) and that Obama is now "mad as hell" that no one told him about the strategy earlier.
Of course, the next logical question is whether or not the "broadest possible" coalition makes sense. Clearly, the broadest possible coalition would include Iran. The Iranian military could strike hard against ISIS and probably drive the Sunni Islamic crazy thugs out of northern Iraq. That would leave northern Iraq under occupation by Shiite Islamic crazy thugs, also known as the Iranian army. Someone better tell Kerry about this quickly. You know the old description of one adversary playing checkers while the other is playing chess? With Kerry and Obama, one adversary is playing chess (that's Iran) while the other (Kerry and Obama ) are playing Tic-Tac-Toe and losing. Another country whose forces could easily displace ISIS is Turkey. The Turks, under their Islamist and imperialist president, would like nothing better than to retake control of northern Iraq in a move that might restore a bit of the old Ottoman Empire. We ought not allow the Turks to get much of a foothold in Iraq in a way that would let them crush not only ISIS but also the Kurds.
Then, of course, there is the issue of aligning ourselves with Assad in Syria against ISIS. Obama and Kerry still babble incoherently about the moderate Syrian opposition, but this seems like a delusion. There used to be a major force fighting under the more moderate Syrian Sunni banner. Of course, when they asked for American help in the form of weapons to fight Assad and his chemical weapons, bombers, tanks and artillery, Obama and Kerry (and Clinton before him) decided not to help the moderates but rather to let them all be slaughtered by the Assad forces. Only the ISIS forces got weapons from terrorists sources, so the Sunni fighters moved to fight under the ISIS banner. Obama and Kerry (and Clinton) probably did more to CREATE ISIS than to fight it at any time.
Kerry's main point is that there needs to be the "broadest possible coalition" of nations to confront ISIS. He is heading to Europe to work on this. Then he goes to the Middle East to try to get even more countries involved in this coalition.
I am glad that someone in Washington has, at least, an outline of a strategy for dealing with ISIS. We all know that president Obama told the world just the other day that America had no such strategy. Maybe no one told him about the one Kerry is following. I assume we will hear later that Obama learned of this strategy when he read Kerry's column in the Times (or someone else read it and gave Obama a summary of it) and that Obama is now "mad as hell" that no one told him about the strategy earlier.
Of course, the next logical question is whether or not the "broadest possible" coalition makes sense. Clearly, the broadest possible coalition would include Iran. The Iranian military could strike hard against ISIS and probably drive the Sunni Islamic crazy thugs out of northern Iraq. That would leave northern Iraq under occupation by Shiite Islamic crazy thugs, also known as the Iranian army. Someone better tell Kerry about this quickly. You know the old description of one adversary playing checkers while the other is playing chess? With Kerry and Obama, one adversary is playing chess (that's Iran) while the other (Kerry and Obama ) are playing Tic-Tac-Toe and losing. Another country whose forces could easily displace ISIS is Turkey. The Turks, under their Islamist and imperialist president, would like nothing better than to retake control of northern Iraq in a move that might restore a bit of the old Ottoman Empire. We ought not allow the Turks to get much of a foothold in Iraq in a way that would let them crush not only ISIS but also the Kurds.
Then, of course, there is the issue of aligning ourselves with Assad in Syria against ISIS. Obama and Kerry still babble incoherently about the moderate Syrian opposition, but this seems like a delusion. There used to be a major force fighting under the more moderate Syrian Sunni banner. Of course, when they asked for American help in the form of weapons to fight Assad and his chemical weapons, bombers, tanks and artillery, Obama and Kerry (and Clinton before him) decided not to help the moderates but rather to let them all be slaughtered by the Assad forces. Only the ISIS forces got weapons from terrorists sources, so the Sunni fighters moved to fight under the ISIS banner. Obama and Kerry (and Clinton) probably did more to CREATE ISIS than to fight it at any time.
No comments:
Post a Comment