What Obama Faces in a Campaign Against ISIS – NYTimes.com

P091111CK-0217 President Barack Obama and Firs...

P091111CK-0217 President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, along with former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush, pause at the North Memorial Pool of the National September 11 Memorial in New York, N.Y., on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks against the United States, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011. The North Memorial pool sits in the footprint of the north tower, formerly 1 World Trade Center. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a good article by the NYT, which is well worth a read. Check it out!

via What Obama Faces in a Campaign Against ISIS – NYTimes.com.

Personally, I’m not convinced that this is robust enough.

Key additional questions are:

  1. Who is in charge overall?
  2. Will the US seek UN approval?
  3. What are the objectives?
  4. What’s the time-span?
  5. How will the US avoid collateral damage?
  6. What about the politics in Syria and the Assad regime?
  7. How does this so-called strategy dovetail with US security & foreign policy?

Thoughts?

I disagree with Senator McCain on US policy on Syria – John Gelmini

English: John McCain official photo portrait.

English: John McCain official photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In his blog entitled “Obama to halt attack if Syria destroys chemical weapons – FT.com“, Dr Alf  indicated that he agreed with Senator McCain who said that “Congress should vote for air strikes in order to “give the president additional leverage to press Russia and Syria to make good on their proposal”.

Here is my own view.

Senator McCain has been in favor of every war that America has been involved in since he was shot down as an air-force pilot over Vietnam and imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for five years.

Syria will not destroy its chemical weapons and has every incentive to hang onto them if America is going to order cruise missile strikes anyway. Giving these chemical weapons up does not strengthen Assad’s hand; it weakens it because by keeping them, he has a card to play and in the event of a Western attack some of the stockpiles could be hit causing death through chemical weapons unintentionally.

The Pentagon knew years ago that they would need at least 75,000 troops to invade Syria and has already planned for that eventuality as other troops from Turkey and France would make up the balance of the invasion force.

Matters will not end with cruise missile strikes and Assad, brutal dictator that he is, has a right to defend his country from outside attack.

If the West kills him and all his followers it then means it has to find a strong leader to replace him who is our puppet and will crush the Al Qaeda related elements such as Al Nusra who are our sworn enemies and who wish to create a Caliphate across the entire world controlled by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia does not want to lose the Port of Tartus and cannot be seen to back down easily.

Air strikes against Syria will not make them more compliant as Senator McCain seems to think, but it will make them angry and give them an incentive to create trouble for us at a later stage. It will lead to a much wider Middle East war, casualties on a much larger scale than the chemical attack at Gouta, higher oil prices, Europe and America tipped back into recession and the advancement of Wahibi style Islamic terrorism to our detriment.

China, similarly will not forget and will in its own time, which could be decades later, make the West pay. One of their Generals put it this way “We nurse our sense of grievance and wait”.

Unlike Dr Alf, with whom I usually agree, I think that we should mind our own business and attend to our own problems. This is because as General Martin Dempsey, America’s top general said before he was leaned on, “Attacking Syria leaves us with no good options and is not in America’s best interests”.

John Gelmini

Enhanced by Zemanta