you know it's bad when terrorist terrorize other terrorists..what now, stoners?
The rise of ISIS presents the gravest threat to United States national security since 9/11. Although disavowed by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri as too extreme, ISIS shares the same agenda: the establishment of a twisted version of the Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. That ISIS is a mortal enemy of ours is beyond question after the vicious murder of journalist James Foley.
But ISIS has a much broader agenda. In spite of some setbacks in northern Iraq, thanks in large part to U.S. airstrikes, they continue to make gains. In the region, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at risk. The Saudis know it; that is why they have mobilized troops near their border with Iraq. There is nothing between ISIS and them except sand.
We too are at risk. This Al Qaeda mutant is far better armed, equipped and financed than the original. Unlike any variant of Al Qaeda since 9/11, it controls significant territory where, secure from attack, it has the space and time to plan its next set of operations. Anyone who believes the U.S. is not on that list is delusional.
So this is not just about protecting refugees or helping allies in Iraq secure limited objectives. This is war. The Obama administration has said our aim is to disrupt, degrade and defeat Al Qaeda. This is Al Qaeda Version 6.0. A sustained, focused air campaign supplemented by a significant number of Special Forces advisers, and including help from Iraqi tribes, can make a difference. But we cannot limit ourselves to Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has declared the Iraq-Syria border nonexistent – the caliphate cannot be divided. We should carry our air campaign to targets in Syria. This is a unified enemy and must be met by a unified strategy.
What this does not mean is any form of coordination, let alone an alliance, with the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad. We need to fight an enemy of the United States, not involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war. But it might be that the systematic degradation of ISIS will allow the secular opposition to gain some momentum. After all, these terrorists probably have done more damage to them than to Assad.
But we need to move forcefully and quickly. As Senator Diane Feinstein rightly said, using an alternative name for ISIS, “It takes an army to defeat an army… we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future.” And it may be on American soil.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/22/should-the-us-work-with-assad-to-fight-isis/airstrikes-on-isis-should-expand-to-syria
The rise of ISIS presents the gravest threat to United States national security since 9/11. Although disavowed by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri as too extreme, ISIS shares the same agenda: the establishment of a twisted version of the Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. That ISIS is a mortal enemy of ours is beyond question after the vicious murder of journalist James Foley.
But ISIS has a much broader agenda. In spite of some setbacks in northern Iraq, thanks in large part to U.S. airstrikes, they continue to make gains. In the region, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at risk. The Saudis know it; that is why they have mobilized troops near their border with Iraq. There is nothing between ISIS and them except sand.
We too are at risk. This Al Qaeda mutant is far better armed, equipped and financed than the original. Unlike any variant of Al Qaeda since 9/11, it controls significant territory where, secure from attack, it has the space and time to plan its next set of operations. Anyone who believes the U.S. is not on that list is delusional.
So this is not just about protecting refugees or helping allies in Iraq secure limited objectives. This is war. The Obama administration has said our aim is to disrupt, degrade and defeat Al Qaeda. This is Al Qaeda Version 6.0. A sustained, focused air campaign supplemented by a significant number of Special Forces advisers, and including help from Iraqi tribes, can make a difference. But we cannot limit ourselves to Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has declared the Iraq-Syria border nonexistent – the caliphate cannot be divided. We should carry our air campaign to targets in Syria. This is a unified enemy and must be met by a unified strategy.
What this does not mean is any form of coordination, let alone an alliance, with the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad. We need to fight an enemy of the United States, not involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war. But it might be that the systematic degradation of ISIS will allow the secular opposition to gain some momentum. After all, these terrorists probably have done more damage to them than to Assad.
But we need to move forcefully and quickly. As Senator Diane Feinstein rightly said, using an alternative name for ISIS, “It takes an army to defeat an army… we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future.” And it may be on American soil.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/22/should-the-us-work-with-assad-to-fight-isis/airstrikes-on-isis-should-expand-to-syria
Last edited:
