U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

[Simon Feltser]

A top national security adviser to President Obama vowed Friday that the United States would “do what is necessary” in Syria to protect American interests and said that direct military action was possible against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS.Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said ISIS had become an increased threat to the United States, a threat the American government was taking seriously.
“If you come against Americans, we are going to come after you,” Mr. Rhodes said.
He declined to say whether the president was considering expanding airstrikes to include ISIS targets in Syria as well as in Iraq, where raids began this month. “We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary in dealing with that threat,” Mr. Rhodes said. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders.”
One of the true marks of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results = American foreign policy.
Sorry, but this revolving door of invasions and withdrawals is getting old and costing a lot of lives.

[Oakvale]

sage

[palandio]

According to the British newspaper The Independent there is already going on some cooperation of American and Syrian intelligence, involving also the German secret service BND.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-president-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html

[retromike22]

Can we bomb some of Assad's military bases by "mistake"?

[Frodo]

Good -it's about time.  We should destroy this organization root and branch.  And I doubt the Assad regime (and the other surviving rebel groups) will protest too much, even if we do bomb (ostensibly) Syrian soil. 

[Cory]

Can we bomb some of Assad's military bases by "mistake"?

No. That would be counter-productive. You won't hear anyone in the Administration admit this but for all intents and purposes we are allies with the Assad regime against the Islamic State.

He may be a bastard, but he's the only real hope for a secular Syria. He's our bastard.

[Blue3]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

[Cory]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

[Blue3]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

[patrick1]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

Assad is just barely holding on to power in his own country.  ISIS is preaching global jihad that could reach out and conduct serious attacks not just in the M.E. but also in the West. There are many people rallying to their banner and you underestimate them at your own peril.

[Blue3]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

Assad is just barely holding on to power in his own country.  ISIS is preaching global jihad that could reach out and conduct serious attacks not just in the M.E. but also in the West. There are many people rallying to their banner and you underestimate them at your own peril.

If Assad is just barely holding on, then all the more reason to shove him through the door first.

The IS may be preaching that, but there's a difference between preaching and doing. Yes, they are a more significant threat to the United States than Al Qaeda at this point, and probably will try to attack us. Which is why we need to hurry up and bring down Assad, so then we can go after the IS in Syria. We can go after them in Iraq for the meantime, though.

[Mr. Morden]

The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink.

There's still room for them to expand in Syria if the Assad regime collapses.

[patrick1]

The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink.

There's still room for them to expand in Syria if the Assad regime collapses.

Yeah, I mean they have a pretty compelling recruitment system in the conquered lands, join us or die. The bloody curdling tactics are quite successful spreading ideology. Many are also quite willing to join because they have been marginalized and attacked by their governments. More moderate elements naively thought  they could control the extremists but quickly became devoured by them. 

[Indy Texas]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

Assad is just barely holding on to power in his own country.  ISIS is preaching global jihad that could reach out and conduct serious attacks not just in the M.E. but also in the West. There are many people rallying to their banner and you underestimate them at your own peril.

If Assad is just barely holding on, then all the more reason to shove him through the door first.

The IS may be preaching that, but there's a difference between preaching and doing. Yes, they are a more significant threat to the United States than Al Qaeda at this point, and probably will try to attack us. Which is why we need to hurry up and bring down Assad, so then we can go after the IS in Syria. We can go after them in Iraq for the meantime, though.

You want to create a power vacuum in Syria that ISIS will be able to jump right in and fill?

Sir, are you high?

What's wrong with leaving Assad in power, letting HIM get rid of IS in Syria and working with him to get rid of IS in Iraq?

[Blue3]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

[Indy Texas]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

[patrick1]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can we bomb some of Assad's military bases by "mistake"?

No. That would be counter-productive. You won't hear anyone in the Administration admit this but for all intents and purposes we are allies with the Assad regime against the Islamic State.

He may be a bastard, but he's the only real hope for a secular Syria. He's our bastard.

And anyways, as crappy as Assad is, helping him would be been the most effective way to destroy ISIS.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

     Like Israel had so much success destroying Hezbollah? Assuming you can just take out an organization like IS and developing policy on the assumption that it is inevitable is incredibly shortsighted, foolish, and irresponsible. This kind of hubris is everything that is wrong with American foreign policy, and then some. IS is far, far worse than Assad, and should be treated as such.

[Indy Texas]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

[patrick1]

Indy, my point was against your the humans rights bit. IMO, It is in the best interests of the Syrian people that Assad stay in power and not ISIS. Ultimately, it is best that he transition out of power and some real federal, autonomous governments are sorted out in both these countries.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

That's Hillary Clinton's views. With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary still thinks we should have armed the rebels, so I guess she decided her Iraq vote didn't screw things up enough there.  Maybe she can find some other area of the world to be completely wrong about instead?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

That's Hillary Clinton's views. With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary still thinks we should have armed the rebels, so I guess she decided her Iraq vote didn't screw things up enough there.  Maybe she can find some other area of the world to be completely wrong about instead?

To be fair, if we are willing to take the hero's road and put boots on the ground, then we won't need Assad. I think that's her plan.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

That's Hillary Clinton's views. With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary still thinks we should have armed the rebels, so I guess she decided her Iraq vote didn't screw things up enough there.  Maybe she can find some other area of the world to be completely wrong about instead?

To be fair, if we are willing to take the hero's road and put boots on the ground, then we won't need Assad. I think that's her plan.

Anyone who wants to fight ISIS and Assad at the same time is an idiot. If that's her plan, then it shows that she decided the only thing wrong with the Iraq war that she voted for was that it wasn't enough of a disaster. As for me, I don't vote for idiotic warmongers for President regardless of what party they claim to be in.

[Beet]

No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

People always say Islamist this, Islamist that, but Starwatcher is right, Assad's killed far more than ISIS. The latest estimates for the death toll of the Syrian civil war is 191,000. It all started when Assad ordered his police forces to open fire on peaceful demonstrations. Ironic, considering what the left is screaming about in Ferguson now, demonstrations over one guy who robbed a convenience store and physically assaulted a police officer. But in Syria they're on the other side.

It's always "but oh no the Islamists." But as I said last year, if you look at Middle Eastern history, it's the secularists who have killed the most:

2) The secular forces in the region often tend to be more violent. All the Ba'ath dictatorships were heavily anti democratic. The secular Turks kept using the military to fight the Islamists. The Afghanistan cluster was initiated by a communist coup then invasion. The seculars in Algeria suppressed the Islamic election victory bloodily. Gadhafi was a violent autocrat. Assad is hard steel. The Egyptian military is more violent than the Muslim brotherhood. All of pre 1977 Arab Israeli wars were started by left wing governments, whether from the Israeli or Arab side. Oh yes let's not forget the bloody Iran Iraq war started by Iraq. How many we're killed in that one?

The West always think secular = Western-style liberal democracy, but that's no so. The Middle East is a difference place, if you give people democracy, they will vote in one form of Islamist government or other. That's why "secularists" always end up supporting the military thugs with the guns. And that's why they'll continue to lose support in the Middle East, because that will not win any hearts and minds.

ISIS is not a threat for one reason: no one likes them. Not even the people who live under them like them. It's sort of like communism: they may retain power for a long time through the barrels of their guns, but if they are too oppressive, eventually the people will rise up and demand change.