Now that we have delivered the first strike against ISIS in Iraq, we should widen the scope-from the air. It should not just be precision strikes against ISIS artillery that is firing against our personnel or Kurdish allies. It should be ISIS wherever we can find them in the open. If they are at the base of those mountains threatening the 40,000 civilians there, we should hit them. If they are in a caravan en route to a battle, we should hit them. If they are invading the Kurdish part of Iraq, hit them. The vehicles they are driving-mostly vehicles we gave the Iraqi army that fell into ISIS hands, are a clear target.
Simply dropping relief supplies to those poor souls stranded in the mountains is not enough. Eventually, they have to have safe passage to come down and find a place to rebuild their lives. These are Christians and Yazidis, a small religious sect that is also threatened by the Sunni Muslims of ISIS. In addition, we should be arming the Kurds. They are our allies.
We have a golden opportunity to kill hundreds of these ISIS savages, if not thousands without even using ground troops. ISIS has clearly demonstrated their sheer evil for the world to see. And now it is pretty hard for the world to avert its eyes.
Our NATO allies should be participating as best they can. I don't know exactly what role that would be, but they must shoulder some of the burden.
All this may seem like a drastic change of my position, but given the utter horror of what is going on in Iraq-and Syria- we cannot stand idly by while a genocide is being perpetrated. I still oppose getting involved in a ground war in Iraq all over again, but several military observers have said we can do this from the air. At the very least we can reduce the numbers of these barbarians, who, when they are finished with their horrors in Iraq and Syria are promising to bring it to the US and the rest of the West.
There is only one way to stop a genocide. You must kill those who are carrying it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's my first reflex... but there have been some sober voices at The American Conservative point out that ISIS can easily fold itself into a civilian population, and that effective air strikes requires good observation and coordinates on the ground --something that might requires special forces personnel to do right (and that raises further questions).
To the extent that they conveniently present us with good targets, of course, kill them, and to the extent their military operations require them to bunch together in a recognizable formation, ditto.
But its going to be a lot harder than that. Some voices have been noting that ISIS gets its most reliable funding and weapons from the Saudis... the Saudis may be playing the longest game of all, positioning the U.S. to do their fighting for them, while they put their own resources into backing ISIS...
Some people have no notion of what war is like as long as it is some other country fighting it.
Since the US demands from Israel to "do more" than drop warning leaflets, make warning telephone calls, and send warning text messages so the enemies can get away, I wonder if the thought even ever occurred to Obama to do what he asked Israel to do. It is only Israel that is held to these higher standards that nobody else even thinks of.
The US doesn't worry, at this point anyway, of pictures of dead babies and grieving mothers on the front pages of the newspapers. I also expect to see pictures of all the bodies and wounded on CNN & MSNBC and the front pages of the main stream media. I'm sure ISIS would provide them.
I'm all in favor of destroying ISIS but you can see the handicap you impose on Israel by demanding "proportionality" and other ridiculous notions in war time that has been required of no other army. After all, we are fighting the same enemy.
Anyone see the hypocrisy?
The ISIS thing is, in my view, certainly a Gordian Knot. The AP quotes Obama as saying "As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq". It would appear to me that air strikes most certainly constitute a form of "war", albeit not a ground one. And how about air strikes in at least Syria and Lebanon as we do, or at least did (haven't heard about any in a while now), with drones in Pakistan??
I generally seem to tend to agree with Gary AND apparently with Comrade Siarlys relative to inserting ground troops again, but then it occurs to me that air campaigns alone rarely do the trick and I have second thoughts. To expect the UN to EVER do anything useful or effective, at least in this particular situation, as Comrade Siarlys once posited, is asking a bit (or a lot) too much.
I believe that if ISIS is not already doing it, as we continue to strike "good" targets, it will start to meld/commingle civilians and civilian vehicles in with military convoys. The difference is that Israel would surely bomb the hell out of them anyway, and we just as surely will not.
I further believe that Comrade Sialyis is correct that something like special forces are required, or at least highly beneficial, for observation, coordinates, etc. And, of course, the insertion of such forces almost always inevitably results in some escalation (major or minor) in the future (shades of Nam and Yogi Berra's deja vu). Which of course brings the question of why we ever pulled troops out in the beginning.
I do not claim or pretend to have all, or even any, of the answers to this one. However, I do know, or at least I think I know, that if we just keep nibbling around the edges of it, we will still be doing it when today's children become grandparents. I may be close to the point of believing maybe we should just go ahead and make a big parking lot out of much of the area and start all over.
@ Elwood p Suggins
I can't believe you wrote "The difference is that Israel would surely bomb the hell out of them anyway, and we just as surely will not." In fact, I never heard of us giving they enemy any of the warnings Israel does.
Israel already gives multiple forms of warning before they make a strike... the U.S. does not.
Israel takes a big risk to their soldiers and population by giving these warnings.
War under any circumstance is difficult for non-combatants but if you PURPOSELY put civilians in danger zones, as HAMAS does, it makes it even more.
One reason few are aware of this claim is that HAMAS threatens any journalist not to show them firing rockets or setting booby traps, etc.
Here is one Indian journalist that got a video of Hamas firing rockets from a densely populated place. Apparently, Israel did not retaliate.
http://www.jta.org/2014/08/05/default/watch-indian-tv-records-gaza-rocket-launch-
The real question, elwood, is why we every put troops IN in the first place. Everything the U.S. has done, west of Afghanistan, since 2002 has opened the door and paved the way for ISIS.
Miggie--I am well aware that Israel provides leaflets, warnings, etc., and that we do not. In that context, what my comments would mean is that while Israel does so and then with at least some frequency (and I believe perhaps even usually), goes ahead and bombs/shells the target (which is where the "anyway" came from), I believe our ROE must be that we would not normally intentionally bomb that target if we were aware of even the possible presence of civilians.
In any event, however you want to phrase it, I believe Israel would hit such targets well before we would under similar circumstances, and probably appropriately so.
Let us see what happens the first time this situation arises in Iraq with us and ISIS.
@ elwood
I don't know what supports your assumption that Israel would bomb targets with some civilians present ehere the auS would not. The video I supplied showed them NOT retaliating against a rocket fired from a civilian area. There are ALWAYS some civilians around military targets. Israel aborts missions unless there are 100 terrorists and one civilian. They abort mission after mission because of humanitarian reasons. We don't know how many non- combatants in the US strikes against ISIS.
I suppose ISIS will adopt Hamas' strategy sooner or later and let the lefties here in America handcuff our troops.
After Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. It galls me that we lecture anyone to "do more" when they already do 1000% more than we ever did anyway.
Miggie, Israel knows it is shelling and bombing in a densely crowded urban area, whose inhabitants have no power whatsoever to decide whether Hamas does or does not fire missiles from the courtyard of their apartment complex or shopping center at Israel. OR have you missed all the valid claims Gary has been highlighting for the humanity of Israeli policy? Thus, while its a risk they might also warn Hamas, they are mostly warning civilians who are to some extent caught in the middle (however anti-Israel their sentiments) not warning the enemy in any military sense.
On the other hand, the U.S. is bombing and strafing military convoys in open desert country. Innocent civilians are generally running the other way, or up the nearest mountain, etc.
elwood, we still agree. Someone's boots have to be on the ground. Whether we put our boots on the ground depends in the end on how big ISIS grows. Most of the initial fighting in Afghanistan was done by Northern Alliance troops, as well as their expertise in "turning" local rulers who have always gone with whoever seemed to be winning. The U.S. provided tactical air support, ammunition, and special ops. Our mistake was trying to direct the reconstruction of the country and putting large numbers of troops on the ground to do so. We should have let our gallant allies handle internal matters (it would have been grisly, but stable, and its their country after all, and none of us would have been weeping about dead Taliban).
Now the question is whether anyone with boots on the ground has the spine to stand up to ISIS. The Kurds seem to have taken heart after watching a few air strikes. If they fail, Iran will crush ISIS, but we won't like the results much.
Post a Comment