The enemy of my enemy …

To the president of the United States, I offer this cautionary word.

Be very careful, Mr. President, in your attempt to enlist the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/politics/obama-iran-isis-letter/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Yes, I know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr. President, do not consider Iran our “friend” by any definition of the word, no matter how loosely one might apply it.

The president recently sent a letter through back channels to the Iranian leadership seeking some advice and help in fighting ISIL. Indeed, Iran has some skin in this game. ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult bent on restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq and in toppling the dictatorial government of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

What’s the Iranian stake here? The Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the arch-enemy of the Sunnis; what’s more, the Iranians have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and intelligence to use against the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Predictably, Republicans in the United States have been blasting the daylights out of President Obama for even talking to the Iranians. Their government hates the Great Satan and, yes, we detest their intentions as well, particularly their reported desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, though, can play a role in helping the United States rid the world of ISIL. It has substantial intelligence capabilities; it certainly has the motive to destroy ISIL.

However, does it have the will to make peace with the United States and, even more critically, with Israel if it means the end of ISIL?

Therein lies the multibillion-dollar question.

I don’t have a particular problem with an outreach such as what has taken place — but only if it is devoid of language that promises peace with a nation that first and foremost must renounce virtually its entire foreign-policy doctrine.

Tread carefully, Mr. President.

Security issue crosses a new border

Well, it seems that border security isn’t just an American problem.

Vice President Biden said recently that Turkey has allowed fighters to cross into Syria to join the Islamic State in its fight against the world. His statement drew a sharp rebuke from Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has demanded an apology from the vice president.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/219780-turkish-president-demands-apology-from-biden

Erdogan’s take? He said, according to The Hill: “‘Foreign fighters have never entered Syria from our country. They may come to our country as tourists and cross into Syria, but no one can say that they cross in with their arms,’ Erdogan continued, saying the country had prevented 6,000 suspected jihadist members from entering the country and deported another 1,000.”

This sounds vaguely familiar.

There might be a serious semantic problem that needs to be clarified.

Critics of the Obama administration keep harping on the “porous” southern border with Mexico, yet ignore that U.S. border agents are rounding up illegal immigrants daily and have been returning them to their home countries in record numbers. Is the border really “porous” if we’re catching people coming here illegally? Just asking.

Now we hear about border security issues in one of the most dangerous places on Earth. Syria years ago erupted into civil conflict. It’s been bloody and ruthless. Neighboring nations ought to be locking down their own borders with Syria, particularly with news of the thousands of foreign fighters joining the hideous forces waging battle against the tyrannical regime of Bashar al-Assad.

So, what did the vice president say? He criticized Turkey and Arab nations for supporting Sunni militant groups that turned out to comprise fighters from around the world.

I’ll give the vice president the benefit of the doubt on this one. He may have been asserting that Turkey needs to do a better job of securing its borders with a nation at war with itself. These conflicts have ways of spilling over into neighboring nations.

So, if the Turks are our allies, then they need to demonstrate their commitment to joining the fight by locking down their border and ensuring the foreign fighters don’t enter the Syrian battlefield from Turkey.

Not the U.S. fight alone

President Obama said it correctly.

The fight against the Islamic State does not mean the United States wages this battle alone. ISIL presents a worldwide threat and therefore the world — or at least those nations closest to the threat — must step up.

Five of them have done so as air strikes have begun in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-says-arab-support-shows-this-is-not-americas-fight-alone

It is to the great credit of Secretary of State John Kerry that he was able to cobble together a coalition of Arab states to take part in this fight alongside American service personnel. French fighter aircraft already have joined U.S. pilots in hitting ISIL targets in neighboring Iraq.

Obama said, “America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations. This is not America’s fight alone.”

So the fight has been joined with the Islamic State in Syria. Does this mean we’re now cozying up to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who remains an enemy of the United States? Not in the least, although U.S. commanders did alert Assad in advance that the air strikes against ISIL targets would commence.

The pressure must remain on the Arab states to stay in the fight for as long as it takes to put down these terrorist monsters, who have made it clear they intend to target Americans for future heinous acts.

Yes, the fight will take some time to complete. It must be done.

Syria aid is on its way

Well, it looks as though the United States of America is going to enter the Syria conflict after all.

Congress likely will approve President Obama’s request for authorization to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels as they prepare to take on the Islamic State — and the government forces led by Bashar al-Assad.

Lawmakers: We will pass Syria aid

Yes, it will come with some complaints from both sides of the aisle.

Obama was right to ask for authorization. Congress is right to grant it.

Is it the right call to equip the rebels? That remains to be seen.

The Syrian civil war is getting complicated in the extreme. We don’t yet know fully who the “good guys” are in this fight. We’ve identified some definite evil forces — two of whom are fighting each other. ISIL is battling the government led by the dictator. We hate the dictator, but we hate ISIL even more, given the gruesome murders the terrorists have committed against two American journalists and a British aid worker.

I remain concerned deeply about whether we should send in troops while bombing the daylights out of ISIL military positions in Iraq. That discussion has been broached by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, who today said he’d consider sending in special ops forces if the need arose, pending approval by the commander in chief, Barack Obama.

Congress has a role to play here. Its members need to sign on and take ownership of a conflict that is beginning to take on the look of a new war.

Heaven help us.

Obama seeks to thread dangerous needle

Talk about a much-anticipated speech.

President Obama is going to speak Wednesday about his planned strategy for “degrading, defeating and destroying” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

In that speech, the president is going to lay out a plan that will preclude American “boots on the ground.” What he will need to explain — and he’ll need to use his tremendous rhetorical skill to do so — is how this nation is going to defeat ISIL’s efforts to overthrow the government in Syria without aligning ourselves with the government that we also hate.

The president offered a hint of that strategy this morning in an interview broadcast on Meet the Press. He talked to new MTP moderator Chuck Todd about working with “moderate opposition forces” that also are fighting the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. ISIL is the new enemy on the battlefield in Syria, he said, and the United States will deploy its enormous air power to hit ISIL’s whenever and wherever we find it.

This, I submit, is where the equation gets very tricky.

Assad’s regime is as hated as any in the Middle East. He, too, is a monster who needs to go. ISIL, though, is an even worse monster. Do we take sides in this struggle, wishing for one enemy force to defeat another enemy force?

Obama said the aim ought to be to help those so-called moderates in Syria — with help from other Sunni Arab states in the region. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two nations that have received significant U.S. military support over the years.

It’s time, Obama said, for those nations to deploy the assets we’ve provided for them in the fight against ISIL.

The president took a lot of heat when he said recently that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in dealing with ISIL. The critics who pounded Obama over that statement forget the “yet” part of that statement.

It appears a strategy is forthcoming. I’ll wait with interest for what the president has to say.

I will be particularly interested in hearing how he plans to keep fighting Bashar al-Assad while destroying the dictator’s No. 1 enemy.

 

Another beheading, more calls for ‘action’

Another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, reportedly has been murdered by ISIL.

Good God in heaven! This tragedy defies any civilized human being’s emotional tolerance. What should be our response? What must the United States do to punish these monstrous murderers?

I submit we must do what we’ve been seeking to do for weeks: Bomb them into oblivion.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/steven-sotloff-death-110516.html?hp=l4

The outcry from U.S. politicians is understandable and quite predictable. The chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — Republican Ed Royce of California and Democrat Eliot Engel of New York, respectively — say President Obama must take immediate action. He must do something more than what he’s been doing.

I keep circling back to the key question: To what end do we ratchet up our response to these monsters?

If we’re talking about sending troops into battle in Syria and back into Iraq, my strong sense is that the country has zero appetite for more warfare. If we’re thinking about boosting our aerial campaign, well, I’m all for that.

Everyone on Planet Earth now understands that ISIL — the Islamic State and The Levant — has redefined barbarism. No one wants them to continue operating.

In our rage over what’s reportedly happened to another U.S. journalist, let us be mindful of at least two key elements.

One, the administration is hitting ISIL hard already in Iraq and there are increasing reports of a stepped-up aerial assault against the monsters in Syria. I’m quite sure an expanded air campaign is about to commence.

Two, ISIL is fighting another enemy of the United States, forces loyal to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It’s that dual-enemy threat that presents a seriously complicated task facing the United States of America. Destroying ISIL is in our best interest, but we must be mindful of who precisely benefits directly from ISIL’s elimination in Syria. I’m not saying in the least we should go easy in ISIL simply because Assad stands to gain. I’m merely saying that our rage over Sotloff’s gruesome death should not overtake rational thinking in preparing the right kind of response to this despicable act.

Keep bombing, Mr. President. If they respond with more heinous acts, bomb them some more.

 

GOP Rep. Cole tamps down Obama criticism

U.S. Rep. Tom Cole must be running a fever. Perhaps he’s been in the hot Oklahoma sun too long.

The Republican lawmaker actually said President Obama is being “commendably cautious” about developing a strategy to deal with ISIL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/tom-cole-obama-isil-110443.html?hp=l4

Commendably cautious? What’s going on here?

Cole is one of the few GOP lawmakers to suggest that Obama shouldn’t be rushed into developing such a strategy. Indeed, Cole noted that the White House has crafted “the elements of a strategy” already.

I’m one of those who said the other day that the president needs to get cracking on a strategy to deal with ISIL, the notorious terrorist group that many experts say makes al-Qaeda look like a Boy Scout troop. I still believe the president shouldn’t waste time.

Then again, it’s refreshing to hear at least one leading congressional Republican suggest that critics are hyperventilating needlessly.

Cole takes appropriate note of the complexities facing the White House in the Syria conflict. Bashar al-Assad is fighting ISIL. The United States hardly is Assad’s friend. Indeed, President Obama has called for Assad’s ouster. Who should replace him? Certainly no one who’s friends with ISIL.

Therein lies the president’s “commendable caution.”

 

 

 

Strange bedfellows, indeed

What may be about to happen in Syria just might re-define the term “strange bedfellows.”

This one utterly blows my ever-loving mind. The United States apparently is about to start launching surveillance flights over Syria to help pinpoint the whereabouts of ISIS fighters battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, the guy we threatened once to hit with airstrikes after he crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons on his own people.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215935-report-us-to-conduct-surveillance-flights-over-syria

ISIS is running rampant in Syria and Iraq. The terrorist organization has beheaded an American journalists, threatened to bring its mayhem to American shores, pledged all-out war against Israel and promised to overthrow the Iraqi government we helped install.

The group personifies evil.

It’s also fighting Assad’s wicked regime in Syria. Assad is another enemy of the United States. President Obama has called on him to step down. He has pledged support to insurgents fighting against Syrian government troops. One of those so-called “allies” appears to be ISIS, if that’s what we’re led to believe.

How can that possibly be happening?

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Remember that cliché?

You want more? Syria now has offered to help the United States by providing intelligence data on the movements of ISIS within that country’s border. No word yet on whether we’ve accepted the offer of assistance.

My head is about to explode as I ponder this amazing tangle of relationships.

Someone help me out. Please.

 

Obama must stand strong against monsters

Barack Obama likely never envisioned dealing with the monstrous behavior he and the rest of America have witnessed in recent days.

No, he took office as the nation was mired in a financial meltdown. The nation was at war with terrorists and had made progress in that effort. Osama bin Laden was still on the loose, but that crack SEAL team killed him in May 2011.

The president made another statement today about the death of a journalist in Syria at the hands of ISIL, the terrorists seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government while also fighting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Can there be any more complicated relationship here, with the United States despises the terrorists fighting a government we support in Iraq while fighting a government we oppose in Syria?

These monsters took the life of an American journalist, James Foley. They’re demanding we stop the air strikes against them, or else they’ll kill others held hostage.

Plus, the world learned today that this summer, the United States launched an attempt to rescue Foley and others from ISIL, but couldn’t locate him or his captors.

The president today vowed to keep up the fight against the killers. He held Foley up as a courageous journalist, while calling ISIL a band of cowards.

He used strong language, as the video attached to this post will attest. Words, though, fail to persuade terrorists bent on destroying their enemies.

The president’s response to the terrorists’ demands was to step up the air attacks against targets in Iraq.

They must continue. Let us take caution, though, to avoid that slippery slope. This nation has plenty of air power assets to deploy against the monsters. Let us use them with maximum force and prejudice.

Strike won’t start a new ‘war’

President Obama’s speech on Syria is worth reading over and over.

Of particular note should be the president’s assertion that a strike against Syrian military targets will not thrust the United States into another ground war.

He said it Tuesday night. He’s been saying it time and again since declaring his intent to hit the Syrians for gassing civilians on Aug. 21. The declaration has fallen on deaf ears. But read it here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/10/full_speech_president_obama_addresses_the_nation_on_syria.html

Obama said it once again in a nationally televised speech to the nation. Will it persuade the doubters? I’m not taking that one to the bank. I have not been a doubter on that fundamental point, which is that the United States will not commit to a war with no end.

The president made it as clear as he could. Any military strike — if it comes — will have a specific set of goals. It will be brief, it will be intense and it will be intended to deter Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from using the chemical weapons again.

The speech, of course, came during a period of intense diplomatic activity. Russia entered the picture with a plan to persuade Syria to surrender the chemical weapons and turn it over to international inspectors.

Again, the speech is worth reading. It’s attached to this blog post. Pay careful attention to the pledge that a strike — if the diplomatic initiative fails — will be a limited engagement.

I do not see a war on the horizon.