Well, don’t fault the French for a lack of decisiveness:
(CNN)The French air force carried out bombing missions on ISIS targets in Raqqa, Syria, for a second day in a row in the wake of deadly Islamist extremist terror attacks in Paris.
On Monday, it targeted a command center, recruitment center, ammunition storage base and a training camp, the French military said.
Also on Monday, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazaneuve said “war” had been declared on France, and that “anybody who attacks the Republic, the Republic will fight back.”
“It is not they who will destroy the Republic. The Republic will destroy them,” he said.
France has been part of the U.S.-led coalition of nations fighting ISIS from the air, but after Friday’s attacks that killed 129 people and wounded more than 350 more, France has flown an increased number of sorties — re-inserting itself into the battle.
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which France’s President described as “an act of war.”
There are multiple schools of thought on what will or should happen next. Some think that the French will bomb a few targets in Syria and leave it at that. Some, like the editors of the New York Times, call for unspecified action. It’s unclear to me why they would be so vague. Perhaps they’re outraged but simply don’t know what to do. Perhaps they’re waiting to see what the president (or Hillary Clinton) supports so they can come down on the side of that whatever it is.
By and large the Republican presidential candidates favor a more muscular response—Mitt Romney’s WP op-ed is pretty typical:
Only the United States can lead this war, and that leadership means being willing to devote whatever resources are required to win — even boots on the ground. We have the best-equipped and most dedicated military for good reason. The president must stop trying to placate his political base by saying what he won’t do and tell Americans what he will do.
We must do what it takes.
My position, as it has been for some time, is that we need to change sides. The only “boots on the ground” in Syria capable of destroying DAESH are those of the Syrian Army and the Iranians. Rather than jumping through our rear ends trying to distinguish between “good” radical Islamists and “bad” ones we should decide that all radical Islamists are bad.
If we can’t bring ourselves to join with the Russians, Syrian government, and the Iranians, we should butt out. If that’s unpalatable, we should keep doing what we’ve been doing—go after targets of opportunity, mostly the stray pickup truck, pursuing our strategic objectives without a strategic plan that can accomplish them.
Clear thinking, to paraphrase President Hollande, is called for. Refugees are not tourists who select their destinations and itinerary. When Syrians reach Turkey, fleeing for their lives, they are refugees. When they set out from Turkey for the fleshpots of Berlin or Stockholm, they are economic migrants, welfare tourists, or, as we have seen in the attacks on Paris, terrorists. We shouldn’t ignore the degree to which Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the problem rather than the solution.
The French reaction is largely predictable because the late September airstrikes were stated at the time to be a response to the January attacks and the growing terrorist threat in France from ISIS. The delay was explained to be in order for France to gather intelligence and to avoid attacks that might unintentionally strengthen Assad. Other than possibly become less picky about indirectly benefitting Assad, the French have already planned their response to these attacks months ago.
I favor unspecified action … VIGOROUS unspecified action. It’s probably the best we can hope for from our leaders.
“We shouldn’t ignore the degree to which Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the problem rather than the solution.”
With that being said, if we “shouldn’t” ignore these problems, how do we address them?
Maybe I’m not following you, but it seems the implication here is that we should exercise certain expectations of these countries. If they don’t get the message then we walk away and let the ME frolic in it’s own problems???
If this a correct interpretation, do you really think we are able to maintain iron-clad immunity from the pressing/growing problems, merely one “terror cell” removed from implanting chaos in this country again, in the midst of a world undergoing so much unrestrained volatility?
This reminds me of those three monkeys, depicted as “hearing, seeing and voicing no evil” — with perhaps a little finger-crossing as their backup. However, in an Obama presidency, such ongoing actions would also include having no coherent foreign policy/military strategy, continue to admit refugees/illegals at will, partake of agreements with people who want to extinguish the west, and “be nice and PC” in our words — playing it safe, and by ear, until 2016, when you can hand the mess over to someone else. Oh yes, forgot — one also mustn’t express any bellicosity less they sound like the president’s most disliked people on earth — republicans.
@jan
al-Qaeda was the result of arming rebels to fight against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and we know how that turned out. It was the Cold War, and mistakes were made. In Syria, the exact same thing is being done, and the exact result will occur. The difference will be a shorter wait period.
The people you think of as experts are not only clueless but total idiots, also. Some might add dangerous.
In the Iraq Invasion, the idea that they could “drain the swamp” was questionable at best, but de-Baathification and firing the army ensured the country would descend into chaos. Not being satisfied, the same crew has put it in place in Libya and is trying for Syria.
In Afghanistan, the country will devolve back into its natural state as soon as the US leaves, and there is no amount of training that can alter that fact. Either the US is never leaving, or there is no reason to stay.
In Iraq, it would have taken multiple generations to achieve anything resembling a liberal Western democracy. Either President Bush was too stupid to understand this simple fact, or he was too cowardly to acknowledge it. I will leave the choice to you, but it was his deal to make with Iraq not foist it off on somebody else. You all need to grow up.
(It is possible that President Bush realized the folly of Iraq, and with an effective anti-terrorist program in place, he decided to let the whole thing die out. He might have negotiated the withdrawal deliberately because he was winning the War on Terror, but it was in the shadows.)
Your experts want to send troops into Syria to deal with ISIS. Where and how? If you are going to have any presence, you will need a footprint larger than a few conex boxes, and at some point, you cannot ferry in equipment, munitions, armaments, and supplies by air. You need ports. You also need time to build up the force. It does not happen overnight. I suspect Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Israel will not host the landing or basing. So where will this occur?
In the Ukraine, there is an illegal government backed by the US. In Syria, the US is backing terrorists who are trying to install an illegal government. The same gang you think are experts do not have any problem with this. They have deemed them unfit, and therefore, they are unfit. This is a strange liberal democracy, but the world seems rather strange to me.
Speaking of strange, your gang names Saudi Arabia an ally (without a treaty somehow but whatever) and ISIS a mortal enemy, but the fact that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring ISIS does not seem strange to them. Actually, they seem to be clueless. Even more bizarre, Turkey is an actual ally, and they are supporting ISIS.
Turkey is against the Kurds (another US ally without a treaty), and the US sent 50 troops to act as human shields for the Kurds against Turkish bombs.
You all want to rule the world with a military smaller than during the Cold War, and how you intend to pay for it is a mystery. Well actually, you intend to pay for it using Keynesian economics and then whine about Keynesian economics. The experts are experts on everything, but somehow they are never right.
You all want to get tough with thugs and tyrants, but few of you have ever dealt with them. They do not play by your rules, and they do not react the way you all expect. This never stops you all from making new predictions. It never even slows you all down.
In the case of China, what is getting tough supposed to look like. Sailing and flying through territory, they are now claiming, is about the extent of what you can do. What does China have to fear? The US is not going to invade or attack, and with your gang’s love of “free-trade”, they will never impose any economic penalties.
With Russia, they are trying the economic route, but again, the US will not invade or attack. If Russia were to field a full military invasion of Ukraine, what do you think it would take to stop them. Do you really believe that any Republican could somehow deploy enough troops to stop it? Apparently, your experts think a Republican president would have magic fairy dust.
If you want to live in the fantasy world these idiots have created, have at it. I guess it is no worse than the childish and silly notions of President Obama.
“Do something, even if it’s wrong” may be satisfying, but it is rarely an effective strategy.
If your experts were exterminators, their solution to a fire ant problem would be to stomp on the nest and light a candle at church. They would explain that stomping on the nest would kill most of the ants, and lighting the candle would prove your faith in a higher power. Good luck.
You certainly have the “everyone is an idiot” thing down pat, Tasty. Given that ISIS appears hell bent on serial attacks on non-Muslim interests, like live, breathing people, what do you suggest be done? Yesterday my favorite author offered the V&I Strategy (vaporize and incinerate) courtesy a nuclear warhead. You must admit it would solve the cost issue. Fast. Few troops. No rations or caskets needed………….
I noticed that, too, Guarneri. With that view I would have thought he would have supported John McCain for president rather than being as steadfast a supporter of the president as he is.
@Drew
Step #1
Stop stomping on ant piles.
ISIS specific
#1a – Offer Russia any support it requires.
#1b – Inform Saudi Arabia they have 24 hours to cease all ISIS support by any Saudi citizen. If not, all US support for them will be publicly withdrawn, and any attacks or invasions will not be considered hostile by the US. (They can have ISIS.)
#1c – Find out what Egypt needs, apologize profusely, and pay them off.
#1d – Realize Turkey is an ally but not a friend, and their hostility must be neutralized. (Learn a lesson, also.)
Step #2
Begin gather intel using real human assets.
Step # 4
Begin infiltrating their networks.
Step #5
Begin covertly sabotaging infrastructure of terrorist friendly countries if not confronting them overtly or a combination.
For China’s sandbars, I would setup a military outpost and dare them to do something. For Russia, they need to stay out of Central Europe and Scandinavia.
The Middle East can rot, but if the US is to be involved, there need to be bases. Iraq was the best location, but unless Iraq can be opened up, Jordan or Lebanon are the only alternatives. Now, getting them to open up is another story.
If you let Assad take care of ISIS and Syria, US can concentrate on Libya. This is where the problems will start. I would suggest getting started on this before it becomes too large, and I have to hear, “nobody could have seen it coming.”
If you want to increase the military, you need to double it, and it would be a good idea to pay for it. You are going to need to raise taxes on everybody including the rich but mostly the middle income people. You might even want to produce some of those munitions and armaments in the US. I am sure buying from China is cheaper, but I am not sure it is a good idea. Of course, I am not that smart.
As far as nukung one or more cities, it would not be my first or last choice, but I would not lose any sleep over it.
“If your experts ……”
Tasty, I wasn’t aware any experts were mentioned in my comments. In fact I don’t fancy myself as anything more than one citizen, among 300 million plus others, who is simply expressing a concerned opinion, in layman’s language, regarding ongoing domestic and world events.
In my own life I am proactively hands-on, addressing problems early on, before they grow insurmountable. Maybe that’s why my comments are often interpreted by you as being pure hawkish or backing the neocons or Bush 100% of the time. I can assure they are not.
However, I do admit to standing up for myself and my beliefs by more than just words. I also find deferred maintenance, when it’s exercised in our housing business, seems to have similar consequences to deferred government policy, leading to greater costs and liabilities when underestimated or left unattended.
Therefore, in the case of the current ME turmoil, it’s troubling to hear US intel analysts say reports are being altered to fit the administration’s narrative. The mass graves, reported today, is another disconcerting example of the ruthless targeting going on in ME and spreading into Europe, via the latest attack in Paris — at a time when our government is saying terrorism is either “on the run,” or now being safely “contained.”
While I’m not cringing in fear, the constant, ongoing brutality abroad, with threats issued to come here, does not give me peace of mind, as “what goes around” often “comes around” — especially when accompanied by non-serious, ineffective, tone-deaf strategies that are infrequently reevaluated, updated and changed as that seriousness grows. None of that seems to be happening under the Obama Administration.
@Drew
There are lots of people hell bent on attacking non-Muslims. You live with it every day. It is no different than auto accidents. I highly doubt you stay locked in your house because of the numbers, but they are not low. If you are like most people, you shrug off auto accidents, but airplane crashes terrify you. According to the numbers, it should be the reverse for most people, but it is not.
For the average person to be involved in a terrorist attack, they would need to actively seek out a terrorist plot for more than 24 hours a day, and before anybody brings it up, I enlisted in the Marine Corps because I got bored with being a Deputy in New Orleans. (I made sure to get a guarantee of the infantry before I would sign.)
@jan
I heard about the intel reports being doctored some time back. It did not really surprise me. A lot of what a person accuses you of doing is how they understand that the world works, and consequently, it is how they actually do things. Accusing President Bush of doctoring intel and lying is believable if that is how you operate.
Everything that goes on in the Middle East also happens in Mexico, but it is not reported, and therefore, it does not happen. The Mexican drug gangs have infiltrated the US, and they make ISIS look like Girl Scouts.
I have a problem wasting a lot of money because a few people in the US have made a career of selling snake oil on TV, and none of them seem to have a clue how anything actually works.
In the waterboarding vs. torture debate, 99% of the people I have heard do not have a clue about how to interrogate or interview a suspect or witness, and none of them had any intention of learning. I think they would rather stay ignorant.
I suspect that deferred maintenance is better than having an incompetent tradesperson do some work, and then, you learn later that it has made things worse. The plumber might have stopped the leak, but he may have caused another larger and more destructive problem you cannot see until it is too late. It would be even worse if the plumber’s qualification was he had organized the plumber’s union.
I do not understand why anybody would want this plumber anywhere near their pipes, but I have never been accused of being normal.
You certainly have the “everyone is an idiot†thing down pat, Tasty.
You know, Drew, based on how things have gone the last couple of decades in US foreign policy, and the options now available to us, I think a case can be that all the people in charge ARE idiots. Seriously, who are you defending as one of the smart ones?
Yesterday my favorite author offered the V&I Strategy (vaporize and incinerate) courtesy a nuclear warhead. You must admit it would solve the cost issue. Fast. Few troops. No rations or caskets needed………….
And it only took 100 or so dead Frenchmen before he came around to this point of view. A few thousand dead Americans? Meh….