Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Need World Solution for Bad World Situation: Engage & Defeat ISIS

ISIS Leader and Caliph-in-Waiting: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and their Rally Flag

100% Correct - I Totally Agree

Updated (*based on the NY Post front page above and below from NY Times), which I also agree with:

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman reminded readers recently that ISIS emerged from a context of three civil wars raging in the Arab world, which makes the U.S. response incredibly complicated. He urged caution, writing in part that, “ISIS is awful but it is not a threat to America's homeland.” … continuing he wrote:

I'm all-in on destroying ISIS. It is a sick, destabilizing movement. I support using U.S. air power and special forces to root it out, but only as part of a coalition, where everybody who has a stake in stability there pays their share and where mainstream Sunnis and Shiites take the lead by demonstrating that they hate ISIS more than they hate each other. Otherwise, we'll end up in the middle of a God-awful mess of duplicitous allies and sectarian passions, and nothing good we do will last.”

Who can logically answer this question: “Why is it safe or otherwise appear to be safe in assuming or saying that ISIS fighters — well-armed, with lots of money, U.S. and EU passports in many cases, and having and displaying a thirst for American blood on display with the public execution of the two American journalists: James Foley and Steven Sotloff — won't bring the fight directly to our shores?”

ISIS is not a case or set of circumstances that warrants any kind of containment or deterrence – not one bit. They have to be totally wiped out and off the face of the Earth, and that must be in harmony with an international coalition of like-mined countries focused on that same single goal.

The U.S. can and must set the example and lead. The “how part” is always the toughest part. Just “how” deep should our involvement be? “How” much must we invest compared to the countries in that region where ISIS is in literally operating in their back yard. 

There is a lot the U.S. can do… but shedding more blood like we did in Iraq and continue to shed in Afghanistan – well, that’s very different kind of “why” isn’t it? 

Original post from here: Based on everything I have read, seen, heard, and know about the ISIS movement across Syria and most Iraq and especially the awful gruesome sights of them killing the two American journalists warrants this post:

This latest from al-Baghdadi:  He has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe. Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims “... were being targeted and killed from China to Indonesia.” He says he speaks as the first Caliph or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Now he is calling on Muslims around the globe to rally to his pan-Islamic state.

He says, he believes, he wants – ha. Who cares what this blood-thirsty madman thinks or wants? What lies ahead for that region and peaceful people in the path of ISIS now? Right now no one knows for sure. We wait to see what actions the U.S. will take. Here are a few points I stand by and I hope Washington will discuss. I also hope Congress comes back into session now and ends their 5-week vacation and meets this challenge along side President Obama.

My thinking tracks along these lines. See if you agree or not with the points raised here:

1.  War should not be our first, second, or even third choices. However, war may be necessary in cases where we are up against an ideology or over zealous religious perspective that acts the way we see it acting today – that in short, denies any logical reasoning.

2.  Certainly going to war in cases or in response to attacks such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are totally justified.

3.  Fighting against Nazism and Japanese Imperialism in World War II are classic examples which highlight the need for strong, united, direct, and decisive military intervention no matter the cost; no matter the time; and no matter the suffering along the way. 

4.  Not acting in those cases benefit the attackers and their goals and not those of freedom-loving decent people – thus we cannot allow ourselves or our citizens to become slaves or cowards in the face of that kind of thinking.

5.  I do not advocate a hawkish national policy across the board, either. Simply stated: we must be prepared and ready and willing to intervene and act if circumstances require or warrant it.

6.  Identifying and clarifying the threat and circumstances to act must be in harmony with public support. That is key.

What we face today, I strongly believe, with the two recent beheading by ISIS of the two American journalists, who are not combatants in any sense of the word, warrant a strong and swift and decisive military action that is not limited in scope, but one that strives to build a like-minded international coalition of free men to act and react full bore to eradicate the ISIS and the threat they obviously present. 

I see no other way.

No comments: