The U.S. has done a lot of good work in combating ISIL in Iraq and Syria over the last six months. But it should be doing more to protect its interest with respect to these countries and I am not talking about America sending its combat troops there. Looking at Iraq, if truth be told a lot of the discontent with America amongst Iraqis probably stems from pro-Iranian Iraqis but the circumstances there call for the American government to be asking itself should it be doing more to protect its interests in Iraq which in a broad sense is to see Iraq be a stable and prosperous country where the citizens of the country of different religious and cultural background live in peace and harmony together. To this end America could benefit from doing something big and symbolic about ISIL and in the process address concerns by Iraqi Sunnis that they are getting shortchanged by the central Iraqi government and addressing concerns that America is not doing enough to rid the country of Iraq of the scourge of the Islamic State. The U.S. President and Congress should work together passing legislation which funds the creation and full support of four brigades for the Iraqi Army for two years; America will build these units from scratch and completely fund them from their uniforms to their rifles to the howitzer artillery guns they will use to bomb Islamic State forces to rubble - the U.S. military will train them and it will be sectarian integrated forces with thirty percent of the rank and file soldiers and officer corp being Sunni Iraqis. Of course the Prime Minister of Iraq Mr. Abadi would have to commit to this thirty percent number further the American government would garnish a commitment from Mr. Abadi that at least two of these brigades would solely be used to fight to take back and provide security in Anbar province, the principally Iraqi Sunni province. Four brigades probably number around twenty-five thousand troops which America could afford to do, in part justifying the expense that the sooner ISIL is defeated throughout Iraq the sooner America can bring its military personnel and military assets home saving a big expense. Plus, this symbolic effort would help counter the worrisome influence Iran has over many Iraqis and many inside Iraq's government, hearing the pro-Iranian rhetoric in the media one would think the Shiite Iraqi militias are divisions of the Iranian Army and the Iraqi central government is on track to become a provincial government of the Iranian provinces collectively called Iraq; it will not be a good thing for the well-being of the country of Iraq and security throughout the Middle East if the Iraqi people lose their sovereignty to Iranian religious and political leaders. The other country where ISIL is a huge problem is Syria, ISIL controls territory there as large as many states in our country. Hearing this administration's strategy to defeat ISIL in Syria I think most Americans would say it is extremely weak and it would seem to them to be a strategy that will fail, albeit, the crystal clear picture it failed won't be evident until Mr. Obama leaves office. The Obama administration's strategy is defeat ISIL in Iraq first and then America will focus on defeating them in Iraq. The American people would probably find it very informative that eighty percent of the coalition, including America's, air strikes in Syria took place at the city of Kobani where Kurds are fighting and beating ISIL forces to save their city in northern Iraq; if one factors in the coalition air strikes in Syria that the public knows about where they tried to destroy ISIL's oil assets and control, command and training locations the truth is that the coalition has given a pittance, incredibly small amount of air strike assistance to the Free Syrian Army forces in Syria. Which is incredibly foolish America's interests with respect to Syria fall or succeed on the fate of the Free Syrian Army. The world will not see ISIL and the Assad regime removed from power without ground forces taking ground these entities control in Syria and no other group throughout the world will provide ground forces except the free Syrian Army. The facts are that the last stronghold for the Free Syrian Army in Syria is in the northwestern part of the country around Aleppo and further truth is that the ISIL noose is rapidly closing on FSA forces around Aleppo. Why doesn't U.S. government make their policy that it is a top priority for the U.S. military to provide air assistance to these FSA forces, this air assistance at Kobani has been remarkably successful. Syrian citizens that are part of and allies of the FSA are calling for the American government to provide this FSA support they are making earnest public appeals why doesn't the administration grant their request. It doesn't cut it that the American government says we can't distinguish between al Nusra front and FSA forces around Aleppo, if the media can find the FSA fighters around Aleppo it is not believable that America's intelligence services couldn't? President Barack Obama with his post election cascade of policy initiatives seems to be utmost concerned about his legacy as a Liberal President. I'm no historian but what seems to be on track is that President Obama is going to leave a huge ISIL country in in northern Syria which spews out huge numbers of terrorists that claim to be legitimate Islamic jihad fighters doing and trying to do terroristic acts throughout the world - reasonableness would call that a disastrous foreign policy legacy to leave!
It seems to me we shouldn't get involved with ISIL at all. What dog do we have in this fight? How much do we receive from Syria or Iraq in the way of taxes or subsidies? I think the record will show that the money goes the other way. Here's a thought: leave the defense of those countries to the people who are paid to defend them. That's not us. I would think that US policy with regard to ISIL will be judged a failure because we're picking a fight we don't have to with no clear objectives. For instance, what will replace ISIL should it suffer a military defeat? IMO it will be a group that is identical in all but name. Here's another question: How can we hope to defeat ISIL without sending ground troops? Should we therefore send ground troops or spend money ineffectually (IMO sending arms to the so-called 'good' rebels in Syria is the same as arming ISIL)? If we take ground, how will our troops be supplied? Under what conditions will our occupying troops leave? All this presupposes the game is worth the candle. I haven't yet seen anything that convinces me it is.
Obama's ISIL strategy is one where OTHER PEOPLE PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND INCLUDING THOSE WITH DOGS IN THE HUNT. And it seems to be working. ISIL is losing ground, their commanders are dying, their ability to fight is being degraded daily. And why should America invade Iraq for a third time? How many times does it take before the war hawks get the message? given Iraq's recent history the odds of it remaining a single country are miniscule. It was artificially created with no consideration at all of geography or ethnic composition and only held together by tyrants' bootheels on the throats of its citizens.
agreed from what i've heard the FSA barely even exists anymore, all of its members either dead, joined ISIL or the al-Nusra Front. Last I checked it held a small portion of territory in northwestern Syria, but they seem to be well out of the game. To me, it seems like an endless cycle. the US sees a dictator/government they dislike, it's taken out, but do realize these volatile areas have several factions all wanting power. When the US leaves, that new government cannot handle these numerous factions all wanting power(ie Sunni/Shi'a conflict in Iraq). It either collapses into civil war or loses territory to a new state(in Iraq's case). To counter that the US is like "hey, let's just leave troops there forever so the region doesn't explode!" That costs a lot of money and resources that the US doesn't have after say 10-15 years. We pull out, the regime collapses, replaced by tyranny, cycle repeat. Countries in the Middle East will never learn how to govern themselves if Western powers are constantly holding their hands.
