So the strategy against IS was to ally with “moderate” anti-Syrian rebels, and support them so that they could be our “boots on the ground” to defend against IS.
It seemed a little unrealistic. It seemed a little backwards. And sure enough, 3 days later, at least one group of “moderates” signed a non-aggression pact with IS, making a de-facto alliance between the two groups against their common enemy, Syria’s Assad government (which back in the real-world, ought to be our natural ally against IS):
Syria rebels, IS in ‘non-aggression’ pact near Damascus [ Global Post / Agence France-Presse ]
Report: ISIS, Syrian rebels reach ceasefire [ The Hill ]
The real fault in the address, however, was not its delivery or its writing, but rather its content. The president spoke to the nation without answering the most important questions that such a speech raises.
some good points…
Originally posted on Xavier's Blog:
Since Obama’s latest speech on the upcoming US war against ISIS there has been a flood of commentary, some of it very cogent and some of it alarmist in the extreme. Based on reports from experienced investigative journalists and scholars, the US war against ISIS clearly runs the risk of inflaming the violence in the Middle East further and heightening the threat of terrorism. In order to grasp these realities an honest appraisal of the origins and development of this conflict must be made, admittedly an ambitious task in a media culture drowning in misinformation and deceptive insinuation. Below are just a few basic points that are worth bearing in mind as the Obama administration escalates this assault.
- The US is not bombing Iraq to “fix” anything but to sustain US regional hegemony.
A common criticism of the US attempt to bomb ISIS is that it will not “fix” the…
View original 1,111 more words