ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Obama's Rumor of War Against ISIS

Updated on September 18, 2014
The ISIS leader
The ISIS leader

The war with ISIS will most likely end badly or not at all for America. Obama is right on many aspects and being reluctant is a virtue in various situations. By the same token, being aggressive is also a virtue. The problem is having the correct balance. Too much of one of these only leads to more chaos.

For the past three years, Obama, has been overly reluctant about the Syrian war. It is a chaotic situation, yet, one cannot just sit on the sideline. But Obama managed to do it. Now, in a reversal of policy, he is advocating training and arming the "moderate" rebels. Any expert will tell you the term is nonsense in classifying terrorist or opposition fighters. Al Nusra. was part of the Free Syrian Army but is no longer. in fact, the two are enemies now. Part of the plan is to train 5000 men in Saudi Arabia for a year and return them. The rebels already are balking about this because they need no training after fighting for three years!

Obama has basically declared war on Assad's Syrian army by finally openly arming and training the Free Syria Army. By such a move, we can no longer count on Syrian's to attack ISIS and you can make sure Syria will now try to shoot down any French, American or British aircraft attacking ISIS in Raqqa.

But worse is that Iraq's new Prime Minister, who lived in England for over 20 years, told Western media that there will never be American or any foreign soldiers based in Iraq without permission and that Iraq must approved of any air attacks upon targets. He told reporters that Iraq does not want any foreign troops and expressed dismay as to why Iran is not part of the coalition.

All the experts are telling Obama that just air attacks will not destroy ISIS. That, someone has to send troops. Iraq's military surely cannot do that. The Kurds are only a little better. The Saudis have one of the largest military forces, yet, the only thing they are willing to do is train the Syrians against Assad. Why should America get involved when those who are directly impacted refuse to ?

On the other hand, stopping ISIS is also in our interest because we are on their hit list. But Obama is such a reluctant warrior that his strategy is doomed to fail because many of our friends are playing both sides for their own reasons.

ISIS has probably been watching the Western media outlets on their TV and has a fairly good idea what the strategy is because Obama tells them what he is NOT willing to do. Unless we get lucky and take out the ISIS leader(s), it will really be just a perpetual war into the next presidency.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Hxprof 3 years ago from Clearwater, Florida

      Good summation. I'd still like to see a continuous, large scale bombing campaign - it would at the least severly disrupt ISIS. In addition, we could augment the bombing with special forces, both from US and UK. Still can't argue with military commanders who're saying ground troops will be needed at some point.