By Sal Bommaritio

I was very disappointed in President Obama’s speech yesterday about the ISIS crisis. In this regard, I wrote a speech for Obama that addresses the issues most important to the American people.

My fellow Americans,

In recent months, the terrorist organization known as ISIS has attacked Syria and Iraq. This band of thugs has slaughtered countless Shiite Arabs and has taken control of thousands of square miles of territory in the aforementioned countries. Although ISIS is not a nation, I have decided to declare war on ISIS and am asking the Senate to approve this declaration as delineated by the U.S. Constitution.

ISIS represents a clear and present danger to Syrians and Iraqis, as well as neighboring Arab countries. This organization is terrorizing fellow Arabs as well as non-Arab and non-Sunni individuals in the region. Recently, ISIS beheaded three non-combatants, two Americans and one British citizen. These were cruel and horrendous acts against innocent bystanders.

It is possible that ISIS could be a threat to the U.S. homeland and our allies around the world. ISIS has recruited scores of individuals from the West to fight with it. Many leaders are concerned that these people might return to their homelands and create havoc in the name of ISIS.

In this regard, I am instructing our customs and immigration agencies to identify any citizens traveling to Syria, Iraq or neighboring countries to determine whether they are potential threats to America. Additionally, I am mobilizing reserve units to take positions along our border with Mexico to halt illegal immigration that may include ISIS terrorists.

The U.S will be leading a coalition of nations intent on destroying ISIS. We will not allow terrorists to seize any new territory, and we will endeavor to drive them off of land already commandeered. In the coming days, the U.S. will intensify its bombing sorties to kill ISIS fighters. We hope our coalition partners will take a role in these direct confrontations with our common enemy, but in any case America will move forward.

For the time being, no ground forces other than a few thousand advisers will be deployed in Syria or Iraq. I totally appreciate that the majority of our citizens do not want the U.S. to become imbedded in yet another war. So, I will do everything in my power to avoid another extended conflict.

I expect local government forces and militias to fight for their countries on the ground. However, they may be unable to fulfill this mission. If this proves to be true, it may be necessary to change plans and deploy ground forces.

Further, the nature of the conflict with ISIS may also necessitate deployment of U.S. troops. In open areas, like desert expanses near cities, our bombers can effectively kill ISIS fighters. Not so in cities, where rooting our terrorists is only possible with boots on the ground in door-to-door searches.

I know I will be criticized for changing my mind about the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Frankly, ISIS grew much faster than our intelligence sources believed they would. But, ISIS is a relatively small fighting force without air power and with only limited heavy weapons. They will not be a challenge to defeat in a short period of time with our sophisticated weaponry.

Americans must understand that to kill terrorists our soldiers will be in harm’s way, especially ground forces. To reiterate, I will send our troops only as a last resort. Also, there will be collateral damage from our bombing sorties. We will attempt to avoid areas populated with non-combatants, but there will be innocent casualties without a doubt.

I know the U.S. does not want another multi-year adventure in the Middle East. I will ensure that our combat operations will be undertaken rapidly and ISIS will be defeated quickly.

Finally, any nation that supports ISIS or does not cooperate in the efforts to cut off its funding will be America’s enemies and treated as such militarily and financially.

Thank you and God bless America.

By Sal Bommarito

The president made a speech today to clear up a few things about his strategy to eliminate ISIS. He did so in front of a somewhat receptive crowd of service men and women.

Most importantly, Obama reiterated his policy that the U.S. will not put boots on the ground except to advise local forces in Iraq and Syria. Yesterday, his Joint Chief of Staffs Chairman told Congress that ground troops would be a possibility if things did not proceed as hoped for against ISIS.

What this policy does not take into account is whether the locals are able and willing to fight. Able relates to Iraqi forces that deserted at the first sight of ISIS forces. The willing relates to the Iran-backed militias that will fight ISIS but hate the U.S. And finally, no one really knows whether Sunnis in Iraq will resist Sunni ISIS forces for the benefit of Iraq, which has oppressed them in recent years.

The president also mentioned the broad coalition he is forming. Frankly, there is not much real military help from any nations except Great Britain and France, which agreed to some limited air operations. All the other offers are for training, ground support and assistance in cutting off ISIS’ cash flow. Americans should resign themselves to the fact that our tax dollars are going to be spent big time in this conflict. I have seen no estimates on this point.

The president’s oration was quite good, and he praised America and our military for all they do for nations with problems. Everyone calls the White House when there is a crisis, even when they are critical of our lifestyle and politics.

The question still remains, does the president have the guts to do the right things and to lead the fight against the terrorists that are ravaging Iraq and Syria?

By Sal Bommarito

The political situation relating to the impending ISIS conflict is becoming more discombobulated every day. The U.S. is depending upon the Iraqi government to assist in the fight against the terrorists. The only problem is that the militias that are doing most of the fighting are not reliable allies of the America, and they are backed by Iran.

President Obama has declared war on ISIS in no uncertain terms, even if he disapproves of this vernacular. The U.S. will execute the war from the sky and not employ ground troops, maybe. Already, nearly 2,000 advisers have been deployed in Iraq, and more will be needed to coordinate with the pilots conducting airstrikes and train Iraqis. Just yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff contradicted Obama’s promise not to use ground forces. In conclusion, maybe we are at war (which should be approved by Congress), and maybe we will deploy ground troops (if airstrikes do not impede ISIS). So much for transparency and clarity.

Today, in the New York Times, an interesting story (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/world/middleeast/shiite-militias-pose-challenge-for-us-in-iraq.html?_r=0) was published about the ground forces that will be conducting most of the operations against ISIS in Iraq. To refresh your memory, since it is is probably not deploying ground troops, the U.S. needs local ground fighters to flush out the enemy and mop up after the bombing sorties. The Times presented a mosaic of one of the groups that will be fighting against ISIS, named Asib Ahl al-Haq. It is disturbing to say the least.

Asib is the “largest and most formidable of the Iranian-based Shiite militias that dominates Baghdad.” You read this correctly the U.S. is directly or indirectly going to be relying upon a band of sectarian fighters financed by Iran.

“Once a leading killer of American troops, the militia is spearheading the fight against Sunni extremists of ISIS.” The U.S. and Asib are battling the same foe, “though each insist they will not work together.”

In a previous post, I referred to the sectarian division between Shia and Sunnis, and how it might come into play before and after ISIS is defeated. The Times believes Asib and other Shiite militias “pose a central challenge to the creation of a more just and less sectarian government.” The translation is Shia are not going to give Sunnis any meaningful power in the new Iraqi government. Knowing this, can the U.S. expect Iraqi Sunnis to turn against Sunni ISIS?

Other interesting observations in the news article include:
• The Shiite militias are more powerful and more effective than the Iraqi security force.
• The role of the militias has been elevated because they are the principal elements fighting against ISIS in Iraq.
• Under the former Iraqi government, Asib was “encouraged to do dirty jobs like killing Sunnis, and they operated freely.”
• Asib has secured about 80% of Baghdad.
• Asib led the most difficult military operations because it is the most capable force in Iraq.
• Asib killed 109 Sunnis earlier this year in and around Baghdad.
• Asib’s leader says he “could accept American airstrikes or military attacks . . . But, he does not trust Americans.”
• Asib attacked and killed U.S. troops when we occupied the country.

If the U.S. is depending upon militias that are highly sectarian, backed by Iran and unwilling to work with the U.S., how can the American people be confident that the ISIS operation be successful? And why isn’t the administration revealing these potential landmines to the American public and managing expectations?

By Sal Bommarito

The International New York Times reported that Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria could be an option “if airstrikes can’t stop ISIS.” This is “close to” a contradiction of President Obama’s definitive statement that there would be no boots on the ground, and the first time that I am aware of that a person affiliated to the Obama administration has spoken frankly about the ground troop issue.

In my last post, I claimed that the president has not managed the expectations of Americans about the ISIS conflict. The fact is, shooting at ISIS fighters from 64,000 feet may result in a great number of casualties, but it is doubtful that the terrorist force will be made extinct.

Another issue that has not been addressed is what the Iraq and Syria situations will evolve into if ISIS is destroyed. In Iraq, the Shia and Sunnis will resume their civil war. Shiites have not forgotten or forgiven the cruelty of Saddam Hussein. It is their turn to disenfranchise Sunnis in punishment for their oppression. Of course, Sunnis together with insurgents from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations in the region will not stand by and allow their compatriots to be abused without a fight.

In Syria, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and a host of other Arab states will once again demand that Assad step down. Rebels in the country will turn from ISIS to the Assad regime, and the regime will respond with large doses of violence.

Many Americans are concerned that Iraq and Syria are hopeless cases. Whack-a Mole is exactly what the ISIS invasion is. The violence will not end for some time with or without ISIS.

The Obama administration should step up and tell us what it thinks Iraq and Syria will be in one, two and three years.

By Sal Bommarito

The Obama administration is not managing the expectations of the American people. The final outcome of an engagement with ISIS is not going to be peace and budding democracies in Iraq and Syria. Rather, new terrorism and/or sectarian violence will fill the void resulting from ISIS’ defeat.

The confrontation with ISIS is in the early stages, as no bombing sorties have taken place in Syria to this point. In the meantime, the president and Secretary of State John Kerry are busy trying to recruit Arab coalition partners, a mission impossible.

Supposedly, some announcements will be made next week. It is fantasy to be optimistic about Arab support in the mission to kill ISIS when even Great Britain has not offered up any military assistance. The horrible beheading of a citizen may cause Prime Minister Cameron to be more aggressive.

The administration will be hard pressed to form a real coalition in which all members share in the fighting and the costs. It appears that the U.S. will be the only country bombing ISIS fighters.

Sure, a whole lot of ISIS fighters are going to be obliterated by U.S. munitions. That is until the terrorists wise up and move into populated areas. No way the U.S. is going to drop ordinance on civilians. The bottom line is that ISIS will live to fight another day after it regroups. Think of ISIS like a swarm of cockroaches. You can kill hundreds of them, but they always multiply and return.

The chances to dramatically decrease the population of ISIS are very low because there will be no experienced boots on the ground to root out the bad guys in building-to-building searches. Iraqi soldiers ran from confrontation when ISIS first attacked Iraq, and are not trained to conduct mop up operations.

Exacerbating the situation is the naïve expectation that Sunnis in Iraq will actually turn against Sunni ISIS. Iraqi Shiites are determined to make Sunnis suffer to the same extent they did during Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. It is inconceivable that Sunnis will be given choice government positions. So, Iraqi Sunni just might assist ISIS, or at least provide them cover making the mission’s objective that much more difficult.

When the bombing expands and the body count of Arabs increases, can we really expect no backlash from other Arabs in the region? Are these Arabs going to accept the slaughter of their brothers at the hands of American heathens? Not likely.

Arabs have a knack of flip-flopping their positions on issues and changing whom they want to hate on a given day. For over a thousand years, Shiites fought with Sunnis. But, some expect both sects to set aside sectarian disagreements and focus on getting the U.S. out of their backyard.

The press has suggested that Iran and Russia want to get in on the action. Iran supports Assad as does Russia. They will never agree to be part of an American lead coalition that has a secondary mission to dispose of Assad. Frankly, it is a mystery why the U.S. would even consider teaming up with Iran, given that its nuclear program is far more dangerous than ISIS. And, Russia’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine cannot be ignored.

The end result of this crisis will be a temporarily shattered ISIS, continuation of civil wars in Syria and Iraq and another unsuccessful attempt by the U.S. to bring peace to a region that hates peace.

Obama owes it to Americans to tell them the realistic probabilities. Peace in the Middle East is not one of them during this generation.

By Sal Bommarito

In order to appreciate the complexity of the Middle East and the difficulty President Obama is going to have trying to form a coalition, one must understand the agendas of the players in this crisis.

Syria. President Bashar al-Assad controls this unitary state. He is despised by most of his neighbors because he ruthlessly foments unrest in the region by supporting terrorist groups.

Syria’s principal ally is Russia, which does significant business with the country. Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the U.S. have supplied weapons to the rebels fighting against Assad’s army.

The death total in Syria from civil war is over 160,000. Over the years, Assad has used chemical weapons to put down unrest in his country and is accused of horrendous humanitarian crimes.

The principal military groups in Syria include government forces, and ISIS and moderate rebel forces, which are fighting against Assad and each other. The U.S. is depending upon the moderate rebels to provide ground support of its airstrikes.

Syria is 87% Muslim. 74% are Sunni and 13% are Shia.

Iraq. Encouraged by the U.S., Iraq formed a new government. Although it is still dominated by Shiites, its new leaders have promised to be more inclusive towards the Sunnis in an effort to temper sectarian tension. Supported by Sunnis, Saddam Hussein oppressed Shiites for years. The Shiite majority assumed power after Saddam was defeated and immediately displaced all Sunni officials and began a campaign of terror against their former oppressors.

It is interesting to note that Iraq is depending upon Sunni support to fight against ISIS (which is Sunni dominated). The inclusiveness of the Shiite government will go a long way towards recruiting Sunnis. Kurds are also fighting against ISIS assuming that their influence and power will increase.

Government forces are purportedly well trained, but many soldiers deserted in the face of the ISIS threat. The U.S. is relying upon government forces, Sunni fighters and Kurds to provide necessary ground support, which may be wishful thinking.

Iraq is 99% Muslim, 60-65% Shia, 32-37% Sunni.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt are all supporting Iraq in spirit, but not yet with military aid.

The other principal players in the growing conflict are:

(Please note that any of the comments below can change on a moment’s notice depending upon rapidly changing political conditions.)

U.S.
– Against Assad
– Against ISIS
– Supportive of Syrian rebels
– Supportive of Iraq’s new government

Russia
– Supportive of Assad

Iran
– Supportive of Assad
– Against ISIS
– Supportive of moderate Syrian rebels because they are fighting against ISIS
– Supportive of Hamas
– Supportive of Muslim Brotherhood

Turkey
– Against Assad
– Against ISIS
– Supportive of Muslim Brotherhood

Saudi Arabia
– Against Assad
– Against ISIS
– Supportive of moderate Syrian rebels
– Against Hamas
– Against Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt
– Supportive of Muslim Brotherhood
– Against Hamas
– Against ISIS
– Against Assad
– Supportive of moderate Syrian rebels

The aforementioned chart foretells difficulty in negotiating a war against ISIS. To a great extent, the Middle East countries line up Shia vs. Sunni, but not always. For instance, a Sunni government dominates Syria, yet Saudi Arabia opposes Assad and ISIS (which is also Sunni). Iran, which is Shia, supports Assad, but is against ISIS.

ISIS is universally despised in the Middle East because it opposes most embedded regimes and is intent on killing as many Arabs as possible that are not Sunni. In particular, Saudi Arabia feels threatened by the group because it could inspire revolt within its borders.

The point to be made is that Arab countries are going to take pot shots at the U.S. no matter what strategy it ultimately employs. And when the U.S. begins to kill ISIS Arabs, the entire region is likely to object.

By Sal Bommarito

Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain gave a stirring speech about the beheading of his countryman David Haines. Unfortunately, his words did not hint at active support of his country in the war against ISIS. Supposedly, GB is providing arms to the Kurds in their fight with the terrorists. One talking head indicated that the referendum in Scotland, concerning their proposed cessation from the United Kingdom, was the more pressing issue in the minds of local politicians.

Similarly, no Arab country has agreed to enter the fight with the U.S. It is stunning that countries in the region that have the most to lose if ISIS operatives continue to wreak havoc, are not enthusiastic about killing ISIS fighters. Shiite nations have the most to lose as the terrorists are Sunnis, putting the former in grave danger. It may be that no one wants to side with Americans against other Arabs, even if ISIS poses an existential threat.

Making the objective of eliminating the ISIS threat even more difficult to attain is the fact that the U.S. is not prepared to provide ground troops. How can the president ask the leaders of the Arab world to take political and military risk when he is obviously avoiding it?

The Arabs are going to have to come to grips that ISIS is more of an imminent threat than the U.S. or the opposing religious sect (Shiite vs Sunni). If not, the response to ISIS may not be strong enough to defeat the enemy.

This commentary raises the question of whether the Arab world could possibly live with an ISIS political entity in land belonging to Iraq and Syria. In the eyes of most, ISIS is nothing more than a radical group of fighters who want to kill non-believers, and their funding comes from stealing oil and extortion. The definition of non-believer is person who does not worship God as a Sunni. From almost any perspective, the existence of a group that only wants to murder others is a cancer that must be excised.

It is important for the Obama administration to find some partners in the endeavor quickly. The risks and costs are just too much for the U.S. to assume by itself.

By Sal Bommarito

Disgustingly, ISIS aired the beheading of another innocent non-combatant, a man from Great Britain. The atrocities of the terrorists are causing more and more peace-loving people around the world to demand retribution. They are hoping that the bombing will begin soon. Yet, there are many potential landmines that could threaten the success of President Obama’s mission to kill the ISIS murderers. Below is a comprehensive list of events that individually could significantly impact the American invasion.

• Obama stated that there would be no American boots on the ground. Yet, most military experts say ISIS cannot be eradicated without effective ground troop support.
• Iraq, Syria and the Kurds are expected to provide ground troops. But, they may not be qualified or armed properly to assist bombing operations and kill surviving ISIS fighters.
• Will Obama be able to accept the likelihood of significant collateral damage, the death of non-combatants during airstrikes?
• A significant Arab country might suddenly support ISIS. Although it is unlikely, Iran would be a possible candidate if it were spurned by the U.S. (which is already happening) and decides to foil the America incursion into the region.
• In an act of desperation, ISIS could blow up Iraqi oil wells and cause an energy crisis.
• ISIS could retaliate against U.S. airstrikes by butchering thousands of innocent bystanders.
• ISIS could take cover in populated areas making air strikes very difficult without significant collateral damage.
• If there is a dire need for boots on the ground in the future, Congress may not authorize them.
• If the conflict continues for an extended time, Congress may discontinue funding of the operation.
• Are moderate rebels in Syria really moderate? Will they use our armaments against the U.S. in the future?
• If Iraqi Sunnis do not buy into the U.S. effort, it will be much more difficult to root out ISIS fighters in Iraq after the bombing operations end.
• If Shiites in Iraq do not allow Sunnis to participate in the new government, will Sunnis attempt to sabotage the U.S. mission?
• Western recruits in ISIS are increasing every day. Will these malcontents return home and wreak havoc on their homelands?
• A large terrorist attack could occur in the U.S. and result in an unexpected response by America.
• A large terrorist attack could occur in Israel, and it would surely jump into the fray to the dismay of the Arab world.
• A weapon of mass destruction could be used by any of the combatants in the region. This contingency would have a devastating effect on American operations.
• Arab religious leaders could object to the ferocity of the new airstrikes and discourage their governments from assisting the U.S.
• The Russians could insert themselves in the conflict.

Let’s hope the Obama administration considers all these possibilities before the bombing sorties begin.

By Sal Bommarito

Radical elements in Iraq and Syria inflamed by a warped justification of violence and religious intolerance are creating an ever-greater existential threat to world peace. The decision by President Obama to take the fight to these malcontents was the only reasonable alternative.

Jihad will not end after the U.S. kills the vermin operating under the name of ISIS. In the Middle East, poverty, unhappiness and despair leaves some no joy other than the satisfaction of killing “non-believers” who worship the same God in a different way. As we obliterate members of the newest caliphate, many young people will be recruited who are more than ready to become martyrs for the cause and are heartened by ISIS’ successes to this point. There are 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide, so the reservoir of new fighters is virtually endless.

Is there a moral justification of Obama’s decision to attack Iraq and Syria? Frankly, the growing threat of ISIS and its brazen disregard for human rights, and life itself, has forced our president into a corner. And now, over 90% of Americans want to attack ISIS, in part because the terrorists aired the beheading of two American journalists.

The aberrant behavior of ISIS-like thugs should come as no great surprise. And, it should be noted that these extremists kill more Arab Muslims than any other ethnic/religious class of people. Naturally, ISIS would love to kill Americans and westerners, as Al-Qaeda did on 9/11. But, the threat of anything greater than suicide bombers on our homeland is remote, given the amount of security here at home.

When studying the evolution of ISIS, it is folly to ignore that it stems in great part from the 1,000-year feud between Shia and Sunnis. The venom that exists between these sects in the Middle East is the principal cause of violence in the region. Hatred of Americans is a side issue that only serves to stoke blood lust.

What is the endgame of Obama’s foray into the kill zone? For sure, political and religious leaders in the region will demonize our aggression, even if they privately are in favor of our actions. This is the reason why Obama has been unable to enlist Arab countries into his coalition.

ISIS is a threat to existing Arab regimes such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Arab Spring has toppled a number of governments in the past few years. So, the leaders of most Arab countries will be hoping that the U.S. cleans up the mess in Iraq and Syria. But, these same leaders will be criticizing U.S. imperialism and thirst for more oil in an effort to satisfy the anti-American sentiment in their countries.

The ISIS forces will likely be demolished in a short period of time. After all, ISIS will be fighting with the equivalent of spears against cruise missiles, drones and sophisticated bombers. When a new void is established, it is likely that other violent groups will vie for power.

In Syria, the business of overthrowing Assad will be front and center once again. In Iraq, the newly oppressed Sunnis will be fighting with Shiites for a fair share of political and economic control. So, violence will not subside after the U.S. imposes its will on these countries.

It is impossible to envision new governments in Iraq and Syria that will be peaceful, tolerant or fair. And, it is even less probable that religion will not play a large role in these countries moving forward. Remember religion and politics do not mix.

The endgame is pretty clear for the impending U.S. invasion. There will be continued unrest in all Arab countries as Sunnis and Shia factions strive for dominance. Iran and Saudi Arabia will lead these respective sects. And the U.S. will likely avoid nation building because it is a fool’s objective, too expensive to implement and so much more dangerous than bombing from 64,000 feet.

Good luck to President Obama. The right course for the U.S. is to exterminate those groups that arise and cause havoc. This should be a continuing theme for the foreseeable future.