By Sal Bommarito

The next chapter of America’s involvement in the Middle East kicked off last night in a speech by President Obama. One of Obama’s principal campaign promises was to exit Iraq and Afghanistan during his tenure as president. Notwithstanding the carnage created from  hasty departures from these countries, Obama came close to meeting this promise, until yesterday.

 

ISIS ruined the president’s victory dance by rampaging through Syria and Iraq, and most importantly, by beheading two American journalists and broadcasting it on the Internet. Amazingly, public opinion has dramatically changed because of ISIS’ brazen and disgusting acts.

 

The president’s first response to ISIS was to reluctantly admit that he did not conquer the terrorists in the Middle East. But, he refused to act militarily. The American public and Congress screamed for some kind of retaliation, the latter probably because of polling that demanded an aggressive reply.

 

So, Obama started bombing in Iraq on a limited basis under the cover of humanitarian need to save a group of innocent Iraqis and to protect Americans operatives in the area. This was done shortly after Obama said he had no plans to deal with ISIS, a staggering admission for the president to make publicly.

 

But, the polling continued to worsen for Obama, and the calls for even more military action reached unprecedented levels. So, the president created a new plan, which he unveiled on the night before the 13^th anniversary of 9/11.

 

Even Obama’s most staunch critics believe his plan is a step in the right direction, but it will likely fall short if the objective is to eradicate ISIS. In any case, the president felt the need to broadcast his intentions and to take certain military options off the table.

 

It never makes sense to take anything off the table. Of course, this refers to “boots on the ground.” Obama wants to bomb from the safety of 64,000 feet and recruit Iraqi, Kurds and other Arabs to do the dirty work on the ground. This strategy is dubious when you consider the fact that the U.S. trained Iraq soldiers for years, and they have been incompetent and ineffective for the most part. Now, they will trained once again in a few weeks and are expected to do a very difficult job.

 

Secondly, the naiveté of informing the enemy that any action is not possible is stunning. Why give your foe any details about your plan? Why give him an opportunity to change his tactics to take advantage of new information?

 

Generally speaking, and we only heard generalities last night, the U.S. is going to conduct an air campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 475 new U.S. advisers will be deployed in Iraq bringing the total American force up to about 1,100 soldiers

 

These men and women will not be fighting in the field; they will be training and helping local ground troops with tactics. The U.S. will try to cut off funding of ISIS, which has been substantial. A large amount of cash has come from the theft and sale of oil. Further, the U.S. will strive to end the flow of foreign fighters into the region. And finally, America will provide humanitarian assistance while it is obliterating terrorists.

 

The president referred to a “broad coalition” that will conduct this operation. So far, no Arab nation has signed up. Saudi Arabia is supposed to provide a place to train ground troops, but not much else. If another Arab powerhouse were on board, it surely would have been mentioned last night.

 

Obama’s coalition will be far different than the Bush I group assembled to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the early 1990s. And, Americans should expect to fund most of this operation.

 

The president made a point to mention that he has the constitutional authority to move without Congress’ endorsement. However, Congress will need to approve money needed to train the local fighters. Obama wants Congress to support his plan, but why? Is it for solidarity, or because he wants Congress’ buy-in just in case this operation falls apart.

 

The risks are abundant. Nobody knows how ISIS can be defeated without effective ground support. It is questionable that the local fighters will be able to do the job.

 

We should expect the American presence on the ground to grow. At first, it will be advice, but it is likely to expand. This will increase the odds that the American public will witness body bags coming from the war zone.

 

The costs of the operation were not even mentioned last night by the president. The U.S. can hardly afford to pay for another costly military operation.

 

But, the real concern is that this new adventure cannot succeed because Iraq and Syria have been preordained to fight a civil war. No matter what the U.S. does militarily, will it ever end jihad and religious fanaticism in the area?

 

The gravity of the ISIS threat is being questioned by those not in favor of the impending invasion. Some say the public relations efforts of the administration and hawkish commentators have created a bogeyman far more dangerous than reality. For instance, do westerners who have enlisted with ISIS represent a credible terror risk to their home countries? Who really knows?

 

One final point should be made. Barack Obama is not happy that he will be invading Iraq and Syria. He doesn’t have his heart in the project and would rather get on with greater income distribution and demonization of American businesses domestically. If he wants to be an effective wartime president, he better get into the task at hand and act like a strong leader.

 

 

By Sal Bommarito

Americans should be heartened that the Obama administration is ready to take strong action against ISIS. But the mission as presented in a New York Times article has many pitfalls and is chock full of excuses just in case the plan falls apart. Even more curious is that Obama is already delegating the mission to the next president. I wonder what the current presidential contenders think of this ploy.

 

The plan has three aspects. The first phase consists of airstrikes exclusively in Iraq. These strikes “[are] already underway to protect ethnic and religious minorities and American diplomatic, intelligence and military personal . . .”

 

Bombing hostile ISIS forces is exactly what the U.S. should do, but with much greater ferocity. Assuming ISIS terrorists are not hiding among non-combatants, why shouldn’t the bombing sorties be increased dramatically to the point that fighters are afraid to stray away from cover? It is time that America shows its military might to discourage terrorism.

 

The second phase is to “train, advise or equip the Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters and possibly members of Sunni tribes.” However, this will only happen after Iraq forms “a more inclusive government.” Is this a joke? The U.S. already spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decade trying to train Iraqis to defend themselves, unsuccessfully. Now, we are going to do it in just a few months?

 

An even bigger joke is the formation of an inclusive government. This is code for forcing the Shiite majority in Iraq to accept and include the Sunni minority in the government. Saddam Hussein and his Sunni supporters viciously oppressed Shiites for years. When Saddam was toppled, it was time for revenge as Shiites took control of the country. This process is not over, so it is folly to think that Sunni tribes are going to join the coalition military force and serve as the coalition’s “boots on the ground” without significant assurances from Shiites.

 

And finally, we have the third phase, which is “destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria . . .” By the way, this is not likely to happen until the next president of the U.S. is elected.

 

The problem with this delay is that the coalition will not be dealing with the head of the ISIS snake until much later, and that ISIS leadership and supply of armaments will be plentiful in Iraq from Syria as we tend to the first to phases of the operation.

 

The more appropriate strategy would be to bomb ISIS forces in Syria now, destroy the supply lines to Iraq and kill as many ISIS leaders as possible. For some reason, the U.S. is overly concerned about attacking Syria. What is the basis of this concern? Does the U.S. care what Syria’s President Assad thinks? No, Obama has stated publicly that he wants to eliminate Assad. Moreover, there is no love lost between Syria and most of the Middle East. The snake will die faster if we attack its head, and the head resides in Syria.

 

A final issue that is particularly disturbing is the appreciation afforded other members of the coalition. Although a unified response to ISIS by the free world is the right course, the U.S. is going to do all the dirty work, spend most of the money and risk the lives of American pilots and Special Forces fighters. We are allowing our “allies” to set the conditions while we are taking all the risks.

 

The U.S. should really lead and kill the cancer known as ISIS as quickly as possible. The ability of the enemy to counter attack is limited. Why are we treating ISIS with so much respect? The only thing this enemy will respond to is brute force- so let’s deliver it.

 

Our country fought against and defeated two enemies on two continents during World War II. Is it really that difficult for us to conduct operations in two countries that are adjacent to one another?

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reported that President Obama has taken a major step in the ISIS crisis by enlisting the support of nine nations to join the U.S. in combating the terrorist organization. They include Britain, France, Australia, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. Conspicuously missing were nations from the Middle East. As usual, they are playing it coy so as not to incite radical elements in their own country. Supposedly, the U.S. coalition is to receive “quiet intelligence” from Jordan, and Saudi Arabia is expected to “contribute to funding moderate Syrian groups.”

Mr. Obama described the ISIS mission in the following way: “You initially push them back, you systematically degrade their capabilities, you narrow their scope of action, you slowly shrink the space, the territory that they may control, you take out their leadership.” This reads like a college professor lecturing to a group of students. ISIS is not Nazi Germany; it is a band of nationless religious fanatics and thugs that are wreaking havoc in the deserts of Syria and Iraq.

The president has made it clear that the only boots on the ground will continue to be incompetent Iraq soldiers, poorly armed Kurds and moderate Syrian rebels all of whom have been getting their butts kicked for weeks. By the way, it is not clear how the allied force will distinguish moderate from radical rebels in war-torn Syria. And, the president would still like to see Assad eliminated as part of this whole process. Sounds confusing, doesn’t it?

This amalgamation of support is a step in the right direction, but it falls far short of what is needed to put ISIS to rest permanently. The terrorists are getting too much respect because no nation is willing to go all in with troops and heavy munitions. Obama only wants to wage war from 64,000 feet with smart bombs. So, unless he obliterates the entire countryside, a lot of terrorists are going to slip through the cracks and continue to menace the region for years to come.

The current actions being considered by those opposing ISIS will not be sufficient. After allowing ISIS to run rampant in Syria and Iraq, the terrorist force is growing with each military success, and stealing oil and selling it on the black market to bolster its resources. Moreover, Iraq Sunnis relish the opportunity to strike back against Iraq Shiites that are now oppressing them by supporting ISIS.

The cries for more action by the media, most Republicans and many Democrats seemed to have been falling on deaf ears at the White House. At least now Obama has taken a stand, but it is more political cover than anything else. The U.S., as always, will likely be providing most of the muscle in the form of bombing sorties, while “our allies” offer not much more than moral support and nonmilitary assistance. Telegraphing a “no boots on the ground” policy was a huge blunder. Even if each member of the coalition is anathema to the tactic, “boots” should be left on the table to cause concern at ISIS.

We all knew that a coalition was going to be just slightly more than superficial, and Obama would intellectualize a situation that calls for brute force (Read his statement appearing above once again if you have any doubts). But, the fact remains that the entire world is against ISIS, yet ISIS is getting stronger each day. Moreover, the threat of ISIS operatives blowing up targets in western nations and creating problems for Arab regimes is growing every day. And once again, the U.S. is going to pick up the lion share of costs relating to this endeavor.

The president is worrying too much about the feelings of other countries. The international community of nations wants ISIS destroyed. Antagonists in the region, specifically Iran and Saudi Arabia, are concerned about the destabilization of their regimes and will both support a U.S. attack against ISIS, or at least turn a blind eye. The Europeans are frightened by terrorist threats. And, Russia could care less about ISIS as they are still trying to figure out a way to re-annex Ukraine back into Russia. The U.S. has a clear path to deal with ISIS. Brute force and a desire to kill every ISIS fighter should be our objective. No other nations will stand in our way or even complain as we carry out this mission.

But, if we let the terrorists off the hook by not committing to the destruction of ISIS, the consequences could be grave. If the U.S. initiates an endless barrage of carpet-bombing and missile strikes, this conflict will be over in a short period of time. The ISIS survivors will be running for the hills to save themselves, just like the Revolutionary Guard that Saddam Hussein was once so proud of.

 

By Sal Bommarito

The probable beheading of a second American, Steven J. Sotloff, is roiling our country. Many of us mourn and resent the death of yet another non-combatant, a journalist.

What is the appropriate response to this savage act? The Obama administration hopes to lead a unified worldwide effort to rein in ISIS, but the vast majority of Americans want swift justice in the form of a deadly strike against the terrorists.

There are many issues that must be considered before the U.S. strikes ISIS. Apparently, the task of deciding to move forward is overwhelming the administration, so maybe this analysis will be useful to them.

The most important matter is whether ISIS is a threat to U.S. national security. Are ISIS operatives capable of attacking our homeland? In recent days, we have been told that a growing number of westerners with legitimate passports have traveled to Syria and enlisted with ISIS. Since they have the ability to reenter the U.S. or Great Britain (or any other western nation, for that matter), they pose a threat and could deliver a small bomb to a western country. This fact alone is enough to justify a unilateral attack on ISIS.

Should the U.S. act with allies in a military operation against ISIS? Ideally yes, but it will take weeks and maybe months to organize a “Bush I” Iraq style invasion with our allies. In the meantime, ISIS will kill, maim and take more territory. The U.S. should not wait for other nations to jump on its bandwagon.

A proper invasion by the U.S. would entail an attack on Syria and Iraq. The former has not given authorization to the U.S. to conduct military operations because we are supporting the elimination of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad. Iraq has given the U.S. permission to act inside its borders against ISIS. Considering the imminent danger and the current status of Syria’s civil war, the issue of attacking this sovereign nation is moot. We should move forward with or without its approval.

Ironically, our interests relating to ISIS are similar to Iran’s. It is doubtful that the two countries will be able to work in concert as a unified force, but at least Iran will not be demonizing the U.S. at the United Nations if we go it alone. The U.S. should not defer because of Iran.

If a full scale bombing operation is preferable over boots on the ground, the most important consideration is collateral damage, the unintended killing of innocent bystanders. It is not clear whether ISIS is marching across the desert, or whether it is imbedded in populated areas. If ISIS is marching, it makes no sense to wait another moment. The U.S. should obliterate ISIS convoys and every combatant manning them. If collateral damage is a real concern, then bombing attacks must be more surgical.

Boots on the ground offer great advantages and great disadvantages. It is clear that Americans do not have the stomach for another invasion with troops and the inevitable loss of lives. The U.S. has shed enough blood supporting this God-forsaken part of the world. Yet, boots on the ground are a way to effectively root out and kill the enemy. Is it possible to enlist other countries to provide “the boots?” I doubt it. Bombing is the way to go, all things considered.

America is the strongest and greatest nation in the world. Why would we allow a gang of religious thugs and terrorists to intimidate us and kill our citizens without paying a huge price? The death of the two journalists is justification for many Americans to respond, and with deadly force. Where is American pride? Why are we standing by allowing ISIS to run amok in a strategically important part of the Middle East? The U.S. should act now, not in several weeks. Our generals have prepared plans, and Obama should authorize them.