By Sal Bommarito

Inspired by an overabundance of emotion, warfare has taken many forms throughout history . The conflict in the Middle East is unique in many ways to previous hostile engagements throughout the world. Seemingly, they are more violent and reminiscent of the Crusades when religious fanatics, encouraged by Catholic popes, killed, tortured and starved those who would not convert to Catholicism.

In recent history, fierce confrontations mostly favored the side that had the most firepower. This did not guarantee success, although it did in 1945 when U.S. nuclear strikes ended the war with Japan instantly. But, in Vietnam, guerilla fighters were able to evade U.S. airpower and ground forces, thereby outlasting America’s desire to continue the hostilities in that country. Wily tunnel-digging resistance managed to overcome American military strength and defeat the U.S.

Almost all wars of the past ended at a time certain. Resentment persisted far into the future, but peace treaties were signed and soldiers went home to lead normal lives, even though they frequently relived the horrors of war in their dreams.

The battle with ISIS could very well be one episode of a greater conflict that will never end. It may be a microcosm of a much larger imbroglio between religions, political systems and socioeconomic groups. The contrast between well-equipped American soldiers and Islamic terrorists is stark. Yet, the aspirations of this enemy named ISIS are grandiose and endorsed by God Himself (in their view). The most radical Islamists want to convert and/or kill every person in the world who worships God in a different way.

The drama will not end if ISIS outlasts the allies in Iraq and Syria, as did the Viet Cong in Vietnam. ISIS has and will continue to murder Islamists who do not practice the same religious traditions as they do. ISIS consists of fighters who espouse the most radical version of Islam, and they are enthusiastic about eradicating fellow Arabs who do not follow suit.

So what does this portend for the future of the Middle East? Like Vietnam, ISIS will play cat and mouse with U.S. forces in the medium to long term. The solution to endless resistance could be employment of ground forces, but no nation, including the U.S. is prepared to take on this responsibility. Unlike Japan, civilians in Iraq and Syria protect the enemy, as ISIS seeks cover in populated areas. Righteous combatants do not willingly accept collateral damage, so the allies will not unleash firepower that will result in massive innocent casualties.

If ISIS continues to fill its coffers with the proceeds from black market oil sales and recruits more fighters, the war will limp along, and the U.S. will eventually give up, just as it did in Vietnam. Unfortunately, that will not end the carnage and suffering. And, by the way, it will threaten the global availability of oil.

By Sal Bommarito

Turkey is proving to be the most convoluted ally in the U.S. coalition that was assembled to degrade ISIS. Its aspirations relating to the turmoil in the Middle East are very complex and resulting in a lack of dedication to the U.S. mission. Turkey’s intransience is only a microcosm of many more regional disputes and suspicions among the allies that will make coordinated military action every challenging.

The latest action by the Turks has its allies scratching their heads. It was reported in a New York Times article on Wednesday that Turkish warplanes attacked positions of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in southeastern Turkey. This rebel group is a long-time enemy of Turkey that is fighting for Kurdish independence. However, the group has not been active for an extended time in the interest of finding peaceful resolutions to differences. According to Turkish officials, PKK attacked a military outpost effectively breaking the cease-fire.

For weeks, the U.S. has implored Turkey to take action against ISIS forces that have besieged Kobani, a strategic Syrian town near the Syria/Turkish border. A Syrian offshoot of PKK is leading the fight in Kobani. Exacerbating the situation is Turkey’s refusal to allow Kurds on both sides of the border to consolidate their resources in the fight against ISIS.

Turkey has “conflicting goals” with several of the countries that have united to eradicate ISIS. For instance, while Turkey was attacking PKK, the U.S. was providing cover for the Syrian Kurds in the Kobani situation. The U.S., Turkey and Iran are anxious halt ISIS; yet, Iran is an ally of Syria while the U.S. and Turkey are intent on deposing President Bashar al-Assad of Spain.

The complexity of these political ebbs and flows and many others is making it difficult for the U.S. to organize a unified force against ISIS. The terrorists represent an existential threat to the region and to virtually all the Arab states close to Iraq and Syria. It is befuddling why this threat does not trump all other issues.

Making matters worse is that Iran is an outlier from the coalition. This fact has magnified Shiite/Sunni mistrust. Additionally, Iran is attempting to link its nuclear objectives with the ISIS situation, even when its proximity to on-coming ISIS forces makes it vulnerable.

Many things will be changing if ISIS continues to win the war. There is no compelling reason to think that its military success will wane, especially if the allies are unable to muster capable ground forces to fight ISIS.

By Sal Bommarito

In my previous posts, I’ve been critical of the U.S. mission to degrade ISIS. The vast majority of commentators and I do not believe that the terrorists can be defeated without effective ground support.

Some of my American readers object to any U.S. battle plan that would put Americans in jeopardy on the ground. They insist that another extended war in the Middle East is unacceptable. I agree. The thought of more American bloodshed in the Middle East makes me ill. But what are the other choices?

Without U.S. foot soldiers to clean up after bombing sorties, the future is bleak for the coalition. ISIS will continue to grow more powerful. It will recruit new fighters from around the world based on its successes, steal more oil from nations that cede valuable territory to it, threaten other neighboring countries and create havoc by exporting “lone wolf” terrorism to America and other western nations.

President Obama has three choices. One, he can continue to bomb and hope U.S. munitions kill more ISIS insurgents than it recruits. Two, he can hope that Saudi Arabia, Iran and/or Turkey engage ISIS with great enthusiasm and ground forces. Three, he can threaten to end the air power war and let Arab nations decide their own destiny.

The most intriguing and frightening scenario is if the U.S. pulls back and the major Arab powers do not respond to ISIS. How will ISIS react as it continues to grow and fill its coffers with black market sales of commandeered oil?

The simplest ISIS strategy would be to defeat Iraq and/or Syria and form a new Islamic state; these countries will be helpless without continuing U.S. support. Is ISIS capable of forming a new government atop the ashes of this brutal civil war? Would the international community recognize the new state out of fear? If ISIS prolongs its tactics of killing and beheading all but the most fundamental Sunnis and exporting terrorism to other countries, why would Shiite, Christian or any peaceful nations accept the new government?

Finally, ISIS could keep marching outward from Iraq and Syria into Jordan, Iran and Turkey. Surely, these nations would respond aggressively. The question is why they have not done so to this point. But, will they be able to repel the persistent ISIS fighters? Who can predict the outcome of such a horrendous conflict? And, will the U.S. stand by and allow ISIS to occupy more nations?

Seems to me that the use of ground forces against ISIS may be inevitable if the alternative is a massive conflict involving every Arab country in the Middle East.

By Sal Bommarito

The war against ISIS is a losing proposition according to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). On Sunday, the senator said the terrorists were winning because the U.S. is not fighting the type of war that is necessary to ensure victory. ISIS is gaining ground, as Iraqi soldiers are incapable of fighting toe-to-toe with the insurgents. In short, the bombing has not been, and will not be, sufficient to “degrade” ISIS.

President Obama, John Kerry and Donna Rice must be reading fictional accounts of the fighting. They are the only ones unable to see the writing on the wall. Public announcements have been made by the administration indicating some level of comfort with the situation in Iraq. The fact is Iraqi troops are no more capable of providing ground support and security than during any time in the past decade. ISIS is cutting through Iraqi opposition as they dodge periodic bombing sorties by the allies.

Over the weekend, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, indicated that U.S. troops were not yet required, but they would probably be needed eventually. Gen. Dempsey is a good soldier trying to provide cover for his commander-in-chief, but he was unwilling to deceive Americans about the conditions on the ground. The generals know the real story: the war is a disaster because ISIS forces are facing ineffective opposition as they speed toward Baghdad.

Kobani, a large Syrian city that abuts the Turkish border is about to fall because the Turks refuse to enter the fray. This is curious since Turkey will likely be the next target of ISIS forces that will amass at the border after the city is taken. Yet, Turkey has other axes to grind. For one, it refuses to allow Turkish Kurds to fight with Syrian Kurds against the insurgents. The Turks are concerned that the Kurds will use the moment to turn on Turkey in their fight for independence. Two, Turkey wants President Assad to step down. Never mind that ISIS is growing stronger every day. The problems that will arise from ISIS will dwarf the gripes that Turkey has with Assad. It’s too bad American diplomats cannot convince Turkey’s President Erdogan that this is the case.

In the meantime, “moderate rebels” in Syria are not interested in participating in the U.S. coalition. They want to get past ISIS and resume their attacks on Assad. To assume this group of fighters is ever going to be a dependable source of ground support to assist in operations prior to and after bombing campaigns is folly.

Airstrikes are only one part of an effective strategy to defeat ISIS. Currently, the U.S. is dropping expensive munitions and taking out trucks and small groups of the enemy. The return on investment of this strategy is unacceptable. U.S. planes need direction from the ground to identify high quality targets such as supply areas, large groups of fighters, command and control positions and the like. And, airstrikes are ineffective in areas that are populated by civilians. The U.S. is not going to bomb cities where ISIS is hiding and storing weapons.

What a terrible state of affairs. Our country is the greatest military force in the world. Yet, we are unable to protect Iraq because our battle plan is misguided. Wars have always been won on the ground, with the exception of Japan. Since the U.S. is not going to nuke any other country, the lessons of past battles should encourage the president to change his strategy and focus on ground operations.

By Sal Bommarito

It’s now abundantly clear that President Obama’s existing plan to defeat ISIS has no chance to be successful. The terrorist group is becoming stronger every day, as every loser from across the globe is trying to enlist with ISIS. The renegades are disrupting Iraq and Syria and threatening to spread their terror to neighboring states. Will Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey soon be targets of ISIS? Most likely, if the war continues on its current trajectory.

How can a raggedy group of malcontents survive the onslaught of the greatest military power on Earth? It’s simple. The U.S. is attempting to fight a war exclusively with air attacks. Yet, it cannot be won without boots on the ground. It’s not like generals and an assortment of military experts have not warned the president. In the Middle East, it’s easy to hide among innocents to escape bombs from an attacker that eschews collateral damage. Still, the president has showed his inexperience by ignoring his military advisors.

Exacerbating the problem is that nations who have the most to lose are not joining the fight in a meaningful way. They expect the U.S. to do their dirty work, assume all the risks and spend all the money. It’s insane that the nations surrounding Iraq and Syria have not offered to use all their military might to fight ISIS. By acting irrationally, they are ignoring an existential threat. The cat and mouse game that the U.S. is playing with ISIS fighters will not cripple the insurgents; they will ultimately win.

Obama’s reluctance to put boots on the ground is admirable in one sense. Understandably, he does not want to entangle the U.S. in another Middle East war. He wants to be able to disengage whenever it suits him.

The problem is that it is inane to think that the war will be won without foot soldiers. Realistically, none are forthcoming in the near future. The Turks are adamant against attacking ISIS fighters approaching their border. Iraqi forces are a farce. They deserted the previous time they faced off against ISIS. The rebels in Syria are not going to use all their resources to fight ISIS when their primary objective is to unseat President Bashar al-Assad. Also, it is conceivable that this latter group may someday use weapons the U.S. supplies against the coalition.

The president is not being honest with Americans, Congress, his allies, his generals or himself. If Obama intends to win this war without expanding the U.S. role, he must be more aggressive with his allies. The U.S. should no longer act as an unpaid mercenary for Middle East despots. It should not fight for the sovereignty of others unless they take a substantive role in the hostilities.

So what should Obama do? The president ought to set a time limit to the bombing. If increased support is not provided by Middle East nations in the form of ground troops, Obama should unilaterally end the U.S. mission and let the chips fall where they may.

By Sal Bommarito

Turkey has become a flashpoint in the war against ISIS. The country’s mixed loyalties and fears have complicated President Obama’s objectives to destroy ISIS in Syria.

The latest problem has arisen on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey. In a town called Kobani, Syrian Kurds are fighting for their lives against ISIS forces. It is expected that the city will fall barring more assistance from either Turkey or the U.S.

As usual, it is important to understand the objectives of the players in this episode of hostilities.

The U.S. wants to take down ISIS forces but only with airstrikes. “Airstrikes alone are not going to fix this, not going to save the town of Kobani, said Rear Adm. John Kirby.” President Obama has been pressing Turkey president Erdogan to launch air attacks in the Kobani area to assist the Syrian Kurds and employ ground troops to root out ISIS terrorists.

Turkey’s principal objectives are to bring down the regime of Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, and prevent Turkish Kurds from uniting with Syrian Kurds, as it could represent a political risk to Turkey at a later time. Note: the Kurds want to establish their own nation.

Turkey has refused to intervene until the U.S. has established a no fly zone in Syria, which would protect Turkish forces from air attacks along with other demands, including a buffer zone to protect Syrian refugees.

The tepid response by Turkey is problematic because it may weaken the U.S. led coalition and encourage other members of the group to limit their involvement.

The question is why didn’t the U.S. have an agreement in place with Turkey to be more aggressive on its border with Syria? Once again, it appears that the nations in greatest jeopardy of an ISIS attack prefer that the U.S. be responsible for all or most military operations.

It is doubtful that the U.S. is going to be successful against ISIS without increased support from allies in the region, if the use of U.S. boots on the ground is off the table by presidential edict.

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS invasion of Iraq and Syria has become one of the biggest stories in 2014. The terrorist forces have commandeered vast tracts of land in both countries. While perpetrating this crime, ISIS is terrorizing civilians. It is demanding that non-believers convert; it is slaughtering Shiites and other religious and social groups; and it is causing consternation among neighbors and many countries throughout the world.

The most under reported aspect of the ISIS crisis is the humanitarian disaster being created by hostilities. ISIS is killing thousands of Iraqis and Syrians, and simultaneously hundreds of thousands are deserting their homes and seeking refuge in nations surrounding the areas of conflict.

In Syria, 3 million people have fled the country. Over 40% of all Syrians have been forced to leave their homes. In Iraq, 2.3 million have been displaced.

Surrounding countries have generously taken in refugees. Lebanon has amassed 1.14 million, Jordan 619,000 and Turkey 1 million. Thousands are pushing towards the borders to escape ISIS tyranny.

Thousands are dying at the hands of conflicting forces in Iraq and Syria. But millions are homeless and at the mercy of countries with limited resources. It is likely that humanitarian efforts will be insufficient to protect refugees, and the death total will skyrocket in coming months. Further, the receptive countries may decide to limit further immigration for political and/or financial reasons.

The inevitable humanitarian issue is yet another matter that was not considered thoroughly before hostilities elevated.

By Sal Bommarito

Is the war against ISIS legal? Since the founding of our nation, presidents and congresses have debated who has the ultimate power to use military force outside of the United States.

The Constitution definitively “grants Congress the sole power to declare war.” It has done so on only 11 occasions, even though force has been used in many more situations. But, conflicts often times begin as skirmishes and grow into much larger confrontations. And, at other times, our homeland is threatened by overt assaults such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So, it is reasonable and desirable for our commander-in-chief to have discretion to act rapidly. This issue is being debated once again. More specifically, can the president conduct bombing raids in Iraq and Afghanistan against ISIS forces for an extended period without congressional approval?

In a recent article, Michael Kreiger expressed the following dissent of the Obama administration’s actions in the Middle East: “With each new President and each new war, we have witnessed those who hold office act more and more like dictators and less and less like constitutional executives.”

And, Bruce Ackerman wrote an op-ed saying: “President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as [ISIS], . . . marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.”

Clearly, disapproval of the ISIS War is in the air. But, the person most vocal is Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (VA). In a news story, it was revealed that “Mr. Kaine said he told the president in no uncertain terms that if he decided to go to war, he would have to ask Congress’ permission.” As an aside, this former Virginia governor was on President Obama’s short list to become Vice President.

Mr. Krieger shed some light on how the most recent presidents have dealt with conflict in the Middle East. George W. Bush received explicit approval of Congress to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This authorization “extended only to nations and organizations that ‘planned, authorized, committed or aided’ the 9/11 attacks.”

Obama justifies his actions by indicating that ISIS is an extension of the same Al Qaeda group that attacked the U.S., so no new approvals are necessary to fight these terrorists. But ISIS arose long after the 9/11 attacks, and the original Al Qaeda recently “disavowed” ISIS. So, it is hardly an affiliate of ISIS

The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to obtain congressional approval within 60 days of commencing hostilities; if not, actions must cease within 30 days. Obama gave Congress notice on August 8 about attacking ISIS, so his time expires today to report back to Congress and receive assent.

Complicating the debate between the president and Congress is the impending mid term elections. Frankly, no lawmaker really wants to vote on the ISIS imbroglio now and have it used against him or her in the elections.

The dysfunction of our government is evident by its “non-action” relating to hostilities against ISIS. It is the responsibility of the president to protect the country and obtain congressional approval for extended conflict. And, Congress is required to give or withhold its assent. Neither branch of government is doing its job. As an American, I would hope that all the issues relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be debated and analyzed before the U.S. spends more money and risks more lives.

By Sal Bommarito

One of the biggest announcements by our government about the ISIS imbroglio was made this past week. This quote is from a New York Times article published on Saturday: “The American official coordinating the international coalition . . . said that the Iraqi military would not be ready for a campaign to retake Mosul . . . for as much as a year.” Mosul is one of the largest cities in Iraq; it’s now occupied and controlled by ISIS.

The Iraqis are not capable of providing effective ground support according to Retired General John R. Allen, the man Secretary of State John Kerry selected to lead the anti-ISIS coalition (presumably with the president’s endorsement). So much for the coalition’s dependence on local forces to mop up after the bombing ends. The General indicated that it might take up to a year for the Iraqis to achieve readiness. The U.S. has been in Iraq for about a decade, and the army trained by American soldiers was not capable of defending its country from ISIS. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Gen. Allen can do it in less than a year with other U.S. troops.

We should be curious why this revelation took so long to be announced by the administration. The Iraqi army failed to stop ISIS earlier in the year and was devastated by widespread desertions. There was no reason to believe this army was ready to play a major role in the U.S. operations against the terrorists.

What other stunning revelations will be forthcoming from the president? Here are some items that might become reality after the impending elections:

• The president has changing his battle plan and will send ground troops to Iraq, over and above the current troops present that are advising Iraqi forces. So far, members of the military complex are nearly unanimous about the need for experienced and well-trained troops to root out ISIS, after it hunkers down in populated areas to avoid coalition bombs. Bombs can be effective in urban areas only if collateral damage is acceptable. Collateral damage is not and should not be acceptable to the U.S.
• The air support provided by U.S. allies is a mere pittance of the total bombing sorties. Every country wants to look strong at home by participating against the dreaded ISIS forces, but only with minimal risk and minimal expense, which the U.S will assume, naturally.
• President Obama is negotiating a deal with the Iranians, in which they would assist the coalition against ISIS in exchange for leeway relating to their nuclear program and a halt to economic sanctions. This contingency is the most dangerous course of action the president could take. Iran is the ringleader of many terrorist operations in the region. It will use its newfound nuclear capability to threaten Israel, Sunni regimes and the U.S.
• The bombing will go on indefinitely. If the coalition is unsuccessful in its mission to stop ISIS, and the U.S. will not deploy ground troops, what other alternatives exit for the coalition than to keep bombing?
• Peace in Iraq is becoming more remote. If ISIS is defeated, sectarian violence will resume. If this is the case, one may ask why the U.S. is invading Iraq one more time without a clear and achievable mission.
• The war is going extend past the next U.S. presidential election. The new president will inherit Obama’s war, just as Obama inherited Bush’s Iraq war. A change in American leadership could bring another abrupt change in U.S. policy in the Middle East further diminishing the prospects for peace.
• The U.S. does not have the fortitude to be a world leader ready to combat extremists as they arise across the globe. Bombing from 64,000 feet is the only form of war that Americans approve of. Unfortunately, it is but one element of a much broader response that needs to be employed to fight terrorism.

Americans should be concerned that they are not being told the whole story about the ISIS crisis and the grand plan of our commander-in-chief. Shortly after the mid term elections, we will probably be told of more menacing contingencies. In the meantime, Americans will have to vote without all facts they should have to make a good decision on Election Day.

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS crisis is proving to be more deadly in its early stages than anyone imagined. The United Nations has documented a rash of brutal activity perpetrated by the ISIS fighters and those who are opposing them. The devastation and cruelty is horrifying. The U.N. estimates that, conservatively, 5,500 Iraqis have been killed since the Islamic State began its reign of terror. A New York Times article is the source for much of this essay.

A discussion about the carnage in Iraq can be put into perspective by examining the profile of a typical ISIS fighter. Almost all are male. A typical fighter is a devout follower of the most radical arm of the Sunni sect. He is probably young and grew up in Iraq or one of its neighboring countries. It should be noted that a growing number volunteers from many far off places have joined ISIS. He places little value on life; death was commonplace in his past. He is probably not well educated and comes from a poor family. He has very little hope of improving his social status. Generally, he is an unhappy person who has had to struggle his whole life to survive. He has been encouraged and brainwashed by radical Islamic clerics or their minions about the benefits of jihad. He has very little respect for women and believes that death for the cause is honorable.

The most egregious behavioral trait of ISIS fighters is their ability to murder, rape and pillage without conscience; this relates back to the value of the life issue mentioned earlier. With the intent of establishing a new, and much more radical Islamic state, ISIS fighters are slaughtering all who are not radical Sunnis. These include Shiites, the largest religious group in Iraq, Kurds, more tolerant Sunnis and all non-Islamic Iraqis, religious and ethnic cleansing if you will.

Among those in the aforementioned are “hundreds of minority Yazdis slaughtered en mass.” The U.N. highlights “the extremist’s campaign of physical and sexual violence against women and children.” Women are being captured and sold as sex slaves to ISIS recruits, and children are becoming soldiers.

The U.N. report also comments on the tactics of pro-Iraqi forces and said “Iraqi government forces and militias associated with them have also committed ‘gross violations’ of international law, abducting civilians and hanging their bodies from lampposts. . ., summarily killing captured [ISIS] fighters and launching airstrikes that resulted in ‘significant’ civilian deaths. . .” All of these incidents have shocked the world and caused civilized people to wonder about the basic humanity in the Middle East.

Other human rights violations and war crimes include multiple mass killings, the slaughter of 1,500 soldiers and security forces captured at a military base and numerous bodies left on the roadside. The violations go on and on in the Times article.

The venom the combatants have for each other is a very important issue. A “civilized war” may be a pipe dream, but Iraqi fighters on both sides have taken the brutality of war to a new extreme. The current situation foretells of future violence that will linger long after the ISIS confrontation. Reprisals will continue, as those who were abused will return the favor, similar to what Shiites have done to Sunnis since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It is the way of Iraq, as the competing sects try to dominate each other.

Some say that a residual U.S. force may have discouraged the emergence of ISIS. This is doubtful. Iraqis want to fight. The centuries old feud will continue long after the bombing ends. All the money and blood shed by the U.S. and its allies will be for naught. Iraq is a human hell with little chance to become part of the civilized world, so long as sectarian violence and an inability to share power continues.