By Sal Bommarito

Generally, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but the ISIS conflict really has me wondering about what is going on in the Middle East. Unlike every other war in modern history, the media has reported very little about the events taking place in Iraq and Syria. And so, the public has been kept in the dark and is becoming more concerned every day.

The reasons for the dearth of information, to an extent, are that the U.S. has very few soldiers on the ground, and the media has very few reporters on the scene. And so, the world has not been informed about the enemy’s strength, new recruits, casualties, battles fought, and frankly, who is winning. In fact, no one unaffiliated with the military knows what winning entails and how long it will take to defeat the enemy.

What puzzles me is that ISIS, I think, is nothing more than a vicious and brutal amalgamation of religious discontents marauding in Iraq and Syria. Its ability to effectively defeat and repel indigenous fighters, be they Iraqi government troops or local militias, is uncanny. ISIS has no heavy weapons, for the most part; its soldiers carry rifles and rocket launchers. How has this group survived against a coalition that includes the most powerful military force in the world?

Based upon recent history, Arab-fighting forces, in particular Iraqi soldiers, have not fared well. Saddam Hussein and his infamous Republican Guard were supposed to be a formidable fighting force. When the U.S. engaged them, they fell in a matter of days. When Iraqis faced ISIS for the first time, they dropped their weapons and deserted. The U.S. was training the Iraqis to defend themselves for a decade, and they were totally ineffective and unprepared.

The Obama administration has not been cooperative about revealing the events in the killing zone. Everything is secret, yet the president telegraphed to the enemy that he would not authorize ground forces against ISIS. I’m still scratching my head about this indiscretion.

I’ve attempted to uncover information about enemy casualties on the Internet, but no solid data is available. No one, including our own generals, seems to know how many ISIS fighters are in the field, how many have been killed and how many have been recruited. This is a marked difference from the Vietnam War during which the military provided a daily body count of U.S. and enemy casualties.

Another mind-blowing fact relates to the relative non-engagement of Arab countries in the hostilities. Arabs are depending upon the U.S. to protect them from ISIS. Why aren’t Arabs more involved? Why aren’t they enthusiastically fighting to secure their ways of life? Is it because their armies are just as incompetent as the Iraqi force? ISIS is on the doorsteps of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Supposedly, these countries have significant military assets. What are they waiting for? An invasion of their countries?

While the ISIS threat has evolved, Iran has pumped up its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. Does either the U.S. or Iran need to be diverted by this controversy while ISIS is running amok? Why would the president be so anxious to give Iran an opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon? Will an Iranian nuke ease concerns in the Middle East? Hardly.

It’s time that the U.S. military learned more about ISIS and what the prospects are for ending its murderous adventure. What will it take to kill ISIS and end the genocide? The U.S. needs to consider employing greater force. There have been reports that bombing missions during the ISIS war have only been a small fraction of those during the former Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Why is this so? Is the U.S. unable to find ISIS targets? If so, why hasn’t the U.S. at least put bomb controllers on the ground to direct bombing sorties?

Something is fishy about the ISIS conflict. The U.S. government either doesn’t know what it’s doing or is withholding information. Congress should demand more data from the military. Americans need to be better informed if they are going to be asked to support this growing confrontation with ISIS.

By Sal Bommarito

Why would anyone suggest that ISIS is not a serious threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world? Arab nations and the U.S. were hopeful that the insurgents’ momentum would peter out after the U.S. began bombing and/or when ISIS resources and recruitment abated. Unfortunately, America’s bombing strategy has not been very effective, ISIS has not run out of cash and recruitment is strong. In fact, the courage, cruelty and perseverance of the rogue Islamic terrorists have become an inspiration to rebel groups in the region and around the world.

The most recent events, in which ISIS incinerated a brave Jordanian pilot and an ISIS affiliate in Libya executed a group of Egyptian Christians, have enraged the governments of these victims. Both have responded with airstrikes against the offenders.

As ISIS and its newfound friends continue to perpetrate crimes against humanity, more Arab countries will likely see the light and act accordingly. It’s sad that Jordan and Egypt and all the other countries in the region did not act sooner. Perhaps, with more aggressive military action by these states at the outset of the ISIS crisis (in conjunction with U.S. support), ISIS’ celebrity would not be on the rise.

ISIS leaders must be astounded that their ideology, whatever it is, is spreading to other places. Former Al Qaeda troublemakers and sundry rebel organizations that heretofore have either declined in relevance or never made an impact have allied with ISIS. It is questionable whether these groups are truly jihadists or just trying join the mainstream of terrorist activity.

The most disappointing performance in this entire affair is that of the U.S. President Obama has been indecisive and is still resisting attempts to label ISIS an Islamic terrorist group. In most cases, labeling is not critical. But, ISIS claims to be murdering in the name of their God. The organization consists mostly of Islamic believers. It is very sectarian, in that it is particularly cruel when it encounters Shiites and non-Islamic Arabs.

Yet, the Obama administration has given us irrelevant historical perspectives as if this conflict is a college course. And, most importantly, Obama, his minions and his apologists have not engaged ISIS to prevent its celebrity from spreading.

One expert on the topic of the Middle East said to me privately that ISIS has killed only a minimal number of opponents. The conflict is a small uprising that should be dealt with on a regional basis. I’m unsure how many crimes against humanity constitute a situation that warrants the outrage of America. But, when you consider the number of wanton executions including many on the battlefield that have not received wide spread attention, the displacement of many Iraqis and Syrians and the millions of refugees who are at risk, I would say it is appropriate for America to be infuriated into greater engagement.

Let’s be clear, no one, Americans nor Arabs, wants the U.S. to occupy another country in the region. The mission of the U.S., from a moral perspective, should be the defeat of ISIS. America should act promptly and use the necessary force to complete the mission and exit. So no one is disillusioned, civil wars will ensue after ISIS is crushed; Iraq and Syria are at the top of the list. These conflicts and the government reform that follows will be exacerbated by sectarian hatred and violence. But, they are not the business of the U.S.

I hate the idea of using ground forces and sending our soldiers into harm’s way. But, more ground troops are necessary to accomplish the mission laid out earlier. If we want to end the ISIS threat, and it now qualifies as a worldwide threat, more force and more soldiers need to be employed. It is the moral obligation of America to deal with this problem.

By Sal Bommarito

For months, Softball Politics has been critical of the manner in which President Obama has prosecuted the war with ISIS. I found an opportunity to consider an alternative viewpoint in the interest of presenting a balanced mosaic of the Middle East problems.

I had a short, but substantive, conversation with an individual who is very well informed about Middle East politics. My foil is a renowned political commentator who has unfettered access to many sources of information on global issues.

To summarize our encounter, let’s just say that his views were completely the opposite of mine relating to the America’s response to the ISIS threat. Frankly, the conversation was one-sided because Jack (an assumed name) is a killer debater.

My latest theses is that the U.S. has responded ineffectively to ISIS- President Obama has “blundered” along with Arab countries by not stopping ISIS in its tracks with a combination of bombs and ground force, the latter being necessary to root out insurgents and provide bombing control. As an aside, the press has reported that many American bombing sorties are unsuccessful and return with most of their munitions having been unable to identify ISIS targets.

By not addressing the ISIS situation more forcefully, the U.S. has enabled the insurgents to become a worldwide phenom that is being admired and emulated in both Arab and western countries. Additionally, ISIS’s celebrity and success in “repelling” America, the most powerful military force in the world, has been used in propaganda and to recruit new fighters. In a nutshell, ISIS has been given time to become a very dangerous threat to the global community.

Jack totally disagreed with my perspectives. He is supportive of the president’s efforts and restraint relating to ISIS. Not taking the bait and becoming engaged in a new nation-building project is, in Jack’s opinion, noteworthy.

He said the U.S. has failed miserably in every occupation dating back to the Vietnam War. I should point out that I agree with many of Jack’s observations, but I never suggested that the U.S. occupy Iraq and Syria, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Rather, I believe annihilation of the ISIS interlopers should be a top priority. What happens after ISIS is defeated is another important topic.

Jack proceeded to lambaste my perspectives that ISIS is fortifying its positions among the population, and this is why bombing missions have been so ineffective- the U.S. is unsurprisingly concerned with collateral damage. He said that Arabs should deal directly with ISIS, and that the ISIS conflict was a political situation inspired by the U.S. invasion of Iraq ten or so years ago. [The last item is a ubiquitous ploy by many liberals to foist Obama’s incompetence on the policies of George Bush.]

Jack’s principal contention, and I am putting words in his mouth, is that the U.S. will be responsible for defending any and all land recaptured from ISIS. In other words, a ground assault is the precursor to occupation and nation building.

I tried unsuccessfully to argue that Iraq and Syria represented a two-stage problem. The first is the elimination of ISIS. It needs to be defeated and exposed as an unproductive rebel uprising that will never have any political traction. After its defeat, the second stage would kick in. In Iraq, it is the negotiation of a power sharing arrangement between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. In Syria, it is the determination of the fate of the brutal tyrant Bashar al-Assad. These situations will, for sure, evolve into brutal civil wars in both countries. Most importantly, the U.S. must depart before these internal struggles begin.

Many other nuances of Middle East politics came up in my brief repartee with Jack, in which we would have likely found agreement. I suspect that the major issue for both of us is the performance of Obama and the U.S. military. Jack is definitely an Obama apologist, and you know where I stand.

I would relish an opportunity to continue my debate with Jack, but he is probably too busy to contend with my “neocon” leanings. Another meeting would surely result in another flogging , but I believe I am correct that ISIS is a growing threat that needs to be dealt with immediately by increasing U.S. military actions.

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times published a disturbing article titled “Islamic State Sprouting Limbs Beyond Mid-East.” It chronicles the plethora of new ISIS affiliates that are planning terrorist activities in North Africa and in Afghanistan. ISIS’ influence is rapidly becoming a global malignancy that includes fledgling operations in western countries.

The U.S. and Arab states opposing ISIS committed a huge blunder at the inception of ISIS. The blunder was giving ISIS time and an opportunity to commandeer land and assets. It should be noted that ISIS is to a great extent a reconfiguration of Al Qaeda and other rebel organizations that have been active in the region for years. Affiliating with ISIS’ great success against American military power and Arab money has reenergized these terrorist groups.

Terrorist organizations are always desperate for new enlistees and money to conduct their nefarious deeds. ISIS used social media to recruit thousands [the Times article indicates there are between 20,000 to 31,500 fighters in Iraq and Syria. This number excludes thousands of discontented Sunnis that could side with ISIS]. ISIS has stolen oil and antiquities, which it sold on the black market to raise funds to operate.

President Obama’s reticence and ambivalence together with Iranian, Saudi and Turkish fear of internal backlash should they enthusiastically support America, have resulted in a benign military response. This reaction enabled ISIS to grow, recruit and fortify its positions.

The ultimate result is that a renegade band of malcontents have grown into a phenom that is being admired and emulated globally. Obama, many western nations and Arab nations have stood by while a gigantic, although unorganized, terrorist organization flourished. It is reminiscent of the Arab Spring, except terror, not democracy, is the objective. If the U.S. had committed to substantive military action that included ground forces, the situation would not be so dire today.

Understandably, Obama wanted to avoid yet another multi-year nation building project. But, he did not need to commit long-term. All he had to do was to use enough firepower and manpower to kill the cancer of Isis before it metastasized. Now, it is too late for any quick fixes. The world will be battling unhappy young people who have found a home in ISIS or one of its wanna-bes for many years.

By Sal Bommarito

ISIS is a band of quasi-organized murderers and thugs that has taken the Middle East by storm. The success of ISIS to date is best exhibited by its annexation and retention of vast areas of land in Iraq and Syria.

There are other noteworthy achievements that should be mentioned. No army of fighters can be successful without recruits, arms, ammunition and cash. Most believe ISIS is funding these requirements by stealing and selling oil and antiquities. Additionally, some wealthy Arab interests and/or insurgent groups may be providing funds to help conduct ISIS’ military pursuits.

Regarding recruitment, the insurgents have masterfully used social media to broadcast their propaganda and to encourage disenfranchised and unhappy young people to affiliate with their cause. Thousands have joined the fight in the Middle East. Exacerbating the situation are ISIS enlistees who may try to take the fight to enemies outside the region. ISIS developed a “lone wolf” concept of training and funding people to attack nations around the world who are not sympathetic to its cause.

How was ISIS able to achieve such success in a short period of time? A perfect storm made it possible, beginning with the destitution of many Muslims and a desire for self-rule. Regimes were toppled as many young people demanded more say in the selection of their leaders.

This dream was never a real possibility and led to a vacuum as long-time leaders across the Middle East abdicated. The ideal of democracy in places like Egypt, Libya and Yemen faded away quickly. However, it served as a catalyst for the ensuing anarchy led by fanatical clerics.

In lesser-developed countries, destitution leads many people to embrace orthodox religion. Clerics have a great impact on many nations, especially in the Middle East. Adding to this is the age-old feud between the two largest Muslim sects. Frankly, democracy is not plausible in places where religion is as strong as government, the logistics of fair elections are too complicated and the populous is conflicted by two competing religious groups that are continuously fighting for dominance.

Anarchy resulted from all these forces, a condition that breeds ultra religious fanaticism. The most powerful leaders in rural areas are the ones who ultimately take control when the central government is in chaos. This scenario enabled ISIS to gain traction.

From its outset, ISIS’ belligerent and threatening attitude should have been a warning to observers on the outside, in places like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia. These countries stood aside for months and allowed ISIS to gain a foothold and great momentum. Success soon followed becoming enticing to disenfranchise people in surrounding countries.

Even after Middle East countries and the west recognized the potential of ISIS globally, they did not react with the aggression necessary to squash this determined rebel group motivated by a dangerous ideology. Muslim countries were tentative about going to war with other Muslims. The U.S.’s tepid response to ISIS gave the insurgents time to flourish.

So now ISIS has dug in for the long-term. The fighters have fortified their positions in populated areas. Hundreds or perhaps thousands of lone wolves are cooking up plans to kill in scores of locations around the world to instill terror.

The U.S. has been unable to convince Middle East countries to become more engaged, probably because the U.S. has not engaged to the fullest extent. Dropping bombs without ground controllers and not employing ground troops to mop up after bombing are not a plan for victory.

Current news: President Obama is attempting to get congressional approval for the continuing conflict with ISIS, but the approval would specifically forbid the use of ground forces. It appears that members on both sides of the aisle are not amenable to the proposal. Also, the new proposed law would be in force for three years extending into the next presidency.