ISIS

Congress Should Do Whatever Necessary To Prevent Iran From Developing A Nuclear Weapon

/ softballpolitics / 1 Comment

By Sal Bommarito

The impending Iran nuclear deal is one element of the ever-expanding enigma known as the Middle East. Every day the complexity of issues becomes more daunting exacerbated by indecision and rash diplomatic ploys.

President Obama and leaders from around the world must react to events in the Middle East influenced by a backdrop that includes ISIS fighters slaughtering other Arabs, a competitive Israeli election, a growing diplomatic rift between Israel and the U.S., a nuclear controversy, worsening tension between Shiites an Sunnis and an epic refugee problem.

Most of the issues are very important but none are existential with the exception of the Iran nuclear deal. The mass execution of innocents and the threat of civil wars in a strategic part of the world are disconcerting, but an Iranian nuclear capability is a game changer.

President Obama indicated at the outset of the current round of negotiations with Iran that a nuclear Iran was not a viable option. Things have changed dramatically over the past several months along with Obama’s objectives. He seems satisfied with a treaty that keeps Iran non-nuclear with a one-year lag if Iran opts out of the treaty; and the treaty expires in 10 years in any case.

Can you blame Congress for being unnerved by the new calculus? One day, our president is saying, “No nukes for Iran.” The next day, Iran is non-nuclear until they opt out, but no longer than a short decade.

The response of Republicans and Democrats to Obama’s efforts to keep them uninvolved was bipartisan; the lawmakers wanted to be able to approve a new treaty and any reductions in economic sanctions against Iraq. As Obama neared a deal with Iran, it appeared that he was prepared to be generous to our mortal enemy that has called for the annihilation of Israel and has been the most prolific supporter of terrorism in the region.

It’s probably a legacy thing. Obama has had very few memorable diplomatic achievements during his tenure, and he wants to make a big splash by ending the hostile relationship with Iran.

Republicans responded by asking Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress without [authorization, endorsement, approval] from the president. As the deadline for a deal approached, Senate Republicans sent an open letter to the Iranian leadership indicating that they were not happy with the proposals contained in the new deal, and that a new president or Congress could annul the treaty in the near future.

This action created a huge rift between the parties as it did break the traditional lines that separate the executive and legislative branches of the government. Many believe a president has the authority to negotiate a treaty, and after it is completed, the Senate votes to accept it or not. The Republicans were jumping the gun because they thought Obama overstepped his authority and was willing to give away too much relating to Iran’s ability to complete a bomb.

The question is, does Congress have a right, or even an obligation, to speak up and pre-judge a potentially dangerous arrangement by the president? Damn right it does! It’s unconscionable that the U.S. would negotiate a deal that would make Iran stronger militarily and create an existential threat to Israel.

When IS This ISIS Thing Going To End?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The possibilities for ISIS are numerous. Depending upon the actions of its opposition, the rebels may survive and/or morph into yet another manifestation of Al Qaeda or another Arab Spring; the former is more likely than the latter.

The surest way to “destroy and degrade” ISIS is for the U.S. to employ ground troops. There seems to be no impetus to do this on a grand scale, but over time, President Obama may approve the deployment of more Special Forces units to help root out ISIS. This action would make bombing missions more productive and give pause to ISIS fighters. Special Forces could also be used to assassinate ISIS leaders, which might destabilize the rebels.

By some miracle, or with the help of Iran, the Iraqis may make some progress in repelling ISIS and recover land absconded by the insurgents. Many are not sanguine about the motivation or the courage of Iraq soldiers, so significant Iranian intervention may be necessary to impact ISIS. Obviously, a mass Iranian intrusion could have a material effect, but there is no reason to believe that the Ayatollah’s army will be more inspired than the Iraqis.

A more significant issue is that the potential influence of Iran will increase in Iraq, as does its military involvement. This contingency will surely affect the tenuous Shiite/Sunni situation in Iraq. The more the Iranians interfere, the less chance Sunnis will ever achieve any significant political power or access to natural resources.

At some point, other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey may reach a breaking point and finally become active members of the coalition. This possibility is doubtful unless ISIS threatens the stability of these nations. For instance, unless ISIS recruits large groups to commit terrorist acts, or ISIS grows strong enough to cross the Iraq or Syria borders, neighboring nations will probably refrain from any aggressive actions.

ISIS may try to establish a new religious state on Iraqi and Syrian territory. This is truly a pipe dream. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate ended in 1924. It was overseen by a select group of Imams, but ruled by local leaders. Today, ISIS could never muster the resources to build a secure central government. The chances that any other nations would recognize this new entity are zero. ISIS squandered whatever political capital it had by murdering, immolating and torturing innocent men, women and children.

The final possibility is that the ISIS rebels tire of fighting. Constant bombing threats and months away from home will have an impact on the enthusiasm of the group. It just might dissipate over time leaving a massive, social, political and financial disaster in its wake.

After the hostilities subside, the problems are not over. Civil wars are likely in several places in the region. In particular, the Shiites and Sunnis will be at each other’s throats in Iraq. And, the world will once again be demanding that Assad in Syria abdicate. We can all look forward to continuing issues emanating out of the Middle East including the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few years.

Obama’s Middle East Legacy

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

President Obama inherited a tenuous state of affairs in the Middle East from his predecessor. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were muddling along creating too many casualties and depleting precious financial resources. And most importantly, Americans were war-weary and anxious to end the nation-building, democracy-building and endless disputes with corrupt and incompetent leaders.

Obama decided to disengage from both war-torn countries. Unfortunately, his schedule, which was revealed early on to our enemies, was too impetuous and without regard to the future security needs of the countries involved. The result was a remarkable resurgence of insurgents. Al Qaeda, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments, was not dead, and the Taliban stepped into the power vacuum created by the U.S. pullout.

The decisions by the Obama administration set the stage for current events that are more dangerous than ever before in this part of the world. The good news is that our soldiers are much safer because they are not directly involved in any ground wars, at least for the time being.

What will be Obama’s Middle East legacies? Here are my predictions:

Existential threats to Israel were increased by actions of the U.S. The U.S.’s relationship with Israel has deteriorated markedly. The importance of this cannot be overstated because America is Israel’s only ally. Additionally, the U.S./Iran negotiations relating to Iran’s nuclear program could create a serious problem for Israel and possibly a military response at some time in the near future.

The U.S. is no longer leading in the Middle East. Its tepid response to ISIS and decision to not employ ground forces has disappointed all of its allies in the region. It is no longer a dependable ally in their eyes.

The aforementioned response enabled ISIS to become a phenomenon that will plague the Arab states for many years to come. Additionally, 6 million plus people were made refugees or were displaced from their homes by ISIS. This will give rise to serious social, financial and political problems in several countries, not to mention deaths that may result from famine, disease and genocide.

The U.S. has established new standards for collateral damage. Correctly, it is no longer willing to attack another nation without first considering the impact on innocent bystanders. Morally, this is noble and noteworthy. But, it may put America at a dangerous disadvantage if its standards are far greater than the enemy’s.

The U.S. is no longer able to assemble a serious coalition of nations to repel military and humanitarian challenges. Other nations know that America is always ready to pay and sacrifice the most.

It is clear that neither the U.S. nor any other free nation can foist democracy on Arab countries. The religious orientation of the Arab world coupled with its tribal perspectives make democracy more of a dream than a possibility.

Islam has radical elements that have not yet been recognized by name by the president. Additionally, our leader has decided to make too many excuses for the actions of radical Islamists. These perspectives are eschewed by most Americans and resulted in a debate that has diverted the country from the real issue- to kill ISIS.

History will not look kindly on President Obama. He has repeatedly ignored his military advisers and Congress on issues of grave importance to our national security. This behavior has made the Middle East more dangerous. And, also important are Obama actions that have created constitutional issues regarding the power of the presidency that will addle our leaders and lawmakers in Washington for a long time, and diminish the response time of America to impending danger.

One final point, no one should be shocked if a time comes when the U.S. decides to provide ground forces to fight ISIS. The policy of avoiding ground wars established by President Obama may not survive very long.

Iran Will Effectively Annex Iraq After ISIS Is Defeated

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Iran is assisting the government of Iraq and fighting side by side with Iraqis against ISIS on the battlefield. This turn of events that is documented in a New York Times story will likely lead to the effective annexation of Iraq by Iran after the war ends.

Iran has filled a void created by President Obama’s decision not to employ ground troops against ISIS. Recent successes on the ground throughout the country have stemmed, to a degree, the advances of the enemy.

There is a method to Iran’s actions that will greatly impact the direction of Iraq after ISIS is neutralized. Iran’s hegemonic behavior is recognized by all Arab nations. Its desire to control Arabs and assist Shiite regimes is infamous. This latest ploy to stem the tide of ISIS on the ground could very well lead to even stronger bonds between these two Shiite-controlled governments as they jointly oppress Sunnis throughout Iraq.

A civil war is inevitable in Iraq post ISIS. In order to gain total control, the Iraqi government must exterminate the ISIS insurgents and marginalize Sunnis who remain in the country. Oppression is virtually guaranteed. In fact, Shiite militia groups have already violated many Sunnis during the campaign against ISIS.

After a decade of support given to Iraq by the U.S. that included the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror, a trillion dollars of financial assistance and thousands of American casualties, Iraq will likely yield to Iran politically.

Could this have been avoided? Yes, if the president had sent in ground troops to take the fight to ISIS, Iranians would not have asserted themselves upon the Iraqis. The price of assisting Iraq after the war might have been prohibitive and could have led to another nation-building adventure, something that most Americans eschew.

The bonds between Iraq and Iran have now strengthened materially and perhaps a puppet government that ruthlessly oppresses the minority religion will result in a tenuous peace.

The subordination of American leadership and military support may be the direction future presidents adopt. But, the impact of such a policy will enable hegemonic nations like Iran to increase their influence in surrounding nations and decrease the chances for democracy.

Why Has ISIS Been So Difficult To Eradicate?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS imbroglio is beginning to create extreme anxiety in the Middle East, among western nations and in America.

At first, the U.S. and Arab Nations did not give ISIS the respect it deserved. This horrendous miscalculation has enabled ISIS to become a cult that is admired by young and disenfranchised people around the world. The group’s expertise in using social media and to recruit new fighters has been spectacular. All this has evolved into a phenomenon- a fighting force that has held its own in spite of U.S. air attacks and continued confrontations on the ground. ISIS is repelling offensives by Iraqi forces, Syrian forces, Shiite militias and most recently Iranian fighters.

ISIS started out as a junior varsity imposition (to paraphrase a comment by President Obama) and has grown into a formidable group of fighters with a strong, although warped, ideology that is attracting many followers, affiliates and imitators.

But, something is amiss. ISIS, in spite of growing coverage by the media, is still an enigma. The public knows very little about the leadership of ISIS or its ultimate objectives. Surely, ISIS cannot believe it is capable of establishing a new Islamic nation. It does not have the resources or the experience to govern and service several hundred thousand or a million citizens. ISIS will never become a real threat to the west beyond its ability to conduct limited terrorist acts. And yet, to some Americans, the threat is growing every day.

One of the great frustrations surrounding ISIS is that information about the organization and its true potential is not being reported with any enthusiasm. The U.S. government’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, although Obama thought it wise to broadcast to the enemy that U.S. ground troops would not be deployed in the region. The U.S. mission has become a complete mystery- degrading and destroying the insurgents may be the slogan, but it’s not happening.

Exacerbating the affair is that the Obama administration is acting like a deer in the headlights. It is spending too much time trying to convince the world that ISIS is just a run of the mill terrorist organization and not a radical Islamic threat. It should be developing a battle plan to kill off the cockroaches that have destabilized the Middle East.

Maybe Obama’s grand plan is to force Arabs to clean up their own mess. All things being equal, this tactic sounds reasonable. It is the Arabs who are under siege, so why should America pay for a war and put its young people in harm’s way?

The answer to the question traces back to the role of the U.S. in the world. In simple terms, should America step aside while ISIS immolates, beheads, tortures, rapes and displaces millions of people? Should America stand by and enable ISIS to commit egregious crimes against humanity? What is going to happen to the 5 or so million displaced Syrians and Iraqis? The writer believes America cannot turn its head in good conscience.

While we are on the sidelines dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, evil forces are imposing themselves. For instance, it has been reported that Iran is supporting Iraq ground forces and making points with Iraqi Shiites that control the country. Looking ahead, if ISIS is ever “neutralized,” Iran will have great influence over Iraq- the cost of the support it is now providing.

Other issues in the Middle East are muddying the water for the Obama administration. The president is determined to give Iran a nuclear capability in ten years. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks this is an insane thing to agree to. Israel is preparing to go to war with Iran if it gets its way. More than any other issue, Iran’s nuclear program is diverting the U.S. from the task of dealing with ISIS.

Affiliates of ISIS are popping up all over the Middle East and murdering innocents. Lone wolves are planning nefarious acts in countries around the world. Why isn’t the U.S. leading a response to all these events? Is our country now just a spectator, a follower of other nations that have the courage to battle evil forces?

There is still time for the Obama administration to act decisively and prove that America can lead the free world.

The Ramifications Of Iran Assisting Iraq In the ISIS Ground War Are Dire

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

A New York Times story has, at long last, provided some insight into the progress of the ground war against ISIS. Unfortunately, the news is disturbing and foretells future complications.

From the outset of the ISIS crisis, this blog has strongly urged the U.S. to increase its employment of military force and consider the use of ground troops. The latter is not feasible based on the President Obama’s decision and public pronouncement that he will not approve any significant increases in the number of U.S. boots on the ground.

The current plan is to use Iraqi government soldiers supplemented by Shiite militiamen to do battle with ISIS. To be clear, the preponderance of fighting in Iraq is taking place in Sunni populated areas. This is to be expected because ISIS is a radical extension of the Sunni sect and has sought assistance from their fellow Sunni Islamists.

In recent days, announcements have been made that a counter offensive by Iraq was imminent but not immediate. However, the Iraqi government decided to move much sooner to the surprise of American generals. The result has been anger that the Iraqis acted without informing the U.S., and correspondingly that the U.S. response to the war has been “sluggish.” Comments by a high-ranking Iraqi official include the following. “American estimates of how long it would take to drive the Islamic State from Mosul [are pessimistic].” “The Americans continue to procrastinate about [the liberation of the country].”

Exacerbating the situation is the fact that the Iraqi force of 30,000 consists of two-thirds militia fighters. Some say this fact accounts for the excessive brutality of the group. Also, Iran soldiers and support personnel are intimately involved in the hostilities alongside the Iraq soldiers. Iran’s assistance to Iraq is likely to make Iraqi Sunnis uneasy and unification of the country more problematic if ISIS is defeated.

Interestingly, the U.S. has limited its participation in the conflict principally to air strikes and some training. Yet, it resents the growing influence of Iran in the ground fighting.

It appears also that U.S. air strikes are not occurring with greater frequency because of concerns about collateral damage, the killing of innocent bystanders. Apparently, the Iraqi soldiers, the militias and the Iranians are not so concerned with collateral damage, especially if the innocents are Sunnis.

It comes as no surprise that the U.S. is losing control of the ISIS war in Iraq. The more intimate bond exists between Iran and Iran on the ground, something that will surely carry over to and influence post-war deliberations. A civil war is inevitable after ISIS, and Iran is going to encourage and support the further oppression of Iraqi Sunnis.

No Peace In The Middle East Until ISIS Is Defeated And Iraq And Syria Fight Civil Wars

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Looking medium to long-term, two things must transpire before there can be a lasting peace in the Middle East: ISIS hostilities need to end, and inevitable civil wars will have to run their course. Peace will not be easy to sustain given the volatility of the region and the conflicting elements that that pit Arab nations against each other.

Defeating ISIS is not possible without some sort of ground support provided by a well-trained and enthusiastic force. ISIS fighters need to be rooted out of their comfort zones, primarily urban areas among noncombatants. The best protection for ISIS insurgents is a human shield. The specter of collateral damage is completely anathema to the U.S. Only with ground forces, as opposed to air strikes, can ISIS be killed without significant innocent casualties.

The U.S. could put well-qualified soldiers on the ground, but the president has ruled out this option publicly. Yet, ground troops must confront ISIS and expose them to air strikes to make any significant headway in this war. Alternatively, Arab nations could provide foot soldiers. Few are optimistic that Iraqi forces are up to the task. Early battles with ISIS were lost, Iraqi soldiers fled and the enemy’s confidence surged.

Supposedly, Iraqi Shiites and militias are being trained to conduct offensives throughout country. From my vantage point, these initiatives will be anything but successful. For one thing, Shiites will be fighting in Sunni territory. The support of local groups will not be great, and the enthusiasm and dedication of Iraqi troops is questionable to say the least.

A spirit of patriotism and nationalism is not evident among the Iraqi fighters. Frankly, they are probably unwilling to fight in close quarters with the more aggressive ISIS insurgents. Kurdish forces are another story. They are anxious to engage with the enemy and have proven they can win battles. Unfortunately, there are not that many Kurdish soldiers in total, and certain Arab nations such as Turkey are concerned about Kurdish aspiration for independence.

The defeat of ISIS is not a sure bet even in the long run without ground support. Nevertheless, chances are the phenomenon known as ISIS will dissipate over time as fighters become war-weary. The caliphate will not come together as there is little chance that ISIS has the resources or the governing acumen to sustain a new nation. But, ISIS combatants will still be armed, dangerous and aggressive towards Shiites and non-Arabs. They will linger and likely form tribal arrangements in rural areas of Iraq and Syria.

The aforementioned is important because former ISIS fighters could become the backbone of the Sunni opposition in Iraq. Even after ISIS hostilities end, former insurgents would surely be supportive of their Sunni brothers and sisters. Conversely, Shiites will continue to oppress Sunnis inflaming an all-out civil war. There will be no lasting peace unless a Shiite tyrant takes control and beats down Sunni and ISIS rebels. It is highly improbable that the U.S. will be willing to assist in another nation-building adventure.

In Syria, the situation after the ISIS phenomenon fizzles out is much different. Nearly every interested party, with the exception of Iran and Russia will work towards the ouster of Bashar al-Assad. Unseating the despot will be the highest priority of Syrian rebels (including ISIS holdovers), Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the balance of the Sunni world.

The forecast is grim. It is worse than it should be because defeating ISIS, or at least neutralizing it is far down the road based upon the current battle plan. And, after ISIS is neutralized, Middle East hotspots, Iraq and Syria, will need to fight a civil war.

Natanyahu Ready To Present His Perspectives To Congress

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The Middle East continues to be a powder keg, literally, exacerbated by the milquetoast response of the U.S. and its coalition to the ISIS threat and an impending deal with Iran that would enable it to build a nuclear bomb in the near future.

This blog has lambasted the administration and Arab countries opposing ISIS for underestimating the potential of the insurgency and by responding in a manner that has allowed it to become a phenomenon attractive to young people around the world. More aggressive action is necessary immediately to prevent ISIS and its affiliates from becoming an existential threat to the Middle East.

But, this week, the Iran nuclear deal is front and center. Two New York Times articles will be referenced in this post. The first addresses the advocacy of Secretary of State John Kerry for an Iran treaty. The second outlines the growing conflict between the Obama administration and Israel pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program.

John Kerry is desperate to win a significant foreign policy victory. He has, unsuccessfully to this point, invested in personal relationships with several individuals in the Middle East, Europe and Russia trying to bring peace to the world. The Times states, “ . . . [because of] Kerry’s inordinate attention to [the Iran nuclear negotiations], there is an impression that he wants this agreement more so than the Iranians.” And, his “eagerness” is an “open invitation” for Iran to demand more concessions. The article references Kerry’s unsuccessful Middle East efforts that ended in “bitter recriminations between Israel and Palestine,” along with little progress to end the civil war in Syria. Regarding Russia, the U.S. is not even at the negotiating table in talks to end the violence in Ukraine.

Couple Kerry’s zeal with Obama’s obvious legacy ambitions and the situation could be explosive for the Middle East. If Kerry and Obama had their way, Iran would surely have a nuclear weapon in the near term. Fortunately, Congress will not allow the administration to give away the ranch because two U.S. politicians are worried about how history will remember them.

This all leads us to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has arrived in Washington to address Congress, without endorsement by the Obama administration, to discuss the dangers associated with an Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu considers an Iranian nuke an existential threat, and he should know given his country’s proximity to Iran and Iran’s longstanding anti-Semitic posture and objective to annihilate the State of Israel.

In a Times article, the White House offered a number of unconvincing arguments that suggest a deal with Iran is the best course of action. Unfortunately, the administration is not revealing pertinent information because it does not believe Americans are capable of understanding the gravity of the negotiations, or there are no strong factors supporting a deal.

The Times story is chock full of squishy comments by the administration and a number of contradictions. The purpose of the White House comments was to discredit Netanyahu by implying that he does not appreciate the process. This is a curious tact given Israel’s concerned about how Iran would use a nuclear in the region in the next year, in ten years and forever. The basis of the prime minister’s perspective is Israeli intelligence on the matter, which is likely more substantive than U.S. information.

The U.S. stated that Netanyahu “has failed to present a feasible alternative [to the American proposals, which are current not known in any detail].” Really? Israel wants to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, which was the original intent of the U.S., if memory serves me correct. Obama is just not listening to Netanyahu or anyone else that would interfere with his deal to improve relations with a mortal enemy of America.

The U.S. indicated, “that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extensive period was preferable to a breakdown in talks . . .” When dealing with nuclear proliferation, imperfect treaties are could be deadly. If the U.S. objective is no nukes for Iran, this deal does not make sense.

“The alternative to not having a new treaty is losing inspections.” This comment is contradicted in two other parts of the story. Iran has not answered “a dozen questions by the Atomic Energy Agency about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program.” And, “last week Iran stonewalled inspectors on answering most of [their] questions.” Clearly, Iran is not cooperating before the deal is signed, meaning that it will not cooperate afterwards either. Without verification of compliance, Iran will be free to do many things in secrecy.

The balance of the article addresses time schedules and how quickly Iran could develop a bomb if it opts out of a treaty. This all nonsense. The Obama administration is prepared to give Iran the ability to produce a bomb in about ten years, or sooner if it cheats. Congress should trash this proposal and step up sanctions against Iran until it agrees to indefinitely defer its nuclear ambitions. This would benefit the Middle East, Israel, Sunnis in the region and the U.S.

The ISIS War: Does Anyone Know What The Hell Is Going On?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

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.

Natanyahu Ready To Present His Perspectives To Congress

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The latest polls indicate that the majority of Americans are not satisfied with the way that President Obama is dealing with terror. The administration has been taking an empathetic approach towards radical Islamists as they conduct jihad in the Middle East and around the world. The murderous ways of the insurgents including public executions of innocent people should inspire outrage and aggressive action from the president, not proposals to correct whatever societal problems are inspiring terrorism among Muslims.

Unhappy, disenfranchised young people represent most of the ISIS fighting force. And, by the way, almost all of them are Muslims or Muslim converts. Disregarding these facts is not ingratiating the president with his fellow Americans or their allies for that matter. Admitting that Muslims represent the vast majority of troublemakers in the Middle East does not mean or imply that Islam is responsible for ISIS.

It should be noted that a minimal amount of outrage relating to ISIS’ murderous methods and public executions has emanated from the Arab community. This could mean that many Muslims are sympathetic to ISIS (which would be unfortunate and disappointing), or that Muslims are frightened to express outrage because of possible reprisals by terrorists. Recently, Jordan and Egypt have responded to atrocities affecting their countries. Hopefully, other Arab countries will follow suit before their people are assaulted.

For some reason, Obama has decided to lump together all terrorists into one pot. This methodology is faulty from a number of perspectives. The primary one is that terrorist groups have different agendas. Some are localized. Some are regional. And, some are global in reach. Each of these problematic groups needs to be dealt with differently.

So what is ISIS trying to accomplish? Over time, the goals of the insurgents have expanded. Initially, the rebels represented a localized band of thugs trying to establish a caliphate, a religious state, in Iraq and Syria.

The early ISIS threat has become more ominous over time corresponding to their evolving objectives. It’s entirely possible that the insurgents will move into surrounding countries. This has become a new possibility because the U.S. and Arab nations underestimated ISIS, its perseverance, its fund raising capabilities and its recruitment acumen. If definitive and substantive action had been taken against ISIS during its earlier days, the problem might have been mitigated to a large extent.

Sadly, our president and his Arab allies did not act with enough force against ISIS and the problem has grown exponentially. ISIS has affiliated with rebel groups that are now fighting under the auspices of ISIS in other countries. And, lone wolf organizations in western countries are planning nefarious acts. The uprising has become a global phenomenon that is very attractive to the downtrodden.

The murderous ways of ISIS should not be ignored or swept under the table. They deserve tough justice and a vicious response. Massive public executions and wanton violence need to be addressed immediately before they spread further.

Now is not the time to propose finding jobs for ISIS fighters or enrolling them into schools. They need to be exterminated before they kill other innocent people. All nations and religions must condemn ISIS and use all their facilities to stem the tide of violence. If not the cancer of ISIS will continue to spread.