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.

By Sal Bommarito

As one considers the repercussions of the ISIS war, it is impossible not to be pessimistic about the aftermath of the confrontation. ISIS has deeply affected the Middle East and is destabilizing Arab countries.

The following is a list of potential problems that seem more plausible with every passing day.

-Iran will try to use the ISIS imbroglio to further its nuclear aspirations. If ISIS proves difficult to defeat or to rein in, the U.S. may decide to ask Iran for military and diplomatic assistance. Undoubtedly, the quid pro quo for Iranian support will be an easing of restrictions on the production of material needed to build a nuclear weapon and a rescission of economic sanctions. The development of a nuclear capability by Iran would be a serious existential threat to both Israel and Sunni states.

-Saudi Arabia is in grave danger from two perspectives. First, ISIS destabilization of the region may spread to Saudi Arabia and threaten the monarchy. Second, U.S. collaboration with Iran will threaten Saudi leaders.

-If the ISIS threat is eliminated or tempered, Iraq will immediately resume its civil war pitting the entrenched Shiites against disenfranchised Sunnis. The U.S. will have no choice but to increase support of the Iraqi government thereby replaying the saga of the past decade.

-Although Israel is experiencing a respite from never ending threats by Arab nations, it is only temporary. The violence in the region will eventually cause the tension and conflict in Israel to ramp up. Palestinian terrorists will be emboldened by ISIS fighters.

-President Assad of Syria will remain in power for the foreseeable future. As we know, his government is oppressive and supportive of numerous terrorist groups. When the ISIS threat to his regime ebbs, he will take aim at his opposition in a cruel and violent manner.

-Related to the previous issue is the growing number of refugees that are pouring into countries that neighbor Syria, particularly Turkey and Jordan. The latter will not be able to accommodate the multitudes much further. Serious humanitarian issues will arise.

-Recruitment of ISIS supporters continues to grow worldwide. Revolution and terror is in the air. Nations across the globe will be facing increased “lone wolf” attacks as we have seen recently.

-It is implausible that the supply of fossil fuel will not be affected by the conflict in the Middle East.

By Sal Bommarito

ISIS continues to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. The question is what does ISIS want? Here are several possibilities.

ISIS hopes to establish a new theocracy. Such an objective necessitates land, a government and recognition by other countries. This contingency is unlikely. Why would any country in the region be willingly cede territory to ISIS?

ISIS is interested in killing or converting Arabs who are not Sunnis. This ideological angle is reminiscent of the 11th Century Crusades, during which marauding Catholics foisted their religious beliefs on others. In the Middle East, the struggle between Sunni and Shiite has been in play for centuries. It does not appear that ISIS is finding many converts among those conquered. In fact, most Sunnis and even the original Al Qaeda organization object to ISIS’ radical perspectives.

ISIS wants to destabilize the region. So far the terrorists have successfully disrupted Iraq and Syria and initiated a war that has involved countries from around the world. There are few, if any, nations in the Middle East that side with ISIS, including Sunni dominated regimes. In fact, most Arab countries decry ISIS because they fear destabilization and revolution will impact their governments.

ISIS is a band of disgruntled nomads from many places whose solidarity is their unhappiness. They are like a large group of suicide bombers, prepared to fight and die in the name of God. A cult-like, brainwashed mentality may have overcome the members, and the only way to stop them is to exterminate them.

ISIs is a group of bandits who kill, steal, rape and pillage, land pirates if you will. They are using radical Islam ideology to form a cohesive bond between members.

ISIS is interested in destroying and/or terrorizing western nations. The operations in Iraq and Syria could be the beginning of a mission that will inspire other Muslims to assault western societies. This form of fanaticism would be directed more towards killing non-Arabs.

An interesting thought amid all the beheadings, killing, refugees and destabilization is how the leaders of ISIS would respond to being asked what would encourage them to end their reign of terror and make peace.

By Sal Bommarito

On Sunday, President Obama said to Steve Kroft on “60 Minutes” that U.S. intelligence agencies underestimated the strength of ISIS. The comment was stunning as the president failed to take any personal responsibility for the tardy U.S. response to ISIS, in effect blaming the current situation on his advisors.

In the past 48 hours, the intelligence community struck back at their president, indicating that the commander-in-chief was fully briefed that ISIS was rapidly growing more dangerous. Note: Several news outlets have published articles indicating the president did not attend many intelligence meetings.

Frankly, it’s becoming more difficult to believe that the administration is being transparent about the evolution of the decision to attack Iraq and Syria, and about the expectations of the bombing strategy. Most disconcerting is that the president disregarded advice from his intelligence advisors just as he did with his generals relating to the need for boots on the ground.

The mission behind the airstrikes is to defeat ISIS. What does this mean? Will ISIS be incapable of conducting terror activities when the bombing ends? No one knows, maybe not even the president. Yet, most people do not believe the threat of ISIS will disintegrate in one, two or three years without ground support.

The president said Al Qaeda was dead after bin Laden was killed. Not so, especially now that we know ISIS and Khoradan are branches of Al Qaeda.

What about the participation of coalition partners? None are acting militarily against Syria, even though the head of the ISIS snake is purportedly in Syria. And, the U.S. is conducting most of the attacks in Iraq as well. The Arab nations are providing only minimal support, an outrageous division of duties considering that ISIS is a much more serious threat to them than to America.

What is the real truth about Iran? Will the president agree to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for help in fighting ISIS? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel thinks this a horrible strategy and said so at the United Nations yesterday.

President Obama has yet to prove that he is capable of being an effective wartime president. His communication technique always results in more questions than answers. If America is truly going to war, Americans deserve to know what the relevant facts.

By Sal Bommarito

The involvement of Iran in the ISIS conflict is anything but simple. There are a number of issues that will affect the political, diplomatic and military moves Iran makes in the months to come. They include the following:

• Iran borders Iraq.
• The Shiite majority dominates Iraq’s government.
• Iran is predominately Shiite, while ISIS is radical Sunni.
• Iran resents U.S. presence in the Middle East.
• Iran is negotiating with the U.S. and others relating to its fledgling nuclear program.
• Iran is an ally of Syria.

Iraq as a neighbor. Recently, ISIS forces approached the border of Iran during its campaign in eastern Iraq. The Iranian government responded by warning ISIS to keep its distance. The Iranians said they would respond aggressively deep into Iraq if military action occurs near its border. Iran is concerned that ISIS may destabilize its population.

Iraq government is controlled by Shiites. Iraq and Iran have become allies since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government. It is understandable that Iran would want to help solidify Shiite power in Iraq.

Iran is Shiite and ISIS is Sunni. The tension between Iran and ISIS is predictable as they are on opposite sides of the Islamic scale.

Iran does not want the U.S. to intervene in the Middle East. Even though the U.S. has targeted ISIS, Iran does not want the U.S. to conduct military operation in Iraq unless the Iraqi government continues to encourage American involvement.

Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is willing to work with the U.S. to fight ISIS only if the U.S. negotiates a favorable deal relating to Iran’s nuclear program. This is not likely to be a constructive process.

Iran is an ally of Syria and supportive of Assad. Iran objects to American bombing of ISIS forces in Syria unless Syria invites the U.S. to do so. Iran has indicated that the bombings are illegal by international law.

The bluster of the Iranian leaders during the U.N. meetings last week exposed Iran’s sensitivities towards Iraq, Syria and the U.S. Religious gains together with endorsement of its nuclear program will drive its diplomatic and military decisions.

By Sal Bommarito

Congressional Democrats are relieved that the president is not going ask for a vote of confidence on his Iraq and Syrian engagements, even if significant constitutional issues are at hand. Obama and Democrats promised to end the wars in the Middle East. So, it would be bizarre for them to endorse air power strikes that could lead to multi-year confrontations right before the mid-term elections.

The president continues to dodge a critial issue that hangs over his latest adventures- U.S. boots on the ground- even when nearly every military expert has indicated the U.S. cannot win the war with ISIS without them.

Let’s face it, the Iraqis are incapable of securing their country against ISIS, and after the war is over, they will not be capable of defending the country against Sunni insurrection and insurgency. The New York Times reports “Iraq Army Woos Deserters Back To War On ISIS.” Is the success of the coalition really dependent upon former deserters to mop after the bombing raids?

In Syria, the moderate rebels together with Syrian government forces were losing ground every day to ISIS. U.S. bomb strikes have supposedly helped stem the tide, but when the air attacks are over, ISIS fighters will emerge from their rat holes amidst the Syrian population and pick up where they left off.

What U.S. politician wants to be on record supporting Obama’s disaster in the making? Even Republicans are content to let the ISIS saga play out for a few months before signing onto any proclamations of war. Verbally, conservatives indicate that they are in favor of aggressive action against ISIS, but they would rather not be labeled warmongers shortly before voters go to the polls.

Regardless of one’s perspective on the air strikes, we should demand that Congress men and women take a stand and vote to support the president or not. Our soldiers and fighter pilots must be scratching their heads about the ambivalent attitude of our leaders, while they are in harm’s way. But it’s politics, all the time in America.

The wisdom of Obama’s decisions is another issue. Most Americans agree that Arabs should be cleaning up their own problems. Why the hell is America spending its money and blood, while the Saudis and Iranians sit on the sidelines and pontificate about American aggression, values and lifestyles? Given this state of affairs, the least the U.S. should do is be sure that ISIS is a real threat to our national security.

It’s easy to be skeptical about this when most experts say ISIS is not a national security threat, and suddenly a new Al Qaeda group appears out of nowhere that is preparing to attack western airlines and subway systems. Really? Maybe so, but I can’t help thinking that Obama wanted to justify his actions, and he manufactured a national emergency.

Finally, if the U.S. is going to take on the responsibility of killing ISIS fighters, why aren’t we doing it with more enthusiasm? Do we need boots on the ground or not? If we do, and are not willing to shed any more American blood in the region, then why are we bombing at all? There is no endgame except a long, drawn out embroilment with violent and very unhappy people.

I miss the days of decisive leadership. Going into war is serious business, and not doing it using every reasonable amount of firepower available is a bad strategy. Obama should not just dip our feet into the swamp known as the Middle East. The police do not try to wound armed and dangerous attackers. They shoot to kill.

By Sal Bommarito

The turmoil created by ISIS represents a momentous change within the Sunni sect and will have a lasting impact on the Middle East.

For some time, people have been puzzled by the support of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni monarchies afforded to the U.S. coalition. The initial assessment of their response to ISIS was that these regimes considered the terrorists an existential threat. This is true, but it is exacerbated by a great schism among Sunnis.

For years, Sunnis have battled with Shiites. This feud has been well documented, and frankly, the differences between the two groups have blurred over time. It principally relates back to the original leadership of Islam centuries ago. Nevertheless, the blood lust created by this division of Islam has been responsible for untold violence and political instability. Basically, Sunni nations are badgered by Shiite insurgency and vise versa.

But now, the situation has become more intriguing. The Sunni sect has divided into two groups. The extent that each resorts to violence separates them. The “more peaceful” group recognizes that it must find ways to live with other nations, cultures and religions. Be sure, this group is controlled by serious ideology and customs, mistrustful of outsiders and degrading to women. But, the more peaceful group sees growing violence as a threat to Islam. The latter is so aggressive and emboldened that it stirs the concerns of nations outside the region.

Many of the more aggressive Sunnis (ISIS) have mustered in Iraq and Syria. They are blood-thirsty fighters who want to kill, not just convert, all those who do not worship God the same way they do. The source of ISIS discontent and aggression is the Wahhabi tradition that must “[purify] the community of the faithful,” as the New York Times has described it. This differentiates the ISIS crowd from the also violent Al Qaeda. “For Al Qaeda, violence is a means to an [end], for ISIS, it is an end to itself.”

The result was that Al Qaeda disassociated itself from ISIS because it is too violent. Keep in mind Al Qaeda executed the 9/11 attacks and was the home of Osama bin Laden.

Now, less radical Sunnis from the region have joined the U.S. coalition to fight ISIS. In fact, Sunnis are piloting planes that are dropping bombs on other Sunni Arabs.

It is noteworthy to point out that Sunnis are fighting against other Sunnis in alliance with the U.S. Iran is on the sidelines opposing ISIS along with moderate Sunnis and the U.S. Moderate Sunnis and the U.S. oppose Assad of Syria, while Iran supports him.

The scorecard is difficult to follow. But one thing is sure, ISIS represents the most violent arm of the most violent group on earth (Al Qaeda). The mission to destroy it is noble, wise and critically important to western nations and to Arab regimes. All countries in the region are at risk because recruitment and funding have been expedited by social media as part of a continuing Arab Spring.

By Sal Bommarito

The U.S. resumed bombing sorties. Strikes were made on oil facilities commandeered by ISIS. The wells were generating millions of dollars to support ISIS operations.

In the meantime, an ISIS affiliated organization beheaded Herve Gourdel, a Frenchman, in retribution for France airstrikes in Iraq. President Hollande indicated that the atrocity would not deter future airstrikes by French pilots.

The bombing of Khorasan supposedly decreased the chances of a significant terror attack in the U.S. and other western countries. Some say the more likely attacks will be by disgruntled “lone wolves” on a much smaller scale.

It has been reported that Iran may be collaborating with the U.S. Apparently, Iran was informed that the U.S. would be attacking Syria beforehand. Iran then informed the Syrian government so that they would not attempt to shoot down U.S. fighter jets.

The most important diplomatic event was Obama’s appearance at the U.N. The following is a list of significant comments the president made during the day.

-The president was generally apologetic.
-U.S. is not at war with Islam.
-Force is the only language that terrorists understand.
-The president was very sensitive towards Muslims.
-The Ferguson shooting was mentioned as a way to show the world that America has internal problems.
-The ISIS conflict will continue for a while.
-Climate change is just as critical as terror.

The president should not have been apologetic because the U.S. is doing most of the dirty work attacking ISIS. Arab countries should be thanking the U.S. for its leadership in fighting the terrorists.

Shaming America by bringing up Ferguson was a serious mistake. For one thing, the shooting is still being investigated. Second, the comparison of a one-man tragedy to a full scale terrorist invasion of two nations is absurd.

Interestingly, the president did not ask for U.N. approval of Syrian attacks. The Russians would have vetoed it in any case. This is related to the fact that no coalition members are flying missions in Syria.

Obama’s comments about Khorasan being an imminent threat to the U.S. might be a ploy to by-pass Congress. ISIS does not meet the criteria. The president may act unilaterally if national security is at risk.

The handling of the ISIS crisis is being criticized by many. However, the bombing raids are the right tactic. It would be better if the president stopped telegraphing future moves to the enemy.

By Sal Bommarito

Fact: U.S. military leaders are strongly in favor of a boots on the ground strategy for Iraq and Syria. The president continues to be totally against the use of U.S. ground forces in the ISIS conflict.

Fact: Airstrikes are most effective in open expanses, like the desert. In highly populated areas, airstrikes will result in significant collateral damage, and many innocent civilians will lose their lives.

Fact: Most experts are highly critical of the ability of the Iraqi army to provide ground support. They were ineffective during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and many deserted when confronted by ISIS earlier this year.

Fact: The “moderate” Syrian rebels are not ready for prime time. Exacerbating the situation is that it is impossible to predict whether they will remain loyal to the U.S. if ISIS is defeated. There is a strong chance that the arms the U.S. plans to give to this group may be used against America in the aftermath of the ISIS war.

There have been many reports that the U.S. will not be able to soundly defeat ISIS using only airpower. In this regard, Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense said “[The U.S.] is not going to be successful against ISIS from the air, or strictly depending upon Iraqi or [Kurdish soldiers].”

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey said that if current battle plans do not work out “[he] would go back to the president and [recommend] the use of U.S. ground forces.”

There are other generals who are suggesting more aggressive action on the part of the president. They include Gen. John Allen, Gen. Lloyd Austin and Gen. Jack Kean.

Obama’s response to the suggestion that ground troops are needed was that the U.S. should “use [its] unique capabilities in supporting our partners on the ground so they can secure their own country’s future.” This may be based upon his experiences that massive ground forces did not inhibit insurgency in either Iraq or in Afghanistan over the past decade. The U. S. occupation of Iraq “gave birth to [ISIS].” In Afghanistan, more than a decade of occupation “has failed to destroy Al Qaeda or the Taliban.”

Who should the American people support, Obama or his generals? Many say the generals are the experts in warfare, and their recommendations should carry a lot of weight. But, what if Obama and the generals are both correct? If so, the U.S. will not unable to completely destroy ISIS from the air, and the deployment of troops will not change that outcome.

These contingencies create a grave dilemma for the U.S. Basically there may be no way to destroy ISIS. So, what the hell is the U.S. doing in Iraq and Syria? And, why hasn’t the president made all these issues clear to his constituencies?

Maybe the mission is faulty. Or maybe, the president has not been 100% truthful to America because of political an/or legacy concerns. Perhaps the mission should be to kill as many ISIS fighters from the air, exclusively. Then let the natives deal with the problem of nation building and security after the bombing sorties end.

Questions and the risks relating to the current plan to eliminate ISIS are growing every day, yet the administration has done little to allay our concerns.

By Sal Bommarito

The United States and five Sunni Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordon and the UAE, attacked terrorist targets in Syria. The U.S. alone launched an attack against another terrorist group called Khorasan, an Al Qaeda offshoot.

Regarding Khorasan, U.S. intelligence is confidant that the group was planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. and/or western countries possibly involving the detonation of a bomb on a commercial airliner.

An army general indicated that there were three major targets in Syria. Attacks were conducted by manned fighter jets and unmanned cruise missiles.

The general said this was only the beginning of a larger campaign. He insisted that no ground troop deployments were underway. The attacks were labeled successful, but very few details were provided pending further analysis.

In terms of the coalition, the preponderance of munitions came from U.S. warplanes and naval vessels. Nevertheless, Arab jets delivered some bombs in the attack. Some analysts are surprised that the coalition came together so rapidly and that Sunni Arab nations dropped bombs in Syria.