Monday, August 25, 2014

Whose Side Are We On?

The United States is preparing military options to pressure the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. military said on Monday, but officials cautioned that no decision had been made to expand U.S. action beyond the limited air strikes under way in Iraq. ... General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that the Islamic State would need to eventually be addressed on "both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border" between Syria and Iraq.

Dempsey's spokesman confirmed on Monday that options against Islamic State were under review and stressed the need to form "a coalition of capable regional and European partners."

"With Central Command, (Dempsey) is preparing options to address ISIS both in Iraq and Syria with a variety of military tools including airstrikes," Colonel Ed Thomas said.
I am asking a serious question.

We don't like ISIS because they're a bunch of murderous goons. I get that part. But in Syria, ISIS is fighting the Syrian government, whom we also don't like. Only last year, American Chickenhawks were advocating giving weapons to the Syrian rebels, including ISIS.

I also understand that part of the reason why ISIS is such a bother is because Prime Minister al-Maliki in Iraq effectively neutered the national army by purging officers not associated with his faction and promoting loyal Bushies officers based on loyalty, not on competence.

But if we bomb ISIS in Syria, aren't we inadvertently helping the Syrian government And aren't we also then violating Syrian's sovereignty? And if we're helping the Syrian government by bombing ISIS, do we then have to give weapons to the other Syrian rebels in order to cancel out the advantage we gave to the Syrian government by bombing their other enemies?

And why are we not talking about directly arming the Kurdish Peshmerga, which seems to be more capable than the Iraqi army?

Whose side will we be really on?

5 comments:

  1. That's easy, we are on the side of the oil companies and weapon manufacturers. What ever brings the most profit is where our interests lay.
    If we really wanted to fight IS we would need to dry up their income.
    The Saudis and Qatar don't like being called out.
    So, any "war" (tm) is just theater so to speak.
    'Remember the plutocracy'. Our new battle cry.
    w3ski

    ReplyDelete
  2. All we have to do is follow a very simple principle:

    The enemy of my enemy is the friend of...

    Well, no. But

    "The friend of my friend is the enemy of my friend's..."

    Umm. Well, maybe it should go like this:

    The friend of my enemy is the enemy of my..."

    Oh, bother!

    Yours very crankily,
    The New York Crank

    ReplyDelete
  3. One thing is for sure. Whichever side is the worst choice, that's the side that Obama will pick. His "Reverse Midas Touch" is 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think we can be said to be against almost all of them. Hence we should be bombing both sides in Syria. I doubt it will give us much to regret if we do.

    ReplyDelete

House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.

In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.

All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.

(Please don't feed the trolls.)

中國詞不評論,冒抹除的風險。僅英語。

COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.