Devising a
Plan B:
With ISIS’s de-facto capital of Raqqa the target of international strikes, the terrorist organization is making
backup plans in the Libyan city of Sirte should its Syrian hub fall.
While ISIS (also known as the Islamic State) has other affiliates throughout Africa and the Middle East that have pledged their allegiance to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group's branch in Sirte is the only one that ISIS central leadership directly controls.
The Wall Street Journal
reports that ISIS leaders in Libya have reportedly adopted a slogan that reflects Sirte's heightened profile within the jihadist organization: "Sirte will be no less than Raqqa." […]
ISIS's influence in Sirte has been growing over the past year, as it has evolved into what The Times describes as an "actively managed colony" of the central group.
The growth has been swift — the Libya affiliate has gone from 200 fighters to about 5,000 since ISIS announced its branch there, The Journal reports. (The Times reports that Western put that estimate at 2,000 fighters.)
The lack of a functioning government in Libya and its oil rich resources make it fertile ground for the terrorist group.
A Jayvee team with some hustle right there.
It remains to be seen whether your hawkish attitude will win-out this ucomig presidential year. I know you want to return to the days of Rummie/Cheney so we'll see how that works for you.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read from CATO here though:
is unfortunate that the bloody terrorist attacks in Paris have led to proposals that generate far more heat than light. The usual flock of hawks calls for massive bombing campaigns against ISIS-held areas in Syria and Iraq while lobbying for the United States to send combat units, not just training and special ops personnel, into both theaters. Yet most of those same individuals also seek to oust Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from power, exclude Russia from the region and roll back Iran’s growing influence. Their preferred strategy is an incoherent mess—and any reasonable debate about a response to ISIS must take into account some inconvenient truths.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/5-inconvenient-truths-war-isis?utm_content=bufferce884&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
'Huge Error': Former US Military Chief Admits Iraq Invasion Spawned ISIS
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. is poised to repeat all the same mistakes in Syria that it made in Iraq after 9/11, says former head of Defense Intelligence Agency:
Echoing long-held arguments made by other experts, Flynn said Sunday that increased airstrikes and other offensives could be seen as an attempt to "invade or even own Syria," and that the fight against militant groups like ISIS will only succeed or make progress through collaborative efforts with both Western and Arab nations. "Our message must be that we want to help and that we will leave once the problems have been solved. The Arab nations must be on our side."
Otherwise, the U.S. is poised to repeat all its past mistakes, he said.
Read more at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/30/huge-error-former-us-military-chief-admits-iraq-invasion-spawned-isis
We were too dumb. We didn't understand who we had there at that moment.
ReplyDelete[....] First we went to Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was based. Then we went into Iraq. Instead of asking ourselves why the phenomenon of terror occurred, we were looking for locations. This is a major lesson we must learn in order not to make the same mistakes again.
Asked whether he regretted the Iraq War, Flynn responded simply, "Yes, absolutely."
"It was a huge error," Flynn said. "As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
Ibid
CATO is of course a libertarian think tank, spot on on matters of economic liberty but generally with its head up its ass on matters of national security.
ReplyDeleteSaw that about Flynn. It followed his remark that ground troops are going to be required to defeat ISIS.
Look, one can make, as Michael Ledeen does, the argument that the West should have gone after (with force) Iran first rather than the Saddam regime in Iraq, but intelligence agencies all over the world believed Saddam's WMD program was an imminent threat. Several leading Freedom-Haters, including Madeleine Albright, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, are on record as far back as 1998 as saying that forcibly removing Saddam might be necessary.
Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. The task before us now is to defeat ISIS. And fast. In today's podcast, which I am about to record, I quote extensively from a NPR report on how extensive ISIS's presence is in post-America.
Also read what I am about to post here re: Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Dunford testifying to House Armed Services Committee that the West has not contained ISIS.
Actually, Ledeen said at the time, circa 2001 - 2003, that force would not be necessary. We could have fostered a level of internal unrest in Iran that would have deposed the mullahs. Alas, the MEC squandered the last great opportunity to do that in 2009.
ReplyDeleteYou must be kidding about fostering unrest in Iran. I hope you are,That's been tried more than a few times. Did we not try that with our ally Sadam once? Then there was our Shaw. Then there was the queen of the desert. Or maybe Alexander, or Trajan, maybe the Crusaders...................!
ReplyDeleteWho's going to pay for these lives quarter million from ours, there's and other sides? Going access of evil once, twice, three times ( or more) a fool.
Just leave them to their own devices and if the move aggressively, then attack (very aggressively) as they over extend, it has always worked before.