What Will Victory Against ISIS Look Like?

**Brian4Liberty** · 09-19-2014, 11:03 AM

What Will Victory Against ISIS Look Like?
By Patrick J. Buchanan • September 19, 2014

“Congress must now vote to support the first steps of what will be a long march toward victory,” said Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Following this clarion call, 71 House Republicans bolted to join 85 Democrats in voting no to U.S. funds to train and arm Syrian rebels.

Why the hesitation? Because our strategy in Syria is to rely on a Free Syrian Army that has been the least effective force in that civil war, and untrustworthy to boot. Units of the FSA have handed their U.S. weapons over to ISIS. Yet these “feckless” rebels, says Sen. Bob Corker, constitute “our entire ground game.”

John McCain raises a second issue. The FSA came into being to overthrow Bashar Assad. Now they are to be retrained to fight ISIS. How effective will the FSA be when told to change sides and become de facto allies of the dictator against whom they took up arms?

Projections are that it will take a year before we can set up and run camps in Saudi Arabia, vet volunteers, train, equip, and arm rebels, and send 5,000 fighters into battle in Syria. The United States will then be ensuring that a three-year civil war that has caused millions of refugees and cost 190,000 lives—soldiers, rebels, jihadists, and civilians alike—will go on indefinitely.
...
Brushing aside these concerns is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial, “The Syria Campaign,” describes how the FSA can emerge victorious.

“American bombs aren’t yet falling on Syria, but on Tuesday Chuck Hagel suggested they soon will. … Let’s hope so.” the editorial began. Here is how the Journal‘s “military strategy” would unfold: ”A devastating air campaign against the Islamic State might at least weaken the group sufficiently to embolden a revolt and send new recruits to the FSA.
...
Does the Journal have in mind another unconstitutional war?

So it would seem. For the Journal not only wants bombs falling on ISIS, but on Assad as well. ”Defeating the Islamic State will also require attacks on the Assad regime. Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.”

The Journal wants Obama to bomb Raqqa, ISIS, the Assad regime, and its army and air force, to give the FSA a “psychological boost.” Questions arise: Does the Journal believe Barack Obama needs Congressional authorization before going to war against Syria, which has neither attacked nor threatened us, but instead has expressed a willingness to work with us to destroy ISIS?
...
And if our bombing campaign against Assad breaks him, who comes to power in Damascus, if not ISIS, al-Nusra or the Islamic Front? What then becomes of the Christian and Shia minorities?
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ike-this-time/

**Deborah K** · 09-19-2014, 11:15 AM

There will be no victory. You can't win a war against an idea.

**Brian4Liberty** · 09-19-2014, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Deborah K

There will be no victory. You can't win a war against an idea.

True.

But behind all of the propaganda, they really just want to see Assad get the Gaddafi treatment. That's doable.

**ZENemy** · 09-19-2014, 11:22 AM

You'll know "ISIS" is defeated when the new enemy is created.

**Deborah K** · 09-19-2014, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

True.

But behind all of the propaganda, they really just want to see Assad get the Gaddafi treatment. That's doable.

And that's because the MIC needs an enemy to profit. But that's beside the point.

**Brian4Liberty** · 09-19-2014, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Deborah K

And that's because the MIC needs an enemy to profit. But that's beside the point.

Yep. Multiple agendas converge. Follow the money. And speaking of money, don't forget the new Syrian Central Bank that will be created the day Assad falls.

**JK/SEA** · 09-19-2014, 12:15 PM

A victory?...you would have to disintegrate the entire region, including most of Europe with Nuclear weapons....that 'might' do it....are you prepared to support that, or just chip away at it forever?....

**luctor-et-emergo** · 09-19-2014, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Deborah K

There will be no victory. You can't win a war against an idea.

ISIS is not really an idea. It's a state-like actor that occupies geographical territory. Their strength comes from their organization, not their ideas.

In my opinion the biggest problem in this all is Turkey. Rand was right to ask Hillary about weapon transfers between Libya and Turkey. Turkey has AIDED and ABETTED ISIS fighters. They have allowed them to cross their borders, they have allowed people to fly in to reinforce them. Turkey has given medical assistance to fighters, they have turned a blind eye to smuggling of all kinds. Turkey has refused to call ISIS a terrorist organization. Reason ? Turkey hates the Kurds, helping ISIS commit genocide on the Kurds is quite convenient for Turkey, when ISIS then turns on Turkey, they'll be whining for their NATO buddies to fix their problem. At least that's how I see this.

**thoughtomator** · 09-19-2014, 01:10 PM

Victory looks like rising poll numbers as the rubes all buy into security at the cost of liberty.

**Deborah K** · 09-19-2014, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo

ISIS is not really an idea. It's a state-like actor that occupies geographical territory. Their strength comes from their organization, not their ideas.

The so-called 'war on terror' isn't a war on a particular country, like most wars in the past have been. It's a war on an idea. It's basically the idea of terrorizing people out of revenge, or to force them to accept a certain way of thinking, believing, and living. As ISIS has proven, as well as Al Qaeda, this "war" doesn't involve any particular country where the war can waged. It's everywhere. How do you fight and win a war like that? You can't, and you don't.

In my opinion the biggest problem in this all is Turkey. Rand was right to ask Hillary about weapon transfers between Libya and Turkey. Turkey has AIDED and ABETTED ISIS fighters. They have allowed them to cross their borders, they have allowed people to fly in to reinforce them. Turkey has given medical assistance to fighters, they have turned a blind eye to smuggling of all kinds. Turkey has refused to call ISIS a terrorist organization. Reason ? Turkey hates the Kurds, helping ISIS commit genocide on the Kurds is quite convenient for Turkey, when ISIS then turns on Turkey, they'll be whining for their NATO buddies to fix their problem. At least that's how I see this.

And you are probably right. But again, Turkey is aiding and abetting terrorism, and terrorism is an idea, imo.

Edit: and guess who created these terrorists?

**Dr.3D** · 09-19-2014, 01:18 PM

It's much like fighting crime. You can't win, but you can control it to some extent.

**Deborah K** · 09-19-2014, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dr.3D

It's much like fighting crime. You can't win, but you can control it to some extent.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming we should roll over. But I hold no hope that there is ever going to be a way to win the 'war on terror' any more than there will be a way to win the 'war on drugs'. The MIC and its cohorts (Banks, etc.) have a stronghold now. And until there is an awakening, this will be never ending.

I mean think about it, we've been fighting terrorism for how many years now? The only thing that's been accomplished is more of our freedoms have been lost, our economy ruined, and that creates the perfect set-up to collapse us into global governance. Global governance will be their answer to all of this - not right away - but eventually.....when the masses have had enough.