Quote from: noviapriani on September 30, 2014, 12:12:04 PM

One more comment......And then there is this which doesn't just give lie to "won the red line fight" but also discusses the elephant in the room which is Iran, who is also busy moving forward on nukes, thankful we removed the sanctions that were actually having an impact:

Assad Reported to Have Used Chemical Weapons Again
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-does-iranian-axis-get-pass_806123.html

You and I are largely in agreement on this issue except for the conclusion.

I mentioned Thomas Friedman, who is I think something of a regional expert on this. Here is his article:

LONDON An existential struggle is taking place in the Arab world today. But is it ours or is it theirs? Before we step up military action in Iraq and Syria, thats the question that needs answering.

What concerns me most about President Obamas decision to re-engage in Iraq is that it feels as if its being done in response to some deliberately exaggerated fears fear engendered by YouTube videos of the beheadings of two U.S. journalists and fear that ISIS, a.k.a., the Islamic State, is coming to a mall near you. How did we start getting so afraid again so fast? Didnt we build a Department of Homeland Security?

I am not dismissing ISIS. Obama is right that ISIS needs to be degraded and destroyed. But when you act out of fear, you dont think strategically and you glide over essential questions, like why is it that Shiite Iran, which helped trigger this whole Sunni rebellion in Iraq, is scoffing at even coordinating with us, and Turkey and some Arab states are setting limits on their involvement?

When I read that, I think that Nader Mousavizadeh, who co-leads the global consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners, is correct when he says: When it comes to intervening in the Arab worlds existential struggle, we have to stop and ask ourselves why we have such a challenge getting them to help us save them.

So before we get in any deeper, lets ask some radical questions, starting with: What if we did nothing? George Friedman (no relation), the chairman of Stratfor, raised this idea in his recent essay on Stratfor.com, The Virtue of Subtlety. He notes that the ISIS uprising was the inevitable Sunni backlash to being brutally stripped of power and resources by the pro-Iranian Shiite governments and militias in Baghdad and Syria. But then he asks:

Is ISIS really a problem for the United States? The American interest is not stability but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralyzed so that no one who would threaten the United States emerges. ... But the principle of balance of power does not mean that balance must be maintained directly. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia have far more at stake in this than the United States. So long as they believe that the United States will attempt to control the situation, it is perfectly rational for them to back off and watch, or act in the margins, or even hinder the Americans. The United States must turn this from a balance of power between Syria and Iraq to a balance of power among this trio of regional powers. They have far more at stake and, absent the United States, they have no choice but to involve themselves. They cannot stand by and watch a chaos that could spread to them.