Obama addressed the Syria/Paris situation today (
link). What he said with respect to not sending in ground troops makes sense, but he also leaves out pertinent background information and twists the facts a little bit. But everyone else does the same thing.
Summarizing with my commentary:
1. Sending in ground troops would be a mistake. We could easily take back key cities occupied by ISIS, but because the local populations aren't amenable to inclusive government, a permanent occupation would be required to maintain stability. This isn't feasible, especially because the same template of occupation would have to be repeated in other places. There simply isn't the manpower, willpower, etc. to permanently occupy trouble spots wherever terrorists pop up.
I agree with this. Iraq would probably be much more stable had we maintained a large military presence, but the strain on military personnel would be great. Also, a military occupation in Iraq would have no bearing on the terrorist haven in what is now Libya. We would have to occupy that country as well. How feasible is that?
2. Obama said we would continue to squeeze ISIS by doing what we are already doing; cutting off financing, taking out strategic targets, and trying to convince Russia that ISIS presents a danger to them as well.
This is total propaganda and twisting of the facts. First of all, the United States continues to provide weapons and training to the Gulf State allies which spawn the Wahabbi ideology that fuels ISIS. Secondly, Russia and Putin don't have to be convinced that ISIS presents a danger to them. They fought a war in Chechnya against this ideology and keeping them at bay is a constant effort. Russia's first priority is to support the Syrian government (Assad) and that means securing the Eastern part of Syria first. It just happens that the "moderate Jihadis" that the US has been supporting constitute the biggest immediate threat and that's were most of the Russian firepower is aimed. The US refuses to cooperate with Russia unless Russia agrees to force out Assad. That ain't gonna happen.
What Obama (or anyone else) didn't say:
Why is it so important for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, etc. to overthrown Assad? Assad runs a secular government and does not pose a military threat to any of the Gulf countries. There are at least two reasons for this.
1. Syria facilitates the relationship between Iran (Shiite) and Lebanon's Hezbollah (Shiite). The Gulf States are basically fighting a proxy war against Iran for geopolitical purposes.
2. For economic reasons, regime change in Syria would make possible gas transport via pipeline from the Middle East Gulf States into Turkey and thus Europe. This means hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of the Gulf States (and away from Russia) if a regime change favorable to the Gulf States (a Suni regime) takes power.
Why is the US so interested in ousting Assad?
Obviously the human rights excuse is ********. Our Gulf States allies are just as bad and probably much worse than Assad with respect to human rights. But for geopolitical reasons, regime change makes sense for the US. With Assad remaining in control of Syria, both the Iranian and Russian influence in that part of the world remain stable and probably even increase. Russia continues to be the primary energy provider to Europe and the Gulf States are shut out of that market with respect to gas.
So the US allows and supports the war to overthrow Assad even realizing that ISIS and other jihadist groups are the instruments used to achieve that goal. As a result, global terrorism gains a stronger foothold and is a growing threat to wreak havoc across Europe and perhaps even in North America down the road. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. If ISIS and Islamic terrorism is the greater enemy, the US needs to cutoff support to our farcical allies in the Gulf States. If Russian/Iranian influence in the energy rich Middle East threaten either or security or long-term economic viability, I think we have to come up with another strategy to deal with that other than turning lose Wahabbism on the Shia's or the Russians. But none of this is discussed on television. Its all ignored. Terrorism is basically a symptom of the greater problem which is who will control a key region of the planet.
