Instead of building up another guerrilla army to fight another guerrilla army the U.S. administration could contemplate working with existing Middle East governments to draw-down conflict and try to embargo weapons and training to insurrection groups in the region. Kurds as a kind of regional government of Iraq might be strengthened and their oil field assets held by ISIS retaken. Perhaps the Sunni of Syria might be encourage to have a portion of Syria independently and remain affiliated with Syria while the U.S. Government encourages the Assad Government to remain in control of Damascus and traditionally Alawi-Shi'a-Christian areas.
The U.S. administration has often mentioned the Assad government 'killing its own people' as a justification for its removal. Yet it is difficult to view the Middle East through an American filter of Union (albeit in a developing age of fracture) and non-sectarianism realistically. In a sense the Muslims and Muslim Brotherhood of Syria are not Assad's people at all. The allies after the First World War created Syria and Iraq through disparate and even antagonistic groups together within new national boundaries. France, the original colonial supervisor has agreed to help bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq while Britain has demurred (Iraq was it's colonial nephew). With the vicissitudes of history it can take a long time to sort out.
We ought not to exacerbate the conflict with insensitive interventions even if driven by fear of ISIS attack upon homes of the rich or Wall Street in the U.S.A. At least ISIS hasn't taken out an ad campaign to enlist mufsidoonists offering recruits an opportunity to kill the broadcast media.
U.S. policy has intensified the spiral of revolutionary and fundamental terrorist violence in the Middle East with its fractured logic and partial historical competence. These are matters that intelligent planners might deal with more effectively. It is also plain that the U.S.A. is playing a kind of Russian roulette with its unsecure Mexican border. There should be just a quarter million immigrants to the U.S.A. annually from all sources. Fifty thousand should be given residence for intellectual excellence and the remainder for being poor.
American interventions in the region do not historically exhibit a substantial awareness of the reality of how social groups align along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than as national citizens allegiant to abstract constitutional principles.
It seems to me that it is a bad policy to increase the number of weapons and weapons training of the Muslim world if one expects to work toward anything besides continuing civil strife egressing toward fundamentalism, terrorism and populism through sectarian lines producing dictators.
The U.S. administration has often mentioned the Assad government 'killing its own people' as a justification for its removal. Yet it is difficult to view the Middle East through an American filter of Union (albeit in a developing age of fracture) and non-sectarianism realistically. In a sense the Muslims and Muslim Brotherhood of Syria are not Assad's people at all. The allies after the First World War created Syria and Iraq through disparate and even antagonistic groups together within new national boundaries. France, the original colonial supervisor has agreed to help bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq while Britain has demurred (Iraq was it's colonial nephew). With the vicissitudes of history it can take a long time to sort out.
We ought not to exacerbate the conflict with insensitive interventions even if driven by fear of ISIS attack upon homes of the rich or Wall Street in the U.S.A. At least ISIS hasn't taken out an ad campaign to enlist mufsidoonists offering recruits an opportunity to kill the broadcast media.
U.S. policy has intensified the spiral of revolutionary and fundamental terrorist violence in the Middle East with its fractured logic and partial historical competence. These are matters that intelligent planners might deal with more effectively. It is also plain that the U.S.A. is playing a kind of Russian roulette with its unsecure Mexican border. There should be just a quarter million immigrants to the U.S.A. annually from all sources. Fifty thousand should be given residence for intellectual excellence and the remainder for being poor.
American interventions in the region do not historically exhibit a substantial awareness of the reality of how social groups align along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than as national citizens allegiant to abstract constitutional principles.
It seems to me that it is a bad policy to increase the number of weapons and weapons training of the Muslim world if one expects to work toward anything besides continuing civil strife egressing toward fundamentalism, terrorism and populism through sectarian lines producing dictators.