The US general commanding the coalition fight against ISIS expects the fight for its de-facto capital to have hit the city center by this summer, and in an exclusive interview with CNN, he held out the possibility that more US troops may be needed for that tougher fight.
|Scooped by Kenneth Weene|
Kenneth Weene's insight:
Do we really want to send more troops to the Middle East? Is this really good for America or the world? Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, both Iran and Russia are now making nice with the Taliban. Somehow, that doesn't bode well for America either. And all this because we couldn't keep out of other countries, not Afghanistan starting with Carter and then going big time during Reagan's administration, or Iraq, especially under the second Bush. (And, let's not forget Libya under Obama) Intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is not a good way to go. In the end it drains a nation's coffers and manpower and leaves enmity behind. Military action should be the last option after all else has failed. When military actions is absolutely necessary, it should be done with others, have limited goals, and above all have a clear end game. Our attempts to destabilize Assad have obviously done more harm than good in Syria. Now, when we may actually have to go in and defeat ISIS, we lack good working relationships with Assad, Russia, and Iran and limited relationship with Turkey. The Kurds are our only good ally in that fight, and they have their own very clear set of goals that will in the end put us into conflict with Turkey. Great work, Washington. Oh, when was the last time the military didn't think they could win something if given just more men and equipment? (Where is the sarcasm font when I need it?)