|Posted on September 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM|
Posted on September 10, 2014 at 9:25 PM
As the U.S. government forms and activates a unifies attack on ISIL, the plan is easier in Iraq because we are in concert with the Kurds and the still weak and non inclusive Iraqi government.
In Iraq the new Shiite controlled government still has not included Sunni members, so some in ISIL will continue to posoiit that the government remains an adversary since most ISIL fighters are Sunni, rebelling for inclusion. Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq, but are the majority (65% plus in Syria, which could mean there are thousands of young Sunni males who demand inclusion in Syria's government, thus, providing potential recruits into ISIL.
The conundrum for the U.S. is that without the existing government's approval allowing attacks on their homeland, the U.S. could be charged with invading a sovereign state.
Actually, attacking ISIL in Syria would be far more successful with government assistance and cooperation on the ground instead of arming the small "Moderate" Opposition?
What are the real reasons Obama and the Congress want Assad out? Is it because we've deemed him a dictator? (consider Russia, China, Cuba, N .Korea, Venezuela and several more: Are we not attacking them.
It just doesn't make sense. Is Syria's government a threat to the U.S. and the American people? There is no evidence Syria has ever been a threat to the U.S., but ISIL is considered an existential threat to the entire Middle East. So, should not the U.S. work with the existing Syrian government if that is by far the most efficient means to defeat ISIL? Our best long term interests would be, many believe, is to ally with Assad to defeat ISIL in exchange for Assad to include Sunnis in his government.
Assad, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq governs a secular state where all minorities, women are free as equals.
We destroyed Iraq for false reasons and now we appear ready to do the same in Syria.
Alexander A Simon Jr
Categories: My Syria