If they are found to have a plan and the means they are arrested.
That is what is happening here.
The US should not wait for the attack that this group said is coming. The US needs to stop it before it happens.
Sure it does DS.....if he is afraid to acknowledge what is a fact. Finds it detestable and so horrible. He starts from a Defaulted pre-judged position.
You are correct that Bush put a coalition together in matter of days. It is clear BO cannot even do so with a little over a month. Note what most of the left says about the SOFA......that would be the left here at DP. As several others know the real truth to that issue.
Yes that cooperative government in Yemen put boots on the ground while we drone and Airstrike AQ. We are now over a decade on the Invisible war. Which has worsened under BO's terms in Office. Work in progress where BO rarely makes that effort to Engage the Yemen Leadership.....himself.
BO should have been working the phones this whole year keeping our allies from feeling the unease or from feeling the US cannot be trusted.
But then all have said the Issue would be Syria. Thinking the Rebels can be those troops on the ground is ludicrous. The start of a 3 pronged attack.....is what was reported. Yet they know just going into Syria will not end ISIL in 3 years.
"The U.S. and the West have avoided the Syrian conflict for two years, essentially permitting the conditions that spawned ISIS," said Clint Watts, counterterrorism expert at the Foreign Policy Institute. The Obama administration's nominal partner on the ground in Syria is the Free Syrian Army, which Obama has repeatedly disregarded as "an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth."
The rub is that Obama decided in 2013 that the U.S. wouldn't “get in the middle of somebody else's civil war," and the White House only allowed the CIA to "provide enough support to help ensure that politically moderate, U.S.-supported militias don’t lose but not enough for them to win." "The leadership of the FSA is American," a veteran FSA officer who defected from the Syrian army two years ago and won respect for leading rebel forces in southern Syria told McClatchy recently. "The Americans are completely marginalizing the military staff." To defeat ISIS, the U.S. commander in chief will have to eventually confront the Assad regime — a move that would strain tensions with an increasingly assertive Iran.....snip~
On the point about building a coalition, Reuters reported:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Arab leaders on Thursday to back President Barack Obama's new military drive against Islamic State, calling for tighter curbs on funding for militants and fewer extremist messages in Arab media.
Meeting Arab leaders in the Saudi city of Jeddah a day after Obama announced his plans to strike fighters in Iraq and Syria, Kerry also sought permission to make more use of bases in the region and fly more warplanes overhead.
Kerry presses Arabs to back campaign against Islamic State | Reuters
IMO, these are things the President should have done before he finalized a strategy and before he gave his speech. In effect, he's asking the Arab leaders to accept a strategy in which they had little input and may not necessarily address their critical interests. Basic approach: Establish goals (with input), align support, then announce. What happened is that the President set a strategy before he aligned support, and then announced the strategy proclaiming a broad coalition which, in fact, does not yet exist.
Finally, Russia has now weighed in. The same Reuters piece reported:
The prospect of U.S. armed action in Syria also drew concern from Russia, which has backed Assad. In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry said air strikes in Syria would require a U.N. Security Council mandate or be considered an act of aggression, Interfax news agency reported.
Given the precedent in Libya and announced increase in arms to sectarian groups in Syria, concern by Russia among other pro-Assad countries that there is a "backdoor regime change" component is not unreasonable, especially as no controls or mechanisms to preclude that outcome were mentioned. Considering that Arab support was not lined up in advance of the speech, my guess is that the U.S. never considered the possibility that Russia, Iran, and other Assad backers might have concerns and might also take measures of their own.
There are two completely contrary and opposite dynamics at work here;
1- the situation in the Middle East is deteriorating and there is a serious lack of any Islamic stabilizing force to turn this around in any short order.
2- the American people have little if any desire to become the worlds policeman and get involved in another major war - especially in the Middle East where lots of Americans see it as a cesspool anyways with only potential disaster no matter what the goal or plan.
So the President of the USA - and that is irregardless if it is Obama or somebody else in the near future - has to resolve these two contrary forces and no matter how he or she does it - it has a good chance of turning into the same thing that steak does in 24 hours after ingestion.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
When it comes to fighting terrorists Obama has put his money where his mouth is. I didn't watch the whole speech; just enough to understand what he's going to do with ISIS and I support that.
You can dance without a lawyer
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)