- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I do not have a problem helping out the Kurds with airstrikes. The Kurds have been loyal to us and unlike Maliki’s troops, they are willing to fight to protect what is theirs. In fact with the help from some of our airstrikes, the Kurds have been able to recapture some villages and towns that ISIS originally took from them. I am half a mind just to let Iran, Syria and Russia decide Maliki’s fate. As an old military man, I am leery about getting involved protecting a country whose own forces refuse to fight. That is a recipe for disaster.
Interestingly, I agree with some of the things Obama is currently doing, though I'm still unsure if they actually have a strategy or if they're making it up as they go along. The idea of containment of ISIS, limited arms to resistance fighters and the use of US air power as steps to containing and degradation of ISIS forces is fine but I'm unsure of the end game. In my view, letting these people shoot each other for the next 20 years and containing them to Syria and Iraq sounds great, ultimately though, no one believes it will work out that way. Now Maliki is hinting at a possible coup to keep him in power while this goes on. :roll:
As long as it stays over there and doesn't bleed into the US in the form of terrorist attacks, I'm relatively blase about it. Let's hope Obama however re-tools the Afghanistan model and doesn't make the same exact mistake as he did in Iraq with the draw down.