It Depends on What the Meaning of “Is” Is

isJust like Bill Clinton, what is obvious to everyone else, seems to baffle Obama.
ISIS is the latest, greatest bully of Islam. So much a bully that as hard as Obama has tried to marginalize them, they keep bouncing back. Even I cringe now to hear him calling them “the JV squad” just weeks ago.
After his nearly incoherent speech on how he intends to deal with ISIS, in which he told us that they are not Islamic, our economy is robust and we’ll be pulling out of Afghanistan this year (so, cue the Taliban), I thought it would be helpful to have a roster of the players in this game. 
The Syrian Government
Bashar al Assad is a dictator more interested in retaining power than ushering in the next Caliphate. It took many years to beat his people into submission into a more or less secular government that has mellowed into a “cruel”, but not “brutal” dictatorship. A semantic difference? Perhaps. But Islamic  rule has NEVER been known to mellow into anything shy of brutal.
The Syrian Rebels
The rebels want to install yet another Islamic state in the middle east under Sharia Law, enslaving it’s people and killing it’s soul as they do everywhere they go. To the uninformed people of Syria they probably look like like saviors delivering them from Assad, much like Obama was viewed by 51% of Americans in 2008, not being smart enough to know what they would get for their devotion.
ISIS / ISIL / The Islamic State. 
ISIS is interested in the same outcome that the Rebels are fighting for, but are also willing to kill any rebels getting in their way. Contrary to prevailing wisdom, ISIS is no more brutal than any other Islamists, it’s just that they have better “optics”, “presence” and “branding”. Any marketing guy will confirm this. PLUS, they have very publically killed some of the elite; the media. Our media doesn’t care that they do this to innocent Muslim women and children day in and day out, but now that they are targeting THEM, they are brutal animals!
Americans
God bless us, we can tolerate nearly ANYTHING but a king or a dictator. It’s just the way we are put together, so Bashar al-Assad sounds like the devil incarnate to us. So, when Obama wants to help rebels overthrow him, it sounds like 1776 to us. We’re ready to help the people of Syria to throw off the chains. Except they will be putting on the straight jacket under Islamic rule.
Now, in my opinion (and it’s hard to deny), Obama supports the establishment of Islamic states. He’s helped to establish many since his election; primarily, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. He’s currently working on others militarily; Syria, Sudan, Yemen to mention just 3. 
So, now Obama must respond to ISIS because they have challenged the US in a very public way and the people are demanding action. There is actually no downside for Obama in this crisis, however. He will arm the Syrian rebels who, in turn will funnel those arms to ISIS in the same way they sold Stephen Sotloff to them so they could behead him on video. 
It is his hope that between the two groups they will overthrow Assad and install yet another Islamic state in the middle east. For me, the wild card that people are not counting on is Assad.
Assad is the only person who can deny ISIS a safe haven in Syria, and Assad is a master at manipulating sectarian conflict in order to weaken his enemies so they spend their time and treasure killing each other instead of him. He has already shown he will not easily back down.
It’s my opinion that Obama has over-thought this strategy and it could backfire badly for him with Syria back under the solid control of Assad and Obama with ground troops (or 20,000 advisors) right back in Iraq just months before elections in the US. That could be a Democrat nightmare scenario.
One can only hope. 

Comments are closed.