It's seems too soon to talk about the end of ISIS. So much needs to happen first. What comes after ISIS is an essential consideration with what to do about ISIS. It's true, NATO and a large coalition of armies could roll over ISIS in a week. Then what? Another withdrawal, another vacuum, another ISIS.
Some Libertarians will grind their teeth when they read the last sentence. The Free Market will punch every Islamist in the face and that will be the end of it? Let's not be like the White House. ISIS is not about class warfare. Neither Free Markets nor Social Programs will be the end of ISIS. The Islamic State is force. It is brutal, naked, horrific force. The Islamic State must be ended by force.
ISIS stated goal is to restore the Caliphate. It is a goal incompatible with any freedom loving people of any faith. There is no negotiating with them. No rational bargain can ever be struck. Their very existence is in a state of conflict with our own. We are to either be enslaved or killed. We are in a defacto state of war.
We are at a similar point now as we were at before World War 2. Nobody wanted another World War. Nobody wants another Afghanistan now. We have to go to war with ISIS but the peace has got to be different this time. Taliban groups in Afghanistan are already swearing allegiance to ISIS as are Chechen Rebels, Boko Haram, Libyan Rebels and others. All signs indicate we are at the precipice of a grand conflagration that should really be called World War 3.
After September 11th and the invasion of Afghanistan I became aware of what I've been calling the SS paradox. The paradox is that the SS would have had no problem with Islamists whatsoever. They would have politely (as told by witnesses in some camps) "euthanized" every last man woman and child in Afghanistan. ISIS would not have stood a chance against the SS. They would not even have dared to try. While we could beat the militarized SS divisions we have trouble with Islamists for fear of becoming the SS. Hence the paradox. With all our technology and might we are hobbled by evil immoral barbarians due to our own basic humanity.
How do we ensure the last of these Islamist rampages then?
It isn't about Islam specifically. We should seek to extinguish any culture or sub culture that advocates crimes against humanity as its fundamental tenets. We did it to the Nazis themselves after all. It just so happens that some aspect of Islam manages to generate murderous madness in far larger numbers than anything else even when compared to Satanism. It's astonishing that open worshipers of The Devil of Hell are relatively civilized when compared to Islamists.
So how do we achieve total victory? It has been done in history. Often it was done using methods the SS would approve of. The Romans literally dismantled the city of Carthage brick by brick, massacred thousands and sold the rest into slavery. All they purposely left of that entire civilization was an infant cemetery where Carthage would bury the victims of human sacrifices. It's something the Romans repeated everywhere and was copied by the Mongols and Islam and is being used by ISIS today.
Other methods include drowning out the indigenous population with immigrants as was done in the Americas, Israel, and currently in Tibet. While more humane than slaughter and slavery it just isn't an option in this case. Who in their right mind would move to the Middle East?
The only time an enemy was permanently pacified was after World War 2. The Marshal Plan was the opposite of the Treaty of Versailles. War torn Europe was to be rebuilt to avoid the anger and resentment that fueled Hitlers rise to power. Expansionist Soviets were also a problem that would exploit any anger left over from the War.
Japan's case is a little more analogous to our situation. Many Japanese had a fanatical Shintoist devotion to their Emperor. They would often fight to the death in hopeless circumstances and famously became aerial suicide bombers in their kamikaze raids. Even after the first and only Atomic bombs were dropped in anger many Japanese were said to be resigned to being completely wiped out before they would betray their Emperor. Luckily the Emperor wasn't ok with that and a treaty was signed.
I don't think the Caliph will mind terribly if whole cities we wiped out in nuclear fire. They were only recently acquired after all and he treats them so poorly already it might be considered a blessing. An ISIS blessing is a curse.
There are obvious reasons we can't do things the ISIS or SS way. We can't do things the Bush way or we wind up in the same place again. We can't even do things the World War 2 way since a Marshal Plan for the Middle East would be a complete waste. They have enough money already. You've seen the hotels and the skylines and palaces. Let them buy their own Marshal Plan, once we've cleaned up their mess for the last time.
After the fighting comes the real battle. The West's most destructive weapon is not the atomic bomb but progressivism.
You read that correctly. We must unleash massive Social Engineering on liberated territories and then spread to slightly friendlier Islamist places. It will take a generation or two but we will prevail. The Cold War took a couple of generations. It was enormously expensive and dangerous. We prevailed over the Soviets and their ideology. We shall pacify Islam.
Let's start with the good. Teaching of science (including evolution) will become compulsory in all schools. Scholarships should be provided to those who excel in sciences and demonstrate political correctness. Adults will be required remedial certification in sciences to hold government employment and that will be extended to most other employment as well. A CBC like entity that delivered news and entertainment with a pro western slant would also be useful. Capitalism and entrepreneurship should be encouraged so that we don't end up with PIGS in the third generation.
This alone will cause fundamentalists to become violent and justify their own extermination.
Now for the bad. Certain concepts will be banned. Jihad and other incitements to violence will be banned. Sexism, racism, homophobia and any kind of Xenophobia will be banned. The Koran and the Hadiths will not be banned but only a metaphorical interpretation will be aloud. The punishment for these violations should not be progressive as it will have no effect at all. What good is a law that isn't enforced?
Since Islam has no central leader perhaps we could take the opportunity to organize it for them. New national or ethnic based Mosques would be run by the government with approved clerics giving approved sermons. Jordan already takes this tack and its a good idea.
You've probably guessed the ugly. Many people will die. Most of them will be fundamentalists but of course a few will be completely unjustly wronged. That is progressivism.
Would nuclear fire be more humane? It might be a lot less hassle. Militaries just aren't set up for this kind of work. We would need a professional occupation force. This is all highly disturbing to any civilized person. We aren't going to surrender to the Islamists and left alone conflict with Islamists seems inevitable. Can we enclose and contain them? Should we enclose them if we are able to wipe them out and stop the genocides? Would genocidal madmen eventually get their hands on a nuclear weapon even while forcefully enclosed? How much moral agonizing would ISIS endure about using a nuclear weapon? How much restraint would they exhibit? All these questions point to an existential conflict with Islamism that is better off handled sooner than later.
I started this article with the hope of finding a solution. Even the best solution is repellant to me. We are going to have to lower ourselves to meet the Islamists and defeat them. I don't see Ghandi defeating people with no conscience. Can we at least concede that men without conscience are not men at all. Islamists are but beasts. Islamism is like an intolerable pest problem. We can blast them with a fire hose and be done. We can go in and try to save some and get really dirty and waste a lot time and be done a lot later.
Either way the containment option temporary. It is the only option while Obama is president. But like Obama it won't last.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Time to bring back the Airborne Regiment
Everyone is an arm chair general these days, and why not? The generals of World War 1 proved that military strategy can and should be up for debate outside of the opinion of "experts." Politicians and pundits opine weather our contribution against ISIS is too much, too little or just a token. Everyone is sure the war will be long and it will require boots on the ground to finally end it.
I don't approach these questions from the point of ignorance, but that hasn't stopped some of the most ridiculous suggestions from the weakest minds. The idea that hugs and care packages would cause ISIS to spontaneously erupt in civility is popular in some circles on the left. The mockery and laughter outside those circles is even more popular.
The way to hasten the end of ISIS and inflict maximum casualties on the worst of them is to open a Fire Base. A Fire Base or Fire Support Base is a small encampment deep in enemy territory. It was used in the early days of the war in Afghanistan to great effect. A strategically placed Fire Base could cut ISIS forces in two. It would enhance the allied advantage of overwhelming firepower and draw out ISIS forces.
Nothing short of a nuclear blast could destroy this proposed Fire Base. Nothing indicates that they have such a device but if they did one could argue that the loss of a little Fire Base is preferable to any other use of a nuclear weapon by ISIS. The Islamic Statists could really do no worse than ignore the irritating Fire Base. That would not be a hardship at all since they would still cede control of the immediate area instead of losing it. Special forces could also launch expeditions from an unopposed Fire Base. In either case the Fire Base would eventually be unopposed.
Ideally I would place a Fire Base on a hill overlooking a major ISIS stronghold. The hills south of Ar-Raqqah on the Euphrates River seem like a good candidate. From there the Fire Base could dominate highways and canals, engage in psychological warfare, launch short range drones, and direct unlimited fire on despicable ISIS heads.
Of course Canada is not operating inside Syria for the time being. This suits me just fine since under no circumstances would I trust Obama to lead a ground war of any kind in Iraq or elsewhere. The guy can't build a bloody website in 3 years with unlimited money, there is no way I'd trust him with our troops. This is part of the reason everyone thinks this war will last a very long time. The allies political problems start with Obama and continue in all directions.
We have some time then before we can expect to play a role in the actual defeat of ISIS rather than its containment. I believe that re-commissioning the Airborne Regiment for the specific purpose of operating a Fire Base is a great idea.
The original Airborne was unfairly disbanded by Jean Chretien amid the controversies of alleged torture in Somalia and some poorly timed hazing videos. Chretien used the videos as the last straw with the public to make a huge cut to the military.
Now we find ourselves in need of the exact skills the Airborne was created for. The Airborne Regiment would have been extremely useful in this conflict. We have the opportunity not only to justify the re-commissioning of the Airborne Regiment but to rebuild and repurpose it from the ground up.
Call it the 1st Canadian Mechanized Airborne Regiment. Fit it with light weight artillery and compact reconnaissance drones. Specialize in integrating with allied fire control and drop it all on a hill in the enemy's choke points.
Asymmetrical warfare is here for the foreseeable future. Evil armies like ISIS might only vanish into mist if an old fashioned invasion took place to e3radicate them. ISIS under a different flag in a different region but with the same people and the same evil ideology. A unit that was specifically designed, not to seize territory, but to kill the enemy wherever they are is called for.
That's my arm chair analysis. I'd urge the various experts, generals and ministers to at least consider the ideas. That expertise was acquired at great cost to taxpayers and yet isn't being put to use in a proactive way. What we are doing right now doesn't seem to be working. The rubble pile formerly known as Kobani, despite total air superiority and highly motivated local troops, is not the example I would hold up to be repeated in every town across the region.
I don't approach these questions from the point of ignorance, but that hasn't stopped some of the most ridiculous suggestions from the weakest minds. The idea that hugs and care packages would cause ISIS to spontaneously erupt in civility is popular in some circles on the left. The mockery and laughter outside those circles is even more popular.
The way to hasten the end of ISIS and inflict maximum casualties on the worst of them is to open a Fire Base. A Fire Base or Fire Support Base is a small encampment deep in enemy territory. It was used in the early days of the war in Afghanistan to great effect. A strategically placed Fire Base could cut ISIS forces in two. It would enhance the allied advantage of overwhelming firepower and draw out ISIS forces.
Nothing short of a nuclear blast could destroy this proposed Fire Base. Nothing indicates that they have such a device but if they did one could argue that the loss of a little Fire Base is preferable to any other use of a nuclear weapon by ISIS. The Islamic Statists could really do no worse than ignore the irritating Fire Base. That would not be a hardship at all since they would still cede control of the immediate area instead of losing it. Special forces could also launch expeditions from an unopposed Fire Base. In either case the Fire Base would eventually be unopposed.
Ideally I would place a Fire Base on a hill overlooking a major ISIS stronghold. The hills south of Ar-Raqqah on the Euphrates River seem like a good candidate. From there the Fire Base could dominate highways and canals, engage in psychological warfare, launch short range drones, and direct unlimited fire on despicable ISIS heads.
Of course Canada is not operating inside Syria for the time being. This suits me just fine since under no circumstances would I trust Obama to lead a ground war of any kind in Iraq or elsewhere. The guy can't build a bloody website in 3 years with unlimited money, there is no way I'd trust him with our troops. This is part of the reason everyone thinks this war will last a very long time. The allies political problems start with Obama and continue in all directions.
We have some time then before we can expect to play a role in the actual defeat of ISIS rather than its containment. I believe that re-commissioning the Airborne Regiment for the specific purpose of operating a Fire Base is a great idea.
The original Airborne was unfairly disbanded by Jean Chretien amid the controversies of alleged torture in Somalia and some poorly timed hazing videos. Chretien used the videos as the last straw with the public to make a huge cut to the military.
Now we find ourselves in need of the exact skills the Airborne was created for. The Airborne Regiment would have been extremely useful in this conflict. We have the opportunity not only to justify the re-commissioning of the Airborne Regiment but to rebuild and repurpose it from the ground up.
Call it the 1st Canadian Mechanized Airborne Regiment. Fit it with light weight artillery and compact reconnaissance drones. Specialize in integrating with allied fire control and drop it all on a hill in the enemy's choke points.
Asymmetrical warfare is here for the foreseeable future. Evil armies like ISIS might only vanish into mist if an old fashioned invasion took place to e3radicate them. ISIS under a different flag in a different region but with the same people and the same evil ideology. A unit that was specifically designed, not to seize territory, but to kill the enemy wherever they are is called for.
That's my arm chair analysis. I'd urge the various experts, generals and ministers to at least consider the ideas. That expertise was acquired at great cost to taxpayers and yet isn't being put to use in a proactive way. What we are doing right now doesn't seem to be working. The rubble pile formerly known as Kobani, despite total air superiority and highly motivated local troops, is not the example I would hold up to be repeated in every town across the region.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Uncertain Outcomes of the Looming War Part 3: The Long War
Part 3: The Long War
The United States is telling us that this will be a long war from the start. This isn't just managing expectations though its very wise to do so.
It takes time to get assets in place. Those assets like fighter jets from a multitude of countries we already know are not enough.
It takes time to get assets in place. Those assets like fighter jets from a multitude of countries we already know are not enough.
No one knows when the war will end but it will end with victory against ISIS and possibly Assad. It has started with bombing runs which are sure to intensify with time but analysts agree that bombs alone won't gain any territory.
We've had to watch the fall of Kobani in terrible slow motion. Air strikes seem to only harass the enemy. They don't accomplish the near term objective to contain ISIS. Meanwhile the 2nd most powerful force in NATO sits on the border and watches enemy advance to their doorstep. Turkey is enemy of ISIS and Assad but also to the defending Kurds. They recently started bombing kurds within Turkey's borders.
So much for the argument about pulling your weight in NATO. Some people are calling on Obama to be tough on Turkey. They suggest that if Turkey doesn't step up the United States should recognize a sovereign Kurdistan. Obama just hasn't got the stones for anything like that. Nor could he offer Turkey the annexation of Syria. So Turkey gets to sit back and watch their allied enemies fight each other.
Leon Panetta knows Obama really well. The former director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta knows ISIS pretty well too. He says that this war could last 30 years. I do not doubt it at all.
The strategy so far seems to be to try everything except the one strategy we know will work: A full scale invasion of Syria with infantry and armor that will push all the way to Baghdad. Obama is simply incapable of giving this order.
Obama and the members of his administration don't know what they are doing. That isn't just a random insult, though they well deserve every insult. It is an actual observable fact.
Take for instance the administration's comments on Global Warming lately. ISIS now controls a third of Kobani and the stated number one threat to US national Security is Global Warming? This is notwithstanding that other horseman in the form of Ebola now spreading through the United States. Ebola incidentally warrants sending "boots on the ground" to Africa in the eyes of the Obama Regime while ISIS doesn't even rate that much.
Leon Panetta has it exactly right. It will take 30 years or more to defeat ISIS if this kind of insanity persists in Washington. They don't live on the same planet as the rest of us. Imagine sitting down to a game of chess where the opponent can't see who's pieces are his own or the enemy's. He can't see which squares are black or white. He doesn't even seem to know how to win the game. That person is essentially Obama. Obama has zero chance of winning this war and therefore the allies also have the same chance. luckily we only have a couple years left of him.
It's wrong to say that the air campaign has no effect on ISIS. It does have an effect. Every ISIS member killed, is a sex slave unsold, is an atrocity uncommitted, is one less Omar Khadr clone for the left to mewl and fawn over. Though it comes at great cost to the taxpayer it is well worth it.
I hope to have Part 4 for you soon. I'm going to change the focus from uncertainty to options. I think the point about uncertainty has been driven home and there isn't much we can do about it. I'm sure whatever Obama tries it will end up with the usual mess. It's probably best not to even encourage an American led invasion on his watch. There are other options however.
We've had to watch the fall of Kobani in terrible slow motion. Air strikes seem to only harass the enemy. They don't accomplish the near term objective to contain ISIS. Meanwhile the 2nd most powerful force in NATO sits on the border and watches enemy advance to their doorstep. Turkey is enemy of ISIS and Assad but also to the defending Kurds. They recently started bombing kurds within Turkey's borders.
So much for the argument about pulling your weight in NATO. Some people are calling on Obama to be tough on Turkey. They suggest that if Turkey doesn't step up the United States should recognize a sovereign Kurdistan. Obama just hasn't got the stones for anything like that. Nor could he offer Turkey the annexation of Syria. So Turkey gets to sit back and watch their allied enemies fight each other.
Leon Panetta knows Obama really well. The former director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta knows ISIS pretty well too. He says that this war could last 30 years. I do not doubt it at all.
The strategy so far seems to be to try everything except the one strategy we know will work: A full scale invasion of Syria with infantry and armor that will push all the way to Baghdad. Obama is simply incapable of giving this order.
Obama and the members of his administration don't know what they are doing. That isn't just a random insult, though they well deserve every insult. It is an actual observable fact.
Take for instance the administration's comments on Global Warming lately. ISIS now controls a third of Kobani and the stated number one threat to US national Security is Global Warming? This is notwithstanding that other horseman in the form of Ebola now spreading through the United States. Ebola incidentally warrants sending "boots on the ground" to Africa in the eyes of the Obama Regime while ISIS doesn't even rate that much.
Leon Panetta has it exactly right. It will take 30 years or more to defeat ISIS if this kind of insanity persists in Washington. They don't live on the same planet as the rest of us. Imagine sitting down to a game of chess where the opponent can't see who's pieces are his own or the enemy's. He can't see which squares are black or white. He doesn't even seem to know how to win the game. That person is essentially Obama. Obama has zero chance of winning this war and therefore the allies also have the same chance. luckily we only have a couple years left of him.
It's wrong to say that the air campaign has no effect on ISIS. It does have an effect. Every ISIS member killed, is a sex slave unsold, is an atrocity uncommitted, is one less Omar Khadr clone for the left to mewl and fawn over. Though it comes at great cost to the taxpayer it is well worth it.
I hope to have Part 4 for you soon. I'm going to change the focus from uncertainty to options. I think the point about uncertainty has been driven home and there isn't much we can do about it. I'm sure whatever Obama tries it will end up with the usual mess. It's probably best not to even encourage an American led invasion on his watch. There are other options however.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Uncertain Outcomes of the Looming War Part 1: Our Allies
We are at war right now with the Islamic State. Canada is in fact currently engaged with boots on the ground as Canadian special forces assist Kurds and Iraqis defend their homelands. The Islamic Statists many threats against Canada directly and their crimes against humanity require an armed response.
That is the first thing that bothers me about this whole new conflict: its the fact that we have no choice in the matter. We have to put off or abandon other things we wanted to do in order to deal with this. Yet we must fight this evil now. ISIS can't be allowed to get any larger.
So here we are again, 7 months after the end of the war in Afghanistan, going to war Islamic fundamentalists that are even worse than the last bunch.
I don't like it. Something bothers me here. I can not raise a single objection to war with ISIS. Western democracies have been placed in check early in the game and now we have no option but to move against ISIS. A whole new war wrapped with a neat bow.
Several of the deeply troubling things about the coming war can fit into these categories
That is the first thing that bothers me about this whole new conflict: its the fact that we have no choice in the matter. We have to put off or abandon other things we wanted to do in order to deal with this. Yet we must fight this evil now. ISIS can't be allowed to get any larger.
So here we are again, 7 months after the end of the war in Afghanistan, going to war Islamic fundamentalists that are even worse than the last bunch.
I don't like it. Something bothers me here. I can not raise a single objection to war with ISIS. Western democracies have been placed in check early in the game and now we have no option but to move against ISIS. A whole new war wrapped with a neat bow.
Several of the deeply troubling things about the coming war can fit into these categories
- Our Allies
- Our Enemies
- A "long war"
- Unknown Outcomes
Each of these will explored in detail in different posts.
Our Allies
USA
The United States is seeking a broad coalition in the war while conducting most of the bombing against ISIS. Just as it should since ISIS is a direct result of Barack Obama's foreign policy. Some argue that the previous Gulf Wars precipitated this crisis but they have merely set the stage.
There is no need to go all the way back to the Barbary Wars. It's sufficient to examine the current occupant of the White House since he will be the major influence on the current war. Iraq's security was well in hand when Obama entered office. His ideologically inspired promise to leave Iraq left a vacuum for ISIS. Progressives essentially believed their own propaganda. American intervention causes all of the trouble, therefore non-intervention solves all the trouble, or so they thought.
Obama began his version middle eastern meddling with his infamous apology tour. He did nothing to help a rebellion in Iran. Then he helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which was thankfully removed by another rebellion. He also "led from behind" in Libya to create another vacuum for Islamists and lost an Ambassador and Embassy along the way. He had some hard words for the Syrian Dictator, but meekly shrank from his "red lines" on Russian promises to hold back Assad's chemical weapons. The lucky and unanticipated outcome in Syria was that only half of that country was left to the Islamic State.
The White House of Barack Obama is one that has little respect for the American public. This is evident in the distraction campaign surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens and the very public cover up that tried to pin it on some amateur movie. Even now Obama is blaming his failures on bad intelligence while he routinely dodges intelligence briefings for rounds of golf.
Obama can't even find the wisdom to approve the Keystone pipeline. Keystone will move oil from Alberta in the safest way possible to Texas over a country enmeshed with pipelines. Obama can't see the obvious logic in approving this pipeline and we are supposed to follow this man into battle?
As much as I'd like to say no, I simply can't. Genocide is occurring today. How could we justify our non-intervention to the victims families with talk of some tit for tat for the approval of a pipeline? That might be Obama's America but that is not who we are. We can't allow ourselves to be less than who we are because of a feeble minded leftist named Barack Obama. He caused this crisis but we'll help him end it.
Aside: The best way to snub Obama is to develop nuclear weapons of our own or at least repeal the treaty on non-proliferation. It would send the message that we lack confidence in our close ally while at the same time strengthening Canada's sovereignty in a cost effective way. Politically this would be a severe blow to Obama's anti-nuclear agenda since he himself would be the reason for a new nuclear power rising where there was once only a docile neighbor. It remains politically impossible here for now, but as I'll show you we are on the brink of massive geopolitical upheaval. The opportunity may present itself.
Nevertheless we would not be better off by ignoring the ISIS threat to Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter that their money and ideology directly created ISIS in the first place. If Iraq falls then Saudi Arabia would be next. I have little faith in their military even though they are well equipped. The Saudi military probably will melt away in the face of serious fighting. That is the trend shown by Arab armies in modern conflicts.
There is no need to go all the way back to the Barbary Wars. It's sufficient to examine the current occupant of the White House since he will be the major influence on the current war. Iraq's security was well in hand when Obama entered office. His ideologically inspired promise to leave Iraq left a vacuum for ISIS. Progressives essentially believed their own propaganda. American intervention causes all of the trouble, therefore non-intervention solves all the trouble, or so they thought.
Obama began his version middle eastern meddling with his infamous apology tour. He did nothing to help a rebellion in Iran. Then he helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which was thankfully removed by another rebellion. He also "led from behind" in Libya to create another vacuum for Islamists and lost an Ambassador and Embassy along the way. He had some hard words for the Syrian Dictator, but meekly shrank from his "red lines" on Russian promises to hold back Assad's chemical weapons. The lucky and unanticipated outcome in Syria was that only half of that country was left to the Islamic State.
The White House of Barack Obama is one that has little respect for the American public. This is evident in the distraction campaign surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens and the very public cover up that tried to pin it on some amateur movie. Even now Obama is blaming his failures on bad intelligence while he routinely dodges intelligence briefings for rounds of golf.
Obama can't even find the wisdom to approve the Keystone pipeline. Keystone will move oil from Alberta in the safest way possible to Texas over a country enmeshed with pipelines. Obama can't see the obvious logic in approving this pipeline and we are supposed to follow this man into battle?
As much as I'd like to say no, I simply can't. Genocide is occurring today. How could we justify our non-intervention to the victims families with talk of some tit for tat for the approval of a pipeline? That might be Obama's America but that is not who we are. We can't allow ourselves to be less than who we are because of a feeble minded leftist named Barack Obama. He caused this crisis but we'll help him end it.
Aside: The best way to snub Obama is to develop nuclear weapons of our own or at least repeal the treaty on non-proliferation. It would send the message that we lack confidence in our close ally while at the same time strengthening Canada's sovereignty in a cost effective way. Politically this would be a severe blow to Obama's anti-nuclear agenda since he himself would be the reason for a new nuclear power rising where there was once only a docile neighbor. It remains politically impossible here for now, but as I'll show you we are on the brink of massive geopolitical upheaval. The opportunity may present itself.
Europe
Remember when Stephen Harper went to NATO to ask for additional troops in Afghanistan? Only the US provided more troops. Now when there is trouble in Europe's backyard Ukraine, they demand we do more. They haven't been shy about committing jets against ISIS anyway. That is pretty commendable and actually a shrewd policy. We should mirror their example in the case of ISIS.
Saudi Arabia
If there were an election held in Saudi Arabia today we would find that ISIS had secured that country too. The House of Saud is our friend but perhaps frenemy is more correct. At best they are the pet fascists of the United States. At worst the Saudis are a useful interface for the extreme Wahabi cult to influence the west.
Nevertheless we would not be better off by ignoring the ISIS threat to Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter that their money and ideology directly created ISIS in the first place. If Iraq falls then Saudi Arabia would be next. I have little faith in their military even though they are well equipped. The Saudi military probably will melt away in the face of serious fighting. That is the trend shown by Arab armies in modern conflicts.
The streets would run with blood from purges in Saudi Arabia while ISIS ranks would swell like never before. Their evil army would be replenished with every good imaginable including very possibly nuclear weapons. Worse than any of that would be the psychological impact of ISIS capturing Mecca. Every Muslim on earth could not ignore ISIS at that point. Would Muslims individually side with the infidels or with ISIS?
We would have a real World War on our hands if ISIS isn't stopped now, never mind the terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)