Enemy of my Enemy is not my Friend. Slippery Slope?

What Are Obama's Options for Stomping Out ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

The videotaped killing of kidnapped journalist James Foley prompted President Barack Obama this week to condemn his ruthless executioners — the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS — as “a cancer.”

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes went a step further Friday, vowing that the U.S. won’t cower to terrorists.

“We’ve made very clear time and again that if you come after Americans, we’re going to come after you wherever you are — and that’s what's going to guide our planning in the days to come,” Rhodes told reporters.

The marauding militant group wants to carve out an Islamic state straddling Syria and Iraq, essentially a jihadist safe haven. Stomping out ISIS now presents a number of options for the Obama administration — each one with its own advantages and potential pitfalls.

So here we have it folks yet another potential quagmire. I haven't yet talked to anybody who have paid attention to current events not agree that ISIS and their ilk should be shot on site. Not just because of the recent beheading (although many did just became aware of them as an entity as a result of it) but because of their other well documented heinous acts against innocent civilians of all walks of life and beliefs.

Having said that, here is where we start to expose a very fine line which one wonders what would be the final result if crossed?

Continue an airstrike campaign that could include Syria

Why it could work: This month, the U.S. began a targeted campaign against ISIS in Iraq, focusing mainly on the Mosul Dam, which terrorists have threatened to overrun. The dam is key because it supplies power and water to millions. U.S. Central Command said Friday that 60 of the 93 airstrikes launched have been to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground as they root out ISIS from the areas around the dam. Officials say the action has been successful.

To further erode ISIS’s grip in the region, the U.S. could look into similar airstrikes in Syria, where the terror organization grew its ranks amid the civil war that began in 2011. Syria remains a refuge for ISIS members, and intelligence officials say some of its commanders have retreated there during the airstrikes in Iraq. It wasn’t immediately known whether self-appointed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has also fled to Syria.

Airstrikes on Syrian soil to rid them of ISIS as a potential option? How do we know that some targets might be chosen that would not only go after ISIS but may also have a duel purpose? What does the closest US Allie have to say on the topic?

Hammond baulks at prospect of unlikely alliance with Syria to stem IS advances

Britain has ruled out any alliance with Syrian President Bashar Assad to combat the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) extremists.

The Government has come under pressure to contemplate working with the Assad regime to tackle the militants operating in Syria and Iraq, with former head of the army Lord Dannatt suggesting there was a need to build bridges with the Syrian president.

But Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said an alliance with the Assad regime would not be "practical, sensible or helpful". The UK Government has called for Assad to be removed as Syrian leader as a result of his actions during the country's bloody civil war.

Asked if the UK would have to collaborate with the Assad regime, Mr Hammond told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "No. We may very well find that we are fighting, on some occasions, the same people that he is but that doesn't make us his ally."

A balancing act to be sure. Let's go after the enemy of my enemy but not be friends.

I felt compelled to post this for discussion and for future reference, don't ask me why.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Nice post. I hate talking about ISIS/ISIL. To me the group was created or supported in the creation when we decide to arm "rebels" in Syria. The Administration doesn't want to talk about that though.... They don't want to talk about how we've funded more terrorists like Al Qaeda.

Does anyone see a real difference in what we did with supporting Al Qaeda and what we did supporting ISIL?


Ferguson might be a big issue for America, in the sense that it's being used by the media to black out some real heavy issues, like the border and ISIS.

a reply to: SLAYER69

You are very vocal on issue of ISIS and what to do.

Here is a thread where ATS members are openly discussing a fact that US UK and Saudis Created ISIS in the first place.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After US cleans up ISIS, the monster they created.

I sincerely hope you will start asking the question. What Do We Do With US Government

a reply to: SLAYER69

Obama is supporting,funding and giving aide to these islamic groups.

a reply to: TimeAfterTime


Thanks for providing us the link, I'll check it out.




*Welcome back

Play nice.

well it's not the first time the U.S. has been allied with a country that we didn't like, trust or were hostile to.
the USSR comes to to mind.

The relations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1917–1991) succeeded the Russian Empire–United States relations (1776–1917) and predate the post-Soviet Russia–United States relations (1992–present). Full diplomatic relations between the two countries were established late due to mutual hostility. During World War II, the two countries were briefly allies. At the end of the war, the first signs of post-war mistrust and hostility began to appear between the two countries, escalating into the Cold War; a period of tense hostile relations, with periods of détente.

Following the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the U.S. government was hostile to Soviet Russia. The United States extended its embargo of Germany to include Russia, and orchestrated a series of covert actions against Soviet Russia, including secretly funding its enemies. U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing yearned for a military dictatorship for Russia, of the type General Lavr Kornilov attempted to establish in 1917.[1][2] The United States sent troops to Siberia in 1918 to protect its interests from Cossacks; with the United States landing thousands of troops at Vladivostok and at Arkhangelsk.[3]

Beyond the Russian Civil War, relations were also dogged by claims of American companies receiving compensation for the nationalized industries they had invested in. This was later resolved with the U.S. promising to take care of such claims.[citation needed]

U.S. hostility towards the Bolsheviks was not only due to countering the emergence of a proletarian revolution. The Americans, as a result of the fear of Japanese expansion into Russian held territory, and support of the Czech legion (who were supportive of the allied cause), sent a small number of troops to Northern Russia and Siberia. Once Lenin had gained control after the November Revolution and after the overthrow of the social democratic provisional government, one of his first actions was the halting of Russian involvement in the Great War and thus fulfilling German goals. The aftermath was significant because Germany could now reallocate most of its troops towards the Western front since the Eastern front no longer posed a substantial threat.[4]

Soviet Union–United States relations

and i kinda think and remember there may have been others .

a reply to: TimeAfterTime

The U.S. will never be allowed to "clean up" isis or any other islamic group
while obama is in office.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I have to enjoy the irony.

There was a big push to bomb Assad, now we might end up helping him after we helped his enemy.

This is a shining example of Obama's foreign policy and might even help is shooting down any bid Hillary Clinton has to the presidency.

I think if the US stops the CIA from working with ISIS and puts pressure on the other ME states to stop suporting them then Syria can handle them on their own soil .

Are The US And Syria Now On The Same Side?

Video

Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, adviser to Syrian Presidency tells Channel 4 News that western reactions to Isis "are coming too little too late." "The whole world should be against Isis," she says.

Posted August 22, 2014

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

ISIS was always a set up so they could go after Assad.

They will be bombing Assad his forces also, all smoke and mirrors to take out Assad.

Good thread. There is another good thread, very relevant to yours, entitled "Threat has bween detected! Know your enemy or suffer defeat…." by Paxnatus. It has a series of videos by Frank Gaffney, former Secretary of Defense under Reagan, and currently is the President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.

I just thought these threads are highly relevant to each other. Mr. Gaffney has a series of YouTu.be videos detailing that for a long time, the radical fundamentalist Muslim groups (no matter what their current name, Taliban, ISIS, ISIL)
have had an agenda of world dominance and have put their people in places of authority, government, here, and elsewhere, quietly….meaning, no one knows their allegiances or leanings until they are ready, to stage something of a world wide coups to assume control. Certainly, for some time, if one looks at the numbers of Muslims, the only competing religion is Christianity, and there are far more Muslims.

While saying that, I don't believe that Islam really has much to do with it. Usually, when it's a religiously motivated group, they wouldn't be raping, pillaging and plundering the way they are. It's most certainly about control, period.
Bob Bear, I think his name is, former CIA, was on CNN yesterday saying they certainly have intel that there are sleeper cells here in the US already…. I don't think any of us doubt that, really.

As to your thread, and point, strictly, it certainly is an interesting juxtaposition: the enemy of my enemy IS NOT my friend…while going after a common enemy, but not sharing intel or coordinating attacks, etc. Seems like a recipe for widespread mayhem and chaos. Conducting this kind of war and not being allies is complicated and difficult, and it worries me for ISIS seems to be very technologically adept, which indicates they are fully modernized in ALL ways, meaning ability to fight a war, insidiously infiltrating, since they lack an air force, really. I think the war will be fought largely the way Mr. Gaffney portrays is, as they've been preparing by putting people in places of authority and control for quite some time, again regardless of the latest name of the current problem group. I find that possibility truly scary, for it means a war from within and brings to mind 9/11 being an inside job, and the implications of that. Sometimes I wonder if people don't take that issue one step further than the Twin Towers, and understand what exactly that may mean to our future.

Good thread.
tetra

a reply to: SLAYER69

The enemy of my enemy is only my friend, if the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy.

North Koreas government hate the governments of the USA, and the UK. I dislike my own government, and the government of the United States. However, North Korea have a government exclusively packed with psychopaths and appeasers.

The entire mob, all three groups should be launched into the sun, and no quarter given to any one of them. You see, whether one fights for ones own honour, or for the liberty of ones countrymen, the ethical importance of victory is the same. That is, victory is never going to be as important as fighting the right people, for the right reasons. If you fight against a faction, you must make sure that what you believe about that faction, which made you wish to fight them, is absolutely true, and that your perceptions are matched by reality in that matter. You must also ensure that the people you fight ALONGSIDE are at least as morally sound as you, by your own measurement, otherwise, you must fight them too.

In short, you do not ally yourself with people who could ever conceive of fighting against you, you do not ally yourself with war criminals, or people who would be considered criminal if their actions were committed on your soil, rather than their own.

If that means you have two enemies rather than one, then all that means is there will be more screaming before the end, and that is not relevant. If it is worth fighting anyone over the actions of a government or faction, then it is worth fighting ALL factions which have similar motivations and methodologies, all governments who break treaties, use chemical weapons, murder their populations and so on and so forth.

ISIS, ISIL, IS, what ever their name is, are supposedly the enemy (despite the huge amount of US resources which went into the training, funding and supplying of that organisation). Assad is the enemy. Both must burn alive in the fruits of their own evil. Not one, not one then the other, both, ALL. No favourites, no lesser of two evils. If it is worth fighting either, then it is worth destroying both.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts on the subject.

ISIS, ISIL, IS, what ever their name is, are supposedly the enemy (despite the huge amount of US resources which went into the training, funding and supplying of that organisation). Assad is the enemy. Both must burn alive in the fruits of their own evil. Not one, not one then the other, both, ALL. No favourites, no lesser of two evils. If it is worth fighting either, then it is worth destroying both.

Here is a well written and sourced perspective on that belief.

This is ISIS. This is the truth: Exposing the bull# on ATS

Asked if the UK would have to collaborate with the Assad regime, Mr Hammond told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "No. We may very well find that we are fighting, on some occasions, the same people that he is but that doesn't make us his ally."

This approach seems a far cry from the attitude of Winston Churchill , who said , ( paraphrase alert ! ) ' if Satan were to come out against Hitler - I would welcome him as ally ' .... or , something to that effect .

I think Assad , Hussein , Ghadafi are sweethearts compared to ISIS .