Here is an example of what heralds the beginning of the end
for the grand design the Jews had for the Middle East .
It came under the title: How Obama Could Salvage His Hapless ISIS Strategy” and
the subtitle: “Sunni Arabs, trained by the U.S.
in the Kurdish region of Iraq ,
could form an effective fighting force.” It was written by Max Boot and Michael
Pregent, and published on October 1, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.
Boot and Pregent say that despite the claims made by the
administration officials and the U.S.
military, to the effect that the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is working; they have
concluded that it is failing because “the facts suggest otherwise.” So they
begin to tell what those facts are … which should raise a few eyebrows.
Here is an example of what they consider to be a relevant
fact: “no U.S.
air controllers are allowed on the ground to call targets.” Another example is
that the number of strike sorties averages only 11 a day. Even though what they
call “facts” cannot be construed as evidence that the strategy is not working,
they continue to advance a similar sort of argument: “U.S. Command claims that ISIS 'can no longer operate freely in 25 to 30 percent of
populated areas where it once could.'”
The authors now cite a relevant fact: “It's true that in the
past year ISIS lost control of the Iraqi town of Tikrit
and some territory in Northern Syria , notably
Kobani.” But this contradicts their conclusion in that it shows the strategy in
Iraq and Syria is indeed
working. Moreover, because the administration and the military did not claim
total victory over ISIS – but simply that the
strategy was working – this fact and others like it suggest that Obama's
officials and the military told the truth.
What is more important, however, is what can be projected
into the future based on what's happening now and what's being planned. Boot
and Pregent say this: “ISIS is not invincible.
Whenever it has run into a disciplined military force, it has been defeated.
The problem is that the U.S.
has not trained enough indigenous personnel … there are only 'four or five'
American-trained rebel fighters currently fighting … the U.S. has done a poor job of providing incentives
for Sunnis to fight ISIS .”
Look at that! They say incentives. Do you know what this
means? It means the unsustainable Bush surge that had the Americans bribe
elders of the Sunni tribes in the Anbar province who kept the young militias
quiet as long as the US dollars were coming in. When the stream of cash
stopped, the period of quiet ended. But this episode was not duplicated by the
Obama administration and its coalition of 60 nations, because the preference
has been to prosecute the war in a steady and sustainable fashion.
That coalition being on the way to winning the war,
something new developed: “Iraq
joined a new Pact with Russia ,
Syria and Iran to fight ISIS … Russia 's warplanes [being] above
Syrian territory.” Thus, Boot and Pregent say it is time for a different approach,
and they suggest one. It consists of America
warning Baghdad that unless it fulfills some
conditions “it will no longer receive U.S. support.” If anything, that
suggestion reveals how little the two authors understand anything about the Middle East .
They did make the point that when ISIS
ran into a disciplined force, it got defeated. Thus what is needed to finish
off ISIS is a disciplined indigenous ground
force to confront it while operating under the protection of a powerful air
force. While America has
failed to convince its indigenous “allies” to provide the necessary ground
force, it occurred to the Syrians and the Iranians that they can succeed where America failed.
And Russia
seems ready to provide the air cover they will need. America is welcome to join as well,
and it may do so.
Did the recent events in the Middle
East unfold in that manner? Probably not because the evidence
suggests that something more complicated has transpired. What is known is that
Putin summoned Netanyahu to Moscow
where he warned him not to try what the latter had said on a previous occasion
he would do, but did not. He had said he would attack Iran to drag America
into the fight, but chickened out and never attacked Iran .
The guess this time is that having seen the formation of a
Pact between three indigenous nations equipped with large ground forces and a
Russia that's equipped with a powerful air force, Netanyahu would have found it
irresistible to lobe a few bombs into Syria, thus drag America into the fight –
not as a friend but a foe of the Pact. And that's what Putin warned Netanyahu
not to do if he values his air force.