One of the things that has gotten lost in this election is how HRC and the Russian Foreign Minister signed a political solution to the civil war in Syria. It was Kofi Annan's plan and, because of Russia's relationship with Syria and our being onboard with it, there was international momentum to put it in place. Alas, Obama was caught on a hot mic talking to Putin making promises of easier political dealings after the 2012 election. Well, he started getting hammered over being too soft on Russia and Obama pulled the agreement Hillary signed. Now, we have what we have there: a total humanitarian crisis and worse instability in the region.
As for now, things with Russia have to change. Putin has dug himself in, he now wants to keep Assad whereas he was once willing to toss him aside because he views Syria as his toehold in the Middle East and it is a "stick it to the west" thing. There is no resolving ISIS without resolving the Syrian civil war. Assad can only stay in power with Putin's money and weapons. There needs to be a no-fly zone over Syria. First of all, it would allow civilians to get out of cities where they are sitting ducks. Secondly, it deprives Assad of air superiority which weakens him greatly. Would Russia tempt fate and see if NATO would shoot one of his planes out of the sky? I doubt it because he has no credible way of retaliating if the plane got shot down. What did he do when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet? He did nothing because he certainly couldn't attack Turkey because it is a member of NATO. I don't even think he'd let it get to the point where HRC moved to put one in place because his cessation of bombing would be a humiliation too. He might be given the choice to save face, make himself look like a power player, and help broker a political solution to Assad before HRC moves ahead to implement a No Fly Zone. Without Putin, Assad has nothing.
As for Iraq, this is a situation of taking territory back bit by bit. Honestly, the problem with ISIS in Iraq isn't so much fighting them now because it is clear that when faced with actual force and conventional warfare, they break easily. The real problem in Iraq is what happens after ISIS. The people fighting on the same side to defeat ISIS have completely differing political agendas than ours. The Kurds are fighting them because they don't want to be exterminated and they will most certainly want their own state when this is over. That will not go down well. Almost everyone in the region, especially Turkey, will fight this tooth and nail. I happen to believe that the US must stand by them and broker a decommissioning of its rebel/terrorist groups on those grounds. A Kurdistan would be just and possibly stabilizing state.
While that is happening, there are political issues in Iraq which make it ripe for sectarian uprisings and militia groups. Sunni members of Iraqi society must be given and feel they have an equal shot and stake in the country. ISIS didn't just roll up and kidnap everyone. They were welcomed by a great extent by Sunnis in Iraq who were marginalized and abused by the Shi'a dominated government. How one resolves the religious blood feud surrounding these religious sects is beyond me. The hatred is based on genuine religious fanaticism, literal tribalism, and Iraq will continue to be a cite for a proxy war between Iran and the Sunni states.
Saudi Arabia continues to spread salafism via military attacks on Yemen (which we support), madrasahs, and financial incentives. As they see their influence with us wane and get insecure about any rehabilitation of our relationship with Iran, they may feel emboldened or angered to meddle in Iraq directly or proxy states in the Gulf. Then there's the fact that the Sunni states hate Iran and would be inclined to interfere via terrorism with another Shi'a dominated state. No, there won't be an ISIS style machine taking over cities, towns, and regions in Iraq, but sectarian violence will persist in some form.
As for ISIS attacks in the West, this is just ISIS lashing out because it no longer can put videos up of them rolling through cities in Iraq and Syria. They are losing badly in their so-called caliphate and are actively discouraging their followers from coming there. They are telling people who might be influenced by them that random attacks in the West are now more "blessed" than the previously more blessed mission to fighting in Syria and Iraq. They are essentially taking victories where they can get them by exploiting vulnerabilities in Europe, be it societal or intelligence.
Europe seems incapable of learning the lesson we learned after 9/11: intelligence sharing between agencies is vital to stopping attacks. Belgium's state intelligence apparatus are a complete joke and the state itself doesn't function well. But, Europol is a mess. There needs to be actual real time intelligence sharing between all member states of the EU. The EU functions as a single state in many ways, but not in intelligence sharing. If they had streamlined intelligence sharing not hampered by national borders, a few of the deadlier attacks could have been disrupted. This is a major problem. And, they don't seem to understand that certain prison populations need to be segregated. Almost all of the European nationals who've been ISIS inspired attackers have been involved in petty crime and radicalized in jail only to recruit others. Of course there is the abject failure of European states to integrate the second generation immigrants of people from former colonies or colonized states. I know Europeans like to deny they have a race problem, but they do. The issue on integration of second generation immigrants and opening up opportunities is an issue I'm not prepared to address.
These are a few ideas and issues surrounding ISIS and the Middle East. I am sure Donald Trump is equipped to know, understand, and tackle.
= new reply since forum marked as read
At least, that's what we'll get from any reports the popular media may deign to file about her appearance.
