Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS

[karynnj]

67. Idiotic cheap shot

Do you honestly think that anything the US did could have stopped this murder of a man They already held? Not to mention, can you completely rule out that they killed him the same day they killed Foley? You might remember that there were at least two similar beheadings - Pearl (Pakistan) and Berg (Iraq) - at the time when President Bush had American troops on the ground in two countries.

The stated demand of ISIS was that the US stop bombing them. However, if the US did, what would the result be? At the point that we engaged, they were threatening Baghdad. Not to mention, would you even trust ISIS to keep their word after completely altering American foreign policy or would he likely have been killed some time down the road for some other thing they disliked?

There is likely no one in the country who does not feel repulsed, horrified and angered by the killing. No one - including me - suggested that what had been done was anything more than first baby steps to deal with ISIS. It seems obvious that developing a diplomatic, regional coalition takes time and considerable thought as to how to do it. Obama is doing this AND he is using carefully controlled use of American air power to help the Kurds and Iraqis win back territory, which they will then have the responsibility to fight to retain.

It is true, that any US President could order massive strikes that would happen within days. It is far easier than the political/diplomatic work that Obama is doing now. However, people wanting the US to simply use massive fire power against ISIS - uncoordinated with those in the region wanting to push back ISIS are ignoring that our military leaders have said there is no way to a military victory using just air power. Not to mention, that would very likely have led to the same beheading - one thing controlled almost entirely by ISIS. (After the first rescue attempt failed, it may be that we have not had a viable chance to rescue them.)

These steps ARE the beginning of a thoughtful plan to aid the region in dealing its extremists. Are you implying that a stronger American response - as many very vaguely demanded - would have prevented the killing? No one - including McCain - has called for American combat troops to have been used. In fact, what McCain after sarcastically lambasting President Obama recommends is exactly what Obama is already doing .... and to also arm the moderate Syrians. The problem is that some of his previous "moderate" Syrians have ended up in terrorist groups!

Are you suggesting that had there been a President McCain and had we given powerful weapons to his "vetted" rebels in Syria, ISIS would never have gotten to where it is now? You never know where an option not taken leads you, but it is very hard to believe that this could have worked. It is only the very American "we can fix it" mentality that gives this any weight at all.

Do you honestly think that anything the US did could have stopped this murder of a man They already held? Not to mention, can you completely rule out that they killed him the same day they killed Foley? You might remember that there were at least two similar beheadings - Pearl (Pakistan) and Berg (Iraq) - at the time when President Bush had American troops on the ground in two countries.