Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,838 posts)
1. I would bet that - far earlier than 18 months - if the situation is the same, the WORLD
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 12:16 PM
Sep 2014

would opt for a different course. Things could be better or worse, but the hypothetical that things are the same, is the least likely.

I get the temptation to react to this as we did to Bush, but between Friday's UN hearing (led by Kerry) and the articles on the resolution that Obama will personally lead the UN to pass on Wednesday, this seems to be a very different effort. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/world/obama-to-lead-un-effort-to-halt-movement-of-terror-recruits.html?_r=0 What seems clear is the US is genuinely trying to encourage the Middle east to rid itself of these terrorists.

Conversely, if Iraq regains its territory and has a viable government and the Sunni areas are guarded by Sunni "national guards", would you argue that the US giving Iraq the space (speaking of Obama's actions this year not the original invasion) was worth it? Further if through some combination of forces, either there is a new leader in Syria or there is a truce with Assad -- and ISIL gone, would you agree that war was worth it? (Note the Obama administration still says the onbly solution in Syria is diplomatic/Political)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For those supporting the ...»Reply #1