We Don’t Need to Ally with Terrorists to Defeat ISIS

isisThe big foreign policy debate now is whether we should ally with Sunni or Shiite Jihadists to defeat ISIS.

The pro-Iranian camp wants us to coordinate with Iran and Assad. The pro-Saudi camp wants us to arm the Free Syrian Army and its assorted Jihadists to overthrow Assad.

Both sides are not only wrong, they are traitors.

Iran and the Sunni Gulfies are leading sponsors of international terrorism that has killed Americans. Picking either side means siding with the terrorists.

It makes no sense to join with Islamic terrorists to defeat Islamic terrorists. Both Sunni and Shiite Jihadists are our enemies. And this is not even a “the enemy of my enemy” scenario because despite their mutual hatred for each other, they hate us even more.

The 1998 indictment of bin Laden accused him of allying with Iran. (Not to mention Iraq, long before such claims could be blamed on Dick Cheney.) The 9/11 Commission documented that Al Qaeda terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers, freely moved through Iran. Testimony by one of bin Laden’s lieutenants showed that he had met with a top Hezbollah terrorist. Court findings concluded that Iran was liable for Al Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies. Al Qaeda terrorists were trained by Hezbollah.

While Shiite and Sunni Jihadists may be deadly enemies to each other, they have more in common with each other than they do with us. Our relationship to them is not that of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” That’s their relationship to each other when it comes to us. In these scenarios we are the enemy.

The pro-Saudi and pro-Iranian factions in our foreign policy complex agree that we have to help one side win in Syria. They’re wrong. We have no interest in helping either side win because whether the Sunnis or Shiites win, Syria will remain a state sponsor of terror.

It’s only a question of whether it will be Shiite or Sunni terror.

Our interest is in not allowing Al Qaeda, or any of its subgroups, to control Syria or Iraq because it has a history of carrying out devastating attacks against the United States. We don’t, however, need to ally with either side to accomplish that. We can back the Kurds and the Iraqi government (despite its own problematic ties) in their push against ISIS in Iraq and use strategic strikes to hit ISIS concentrations in Syria. We should not, however, ally, arm or coordinate strikes with either side in the Syrian Civil War.

Both the pro-Saudi and pro-Iranian sides insist that ISIS can’t be defeated without stabilizing Syria. But it doesn’t appear that Syria can be stabilized without either genocide or partition. Its conflict is not based on resistance to a dictator as the Arab Springers have falsely claimed, but on religious differences.

Helping one side commit genocide against the other is an ugly project, but that would be the outcome of allying with either side.

Stabilizing Syria is a myth. The advocates of the FSA claimed that helping the Libyan Jihadists win would stabilize Libya. Instead the country is on fire as Jihadists continue to fight it out in its major cities.

Even if the FSA existed as an actual fighting force, which it doesn’t, even if it could win, which it can’t, there is every reason to believe that Syria would be worse than Libya and an even bigger playground for ISIS. The FSA enthusiasts were wrong in Egypt and Libya and everywhere else. They have no credibility.

The pro-Iranians claim that helping the Syrian government will subdue ISIS, but Assad hasn’t been able to defeat the Sunni Jihadists even with Russian help. The Syrian army and its Hezbollah allies are still struggling despite having an air force, heavy artillery and WMDs. Not only shouldn’t we be allying with Shiite terrorists who have killed plenty of Americans over the years, but it would be extremely stupid to ally with incompetent terrorists. Allying with the FSA or Assad makes as much sense as allying with ISIS.

The difference is that ISIS at least seems to be able to win battles.

Some pro-Iranian wonks claim that if we don’t get Assad’s approval for air strikes, he will shoot down Americans planes. That’s about as likely as Saddam Hussein returning from the dead to audition for American Idol. Assad didn’t even dare shoot down Israeli planes who were buzzing his palace. The odds of him picking a fight with the United States Air Force are somewhere between zero, nil and zilch.

We don’t need Assad’s permission to hit ISIS targets in Syria and, in one of the few things that this administration is doing right, we aren’t asking for it. Unless Assad experiences a bout of severe mental illness, he isn’t going to fight us for the privilege of losing to ISIS. Not even Saddam was that crazy.

The big potential problem in this war is mission creep. That’s why we should avoid committing to any overarching objectives such as stabilizing Syria. Unfortunately that is exactly what Obama has done.

It’s not our job to stabilize Syria and short of dividing it into a couple of majority states in which the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, the Kurds, the Christians and maybe even the Turkmen get their own countries, it’s not a feasible project. We have the equipment and power to pound ISIS into the dirt when its forces concentrate in any area. We can send drones to target their leaders. If Assad or the FSA want to provide us with intel, we can use it as long as we don’t begin working to help them fulfill their own objectives.

We need to remember that we are not there for the Syrians or Iraqis; we’re there for ourselves.

After September 11 we learned the hard way the costs of letting enemy terrorists set up enclaves and bases. But we also learned the hard way the costs of trying to stabilize unstable Muslim countries.

Al Qaeda, in its various forms, will always find sanctuaries and conflicts because the Muslim world is unstable and widely supportive of terrorism. For now this is a low intensity conflict that denies the next bin Laden the territory, time and manpower to stage the next September 11. We can do this cheaply and with few casualties if we keep this goal in mind.

This isn’t nation building. It’s not the fight for democracy. All we’re doing is terrorizing the terrorists by using our superior reach and firepower to smash their sandcastle emirates anywhere they pop up.

Allying with terrorists to defeat terrorists is counterproductive. The Muslim world will always have its Jihadists, at least until we make a serious effort to break them which we won’t be doing any time soon. But we can at least stop making the problem worse by arming and training our own enemies.

*

Don’t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow Daniel Greenfield on this week’s Glazov Gang discussing “ISIS Rising”:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    It’s damn hard to have a coherent strategy when Obama is conducting a war against some of Islam’s most devout adherents, while defending the religion they adhere to. Also, he has at least two priorities ahead of American interests: 1) Defending Islam; 2) Rescuing the Democrats from a disastrous mid-term. He probably has making his first birdie ahead of US security, too.

    It doesn’t seem like there is any urgency in allying ourselves with either side. Why not keep them guessing? The less they know about our intentions, the more it limits their ability to plan. If we ally with anyone it should be the Kurds. They are the only ones who seem to be able to effectively fight ISIS.

    Perhaps we could make life so rough on ISIS in certain areas that Yazidis and Christians could move into those areas and create a defendable perimeter. If Iraq complains, ask them if they’d prefer beheadings by ISIS. Airpower is leverage. We should use that leverage to the maximum to help those who deserve it, not different factions of the same evil.

    • hiernonymous

      So instead of using our intelligence services to identify the leadership and operational elements of the IS and affiliates and targeting them with air power, you think air power could be better employed how, exactly?

      • Gee

        You have no intelligence services that can do anything in the region. We supply you with the intelligence.

        • gerry

          Intelligence comes from the Mossad and the Arabs countries such as Saudi Arabia,Iraq etc etc…Those countries have no credibility and would certainly with Iran be glad if they could take over ISIS.

        • hiernonymous

          Ah.

          • truebearing

            “Ah”

            That’s it? Do you think you’re at the doctor’s? “Open wide and say ah.” Well, you certainly do open wide.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s it?”

            Yes.

      • truebearing

        What are you babbling about? Did I say targeting the leadership and operational elements with air power is wrong? I’ll answer that for you since you are apparently seeing things that aren’t there…no, I didn’t.

        Maybe you can explain how attacking devout Muslims, but defending Islam — the source of the evil — makes any sense. I doubt even you could convolute something enough to justify that kind of idiotic thinking.

        Obama is using air power to “degrade” the advantage Republicans have in the mid-terms. He could, and should, have gone after ISIS many months ago, or worked a little harder to get a SOFA with Iraq, both of which may have prevented their meteoric rise. Now he is reacting to two things: political exigency and the call for help from the Saudis. He did nothing until the King of Saudi Arabia kicked him in the rear end.

        I was talking about a long term strategy, not a stop gap political/military game of whack-a-mole. Thanks to his abysmal leadership and intentional alienation of our true allies, Obama hasn’t been able to put together a coalition that passes the laugh test. Egypt won’t help because, they rightly point out, Obama doesn’t stay the course on anything. Obviously, other nations feel the same way. He is untrustworthy…the understatement of the millenium.

        Without a unified international front, the US will bear the entire burden, and that will more quickly lead to war fatigue among voters. Obama is counting on it to justify pulling out ASAP.

        • hiernonymous

          I’m talking about your complaint about our use of air power. i’ve described how it is actually being used. How do you think it should be used differently?

          While your comments on the SOFA are off base, they are also irrelevant: absent a time machine, changing 2008 decisions on SOFAs is not a rational alternative to the administration’s current approach. You said that air power is leverage: how do you suggest it be employed differently to capitalize on that leverage?

          • truebearing

            Answer my question. Where did I complain about our use of air power?

            My comments on SOFA are not off base. Obama made no credible effort to renew the SOFA.

            Yes, air power is leverage. I’m glad you understand at least that much. I didn’t suggest anything specific about how the air power is being used, however. Are you imagining things, or just trying to insinuate something you know isn’t true?

            Since you so desperately want to know what I would do differently with air power:

            I wouldn’t broadcast that it is coming. Obama invariably telegraphs his every move for maximum political effect, which allows the enemy to prepare. Second, I wouldn’t have hit certain command facilities at night when they are empty of valuable enemy leadership. Third, I wouldn’t have dicked around forever when I had actionable intelligence. Fourth, I would get on the same page with my generals, State Dept, etc so that I didn’t make America look weak and foolish and diminish our threat. Fifth, I’d try real hard not to create power vacuums by pulling troops for purely political reasons. Sixth, I would keep alliances strong with true allies, thereby making a long term strategy for dealing with hostile ideologies like Islam possible.

            What would you do? Look up my ideas and criticize them because you’re too scared to put your own on the line?

          • hiernonymous

            “Where did I complain about our use of air power?”

            ” Airpower is leverage. We should use that leverage to the maximum to help those who deserve it, not different factions of the same evil.”

            Implicit in this comment is the assumption that the administration’s current use of air power is bad. Given that it immediately follows some vague tactical advice about creating areas that are difficult for ISIL to operate in, you appear to be dissatisfied with the current operational and tactical employment. Perhaps you just weren’t thinking through the implications of your comments.

            You didn’t say a thing about what you’d do. You said what you wouldn’t do. That’s what passes for putting your ‘ideas’ out there?

            “Yes, air power is leverage. I’m glad you understand at least that much.”

            It’s good to have your approval. Where did you come by your understanding of the employment of military power? Is your background academic, professional, or are you channeling Good Will Hunting?

            “What would you do? Look up my ideas and criticize them because you’re too scared to put your own on the line?”

            You should have learned by now that if you want to bray your opinions in public, they will get public criticism. You can be thin-skinned or you can be a blowhard, but it’s a bad combination.

          • truebearing

            Where are your ideas? All you do is criticize the ideas of others, but carefully avoid expressing your own. That is intellectual cowardice.

            What is wrong with saying what I wouldn’t do? Is that all that different from your obsession with correcting others while offering none of your own ideas? At least in my list it is apparent what I would do differently, in general. Without the intelligence reports Obama has access to, it is harder for me to say specifically what I would do, but it relatively easy to see what is wrong with what he is doing, or not doing.

            Now, what would you do, and why?

          • hiernonymous

            “What is wrong with saying what I wouldn’t do?”

            You suggested that you had your own ideas, but all you’ve offered is a restatement of criticisms of the administration in the format “i wouldn’t do [insert alleged administration policy here].”

            I believe you just characterized that as intellectual cowardice?

            Of course, that’s nonsense. If you choose to bloviate on policy, a response to that opinion need not be accompanied by some counterbloviation to have merit.

            “Without the intelligence reports Obama has access to…”

            Do I need to point out how weak that was?

        • Alex backman

          You are right. This is insane, allying with Sunni Muslims to attack ISIS. It is like siding with Mussolini to go after Hitler. Duh?!! Or siding with Hitler to go after Stalin. Does not make any sense until you read Albert Pike’s letter to Italian Communist Mazzini on the 3 World Wars.

          http://alexanderbackman.com/albert_pike_mazini_letter.htm

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s more like using the Soviets to go after Hitler. Like giving the Soviets so much support that they end up contending with us in Europe. Maybe it’s not insane if you realize that there are ways to F it up and go about it wisely.

            That kind of thing. You know…learn from history…and other pearls of wisdom.

    • gerry

      This is all about the coming election.Obama new about it since last October and some say since 2009.This is a joke,although a cruel one.

      • truebearing

        Exactly. These air strikes are more Will-o’-the-wisp moves calculated to lead voters astray. He’s trying to convince the voters that Democrats will protect America, just not too vigorously.

        There are so many things Obama could have done to prevent the slaughter that has already ocurred. If he wanted to send an unmistakeble message, such as hammering ISIS with B-52s…without warning them we were coming.

  • wileyvet

    So the anti-war Obama needed America to suffer defeat in Iraq in order for him to win in 2008, but now the quasi pro-war Obama needs an American win to help traitorous Democrats avoid defeat and hold the Senate in the midterms. Truly disgusting cheap political antics.

    As for Syria, having been a nest of vipers for decades they are reaping some of what they have previously sowed. I cannot have the least sympathy for the travails of its people or leaders who find themselves on the receiving end of other genocidal Muslims. Unfortunately the lesser of the evils for Israel’s sake is for Assad to remain in power until something else could be arranged. In the meantime utterly destroy the IS, even if it temporarily helps Assad.

    Maybe, just maybe, if all the terrorists are killed, and Assad recovers his country, he has an epiphany, and changes his ways to become the kindest most decent and enlightened despot the world has ever seen and never bothers anyone ever again. C’mon, it could happen. Why are you laughing?

  • gerry

    This is a real farce,although a cruel one.The Saudis,iran,as well as Qatar and Turkey are not the friends of the west.Isis,according to the French,is financially backed up by 50 countries.How many Muslim countries in the world.?

    • Gee

      There are 56 Muslim regimes

      • gerry

        Thamks for the information,I thought they were 51.

  • wildjew

    We have an America-hating racist in the White House who ran with PLO activists, jihadists, anti-Semites, racists, etc., his entire adult life. Barack Obama is the first American president to recognize Hamas savages as a legitimate government partner. Obama sees nothing wrong partnering with murderous jihadists. We have our “useful idiots” like Senator John McCain, maybe to a lessor extent Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte; most of whom supported Obama’s misguided / illegitimate war in Libya; several of whom met with former Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi who (they knew) called the Jews sons of apes and pigs, bloodsuckers. I call my Republican Congressman’s office from one month to the next urging him NOT to work with this dangerous president on any number of issues. I don’t see things getting back to any ‘semblance of normalcy’ (we can only hope) until this America-hating racist leaves office. That is how I see it.

    • Una Salus

      In my opinion Obama is not interested in the slightest in defeating Islamic State but he is fixated on Syria. He won’t ally with Assad I believe under any circumstances so that can be discounted I think. Somehow I don’t envisage the much vaunted bombing strikes will amount to much besides newspaper headlines. He is interested in the FSA and that is why he made the commitment to stabilize Syria.

  • wildjew

    Daniel, you say, this isn’t nation building. It’s not the fight for democracy.

    I voted for former President Bush in 2000 but lost faith and confidence in him soon after the 9/11 attacks when he chose to invest much political capital establishing a Muslim enemy state in Israel’s heartland, not to mention his Islam is a religion of peace nonsense. I saw (still see) lots of cheer-leading for Bush on this site. Did we learn the hard way the costs of nation building, implanting democracy, winning hearts and minds, prolonged occupation, from George W. Bush? I might believe it when I no longer see the cheer-leading for Bush on Fox News, this site and elsewhere.

    • Sara

      I think you and Daniel are saying the same thing.

      • wildjew

        I think Republicans (my party) needs to have its own ‘Days of Awe’ — a time for serious introspection, a time to consider the sins of the previous years since the 9/11/2001 attacks on America by devout Muslims; a time to consider all the lies we circled the wagons around, lies told by George W. Bush about the “illegitimate occupier” Israel and Islam the religion of peace, by John McCain and Mitt Romney who we carried water for, and then repent before Yom Kippur.

        • Sara

          Now you’re being unreasonable, Yom Kippur is in a week.
          Introspection is key in avoiding past mistakes and going in circles or perhaps a spiral. Chatima tova.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Sadly we have long supported Saudi Arabia, which has spread Wahhabi ideology around the world. We seem poised to double our mistake by allying with Iran. I worry that might happen after the election. Hopefully we’ll remember that Iran is a greater threat than ISIS.

    There is still a question in my mind of whether we should take on ISIS or let them face regional enemies to allow both to suffer. We shouldn’t ally with Assad but we have to be careful of not helping Assad or Iran (or Saudi Arabia) even inadvertently.

    • 11johnmac66

      The trouble is that America and its allies have been helping the Saudi’s for years…the first gulf war was to aid the gulf states – who have plenty of money and arms to look after themselves, but hold the petrodollar up for a bargaining chip for America to do the dirty work – at great cost…

      • Pete

        The Sunnis and Shia might have religious cohesion but the militaries Gulf States did not have the unit cohesion to go toe to toe with the Iraqi Republican Guard. At least they did not believe that they did.

        The had the money and the arms, but that is at times not enough in war.

  • MattBracken

    We are being misled by fools and knaves.
    As one former official warned of the White House after Benghazi, ‘The Taliban is inside the building.’

    • gerry

      The only fools are those who want to be fooled.The usual fools!Nobody is misled,only those to want to be misled!Thisis all BS.

    • Anthony Duhe

      There is a movement underway that may stop this insanity. A big. Part of what is wrong is QATAR. They are a state sponsor of terror. They trained and armed ISIS. Qatar built the new Taliban headquarters in Doha…Shortly after Obama released the TALIBAN 5 from Gitmo to Qatar…3 of the 5 have left Qatar and are working with ISIS. Qatar is in our universities (Georgetown, northwestern, U of Texas, Harvard, Cornell) in our corporations (Boeing, Lochkeed, Bloomberg) Stopping Qatar is the first step…Join other patriots General Vallely, Col Allen West, Benjamin Smith…stand with us to StopQatarNow.com…sign the petition. Join the committee

      http://www.StopQatarNow.com

      http://Www.misterchambers.com

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    I still worry that we are losing our focus on Iran. Yes, in a healthy culture we’d be able to deal with both Iran and Sunni jihadists. Right now Iran’s nuclear potential is the greatest threat. I expect the threat of ISIS will at some point encourage Obama to ally with Iran.

    I even suspect Iran supports ISIS in order to push Iraq into Iranian arms and do the same for Obama. ISIS also attacks Assad’s opposition. And ISIS ultimately wants to overthrow the House of Saud. If Iran doesn’t actively support ISIS it passively supports ISIS. (Anecdotally I’ve noticed pro-Iranians, who used to lead the online comments in opposing McCain’s support of Assad’s enemies, are relatively silent in opposing ISIS.)

    Would Assad be a major threat without Iran? Without Iran, Hezbollah would weaken and the balance may tip in Lebanon. Iran is the key. Regime change in Iran would solve the largest problem (nuclear) and then some. We are getting distracted by ISIS and that plays into Iran’s hands. (Of course, regime change in Iran won’t happen until regime change in Washington. But building the case starts long before.)

    • gerry

      Iran is more or less controlling Iraq already.The Iranian and the Saudi would like to control ISIS and used them as proxies.

  • http://islam.com/ arthur disbury

    The Saudis are the world’s greatest sponsors of ISLAMIC TERRORISM!!!

    • gerry

      with Iran.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    It is all theater! Besides we are already allied with the enemy. He is in the White House. I hear this morning that our Muslim-in-Chief came close to having a coronary in a briefing with Pentagon lads. He flipped out over ISIS being labeled Muslim. “Don’t paint all of Islam with the same brush,” he was supposed to have screamed. We might finish him off with continuous demonstrations in front of the White House with card carried that simply say: ISLAM IS ISLAM AND ISIS IS ISLAM. That might tip him over the edge and find him a spot in a padded cell.

    • gerry

      You are abstolutely right,it is all theater.The enemy is in the WH,as well as in the Elysee palace.Qatar is the one running France,they have bought the French government,just like Saddam did.

    • wileyvet

      I will be in landing in Washington in 2 weeks and vacationing in Virginia. I will be bringing a sign with me that says Obama is a Douche, but now I will make another one with your suggestion. Thanks for the idea.

    • GUEST

      i AGREE TOTALLY! WHEN OUR BOYS AND MEN ARE SENT TO FIGHT TWO OR 3 SECTS OF THE SAME RELIGION, THE MUSLIMS EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT HATE EACH OTHER WILL ALWAYS LOOK AT THE AMERICAN SOLDIER AS THE “INFIDEL”. WE NEVER SEE FILMS OF THE WARS IN SYRIA,IRAQ ETC. WHERE IS CNN NOW THAT THEIR CHOICE IS OUR PRESIDENT? WHEN BUSH WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AT LEAST WE SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN IRAQ. THE DEMS.ALL SCREAMED ABOUT SADDAM HAVING BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS UNTIL WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AS SOON AS THE DEMS. SAW BUSH SOAR IN THE POLLS THEY SANG A DIFFERENT TUNE AND BLAMED HIM FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISTS. SADDAM KILLED & RAPED HIS CITIZENS, THOUSANDS WERE FOUND POISONED IN MASS GRAVES, YET IGNORED BY THE DEMOCRATS. IT’S ALL ABOUT POWER. THIS PRESIDENT LOVES THE ISLAMIC RELIGION AND DOES ALL HE CAN TO PROTECT IT.INCLUDING LETTING OUR ENEMIES KNOW EVERY STEP…LOOK AT THE MUSLIMS THAT FILL THE WHITE HOUSE, THE ANTI-AMERICAN ATHIESTS, THE SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS. THOSE ARE HIS ADVISORS. I AM SICK OF SEEING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE SENT TO THESE DESERTS AND MOUNTAINS, NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE ON THE ENEMY UNLESS FIRED UPON FIRST AND THEN TRIED IN AMERICAN OR FOREIGN “COURTS”. OUR TOP MILITARY LEADERS ARE BEING FIRED ON A WEEKLY BASIS. I WONDER IF HE WILL MAKE SURE TROOPS THAT ARE SENT OVER TO BE MAIMED WILL BE SEXUALLY DIVERSE, HOW MANY TRANSGENDER MALES WILL WANT TO TAKE OFF THEIR WIGS AND LIPSTICK AND TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THE ENEMY? TO THOSE READING MY OPINION, BE SURE AND VOTE AND GET YOUR FRIENDS TO MAN THE POLLS SO WE WON’T HAVE THE SAME FRAUDULENT VOTES WE HAD IN THE LAST ELECTIONS…WHERE THE DEAD ARISE TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT, WHERE VOTING ROLLS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PURGED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, WHERE ILLEGAL VOTES ARE COUNTED, WHERE PEOPLE ARE REGISTERED 75 TIMES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. DEMAND THAT DEMOCRATS THAT ARE TOO STUPID TO GET A LEGAL FORM OF ID (PICTURE) ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW HOW TO VOTE. I’m SICK OF THE WORD “DISENFRANCHISED”..THEY’RE NOT TOO DISENFRANCHISED TO GET A PHOTO ID TO COLLECT WELFARE AND FOODSTAMPS, OR TO HAVE ONE IN ORDER TO SHAKE THE PRESIDENT’S HAND. DON’T COMPLAIN IF WE DON’T GET OUT AND DO ALL WE CAN BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE AND WE’RE UNDER MARSHALL LAW.which I expect is on the agenda around November.

  • RMThoughts

    IS is the creation of Washington and our Saudi allies, ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?

    • Gee

      ISIS was created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Washington had nothing to do with it.

      • gerry

        The MB is Obama best friend.Remember Morsi?Just ask the Egyptians.In fact the Egyptian President was quite clear.Erdogan,Morsi and his MB are friends of Obama and vice versa.

  • iluvisrael

    Let the rabid inbred savages kill each other – less work for the civilized world later on.

  • Gee

    The US already sides with terrorists. They pay them, they train, they arm them and they support them politically – ever hear of Hamas or the PLO?

    • truebearing

      That is one of the things that makes a sane US strategy impossible to come up with. Whose side are we on? With Obama as president, it certainly isn’t our own

  • Carla Chamorro

    Please…don’t tell me you all still trust Obama? I guess few realize the Oval office could be used by populists presidents like Castro or Chavez. Hard to believe a US president is such a cheap bum. isn’t it?

    • gerry

      Nobody trusts Obama,certainly not the Chinese,Israelis,Russians etc etc they know all about him.The guy is a liability.

  • Rosasolis

    Daniel, you are right to declare that both groups, the Sunnies and well as the
    She-ites are responible for the terrible chaos throughout the Middle-east….
    although the most recent attacks are from the Sunnie groeps which are now
    gaining territory throughout the Middle-east and Africa. Although things seem
    to be rather quiet lately in Iran, the Ayatolahs are still keeping their nuke sites
    secret. So that this could soon turn out to be:
    The Silence Before the Storm! I do not trust the Islamic State of Iran,
    which follows the same koran as their Sunnie enemies! This battle for dominance between the 2 most prominant Islamist groups, has been going on
    for centuries. NOW is the time, more than everbefore, that all our military groups from Europe and North-america join together in an great allience to destroy
    Islamic terrorism in all forms, throughout the Middle-east and Africa.
    I hope you folks in America do not think you are alone in this terrible war
    against the jihad. Everyday we are receiving reports from more European
    countries who are sending their mililary to join in with the large European military
    groups from Netherlands, the UK, and France who are already active in
    these areas. The actions of the European military groups, which were up
    until recently based upon providing defence and help to many threatened
    communites, has now gone over to Offensive measures, to try to get rid
    of the Jihad and the genocide forced upon all people, by these terrorists.
    North-america and Europe must now join forces with Europe to fight and
    destroy this threat to our Western Civilization…if we are to survive!

  • Sara

    The only ally the US needs in the region is Israel, and that’s mostly for intelligence. But of course Obama would rather partner up with ISIS than with Israel.

    • gerry

      Israel are the ears and eyes of the west.The Israel that Obama wanted to throw under the bus.

      • Sara

        Still does, if you’ve heard his UN speech.

  • G Ha

    Now I support all human rights abuse in hardline Islamic countries because muslims get what they deserve…sorry can’t tell the difference between a good or bad muslims anymore

  • kikorikid

    Daniel, Great statement re:”The Enemy of my Enemy…”
    “Allying with terrorist…is counterproductive.” And insane.
    Islamist will always stop hacking each other for an opportunity
    to hack at “The People of the Book”, Jews and Christians.

  • Demo P. Seal; PouponMarks

    I believe that every war that the US has been involved in has been unnecessary or ill fought. WWI should have been fought solely by the Euro-peons. It was their war, their stupidity. WWII was an extension of WWI, primarily the product of French treachery and parasitism against Germany. Hitler would have remained an obscure rabble rouser. The Korean War could have been a non-starter if the US would have been able to break free of the Marxist/Communist influences in the Feral Government; these traitors gained much strength in the FDR Admin. Nuclear weapons could have cut short the Korean War.

    The Vietnam War could have been over in months by “bombing them back to the Stone Age”, the strategy of Curtis LeMay, the Air Force equivalent of George Patton. The First Gulf War could have been final if George Bush I had listed to Margaret Thatcher and killed Saddam and his entire top men. Instead, the Second was fought to finish the First.

    And so on and so on. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, B. Hussein Obama all owe their election and elevation to Destructor of the Republic to GOP weakness, ineptness, cowardice, and complicity.

    Constitutional Conservatives and Patriots find themselves staring at 1000 years of darkness due to losses by default and timidity.

  • http://www.hubpages.com/profiles/maven101 LarryConners

    When I think of Iran I remember 1983 when an Iran trained, equipped, and supported a Hezbollah group that killed 241 of my fellow US Marines, causing the US to pull out of the region with its tail between its legs and head for home…Never forgave Reagan for that…the signal was sent, received, and acted on by terrorists around the world; American foreign policy is dictated by political expediency…Things have not changed in 30 years…this current foreign policy initiative reeks of naivety and political machinations…and we have more than 2 years to suffer this fool, this dangerous fool…

  • Lanna

    Americas big mistake…… thinking you can negotiate with terrorists, or so called moderates who want your destruction, flawed thinking.

  • C. Gee

    Agreeing that alliances make no sense, nor the arming (or training) of any group, then it is not just ISIS that America needs to destroy, but all of the mass-murdering insurgents and regimes. Why act as (unpaid) mercenaries for any Muslim or Arab power? And if it is by air that we are to accomplish this, the first order of business should be to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. With or without Israel. North Korea is developing – unhindered by the West’s inspectors – a tactical nuclear capability. Any thing NK has, Iran has. Before the Revolutionary Guards arm Hizbollah, Assad ( or Hamas), before ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, or any of them get their hands on tactical nukes, the source should be destroyed. It might put a quick end to insurgencies (competing jihads), which otherwise promise to be interminable, whether or not the US goes it alone, by air or on the ground. The Islamic insurgency is the means by which the axis of evil is waging the third world war. When Iran’s nuclear threat is realized and open, the west (America) will have to acknowledge the war and fight it (at hugely greater cost and risk than now), or accept a new Cold War with the Muslim superpowers no doubt allied with Russia and China. I think the latter is more likely.

    • kikorikid

      The compulsions of Islam preclude any type of protracted “Cold War”.

  • G Ha

    Sure only when they want to. The koran is full of evil teachings like Taqiyya (lie and cheat is allow to non believers)…I can no longer trust any muslim or associate with them.It is Islam I detest

  • Joy Beum

    The so-called ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ are NOT our friends. They have a pact with isis. Arming them is arming isis.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    When clueless writers who should be much better informed insist upon conflating what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism, besides a public that never learns anything about our eternal mortal enemy, we also end up with fantasy based nation building missions to lift up Muslims (the eternal mortal enemies of all infidels) out of poverty because “poverty and despair” are thought to be the “root causes” of terrorism, and never mind the fact that Muslims are not terrorists but jihadists instead. We also end up with governments that mislabel jihadists as being terrorists so that they can falsely claim that they are un-Islamic. Conflating the truth with falsehoods is always fun because it leads to all kinds of interesting insanity and stupidity.

    Meanwhile, if jihadists were labeled correctly and everyone and their bothers also understood that jihad is a holy war waged by ALL MUSLIMS in the cause of Allah against ALL INFIDELS to ultimately make Islam and its followers supreme, then maybe no one would invade countries like GWB did to lift up Muslims out of poverty because he was stupid enough to believe that “poverty and despair” are the “root causes” of terrorism, especially since Muslims are not terrorists but jihadists instead to begin with, and we also wouldn’t have ignoramus Presidents and stupid Prime Ministers today labeling Islam a so-called “religion of peace” while at the same time claiming that ISIS are terrorists who have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Just an observation.

  • Alex backman

    This will only metastasize ISIS into a larger Islamic problem. ISLAM is the problem. They want US boots at Dabiq to fulfill their version of Armageddon. When this happens, nukes will be flying in the region.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    According to both Barack Obama and Daniel Greenfield, ISIS is a terrorist state instead of a jihadist state. Therefore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Plus, we shouldn’t ally with terrorist states, even though terrorism is perpetrated for every other cause other than for in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and its followers supreme, because terrorism like jihad is also bad and even though it is far less substantial a threat relative to jihad.

  • kikorikid

    “Civilization Jihad-Creeping Sharia”
    Islam does not come in Peace.
    Islam does not come to assimilate.
    Islam comes ONLY to: Conquer, Submit, Convert, or Kill.

  • Christopher Riddle

    To defeat The Nazis(WWII),we NEEDED to ally ourselves with The Soviet Union.They NEEDED us as well!It was a”Symbiotic”relationship.To Defeat Radical Islamics,we would be foolish to”Ally”ourselves with ANY of them!!!At the end of the day,They ALL regard us as their Common Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • AlFranken

    I respectfully disagree with the author. During the eight year war between Iraq and Iran we covertly supplied both sides with arms and it wasn’t till we foolishly decided to create a vacuum of an imbalance in the region by taking out Saddam.

    Sure, he was a evil dictator but he kept the Iranians in check and thus the region was as stable as it could be just as the Soviets and the U.S. coexisted in a check during the height of the cold war with enough nuclear explosives to destroy the world thirty times over combined.

    We have to invest in the regional security for the long run which means going back to diplomacy with aiding our enemies to destroy their enemies when they become more of a threat to our global security.

    There will never be rational peace in the Muslim world and nation building with the intent to bring democracy is nothing but a futile pipe dream.

  • MarvLS1

    “Both Sunni and Shiite Jihadists are our enemies” which means Obama is our enemy too.