Discussion for article #233295
What do we really know about the ISIL leadership. Their actions seem to be irrational since they invite retaliation all out of proportion to the actual harm done to Egypt. I guess they must think the benefits of film showing them killing Christians outweighs the bombs they knew they were going to endure.
1 Like
I’m glad regional states are doing something. We should only support that-NOT lead it.
4 Likes
I was just reading about this on another site. I think the president has played this ISIL threat very well. Instead of the US leading a coalition, he’s letting it play out in a way in which Middle Eastern and African countries will lead the fight. That’s the best possible outcome that avoids us getting into yet another war in an Arab country.
6 Likes
It is worth noting… President Obama may be the President that, historically, shows the most patience. He has demonstrated his ability to place assets in readiness as he watches the situation and the process.
1 Like
Good. The more regional players take action against ISIL, the better.
4 Likes
I will add the note that this was a strike in Libya because this is were the ISIL extremists carried out the kidnapping and murders. Which underscores why one of the Progressive Caucus’s main objection to the recently proposed AUMF the POTUS requested as being “overly broad” finds little sympathy from me.
While it is good Egypt acted, we need the flexibility to provide support for this type of operation if needed, up to and including use of force if circumstances are called for.
4 Likes
Agree. And it’s not just because we don’t want to get into another ground war, it’s because having an American face on it is simply counterproductive. Which of course is why ISIL keeps trying to goad us into sending troops.
1 Like
Yeah; I think there may be some room to tweak the language so they can say they got it narrowed, but this issue is obviously not one with clear geographic boundaries.
1 Like