You're Commander in Chief. Is the threat of an attack here imminent? Are airstrikes and propping up the Iraqi's and Syrian rebels (whoever they are) enough? Send in ground troops? Drop some nukes in the middle of the desert?
It seems to me like the groups we really should be backing are perhaps the Kurds and the Turks (who btw, hate each other). They seem the least fanatical and most trustworthy. But I could be wrong.
What's your call?
Code: Select all
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b ... z3rfzCUph0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;With calls growing for tougher action against ISIL in response to the Paris terror attacks, President Barack Obama is again reviewing a menu of policy options he has previously found unpalatable.
“Clearly there's going to have to be an intensification of our efforts,” Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Officials were mum on what that might mean. But several analysts predicted dramatic action in the coming days — including Special Forces raids on ISIL leaders and heavy airstrikes in Syria, like those conducted by France on Sunday. At the same time, they expressed doubt that Obama would dramatically shift his broader strategy in Iraq and Syria.
Story Continued Below
“He may pull the trigger on some targeted killings and claim it as counterattacks — or might hit some ISIL fixed sites in Syria or Iraq and do the same,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton administration official specializing in the Middle East now at the Brookings Institution. “But he has his strategy and he is sticking to it.”
Hewing to the current strategy will be a political challenge for Obama, however, as the critiques of his policy grow more bipartisan. Over the weekend, two leading national security voices within his party echoed longtime GOP criticisms that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS has proved ineffectual.
