Alan H wrote:It's difficult to know what would be best, but when was the last time bombing achieved anything?
It is a given that (short of using nukes or total saturation tactics) air power does not win battles. OTH I doubt very much that we could talk a peace out of the likes of IS, it is not the West's place to offer them any kind of deal that leaves them with authority. I suspect they are worse than the Taliban in terms of getting them into any kind of democratic parliament.
Saudi Arabia holds a lot of the pieces here, they are accused of allowing funding some groups (but not Al Q I think) by their own nationals, as are other Sunni Arab nations. If we could get Saudi Arabia to cut of the funding, make it illegal, that would help greatly. But IS are actually doing something close to what the Saudis, as Salafists - strict Muslims believing in the older rules and laws - find acceptable. Apart from knowing they have the West by the short and curlies because of the oil. And being ruled by probably the most arrogant royal family in existence!
That there are Sunni nations fighting with the Yanks is, against a Sunni fundamentalist organisation is, sort of, good. Unfortunately that means they may be fighting with
Iran - Sunnis ganging up with Shia to fight Sunnis - what a mess!
Mr Bailey had it right!
America's broken promises, first to the Iraqi rebels and then the Syrian rebels, definitely does not help the West's case - Muslims have a strange attitude to honour (to Western values) and a long memory for what they consider insults or being let down. As America's friends that makes us as liable, so, as I said, we would probably be watching our backs even if we did not indulge in what might be a pointless exercise. Even if they blow up every tank, missile wagon or artillery piece those people can fight a war of attrition for years and years - as has been seen.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."