Slava Novorossiya

Slava Novorossiya

Tuesday, September 29, 2015


            I will post two articles and a few videos of Pat Buchanan giving his opinion about attacking the Islamic State.

Fighters of ISIS

Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS?
Pat Buchanan

2/6/2015 12:01:00 AM - Pat Buchanan

Seeing clips of that 22-minute video of the immolation of the Jordanian pilot, one wonders: Who would be drawn to the cause of these barbarians who perpetrated such an atrocity?

While the video might firm up the faith of fanatics, would it not evoke rage and revulsion across the Islamic world? After all, this was a Sunni Muslim, in a cage, being burned alive.
As of now, this cruel killing seems to have backfired. Jordan is uniting behind King Abdullah's determination to exact "earth-shattering" retribution.

Which raises again the questions: Why did ISIS do it? What did they hope to gain? Evil though they may be, they are not stupid.

Surely, they knew the reaction they would get?

Several explanations come to mind.

First, ISIS is hurting. It lost the battle for Kobane on the Turkish border to the Kurds; it is bleeding under U.S. air attacks; and it is stymied in Iraq. It wanted to lash out in the most dramatic and horrific way.

Second, ISIS wants to retain the title of the most resolute and ruthless of the Islamist radicals, a title temporarily lost to al-Qaida, which carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. This horror has put ISIS back in the headlines and on global television.

Third, ISIS wants to pay back King Abdullah, a Sunni and descendant of the Prophet, for joining America in bombing them.

Fourth, this may have been a provocation to cause the king to put his monarchy on the line and plunge Jordan into all out war against the Islamic State.

For history teaches that wars often prove fatal to monarchies. In the Great War of 1914-1918, the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs and Ottomans, all went down.

The terrorists of ISIS may believe that stampeding Abdullah into fighting on the side of the "Crusaders" may prove destabilizing to his country and imperil the Hashemite throne.

For, though Jordanians may be united today, will they support sending their sons into battle as allies of the Americans and de facto allies of Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran?

There are reasons why Sunni nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have not committed more openly and decisively to the war on ISIS, and instead prod the Americans to send their troops to eradicate the Islamic State.

To many Sunni nations, Assad and the Shia Crescent of Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut are the greater threat. Indeed, until recently, as Joe Biden pointed out last October, the Turks, Saudis and United Arab Emirates were providing clandestine aid to ISIS.

Biden was forced to apologize, but he had told the truth.

Which bring us back to the crucial issue here. While King Abdullah is a trusted friend, Jordan has been best able to serve its own and America's interests by staying out of wars.

Lest we forget, Abdullah's father, King Hussein, refused to join the coalition of Desert Storm that drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

In February 1991, President Bush charged that King Hussein seems "to have moved over, way over, into the Saddam Hussein camp." In March of 1991, the Senate voted to end all military and economic aid to Jordan. But the king was looking out for his own survival, and rightly so.

Hence, is it wise for Jordan to become a front-line fighting state in a war, which, if it prevails, will mean a new lease on life for the Assad regime and a victory for Iran, the Shia militias in Iraq, and Hezbollah?

Critics argue that after making his commitment to "degrade and defeat" the Islamic State, President Obama has provided neither a war strategy nor the military resources to carry it out. And they are right.

But this is just another case of the president drawing a red line he should never have drawn. While U.S. air power can hold back the advance of ISIS and "degrade," i.e., contain, ISIS, the destruction of ISIS is going to require scores of thousands of troops.

Though the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds may be able to provide those troops to retake Mosul, neither the Turks nor any other Arab nation has volunteered the troops to defeat ISIS in Syria.

And if the Turks and Sunni Arabs are unwilling to put boots on the ground in Syria, why should we? Why should America, half a world away, have to provide those troops rather than nations that are more immediately threatened and have armies near at hand?

Why is defeating 30,000 ISIS jihadists our job, and not theirs?

With this outrage, ISIS has thrown down the gauntlet to the Sunni Arabs. The new Saudi king calls the burning of Lt. Muath al-Kasasbeh an "odious crime" that is "inhuman and contrary to Islam." The UAE foreign minister calls it a "brutal escalation by the terrorist group."

Let us see if action follows outrage.

Is ISIS Coming to Damascus?
Friday - June 5, 2015 at 12:16 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Who rises if Assad falls?

That question, which has bedeviled U.S. experts on the Middle East, may need updating to read: Who rises when Assad falls?

For the war is going badly for Bashar Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since Richard Nixon was president.

Assad’s situation seems more imperiled than at any time in this four-year civil-sectarian war that has cost the lives of some 220,000 soldiers, rebels and civilians, and made refugees of millions more.

Last month, ISIS captured Palmyra in central Syria, as it was taking Ramadi in Iraq. A coalition, at the heart of which is the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front, seized Idlib province in northern Syria and is moving toward the coast and Latakia.

Half of Syria has been lost to ISIS, the Nusra front, and other jihadist and rebel groups. All of Syria’s border crossings with Iraq have been lost to ISIS. All of the border crossing with Turkey, excluding Kobani, have been lost to ISIS or rebels linked to al-Qaida. Syria’s border with Lebanon is becoming a war zone.

Some 100 Russian military advisers are said to have pulled out of Syria, suggesting Vladimir Putin may be reconsidering Russia’s historic investment.

Indicating the gravity of the situation, Syrian sources claim 7,000 to 10,000 foreign Shiite fighters, Iraqi and Iranian, have arrived to defend Damascus and launch an offensive to recapture Idlib.

Israel’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Yair Golan, who headed the Northern Command, was quoted this week, “The Syrian Army has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.”

Israeli sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, Assad’s indispensable ally, is warning that the real threats to the Shiites of Lebanon are ISIS and the Nusra Front. Fighting between Hezbollah and Syrian rebels is taking place along the Lebanese-Syrian border.

Assad has been written off before, only to survive those who predicted his demise. But given the balance of forces and the way in which the tide of battle is turning, it is hard to see how his regime and army can long resist eventual collapse.

Arrayed against him are not only the Nusra Front and ISIS, which are attracting recruits from abroad, but also Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs, who have been clandestinely aiding Sunni rebels we regard as terrorists.

Though the Turks have a half-million-man army, 3,000 tanks, 1,000 military aircraft, and are 60 miles from the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria, our NATO ally refuses to move. Turkey’s president sees Assad as an ally of Iran.

The Israelis, too, see Assad as an ally of Iran and a greater enemy than an ISIS or Nusra Front with no army to threaten Israel. They have been aiding Syrian rebels on the Golan.

Israeli ambassador Michael Oren said in 2013, “We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Fine, but the “bad guys” Ambassador Oren prefers have on their hands the blood of 3,000 Americans.

It is difficult to see where the Assad regime and army, under attack within and without, will get the recruits to defend that half of Syria they still hold, let alone reunite the country.

So, again, the question: What happens when Assad falls? Who will protect the Christians he has sheltered? Who will protect the Shiite minority? Who will halt the massacres when they come?

And who will seize power in Damascus?

Right now the rival claimants would appear to be the Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaida that brought down our twin towers, and ISIS, the death cult famous for the barbarity of its executions.

According to The New York Times on June 4, ISIS is “emerging as a social and political movement,” preparing to govern its caliphate.

Interviewed by CBS News, Gen. David Petraeus said the United States is “probably losing” the war to ISIS, and we need more U.S. troops in Iraq or we run “the risk of losing the fight.”
Now consider what the general is saying:

America should send her best and bravest back into Iraq to defeat ISIS, while Turkey, the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs and Israel are helping bring about the defeat of a Syrian army that has been battling ISIS for years.

Our “friends” in the Middle East have no problem with us fighting and dying to drive ISIS out of Iraq, while they try to bring about the fall of Assad in Syria, which would constitute a triumph for ISIS.

A collapse of Assad’s army could give ISIS control of Syria.

Our “friends” don’t mind this happening because it would be a defeat for Iran and the Shiite Crescent, their enemies, even if it meant a victory for ISIS and al-Qaida, our enemies.

It is time we stopped letting other nations pick the enemies for us to fight. And as our “friends” are looking out for themselves first, last, and always, let us Americans begin to do the same.

Pat Buchanan on Obama's handling of ISIS threat
Published September 03, 2014 | Your World | Neil Cavuto
With: Pat Buchanan

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," September 3, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Well, here's how bad this ISIS threat is getting. Even the mainstream media is panicking. And when the comes to this president, scorching.

The New York Daily News today asking, "Do you have a strategy now, Mr. President?" right on its front page. And an op-ed in no less than The Washington Post focusing on what it calls the president's unnerving happy talk.

Pat Buchanan now has advised three U.S. presidents, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.
What does he make of this one and his handling of this crisis?

Patrick, what do you think?


I think what we just heard was pretty important. Look, this is a barbaric atrocity committed against Americans, but, at the same time, ISIS has gotten pretty much what it wants in terms of the extraordinary publicity they have received in this country. We're talking about them as the existential threat to America.

And even Al Qaeda and my guess is these other Sunni radicals are probably rallying to their flag right now. But I do think that the solution to this lies in two separate parts. In Iraq, I think we should support the Iraqis and the Kurds with airpower. In Syria, I do not believe we should have any boots on the ground in Syria. I don't believe -- I believe what we should do there is talk to Assad, and quite frankly work with him and get permission to use airstrikes to strike these people and pay them back.

CAVUTO: You think would Assad do that? It was a year ago, a year ago, this time of year, that the president was looking at airstrikes within Syria to take out Assad. Now, he shelved that for favor of getting support in Congress to do that, never got that far, but now ironically he would go back to Assad to seek his permission to go and attack ISIS positions?

BUCHANAN: Let me say this.

I think that the last year, the people calming for attacks on Assad were not thinking. One of two or three forces is going to control Damascus, ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Assad. Now, which would you prefer? None of us likes Assad, but he's never been a threat to the United States.

And if you can work with him and even some other unsavory characters and go after ISIS, if ISIS is the main threat to the United States, that's what you ought to do.

CAVUTO: Well, there are many who will dispute that and say we never know who is on first or who is really our friend, and then the case of the Egypt uprising--


BUCHANAN: Well, we're hearing -- we heard an alternative, though.


CAVUTO: But let me raise this, that that's why Americans are leery of protracted entanglements, because just this sort of who's on first, who's our friend, who do we support, who's the least of all the evils comes up.

BUCHANAN: Here's what we ought -- here's what we ought not to do. Do not send another American army into Iraq, and do not send an American army into Syria.


CAVUTO: So, no boots on the ground? Pat Buchanan says no boots on the ground.

BUCHANAN: The Syrians, the Turks, the Iraqis, the Kurds have hundreds of thousands of soldiers. There's about 16,000 in ISIS. They can deal with the boots on the ground and the Americans can provide airpower.

But to send Americans in there, Neil, this is why Al Qaeda is all over the world today. They hit us on 9/11, we go crashing into Afghanistan, try to rebuild it. We go crashing into Iraq. We go crashing into Syria and into Lebanon.


CAVUTO: No, no, I know what you're saying, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Excuse me.

CAVUTO: But are you afraid what happens is, let's say we increase the airstrikes, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and all of the sudden these nuts start saying, well, see, the Americans are upping the airstrikes and targeting us, we told you this would happen, we continue with the beheadings, you unite a lot of these crazies into one group that forms this great caliphate, and we actually breed more of the same problem we're trying to eradicate?

BUCHANAN: There is no caliphate that can threaten the United States. The caliphate is a state.
We are threatened by individual terrorists. What we ought to do, this is going to be a long war, Neil. What you ought to do is systematically work with all the players in the region, almost all of whom despise this group, work with them. They provide the troops as they did at Mount Sinjar, as they did in Amirli, and provide the airpower with them and systematically degrade and attack these people until they are finished.


CAVUTO: Well, do you think -- let's say the president does that, because he's been criticized for this management problem remark, to paraphrase, earlier today, and that I guess we can't eradicate them, so at best we try to contain them.

Do you think if that strategy of yours was offered up by this president to Congress, you know, an extended air campaign, no boots on the ground, that Congress would support that and let him do that?

BUCHANAN: Right. I think Congress would support that if the president said, I'm going to use American airpower, we're not going to have boots on the ground in Iraq in any numbers, we're not sending any army--


BUCHANAN: -- into Syria, but I want your support for airstrikes, I think, and to aid and deal with anyone who will help us in this fight.


BUCHANAN: I think he would get an OK.

CAVUTO: All right. We will see about that. Last year, different story.

Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate, bestselling author, all right. 

Malzberg | Patrick J. Buchanan to discuss everything from ISIS to Scottish independence
Published on Sep 17, 2014
bestselling author, Fox News contributor, former GOP presidential candidate, and former senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan joins Steve to discuss everything from ISIS to Scottish independence as well as if Hillary as ever been right



No comments:

Post a Comment