Why is Obama talking about containment of ISIS and not annihilation of ISIS? The history of WW2 and Afghanistan might shed some light

Posted on | September 4, 2014 | 5 Comments

Many in the media are questioning, why Obama is talking about forming an international coalition to contain ISIS and not defeat it. We can probably find an answer in analyzing the history of WW2 and the history of Afghan wars.
Many state that Hitler could have been defeated early on and the policy of appeasement led to Hitler’s expansion. I believe, this was not an appeasement, it was a conscious decision by the ruling oligarchy not to stop Hitler and let him expand and invade the Soviet Union. Hitler was seen as a tool for fighting the communist proliferation in Europe. Only when it was clear that Hitler lost and the Soviets had an upper hand and were advancing, did the US decide to land in Normandy and join the European war theater. Every country liberated by the US stayed in the market of free economies. Every country liberated by the Soviet Union was turned communist. There are some new publications, which show that that at least one or both of Dulles brothers were involved in this policy of using Hitler as a tool against the Soviets.
Case study #2. US actively supported the Mujahadden and Al Qaeda to fight Soviet proliferation in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the U.S. Al Qaeda turned against its’ sponsor.
We know that there are reported meetings between John McCain and Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (or whatever his real name is), the Caliph of the ISIS Caliphate. There were common goals between the U.S. and the so called “rebels” in Syria. U.S. sponsored the rebels for two reasons:
a. U.S. sought to overthrow the President of Syria Bashir al -Assad, who, just as his father Hafez al-Assad, had close ties with Russia. Additionally, support of Sunni caliphate was a counter force against Shiah majority in Iraq and most importantly Shiah Iran.
So, as long as ISIS operates against Assad and Rouhani, U.S. probably will not do anything.
I believe that the idea was to counter attack ISIS if it goes against the U.S. or U.S. allies, such as Kurds on the North, Lebanon and Israeli Golan Heights in the West and Jordan and further on Saudi Arabia and emirates on the South.
This might explain Obama’s statements of containment.
At issue is, whether Obama is really willing and able to contain ISIS.
Same facts suggest that he is playing both sides.
One can see the correlation and a perfect timing of ISIS going into the major offensive right after Obama released 5 top Taliban leaders from GITMO.
A very unsettling fact is not only in this release, but also the fact that one of these former detainees, Khairulla Kharakhwa, was known as a liaison between Taliban and Iran. Further Obama did not take any steps in protecting the homeland against ISIS. Obama keeps the US borders wide open and retaliates against the border patrol officers who are the whistle blowers. He, also, did not revoke the passports of American Muslims who went to Syria to fight the Taliban.
What is even more unsettling, is the fact that Obama recently sold 52 billion of sophisticated military equipment to Qatar, which is known for its’ support for ISS, Hamas, Boca Haram and other terrorist organizations.
While we understand the context of the meaning “containment” of ISIS, at issue is the fact that Obama might not be able and most importantly not willing to contain.