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.
