Back when ISIL (the Islamic State in the Levant, also called the Islamic State in Syria or ISIS) started rearing its head, our Democratic president, Barak Obama, called it the junior varsity of militant extremists.
These days, from our president and from Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, we hear that our effort to defeat ISIL is “right where it should be.” From both Obama and Clinton, we also hear that, before ISIL can be eliminated, we need to resolve the civil war now raging in Syria. What this means is regime change in Syria: the removal of President Bashar Assad and the installation of a “moderate” interim government.
We’re told in addition to all of the above that, in the course of 2015, ISIL has lost 14 percent of the territory it occupies in Syria and Iraq.
I think it’s fair to say that most Americans are appalled by the contradictions between statements from our Democrats to the effect that all is well and the statistics indicating that ISIL is getting stronger and more sophisticated.
Focus a moment on the Democratic position that regime change is needed in Syria before ISIL can be demolished. Ask: How long will it take to affect regime change? How long will it take for an interim government to show itself as genuinely moderate? And in this interim, which is likely to be extensive, what “enhancements” to its terrorist machine will ISIL achieve?
Then focus on the 14 percent loss factor. And ask: At a 14 percent loss of territory per year, how long will it take for ISIL to lose 100 percent of what it now holds in Iraq and Syria?
Clearly, we’re not right where we should be in our struggle against ISIL. And we cannot afford a minor eternity in which to achieve victory in this struggle.
But what’s our alternative in the next presidential election? A Republican president is likely to have our military charge precipitously into Iraq and Syria, much as we stormed into Iraq under the younger Bush.
Looks like we have a Gordian problem with ISIL!
Tom Wright
Aztec
