May 22, 2015

"Residents — supporters and opponents of President Bashar al-Assad — described officers fleeing, leaving civilians and lowly conscript soldiers to fend for themselves."

"One business owner said he watched pro-government militiamen run helter-skelter into orchards, not sure where to retreat. 'Treason,' he called it. But most of all, they said, they had lost any sense that the government could provide safety even to its loyalists. On Thursday, after the militants had taken over the city and begun executing people they deemed close to the government, many residents cowered in their houses and basements, terrified of militants in the streets and of government shelling and airstrikes from the sky. Some found it ominous that the state news media had incorrectly declared that most civilians had been evacuated, perhaps an excuse to increase airstrikes."

From "Frantic Message as Palmyra, Syria, Fell: 'We're Finished'" (NYT).

Elsewhere in the NYT (on the same day, May 21st): "Defending ISIS Policy, Obama Acknowledges Flaws in Effort So Far."
"There’s no doubt that in the Sunni areas, we’re going to have to ramp up not just training but also commitment, and we better get Sunni tribes more activated than they currently have been," Mr. Obama said. "So it is a source of concern."

64 comments:

MayBee said...

He lives in a world where women make 70% of what men make, and 1 in 5 women in college are raped.

He lives in a world of made up facts.

Birkel said...

You can only know if President Obama's plans for dealing with Iranian proxy ISIS/ISIL have failed if you know what the goals are.

Who amongst us knows what President Obama actually hopes to achieve?

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Elsewhere in the NYT (on the same day, May 21st): "Defending ISIS Policy, Obama Acknowledges Flaws in Effort So Far."
"There’s no doubt that in the Sunni areas, we’re going to have to ramp up not just training but also commitment, and we better get Sunni tribes more activated than they currently have been," Mr. Obama said. "So it is a source of concern.""

My first laugh-at-loud moment of the day. Thanks!

Michael K said...

Obama has no idea how hated he is by Sunnis. The ISIS group is being run by Sunni generals from Saddam's regime, many of whom went to Syria and ran the insurgency from there. The Anbar Awakening with American help drove them out but Obama's lunatic plan to ally himself with Iran and the Iraq regime's Shia dominance has alienated the Sunnis and reignited the war. Obama is not serious about doing anything to salvage Iraq as he would have to adopt Bush's strategy.

The new media have Obama's and Hillary's back and are trying to build them a firewall by asking GOP candidates if Iraq was "a mistake."

Disaster in the Middle East is coming and should arrive in time for the 2016 election. We will be lucky if we don't have a big terrorist attack before then.

ISIS and the generals running it have studied the North Vietnamese strategy,

Anonymous said...

Blogger Michael K said...
Obama has no idea how hated he is by Sunnis.
-----------------------

Obama doesn't have a clue about anything.

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
khesanh0802 said...

It's pretty obvious that Obama has no idea what to do. Our military seems to be just as clueless.
I don't advocate boots on the ground. I don't think we are prepared and I don't think Obama is capable of command.
I find it impressive that this ISIS JV team is successfully running a two front campaign.
I think it is time that someone take a step back and do an honest analysis of the situation in the MidEast, determine what our real interests are( if any) and develop a strategy to pursue those interests. I can't see this WH or the Joint Chiefs doing the job though.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


My favorite memories of the Obama years will be:

1. All the racial healing

2. A glorious Arab Spring

rhhardin said...

Obama was planning to leave the fallout of his idiocy to the next President but it came faster than he planned.

People tend to overlook that Obama's domestic policy is all-destructive as well.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

Re: You can only know if President Obama's plans for dealing with Iranian proxy ISIS/ISIL have failed if you know what the goals are.

ISIS/ISIL is not a proxy of Iran; it is an enemy of Iran, being Sunni, and Iran (Shi'ia) presently has combat forces in the region that are engaged in battle with ISIS forces. This is one of the reasons, arguably the primary reason, for the Obama administration's attempts to normalize and achieve rapporchment with Iran.

Roughcoat said...

normalize and achieve = normalize relations with

Sebastian said...

"Who amongst us knows what President Obama actually hopes to achieve?"

1. Retreat
2. Weaker U.S.
3. More money for "nation-building" at home.
4. Adulation for keeping U.S. out of war

Michael said...

But, of course, these events are irrelevant. What is important is to note that Bush lied and people died and Halliburton. Not to mention blood for oil.

Original Mike said...

Heck of a job, Barry!

LYNNDH said...

"A source of concern", says Bagdad O. Can you imagine the vitriol if this was going on under a Republican. Oh, wait I can. Bush.
The went after Bush for the photo under the banner on the carrier. Nothing on this crew and "we have defeated" them, or "just a JV" team.
The military have a term for what is going on. It is ClusterF.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Back in the 1980s, I would sometimes happen to catch one of those overdubbed, made-in-China kung fu movies they'd broadcast on a Saturday afternoon.

Seemed every movie I ever saw had a scene in it where a huge martial arts brawlfest would break out in a restaurant while little old men, all dressed in shapeless black, would cower in the corners and make whimpering sounds.

Art imitating life.

chickelit said...

POTUS Obama still believes that Global Warming is the greatest threat to America and her armed forces. link

He leads from his behind.

CWJ said...

Obama said -

"we’re going to have to ramp up not just training but also commitment,"

This is worse than useless. Ramp up training. Spoken like some Democrat hack calling for a new jobs program. Ramp up commitment. Spoken like every despot ever exhorting the masses to redouble their effort. Where's your commitmnent, Obama?

He's adopted the message of the autocrat wrapped in the jargon of the corporate consultant. Indeed, not with a bang but a whimper.

Michael K said...

"This is one of the reasons, arguably the primary reason, for the Obama administration's attempts to normalize and achieve rapporchment with Iran."

I think the truth is that it is the reverse. Obama has this theory that he will leave a legacy of having solved the Middle East by rapprochement with Iran. He is a fool and so was Carter but at least Carter had no prior experience with that region and Carter also seemed to learn from his mistakes, hiring Volker and increasing military spending after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Obama defies definition.

chuck said...

Bit late. Too late. The best response at this point is to retire the general who f**ked up the campaign. That would be that smooth talking incompetent who is serving as president.

Hagar said...

The war in Iraq/Syria is at least a three cornered fight between Iran, ISIS, and the Sunni Arab states, each a blood enemy of the other two.

Training the Iraqi army has nothing to do with it; it is a remnant of the Iraq that was and Obama betrayed out of existence.

grackle said...

Our military seems to be just as clueless.

Readers, do not mistake the Joint Chiefs of Staff for "our military" just because Obama has surrounded himself with Generals who will go along with his nonsense. Our military knows exactly what to do to defeat ISIS but is hampered by a defeat-loving Commander in Chief who imposes idiotic Rules of Engagement and doomed strategies that all but guarantee an ISIS victory.

cubanbob said...

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would surrender to ISIS knowing the fate that awaits them. I would have thought just knowing what fate awaits for those who surrender would cause them to fight like devils to the end.

Blaming Obama is easy and even true but misses the larger picture: there hasn't been one war the US has been involved in since 1945 that the Democrats have not managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Michael K said...

"Readers, do not mistake the Joint Chiefs of Staff for "our military" just because Obama has surrounded himself with Generals who will go along with his nonsense."

Exactly. Look at a list of flag officers retired early for the leadership to fix this for the next president. When Roosevelt was in trouble in 1941 he called back Earnest J King who said, "When the going gets tough, they send for the sions of bitches."

Michael K said...

" I would have thought just knowing what fate awaits for those who surrender would cause them to fight like devils to the end. "

The refugee flows are already begun but they will be like nothing the world has seen since WWII and probably worse. Italy is bombing ships in Libya to keep them from leaving with refugees.

grackle said...

The war in Iraq/Syria is at least a three cornered fight between Iran, ISIS, and the Sunni Arab states, each a blood enemy of the other two.

This is the It's Complicated argument, a favorite of the anti-war folks. Iran, ISIS and the Sunnis all hate America. Whichever bloodthirsty Muslim faction could eventually dominate the rest is of little import to America. These internecine spats are irrelevant to the prevention of Muslim terrorism.

Let's say I'm run down by an automobile in the street … does it make any sense to agonized over whether the car was a Ford or a Chevy? Or the fact that Ford and General Motors are competitors and have been competitors since their respective companies' inception?

By all means let us be aware of the Shia/Sunni divide but that should never be an excuse not to kill any terrorist from either group.

khesanh0802 said...

@grackle You are correct. Unfortunately the Joint Chiefs are in charge and so far they have proved clueless. I initially thought "boots on the ground" the only tactical answer but the failures of command so far make me very reluctant to put the infantry in harm's way.

Roughcoat said...

Obama has this theory that he will leave a legacy of having solved the Middle East by rapprochement with Iran.

Maybe. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's objective with Iran is to normalize and thus secure a potentially vital source of oil in anticipation of the pending collapse and breakup of the Saudi kingdom. Intelligence analysts are predicting that a Saudi collapse is imminent and may occupy within the next few months. If that should come to pass Saudi will likely divide into three emirates with Sunni Saudi princes ruling two of these polities and the third taking shape along the west coast and comprising the Shia population of that region. This new Shia Saudi emirate will have close ties with Iran and may eventually be absorbed by Iran. The collapse of Saudi will throw the world economy into chaos and elevate Iran into an upper-tier global power. Relatedley it will become one of the world's primary suppliers of oil. The nations of East Asia are deeply concerned one might say terrified) about the consequences of a Saudi collapse and as a result they are scrambling to improve their positions in the Middle East and elsewhere where oil is available.

Bottom line, whether you like or destest Obama (I am in the latter camp) his administration is doing the right thing in cultivating better relations with Iran. The coming Saudi collapse will be an event of the greatest significance and untold impact and getting on better terms with Iran is accordingly of vital important to our national security and economic well-being.

jr565 said...

Here's the fundamental flaw with obamas policy. You have to be in it to win it. You have to commit to win. You can't do it on the cheap and do a few drone strikes here and there.
If you want to win against ISIS you need to take them on directly. And actually engage in full on warfare. We might lose some guys. It might require boots on the ground.

Roughcoat said...

In the Middle East there are wheels within wheels within wheels, and they are now all spinning at top speed.

Jason said...

I think Dempsey is clueless. Odierno sure as hell isn't. Not sure about the others, but I'm an Army guy.

rhhardin said...

Say what you will about Oberlin, but it's their student council that's on the President's valued advisor team and not you.

Jason said...

If the Chiefs are clueless, it's Obama's fault. He appointed them, anyway.

Besides... this isn't a JCS show so much as a CENTCOM show. Now under the command of GEN Lloyd Austin. Former commander of the 10th Mountain Division. He also took over the head shed in Iraq in 2010, taking over for Odierno just in time to shut out the lights.

Roughcoat said...

We do need to take on ISIS militarily and this will certainly require boots on the ground. It will also require a coherent strategy for fighting and decisively winning the war. America must stop not winning the wars it fights. We must fight to win them and win them decisively.

However, fighting and winning a war against ISIS should not be our strategic objective; rather, it should be an element of our national strategy, which should also be configured to achieve, among other things, better relations with Iran. Iran is the enemy of ISIS. Saudi (which is to say, certain high-ranking and/or prominent Saudi individuals and their backers) support ISIS. The breakup of Saudi will severly degrade ISIS power in the region. Better relations with Iran will serve our interests in this regard.

Skeptical Voter said...

Roughcoat, what "intelligence analysts" are you referring to who are predicting the imminent collapse of the Saudi regime? I've not seen any such suggestions, but you may be better informed than I am.

Back in the early days of the Bush Iraq War (as opposed to the Obama Iraq War), there was much hoohing and hahing on the left about a "War for Oil". The assertion was that we had to invade Iraq to get access to its oil.

That was arrant nonsense. Through the late 90's and early 2000's, tankers full of Iraqi crude routinely docked in San Francisco. That oil was refined into gasoline by Chevron and Exxon, and went to the tanks of the automobiles that Bay Area morons drove to rallies protesting "No War For Oil".

The fact is that once crude oil is out of the ground you can't eat it, sleep with it, or live with it. It goes into the world crude oil market--a giant pool that washes up everywhere. If Iran decides that it will not sell its oil to the USA, Iranian oil will go somewhere else--say China. In turn the oil that would have gone to China will go somewhere else--say San Francisco Bay. Refineries around the world all drink from the same global pool of crude oil.


That same rule will apply if the Saudi regime is broken up. Now a dysfunctional or failing government may not be able to manage crude oil production as well as an intact regime. E.g. see Iraqi crude oil production figures.

But to argue that cozying up to the Iranian mullahs to "secure" an Iranian oil supply is a necessary goal is eye wash. If Obama wanted to truly "secure" an oil supply for the USA he'd let up on his restrictions on domestic drilling on federal lands.

Obama is devious--but worse, he's dumb.

Roughcoat said...

The U.S. military leadership including the Joint Chiefs know perfectly well what is going on and what is at stake in the Middle East. There are differences of opinion among them over the steps we should take and what should be done in terms of configuring a national strategy for dealing with the situation; even so, they are neither incompetent nor are they fools. The United States with Obama at the helm is playing a deep game in the Middle East and it is evident from some of the posts in this thread that some of the commentators haven't a clue that this is the case and as a result are falling back on stale tropes in their assessments. As mentioned above, I detest Obama and I think he is leading this country to ruin. But his instincts with respect to cultivating better relations with Iran are quite correct. His tactical execution for gaining that objective may be catastrophically bad, but I think it is too soon to make such a judgment.

gerry said...

Disaster in the Middle East is coming and should arrive in time for the 2016 election. We will be lucky if we don't have a big terrorist attack before then.

A good thing that may occur as a result of coming nuclear exchanges between Iran (Shiite) and Saudi Arabia/Turkey (Sunni) is that it may silence mattress-carrying liars/ snowflakes/feminazis/progressive cryptofascists for a while.

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

Re "what "intelligence analysts" are you referring to who are predicting the imminent collapse of the Saudi regime?".

Good ones.

Re "a dysfunctional or failing government may not be able to manage crude oil production as well as an intact regime.

Precisely. But more than that, two dysfunctional or failing governments will be highly vulnerable to being influenced nations hostile to our interests, e.g. China and Russia. Do you want to see China and Russia establishing an enduring and powerful footprint in the region--to effectively take over or at least dominate the oil reserves of two Saudi emirates? Cultivating better relations with Iran will result in developing a counterbalance to Chinese/Russian power in the region, i.e. in the new Sunni-Saudi emirates. This will at the same time enhance our power in the region and our ability to influence events in our favor while confounding the designs of our enemies: China and Russia. Securing an Iranian oil supply entails a free flow of oil to the world (not merely or even primarily the U.S.) which will undermine the power, influence, and prestige of the Saudis and their allies.

I'm not arguing for "cozying up" to the mullahs, and this should be clear from what I wrote. I'm arguing for a foreign policy approach to Iran that will best serve our country's interests. Not to belabor the point, but what's at issue here is not obtaining oil for the United State but establishing some degree of stability in the Middle East and worldwide as well. This will require, among other things, confronting and confounding the aims and actions of our enemies in the region, which in turn requires, for reasons I've already stated (if only in outline), developing better relations with Iran.

Three things to bear in mind. First, Saudi is going to break apart, sooner or later, probably sooner. Second, Iran WILL become a major player and power in global affairs. Third, it is my belief that the mullah's regime in Iran will fall, possibly within a few years, and a more liberal and westernized regime will take its place. Everything we do now should be done with those three developments in mind.

Skeptical Voter said...

Roughcoat---Sweet Jeebus!

The USA or at least Obama "is playing a deep game in the Mideast", and some of his critics are too dumb to understand that?

I'm reminded of P. T. Barnum who put the word "Egress" up over the exit from his exhibitions. The rubes thought that an "egress" was some new kind of wild animal and rushed through it.

I for one know that "egress" and "exit" mean the same thing. I don't know if Obama and his supporters are that clued in.

Deep game my tookus. The Middle East is going to be in "deep stuff" when Iran gets the bomb.

Now it may well be that Iran will get a bomb whatever we do. And Obama's "deep game" is to play kissyface with the Ayatollahs. The question for Obama (which he won't have to answer because he will have left the room) is whether the Ayatollahs will still respect him in the morning. I doubt it--he looks like an "easy punch" to them.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bobby said...

Michael K,

The ISIS group is being run by Sunni generals from Saddam's regime, many of whom went to Syria and ran the insurgency from there.

Source, please. Because this is not how I understand it.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

Skeptical Voter,

Iran will get the bomb if it doesn't have it already.

Saudi will break up, and China and Russia will use the breakup as a means of increasing their footprints in the region.

Iran will become more powerful.

What's your strategy for dealing with the situation?

grackle said...

But his instincts with respect to cultivating better relations with Iran are quite correct.

The only "better relations" with Iran that makes sense is to prevent their ascendancy in the Middle East. Allowing the major exporter of terrorism in the world(Iran) to run the show in the Middle East is lunacy. The Caliphate is here and grows and gains ground as we speak. Iran now has proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. I quote here from an article entitled "Meet the Proxies: How Iran Spreads Its Empire through Terrorist Militias:"

… when Iranian officials gloat over their control of four Arab capitals, they are being uncharacteristically modest. Tehran’s hegemony has spread far beyond Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sana’a.

Roughcoat said...

Grackle,

I'm arguing that there is no practical way short of total war of preventing Iran's ascendancy in the Middle. When Saudi breaks up Iran will be the predominant regional power. It is not within our power to allow or disallow Iran from dominating the Middle East.

How do you propose to deal with the situation?

In answering that question, keep in mind that the Caliphate (ISIS/ISIL) is Sunni and an enemy of Shi'a Iran, NOT Iran's proxy.

Michael K said...

"Bottom line, whether you like or destest Obama (I am in the latter camp) his administration is doing the right thing in cultivating better relations with Iran."

This is assuming that they are competent and will not be outsmarted by the Iranian rug peddlers.

I see no signs that this will work.

"The ISIS group is being run by Sunni generals from Saddam's regime, many of whom went to Syria and ran the insurgency from there.

Source, please. Because this is not how I understand it. "

Let's try to find some. It's not easy to find these stories from 2004 because they were very poorly reported.

Try this one.

How has the insurgency evolved?

When the U.S. invasion began in 2003, it was mainly Baathists, ex-Iraqi military, and Saddam loyalists. They were Iraqi nationalists, opposed to foreign occupation, who saw Iraq as a competitor with Egypt for the control of the Arab world. It was an issue of national pride. Video recordings and communiqués were coming out from everybody who had an AK-47. But as the war dragged on, some of these groups started coalescing; others were destroyed. Only the strongest, the most hardcore, the best financed, the people with the most training, survived, despite airstrikes and the arrest of their senior leaders by the U.S. military.


There are others but I don't have the time to look it all up. That article in Salon was before the Surge, of course. Here is a more recent one.

A former top military commander and vice president in the Hussein government, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has joined forces with the jihadists of the Isis (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) with the aim of overthrowing the Shiite-majority government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

A senior Baathist leader told the New York Times that the groups are "unified by the same goal, which is getting rid of this sectarian government, ending this corrupt army and negotiating to form a Sunni Region".

Al-Douri escaped capture from the US forces after the invasion that overthrew Hussein and gave the majority Shiite Muslims a prominent role in the new government. Over the last few years, he encouraged anti-government Sunni protesters to challenge the Maliki government and force him out.


There's more but you will have to find it yourself.

Michael K said...

Here is that last link. I thought I had included it.

Michael K said...

Richard Fernandez is a pretty reliable source with lots of links

ISIS understood that given the force levels and rules of engagement Obama had authorized, the US was not on the offensive. It was on the defensive. In the offensive the key objective is Mosul; on the defense the key point is Ramadi. Because Obama deceived himself into believing his Frankenstein “strategy” was offensive, he unrealistically tended toward Mosul. In the meantime ISIS closed the distance and punched in Ramadi.

These are not just a bunch of radical kids. The people running this have military experience.

Roughcoat said...

I see no signs that this will work.

What, then, will work?

Bobby said...

Michael K,

None of that is evidence that ISIS (which I'll hereafter be referring to as Daesh) is being run by "Sunni generals from Saddam's regime." Certainly, there are some Former Regime Elements (FRE) within and amongst the Daesh ranks, but for the most part, the former Ba'athists are not believed to serving in many of the Daesh leadership positions. And there's a good reason for that- the FREs are overwhelmngly Ba'athist, and therefore were overwhelmingly secular and modernist, and were never good candidates to ally with the Sunni extreme fundamentalist Islamists who provide the ideological inspiration for Daesh (and before them, indeed, Al Qaeda). On the contrary, it was because of this almost invisible schism that we were able to see the opportunity to separate the FREs from AQI and help encourage what became known as the Anbar Awakening.

Certainly some FREs absolutely plied their trade to whomever would accept it, and Daesh is among them -- and this is not confined to the Iraqis- the IRA, great freedom fighters for the Irish cause, have their metaphorical fingerprints on an alarming number of IEDs that were used to kill Americans in Iraq before and after the surge (from the individual's perspective, teaching bombs was all he knew how to do so simple capitalism teaches us that we probably should have expected him to export it to whomever would pay him a living wage for it). But I don't think we'd say that's the same thing as running the insurgency.

Coupe said...

Personally, I don't really care about Muslims killing Muslims. I don't lose any sleep about this.

If anything, we should be finding ways to get them to kill more of each other.

When we do the final Crusade, it will be like shit through a Goose.

Birkel said...

I remember the good old days when people asserted neither Iran nor Iraq would help al Queda because of sectarian differences.

Those were fun times. I never believed that bull shit way back when. But some people did.

Now when people tell me the stupid shit Roughcoat is asserting above I am not the only one who sees it as the bull shit it is.

Michael K said...

"the FREs are overwhelmngly Ba'athist, and therefore were overwhelmingly secular and modernist, and were never good candidates to ally with the Sunni extreme fundamentalist Islamists who provide the ideological inspiration for Daesh"

I think al Qeada lost because they were terrorists and being run by a thug like Zarkawi. ISIS is an army with pretty good discipline and strategy, as illustrated by Richard Fernandez column today.

I certainly can't prove that these are Saddam's generals but there was a lot of talk about FREs in Syria back in 2003 and 2004.

They might well be mercenaries selling their skills to clerics but somebody is doing a good job with a very primitive army.

Roughcoat said...

Birkel,

What's stupid about the "shit" I wrote?

Which points do you disagree with, and why?

Roughcoat said...

Someone please tell why you think the Obama administration is undertaking to improve relations with Iran.

I'm not asking whether you think that strategy is right or wrong, or whether he is effectively executing that strategy.

I'm asking you to explain why you think that Obama thinks it is necessary to improve U.S.-Iran relations.

readering said...

Supposedly Ramadi was taken with 400 fighters. This is small ball. The Israeli army must be relieved to know that it will be a very long time before it is threatened by its neighbors.

Skeptical Voter said...

RoughCoat I dunno--maybe the fact that he and John Kerry are hell bent for election to ease the sanctions on Iraq? Maybe the fact that several of our erstwhile European allies walked out of the Iranian sanctions talks because the US was waffling? I mean when the French think you're weak--well--they should know. Maybe the fact that he abandoned support for a revolutionary push against the Mullahs? Maybe the fact that he's called off the US Navy's protection of merchant vessels from the depradations of the Iranian Navy? I dunno--somewhere in that "deep" roomful of Obama horseshit, I think there's a buried Iranian pony. But then I'm not Rough Coat.

Rusty said...

readering said...
Supposedly Ramadi was taken with 400 fighters. This is small ball. The Israeli army must be relieved to know that it will be a very long time before it is threatened by its neighbors.


Israel is threatened by its neighbors every day.

ISIL is in Palmyra. Which is in Syria. And Syria is next to.........................

Paul said...

This kind of reminds me of when one day Rome woke up to the fact the Visa-Goths were at the gates.

Just la-la land till the roof fell in.

As Ayn Rand said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality”

We are going to have to live with the consequences of what this idiot for a president has done.

chickelit said...

We are going to have to live with the consequences of what this idiot for a president has done.

I certainly hope that the full measure of white-guilty consciences have been softened, because the country has been assuaged.

St. George said...

None of you see the long term.

We're witnessing a repeat of the original 7th century Muslim expansion out of Arabia and into Morocco and India over a period of 125 years.

Fast forward a few decades and we will see this caliphate sprawling across the globe through one failed state after another. (How long will Saudi Arabia hold, facing as it does bitter enemies in ISIS and Iran? We just saw a terror bombing in a Shi'ite mosque in the Hasa. The kingdom will end up being divided or in chaos. Just imagine the price of oil!)

Trace it all to the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Once the US-USSR lost a reason to support their artificially created, economically inept, kleptocratic states, they were doomed to fall.

If there's a short term plus, Muslims will be too busy fighting Muslims over the next few decades, except and until their numbers in Europe start posing deep threats to those nations.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. elites are cravenly clutching their 'privilege' as it's come to be know, kowtowing to every imaginable interest group, as if practicing for the day of dhimmihood.

Ed Snowed Us said...

The report from Palmrya is inaccurate. Elsewhere reported that the regime deliberately abandoned it to ISIS. Clearly the fate of the residents meant nothing.

CYNICS say that Bashar Assad handed ISIS historic Palmrya on a silver platter, after evacuating the infamous torture-hell prison.

He pointed to ISIS leveling 3,000 year old relic of humanity: "See who I am fighting against, how can you criticize my tactics, of killing and maiming small children in Idlib, Aleppo or gassing the rats in Ghouta, or torturing thousands to death every year?"