Perhaps, the best way to describe the Obama foreign policy in Syria is “an eye for an eye”. That is, if ISIS “acts” in a threatening manner against the United States and if those acts are traced to ISIS located in Syria, then they will be subject to attack by US forces. If ISIS located in Iraq similarly acts in a threatening manner, then the US will strike there as it has. Otherwise, the US foreign policy distributes military punishment iteratively by enemy franchise as opposed to lumping them together into a united brand.
What is the merit in doing this? Extrapolate to understand the answer to this question.
- Islamic State has embarked upon being a multi-nation organization united under a shared radical Sunni ideal for non-pluralistic governance. It is a closed club.
- The U.S.prefers to interrupt the notion of regional fortitude by isolating ISIS by branded locations, i.e., Islamic State Syria, Islamic State Iraq, etc.
- If one wants to kill a snake, you cut off its head. In the instance of U.S. addressing the Islamic State snake, it is beginning by cutting off its tail in Iraq. The U.S. will not pursue the head until or unless it is bitten. Is that it?
In the broader sense, consider how this applies to Muslim nations. Not all Muslims are alike. There are moderate and peaceful Muslims, and there are radical extremists.
Muslim nation - Sunni, Sunni-Shiite, Shiite, Shiite-Sunni
- If a Muslim nation has not committed any direct terrorist or military action against the U.S., then there is no problem.
- If a Muslim nation sponsors terrorism, or harbors terrorist organizations willfully or un-willfully, then it may become a military target, all or in part.
This is an analysis, of course, and not the official policy because no one has said what the true policy is other than words uttered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
General Dempsey told Fox News, ISIS is “not currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe.”
ISIS isn’t plotting outside their battle ground at present because they have yet to secure their immediate objectives in Syria and Iraq. The General said that ISIS in Yemen did act to plot attacks in the U.S. and therefore they received the brunt of American military action.
Using the snake metaphor, ISIS is a den of snakes that creep about the Middle East. Sometimes, a snake attempts to bite the U.S. and then America goes for its head. Otherwise, America leaves snakes alone, but still move around the Middle East looking for oil.
“Joint Chiefs chairman says ISIS not a direct threat to US, won't recommend Syria strikes yet
Published August 25, 2014
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that he would not recommend U.S. military airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Syria until he determines that they have become a direct threat to the U.S.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, speaking to reporters on board a military plane traveling to Afghanistan, said Sunday that he believes the Sunni insurgent group formerly known as ISIS is more of a regional threat and is not currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe.
ISIS has repeatedly made threats to attack the U.S. through social and conventional media. Earlier this month, in a Vice News documentary, a spokesman for the group vowed to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House." The group took over Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, in June, and has since declared an Islamic state, or caliphate, in a swath of territory covering northeastern Syria and northern and western Iraq. U.S. airstrikes and a new policy of direct military aid to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters have served as a check on a threatened ISIS advance toward Kurdish territory in northern Iraq.
On Sunday, Dempsey contrasted ISIS to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has plotted and attempted attacks against the U.S. and Europe. As a result, the U.S. has conducted counterterrorism strikes against the group within Yemen.”