A CNN/ORC poll released on September 29 indicates that 60 percent of Americans oppose putting U.S. “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria to fight the ISIS forces. However, despite their opposition to sending in ground troops, 73 percent of those polled favored the military air strikes being conducted by the United States and its Western European and Arab allies.
It appears the Obama administration and Secretary of State John Kerry were against Iran joining the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State terrorists before they were for it.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Martin Dempsey said "a large ground force" might be needed to defeat ISIL (aka ISIS).
The coalition formed to fight Islamic State terrorists has already become fractious, as the "moderate" Syrian rebels the United States is backing don't appreciate the bombing of their extremist friends.
The Syrian rebels the United States has offered to arm and train for the fight against Islamic State terrorists say they need a "no-fly" zone in Syria to protect them from the air force of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Bush-era State Department bureaucrat Stewart M. Patrick proclaimed President Obama's Orwellian address to the United Nations General Assembly “one of the most impressive speeches of his presidency” on the Council on Foreign Relations website.
Americans have repeatedly been reassured that the counterterrorism offensive (or whatever it is that's not a war) against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will not be an American ground war. In the jargon of war planners, there will be no American "boots on the ground."
And yet, 1,600 U.S. "advisors" are engaged in Iraq combat operations.
After having already handed Libya to al-Qaeda-linked jihadists with help from NATO and the United Nations, the Obama administration this week began bombing targets in Syria without congressional or constitutional authority. The plot to bomb Syria is supposedly aimed at battling the self-styled “Islamic State” (also known as ISIS and ISIL) — a terror group that has been among the top beneficiaries of the U.S. government’s controversial machinations in Syria thus far. However, as the bombs were raining down on Syria, top administration officials were openly celebrating their half-baked plan to help overthrow the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, too.
In a clearly politically calculated move, the House of Representatives has reportedly placed an amendment into the jobs package that will ban War Powers Resolution actions until after the midterm elections.
The sound and fury in Thursday's Senate debate signified grave doubts, but it ended in a lopsided 78-22 vote in favor of President Obama's plan to arm Syrian rebels for the fight against Islamic State terrorists. The House approved the plan by a 273-156 vote on Wednesday, and the measure, part of a trillion-dollar spending plan to keep the federal government operating through the end of the calendar year, is now on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
The supposed “moderate” rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad — self-styled jihadists whom the Obama administration and Congress plan to supply with even more support under the guise of battling the Islamic State (ISIS) — recently signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS (also known as ISIL), according to reports from human-rights groups and French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP). Lawmakers on Capitol Hill pointed to the news as yet another reason why supplying U.S. arms and support to Islamic forces to battle Islamic forces was a dangerous idea. The foreign-policy establishment, however, plans to proceed with arming and training jihadists anyway.