XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: gitmo@not.closed.com   
      
   The United States has announced its intentions to counter the   
   Islamic State group by sending 475 additional US troops to Iraq   
   and intensifying airstrikes against ISIS targets in coordination   
   with Baghdad.   
      
   US President Barack Obama, during his televised national   
   address, also endorsed a cross-border extension of the US   
   bombing campaign into Syria.   
      
   Obama called on Congress to approve a massive $500 million   
   program intended to bolster and equip militants seeking to   
   topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Syrian government   
   officials have reiterated their opposition to US airstrikes,   
   declaring that any strikes on their territory launched without   
   the consent of Damascus would be considered an act of aggression.   
      
   Washington’s strategy implies launching airstrikes on a   
   sovereign nation without UN authorization and openly arming non-   
   state militants, which would constitute a major violation of   
   international law. US officials have already conceded that the   
   regional campaign could stretch beyond the end of Obama’s   
   presidency.   
      
   Washington’s open-ended escalation of US military action in the   
   region amounts to a unilateral declaration of war. It is   
   important to note that the Obama administration has sidestepped   
   its constitutional obligation to obtain congressional approval   
   for its military campaign, legitimizing its authority from 2001   
   use-of-force authorization against al-Qaeda that the president   
   himself endorsed repealing last year.   
      
   During his speech, the US president likened his administration’s   
   strategy against ISIS to US counterterrorism actions undertaken   
   in Yemen and Somalia. Obama labeled those operations as   
   ‘successful,’ despite generating hundreds of civilian   
   causalities and failing to eliminate al-Qaeda in the Arabian   
   Peninsula or al-Shabaab since the campaigns were expanded after   
   Obama came to office.   
      
   In an attempt to assuage public concern, Obama insisted that US   
   military personnel would not be involved in ground combat. This   
   language is misleading considering that the tone of the   
   president’s speech obfuscates how the 1,600 US troops already in   
   Iraq are by definition active duty soldiers and parties to an   
   armed conflict. They will also be coordinating and launching   
   airstrikes.   
      
   Despite Iraq being the beneficiary of extensive US military   
   assistance, which included multibillion-dollar training programs   
   for Iraqi Security Forces and police, the Islamic State   
   militants were still able to overrun Iraqi army positions and   
   capture significant quantities of military equipment provided by   
   Washington.   
      
   It is unlikely that such a limited contingent of US forces can   
   help the Iraqi army achieve what the previously more extensive   
   training programs could not, which raises the likelihood that   
   more American military personnel would eventually need to be   
   deployed to support the operation, which sets the stage for   
   prolonged mission creep.   
      
   The silence of various human rights groups is notable as   
   Washington angles to spend half-a-billion dollars bolstering   
   Syrian anti-government insurgents with training and equipment. A   
   surge of lethal weapons into Syria will fuel bloodshed,   
   exacerbate the already abhorrent humanitarian situation, and   
   increase the probabilities of arms falling into the hands of   
   groups like the Islamic State and other fundamentalist groups,   
   such as Jabhat al-Nursa.   
      
   The Islamic State has become the most sophisticated, organized,   
   and entrenched terrorist group in history by virtue of Western   
   and Gulf state’s support for Syrian rebel militias, a fact that   
   has been widely corroborated by various media organizations,   
   investigators and independent journalists.   
      
   An exposé recently published in the Washington Post detailed how   
   fighters trained under the auspices of covert CIA programs   
   approved by the Obama administration have joined the ranks of   
   the Islamic State. Western and Gulf states, according the   
   report, knowingly armed and trained Islamist fighters with   
   jihadist leanings and anti-Western views to fight and topple the   
   governments of Libya and Syria.   
      
   The Washington Post’s report, which cites senior US and Arab   
   intelligence figures and members of the Islamic State, claims   
   that many fighters who now belong to the Islamic State and   
   Jabhat al-Nusra were previously trained by French, British, and   
   American military and intelligence personnel.   
      
   Countries such as Russia, China, and Iran consistently raised   
   objections to Western and Gulf policies in Syria throughout the   
   duration of the conflict in that country, warning of the   
   dangerous potential for extremists to exploit the lawless space   
   in areas outside the Syrian government’s control. Those concerns   
   have proven to be entirely accurate.   
      
   The Obama administration, in addition to US allies such as Saudi   
   Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and Kuwait, bear the ultimate   
   responsibility for giving rise to the organization they are now   
   scrambling to fight through their support for the anti-Assad   
   insurgency. At this stage, any further support for militant   
   groups in Syria by Western and Gulf States is a moral outrage,   
   in addition to being a violation of international law.   
      
   Washington’s stated objective is to diminish the threat of ISIS,   
   but in practice, renewed intervention in the region will fuel   
   the Syrian insurgency and undermine the legitimate government in   
   Damascus. Airpower is also needed in this scenario to safeguard   
   US allies, as well as to protect American facilities and   
   investment interests.   
      
   US client states in the region, mostly Sunni monarchies, are   
   already in a vulnerable position due to the growing reach of   
   fundamentalists. In some cases, members of the population in   
   these countries sympathize with the Islamic State. These   
   concerns have motivated Saudi Arabia to construct a 900km fence   
   along its northern border with Iraq, in addition to deploying   
   30,000 troops to secure the kingdom’s frontiers.   
      
   The Saudi kingdom has played a key role emboldening the Islamic   
   State through its support for radical groups in Syria. By virtue   
   of its oil wealth, the House of Saud has spent the last three   
   decades promoting the Salafist interpretation of Islam (labeled   
   widely as Wahhabism throughout Western discourse) in   
   missionaries throughout the Islamic world. Their interest is in   
   entrenching the royal family’s power and uncontested legitimacy   
   of the King as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.   
      
   Countless fundamentalist jihadi groups fighting in Syria   
   subscribe to Salafism, which seeks to revive a pure and   
   unadulterated Islam that was practiced by the earliest   
   generations of Muslims in seventh century Arabia. Adherents tend   
   to endorse exclusionist and puritanical practices whereby they   
   declare non-Muslims and even fellow Muslims as apostates or   
   infidels, who are usually punished by death.   
      
   The United States has long tolerated the House of Saud’s   
   management of Sunni Islam by exporting radical Salafism   
   throughout the Islamic world, in the interest of furthering its   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)