Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

Whether or not Hollande felt it unsavory to cut a deal with Russia, he had to if his goal of destroying ISIS is to be realized. I'm sure he was willing to go it alone if France was capable of pulling it off alone, but it is not.

It's a said state of affairs when a US ally must deal with Putin to obtain justice for his people and protect his nation.

There was a time when even the suggestion of such a thing would have had Congress boiling over and a US president would have immediately jumped to France's side, if only to keep it from dealing with Russia. My how times have changed.

I don't think the fact that France is dealing with Putin is going to persuade Obama to take any action he was not previously inclined to take. I would imagine that he has at least a couple of advisers who are not members of the West Wing staff who are telling him he can't let Putin use this as a way to drive a wedge between NATO members, but there will be plenty in the White House telling him what he wants to hear.

I'm not sure what Hollande will be specifically asking of him when they meet (is it next week?) but if it has anything to do with US ground troops I would be very surprised if he comes away with what he's asked for.

An increase in shared intelligence is a guaranteed take-away, and it's probably already taken place. Communication and logistical support is probably also an area where the two can agree, but I would not expect to see a significant increase in airstrikes and with Russia pitching in, Hollande may not even need such a promise.

It's difficult to imagine how ISIS is to be seriously taken out without the involvement of ground troops. Has there been any indication that France is willing to commit such troops to the effort? Clearly, if it isn't willing to go that far, there is zero chance America will.

Perhaps he will be looking for the US to join it's considerable influence with the Arab states to France's so that a deal for Arab/Muslim ground troops entering the fray can be made.

So far Obama has not been willing to meet the requests of the Kurds for arms which I presume has something to do with Turkey. France could though. I would think they have the better argument to make to an unhappy Turkey: " The bastards attacked us and killed our people. We are going to take them out. Let us arm the Kurds or commit your own ground troops to the fight."

I suppose the argument of whether or not an air campaign alone can achieve the West's ostensible goal of destroying ISIS will be tested, but I think it will be settled that it cannot. Of course if all restraints are lifted and anyone is prepared to cause a Biblical proportioned rain of bombs to fall on ISIS strongholds, it would probably do the trick but the collateral damage will be significant. Our pilots are already flying sorties under restrictive Rules of Engagement and once again, this is due to Obama's severe aversion to collateral damage. I'm not, by any means a military expert but based on what I've read and heard it seems to me that ground force involvement (and significantly more than a limited Special Forces presence) will be required.

Having twice run anti-war presidential campaigns and not allowing any consideration to get in the way of a full retreat from Iraq, (Not even the rise of ISIS) Obama is not likely to want to be starting a new war in the region, particularly since he may have to waffle on Afghanistan. He seems bound and determined to end his presidency having earned the Nobel Peace Prize prematurely awarded to him at the beginning of his first term, and I would not be surprised if he's fine with France finding it's assistance elsewhere. If it turns out that the job just can't get done without the US participating in a much more significant role than it is playing now, I can see him trying to drag out his commitment until the matter can be turned over to a new president.

Remember he gave the OK to begin very limited air strikes with great reluctance and only after the political pressure generated from millions of Americans watching Jihadi Johnny cutting of an American journalist's head became too intense to ignore.

If this wasn't so serious a matter it would be a kick watching the geo-politics of this thing play out. It will still be fascinating and likely frustrating.

People outside Syria may have differing goals, but "Assad welcoming Islamic State into existence and then leaving them alone while he pummeled their moderate competitors" was key to Islamic State flourishing in Syria.

A moderate bullet is as lethal as is a Daesh bullet.

I thought we started the airstrikes first (in response to Islamic State being on the verge of capturing a strategic Iraqi dam) and then Islamic State started beheading Americans.

The moderates don't fire on innocent people. They merely fight for freedom and democracy.

There are no innocents in Syria. During any given minute everybody has a side, and works for their side.

"They have weapons. **** them. We have champagne."




Apologies for swearing. But given Charlie Hebdo's unrelenting stand in favor of free speech and past history as victims of terrorism, censoring them would feel like sacrilege right now.

Being on a side doesn't mean they can't be innocent.

The people who peacefully protested for freedom and democracy and were ruthlessly gunned down were innocent.

Olivier5 wrote: "You're watching too many movies. Those guys are only human. They were spotted befofe they could enter the stadium, that's all. No need to start fantacizing..."

One of the suicide bombers set off his vest at a McDonald's. Another set his off at a crowded cafe. Nobody was killed except the bombers.

Of the two suicide bombers who set off their vests near gates of the stadium, killing only one passerby, that tells me one of two things: (1) There was hardly anyone nearby, in which case they preferred to blow themselves up knowing that they might be the only casualties instead of walking a short distance away where there were plenty, which sounds neither ferocious nor well trained, or (2) There were plenty of civilians nearby, but as with the other vests, the explosions were ineffective instruments of death except for the individuals wearing them.

Nor is there any indication that the vests of the three at Bataclan (two of which were deliberately detonated and one was set off by bullet or concussion) killed anyone but the wearers. Professionally made suicide vests are full of ball bearings backed by plastique and when they explode the damage is similar to a Claymore anti-personnel mine. Every wall of the room would have been peppered with shrapnel after passing through the bodies of the policemen and anyone else nearby.

oralloy wrote: "I thought we started the airstrikes first (in response to Islamic State being on the verge of capturing a strategic Iraqi dam) and then Islamic State started beheading Americans."

You're correct on the order of events, and Finn d'Abuzz's reversal reflects the false narrative prevalent in the American media. The U.S. bombing of ISIS took place August 8. On the 12th ISIS sent an email to James Foley's family threatening to kill him in response to the bombing. On the 19th he was apparently executed. Note that the video fades to black without showing a decapitation. Video resumes with a body and an already severed head. I wasn't able to ascertain whether the head was Foley's since it was nearly impossible to view unedited and I had to rely on text descriptions. This pattern was followed in the later videos, which were widely descibed as gruesome decapitations with a knife despite the fact that no on-screen violence occurred in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_beheading_incidents

Readers should note that the timeline is supported by published reports in many newspapers of record published at the time. It was only after time had passed that the revisionist history began to circulate.

BillRM wrote: "They (ISIS) are once more out in the open and trying to be a nation state where conventional military forces could deal with them before they could return to hiding."

They're imbedded in urban areas, and they adapt their tactics to circumstances. You can't fight small unit urban guerrillas like you would a conventional army. They're highly mobile and, unlike a tank army which can be outflanked, they can slip through lines. They don't stand and fight a large infantry force; they melt away, blend in, and harass them with IEDs, including roadside bombs, bombs buried under roads, vehicle borne suicide bombs, boobytraps, ambushes, and similar tactics. They have tunnels for shelter from bombs and artillery and for escape as well as surprise attacks. They don't wear uniforms and can pose as civilians. Think al Qaeda in Iraq because that's what ISIS was before it split from the al Qaeda leadership, taking a large number of fighters from it.

Sure, you can send in the troops and, with high American infantry casualties, oust them. Then begins the guerrilla war of attrition, a lot of constant harassing attacks that undermine popular support back home as the body bags accumulate with no end in sight. And there are a lot of potential foreign fighters sitting on the sidelines who would jump right in if westerners invaded.

The Iraqi Sunnis were happy to be done with al-Qa'ida in Iraq once we gave them a better option. They only welcomed them back under the name Islamic State after we had left Iraq and the Shia had set about exterminating them.

If we were to split the Kurdish and Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria off into separate states, it is likely that the Sunnis, free from worry about being massacred by either Assad or Iraqi Shia, would be happy to form a moderate government again.

An what the hell do you think that ISIS had been doing to every group that does not belong to them?

You have an interesting idea that any one is more mobille then the current US military let alone ISIS.

I am not arguing that Islamic State is good. I am arguing that Assad is unacceptably bad.

This is a war with multiple bad guys. It will be our eternal shame if we side with any of them.

Okay, so their explosive belts didn't work to your satisfaction. It could have been much worse. So what?

BTW, are all sollipsists as keen as you are to second-guess the cops? Is it because you are inventing your world doesn't mean you can re-invent mine.

Depends on what you call "recently". The source of the donations from Kuweit and Saudi Arabia was first noted back in 2012, 'recently', in 2014, by James Stavridis ... ... ... Today (2015), it has been said that most of the donations now comes from Qatar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34859233

This is why it's called the beautiful game.

Thank you, Izzy.

It is indeed a beautiful game...and that quote you cited shows a part of humanity in its better light. There are so many dark moments to human conduct...I'm happy for this example of one of the bright ones.

Nice to see it.