re: ISIS Rampages, the Middle East Shakes

Submitted by trawna (Canada), Jun 13, 2014 at 16:31

I am generally pretty much in agreement with Daniel Pipes, but don't agree with a couple of things he says in this article.

He blames the current crisis in Iraq on Bush for getting the US involved in the first place. But he forgets that at the end of Bush's presidency and the surge, the war was pretty much won. It was Obama that decided to set an arbitrary date to "end" the war, and it was Obama that decided not to leave any American troops there.

Pipes also says "This is basically a Middle Eastern problem and outside powers should aim to protect their own interests, not solve the Middle East's crises. Tehran, not we, should fight ISIS." However, if Iran takes half of Iraq and half of Syria in addition to its hold on Lebanon, and if Al Qaeda takes a part of Syria and a part of Iraq, and threatens Jordan, the Kurdish areas, and other countries that are not hostile to the US, while this may not be an immediate problem for the US, it no doubt will become one.

This situation calls for a Kissinger, not a Chamberlain.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".