WHO WILL SUPPLY BOOTS ON THE GROUND?

What a lot of people don't do is review what has happened in Libya.  When we supplied air cover for the the mob there, we had all the ducks in a row.  Everyone was lined up, including the Arab League.  Well the mob won with our help, and we now see that a mob doesn't necessarily result in a going government.  Libya is a mess and as nearly as I can tell the Muslim religious right is gaining ground there.

But ISIS is more complicated than Libya.  We want to get rid of ISIS and so does Iran and presumably dictator Assad of Syria.  Sounds good doesn't it, except we are not really friendly with Iran because we think they want to get THE BOMB.  We also have said that Assad must go.  We must proceed without appearing to support either Iran and Assad.

As for Iraq, we have given air support to the Kurds who have long appeared friendly to us and are willing to fight (and we have also given air support to them before.).  I am less certain about the Shiites, but some of their forces do seem to respond if we supply the air cover.  I assume that a lot of the Sunnis in Iraq are getting fed up with the brutality of ISIS, but their resistance may be half heated unless there is an Iraq government that will share power with them.  We did give some air support for Iraq forces in Anbar Province, a Sunni province.

On Morning Joe this morning, Joe Scarborough indicated that the Arab League seems to have come on board with regards to ISIS.  Obama has also gotten quite a few other countries lined up so I guess he feels he can now proceed.  I had thought that Assad in Syria had seriously depleted the Free Syrian Army that I guess we can support; however, I heard one report of recent Free Syrian Army victories over ISIS.  These poor guys are having to fight on two fronts, but Obama indicates they are the ally of choice to supply the boots on the ground in Syria.  Perhaps if we help arm them and give them air cover they can do better and increase in size but others need to help in both Iraq and Syria.

NO LEAST BAD CHOICE

I think our president is at a loss as to what to do about the use of poison gas in Syria now that the Brits have backed out from any type of military action.  Curiously the news programs don't mention why the President has changed his mind on military action in Syria.  The President definitely has backed off on his call for regime change, for now anyway.  After the Arab League sounding as it they are on board of some punishment of Assad, they have backed off.  The United Nations is not on board.  So it seems like it is just the French and now maybe us to do something about Assad's use of poison gas..

So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress.  Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.*  In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.

So what will Congress do?  It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1)  The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria.  Time will tell.  If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void.  As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were  finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)

Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective.  I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda.  And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?

* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw