John Sawer, in his Weekend Financial Times article on ISIS and the Paris terror attacks, put it bluntly and best on what ISIS absolutely does not want (among two things):
"First, ISIS does not want a ground intervention by NATO or Russia, as this would quickly cost the militants their base in eastern Syria and western Iraq".
However, he noted they have probably already calculated there is not stomach for such intervention in the NATO nations, despite 12 months of nonstop bombing having little effect. This 'no ground war' sentiment certainly holds in the U.S., despite Jeb Bush's call to "declare war", forgetting the attack was on France not the U.S.. With $18 trillion in debt (and counting) already, there is only a limited amount of further trillions to support more wars, all Marco Rubio's jingoistic bloviations notwithstanding.
The second thing ISIS fears, according to Sawer, is "a peace deal bringing a new government to Syria" Especially if the new deal accommodated the Syrian Sunnis (remember ISIS is largely comprised of Iraqi Sunnis who were disallowed in the gov't mutation later formed by the U.S. - comprised largely of Shi'ites). This would "cause ISIS to lose its appeal"
But the probability of getting to that desirable state is a lot less than orchestrating a limited ground war.
Given the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).
But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders", Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.) Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all". But the U.S., for all the reasons Obama laid out in his press conference this morning, has to leave the provision of sufficient ground troops to others. We've had our turn, now it's theirs.
Again, just as ISIS would most fear a peace settlement that includes Sunnis, so also they would most fear a ground war alliance that includes both the Sunnis (in Saudi Arabia) and the Shia (from Iran). Such an entity would be seen as a "devil's alliance" (much as Hitler saw the U.S. and U.S.S.R. joining forces in WWII) because two nations representing the antipodes of Islam (mutual enemies) would be seen to be strong -willed enough to band together to remove a scourge. This would send chills through all of the ISIS vermin.
The question is whether the Saudis and Iranians could put aside their differences long enough to bring down these pests.
As I noted in my post yesterday, on the Dem debates:
"as geopolitical expert Hillary Mann Leavitt noted this morning, the ISIS attacks are not intended to "take away our freedoms", but to change our policy. In other words, their desire is to get the West to go off half cocked and unilaterally launch a full scale war without ANY Muslim allies involved - so they can garner recruits and justify full out jihad. This is why it is essential that taking out the ISIS bugs be a full collaborative effort, not just with NATO and Russia involved, but ALL the Muslim nations in the region too. "
Meanwhile, there is the serious matter of ISIS local extremist recruitment and involvement and we now know that the two renegades who killed 89 innocents at the Paris concert hall were French nationals. How did they get recruited? Evidently, the vermin have been using apps like 'What's App' and also game platforms like Playstation which allows players to make contact with any others around the world and also text on the side while gaming. Everything's hidden from prying eyes so it's the perfect medium with which to sneak plans by the authorities in whatever country.
These are all encrypted apps which have the following features:
- All messages are protected from surveillance
- Communications are set to delete
- It is difficult to break the encryption
Former CIA assistant director Michael Morrell, on CBS this morning, agreed that all of this is a result of the Edward Snowden debate. But why such encryptions should be stronger for games on PlayStation as well as chat apps is puzzling - say compared to internet sites for which more or less full surveillance still applies.
Morrell did go on to state that now, in the wake of the Paris attacks, a "new debate" will unfold on "whether the government should have access to the keys to open this stuff up and the result may be different".
I definitely agree, but the problem is, once the ISIS bugs are exterminated, can we then return to the non-surveilled state before? The problem, as before, is fighting these vermin, subduing them - but not sacrificing our civil liberties in the process including those of the 4th amendment and "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"