ISIS

Obama Struggles to Build Anti-ISIS Coalition

Everybody is a bit tired of endless war

|

In the case of Bush and the first Gulf War, "the objective was clear-cut and finite," argues Thomas Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the non-profit Middle East Institute In Washington. "And the countries that were asked to sign on could see that the United States was fully committed to do the heavy lifting: there were half a million American troops in Saudi Arabia, awaiting the signal to begin operations."

"The situation confronting Obama and … Kerry is considerably murkier," Lippman writes in an analysis posted Monday on MEI's website. "The United States is not just herding cats, it is herding wolves, rabbits, chameleons, and maybe a few sheep."

"Obama and Kerry are asking other countries to join the United States in an effort to destroy a group of armed rebels who are not invaders, but mostly indigenous to Iraq and Syria," Lippman continues. "The mission is open-ended. The United States is not prepared to send any ground troops, let alone half a million."

NEXT: California Destroys Winery Over Use of Volunteers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. my buddy’s half-sister makes $83 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for seven months but last month her pay was $16220 just working on the computer for a few hours. have a peek here….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  2. That’s right…because every other “coalition” in the past was a phony one. We did it all, with only Britain showing any meaningful support. Hopefully this time is indeed different.

    1. So, I’m guessing the French committing an entire Armored division to the Gulf War wasn’t meaningful support?

      1. Exactly.

    2. I take offense. Canada shed quite a bit of blood in Afghanistan. Not meaningful enough for you? Or do you mean, because it wasn’t a liberal-Democrat that put together the coalition?

      1. Well to be fair to Jackass (sp?), it probably wasn’t mentioned much in the MSM so he probably didn’t hear about it.

        1. Read what I posted below. I know, it never appeared at Reason, so you probably missed it.

      2. Seriously, RJ? You want to use Canada as some beacon of equivalency? Please. Let me shed some facts for you. The US will spend about $2T on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. About $700B alone in Afghan. You know what Canada spent? About $15B in Afghan, and nothing in Iraq. Nada. Zilch. If you the example of equal partnership in a coalition, you only proved my point.

        By the way, lets look further into Canada, in regard to NATO. They love that NATO protection. How’d they do on military spending in NATO? Read it and weep.

        “NATO had the goal of increasing the military spending of its members to 2% of GDP. Although this was already pledged by members back in 2006, only four of 28 countries met that target last year: the United States, Britain, Greece and Estonia. (Canada has never met a 2% GDP target). Although Canada has one of NATO’s best-?performing economies, only about 1% of GDP was spent last year. Committing 2% would mean an increased expenditure from $20 billion to $60 billion over the next decade.”

        Yeah, thanks for all the help. Time you belly up to the bar and start paying.

  3. Also a couple Egyptian divisions, multiple Saudi and Kuwaiti brigades, and even a Syrian division.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.