Skip to main content

Foley beheading makes no strategic sense to me

Although I support President Obama's approach to the ISIS situation, one piece of the puzzle does not seem to fit, and it makes me uneasy. So here it is: Why would ISIS actually want to get the USA even more involved in its war to take over the region?


It was certainly predictable that we would not tolerate the beheading of the two American journalists.

So my question has been, "Why would ISIS want to do that?" Are they trying to tempt us into a ground war with them?

Yes, I know they have claimed that the beheading was in retaliation for our air strikes, (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/world/meast/isis-american-journalist-sotloff/) and that makes sense to me at an emotional level but not at a strategic level.

Unless, they want us to become even more involved.

Ostensibly the message was, "Back off and leave ISIL alone." 

But strategically those are empty words that, when combined with the beheading,  only serve to provoke and anger the American public and to ensure that America will become even more involved.

Maybe the ISIS members have illusions of grandeur. I don't doubt that: The worst elements of religion tend to encourage that in people. 

At this point the question "why" is just baffling, but the thought sticks up like a root in the middle of the road.

If I find out something more definitive, I will post another article, or perhaps add to this one. If you know something, please comment, with citations please if possible.

End.

Now I need your help: Would you please comment and or subscribe as a follower? Thanks.

#ISIS #ISISpuzzle #ISISpiecethatdoesnotfit #beheading #isisbeheading #Foley #war

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

8 Facts About the Circle of Fifths that you May Not Already Know

I love all child refugees but … where will the money come from? Part III

Quote from a Facebook friend:

“Much as my heart breaks for the children who want to come here because circumstances are better … circumstances will not be better here if we allow more people to live here than we can afford to support.”

So says one of my Facebook friends.

Green Party is not red, is not blue, is not the oligarchy.

Green (Is not Redis notBlue)Kennewick, Washington 
Political Opinion
By Frank Ellsworth Lockwood

Some people have been pushing the notion that if you are a member of the Green Party you should vote for a Democratic, but there is another side to this argument. If you are a Green, then you are no more a Democrat than a Republican is.
Green is for things that the Red and Blue oppose: While Green Party is for peaceful coexistence, Republicans and Democrats have supported wars-for-profit for all of my life. (I am 75; they will not be changing any time soon.)

Green is for live and let live, while Red and Blue are about greed and conniving, and this is no exaggeration when both of the above have always supported the overthrow of democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with puppet governments, dictators and tyrants who practiced suppression-for-profit.

Green is for racial and economic equality as well as for recognition of tribal rights. Our 2016 Presidential candidate, Jill …