President Obama’s decision to expand U.S. attacks against ISIS radicals into Syria without that government’s approval is fraught with risks, including that U.S. forces might be sucked into yet another Mideast civil war, but the New York Times seems all right with that, notes Norman Solomon.
After ISIS murdered a second American hostage – freelance journalist Steven Sotloff – pressure mounted on President Obama to react. But a contrary view is that ISIS doesn’t threaten the U.S. homeland and regional powers could best defeat this brutal group, as Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland suggests.
War fever is running high again in Official Washington with pols and pundits demanding that President Obama order a major military intervention in Iraq and Syria to stop the violent jihadists of ISIS, a group that got its start with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as ex-CIA analyst Paul Pillar recalls.
From the Archive: At the first anniversary of the Sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, there is a concerted effort to reestablish the original conventional wisdom, blaming the Syrian government for the hundreds of deaths. The goal seems to be to bury the alternative narrative that later emerged, as Robert Parry wrote last…