Bombing for Peace

 Tonight president Obama laid out the United States strategy to combat IS (Islamic State). The strategy involves continuous airstrikes across Iraq and even into Syria until IS is completely destroyed.  Obama stressed to the American people that United States would not deploy troops on the ground except some 500 military personnel as defensive role not a combat one.  The strategy would also include support to those combating IS like the Kurds, Iraqi government and Syrian rebels but not the Assad regime. Humanitarian supply drops will continue to those in need. The United States will form and lead a coalition of states to completely eliminate IS. This all sounds great  but the reality is can air strikes really be the sole solution to the IS threat. Air strikes keep the enemy at bay and grants both the Kurdish and Iraqi government time to regroup and keep them from being overrun but that's all it does. All this policy does is contain the threat back into Syria. If the United States really wants to solve it then it must be done by troops on the ground. These troops do not necessarily mean American but troops from other Arab nations or the Syrian rebels and from the Kurdish/Iraqi governments. For these troops to really be effective they need the arms and funding to do it. They are currently outgunned by the armament of IS. The U.S. can pursue this option and quite frankly can prove effective but  there can be a blow back from supplying these groups. What happens after the IS threat? This groups are now well equipped to fight for their own interests. What type of government will Syria have if the rebels win? Will the Kurds turn their attention towards the Iraqi government and split forcefully. Who knows maybe a relentless firebombing in Syria and Iraq wiping the IS leadership and morale will be enough to eliminate the threat, but I seriously have my doubts.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29152129