Obama's World War preparations

Don't believe for one minute the narrative that the USA is threatened by ISIS and seeks to destroy it. The real target is Assad's Syria, a Russian ally. (Why? some say that Assad/Russia is what prevents a gas pipeline running from Qatar to Europe but that seems farfetched to me).

The stupid concentration of NATO/Saudi forces plus Israel is going to provoke Russia and Iran to concentrate their forces there too. They are not going to let Assad get Gaddafied.

And the compelling national interest reasons for this buildup are nonexistent.

War on Islamic State: What is President Obama really up to?

[Just heard the O. speech...yes indeed Syria/Assad/Putin is THE target NOT ISIL, stopping the 'bad guys' is just an excuse to get more involved there. Proof? Obama's claim to arm the Free Syrian army and other 'moderate' Syrians to take on ISIL...but they are ISIL] 

Prediction: The United States government will push Islamic State back into its hole in Syria so it can wreak its terror there. It is not that the US cares deeply for Iraq, mind you. Iraq for US policymakers has now been classified as lost to Iran, a part of their growing Shiite empire. Expect the US Air Force to 'persuade' IS to go back into Syria and do its pro-Sunni thing there. It will be a tricky move because Saudi Arabia probably likes what is happening, more or less. But Kerry will have to convince them to give up on their dream of a Sunni recovery of Iraq, for now. Expect more refugees, more distraction from domestic problems, and more US sales of armaments. In short, what was once called a jolly good war.

This is the zeroth degree of politics. The hateful but prescient Carl Schmitt said politics is defined by the friend-enemy distinction. But the Islamic State is not the natural enemy of the US the way France was for Schmitt’s Cromwell. And moving against IS has little to do with national interests of the US. So this seems to be ‘play politics’ or politics for its own sake with NATO opening up a new Southern front against Russia, to best Putin perhaps.  

West attacks Syria? What could happen. The Credibility Factor

Lots of talk about credibility at stake for the US and Obama if there is no response to the alleged gas attack near Damascus. But the problem is that there is too much credibility; that the West seeks regime change. It happened in Iraq and in Libya already so you can bet Assad and Nasrallah (head of Hezbollah) believe it. So if they think they are going to die today from British and French today or tomorrow from cannibals, the question is what will they do if attacked. That is why there has been a delay in Western action: Uncertainty about their response not about any gas attack (about which no Western leader cares about). Will Syria and Hezbollah go all out, knowing that their regimes are about to be changed? The ideal, theoretical Western attack would be so limited that there would be no real response from the defenders. That would require much communication, trust, and you guessed it, credibility (but a different sort). Here is what is needed: 'Hi Assad, this is Obama. Hi I'm going to bomb you in a very limited way that will not tilt the balance of power to the cannibals, is that cool?' Do you promise it will be limited in that way? Yes. Ok go ahead.' This is the conversation, more or less (perhaps with the Russians as guarantors) that needs to happen for surgical strikes to receive little response. Think it is possible? If not, then it is time to swallow your pride and eat crow about crossing some red line...