Do you have any evidence for that or is it just words? There are apparently five Arab nations joining in the strikes, which tells me that there probably is a significantly higher amount of unilateral dedication to this than there has been in any other significant Middle Eastern conflict in memory...

You forget the first Gulf War, bo. This is the largest coalition since then, but whether it will hold together, or work together very well, remains to be seen. The absence of both Iran and Turkey is pretty significant, and while Iranian absence is probably a necessity to keep Saudi Arabia and Qatar on side, Turkish absence is not good. Whether Turkey will really allow the Kurds to get that strong is something I have significant doubts over.

My memory doesn't extend to the first Gulf War, and typically things I learn in history class that I didn't live through might as well have happened 200 years ago. Given how things have changed between the US and many Arab nations since then, I might even argue that that's another era entirely. My point, though, is that there are five Arab nations, none of which particularly hate us anyway, that are assisting in the operation, and that tells me that of all the other shots in the dark we've taken since beginning in Iraq and Afghanistan, this one seems like the most purposeful and the most promising. Of course we don't know how well it will work or whether it will stick; hell, as far as we know, we're on day one. But the fact that we have this group lined up in the first place says a lot.

The fact that Turkey is not joining in and ISIS has released around 50 Turkish hostages in the past few days speaks volumes.

Interesting that Presiden Assad has today given his blessing to the US airstrikes.

Is it? It was either that or look totally impotent. What choice did he have?

You need to double-check your history. There were over 30 nations who contributed troops in Iraq in 2003-2009. It was never the unilateral cowboy adventure that it was portrayed to be.

dipplayer2004: perhaps you need to double check, it was 4 nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

You seem to be confusing the Iraq War of 2003 with the Gulf War of 1990.

Perhaps he's counting all the individual US states who contributed troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq

dipplayer2004: And yet not a single Arab state was among them; nor were Turkey or Iran. In fact, the only Muslim-majority states involved were Albania, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, with a whopping two soldiers from these three states dying in Iraq over six years.

Hellenic Riot: Iran already has had military units fighting the Islamic State on the ground in both Iraq and Syria for a long time. There is nothing that the United States can do about that.

The point wasn't the number of Muslim states involved. Just that people still have the wrong idea about Iraq III.

(Iraq I being under GHWB, Iraq II under Clinton, and Iraq IV being Obama's.)

I don't think there's any confusion about Iraq 2003. Many powerful countries, and most people in general globally, were opposed to the idea, and very vocally so. The discussion now and in 1990 was very different compared to 2003.

dipplayer2004: But that was bo_sox48's point. Check to see what the conversation is actually about before saying "You need to double-check your history."

ISIS is the reincarnation of the Taliban in the 80's. When the US abandoned Afghanistan after helping them repel the Russian invasion the power void was filled by a very conservative religious group that provided security and structure. ISIS may be a different religious sect, but their strategy is spot on the same. There was a power void from the chaos in Iraq, Syria, and Iran that the ex-bathist sunnis filled. They were actually friends of the USA until we cut them loose and let the idiot shiite Al-Maliqi move into the prime minister's office. We broke this and have an obligation to fix it

"which tells me that there probably is a significantly higher amount of unilateral dedication to this than there has been in any other significant Middle Eastern conflict in memory."

This was the problem

I'm assuming he meant multilateral instead if unilateral.

But carry on with BUSH BAD! OBAMA GOOD!

@dip ... Yes, multilateral. What's your beef here? The dedication to the mission in Iraq in 2003 came from Europe and from the US. JECE already pointed that out, and you didn't bother to address it. The fact that five ***Arab*** nations are joining this coalition and offering up a significant force, as opposed to 2003, where most anything significant came from Europe and the US, is hugely significant, but what's significant isn't the number five but the word Arab. You could pit 192 countries (plus Taiwan) against a coalition of Russia, the United States, and China, and within a few years, the entire world would be one of Russia, the US, or China. It's not the number of players in the coalition, it's who is in it. How is that confusing?

Not what u said.

And at least Bush's "illegal" war had congressional and UN approval.

How isn't that what I said? Can you please show me where I put the emphasis on the number as opposed to the group of people or are you going to simply prance around yelling "VICTORY!!!" while we all glare at you?

I quoted you.

The Arab nations are there to provide political cover that this isn't the Evil West versus the Religious Islamic Liberation group. You need a token force to appease the Arabs afterwards even if it is mostly the US doing the safe air fighting.

Meanwhile Assad's agreement allows him to claim that these forces are in support of him by attacking a rebel group.

Yes, and now I'm quoting you:

"You need to double-check your history. There were over 30 nations who contributed troops in Iraq in 2003-2009. It was never the unilateral cowboy adventure that it was portrayed to be."

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq"

"The point wasn't the number of Muslim states involved. Just that people still have the wrong idea about Iraq III.

(Iraq I being under GHWB, Iraq II under Clinton, and Iraq IV being Obama's.)"

"This was the problem"

"Not what u said."

"And at least Bush's "illegal" war had congressional and UN approval."

"I quoted you."

Where is your point? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument? Where have you addressed what I actually said as opposed to doing what basically every Bush supporter got away with doing for 8 years when people pointed out his stupidities by hiding in the corner and spitting out chew tobacco all over the ground waving your shotgun in the air so that no one's willing to get near you?

We'll spend a few millions on bombs to blow up some pickup trucks, in a half-hearted campaign, with no defined objective, no legal authority, and no expectation of success. But Obama will have been seen to have done something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0AXgaFqEas

My point, Bo, since you lack reading ability, is that your comment about this being the most multi-laterally supported campaign in the Middle East in recent memory only showed your ignorance of history.