At Least They're Admitting It Now: New York Times Promotes a Truce with ISIS

I think it's safe to say that the memes and half-joking criticism's of the push to war against Asad and Syria as acting as "Al Qaeda's air force" and engaging in "a war for ISIS" need to simply be considered a factual representation of the war proponent's position. Enter New York Times writer Thomas Friedman to clear that up for us,

"Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria? Of course, ISIS is detestable and needs to be eradicated. But is it really in our interest to be focusing solely on defeating ISIS in Syria right now?"

Yes, why defeat ISIS when we can topple a secular dictator just like we did in Iraq and Libya. That turned out wonderful! I hear the futures market for chattel slaves in Libya is booming!

Friedman again,

"Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan."

What Friedman meant to say, of course, was "the same way we funded Osama Bin Laden to fight a decrepit empire with an insane economic system that was circling the drain and was no real threat to the United States barring a nuclear confrontation they wanted to avoid at all costs, because after all there were no unintended consequences from that whatsoever." But hey, newspaper editorials have space limitations so you have to be concise.

As bad as Asad is, we have to remember that he's no worse than Saddam. There really aren't any moderates fighting Asad and the large majority of the rebels are foreigners so it's probably not even accurate to call it a civil war. A war against him is by default a war for Al Qaeda, ISIS, The Muslim Brotherhood and every other group Wahhabis and Salafist extremists, as many in our armed forces already realize: