Well that was easy.
This Lucky Dog drew the Ace of Hearts today. We played for a while in the back yard at the shelter. A surprisingly warm day in October, nearly 60. Couldn’t find a single reason not to adopt him.
Meet Chester.
A vital, 11-month old Lab/Husky mix who’s only shortcoming so far is he doesn’t seem to know his name is Chester. He appears to be a bright boy, though, he’ll catch on.
I frequently hear in the course of foreign policy discussions that the United States is the only country in the world with sufficient military force to weaken and eventually destroy groups like ISIL. This is usually brought up in the context of air strikes. I have never understood the basis for this claim. Clearly, Israel, for instance, has a competent military, including fighter jets and trained pilots to do considerable damage to ISIL. And Israel is much closer to Iraq and Syria than the U.S., a practical advantage in terms of deployment. The reason Israel doesn’t join the attack against ISIL, I assume, is because it would inflame a larger religious war in the middle east. Sure, certain Muslim (Shia) countries in the middle east have joined the fight against ISIL, Iran for instance, but Iran and other Muslim countries would likely go apoplectic if a Jewish army were to start bombing Muslims, even if those Muslims are radical Sunni terrorists, i.e. ISIL.
I assume individual NATO members, such as France, also have an adequate military force to weaken ISIL. The latest events in northern Syria indicate that Russia does too.
Interesting how you never hear the American government admit they were wrong about being the only country with adequate military power, when Russia, for instance, wages effective bombing campaigns against ISIL in Syria. What you hear, at least what I hear, is not that the Russian military cannot be effective at weakening ISIL, it’s that Russia is doing this without U.S. approval or NATO’s coordination, and that they’re bombing targets other than ISIL (e.g., rebel groups supposedly fighting Assad but not aligned with ISIL).
Pretty clearly the U.S. really isn’t the only country with a military capable of fighting and eventually defeating terrorist groups. I find it surprising then why Obama and members of his administration continue to make this claim, in light of the fact that Obama refuses to authorize the bombing of ISIL in Syria, and so far has only given limited support for the same in Iraq. If you ask me, I like the fact that Obama hasn’t authorized military force in Syria, but I’d also like it if he would be consistent and stop saying that the U.S. is the only country capable of succeeding at it.
Closer to home…
We’re going to visit a young dog at the animal shelter this afternoon. Who knows, if he licks our faces and wags his tail just right it may be his lucky day.
Update: Evidently Obama has not refused to order air strikes in Syria against ISIS targets. I should have said he was reluctant to do so.
