Islamska država broji od 30.000 do 50.000 naoružanih radikala. Radi se o brojci koja je u globalnim razmjerima trivijalno mala no pred očima svijeta iz nekih razloga dopušteno im je da kolju gotovo pola godina. Suvremena vojna tehnologija taj prostor sredi u nekoliko tjedana a od ISIL-ovaca je do sada već odavno mogla ostati tek samo ružna uspomena. Postavlja se pitanj zašto svijet , u 21-om stoljeću je dopustio ovoliko vremena da stradavaju civili i nedužni ljudi i da šačica duševno poremećenih praktički radi umobolnicu od države i ismijava otatak svijeta ovoliko vremena?  Ako se napad na ISIL projektira tek kao zgodan marketinški trik koji će poslužiti Obami za dobijanje još jednog mandata postavlja se pitanje WTF?

Vanjskopolitički odbor američkog Senata danas je Baracku Obami dao zeleno svjetlo za rat protiv terorističke organizacije Islamske države, prenosi Al Jazeera.

Odobrena je rezolucija demokratskog senatora Roberta Mendeza, u kojoj stoji kako se američke operacije protiv IS-a moraju ograničiti na vremenski period od tri godine te kako je uključivanje kopnene vojske moguće samo u iznimnim prilikama.

Radi se o prvom blagoslovu koji je Senat dao ratnim operacijama protiv IS-a na Bliskom istoku, a odluka je donesena s deset glasova za i osam glasova protiv.

Podsjetimo, međunarodna antiteroristička koalicija pod vodstvom SAD-a još od rujna izvodi zračne napade u Iraku i Siriji.

NYT: 

Senate Panel Approves Limited Fight Against ISIS, Reopening War Powers Debate

WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Thursday to authorize the military campaign against the Islamic State, a party-line decision that raises difficult questions for Republicans and intensifies a debate over war powers that has split President Obama from many in his own party.

The 10-to-8 vote put on display an unusual alliance between some Democrats and some Republicans as well as contemplations about morality, obligation, constitutional prerogatives and the proper balance of power between branches of government. It was also a foreshadowing of a debate likely to be held on the Senate floor after the Republican-controlled Congress returns in January.

All Democrats voted in favor of the measure that would authorize Mr. Obama’s war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, but greatly restrict the use of ground forces and limit the operation to three years before Congress has to revisit it. Opposed were all the Republicans, seven of whom warned of binding the hands of the commander in chief. One Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the measure for a different reason, which, he said, is that the restrictions did not go far enough.

Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who leads the committee, said that Mr. Obama should not have the sole power to send the nation’s young people to dangerous overseas conflicts. He rejected the idea that “Congress should just succumb to what the executive wants.”

“It is the Congress’ imperative,” he said, “to ultimately make that decision as to how we are going to send America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way.”

But Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is considering a run for president, said that Congress would set a dangerous precedent by putting statutory limitations on any conflict, even as he agreed that the Senate was exercising what many lawmakers considered their most solemn obligation: approving war.

“The role we play is in deciding whether or not we should go into war, but our role is not to decide how to go to war,” he told his colleagues before the vote. “It is up to the commander in chief to carry out this war.”

Though the political implications of the debate went unspoken, they were hard to ignore. Mr. Paul is also considering seeking the Republican nomination for president, yet he wants to lead the party in far different directions on foreign policy than Mr. Rubio. As the two gently but vigorously disagreed Thursday, each seemed keenly aware of how their words would be seen through the prism of a presidential campaign.

Mr. Paul, unlike many Republicans, said he believed that the administration was improperly justifying its campaign against the Islamic State with the same authorization of force that Congress passed to justify military action after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The administration maintains that a war resolution that had us going against the people who attacked us on 9/11 has something to do with ISIL,” Mr. Paul said. “I think that’s absurd on the face and almost embarrassing that anyone even makes that argument.”

But in a nod to how his foreign policy views are well outside Republican Party orthodoxy, Mr. Paul insisted that he would challenge a Republican president on the same grounds. And he scoffed at the idea floated by the Obama administration that it would set its own parameters for war.

“Yeah, that’s great,” Mr. Paul said. “I’m glad they set limitations. But the limitations have to come from a coequal branch or they’re not of any value.”

Mr. Paul’s idea of limitations goes further than even those of some of the Democrats on the committee. He offered an amendment, which was defeated, that would have limited the engagement geographically to Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Rubio, who looked on intently as Mr. Paul spoke, said that would be “a terrible mistake” that would jeopardize any chance of victory.

“To put forth something that says we are willing to fight ISIL, but we are not willing to do it here, there or the other place, I think, imperils that,” Mr. Rubio said.

What seemed to bother many senators was the idea that Congress, by failing to agree earlier on a resolution to set parameters on the military campaign against the Islamic State, had abdicated its powers. Many spoke of re-exerting Congress’s constitutional authority to act as a check against the president.

“Many of us, myself included, believe the president is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

Senator Bob Corker, the senior Republican on the committee who is expected to become chairman in January once his party takes control of the Senate, rejected that. “We are rushing to make this legal — as if that makes us relevant,” he said.

There are political considerations for Democrats as well. Senators like Mr. Murphy and Tim Kaine of Virginia are viewed as two of the party’s rising stars. They strongly favor curtailing the president’s war powers. Those sentiments could prove unsettling in a 2016 election that features Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as secretary of state put in place and defended the Obama foreign policy.

How a war powers resolution will be handled by the new Republican Congress is still being worked out. Mr. Corker has said he would like to continue the discussions but would prefer to wait until the administration presents lawmakers with a formal plan of action.

Republicans, with the exception of Mr. Paul and a few others who take a more libertarian-minded approach to American military intervention, are not likely to vote for anything that sets the kinds of strict limits that the Democratic-controlled committee supported Thursday.

Yet, how they respond to the demands of a war-weary American public that overwhelmingly disapproves of sending troops into combat will be one of the party’s biggest tests once it assumes power.

“We really don’t want to use ground troops,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. But, he added, to have that restriction written into law, “I think is not the right way to go.”

That is a view the administration shares. Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the committee on Tuesday that the president would fight any effort to preclude the use of ground forces because, he argued, there are simply too many unknowns.

Whatever the resolution is next year, lawmakers agreed that this was a debate that Congress had put off for too long.

“This is what the American people expect their elected officials to do — to ask the tough questions, to try to look over the horizon,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Markey went through a list of grim statistics: the millions of troops who had served in 14 years of conflict since Sept. 11, the hundreds of thousands who are now disabled, and the nearly 7,000 who have died.

“This debate which we’re having is historic,” he said. “And it’s just beginning. And it’s about time.”