the same problem

I am having the same problem that I always have in balancing my desire to write about the political subjects that are important to me vs my need to express my religious points of view which are of even more significance to me. At this point of time it is impossible do both effectively. I am not a rapid writer. Thus I inevitably have to choose between them.

While I plan to continue to post here, my primary focus are going to remain with my religious writings at least during the next few months. Therefore I will be writing here only occasionally. Hopefully at some point of time I will be able to develop my political view points her to such a degree that they actually begin to take on a degree of effectiveness. Unfortunately that time is not now.

Glenn King


An Army to Defeat Assad

While I wish to see the destruction of ISIL (ISIS) I do not want to see their defeat at the cost of supporting the murderous regime of Bashir Assad in Syria, a regime whose actions have caused the deaths of over 190,000 people. Furthermore while I support the cautious use of US air power to support the legitimate opponents of ISIL such as the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Syrian Free Army I do not believe that the US in any way should attempt to defeat ISIL through the use of US ground troops.

I have just completed reading Kenneth Pollack’s article in the Foreign Affairs magazine called “An Army to Defeat Assad.” It presents the best proposal which I have yet to read regarding what the proper US response to both ISIL and the Assad regime should be. The article link is


Syria is a hard one. The arguments against the United States’ taking a more active role in ending the vicious three-year-old conflict there are almost perfectly balanced by those in favor of intervening, especially in the aftermath of the painful experiences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The cons begin with the simple fact that the United States has no interests in Syria itself. Syria is not an oil producer, a major U.S. trade partner, or even a democracy.

Worse still, intercommunal civil wars such as Syria’s tend to end in one of two ways: with a victory by one side, followed by a horrific slaughter of its adversaries, or with a massive intervention by a third party to halt the fighting and forge a power-sharing deal. Rarely do such wars reach a resolution on their own through a peaceful, negotiated settlement, and even when they do, it is typically only after many years of bloodshed. All of this suggests that the kind of quick, clean diplomatic solution many Americans favor will be next to impossible to achieve in Syria.

Nevertheless, the rationale for more decisive U.S. intervention is gaining ground. As of this writing, the crisis in Syria had claimed more than 170,000 lives and spilled over into every neighboring state. The havoc is embodied most dramatically in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, a Sunni jihadist organization born of the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq. After regrouping in Syria, ISIS (which declared itself the Islamic State in late June) recently overran much of northern Iraq and helped rekindle that country’s civil war. ISIS is now using the areas it controls in Iraq and Syria to breed still more Islamist extremists, some of whom have set their sights on Western targets. Meanwhile, Syria’s conflict is also threatening to drag down its other neighbors — particularly Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, where the influx of nearly three million refugees is already straining government budgets and stoking social unrest.

Go to the above link to read rest of article