Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

ISIS is Growing

ISIS is Growing

Is it our responsibility to stop them?

A new CIA report reveals that the the government’s original estimates regarding the strength of the Islamic State’s fighting force has fallen short.

Previously, the Agency believed that if needed, ISIS could gather up to 10,000 troops. New information, however, has revealed that the group has between 20,000 and 31,500 readily available in Iraq and Syria alone.

Via Fox News:

The spokesperson said the new figures were determined after a review of “all-source intelligence reports” on the group from May to August.

[A CIA] spokesperson said the increase is likely due to the militant’s group recruiting gains after its success on the battlefield.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence,” the spokesperson said.

The release of this report comes on the heels of President Obama’s address to the nation in response to growing concerns regarding the ability of the Islamic State to threaten American interests. That address—and the counterterrorism plan presented—did little to clear up what has been widely reported as “mixed messaging” from the Administration with regards to America’s strategy in the Middle East.

It’s not just ISIS that’s growing: U.S. involvement in the region is growing as well. Earlier this month, the President authorized the deployment of 350 additional troops to Iraq, bringing our total military presence to just over 1,200.

In his address to the nation, Obama said that “we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL,” and promised support to anti-ISIS forces on the ground. However, he then promised that America won’t be putting “boots on the ground” as part of the counterterrorism initiative; he also failed to mention which groups in Syria or Iraq we will be partnering with.

As ISIS grows, so does our responsibility to lead. Hopefully our president realizes just how crucial it is that he keeps his promises.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



is it our responsibility?
well that is the whole scenario summed up in one succinct question.
I think it is, there is no doubt they would harm us when they can.
now the controversy is how to deal with them.
our politicians are scared to do what is needed and will only allow sporadic arbitrary strikes.
these do nothing but piss them off.
we need to eradicate them.
and yes, that involves killing a lot of people who may be innocent.
well if they are not citizens of THIS country I do not care.

Nope, not our problem as long as it is over there. We have NO strategic interest in the area except for oil and we have plenty here if we can disband the EPA. We do need to secure our border and let the rest of the world deal with something for once. The pinprick strategy of dropping smart bombs on a technical with 3 fighters in it is stupid beyond all belief (they have thousands of manpads now from captured forces). It is not cost effective, it does nothing to “degrade” a force of over 30,000 and only makes them want to hit us more (in a place where we are a softer target). Entrench HERE and when the time comes, Nuke them till they glow and then shoot them in the dark.

How can we ever defeat ISIS when our feckless leader keeps on telling ’em every move we are going to take?


“Is it our responsibility to stop them?”


But it is in our interest to destroy them.

Destroy, not just decimate the 10% who are the least dangerous.

“Never do an enemy a small injury.” If one is striking out at an opponent, one should make sure that the fatal blow is struck, successfully ending the confrontation. Machiavelli wrote that “the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”

    Ragspierre in reply to The Drill SGT. | September 12, 2014 at 10:38 am

    A really encouraging sign along those lines would be SOMEBODY in the Obami…not the military…who could utter the word “war” without soiling themselves.

    I’m NOT holding my breath…

      The Drill SGT in reply to Ragspierre. | September 12, 2014 at 1:28 pm

      or somebody on the NSC staff that had worn a uniform, or even taught foreign policy (Kissinger, Albright, etal.?)

      They are all political types at best now…

      Given: There’s a difference between a war and a counterterrorism operation, you know

      Then: “War on Terror” is an oxymoron.

“Hopefully our president realizes just how crucial it is that he keeps his promises.”

That WAS a dirty joke…right…???

This is the guy who wants to “continue” what we’ve been doing in Yemen and Somalia. Which he was actually trying to sell as a “success”.

Anybody planning a vacay to either of those places with the family…???

I think if ISIS could be contained for just a few years they will disillusion their own followers and resulting civil war will force the Muslim people to confront their own religion and sort out the thoughts of the prophet of God from the thoughts of the man Mohamed.

But then again Mohamed knew how to keep people in line, and the imams haven’t forgotten.

TrooperJohnSmith | September 12, 2014 at 10:28 am

The next step in the evolution of ISIS is pronouncement by the Prez-Ø-Bama that, “They are not much different than the Tea Party,” which will be echoed ad nauseum by the DNC apparatchiks on the Fifth Column Media outlets.

Humphrey's Executor | September 12, 2014 at 10:36 am

The fact that the they are targeting our citizens for capture and decapitation kinda, sorta, makes it our problem.

9thDistrictNeighbor | September 12, 2014 at 10:41 am

Once upon a time, we wouldn’t have had to ask the question. We would have stepped up to the plate with pride and have excised this festering boil before it spread. Once upon a time….

I could have sworn we were going to war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

But the president, a well-known theologian, has informed us that despite what the Muslims of ISIS say, the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” So I guess we’re in a war against SIS — the State of Iraq and Syria. But it still is a war, isn’t it, Mr. Secretary Kerry?

“I think that’s the wrong terminology,” he sniffed yesterday. “What we are engaging in is a very significant counterterrorism operation.”

Does that make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?

It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Neo. | September 12, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Specifically, the so-called “anti-war movement” has now morphed into the “anti-fracking movement”. If the GOP regains the White House [cue: laugh track], they will morph back into “anti-war movement” mode, assigning all of Øbama’s wars to the new GOP occupant.

31,000 ISIS warriors? How many divisions must you have to get off the JV squad?

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 12, 2014 at 11:44 am

    This is a “quality” vs. “quantity” question, I think.

    In asymmetrical warfare this could be a HUGE fighting force. Not that they’d stand a chance fighting a Russian (Soviet) war doctrine against us. They just would not. But they aren’t pretending to do that, either.

    These people are smart, hardened, mobile fighters who do NOT play by ANY rules. They have shown they are adaptive and very efficient. They are specifically NOT afraid of dying, as a general rule. They can and have blended with civilian populations to learn who to hit, and where their vulnerabilities are. This is something Western troops simply cannot do…and won’t do. We are not going to kidnap, rape and torture family members of local leaders. ISIS does and will.

“ISIS is Growing
Is it our responsibility to stop them?

We had Pacifists and Isolationists navel gazing the same question during the late 1930s. Is the growing influence of the National Socialists in Europe or Japan’s creeping expansionism in Manchuria any of our business?

It is their responsibility to stop themselves. No nation bears responsibility for stopping them.

The question is whether it is necessary to our national security and/or interests to engage them militarily. My answer is YES.

The GOP and conservatives are missing a big opportunity here. We have had little success getting the federal government to secure the southern border with Mexico, largely because neither party wants to alienate the fastest growing voting bloc in the nation. As regards our unguarded border, it’s been all about immigration and amnesty, pro or con.

However, analysis of research as to why Americans are growing increasingly fearful of homeland terrorist attacks shows the fears are based on (1) active, capable Islamic terrorists daily telling us they’re coming to kill us, coupled with (2) a wide open, anyone can cross, southern US border. James O’Keefe crossed on foot unchecked, wearing a middle eastern beard, turban, and robe to boot.

GOP: Make securing the southern border about national security, not immigration. Do in NOW, as in iron, hot, strike.

The argument is completely sound, something that astounds me isn’t a 100% obvious immediate need already. Who is going to argue that no, we needn’t worry about terrorists crossing the open border. Who can defend that? The primary Democrat voting target is women. Do women care about safety and security for themselves and families? I believe they do. Are they dumb enough to be convinced that an unsecured or partially secured border is worth the risk to American lives? I believe they are not.

Would the Democrat Party want to paint themselves as the party that will save women from white male corporate America, but as for terrorists in your towns and on your block, well, hey, you’re on your own? Probably not. As long as that border is wide-ass open, that’s the way it is.

If opponents complain you’re just tying the border to nat’l security to stop illegals, you look to your voters, wink, and
say, “twofer!”


GOP: Make securing the southern border about national security, not immigration. Do it NOW.

Sammy Finkelman | September 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm

“The argument is completely sound, something that astounds me isn’t a 100% obvious immediate need already. Who is going to argue that no, we needn’t worry about terrorists crossing the open border.”

I will.

This is one of those things that superficially maybe sounds logical, but isn’t.

No terrorist group has ever sent anybody across the border that way. Not in this country, not in any other stable country. Not at least when the plots are few and far between.

This is not an oversight – there is a reason for that.

Terrorist groups want to control their members. They don’t want them to drop out, or get caught before they do whatever they intende for them to do.

Sending someone across a border that way carries a reasonably high probability they will get caught – and spill the beans.

Only when them getting caught does not lead to the end of the plotting, as was the case of the Syrian-Iraqi border, when they were sending people over, who were gewtting caught, but they sent more, and what they intended to do was no secret, and they had people already inside, and a place for them to go.

You know when there will be an occasaion to worry? When they are actally sending people across the border that way, and some are getting caught, but the nature of the plotting is such that they don’t need all of them to get through.

Right now, any terrorist plotting is based on us not becoming aware of the plot.

    “No terrorist group has ever sent anybody across the border that way. Not in this country, not in any other stable country. Not at least when the plots are few and far between.”

    Really? You know this HOW?

    Please put up links proving this assertion.

    “Terrorist groups want to control their members. They don’t want them to drop out, or get caught before they do whatever they intende for them to do.”

    I’ll just call bullshit on that one. Seems to me the 9/11 operators were quite autonomous. They ALWAYS COULD have been caught. What are the percentages? Were the 9/11 guys “caught”? Only in doing the “after action” reports.

    You seem to think that because you don’t know about it, it isn’t happening. Why would it NOT be happening?

    Of course, this entire discussion overlooks the “organic” ISIS members who radicalized here and never go overseas, or are American, Canadian, or European citizens and don’t need to illegally invade the U.S.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | September 12, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    2) The more we tighten domestic anti-terrorist security, the more the wide open southern border becomes the best option for entry.

    3) The concept of ‘sleeper cells’ is an old one, because they work.

    4) There could be zero terrorists already here, there could be thousands. “But we haven’t found any!” See #1

    5) My suggestion to the GOP is a political strategy, not a scientific paper.

    To GOP: Point out that leaving the southern border with Mexico unsecure is like a family going to bed and leaving the back door wide open. A burglar or serial killer may or may not slip in the door, but gee, if you close it and lock it….

    german bund members thank you.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 12, 2014 at 6:41 pm

One look at the map shows only Turkey could have been the conduit for supply of weapons & men ( & whores ) . Now they have parts of Iraq .this cannot have happened without international assistance .
I am not sure that Shiites want to go & die for Sunnis of the north & Kurds especially if they can get others to do it. Whoever is lured in is going to have to do the hard lifting & it has to be stressed ISIS have a lot of local support.