No i wouldn't agree. I would agree that it would be much more effective for the USA to stop arming Syrian Rebels because it loves those good ol boys the Saudis and let Assad, the Syrian Army and the Iranians fight the Islamic state. This would have been a much better solution right from the beginning but noooooo they were not willing to do business with the Iranians.
If you poke a stick into a wasps nest are you going to be surprised when they sting you back??? hardly. Violence foments violence and i denounce the bombing of Syria on that basis. USA has once again thrown the baby out with the bathwater and even more innocent people will suffer.
Britain will bomb Isis in Syria, but will not support the only factor that every military expert agrees can make such bombing effective. That is to be in support of a specific ground offensive over the territory bombed. . . .Bombs destroy buildings and equipment and kill people. They cannot take or hold territory. They cannot secure victory, let alone peace and prosperity.
The trouble for Cameron in Syria is that the only ground troops worth the name belong not to the joint intelligence committee’s phantom army but to President Assad, whom Cameron wants to topple. In support of Assad are Iran and Russia, from whom Cameron does everything to distance himself.
In other words, the key component of British strategy lies with three potential allies who are anathema. In the light of this we are surely entitled to ask: just how serious is Cameron in wanting to defeat Isis and remove the “existential” threat to Britain?
The British government’s strategy is both incoherent and inconsistent with the declared threat to the British people. So it does what it always does when it can’t think what to do. It bombs.