accelerated rate is going to be difficult. more importantly, you also suffer from a very strategic problem, which is iraq s second largest city is hundreds of miles north of baghdad, close to the syrian border. to try to transport thousand of iraqi soldiers from baghdad and other areas where there are still units and divisions fighting side-by-side. to move them to mosul is difficult. they would have to go through areas where the local population is going to be hostile to them. they don t have the air capacity to transport those thousand of troops to hold on or retake the territories. there s the issue of supply chain. getting resources and supplies to those on the ground. with the development of the borders now with jordan as well as syrian being controlled by isis. what does mean in term of stemming the supplies fuelling isis? reporter: well, you re right. if you take a look at the syrian iraqi border. the majority has been december
from the al qaeda-linked on the ground. it s a sense that the battle has really been this kind of bloody stalemate for 2 1/2 years, and the notion of a u.s. strike that would not just take out chemical weapons capacity but some of their air capacity from a regime that is very comfortable sending stud missiles at civilians. but this is precisely the ambiguity that is at the heart of the debate over syrian intervention, which is that if you talk to people allied with the rebel forces, if you talk to people connected to the oppositi opposition, the hope is that this strike will tip the balance of the battlefield. yet, the argument that john kerry, president obama and others have to make to the american people is that this is not a strike to tip the balance of the battlefield, because we refuse to take possession of the civil war. this is a punitive strike for the use of chemical weapons to enforce an international norm. yet, that s not how it s perceived on the ground in syria. welcom
from the al qaeda-linked on the ground. it s a sense that the battle has really been this kind of bloody stalemate for 2 1/2 years, and the notion of a u.s. strike that would not just take out chemical weapons capacity but some of their air capacity from a regime that is very comfortable sending stud missiles at civilians. but this is precisely the ambiguity that is at the heart of the debate over syrian intervention, which is that if you talk to people allied with the rebel forces, if you talk to people connected to the opposition, the hope is that this strike will tip the balance of the battlefield. yet, the argument that john kerry, president obama and others have to make to the american people is that this is not a strike to tip the balance of the battlefield, because we refuse to take possession of the civil war. this is a punitive strike for the use of chemical weapons to enforce an international norm. yet, that s not how it s perceived on the ground in syria. welcome to a wi
i m telling you what i ve heard from syrians on the ground and from rebels, secular and also from the al qaeda linked on the ground. it s a sense that the battle has really been this kind of bloody stalemate for 2 1/2 years, and the notion of a u.s. strike that would not just take out chemical weapons capacity but some of their air capacity from a regime that is very comfortable sending scud missiles at civilians. but this is precisely the ambiguity that is at the heart of the debate over syrian intervention right now which is that if you talk to people allied with the rebel forces, if you talk to people connected to the opposition, the hope is that this strike will tip the balance of the battlefield, and yet the argument that john kerry, president obama and others have to make to the american people is that this is not a strike to tip the balance of the battlefield, because we refuse to take possession of the civil war. this is a punitive strike for the use of chemical weapons to en
the dominant force is no longer true. it was initially. now you have so many different groups fighting one another it s hard to pick out who we would support. in terms of the air strikes, i do think that we need to do these. we need to go in and make a stance. if only just to level the playing field. the main outcome, hopefully being to negotiate a settlement some years down the line. but the idea of arming the rebels or doing anything else is absurd. what we need to do is bring down the air capacity of the assad regime. you re saying bomb the airfields. take out the air force. i would say take out the airfields. that serves two main purposes. first to prevent him bombing indiscriminately using his planes. the second to prevent the arms shipments coming in from iran and russia. i think that would be very strategic. a wise thing to do at this point. what about those who say no war. we shouldn t get dragged into this. and they worry about what will happen. we have to be very, ver