Today in the German press, this article was published:

http://www.gmx.net/magazine/politik/Kampf-Islamischer-Staat-IS/kampf-is-anti-terror-einsatz-syrien-134-millionen-euro-kosten-31171196

In essence, it describes legal justification for military action against ISIS. Germany announces a commitment in the military fighting against ISIS. Germany’s defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, had announced this action and intent, earlier this past week as well.

In this news article, Germany’s defense ministry’s speaking representative, Jens Flosdorff, on behalf of the German defense ministry, has said that Germany has no intention of committing ground soldiers to fight under the command of Syrian president elect Baschar al-Assad. Such a consideration of ground forces was not something I was aware of, as the most willing allies ruled out ground troop committment at all as well; but it is known that Germany is not publicly favorable toward the legitimate leadership of the mostly Sunni Muslim country of Syria. Months ago, the United States’ president was calling for his ouster. Various world leaders have long wanted Baschar al-Assad deposed. But this call has somewhat diminished, in light of the fact that Baschar al-Assad welcomed the anti ISIS coalition. Russian actions and time, have enabled for the evidence of this. Because al-Assad’s country is over-run by terrorists fighting one another, and taking victims, the fallout is causing much of the world to do something.

The German article also points out the relative low financial cost of its own contribution.

The years of terror group financing lies squarely on some supposed democracies, also on Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states (including Turkey) which may very well intend to kill the democratically elected Baschar al-Assad, or have him killed. That terror funding during past decades, is being pointed out in news outlets today. Ambitions of deposing the leader have recently become far less significant a goal, as recent military campaigns led by Russia have demonstrated that ISIS is in fact a common enemy of president elect Baschar al-Assad and democracies elsewhere! Thanks to military coordination between the USA, France, coming material support from Germany, and perhaps Italian and UK military action, ISIS has been pushed back substantially, in a short time, with the Syrian army regaining stability; this for the devastated and civilian war torn nation that has various terrorist factions causing peace-loving people to desire asylum into Turkey and beyond into the EU.

Turkey’s opposition to Syria is for now an EU supported, blame game, despite Turkey and Syria being almost entirely Sunni Muslim with general shared religious sect affiliation. [it must be said, that al-Assad belongs specifically to the Alawite sect, less aligned with the majority of his population – nevertheless elected.] It would be nice if cooperation between Turkey and Syria existed. But that cannot exist, unless leadership and sovereignty is respected, and so long as insurgents are being supplied with weapons to fight al-Assad! This could be likened to Iran supplying weapons to anti Erdogan rebels within Turkey!

I do think that the “dots can be connected” – that citizens can re-settle in Syria, after continued stability is permitted to grow in Syria. The difficulty is, that among all the terrorist factions there, each Muslim sect desires a leader that has come from its own group. The fact is, that ISIS is the significant threat. So it makes sense to acknowledge that Baschar al-Assad welcomes the countering of rebel insurgencies today within his country, and he does. Tomorrow will give Europe time for re-evaluation of new strategy and new common goals, I believe and hope.

Ursula von der Leyen has said in this article published today, that “there will be no future with Baschar al-Assad”. What does this mean exactly? Is that an announcement that he will be assassinated by the coalition? Or, is she saying that Germany will refuse to negotiate with him, after a military campaign against ISIS prevails? But I must ask one thing: Would any of the democratically elected leaders of any nation, who have supplied weapons to terrorists, be willing to resign themselves? Perhaps Baschar al-Assad can be extended exile in Russia, or in another welcoming Arab state, if in fact he is so hated among many of the other world leaders?