Editor:

On April 7, Obama stated that the purpose for bombing ISIS was to aid the people on the mountain with food and a safe corridor in which to leave and to safeguard the Kurdish in the town of Erbil. What was not so widely reported was that attacking the ISIS was NOT the purpose of the bombing. All of which raises two questions.

Firstly, if the aim of the bombing is NOT to attack ISIS, doesn't this means the people on the mountain cannot return to their homes, i.e. there is to be a "safe corridor" to become refugees, if they survive! And, by extension doesn't this also mean that the U.S. accepts ISIS's actions and conquest—that there is now a Caliphate—and isn't that what extremist Islam said they were going to do?

Secondly, if the aim of the bombing is NOT to attack ISIS but just to prevent their capture of the Kurds in Erbil, then, if ISIS takes over all of Iran, which seems highly likely, how will a half-dozen or so more bombs safeguard the Kurds in Erbil?

V.A. HAMMONS

Farmington