Why the US won't defeat ISIS
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
I'm going to disagree with you here, Viet Nam was a good example of not listening to military advisors (JCS) and allowing it to become a political war. The president has the JCS but is still the CIC. Even the Gulf War had politics involved as General Swartzkopf wanted to go ahead and take out Sadaam while he had the forces present to prevent a power vacuum and protect important facilities (hospitals, museums, etc.). That was on Bush. Add his buddies and self interest to it and it ends up like this and that is on Obama.
Yep. We were paid mercs in GWI by the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Then, we stabbed the Shias in the south of Iraq in the back by convincing them to revolt, promising support, and then pulling back similar to the Bay of Pigs. No wonder they hate us.
This will draw some ire I'm sure, but the US won't defeat ISIS because they need them in order to help topple Assad, which is a major US objective.
If you haven't read the article linked by Tide HSV, I highly recommend that you do so.
I am not giving Obama a pass on his foreign policy as a whole, but on the question of dropping leaflets to save lives, he followed a moderate, sane, humanitarian, and long-standing policy that has been in place since WWII. I have some of those leaflets dropped in North Africa before the 1st Division landed there.
The main point is that people who think this situation can be solved by military force alone are deluded or sadly misinformed. Once the Caliphate was established, the interpretation of the Koran these people are sworn to requires that they (a) refuse to acknowledge any borders (b) establish sharia law in the caliphate (c) commit atrocities to draw the armies of "Rome" into a end-of-the-world war.
Sending ground troops in there without some kind of political end in sight that is acceptable to the masses just invites continued chaos. We've done that in VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If we contain them, chip away at their infrastructure and ability to resupply, they will eventually implode. They have no friendly countries around them. Their idea of seventh century sharia law will not sell over the long haul in today's world.
Air support, intelligence sharing, special forces involvement. Cooperation with allies who share one common goal. Those should be the foundation of our response. I believe Obama is seeking that kind of agreement now.
I am not giving Obama a pass on his foreign policy as a whole, but on the question of dropping leaflets to save lives, he followed a moderate, sane, humanitarian, and long-standing policy that has been in place since WWII. I have some of those leaflets dropped in North Africa before the 1st Division landed there.
The main point is that people who think this situation can be solved by military force alone are deluded or sadly misinformed. Once the Caliphate was established, the interpretation of the Koran these people are sworn to requires that they (a) refuse to acknowledge any borders (b) establish sharia law in the caliphate (c) commit atrocities to draw the armies of "Rome" into a end-of-the-world war.
Sending ground troops in there without some kind of political end in sight that is acceptable to the masses just invites continued chaos. We've done that in VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If we contain them, chip away at their infrastructure and ability to resupply, they will eventually implode. They have no friendly countries around them. Their idea of seventh century sharia law will not sell over the long haul in today's world.
Air support, intelligence sharing, special forces involvement. Cooperation with allies who share one common goal. Those should be the foundation of our response. I believe Obama is seeking that kind of agreement now.
My first thought was we were bombing the wrong target. Bomb the savages and keep the dinosaur juice. But since these are supposedly just guys driving trucks and not radicals, it may work out to spare them. Of course, their options are limited. Refuse to haul the next load for ISIS (or ISIL or whatever those boys are calling themselves this week), and things could get dicey.
At this point, I could not give a rip about Bashar Assad. He is a menace only to the Syrians. Daesh, on the other hand, is a menace to the world.
If you think Obama is seeking any kind of agreement now then you are giving him a huge pass on foreign policy. He has been wrong on every issue you talk about.
The start of the Caliphate was the Egyptian uprising and Obama thought that was a good thing. You could probably say that Obama actually helped start ISIS since he actually supplied arms to them to fight Assad. He took out in Libya that hadn't caused any problems in decades, then a few months later we get Bengazi and he lies about the cause of it.
We have pilots coming home now saying that they aren't allowed to bomb most of the targets they see. We've been bombing for a while now and the French can use our intelligence to hit twenty-five to thirty targets in one day. How could there be that many targets if our people were allowed to do their jobs? I can't think of one thing Obama has gotten right but you think he will get this right. Where do you get your confidence on this?
I don't recall you always doing that, so...did something change other than the convenient excuse you are providing?
The policy responses you describe, Bob, are largely correct.
As George C. Marshall said, "If you get the objectives right, a second lieutenant can write the strategy." Defining the objectives at the national security strategy level is ultimately, up to the president to do. When he doesn't (or uses nebulous "fudge" words), then everything else below his level gets immeasurably more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.
This is the president's weak suit, if you ask me.
First, this is probably too little, too late. This problem has been festering for too long, and the situation is much worse now than it was a year and a half ago.
The second point is related to the first. The president no doubt has asked the members of the coalition to support. When no (or little) material support or action materializes, it seems this president feels his job is done: "Well, I asked. Nobody did anything." The president just seems too passive. He seems extremely reluctant to lead. Leadership is getting people to do things they otherwise would not do. You cajole, persuade, bribe, and sometimes pressure others to do their bit. The United States is not just any country. When the US throws its weight around in support of good, good things happen. When the US throws its weight around in support of something bad, bad things happen. When the US does nothing in the face of abject evil or votes "present," evil notices. The president seems to prefer a very collegial style in which Luxembourg and Vanuatu count as much as the US. The idea of "leadership" seems distasteful to him.
Last edited:
He was never qualified to be the president. This is why experience in leading is so important, aside from ideology. Obama's ideology is wholly flawed and corrupt - IMO. However, whether that is true or not it cannot be debated that he was completely unprepared to be a leader and that he has failed miserably in that department. Here at home, that's caused gigantic frustrations for many. But on a foreign scale, it's getting people killed*. You may dislike the US being a superpower, but you cannot act as if it isn't reality.
*Bamaro, please spare me the inevitable Bush/Iraq diatribe.
*Bamaro, please spare me the inevitable Bush/Iraq diatribe.
President Obama said the upcoming climate change summit will "rebuke" the terrorists.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...imate-summit-will-powerful-rebuke-terrorists/
"No, Achmed, we can't bomb the museums today. They have just initiated a new program to cut carbon emissions. Maybe next year."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...imate-summit-will-powerful-rebuke-terrorists/
"No, Achmed, we can't bomb the museums today. They have just initiated a new program to cut carbon emissions. Maybe next year."
This is why people like Rubio and Cruz should not be considered this time.
*Glad you learned from my previous diatribe.
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-