Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Strategy? What strategy?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Strategy? What strategy?   11/20/2015, 5:25 pm

Yes, there certainly is a JV player, but he doesn't play for the ISIS team.



"Obama’s phony war on the Islamic State was always more about seeming to do something while running out the clock until his successor inherits his mess."



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state

Obama’s Strategic Bumbling Is Theater of the Absurd

by JONAH GOLDBERG November 20, 2015 12:00 AM @JONAHNRO

‘You’re all suckers.” That has to be what Barack Obama is thinking as the country falls for his head-fake. Let’s recap. George W. Bush’s surge reduced the Islamic State’s precursor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, to a paltry 700 members, according to CIA director John Brennan. Its membership has grown by something close to 4,000 percent. As it metastasized, Obama yawned, calling it the “JV team.” When Syrian president Bashar al-Assad violated Obama’s “red line,” Obama yawned again, and the refugee crisis was born. By August 2014, Obama was grudgingly conceding he needed a new counterterrorism strategy. One tactic he ruled out: building up pro-American Syrian forces. He told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that was an unworkable “fantasy.” Then, within weeks, the Islamic State beheaded American journalist James Foley. On vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Obama denounced the murder. Within eight minutes of that statement, he was on the golf course. He later conceded that was a mistake. “I should have anticipated the optics,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “Part of this job is also the theater of it. . . . It’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters.” Let’s put a pin in that. On September 10, 2014, Obama gave a televised White House address in which he finally laid out his Islamic State strategy. Key to his plan: bringing the “fantasy” of training Syrian rebels to life. “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years,” he said with theatrical confidence. By late January, the Yemeni government — i.e., our partners on the ground — had collapsed. But the White House continued to insist that the strategy was a success. Obama’s phony war on the Islamic State was always more about seeming to do something while running out the clock until his successor inherits his mess. In September, our effort to train rebels in Syria was exposed as a boondoggle of epic proportions. A $500 million program had produced “four or five” fighters, according to General Lloyd Austin, the head of U.S. Central Command. When 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked about this spectacular failure last month, Obama replied that he always knew it wouldn’t work. “Steve, this is why I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said. A day before the Paris attacks, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Islamic State had been “contained” inside its borders. This was shortly after the Islamic State had murdered hundreds of Turkish, Russian, Iraqi, and Lebanese civilians — all of whom lived outside those borders. Then, the next day, the Islamic State slaughtered more than 100 people in Paris. That brings us to Monday’s press conference in Turkey. For a moment, it seemed like the press had finally grasped the staggering failure of Obama’s strategy. One reporter after another asked the dyspeptic and defensive president why we weren’t making better progress against these rapists, slavers, and murderers. They repeated the question because Obama kept saying his strategy was working. He described the slaughter in Paris as the kind of “setback” we should expect from a successful strategy. Even liberals were aghast at Obama’s failure to appreciate the “theater” of his job. Oh, but he gets it. Put aside the fact that his “strategy” was always theater to begin with. His phony war on the Islamic State was always more about seeming to do something while running out the clock until his successor inherits his mess. Obama knew the media would take their eye off the ball if he distracted them with a passion play about GOP bigotry. He ridiculed Republicans for their cowardice and cruelty in raising concerns about the potential security threats posed by Syrian refugees. Never mind that such caution is informed in part by warnings from the heads of Obama’s CIA, FBI, and DHS. Obama ludicrously mocked the idea that we prioritize Christian refugees — victims of Islamic State genocide — as an Islamophobic “religious test” that was “not American,” even though his administration already gives special preference to Yazidi refugees from Iraq and federal law requires taking religion into account when screening refugees. For Obama, politics ends at the water’s edge, unless he’s speaking abroad. Obama’s dithering sparked the refugee crisis. He’s now using a smattering of refugees as a cynical prop to prove he’s the hero of his own morality tale. The reality is that he’s a villain in his own theater of the absurd. And we’re the suckers in the audience falling for it.

Back to top Go down
chuckmo48

avatar

Posts : 284

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/20/2015, 11:13 pm

Who were the terrorists? Everything we know about the Isil attackers so far

Quote :
Omar Ismail Mostefai, The Frenchman born to Algerian parents.
Salah Abdeslam, a Belgian-born French national.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, lived in the Molenbeek suburb of Brussels.
Bilal Hadfi,  20-year-old French national.
Ahmad Al Mohammad, a EU citizen.
Samy Amimour, Nationality: French
Abdel Hamid Abaaoud,  lived in the Molenbeek suburb of Brussels.
Hasna Aiboulahcen, the 26-year old Frenchwoman.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996120/Paris-attack-what-we-know-about-the-suspects.html

Not one born in Syria
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1916

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/21/2015, 1:29 pm

Yeah. Well I saw Obama's press conference in Turkey, and IMHO, his remarks were spot on... Some excerpts...
   
Quote :
Keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world and we have the finest military minds in the world, and I’ve been meeting with them intensively for years now, discussing these various options, and it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisors that that would be a mistake—not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we’ve seen before, which is, if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface—unless we’re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.

And let’s assume that we were to send fifty thousand troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else—in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia? So a strategy has to be one that can be sustained.

It's what's called realism.  If NATO, or the UN Security Council wants to send troops into Syria and Iraq, and are prepared to remain there as peacekeepers, then that would be the time to consider sending additional American soldiers into the region.  But it shouldn't be America acting unilaterally.  We've already seen how actions like that turn out. That's not a strategy... it's a recipe for failure.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/23/2015, 11:41 am

Operation Inherent Resolve.

Quote :
As of 3:59 p.m. EST Nov. 19, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 8,289 strikes (5,432 Iraq / 2,857 Syria).

. . .

As of Oct. 31, 2015, the total cost of operations related to ISIL since kinetic operations started on Aug. 8, 2014, is $5 billion and the average daily cost is $11 million for 450 days of operations.

Destroying some 16,000 ISIL targets in the process. Amazing how anyone can call that a "phony" war.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/23/2015, 2:40 pm

Scorpion wrote:


It's what's called realism.  If NATO, or the UN Security Council wants to send troops into Syria and Iraq, and are prepared to remain there as peacekeepers, then that would be the time to consider sending additional American soldiers into the region.  But it shouldn't be America acting unilaterally.  We've already seen how actions like that turn out. That's not a strategy... it's a recipe for failure.

No shit.
Actually I'm not sure it should be NATO or the UN, I think it should be other Muslim countries like Turkey, Jordan and the Saudis doing the fighting on the ground. We've lost enough blood and treasure in the last 12 years. Sending in more US troops is exactly what ISIS wants. Fuck that.
What's really amazing is that the fucking neocon chest thumping warmongers like Jonah Goldberg, the GOP, the republican clowns running for president and Fox news want more US troops on the ground.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/23/2015, 3:51 pm

happy jack wrote:
Yes, there certainly is a JV player, but he doesn't play for the ISIS team.

You're right.
Compared to the US military ISIS is equivalent to a girls T-Ball team.
Actually they're nothing more psychopathic thugs riding around in Toyota pick up trucks and probably couldn't take on a Chicago street gang.

It's really funny how tough talking, macho republican conservatives are scared to death of them....a girls T-Ball team.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1916

PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   11/23/2015, 5:52 pm

edge540 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:


It's what's called realism.  If NATO, or the UN Security Council wants to send troops into Syria and Iraq, and are prepared to remain there as peacekeepers, then that would be the time to consider sending additional American soldiers into the region.  But it shouldn't be America acting unilaterally.  We've already seen how actions like that turn out. That's not a strategy... it's a recipe for failure.

No shit.
Actually I'm not sure it should be NATO or the UN, I think it should be other Muslim countries like Turkey, Jordan and the Saudis doing the fighting on the ground. We've lost enough blood and treasure in the last 12 years. Sending in more US troops is exactly what ISIS wants. Fuck that.

Yeah. Well it would be great if Turkey and the others would do the fighting on the ground on their own, but for various reasons, I just don't think that's likely...(Turkey's animosity toward the Kurds is one reason and the endless Shiite-Sunni feud is another) although that's by far the best option.    

NATO, maybe even with an alliance with Russia, could easily overrun ISIL and the UN could try to keep the peace.  

The UN usually does a good job with peacekeeping missions. Obviously, the UN peacekeepers would need to be from middle eastern nations in order to be effective.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Strategy? What strategy?   

Back to top Go down
 
Strategy? What strategy?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: