*****************************************************************************************
Basically, we don’t have that many choices about ISIS. We can ignore them, we can attack them from the air, we can form a world coalition to destroy them, or we can put boots on the ground to go to war with them.
What should we do, given we have been at war in this area off and on for 25 years.
The U.S. State Department has made a video advising young people to “Think again, Turn away.” U. S. officials want to discourage all recruitment.
Is the video too crude? Too graphic? Will some see it as free advertising for this terrorist group?
Are they still “JV”? Or has that changed in the last few weeks?
He wasn’t specifically referring to ISIS. He was discussing the many various regional groups who have popped up and Al Qada wanna be.
The ‘Locals’ need to get involved. Where is Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordon, etc. Why must the US be the only one with skin in the game? We have NATO where we fund 70% of the expenses – we need other nations to step up and take on some of the financial risk of going in.
Pat is exactly right- the mainstream Islamists need to eliminate the radical killers in their back yard. We can provide air support (drone and conventional), armaments and materials. This will only work if Islamists are the one’s in the lead, making it clear that it’s not east-west, it’s murdering monsters against civilized humanity.
I agree with Middleman and Pat.
The top Saudi imam has declared that the executions and other gross human rights violations undertaken by ISIL are violations of true Islam. And it appears that the Saudis may be starting to build a security fence along their border with Iraq. A principal border crossing point between Iraq and Jordan has come under control of ISIL. Jordan is responding accordingly on its side of the border, but they seem to be very much worried that the ISIL flag and sentiments have started to surface within their own country. Turkey is trying to put new and tougher border controls on the routes used by ISIL and ISIL-paid smugglers to bring in new recruits and supplies through their country. It will be interesting to see if Kerry and Hagle can cobble something together out there into a force for positive action.
That’s funny, that is the exact same excuse President Obama gave…. and then received 4 Pinocchio’s for from the Washington Post. It’s a lie, he wasn’t talking about ‘various regional groups’. That is just spin that he is spewing and unfortunately some are just regurgitating. I would have so much more respect for the guy if he just manned up and admitted when he screwed up or got something wrong but he is incapable of doing so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/03/spinning-obamas-reference-to-isis-as-a-jv-team/
Well BFD. We can all read. So what if ISIS was caught up in the JV sweep. Do you really want to bitch about the President THAT much?
They are a bunch of thugs who do evil. Why bolster their egos by treating them like anything other than JV.
I hope he continues to be dismissive of them. There are lots of little thuggies all over the middle east. They do evil things. they will be stopped.
@Moon-howler
Because when you are dismissive of competent terrorists….people die.
He was dismissive of ISIS when he let their leader go.
He was dismissive of their capabilities before they took most of the important parts of Iraq.
He was dismissive of the intel that he’s been getting for two years on them.
And because of that…he now has “no strategy.”
There is no such thing as “junior varsity” terrorists anymore. Not when they have access to WMD via Syria or jet liners by capturing airports. Or they are armed by weapons supplied by the President of the US.
Obama was arrogant and they called his bluff. They know that he’s not a serious leader willing to make hard decisions. He dithered and they advanced. He didn’t want to take the responsibility for either doing something productive, which would put Americans in danger OR take responsibility for NOT going after them and stating that it was Iraq and the other Middle Eastern countries responsibilities…and accepting the consequences of that.
Too bad he didn’t have your phone number so he could call you up and ask your opinion. Seriously, did you expect him to stand there quaking in his shoes? Just what is it you wanted him to say to all the little thug groups?
If he had ordered up a few daisy cutters you would have bitched and complained about that.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know what intel the president of the United States has been getting, speaking of arrogant.
Yeah, I’m also really mad about Obama not being clairvoyant- he should have KNOWN that ISIS was going to grow exponentially and become the threat that it has. Just one more failing of this guy! Unbelievable!!
Funny. When Obama takes initiative, he is accused of being a dictator and king – when he wants a consensus from Congress he is dithering. When he said he would go into countries after OBL he was trashed for saying he would go into sovereign nations now the very same people want him to just go into Syria.
@Pat, yea, too bad the guy just isn’t perfect.
Yeah, Obama should be more like “W” and Cheney, who saw the potential of Al-Qaeda (and heeded the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration) and prevented any attacks on our homeland. Except that they didn’t.
The same Cheney (who has been incredibly wrong most of the time) is apparently briefing the House Republicans today on the middle east. Now THAT should be a productive meeting…
Well, they had BETTER listen to him or he will shoot them in the face!
Yes, Cheney is wrong most of the time. Just who *I* would call for advice. NOT!!
@middleman
The ISIS leader was a former member of Sadam Hussein’s republican guards. When Bush dissolved the guard, he formed ISIS. He was incarcerated for awhile in Iraq but Bush released him.
The intel:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-called-isis-jvs-even-while-intel-briefings-told-him-they-were-a-serious-threat/
AND
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CTCSentinel-Vol7Iss8.pdf
Notice…..I did not say WHAT Obama should have done. What he did do was vote “present.”
When action was requested by the Iraqis…he hedged his bets. When he decided to finally act, he’s playing “whack a mole” instead of actually destroying the threat. He does not act decisively.
If you attack ISIS at all….they will consider themselves at war with us. Whether we think we are at war with them or not. From Ben Rhodes, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/08/11/airstrikes-iraq-what-you-need-know:
8. Are we at war with ISIL? Will we be sending troops back to Iraq?
No. There is no U.S. military solution to the larger situation in Iraq. The United States’ chief goals are to protect our personnel and facilities, and to prevent a potential act of genocide. That is the scope of these operations. As the President said, we will support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, but no American combat troops will be returning to fight in Iraq.
Sooooo, in other words…..they are at war with us…but we are not at war with them…and the gov’t doesn’t see them as a threat to the US. But he’s still going to attack them and give them reason to attack us.
He knew that it was growing because the Iraqis were telling him about the threat.
Yep..too bad that he didn’t call me. Or anyone else that isn’t a caddie. Also… “say to all the little thug groups?”
Well…for one thing….I’d would have like him to NOT say….”here are some weapons.” He armed the Syrian resistance…..knowing that the people getting the arms were NOT the moderates.
Even Dianne Feinstein is lambasting his cavalier attitude. When a liberal has lost Senator Feinstein…..
Biden is saying that we’ll follow ISIS to the gates of Hell.
Unfortunately for him, those that ARE at the gates of Hell responded:
‘Chase them to the Gates of Hell? How the F$&k are we going to do that when we can’t even leave the front gate of our base!?’”
@middleman
As for the “warning” by Clinton…is that the same Clinton that REFUSED to merely take Obama off the hands of the Sudanese?
The same Clinton that said he gave warnings…but they were incredibly vague warnings…… to the tune of …”a terrorist is planning something with airplanes.”
The same Clinton that refused to take action when it was handed to him on a platter?
That Clinton?
Please…enlighten us. What should Bush have done? Grounded all aircraft?
@Starry flights
Bush was out of office when he was released from Camp Bucca.
My personal opinion is that there are terrorists in the open. We should, just on general humanitarian principles and also the idea that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist, go on a full court press. BUT, I’m ambivalent. The other part of me says that we should leave it to the Iraqis. President Obama left Iraq and refused to negotiate on the Status of Forces Agreement. Fine. Don’t get involved again. If you are going to war….go big, destroy the enemy, go home.
This inbetween stuff will just get Americans killed for nothing.
@middleman
So…he should listen to criminals like Sandy Berger, instead?
We are in the very BEST of hands.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-dines-man-caught-stealing-destroying-classified-documents_804668.html
Tsk, tsk. That “shoot them in the face” was really nasty.
Oh, did he shoot in friend somewhere else? I could be in error about where he shot him. I could have sworn it was in the face.
The same Clinton that refused to take action when it was handed to him on a platter? – debunked by the 9-11 commission.
When Obama was in Libya, McCain was bellyaching that Obama was on the offensive without Congressional approval, in Syria McCain is bellyaching that Obama has not moved forward. Before the recess, the House voted that Obama could not send in any troops to Iraq without their approval – now they complain that there are no troops being sent in.
You have summed it up well, Pat. I find the Clinton remark very offensive also, especially in light of what was to come.
@Pat.Herve
You might not have noticed, but I think that McCain is an idiot.
Clinton just ADMITTED that he had that opportunity and passed it by. Did this just within the last couple of months.
Personally, if I was the President, I would, in my speech tonight, state that I was going to Congress to ask them for authorization. I would demand that THEY decide it they want the Commander in Chief to order the troops into battle. That way, THEY would have to back it up with funds, support, or political muscle. If they say NO, then its on our representatives. That is why the Constitution set it up for the Congress to determine if we go to war.
Obama did go to war illegally in Libya. In Syria….the problem was that a) Obama shouldn’t just attack Syria and b) his intended attacks were absolutely going to be meaningless except to give a causus belli for conflict to Syria. Obama shouldn’t send troops without Congress this time.
Now, now, now, you know it was a hunting accident. He didn’t shoot anybody in the face. That would be like saying that my two relatives who died when their hunting guns got snagged on the barbed wire as they were sliding under a farm fence had intentionally committed suicide. You just seem to have a heavy hate on Dick Cheney. Can’t understand why. Is it personal?
I don’t HATE Dick Cheney. I don’t like him. I don’t like what he did to this country. Yea, I will chop on him every chance I get.
@Moon-howler
When I was at the “anti-war” rallies and I saw people carrying signs saying “IMPEACH BUSH!”, I would shout at them, “YES! YES! GREAT!”
One eventually came over, and asked me why I was agreeing with them.
I replied, “Because if Bush is impeached and convicted, Vice President Cheney takes office…..”
“These American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into aground war in Vietnam…um… I mean…Iraq,” Mr. Obama pledged.
😉
I don’t see those same similarities. Howeva…..there is always the danger and something to keep in mind every time these things come up which is all the time.
Military advisors always seem to turn in to something else.
So now we know what the strategy is. Despite the bluster about destroying ISIS, Obama has settled on a strategy of “minimalist containment”. The only revelation that came out of his speech was the open announcement that we will conduct air strikes over Syria. Since Syria has a sophisticated air defense system, this suggests that air strikes will be limited primarily to unmanned aerial vehicles (e.g. Predators).
ISIS fighters are not exactly quaking in their boots on this Remembrance Day for 9/11/2001.
It may have its flaws but it is better than sending tens of thousands of Ametican troops into an I unwinnable battle @Kelly_3406
I know what we have to do.
http://youtu.be/aCbfMkh940Q
Weird….THIS share embedded. And earlier youtube share did not.
@Starry flights
Unwinnable?
Please, explain how we cannot win in battle against this force if we so desired.
Afghanistan. What else needs to be said. Ask the Russians.
@Moon-howler
“Military advisors always seem to turn in to something else.”
This is what the comment is about.
Turkey just refused to help fight ISIS. They rejected our use of bases for air strikes.
We cannot base fighters in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis do not seem eager to engage with that wonderful air force that we sold them and trained.
Obama wants more money to arm more “moderates” that have promised….PROMISED that they won’t give the guns to anyone else. You know..the same moderates that have admitted to working with Al Qaeda. So…we can’t expect help from that quarter.
Heck…its such a mess….backing Assad actually seems to make sense.
God forbid we ask Israeli for help. THAT hornet’s nest of politics should be avoided. Jordan? They are SUPPOSED to be our allies.
Why don’t we just …..use IRAQI bases? Well, other than the fact that the Iraqi soldiers ran. OR joined ISIS. Too bad that there are no air bases in the Kurdish territory. Those people we can trust to fight the islamist jihadists.
What would you advise, Cargo?
@Moon-howler
Afghanistan was winnable. We WERE winning. Until Obama announced our surrender and scheduled pullout.
What defeats us is lack of political will.
Obama didn’t announce our surrender. Period.
We weren’t winning. We were expending our country’s resources on people with tribal mentality, people who lived in freaking caves.
Reality check. We also weren’t at war with Aghanistan. We were at war with a concept.
@Starry flights
First…. ask Congress for authorization AND make certain that the Iraqis will fight.
If neither is available…. We stay home.
Second, IF authorized to use violence, I would limit strikes to Iraq, leaving Syria alone. THAT is not our fight. There are NO good guys in Syria. Let them fight it out.
Third, I would reinforce the Kurds and use them as a base.
4th, I would make sure that Baghdad is safe. If I’m using limited ground troops, I use special forces to coordinate Iraqi forces. That airport is a key element.
5th, THEN I would use that airbase to base strikes.
And those strikes would include massive bombing on any and all ISIS targets.
For the wider world conflict, I would authorize the CIA and other intel agencies to kill and capture any and all terrorist targets and undermine any nation supporting them. I would use whatever tool that I have to cripple the economies of those nations supporting these groups. If you are not opposing them, you are supporting them.
I would make decisions in this country to enable this country to be self sufficient in oil and other energy sources so that we no longer import oil from the Middle East. At All.
I would do such things that would send a message that if you attack American targets, not only will YOU regret it, but anybody that supports you will regret it. For years.
Kidnap and kill an American. We find a terrorist supporting Imam, kidnap him, and send him home in the same condition. Etc…..
Gloves are off. No more mister nice guy. This is either war….or it is not. Whack a mole moderate actions do nothing but drag this out in favor of the barbarian Islamists.
For one thing, I elect a president that would actually recognize and admit what the threat is.
I’m sorry. But THIS is absolutely craven and idiotic.
“ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”
According to MANY Muslim fatwas and statements….what ISIL is doing IS condoned. Their motivation is religious. This is a religious war. Obama thinks that he can lecture to THEM about what Islam is and means and what it means to be Muslim.
ISIL is just a symptom. We can completely destroy ISIL and any and all of their ilk, and a new one would spring up unless we change the culture that produces them.
In the mean time, you kill the enemies of civilization and destroy their means to wage war.
@Moon-howler
Actually, at the time, we were winning. The Taliban was retreating and its influence was lessening.
Then, Obama told us in a speech that we were leaving in 2014, regardless of the conditions on the ground. We then changed our focus from defeating the Taliban to “training” the Afghani forces and pulled back.
THAT is called surrender. You are leaving the theater of war to the enemy.
Its difficult to even respond to you since, according to your president, George Bush, we were not at war with Afghanistan. We were hunting down Al Qada and Osama Bin Ladin. The Taliban was just a distraction.
I am not sure what you think we were winning. We were dumping a bunch of US money into infrastructure. People still lived in caves, however. Lots of cliff dwellers. What exactly were we winning?
@Moon-howler
No…we were not at war with Afghanistan.
We were fighting the Taliban, who were supporters of Al Qaeda. The Taliban were not a “distraction.” They were and are our primary opponent in Afghanistan.
We were dumping money into infrastructure. You want the locals to have a tangible benefit.
People live in everything from caves to villages to high priced condos in that country. Getting running water going after 20 years of destruction by the Soviets and the Taliban is a win.
We were defeating the Taliban. We literally drove them out of the country. The Afghanis were finally supporting us and the Karzai government….albeit only a little more. They thought that we were serious about defeating the Taliban.
Then Obama was elected and he gave a speech that said we were leaving no matter what happens in 2014.
Support collapsed. The enemy was emboldened. Pakistan redoubled its support for the Taliban.
And I don’t blame them. If we are going to leave the theater of battle with the enemy undefeated…… THEY win. And the locals have to live with them.
And there still troops in Afghanistan today? Yes.
Different roles but there are troops there.
has it occurred to you that the American people didn’t want to be propping up Afghanistan? In order to stabilize that country we would have had to stay forever.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. There aren’t all that many luxury condos. No we didn’t surrender. You cheapen every American life that was lost there when you say that.
I don’t feel like using Americans as cannon fodder. Many people agree with me. Never did you state an objective for staying in Afghanistan. We went in after Al Qada. We didn’t go to beat up the Taliban. At least that isn’t what the American public was told.
Let’s go burn a few poppy fields so those big bad Afghanis don’t sell opium. Let’s build a few schools, put in a few bridges and highways. Bullcrap. Let’s do those last things in THIS country.
@Moon-howler
I didn’t cheapen those lives. The man that surrendered did.
EVERY military member knows what he did in that speech. We STILL talk about it.
Obama decided to cut and run before Bin Laden was found.
At the time, Afghanistan was the only Al Q stronghold. Now its even admitting to opening up shop in India and across Africa.
I think you are being very offensive.
How much doyou want to be me that I can find a military member who thinks this is garbage?
@Moon-howler
I’m sure that you can.
The military is not monolithic.
Some even voted for Obama and like him.
I’m sorry that you think that I’m being offensive. But that IS what surrender means.