If you are Commander-In-Chief, you have to have the action plan for all the possible scenarios. You should be able to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you want to airstrikes were working, it is necessary not just to send planes and drop bombs, you need to have clear goals and know exactly what you want to achieve. Well, what Obama makes is not effective. As if he does it just for the record and not for the result
For all we know, what we are doing about ISIS is all that we can do. I'm also fairly confident that we don't know everything that is being done and that the strategy has not been fully presented to the public.
A few days ago someone was critisizing the president for announcing in advance that we would start bombing ISIS, as making that announcement eliminated the element of surprise. Now some are complaining that he announced "no American boots on the ground" - but if he had announced that we would put American combat troops into the war, the same people who have complained that he said we wouldn't, would be complaining that by saying we would we had given away our strategy to ISIS.
The POTUS is always doomed in the eyes of the American public, who will always tend to assume that he isn't doing enough, when in reality he is doing all that can be done, but we just don't have privi to that info.
And I'm not sure at all that the media is accurate. Earlier this week there was this interview with someone in Bagdad who claimed that ISIS was three miles away. Then Turkey issues a statement two days later claiming that ISIS was 60 miles from Bagdad. Who the heck really knows.
We don't even have a clue as to how many ISIS fighters there are, estimates are all over the place. I'm suspecting that there are a lot fewer than the CIA's estimate range of 20,000 to 31,000. The reason I suspect that it is fewer, is because it is taking very few ISIS fighters to take over territory. When four ISIS fighters in a pickup truck can take over a village, it's not all that hard to extrapolate the total number of ISIS fighters based upon the amount of land they have captured and the population in that area.
And I wonder why we don't know how many tanks and armored vehicles they have. It's hard to hide those things in the open desert, and we should know how many they seized from Iraq and Syrian troops. You also can't really purchase a lot of tanks on the black market, so it's fairly unlikely that they have many more than what Iraq and Syria have reported they lost to ISIS. So (just guessing), maybe 50? That's not exactly formidible, it may be to a small village, but not to any real army. And of those 50, how many have we already destroyed? And how many of them did ISIS unintentionally destroy (not knowing how to properly operate them). How many have been destroyed by the Kurds? It's entirely possible that ISIS now only as a handful or less of tanks and APCs. If you had lots tanks, why ride around in a pickup truck or a toyota corrola?
Anyhow, I can think of no reason in the world that the POTUS wouldn't want a major military victory over ISIS between now and the election (or at least the election after that), thus I can't think of any reasons that we aren't already destroying every ISIS target we can find.
ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
Read the Full Text of Obama's ISIS Speech - The Wire