• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

  • Positive

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Negative

    Votes: 18 35.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Total voters
    51
Interesting response from some of the left:

President Obama’s Wednesday-night speech laying out the United States’ military strategy against the Islamic State didn’t get the best reception on the left, and not because it was too hawkish: Chris Matthews repeatedly called it “not sufficient,” NBC correspondent Richard Engel slammed it as “wildly off-base” and an “oversimplification,” and even Al Sharpton admitted the plan left a lot to be desired.

A panel composed of some of MSNBC’s brightest stars lit into the president almost immediately after he wrapped up his address to the American people. “I heard all the necessary conditions, but not the sufficient conditions for defeating ISIS,” Matthews lamented. “Nothing really about the building of a posse. And everyone who really knows this region are saying the only way you defeat a cancer like this, like ISIS, is within the Islamic world itself . . . and I didn’t hear in this speech how we’re going to do that.”

NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, phoning in from northern Iraq, took issue with President Obama’s plan to confront the Islamic State in a manner similar to ongoing U.S. operations in Somalia and Yemen. “I think it is wildly off-base, frankly,” he accused. “I think it’s an oversimplification of the problem.” He explained there is a “partner government” in Yemen that requires the United States to help with reconnaissance and hard-to-reach targets, and a cooperative government in Somalia, too.

“That’s not at all the situation that we see in Iraq and Syria,” he said. “Here we have a large group, tens of thousands of fighters. They control an area the size of Maryland. They control an area with 8 million people living inside of it. It’s much more akin to regime change than it is waiting back, picking targets with allied forces. They are not comparable at all.”....
Click to expand...

The Baghdad Bureau Chief for the NY Times also pretty much admitted that the President had ignored the collapse of Iraq and growth of ISIL for political reasons.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Other.

I found the President’s strategy a mixed bag. There were parts I agreed with: airstrikes against ISIS, aiding Kurdish and Iraqi forces, expanding Intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism efforts, and continuing humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, there were also parts that were counterproductive, namely the tactic of aiding actors in Syria’s vicious sectarian conflict with no mention of controls or mechanisms to assure that such assistance is directed at ISIS. Toward that end, the President declared:

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.

Assisting sectarian factions in Syria’s multifaceted civil war would be a counterproductive step. While the U.S. need not partner with the Assad government, it should not assist sectarian elements that have displayed little regard for civilian welfare, have engaged in shifting alliances of expediency resulting in weapons leakage to radical elements, have made no meaningful commitments toward American interests and those of regional American allies, and have contributed significantly to the instability that ISIS has exploited.

In the broader geopolitical framework, allies of the Assad regime can reasonably worry that increasing arms deliveries to various sectarian actors in Syria’s conflict is, at least in part, a backdoor “regime change” initiative. If so, one can expect them to step up their own assistance to that dictatorship. The end result could be a more intense sectarian conflict in Syria. Such an outcome could diminish the effectiveness of the air campaign against ISIS, as it could also create new opportunities for the terrorist organization from the expanded instability. Furthermore, there was no mention of helping Jordan and Egypt, both key American regional allies, deal with potential threats from ISIS.

Another point that I found troublesome is that the strategies in Yemen and Somalia were described as successful. In fact, both areas continue to face substantial terrorist activity. Just as President Bush famously erred in his “mission accomplished” address, I believe President Obama is prematurely proclaiming success in two initiatives that remain far more works in progress than concrete successes.

Finally, the President declared, “I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat” but provided no examples to demonstrate the breadth of this coalition. In fact, later in his speech, his remarks hinted that key parts of such a coalition are not yet in place. He stated:

Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today… and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands.

IMO, given their direct and large interests in the situation, the White House should already have put together the Arab coalition. That it hasn’t is not exactly encouraging. This begs the question as to whether the White House is promising more than it can deliver when it comes to putting together such a coalition.

All said, the speech was a mixed bag. There were some strong points, but also the glaring weakness of aiding sectarian factions in Syria with no mention of controls or other mechanisms to assure that such assistance would be used strictly against ISIS rather than in the pursuit of those organizations’ own sectarian goals. In short, my guess is that the fight against ISIS is unlikely to be close to resolution in the near-term. Furthermore, there is a risk that ISIS will remain a fairly formidable regional threat even by the end of the President’s term in office.

The transcript can be found at: Text of Obama
Click to expand...



Good analysis DS. :2wave: As you see there was nothing much there. Note how he didn't use the word ISIS. He kept calling them ISIL. As if this will make that mean word go away. Then this was quite laughable......ISIL is not Islamic. He knows this from saying that no religion condones killing the innocent. Yet history has shown us otherwise.

He want to arms the Rebels again.....and like you say, The Coalition should have already been put together.

What is the difference in strategy with Yemen?
 
cpwill said:
The problem being that we have two groups of "troops on the ground" (roughly) who are competent to fight( Peshmerga, who don't really want to push too far out of their territory, and Shia militias possibly backed by Quds), and one group (the ISF) who isn't. If the ISF is able to get some wins under its' belt and stick to defending Shia areas.... :shrug: maybe they can be reconstituted up to that level. But that would also take trainers and other echelons that we aren't willing to send.



Recent experience would indicate the latter.



I am not an expert, but I go back and forth between "instant martyr" and "demonstrates his ineffectiveness, harming the 'Caliph' claim".
Click to expand...

Exactly, but if done right it can be accomplished without any substantial American troops on the ground. The Northern Alliance was already constituted and along with a few paramilitary and SF on the ground and our air power they were able to turn the tide of battle completely around and drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But as you point out there is no such thing as the Northern Alliance in Iraq and it will be almost like starting from scratch. Time will tell.

I am in agreement that we will use the pin prick method. I wonder what happened that we are not long willing to fight a war to win. I suppose today most people do not realize the quicker a war is over the less casualties will be had. We may save a few civilians here and a mosque there to save lives but this actually prolongs the effects of and the war or campaign itself. Going in whole hog so to speak may cause a ton of casualties in the beginning but in the long run fewer will be had.

I'll let you speculate on al-Baghdadi as the middle east is not my area.
 
cpwill said:
That part rather astonished me. Who looks at Yemen today and says "Ah, here is a success story." ?

i think he just has a very different definition of "success" than you or I do, linked more to "am I catching flak for this on television" than to "have we dismantled enemy VEO's and enabled stable governance".

I think that was us recognizing a de facto partitioned Iraq, with the acknowledgement that our intent is to destabilize and keep off-balance the half owned by Sunnis' in order to (we hope) limit their ability to project force. At this point a joint ISF/Peshmerga offensive that drives out ISIL just isn't feasible.
Click to expand...


That's due to BO always thinking he can make it political and use it for his own gain domestically with Polling. Yet here he is touting how they have put together a government in Iraq now. Yet he didn't want to deal with any of Iraq or ISIL when Maliki came to him last Nov.
 
cpwill said:
Interesting response from some of the left:



The Baghdad Bureau Chief for the NY Times also pretty much admitted that the President had ignored the collapse of Iraq and growth of ISIL for political reasons.
Click to expand...

I watched some of the various networks' programming late in the night and was somewhat surprised by some reactions.

I didn't notice it last night myself, but they were mentioning what appears to be his intentional use of "ISIL" instead of drawing it back to Iraq itself. They did keep repeating that it was Bush who got us into Iraq, and some for obvious reasons didn't want to place any blame on Obama for the current state of affairs there, but at the same time, it wasn't hard to read between the lines.
 
DA60 said:
And where is your link to proof of this matter-of-fact statement?

Not opinions from some Neocon ignoramuses.

Factual proof from unbiased sources?
Click to expand...


Heya DA. :2wave: Read Mike Doran from the Center of Strategic Studies for the ME. I doubt they can call him a Neo Con. After reading him.....you will see the lefts argument on Iraq get shown for the BS it always was.
 
My impression is that the president was dragged into this by political realities. He obviously doesn't want much of anything to do with it. He actions are those of a man who will give the problem lip service, do too little too late, and then declare victory. I truly wish I could see it another way, but there's a history with Obama now, and I think he'll stay true to form.
 
NIMBY said:
Then yer not happy the GOP finally got another war in Iraq?
A war that GOP/FOX has ginned up with the American people by shamelessly using the two beheadings.

Maybe we should go back to the dozens of our Iraqi soldiers who were electrocuted in faulty Haliburton showers.

He also said he would close GITMO and GOP senators filibustered the Defense bill until he relented.

Bush screwed the pooch on the SOFA agreement no matter how many times a certain poster :peace lies about it and you know it .
Click to expand...


As usual you have no clue or history as to what has taken place with ISIL/ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Don't even know who was shipping weapons and who that was from the US.

Here is a lil clue.....go and look up Clintons Friends of Syria, Meetings. So at least you have the basics down.
 
TobyOne said:
There's some chatter that his flag pin was off center. He may be sending a message to sleeper cells.
Click to expand...

The real chatter was over Twitter with the terrorists and their supporters.....laughing and mocking BO and all he had to say.
 
MMC said:
False.....AQ was already an Organization.
Click to expand...

But, but Bush started AQ. He sent in Cheney, and Darth got it going when nobody was looking. Seriously, when are people going to learn here that radical Islam has been around for a long time? AQ, ISIS, Hamas and all the other groups are branches of the same tree. Same roots, and same objectives.
 
NIMBY said:
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .
Click to expand...

The President and his Team put forth Budget. Every year. Make sure you don't forget that process too.
 
MMC said:
Good analysis DS. :2wave: As you see there was nothing much there. Note how he didn't use the word ISIS. He kept calling them ISIL. As if this will make that mean word go away. Then this was quite laughable......ISIL is not Islamic. He knows this from saying that no religion condones killing the innocent. Yet history has shown us otherwise.

He want to arms the Rebels again.....and like you say, The Coalition should have already been put together.

What is the difference in strategy with Yemen?
Click to expand...

The terrorist organization has been known by various names ISIS, ISIL, and now IS. I don't think the references to ISIL materially change the President's approach.

There are similarities to Yemen e.g., drone and other air strikes. The big difference is that Yemen has a reasonably cooperative government. The U.S. is estranged from Syria's government. Syria is also in the midst of a larger sectarian conflict. Syria is vastly more complicated than Yemen is. Yemen, of course, is much more a work in progress than a success at this point in time.

Finally, subsequent reporting has revealed that the U.S. is still trying to "broaden" the coalition by bringing the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Turkey on board. I'm really taken aback that this was not already done. It should have been done much earlier. Indeed, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, President Bush had put together an Arab coalition in 7-10 days.

It takes direct Presidential effort to do so. Bush recounted in his and Brent Scowcroft's A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998) with respect to August 7, 1990, "Throughout the rest of the day I worked the phones with our Arab allies, now reaching the other Gulf States." He added, "We were also gathering commitments from teh Western allies."

Of August 11, Bush noted:

I called Mubarak at 5:30 in the morning...and thanked him for his help. Hosni said that everyone understood we had pushed diplomacy, and that it was making a difference in building Arab support... Egyptian and Moroccan troops began to arrive in Saudi Arabia that same day, and with them stark evidence for Saddam that the Arab world too would stand up to him.

That the U.S. had not created such a coalition right now and has not even defined roles for the coalition partners is astonishing. However, given how reactive and ad hoc American foreign policy has become in recent years, I'm not surprised that the kind of strategic thinking and execution required to put together a broad and effective coalition has not already occurred.

Finally, Bush also revealed the benefits of having paid attention to prospective partners even before the Iraqi invasion observing:

The year before, Mubarak had offered me some advice: touch base with these small countries whenever you can, just to acknowledge their importance to the United States, and it will make a difference with them. I had, and my wise friend Hosni had been absolutely right. We were now seeing some of the fruits of tending to these relationships.

Priorities and building/sustaining relationships matter. The President prioritized in rapidly putting together an Arab coalition and he was intensely and personally involved in doing so, rather than outsourcing most or all of his efforts to others. Of course, his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense were also heavily involved. At the same time, he carefully managed relationships and those efforts paid off.

On a larger point, building and managing relationships is why Presidents such as Reagan, Clinton, and Bush (Sr.) were able to accomplish as much as they did even with the Opposition controlling one or both branches of Congress. One cannot understate the importance of investing time and effort in building and leveraging relationships with the people whose support can be crucial.
 
As for the speech. It's been getting lotsa praise ... last night and this AM.
I have to say, I was listening for something new.
Something that hasn't been happening already ... I didn't hear it.
Something that said "We're going to bomb the crap out of ISIS(L) home bases in Syria" ... but I didn't hear it.
The closest thing I heard was "That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq."
Now, after almost 6 years we all should know that doesn't mean he's going to bomb them in Syria.
I could have missed the definitive language.
Maybe he will, but you really have to parse this guy.
He always covers all sides.
(You know, it was a video, it was an act of terror, it was a video etc.)

The other thing that struck me was the language that ISIL is not really an Islamic State, no one recognizes it as an Islamic State, and the Islamists were not really Islamic.
So why the hell does he keep calling them ISIL?
Why not go for accuracy and call them Islamic radical terrorists.
But no, he's still clings to the notion that bad guys will behave once they realize he's a swell guy who knows we're no better than anyone else.
 
bubbabgone said:
As for the speech. It's been getting lotsa praise ... last night and this AM.
I have to say, I was listening for something new.
Something that hasn't been happening already ... I didn't hear it.
Something that said "We're going to bomb the crap out of ISIS(L) home bases in Syria" ... but I didn't hear it.
The closest thing I heard was "That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq."
Now, after almost 6 years we all should know that doesn't mean he's going to bomb them in Syria.
I could have missed the definitive language.
Maybe he will, but you really have to parse this guy.
He always covers all sides.
(You know, it was a video, it was an act of terror, it was a video etc.)

The other thing that struck me was the language that ISIL is not really an Islamic State, no one recognizes it as an Islamic State, and the Islamists were not really Islamic.
So why the hell does he keep calling them ISIL?
Why not go for accuracy and call them Islamic radical terrorists.
But no, he's still clings to the notion that bad guys will behave once they realize he's a swell guy who knows we're no better than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah. The failure to properly identify the enemy is a problem.
 
So he irks the fringe left more with his Bush-esque approach. Question is whether he gets any sort of public support as without that Congress wont support it. So if that happens does he continue to violate laws or not ?
 
The reason we are going back into Iraq is Obama's inattention to foreign policy in Iraq and his lack of understanding about the smart use of military power. Bush saw an enemy in Iraq and made the mistake of eliminating him, leaving a power vaccume there. Obama made the opposite mistake in Syria. Assad was fighting AlQueda but for some reason Obama saw him as a liability and while giving lip service to support of the Free Syrian Army, was intimidated by Putin and backed away from any action. As a result ISIS grew into a regional power in Syria and filled some of the vaccume left by a regrettable decision to pull our forces out of Iraq too early. In large part Obama's action in the Middle East helped to create the current situation there.

With respect to the speech last night, my major issue with it was that once again, as he did in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama telegraphed our military intentions there. He publicly limited our involvement to aid and bombs. I don't mind restricting the use of ground troops. Just keep your damned mouth shut about it. If you are playing chess, don't tell your opponent your next five moves.
 
sawdust said:
The reason we are going back into Iraq is Obama's inattention to foreign policy in Iraq and his lack of understanding about the smart use of military power. Bush saw an enemy in Iraq and made the mistake of eliminating him, leaving a power vaccume there. Obama made the opposite mistake in Syria. Assad was fighting AlQueda but for some reason Obama saw him as a liability and while giving lip service to support of the Free Syrian Army, was intimidated by Putin and backed away from any action. As a result ISIS grew into a regional power in Syria and filled some of the vaccume left by a regrettable decision to pull our forces out of Iraq too early. In large part Obama's action in the Middle East helped to create the current situation there.

With respect to the speech last night, my major issue with it was that once again, as he did in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama telegraphed our military intentions there. He publicly limited our involvement to aid and bombs. I don't mind restricting the use of ground troops. Just keep your damned mouth shut about it. If you are playing chess, don't tell your opponent your next five moves.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
U.S.
 
Dave Mittner said:
Except this isn't a new war. It's still a war against terrorists, and thus falls under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. In effect that was a declaration of war against all terrorism and it did come from Congress.
Click to expand...

There was no formal declaration of war. The "War Against Terror" isn't.

I think our forefathers kind of dropped the ball on this one. The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war, but it never states that a formal declaration of war is actually necessary for the military to be used. Nor does it state any detail about how declarations should be declared by Congress. It also doesn't empower Congress to end wars, so it's easy to argue that the AUMF declaration is still alive and kicking.
Click to expand...

Declared wars are more clearly defined, as they must be if they are to be committed action of a nation. We still have no clearly defined mission in Iraq. We have, as we have had since Bush's war, a moveable mission at best, made up and amended as they go along. The "War on Terror" is a PR term created for the masses by the extremely talented and far sighted propaganda apparatus of the Bush Administration. It was perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Bush Administration. They mastered it.

In short, AUMF was a really bad way to declare war on terror. It was far too non-specific and can easily be used to justify military action against anyone whose deemed a terrorist, within any country's borders, if their presence can be tracked back as a threat to the United States.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Well, that just sounds like wholesale fearmongering there.
Click to expand...

Fearmongering? Fearmongering is now synonymous with warmongering. Same, same. I support neither.

Forgive me, I am a Vietnam Vet. I have learned to be a pragmatist. Saying the new addition to the "War on Terror" won't escalate is tantamount to "I'll only put it in a little bit, promise."

What we're doing now is little different than what we did in Libya, and I think most Americans have forgotten all about that conflict.
Click to expand...

Sadly that is probably correct. If most Americans had actually made an actual commitment and suffered a palpable sacrifice perhaps they wouldn't have forgotten so soon. If we had declared yet another war, after a declaration of war in Iraq and one for Afghanistan and one for Yemen, and one for Somalia perhaps Americans would have a more realistic understanding of what we are doing and what the costs are in human lives and suffering and the huge financial burden imposed on the nation, and the long term commitments it owes and will owe to its veterans. Up to this point none of that is happening.

Unfortunately that check was written 13 years ago.
Click to expand...

Indeed and it is never too late to untangle a cluster****.
 
humbolt said:
But, but Bush started AQ. He sent in Cheney, and Darth got it going when nobody was looking. Seriously, when are people going to learn here that radical Islam has been around for a long time? AQ, ISIS, Hamas and all the other groups are branches of the same tree. Same roots, and same objectives.
Click to expand...


Heya HB. :2wave: Well you see Right away its back to Bush and him leaving a SOFA for BO to handle.....which BO couldn't handle that fact due to BO's own mentality about Iraq and what he thought was his Great Achievement. He was wrong. Then he ran from the problem.....thinking if he ignored it. It would go away.

Those powerful Sunni Tribes and Ousted Baathists would have never sided with the Terrorists. If BO peep would have just did his job in Iraq.....rather than trying to bask in his own glory. Thinking he had Iraq and Afghanistan, Right. What he really did was play on the American people being war weary. Now he looks like a fool all across that Global Stage.



Throughout 2014, powerful Sunni tribes and ousted Saddam-era Baathists have coordinated with ISIS to capture much of central, western, and northern Iraq. On the other side are demoralized Iraqi troops and increasingly sectarian Iranian-trained militias, some of which had been fighting in Syria. The U.S. didn't truly tune into the crisis until after a few hundred ISIS militants overran Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul on June 10. "There was a concerted effort by the administration to not acknowledge the obvious until it became so apparent — with the fall of Mosul — that Iraq was collapsing," The New York Times' Arango said on Reddit.

"Obama was hugely (and understandably) reluctant to authorize the use of force in Iraq — he considered ending the war there one of his chief accomplishments as president," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, told Business Insider recently. "But there wasn't much choice, as ISIS forces proved far more capable than U.S. intelligence had assessed, " he said.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-already-huge-flaw-obamas-145400925.html
 
bubbabgone said:
Is it a psychological problem or something worse?
Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Whichever it is, it's got to be a constant headache walking that tightrope every day of his life! Longstanding beliefs learned in childhood are nearly impossible to change, and I don't envy anyone who has to do it to keep totally different sides pacified. Taking the middle ground only works for a while, but a confrontation inevitably always comes from one side or the other - whose side are you on! I believe we might be seeing that now, but saying that three years will be enough to change a thousand years of ideology reality is nothing but rhetorical wishful thinking. One side or the other is going to be furious because they will feel betrayed - there doesn't seem to be alternatives here that I can see, other than buying time, which I think might be his reason for saying he hopes to see many splinter groups emerge, rather than one or two strong ones that we know currently exist. The problem is that they hate us more than they do each other!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom