Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

iguanaman said:

For us the "victory" was getting the hell out of there. It still is a victory in that sense. Just like our "victory" in Vietnam was. We have a real problem of getting stuck in quagmires.

Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree. Iraq was a real victory, sadly thrown away by BHO.

Bumping up your thread TDS. Even Mexico jumped in.


How the world responded to Obama's Islamic State speech.....

In the Middle East, initial reaction was largely pessimistic, according to translations of local media reports provided by the BBC. A commentary in Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar English, published the day of Obama’s speech, writes that “the US war on ISIS is unlikely to succeed for many reasons.” Among them:

In a commentary before the speech, Mexican daily newspaper, La Jornada, slammed what it calls "inconsistencies" in US policy toward the Middle East:

"These facts are a clear ​examples of the inconsistencies characterizing U​S​ politics, and Western politics in general, in the conflicts unfolding in the Middle East, Central Asia​,​ and the Islamic world: ​​extremely pragmatic, fluctuating​,​ and unscrupulous ​policies, in which the villains of today are the allies of tomorrow and vice versa.'.....snip~

How the world responded to Obama's Islamic State speech

TheDemSocialist said:

What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?

Click to expand...

He sounded very mechanical and dispassionate, almost as if he didn't want to say the things that he had to say. I was impressed that Obama (in his own wording) reiterated the Bush doctrine of not allowing borders to contain our pursuit of terrorists. I was disappointed that Obama wants to use tactics similar to those in Yemen. The speech, on balance, sounded sufficiently tough; I guess We'll see what the follow through looks like.`

NIMBY said:

Your boy Bush gave us 4,500 "empty chairs" around the dinner tables of America,
since you mention empty chairs and the empty-headed Eastwood, who Romney was thoroughly embarrassed by.

Try a visit to any VA Hospital to see some of the tens of thousands of "full beds" occupied by our maimed Wounded Warroirs .

Click to expand...

Is that the same VA that YOUR BOY Obama said he was going to take care of and just like every other LIE he has told did nothing at all to help Vets? Is that the VA you are talking about?

Perotista said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think to an extent people were spoiled by Desert Storm. Wars for Americans are now supposed to be rapid demonstrations of how awesome we are, followed by parades.

TheDemSocialist said:

What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?

Click to expand...

Pessimistic about follow through. If the President follows through on even a portion of his rhetoric then I'd be surprised and pleased.

MMC said:

There it is.....all of MSDNC slamming this speech by BO. How did that happen? Why are they dumping on BO? Richard Engel called it Right with Yemen. So to did Don Sutherland.

Yeah that bit about BO saying ISIL wasn't Islamic.....went over real well. :roll:

Click to expand...

Apparently our President has "Muslim" confused with "Muslim I agree with". Muslims are only Muslims when they are approved by His Excellency.

Sherman123 said:

Pessimistic about follow through. If the President follows through on even a portion of his rhetoric then I'd be surprised and pleased.

Click to expand...

We might see a finding that authorizes taking out External Ops leadership.

cpwill said:

I think to an extent people were spoiled by Desert Storm. Wars for Americans are now supposed to be rapid demonstrations of how awesome we are, followed by parades.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Desert Storm spoiled Americans because it was decisive and short. The ground war took, what three days and the war was over. Saddam would continue to harass us, but in the larger scope of things, it was no big deal. Americans want quick wars, wars that are decisive and over with in a very short time. If a war lasts any length of time, they get turned off and begin to turn against it. We do not want a war to drag on and on.

Perotista said:

I think you are right. Desert Storm spoiled Americans because it was decisive and short. The ground war took, what three days and the war was over. Saddam would continue to harass us, but in the larger scope of things, it was no big deal. Americans want quick wars, wars that are decisive and over with in a very short time. If a war lasts any length of time, they get turned off and begin to turn against it. We do not want a war to drag on and on.

Click to expand...

War today is a video game. It's safe, fought from miles or even continents away with drones and if we see any significant body bags, Americans freak out. The WWII death toll was more than 407,000. The Iraq war was less than 4000. We don't want to see casualties, we just want to pretend we're automatically superior.

What scares me, is that Obama woke up one morning and realized what a big giant ***** he looks like. The only way to fix that is for him to start a shooting war to prove that he really does have a great big **** and actually pees standing up vice squatting.

He is totally unprepared--mentally, physically, ideoligically--to be a war president. He'll establish ROE's that will cause more American casualties than necessary.

Cephus said:

War today is a video game. It's safe, fought from miles or even continents away with drones and if we see any significant body bags, Americans freak out. The WWII death toll was more than 407,000. The Iraq war was less than 4000. We don't want to see casualties, we just want to pretend we're automatically superior.

Click to expand...

I seen that superior attitude from some of our advisers when I was in Laos. I have no doubt that probably most Americans have that superior attitude.

Perotista said:

I seen that superior attitude from some of our advisers when I was in Laos. I have no doubt that probably most Americans have that superior attitude.

Click to expand...

Maybe we ought to be taken down a peg or two. There's something to be said for being humble.

Perotista said:

I think you are right. Desert Storm spoiled Americans because it was decisive and short. The ground war took, what three days and the war was over. Saddam would continue to harass us, but in the larger scope of things, it was no big deal. Americans want quick wars, wars that are decisive and over with in a very short time. If a war lasts any length of time, they get turned off and begin to turn against it. We do not want a war to drag on and on.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Maybe the three-year timeline we have set to get things squared away in the ME is too long, huh? However, when you consider that the people of the ME have been warring with each other for a 1,000 years, three years is a reasonable guess. Of course Obama will be out of office before that, so the new Madame President can tidy up the loose ends, I guess. :mrgreen:

Cephus said:

Maybe we ought to be taken down a peg or two. There's something to be said for being humble.

Click to expand...

I wonder if that is necessary. A bit of respect goes a long way. When I was in Laos I respected and learned their customs and lived with the Lao, not in the fancy house provided us. I noticed that the Lao would politely bow to most Americans after advice given to them on the war and not say a thing. But they would to me, they would talk to me, make suggestions and let me know what they thought. Something they wouldn't do to the other Americans. That my personal note on this if it applies. We are not superior to others, we usually just have more money and a better standard of living.

Cephus said:

Maybe we ought to be taken down a peg or two. There's something to be said for being humble.

Click to expand...

We should be taken down a peg or two? Got it we suck! And the thing is, I know this this clown in the WH thinks just like you, thanks for the clarity.

polgara said:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Maybe the three-year timeline we have set to get things squared away in the ME is too long, huh? However, when you consider that the people of the ME have been warring with each other for a 1,000 years, three years is a reasonable guess. Of course Obama will be out of office before that, so the new Madame President can tidy up the loose ends, I guess. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I didn't know you were running. Setting a time limit for any war or operation is wrong. They take as long as they take. With Vietnam, LBJ although he never said it, was always giving the impression the war would be over in a year or two. When it wasn't, the American people began to have doubts and the rest is history as they say. It will take time to rebuild the Iraqi forces, but a stalemate isn't too bad a thing is one can contain it to that. But once that happens I am sure the leaders of ISIS will be looking for other targets of opportunity to try to regain their momentum. Those targets may not be in the middle east.

I think we, the good old USA needs to decide which is worst, ISIS or Assad. If the strategy is to succeed, we need forces on the ground in both Syria and Iraq. Assad has the army that along with our air power could really defeat ISIS or the bulk of ISIS in a relative short time. But that would mean making nice to Assad. It is my opinion that Assad is the only one who can bring stability back to Syria. On another note, did you see this?

ISIS has between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters, CIA says - CNN.com

Perotista said:

I think you are right. Desert Storm spoiled Americans because it was decisive and short. The ground war took, what three days and the war was over. Saddam would continue to harass us, but in the larger scope of things, it was no big deal. Americans want quick wars, wars that are decisive and over with in a very short time. If a war lasts any length of time, they get turned off and begin to turn against it. We do not want a war to drag on and on.

Click to expand...

UBL was not so terribly off base when he decided that this short-term-attention-span made us the "weak horse".

My guess is this will be more of the kind of pinprick war our pinprick president has been waging in the western frontier of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and possibly elsewhere. Use reconnaissance from satellites, U-2s, drones, etc., as well as electronic intercepts, to fix and track important enemies, then use either local informers or U.S. special forces to verify just where one of them will be for a few hours, and when--and then kill him from the air.

This area is not hard to reach. Tomahawks on ships off the coast of Syrian can hit any part of it, if there's a target big enough to justify one. There is a large British airbase on Cyprus, close enough to launch fighter strikes from effectively--maybe even armed helicopters. Presumably there is a usable airbase or two in the Kurdish area near Irbil. But if this is going to be mainly aerial killings of selected bad guys, the biggest problem may be finding them.

Of course once in a while these bastards show just how damn dumb they are, and offer an windfall. I saw a video of two trucks parked side by side on a highway in the middle of nowhere, with 12 to 15 persons standing nearby alongside the highway. Maybe they were taking a comfort break--who knows. If so, it was their last one. The whole screen went white from a direct hit. The fireball shot out a couple hundred yards, making me think it must have been at least a 2,000-lb. bomb. Good riddance--even the vultures might shun the remains.

This weak sister will never do it, but I'm convinced we may have to face up to the grim reality that if these people hole up in cities, and the inhabitants do not rise up and deal with them, then we must bomb parts of those cities. It is a war crime to target civilians purposely, and I would never suggest this country do that. But an effective attack on a known jihadist stronghold in a city may kill civilians unavoidably. If that happened a few times, I suspect any fence-sitters would quickly decide it was safer to turn on the jihadists, if they were what was attracting the bombers.

Perotista said:

I think you are right. Desert Storm spoiled Americans because it was decisive and short. The ground war took, what three days and the war was over. Saddam would continue to harass us, but in the larger scope of things, it was no big deal. Americans want quick wars, wars that are decisive and over with in a very short time. If a war lasts any length of time, they get turned off and begin to turn against it. We do not want a war to drag on and on.

Click to expand...

It was also a war where civilians didn't micromanage the war. G.H. Bush issued the order what the mission was and Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney let the military do their thing.

It was General Norman Schwarzkopf and his military staff who drew up the strategy and tactics that would be executed and what would be the ROE (No politically correct ROE)

It would be the last war fought with Vietnam vets still serving in the military and the last time the Iowa class battleships would fire their 16" guns in anger. It was also the first time that thousands of Iraqi soldiers would wave a white flag and surrender to an Iowa class battleship that was ten miles off shore.

Gen. Schwarzkopf orders the Marines to slow down, that they were moving to fast and then fires an Army Maj. General for moving to slow.

Gen. Schwarzkopf won that war by not making the same mistakes that were made in Vietnam and President G.H. Bush remembered what Reagan told him, let the military do their thing when politics fails. Don't micromanage a war, the generals and admirals should run the war not POTUS or DOD civilians.

No thoughts. I didn't watch the speech. I didn't vote for the guy, so he's not my president anyway.

cpwill said:

UBL was not so terribly off base when he decided that this short-term-attention-span made us the "weak horse".

Click to expand...

Yep, we do have short memories. Worst yet we do not learn from history or try to discover our own weaknesses.

APACHERAT said:

It was also a war where civilians didn't micromanage the war. G.H. Bush issued the order what the mission was and Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney let the military do their thing.

It was General Norman Schwarzkopf and his military staff who drew up the strategy and tactics that would be executed and what would be the ROE (No politically correct ROE)

It would be the last war fought with Vietnam vets still serving in the military and the last time the Iowa class battleships would fire their 16" guns in anger. It was also the first time that thousands of Iraqi soldiers would wave a white flag and surrender to an Iowa class battleship that was ten miles off shore.

Gen. Schwarzkopf orders the Marines to slow down, that they were moving to fast and then fires an Army Maj. General for moving to slow.

Gen. Schwarzkopf won that war by not making the same mistakes that were made in Vietnam and President G.H. Bush remembered what Reagan told him, let the military do their thing when politics fails. Don't micromanage a war, the generals and admirals should run the war not POTUS or DOD civilians.

Click to expand...

That is true. Bush said he wanted Saddam out of Kuwait and turned everything over to Powell to make it happen. He stayed out of the way. LBJ when it came to Vietnam once said that they couldn't bomb a **** house without his authorization and he said it proudly.

Perotista said:

That is true. Bush said he wanted Saddam out of Kuwait and turned everything over to Powell to make it happen. He stayed out of the way. LBJ when it came to Vietnam once said that they couldn't bomb a **** house without his authorization and he said it proudly.

Click to expand...

That's how history wrote it but since the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, the JCOS haven't been part of the military chain of command. They have no one to command and no orders to issue. The only mission of the JCOS since 1986 is to advise POTUS.

During the first Iraq war the chain of command was G.H. Bush as the CnC, Dick Cheney as the Sec.of Defense and then Gen. Schwarzkopf.

Don't get me wrong, I consider Gen. Powell one of the best if not the best Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the end of WW ll.

As you probably already know every Democrat President since the end of WW ll has tried to disband the Marine Corps except for JFK and LBJ.
When President Clinton tried it, it was Gen. Powell who came to the defense of the Corps.
Even President Obama tried to disbanded the Corps in 2009 and it's no secret that Obama hates U.S. Marines and the Marine Corps.

>" The Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 Pub.L. 99–433, (signed by President Ronald Reagan), made the most sweeping changes to the United States Department of Defense since the department was established in the National Security Act of 1947 by reworking the command structure of the United States military. It increased the powers of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and implemented some of the suggestions from The Packard Commission, commissioned by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Among other changes, Goldwater–Nichols streamlined the military chain of command, which now runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense directly to combatant commanders (CCDRs), bypassing the service chiefs. The service chiefs were assigned to an advisory role to the President and the Secretary of Defense as well as given the responsibility for training and equipping personnel for the unified combatant commands..."<
Goldwater

APACHERAT said:

That's how history wrote it but since the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, the JCOS haven't been part of the military chain of command. They have no one to command and no orders to issue. The only mission of the JCOS since 1986 is to advise POTUS.

During the first Iraq war the chain of command was G.H. Bush as the CnC, Dick Cheney as the Sec.of Defense and then Gen. Schwarzkopf.

Don't get me wrong, I consider Gen. Powell one of the best if not the best Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the end of WW ll.

As you probably already know every Democrat President since the end of WW ll has tried to disband the Marine Corps except for JFK and LBJ.
When President Clinton tried it, it was Gen. Powell who came to the defense of the Corps.
Even President Obama tried to disbanded the Corps in 2009 and it's no secret that Obama hates U.S. Marines and the Marine Corps.

>" The Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 Pub.L. 99–433, (signed by President Ronald Reagan), made the most sweeping changes to the United States Department of Defense since the department was established in the National Security Act of 1947 by reworking the command structure of the United States military. It increased the powers of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and implemented some of the suggestions from The Packard Commission, commissioned by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Among other changes, Goldwater–Nichols streamlined the military chain of command, which now runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense directly to combatant commanders (CCDRs), bypassing the service chiefs. The service chiefs were assigned to an advisory role to the President and the Secretary of Defense as well as given the responsibility for training and equipping personnel for the unified combatant commands..."<
Goldwater

Click to expand...

I retired from active duty in 1986, during my 20 years I remember the inter service rivalries. Thanks for the information.