Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

polgara · Sep 11, 2014

Perotista said:
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

:lamo: Pero, there is not enough money in the world for me to run for any political office - I'm not that shrewd.

Setting political timelines is rarely a good move, IMO. If you don't succeed by your own estimates, people begin to wonder if you've bit off more than you can chew, and that's not a good position for a leader to be in. And of course there is also the opposition to consider. They may just decide to wait you out, and that's no good either, because that could like maybe they weren't the bad guys you painted them as being in the first place, since they aren't causing any trouble at all, and what on earth were you thinking! You can't win either way.

I agree that Desert Storm was beautifully handled by Bush1. General Schwarzkopf was disappointed that he wasn't permitted to advance further since they were already there, as I recall, but he obeyed orders and withdrew, and that was that. We never heard any further questions from him on that subject. Honorable man, and a good soldier.

I'll choose Assad over ISIS any day. I believe he has Syria's best interests at heart, and I like that. ISIS just wants to control the region, and they are showing their contempt for us by beheading our people which makes them brutal savages who shouldn't be in charge of anything, ever. I pity the people they would rule.

Perotista · Sep 12, 2014

polgara said:
:lamo: Pero, there is not enough money in the world for me to run for any political office - I'm not that shrewd.

Setting political timelines is rarely a good move, IMO. If you don't succeed by your own estimates, people begin to wonder if you've bit off more than you can chew, and that's not a good position for a leader to be in. And of course there is also the opposition to consider. They may just decide to wait you out, and that's no good either, because that could like maybe they weren't the bad guys you painted them as being in the first place, since they aren't causing any trouble at all, and what on earth were you thinking! You can't win either way.

I agree that Desert Storm was beautifully handled by Bush1. General Schwarzkopf was disappointed that he wasn't permitted to advance further since they were already there, as I recall, but he obeyed orders and withdrew, and that was that. We never heard any further questions from him on that subject. Honorable man, and a good soldier.

I'll choose Assad over ISIS any day. I believe he has Syria's best interests at heart, and I like that. ISIS just wants to control the region, and they are showing their contempt for us by beheading our people which makes them brutal savages who shouldn't be in charge of anything, ever. I pity the people they would rule.

You're correct, General Schwarzkopf was one heck of a soldier. But I do not think Assad has anyone's interests at heart except his own. I do think Assad is better than the chaos that would follow his removal. With what is happening in Libya we now know that leaving Qaddafi in place was better than all the turmoil that is now on going in that country. Neither Assad or Qaddafi are or were friends of the U.S., but both brought stability to their country. Now Libya is a training ground for terrorists and we as a nation and it as a country is worst off and I am sure Syria would be the same post Assad. I really wonder if we have no one capable of making post regime change assessments in Washington or is it that no one listens to those assessments because they do not want to hear what they had to say?

Rentoc · Sep 12, 2014

The problem with every conflict we have fought since the end of WW II (even beginning with the conclusion of that war) is the interference of politics with warfighting. We played politics with the Russians and created a "Cold War". In Korea we again played politics with the Soviets and the Chinese and didn't win a war we should have easily won. Do I really have to go into the whole political fiasco that was Vietnam? Even the Gulf War was laced with politics. If you are going to make war, then you have to be "all in". There is no such thing as limited war. You use overwhelming force to totally destroy your opponents ability and will to wage war and then you remove them from the equation. While air power has come a very long way since WWII and even the Gulf War, you still need a ground force to actually take possession of the territory and to remove the small pockets of resistance that will always be there.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

Perotista said:
You're correct, General Schwarzkopf was one heck of a soldier. But I do not think Assad has anyone's interests at heart except his own. I do think Assad is better than the chaos that would follow his removal. With what is happening in Libya we now know that leaving Qaddafi in place was better than all the turmoil that is now on going in that country. Neither Assad or Qaddafi are or were friends of the U.S., but both brought stability to their country. Now Libya is a training ground for terrorists and we as a nation and it as a country is worst off and I am sure Syria would be the same post Assad. I really wonder if we have no one capable of making post regime change assessments in Washington or is it that no one listens to those assessments because they do not want to hear what they had to say?

Been slayed here for a very long time for making this point.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

MMC said:
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 US 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

Howdy MMC. Don't see where that was addressing what this op is about specifically, but I do appreciate how the Mexican paper correctly identifies the US of a policy using the villains of today as the allies of tomorrow!

MMC · Sep 12, 2014

Montecresto said:
Howdy MMC. Don't see where that was addressing what this op is about specifically, but I do appreciate how the Mexican paper correctly identifies the US of a policy using the villains of today as the allies of tomorrow!

Heya Monte. :2wave: Well, it is what others were thinking about ISIS and the US. I figured since they were from other countries. Might as well show some of those and what they were saying.

Its not like the Whole Planet is just full of Americans. :mrgreen:

Perotista · Sep 12, 2014

Montecresto said:
Been slayed here for a very long time for making this point.

Some people do not like the truth and do not want to hear the truth. I usually don't post much on the middle east as it isn't the area I am really familiar with. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at Libya and come to the conclusion it was a much more stable country and not a safe haven for terrorist prior to the removal of Qaddafi. Now you have a cluster you know what in Libya. Syria I am sure would end up being the same type of cluster after Assad.

cpwill · Sep 12, 2014

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

Well, our will is weak. We don't like for things to be hard - we want to show up to "war", get a trophy, and then go home. But, if it's not like a movie, where the tough stuff can be accomplished in a 2-minute montage? Well, we think that's unfair.

cpwill · Sep 12, 2014

Montecresto said:
Howdy MMC. Don't see where that was addressing what this op is about specifically, but I do appreciate how the Mexican paper correctly identifies the US of a policy using the villains of today as the allies of tomorrow!

:shrug: It happens.

Here, check out one of our allies in WWII:

Letting the Perfect become the enemy of the Less Bad is emotionally easy, perhaps, but ultimately irresponsible.

Threegoofs · Sep 12, 2014

cpwill said:
Well, our will is weak. We don't like for things to be hard - we want to show up to "war", get a trophy, and then go home. But, if it's not like a movie, where the tough stuff can be accomplished in a 2-minute montage? Well, we think that's unfair.

Why do we want to have a 'hard' protracted war with lots of US casualties against a threat thats so benign that not even Turkey , whose borders are next to this rebel group, wants to use military action?

You go to war with determination and spirit when there is a clear reason to win. There is no demonstrated serious threat to the US here, unless you are talking about incremental increases in oil prices...

ocean515 · Sep 12, 2014

Threegoofs said:
Why do we want to have a 'hard' protracted war with lots of US casualties against a threat thats so benign that not even Turkey , whose borders are next to this rebel group, wants to use military action?

You go to war with determination and spirit when there is a clear reason to win. There is no demonstrated serious threat to the US here, unless you are talking about incremental increases in oil prices...

Turkey has 49 diplomats kidnapped by ISIL. I think they are trying to get them back with heads attached, so are they are trying to be a bit careful in their approach. Of course, you may prefer headless Turkish diplomats?

Perotista · Sep 12, 2014

cpwill said:
Well, our will is weak. We don't like for things to be hard - we want to show up to "war", get a trophy, and then go home. But, if it's not like a movie, where the tough stuff can be accomplished in a 2-minute montage? Well, we think that's unfair.

Well said and that is exactly one of our weakest spots.

Threegoofs · Sep 12, 2014

ocean515 said:
Turkey has 49 diplomats kidnapped by ISIL. I think they are trying to get them back with heads attached, so are they are trying to be a bit careful in their approach. Of course, you may prefer headless Turkish diplomats?

So this horrible, awful evil organization that will take over the entire Middle East and threaten the US is not enough of a threat for Turkey because they will lose a few dozen people (maybe?). What does that tell you about the real threat ISIL poses, when the people who have millions of people just outside the fighting are dissuaded by a few dozen deaths?

ocean515 · Sep 12, 2014

Threegoofs said:
So this horrible, awful evil organization that will take over the entire Middle East and threaten the US is not enough of a threat for Turkey because they will lose a few dozen people (maybe?). What does that tell you about the real threat ISIL poses, when the people who have millions of people just outside the fighting are dissuaded by a few dozen deaths?

I guess it tells me Turkey is concerned about their diplomats, and you aren't. I'm looking at the others who have voiced their support as a basis for this fact. Who are you trying to ignore?

Porchev · Sep 12, 2014

Threegoofs said:
So this horrible, awful evil organization that will take over the entire Middle East and threaten the US is not enough of a threat for Turkey because they will lose a few dozen people (maybe?). What does that tell you about the real threat ISIL poses, when the people who have millions of people just outside the fighting are dissuaded by a few dozen deaths?

Maybe because ISIL/S is keeping the Kurds busy.

Porchev · Sep 12, 2014

It looks like Obama's so-called broad coalition may be falling apart since Turkey, Germany, and Britain don't want to participate in the air strikes. And Russia is really unhappy about Syria getting bombed. By the way, Syria has actual air defenses, so those will have to be taken out first.

MMC · Sep 12, 2014

Porchev said:
It looks like Obama's so-called broad coalition may be falling apart since Turkey, Germany, and Britain don't want to participate in the air strikes. And Russia is really unhappy about Syria getting bombed. By the way, Syria has actual air defenses, so those will have to be taken out first.

Heya Porchev. :2wave: Kerry explained out how the Airstrikes would work.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-platforms/204463-kerry-u-s-not-war-isis.html

bubbabgone · Sep 12, 2014

MMC said:
Heya Porchev. :2wave: Kerry explained out how the Airstrikes would work. ...

This war / major counterterrorism campaign smacks of something very familiar with Obama.
Remember how Obama was going to get to the bottom of Bengahzi? ... and the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? ... and Fast & Furious? etc.
He showed no interest, they were allowed to drag on, and the plan was to let attention lapse, and it worked.
The difference? Not much from their point of view.
Yes, the war is vital and you'd expect attention to be stronger for longer but it's still something they can stonewall, lie about, and repeat that it'll take time.
Being dragged into having to call it a war is a clue.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

Perotista said:
Some people do not like the truth and do not want to hear the truth. I usually don't post much on the middle east as it isn't the area I am really familiar with. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at Libya and come to the conclusion it was a much more stable country and not a safe haven for terrorist prior to the removal of Qaddafi. Now you have a cluster you know what in Libya. Syria I am sure would end up being the same type of cluster after Assad.

As is Iraq. This is where Russia and China have been right.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

cpwill said:
:shrug: It happens.

Here, check out one of our allies in WWII:

Letting the Perfect become the enemy of the Less Bad is emotionally easy, perhaps, but ultimately irresponsible.

Which should have remained an ally, as pointed out by so many historians, and more recently by Michael Scheuer. The Cold War, was needless, well maybe the defense contractors (MIC) wouldn't have thought so.

cpwill · Sep 12, 2014

Montecresto said:
Which should have remained an ally, as pointed out by so many historians, and more recently by Michael Scheuer. The Cold War, was needless, well maybe the defense contractors (MIC) wouldn't have thought so.

:doh

There is a certain level of determination to see the US as the root of all problems that can't be solved. Soviet foreign policy was inherently aggressive, imperial, and abusive. Her leaders saw themselves in conflict with us well before and to a greater degree than our leaders saw us in conflict with them.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

cpwill said:
:doh

There is a certain level of determination to see the US as the root of all problems that can't be solved. Soviet foreign policy was inherently aggressive, imperial, and abusive. Her leaders saw themselves in conflict with us well before and to a greater degree than our leaders saw us in conflict with them.

Not unlike the US.

cpwill · Sep 12, 2014

Montecresto said:
Not unlike the US.

What is it about the relative nature of "before" and "greater degree" is it that eludes you? It wasn't the US that tried to blockade off Berlin, or had an agent infiltrate the foreign service of the other allies in order to win them control over half of Europe. The US didn't get South Korea to invade North Korea, that went the other-way-round. The US gave control of Western Europe back to it's own people - not the case in the East.

I knew you were of the way-gone isolationist bent, but if you are honestly going to try to claim that anything other than conflict with the Soviet Union was possible for the United States after WWII then you are either historically illiterate, or straight up idiotically delusional.

Montecresto · Sep 12, 2014

cpwill said:
What is it about the relative nature of "before" and "greater degree" is it that eludes you? It wasn't the US that tried to blockade off Berlin, or had an agent infiltrate the foreign service of the other allies in order to win them control over half of Europe. The US didn't get South Korea to invade North Korea, that went the other-way-round. The US gave control of Western Europe back to it's own people - not the case in the East.

I knew you were of the way-gone isolationist bent, but if you are honestly going to try to claim that anything other than conflict with the Soviet Union was possible for the United States after WWII then you are either historically illiterate, or straight up idiotically delusional.

CP, you think too highly of yourself. Though I'll disagree with your opinion, and resent your misrepresentation of isolationist, I will stop short of referring to you as idiotic or delusional.

Dittohead not! · Sep 13, 2014

bubbabgone said:
This war / major counterterrorism campaign smacks of something very familiar with Obama.
Remember how Obama was going to get to the bottom of Bengahzi? ... and the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? ... and Fast & Furious? etc.
He showed no interest, they were allowed to drag on, and the plan was to let attention lapse, and it worked.
The difference? Not much from their point of view.
Yes, the war is vital and you'd expect attention to be stronger for longer but it's still something they can stonewall, lie about, and repeat that it'll take time.
Being dragged into having to call it a war is a clue.

It is not a war until Congress declares it a war.

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Positive

Negative

Other

More options

polgara

Perotista

Rentoc

Well-known member

Montecresto

Montecresto

MMC

Perotista

cpwill

cpwill

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

ocean515

Perotista

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

ocean515

Porchev

Porchev

MMC

bubbabgone

Montecresto

Montecresto

cpwill

Montecresto

cpwill

Montecresto

Dittohead not!

master political analyst