Will Obama give us a cogent strategy to win?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MarAzul

MarAzul

LongShip
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
21,370
Likes
7,281
Points
113
We see The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs tell us that ISIS will have to eventually be defeated.

We see Obama advisors saying similar things. Even the Sec. of State is getting a bit hawkish.
I guess they all are on edge a bit by the faithful cutting off heads.

I suspect Obama will back track probably in one back step at a time from his pledge of no more War! No Boots on the ground!

But my questions are, before we go to war, will the President have a strategy to Win? Will he tell us what it is? Will it make sense? Will he ask Congress to pay for it? Will he lead?
 
It's all going to depend on who is willing to go into Syria.

The good news is that it seems like most of the governments over in the region are even more fearful of a strong ISIL than the US is, which might allow America to take a backseat, just provide arial coverage as Iran or even the actual Syrian government goes into the ISIL strongholds in Syria and take the war directly to them on the ground.


I think, for good or bad, Obama doesn't have the ability to really formulate the strategy he wants since the American Public will shit bricks if we send troops into Syria. There is so much war fatigue it's amazing he's gotten enough support to have the troops in Iraq that we have, and that we are supplying coverage for Iran.

I think this ISIL group is so far to the extreme that it actually makes victory more likely than against some of the terrorist groups in the past. If they get squeezed from others in the region instead of just western foreigners than continued recruitment will be very difficult.
 
MarAzul said:
We see The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs tell us that ISIS will have to eventually be defeated.

We see Obama advisors saying similar things. Even the Sec. of State is getting a bit hawkish.
I guess they all are on edge a bit by the faithful cutting off heads.

I suspect Obama will back track probably in one back step at a time from his pledge of no more War! No Boots on the ground!

But my questions are, before we go to war, will the President have a strategy to Win? Will he tell us what it is? Will it make sense? Will he ask Congress to pay for it? Will he lead?
Click to expand...

Win what? There is nothing to win there.

Use ISIS as target practice for all of our flying toys but nothing beyond that.
 
Further said:
It's all going to depend on who is willing to go into Syria.

The good news is that it seems like most of the governments over in the region are even more fearful of a strong ISIL than the US is, which might allow America to take a backseat, just provide arial coverage as Iran or even the actual Syrian government goes into the ISIL strongholds in Syria and take the war directly to them on the ground.


I think, for good or bad, Obama doesn't have the ability to really formulate the strategy he wants since the American Public will shit bricks if we send troops into Syria. There is so much war fatigue it's amazing he's gotten enough support to have the troops in Iraq that we have, and that we are supplying coverage for Iran.

I think this ISIL group is so far to the extreme that it actually makes victory more likely than against some of the terrorist groups in the past. If they get squeezed from others in the region instead of just western foreigners than continued recruitment will be very difficult.
Click to expand...

Having our guys fly high CAP for Iran does not give me any sense of confidence that we have any clue what's up.
 
ITS OBAMAS FAULT FOR ISIS GROWING AS THEY WERE. IRAQ CLEARLY WASN'T READY FOR A FULL TROOP WITHDRAWL AND THIS IS THE AFTER EFFECTS BRAH.

THANKS ALOT OBAMA.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Win what? There is nothing to win there.

Use ISIS as target practice for all of our flying toys but nothing beyond that.
Click to expand...

Ah! I got it. Something to do when the golf cart is in the shop.

Perhaps that does make sense.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
We've wasted enough time, money and lives in the middle east.
Click to expand...

But then you see, we went from, out of there, to a few advisors, to adding some air strikes.
Now I hear the options on the table include some more advisors and air strikes perhaps into Syria.

I think it could be called "Mission Creep". Mission Creep is not a strategy, it never is. It's the way a fuckup runs a war.
 
MarAzul said:
But then you see, we went from, out of there, to a few advisors, to adding some air strikes.
Now I hear the options on the table include some more advisors and air strikes perhaps into Syria.

I think it could be called "Mission Creep". Mission Creep is not a strategy, it never is. It's the way a fuckup runs a war.
Click to expand...

So you want him to stick to a decision that you think was wrong because otherwise he's a hypocrite? Sounds like a win/win for your ability to complain about him.
 
Why should he? There wasn't a cogent strategy for Afghanistan or Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Korea.
 
julius said:
Why should he? There wasn't a cogent strategy for Afghanistan or Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Korea.
Click to expand...

It seems like having nukes in the arsenal has totally removed our ability to plan for and carry out a war in an organized fashion, because there's always some jackass at the table saying we could make glass of the entire countryside.
 
Oh, I get it, it's just a hate Obama thread. Silly me I thought it was going yo be about policy, geopolitics and all that jazz. But instead, ya, let's just look at everything through hating Obama colored glasses.

I'm out, these fuck Obama threads bore me.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
It seems like having nukes in the arsenal has totally removed our ability to plan for and carry out a war in an organized fashion, because there's always some jackass at the table saying we could make glass of the entire countryside.
Click to expand...

Yep. And when there IS a change (drones), it's criticized because it's not on the ground or it's not really dont well (missed targets, etc).

One way or the other, it's a way to just blame Obama for something as if the rest of us haven't been paying attention for any of the last 25 years.

I'm thinking hard of taking a long break from the board once the election season starts up. The hyperbole and chain email threads are just so numbing. It ads nothing to the discussion.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
So you want him to stick to a decision that you think was wrong because otherwise he's a hypocrite? Sounds like a win/win for your ability to complain about him.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite? You said it not me.

I have other thoughts.
 
Further said:
Oh, I get it, it's just a hate Obama thread. Silly me I thought it was going yo be about policy, geopolitics and all that jazz. But instead, ya, let's just look at everything through hating Obama colored glasses.

I'm out, these fuck Obama threads bore me.
Click to expand...

Well it was a where are we going sort of thing.

For what it is worth, I thought we should stay out of there. When the Sunnis are battling the Shia, I don't think we do have a role to play while that is going on except observe. Surely not take a side???
One dude getting his head removed doesn't change it for me.
 
MarAzul said:
But then you see, we went from, out of there, to a few advisors, to adding some air strikes.
Now I hear the options on the table include some more advisors and air strikes perhaps into Syria.

I think it could be called "Mission Creep". Mission Creep is not a strategy, it never is. It's the way a fuckup runs a war.
Click to expand...

Except air strikes have never really been considered "war," rightly or wrongly. When people say they don't want war, they mean they don't want soldiers sent in. Air strikes are in no way "mission creep"...the US has launched air strikes many more times than they've committed troops. We don't know what the future holds, but air strikes aren't a clear precursor to "boots on the ground."
 
Minstrel said:
Except air strikes have never really been considered "war," rightly or wrongly. When people say they don't want war, they mean they don't want soldiers sent in. Air strikes are in no way "mission creep"...the US has launched air strikes many more times than they've committed troops. We don't know what the future holds, but air strikes aren't a clear precursor to "boots on the ground."
Click to expand...

uh! more boots on the ground I hear are an option. You have told us what is not mission creep in your view. Do you think we will be informed of a strategy?
 
I prefer this strategy to occupying Iraq or Afghanistan.

The mission creep thing is a valid concern, though.
 
Denny Crane said:
I prefer this strategy to occupying Iraq or Afghanistan.

The mission creep thing is a valid concern, though.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the strategy is so help us out. You must know if you like it.
 
MarAzul said:
uh! more boots on the ground I hear are an option. You have told us what is not mission creep in your view. Do you think we will be informed of a strategy?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that air strikes aren't really getting us closer to sending in troops.

Will Obama send in troops? Anything's possible.
 
Denny Crane said:
Bomb enough to allow the Kurds to retake land previously lost.
Click to expand...

I have not heard anyone say it. Perhaps we should have made a Kurdistan when we had the place. Pretty fucked up to start that job now.
 
Denny Crane said:
Turkey is in NATO since 1952.

http://m.state.gov/md3432.htm
Click to expand...

And our ally in so far as the Soviet were concerned. Now tell me our it will play when a Muslim State is concerned? The thing that makes the Kurds different in that part of the world
is that they identify with being Kurds first and their religion is second. The Kurds are of both sect of Islam as well as Christian.
 
Turkey provided troops for the Gulf War.
 
So Marazul, are you in support of the US sending troops back in to Iraq?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Denny Crane
Dealing with ISIS
Replies
22
Views
3K
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump gives National Security Council seat to ex-Breitbart chief Steve Bannon
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
6K
riverman
riverman
MarAzul
Obama, first of his kind to boldly set the new standard.
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
maxiep
maxiep
Further
I hope all the Romney supporters give Obama second term a chance.
Replies
26
Views
1K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
PapaG
Obama Suggests ‘Secretary of Business’ in a 2nd Term
Replies
4
Views
396
Denny Crane
Denny Crane

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top