Who is he asking here? The head of ISIS, Barack Soebarkah?!
First we are going to have to sideline the people who got upset over Abu Ghraib photos and a Marine pissing on a dead terrorist.
As I said on another thread;
“I beg God’s forgiveness, but they all need to be dead.”
Sorry but this was he same guy who implemented the ridiculous rules of engagement in Afghanistan. When American soldiers began getting shot in the back by their “Afghan” allies, he actually came out with a directive that American soldiers should be more understanding of Afghan homosexual practices. He was a very politically correct officer who climbed the career ladder. He praised Obama constantly. The irony is that while he may have a good idea, he might as well publish it in a gardening magazine for all that his hero Obama cares.
destroy islam.
At the same time Ocowshit considers how to deal with ISIS, he continues to systematically neuter our Armed Forces. Previously, it was flag officers; now he’s getting rid of mid-level officers and upper level NCO’s.
The best way to deal with ISIS is to first get rid of the jackass screwing up the works in our country!
If we hadn’t taken Assad’s poison gas IS may not be in existence.
Amen. If Obama does move decisively to cut off the head of this rattle snake, he deserves to lose his own.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
(Winston Churchill - May 13, 1940, his address to the House of Commons upon taking up his duties as Prime Minister during the calamitous days of the fall of France).
I ask the reader, what is Barack Obama's policy? I ask, what is Barack Obama's aim?
Surely, no one can confidently state that Barack Obama's aim is victory over the monstrous tyranny of aggressive Islam; no one can feel confident that his policy is to wage war to gain that end.
Obama has no policy that is identifiable because he has no stated aim and not even an understanding that we are at war or who the enemy might be. At a time that begs for Churchillian clarity we get duplicity. Many of us believe that Obama's true aim is the undermining of America as a force for good in the world to facilitate the triumph of his one world socialist utopia. Others believe that he is a Manchurian Muslim actually implementing treasonous policy on behalf of a Muslim jihad. Others believe that he is a communist exploiting Islam to destabilize the existing world structure to pave the way for his leftist utopia.
If these doubts exist the fault is not with the doubters but with the man himself who gives grounds for doubting. The man by his own bearing has caused a nation of gullible voters to lapse into doubters and cynics.
General Alan (Ret.) patriotically steps up and tries to fill the gaps in our national cause created by our Commander-In-Chief. But his task is hopeless because we are a nation hopelessly adrift. We have no national purpose. Without Churchillian clarity of purpose we can expect no good to come from halfhearted measures against Isis. We can expect no good to emerge from our incoherent foreign policy.
The truly terrifying risk remains that the foreign policy which appears so incoherent to us is actually quite coherent in the mind of Barack Hussein Obama.
So far, several tribal Sunni leaders & their clan in Iraq. Some Sunnis in Syria and even the Lebanon. IS also has support among Sunnis in many other countries across the globe.
Note, approx. 85% of the muslim population across the world is Sunni (Salafis & Wahabbis included), who are spread across both the muslim world & the globe in general.
If we want to say Obama supports them, then add it. And, we know quite a few Gulf region monarchies actually fund Islamic State (IS) as well as Saudi Arabia.
Further complication is Islamic State (IS) doesn't simply have Arab or muslim born members, but many 'foreigners' including Westerners from different Western countries. Why? Who knows exactly... but that's coupled with a lot of ignorance & illiteracy in the West about Islam, Islamic terrorism, as well as insistence by some on replacing 'dictatorships' in the M.E. and N. Africa at all cost; never mind if that gives birth to something like Islamic State.
How do we deal with all that?
Obama dithered and hesitated before authorizing a rescue mission that ultimately failed to get James Foley and someone thinks he’s capable of going up against IS even with a mercenary army of Arabs? He won’t even give meaningful aid to the Kurds.
That would require a non Kenyan-Muslim-Marxist usurper POTUS and his real brain and Iranian minder, Valerie Jarrett. In short, no one on Barry’s team is capable of doing this job.
Uh, general…there is no state to destroy.
(from) The Quranic Concept of War1 JOSEPH C. MYERS
The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the be- lievers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”— Majid Khadduri
Political and military leaders are notoriously averse to theory, but if there is a the- orist about war who matters, it remains Carl von Clausewitz, whose Vom Kriege (On War) has shaped Western views about war since the middle of the nineteenth century.” Both points are likely true and problematic since we find ourselves engaged in war with people not solely imbued with western ideas and values or followers of western military theorists. The Hoover Institution’s Paul Sperry recently stated, “Four years into the war on terror, US intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.”
Would this be surprising? When it comes to warfighting military audiences tend to focus on the military and power aspects of warfare; the tangibles of terrain, enemy, weather, leadership, and troops; quantifiables such as the number of tanks and artillery tubes—the correlation of forces. Analysts steer toward the familiar rather than the unfamiliar; people tend to think in their comfort zones. The study of ideology or philosophy is often brushed aside, it’s not the “stuff of muddy boots;” it is more cerebral than physical and not action oriented. Planners do not assess the “correlation of ideas.” The practitioners are too busy.
Dr. Antulio Echevarria recently argued the US military does not have a doctrine for war as much as it has a doctrine for operations and battles. The military has a deficit of strategic, and, one could add, philosophic thinking.
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/06winter/win-ess.pdf
Wow - between Chicago and now Gen. Allen, Big Brother is really ratcheting up the sabre rattling propaganda fast now.
I’m impressed. NOT.
And all those American terrorists with guns...well the government is coming for you too! If you have a gun and a Bible you’re probably a budding ISIS terrorist too!