Obama’s ‘Strategy’ Has No Chance of Success

The Weekly Standard ^ | 9/10/2014 | FREDERICK W. KAGAN and KIMBERLY KAGAN

[mojito]

President Obama just announced that he is bringing a counter-terrorism strategy to an insurgency fight. He was at pains to repeat the phrase “counter-terror” four times in a short speech. Noting that ISIL is not a state (partly because the international community thankfully does not recognize it), he declared, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” Neither of those sentences, unfortunately, is true.

ISIL is an insurgent group that controls enormous territory in Iraq and Syria that it governs. It maneuvers conventional light infantry forces supported by vehicles mounting machine guns and occasionally armored personnel carriers against the regular forces of the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga—and wins.

It is purely and simply not a terrorist organization any longer. Neither is it the simple manifestation of nihilistic evil the president makes out.

ISIL has described a very clear vision of seizing control of all of the territory of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. It intends to abolish all of the borders and redraw them according to a new structure of governance suitable to its hateful version of an old Islamic heresy. That vision also makes it more than a simple terrorist organization. It’s awfully hard to develop a sound strategy when you start by mis-diagnosing the problem so profoundly. That’s why the “strategy” the president just announced has no chance of success.

[mojito]

Barry's Libya campaign worked out great! The man's a much underrated military strategist.

Why all the naysayers?

He got bin Laden, didn't he?

/s

[DaveA37]

“He got bin Laden, didn’t he?”..

Totally by accident.

[Responsibility2nd]

Obama’s ‘Strategy’ Has No Chance of Success

___________________________________________

Of course not. When B. Hussein can’t even correctly identify the enemy (”The ISIL is not Islamic”) then he is a lying POS who is aiding and abetting the enemy.

[cripplecreek]

As I see it.

The “moderate” muslims of Syria have no chance of defeating Assad or ISIS. They might beat Assad with the help of ISIS but have no hope of controlling the country after Assad is gone. At that point they will either join ISIS or be exterminated by ISIS leaving ISIS in control of Syria and Lebanon soon after.

Israel is fixin to get some new rowdy neighbors and Obama is driving the moving van.

[N. Theknow]

Obama is just engaging in Muslimsplaining.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3163493/posts

[SMARTY]

It will be Viet Nam all over again... THEY have a plan and WE don’t. They are serious and soldiers ... we are NOT serious and our politicians will be TOOOOOO involved.

We fiddle around with words ... and THEY fight!

It’s just a blueprint for more dead Americans... for NO reason

[Responsibility2nd]

Actually, B. Hussein had Osama on ice and was waiting for the opportune time to get him.

That time came when Trump was doing major damage to little lying Barry over Certifigate. But Barry was kind enough to wait a few days until the silly hat wedding was over.

Then he took Osama out.

If only Obama had staged the Benghazi clusterbama as well as the bin Laden removal, we may not have 4 dead Americans.

[mojito]

Barry’s plan, apparently, is to arm ISIS through the Free Syrian Army as reported in devastating detail here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3202449/posts

[Responsibility2nd]

It will be Viet Nam all over again...

__________________________________

I’m afraid it needs to be Nagasaki and Hiroshima all over again. We’ve alredy spent over a decade and trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanist and and lost thousands of US lives; we don’t need troops on the ground in Syria now for 4-5 more years.

As much as it scares me to think of the instant loss of maybe a million lives; the nuclear option may be best.

And if another 9/11 occurs? It should be our ONLY option.

[eyeamok]

Sorry to say but the meaning of Success to most Americans is not the same as Obama thinks it is. To him Success is Bringing America Down while at the same time Empowering Islam.

[Hotlanta Mike]

‘Bill Whittle: President Coward’

He delayed the mission to rescue James Foley and other ISIS hostages because he didn’t want to be “Carterized.” He sent the men in the rescue helicopters back to their bunks as he watched our people die in real time at Benghazi. And he delayed the Osama bin Laden raid for MONTHS out of fear of what a failed attempt would do to his re-election chances. In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle shows how President Coward always puts his personal image ahead of the lives of American citizens. See the video and transcript below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvqPgYC4U0

[Windflier]

He got bin Laden, didn't he?

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

[GeronL]

ISIS is simply carrying out the same mission as Prophet Muhammed, may poop be upon him.

[GeronL]

Prophet Muhammed, may poop be upon him, wrote the Koran to inspire his weary and defeatist soldiers into a fury so he could invade and take over enemy territory. He succeeded, of course. ISIS is simply following in his footsteps and carrying out his original mandate. This is not “Islamic heresy”, it is the original purpose of Islam.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

He got bin-ladel being dragged kicking and screaming.

[nathanbedford]

On August 22 I posted the following reply: You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

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 is 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 filled with 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.

[jonno]

My guess is that “BO’s campaign” won’t start until after the Nov elections...

[mojito]

I appreciate your sentiments and share them entirely.

For what it's worth, I believe that the man called 0bama does have a policy that is quite clear in his own mind, but that can never be publically acknowledged. Namely, 0bama believes that a certain kind of political Islam, a “moderate” political Islam, can be identified, encouraged and supported as the “true voice” of Muslim peoples throwing off the yoke of the post-colonial capitalist west and their own secular tyrannies.

Examine 0bama’s actions in Egypt, in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and his speech last night, and it all dovetails rather nicely. In the 0bama world view the tyrants - Mubarak, Qaddafi, Assad - are bad, while the “moderate” Islamists - the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, some of the Libyan and Syrian rebel groups and even elements of the Taliban and the mullahs in Iran - are the good guys to be encouraged, prompted and domesticated. Of course, there are the other Islamists, the “extremists,” like al Qaida and ISIS - who are to be confronted and denied, if possible.

It's easy to see why such a policy could never be publicly acknowledge. And it makes no sense, unless you think of yourself in some fundamental way as a “moderate” Islamist yourself.

[Dutchboy88]

"...Prophet Muhammed, may poop be upon him."

I believe the Scriptures would confirm your remark is currently true.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“He got bin Laden, didn’t he?
Pictures, or it didn’t happen. “

Would be kinda funny if Osama wasn’t dead and he was the leader of ISIS. Let that go viral.