Posted on 12/01/2015 4:17:30 PM PST by JPX2011
Mainly recon and rescue of hostages and capturing the main leaders is the purported mission.
Who knows ?
None stated. Of course.
But they have stated in the past that US involvement would be to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not necessarily opposed to putting 4 Divisions with an extra Artillery Brigade around Mosul and killing every living thing there.
Just not under this POTUS.
I just love these satire articles.
My theory - Obama will precipitate an armed confrontation with Russia just before leaving office. Part of his ‘fundamental transformation’ program.
But, but...didn’t Obama just tell Putin not to get trapped in the quagmire of a civil war in Syria, the way Russia got bogged down in Afghanistan?
Precisely. The ROE have resulted in thousands of preventable deaths and maiming of our warriors. One more reason Obamugabe and all his relatives deserve life in a cage, or worse.
Yup. Obama wants his “Big War” so that no one will remember his failed foreign policy and awful healthcare plan.
Yesterday NATO voted to expand into Macedonia.
They keep poking Putin.
Last month they sailed into Chinese waters to provoke Beijing.
Obama is going to keep escalating until “the other guy” punches first.
What a pathetic joke...
Why are we announcing it?
Reminiscent of FDR ‘revisionists’ theory. ‘Cept then it was the failure of the New Deal they sought to cover up.
Or so the revisionists believe.
Active Duty ping.
Maybe not too long before the election so he will then claim something about ‘changing horses midstream’ and Hillary is wonderful or something.
>>One more reason Obamugabe and all his relatives deserve life in a cage, or worse.
Worse.
And if that doesn’t work he can at least get a few more of our guys killed, as a consolation.
Each one of whom are worth more than a thousand amoral maoist slugs like Obama..
I don’t approve of any Americans going to combat under this “president”. Their lives mean nothing to him.
That makes sense, of course, but it isn't (as you are aware) an objective. Which is the exact problem with amateur involvement in this sort of thing - you get vague, immeasurable missions with no metric for success and because of that, no end in sight. "Interdict lines of communication" is such a mission. "Take Raqqa and destroy everything useful to the enemy" is an objective. Big difference.
Amateur dilettantes such as 0bama don't want to state objectives that may be measured because of the political consequences of failure to attain them. It is from this that open-ended commitments to do military stuff lead straight into a quagmire. Where we had a defined military objective: "overthrow the Taliban government" or "take down Saddam's government and capture its leaders," then we enjoyed success, probably too rapid and complete for its own good. It gave the political leadership the impression that we could accomplish anything forever. We saw this in Iraq where political and not military considerations led to "Take Fallujah - wait, don't take Fallujah - OK, go ahead, take Fallujah" over a period of months which cost us unnecessary casualties when the enemy had plenty of time to dig in.
I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. It's fairly obvious that our troops have been frequently and systematically misused in the past and I think this is the principal reason why. 0bama and his like have no business at the planning table, and these days they think they own it.
Just how many tonnes of weaponry are they targeting to give them this time?
Then we can say once more, Obama lied, Americans died. Who is the enemy going to be, not ISIS it’s plain for all to see?
OH YES, PLEASE TELL THE ENEMY WE’RE COMING.
WE WOULDN’T WANT THEM TO MISS OUT.
I’m really at puke with this administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.