Posted on 09/12/2014 7:39:07 PM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama had been given advice on how to handle the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but did not act on it, according to a new report from Real Clear Defense.
Obama was preparing his strategy when he rejected the “best military advice” of Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Austin advised the president to “send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.”
Instead, the president chose not to send U.S. forces in a combat role. Instead, troops will assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces and assist with training, intelligence, and equipment, primarily from military bases.
“We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” Obama said. “This effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama had rejected Austin’s recommendation because “it is not in the best interest of American national security to send American combat troops in a combat operation to act on the ground in Iraq.”
Austin’s predecessor, Marine Gen. James Mattis, said that the president’s decision may place the mission at risk.
“The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis said. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”
Bump
That arrogant pos is accomplishing his mission, the destruction of the United States.
 |
 |
 Obama and Clinton witnessed and lied, As American Heroes bled and died! |
 |
 |
That dipstick couldn't pour piss out of a boot if you wrote the instructions on the sole!
Regards,
GtG
an air war is still war. Pretending pilots are not at risk, or Americans at home are not as risk because Americans got “dragged into another war”
With just about every move Obama makes, it can be asked: is he really that stupid and incompetent, or is he intentionally trying to cause the US harm?
A strong case can be made for either possibility, and the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Not anyone that isn’t an Obama butt licker. Obama has repeatedly ignored the advice of his generals. In Iraq EVERYONE was telling him about the importance of negotiating a contingency force, yet he cut and ran. In Afghanistan the generals told hem they needed AT LEAST 40,000 additional troops to fight the Taliban. He sends 30,000. Next they warn him of the stupidity of announcing when he will pull out of Afghanistan, but does he listen? No, he stupidly announces a surrender date.
I don't really know what to think about this guy, other than he is bad news in that office. I can't decide if he is a crafty subversive, bent on diminishing America, or if he is a typical academic type who is so convinced of the intellectual superiority of his world-view such that he is blinded to his own ignorance.
that would be B.) “bent”
Obama is always “was preparing” some strategy.
Tell me - Would you hire Obama to run your company. How about your army? How about your country?
The answer is NO. He isn’t even close to being qualified to do any of those jobs.
He’s not qualified to pick up dog crap in a park. The dog crap would sprout legs and run away from him.
He just wants to call “mulligan” or vote present to cover his options.
Use a 7 iron?
He wants ISIS to win. He’s al-taqiyaa’ing all over us. He lies to our faces that he wants to defeat them, but he’s happy they are setting up the islamic caliphate. He’s a g-d muslim.
what christian wears a ring with the first part of the muslim credo around his finger?
what christian has ever said the most beautiful sound they’ve ever heard is the goat-strangling yodel of the muslim call to prayer?
Then Obama completely owns this and is 100% responsible for the deaths of any of our troops.
Obama just needs to keep this corked so he can dump it on the next administration. He doesn’t give a damn about ANYTHING else.
Observing Obama's activities leading up to the "non-war", he had no strategy b/c ISIL, beheadings and threats against America were not supposed to happen.
IOW, he got caught with his pants down.
Obama stupidly thought he had done everything in his power to appease the jihadists:
<><> $2 billion funding to the Muslim Brotherhood,
<><> appointing the M/B to key WH positions;
<><> installing a dedicated Muslim outreach program;
<><> changing US law to allow "repentant" terrorists into the USA:
<><> calling Egyptian President al Sisi to leave the M/B alone
(al Sisi refused to take Obama's call and decimated the M/B).
<><> Obama/Hillary's "Kumbaya" deal in Benghazi---that went awry when four Americans were slaughtered.
===================================================
Ovama's "strategy" is a cockamamie prog/lib "Smart Power" tactic---wherein being nice to your enemies is considered better than the Republican way---waging war against them.
===================================================
Of course Obama's not "fighting terrorists"---he's inviting them into our communities.
===========================================
"SMART POWER"--is a Bush slapdown---a term coined by Hillary----which serves to magnify Obama's careening and incomprehensible foreign policy (or lack thereof). Obama's outed himself again..... as naive, isolated, incompetent and outlandishly stupid.
Not to forget (1) the abysmally stupid Susan Rice.... (2) Hillary's All-Girl State Dept, and the cipher known as John Kerry.....all of whom had a hand in the "Smart Power" debacle.
==============================================
Democrats' 'Smart Power' Lies in Ruins; Suddenly
Realizing What They Miscalculated About the World:
National Review | Sept 3, 2013 | Jim Geraghty / FR Posted by kristinn
....... Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no “international community” ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess.
We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, “smart power” (and fronted Time magazine cover).
(These people can’t even label a foreign policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.)
They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn’t see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs.
No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough. (Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
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.