Here We Go Again...

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jan 19, 2010
66,455
60,383
3,605
“The U.S. military campaign against Islamic militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Obama to exert a high degree of personal control over the campaign, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for any strike in Syrian territory,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Can you say Vietnam?

PS: Speaking dispassionately, you can understand – sort of – why LBJ and Richard Nixon both were very bad about trying to run the Vietnam War by themselves: it was probably the first real war we had where a President could, in something approximating real time. And it obviously was a major temptation, given the way that both men and their staffs succumbed to it. But also note that Presidents since have largely learned from that particular set of catastrophic mistakes and tried to keep their oversight restricted to strategic goals, not tactical ones. Largely. Most of the time. Good faith efforts were made.

Alas, nobody explained any of this to Barack Obama. Or, more likely? Somebody did, but he didn’t bother to listen, because whoever was doing the explaining wasn’t Barack Obama.


Well it's one two three don't ask me I don't give a damn next stop is Islamicstan...here we go again...another democrat war commander that doesn't want to kill anyone is taking us to war...keep your kids out of the military what ever you do!
 
It's hard to play "arm chair general" when you're holding a Nobel Peace Prize in one hand...just saying...
 
It's hard to play "arm chair general" when you're holding a Nobel Peace Prize in one hand...just saying...

If the biggest concern was Obama's legacy, you'd have a point. If the biggest concern is national security, Obama should grow a set and toss that unearned prize in the trash and do what's needed.
 
. . . another parallel? Both wars are based on lies. Hmmm. . . imagine that. lol
Photo of ISIS leader in USAID tent
al-qaeda-us-aid.jpeg

ISIS Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham standing in a tent marked USAID. ISIS has directly benefit from US aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria.

Obama has requested another $500 million in aid for Sunni Jihadists in Syria. These US funded Jihadists are engaged in violence in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq. They are also threatening violence in Jordan and Israel. Obama claims the US must fund new Jihadists to counter the power and influence of existing Jihadists.

Left-wing Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed the proposal by Obama and predicted it will pass the US Senate Armed Forces Committee with bipartisan support.

Photo of ISIS leader is USAID tent




I sure can say "Vietnam." Vietnam!
 
It's hard to play "arm chair general" when you're holding a Nobel Peace Prize in one hand...just saying...

If the biggest concern was Obama's legacy, you'd have a point. If the biggest concern is national security, Obama should grow a set and toss that unearned prize in the trash and do what's needed.

Does anyone here dispute my contention that Barack Obama IS thinking about his "legacy" as being "the President who stopped wars"?

His dogged determination to call the fight against ISIS everything BUT a "war" and the corresponding refusal to put American "boots on the ground" despite the fact that you can't fight an effective air campaign with modern "smart weapons" without them...shows that Obama IS thinking about his legacy and not about the task at hand.
 
I for one don't want to see any of American boots on the ground over there.

We've spent enough blood and treasure in Iraq. We left them with a country and they lost it.

My give a shit meter pegs at zero on Muslims killing Muslims. Let em butcher each other.

Let the Arab League take care of the ISIS problem.

As for that fuck in our WH? His legacy isn't much and who cares??
 
If you liked Vietnam...

"President Obama is repeating three key strategic mistakes that President Johnson made in Vietnam.

"First, he has embarked on an open ended commitment; there was no measurable end state.

"In a similar manner, President Obama throws around the words degrade, defeat, and destroy as if they are interchangeable.

"Degradation and defeat are things that have to be accomplished before an enemy is destroyed. In some cases, the aim of a conflict is only to defeat the enemy as it was in ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in DESERT STORM.

"Degrade is something you do to his command and control along the way to defeating him.

"It is nearly impossible to completely destroy a movement as we have seen with al Qaeda for thirteen years. It is possible to destroy the armed forces that allow the enemy to occupy territory and protect his seat of power.

"The president did not make it clear which goal he has in mind. If he cannot clearly define the end state, we will have a conflict every bit as open ended as Vietnam."

What if the "end state" is eternal war?

What happens when eternal war comes home to roost?

If You Liked Vietnam You ll Love the War With the Islamic State Small Wars Journal
 

Forum List

Back
Top