Poll Majority Of Americans Support The War Vs Isis But They Also Believe The Current Plan Will Fail

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Large Majority of Americans Lack Confidence in Obama Mission to Destroy ISIS Poll Shows - NBC News

Very odd poll results.

 

[Kondor3]

Not so odd.

Obumble does not inspire confidence as a wartime leader.

Oh, he managed to pull us out of a war (in Iraq).

And he managed to sustain a war-effort that he inherited.

But there aren't very many people who believe that the Failed Messiah would be any good starting a war and then prosecuting it to a successful conclusion.

Like the character Tom Hagan... Obumble's just not a "Wartime Consigliori" (or Don).

( 'Leave the gun... take the cannoli ' )

 

[konradv]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

 

[AquaAthena]

Not so odd.

Obumble does not inspire confidence as a wartime leader.

Oh, he managed to pull us out of a war (in Iraq).

And he managed to sustain a war-effort that he inherited.

But there aren't very many people who believe that the Failed Messiah would be any good starting a war and then prosecuting it to a successful conclusion.

He's just not a "Wartime Consigliori" .

"Oh, he managed to pull us out of a war (in Iraq)."

Yes, and because he left no soldiers there as security, we now have ISIS. He was warned by many generals this would happen, but he didn't care. Simple as that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?

 

[EconChick]

Large Majority of Americans Lack Confidence in Obama Mission to Destroy ISIS Poll Shows - NBC News

Very odd poll results.

For the first time in American history, we have a public, who by it's very nature abhors war but sees we have a formidable enemy we must thump, and is therefore actually LEADING THE PRESIDENT on whether to go to war or not.

Never happened before........where a reluctant public showed more leadership than the sitting president.

 

[konradv]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?

The plan was to let the Iraqis do the heavy lifting. That's a reflection of confidence in the Iraqis, IMO. The majority favor action against ISIS, which is the president's plan. You can parse it any way you want, but I doubt there's much support for sending the troops back in.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?

The plan was to let the Iraqis do the heavy lifting. That's a reflection of confidence in the Iraqis, IMO. The majority favor action against ISIS, which is the president's plan. You can parse it any way you want, but I doubt there's much support for sending the troops back in.

I haven't parsed it at all. I read the article & posted it near verbatim. It appears YOU are the one looking for hidden messages.

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama like all Presidents had a chance to be great. There were a large array of problems that could have been fixed but instead Obama added to the list of problems. How important is it to wipe out Isis? Not important at all... People don't like the beheadings, the new Iraq Isisi war, like Bush's war has a very weak catalyst based on emotion rather than a real threat. Because of this we see very little support for the President but large support for retaliation for the killings. Fact is, in 6 months to a year that energy to be at war will be gone, but the war will remain.

Good job Dems, you spend more than Bush did and have more wars than Bush did... But hey, Obama killed OBL himself.

 

[Jackson]

The people want something done about ISIS. But they don't believe Obama can do the job, Let military leaders do it,. I believe he has enough left that he hasn' fired for talking badly about hum.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem here is that Obama thinks there is one problem and Americans think it is a different problem.
To Americans the problem is a growing radical Islamic movement taking over countries in the Middle East and imposing a medieval barbarity. They want to see that stopped and people destroyed.
Obama thinks the problem is that he has a situation he can no longer ignore and has to do something that will satisfy the desire of Americans to do something but not piss off his left wing base by doing too much. To him it is a domestic political problem, not a foreign policy or military problem.

 

[Pennywise]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

it's Obama. He wanted out of Iraq no ifs, ands or buts and he didn't care about what wold happen after. Although I suppose he was too stupid to realize it would turn to shit so quickly and completely, but such is the way things go for a community organizing speech maker who wears a suit that's too big for him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

it's Obama. He wanted out of Iraq no ifs, ands or buts and he didn't care about what wold happen after. Although I suppose he was too stupid to realize it would turn to shit so quickly and completely, but such is the way things go for a community organizing speech maker who wears a suit that's too big for him.

It wasnt that he was too stupid. Plenty of people said what would happen, and it did. It's that he didnt care because it didnt fit his agenda at that moment. He could hope everything would be hunky dory, and that was good enough.

 

[EconChick]

Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.

I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?

The plan was to let the Iraqis do the heavy lifting. That's a reflection of confidence in the Iraqis, IMO. The majority favor action against ISIS, which is the president's plan. You can parse it any way you want, but I doubt there's much support for sending the troops back in.

No it isn't ...it's just all words by Obama....he doesn't believe in any of what he's doing. He's doing it because his panicked party is beating on him to not saddle them with "weak on national security" as the polls show he's done.

 

[tosacco]

It may be less Obama and more the fact that we have been engaged in these types of wars on and off for a few decades now with little success. Our entire military foundation is still constructed on the idea of war as being waged between two States... while we can certainly flex our muscle in the region, I don't think our nation is equipped for any long-term success as long as we are trying to engage such a nebulous and elusive foe. We could have George Patton as our commander in cheif and I would still not feel confident that our military would yield any great "success" against ISIS (not to mention how to define success, considering all the parties involved, our relationships with those parties, and our reputation in the region). The way that war is fought has changed, and the way we strategize militarily is dated.

 

[EconChick]

It may be less Obama and more the fact that we have been engaged in these types of wars on and off for a few decades now with little success. Our entire military foundation is still constructed on the idea of war as being waged between two States... while we can certainly flex our muscle in the region, I don't think our nation is equipped for any long-term success as long as we are trying to engage such a nebulous and elusive foe. We could have George Patton as our commander in cheif and I would still not feel confident that our military would yield any great "success" against ISIS (not to mention how to define success, considering all the parties involved, our relationships with those parties, and our reputation in the region). The way that war is fought has changed, and the way we strategize militarily is dated.

Nice thoughtful post, tosacco. I understand the sentiment and frustration behind it. I also like how you're trying to think strategically.

The only problem is it leads one to conclude we should just erect a wall around America, close down all our shipping lanes around the world, shut down all the interconnected financial and trade activities between us and the rest of the world, stop importing oil (and we're not energy independent yet), and put our heads under our beds and pretend there aren't plenty of people that want to do us harm and hate what we stand for. Not to mention that by shutting down all that global activity we would fall into a massive economic depression.

The other problem with it is that having spent a lot of time in Iraq watching the evolution of our involvement there, though we started out with major FUBAR, by the time Bush left, we had reached relative stability. You're talking to someone that lived through the rough and dangerous years there for Americans and Iraqis and know that problems were RELATIVELY under control in late 2008.

 

[Richard-H]

It may be less Obama and more the fact that we have been engaged in these types of wars on and off for a few decades now with little success. Our entire military foundation is still constructed on the idea of war as being waged between two States... while we can certainly flex our muscle in the region, I don't think our nation is equipped for any long-term success as long as we are trying to engage such a nebulous and elusive foe. We could have George Patton as our commander in cheif and I would still not feel confident that our military would yield any great "success" against ISIS (not to mention how to define success, considering all the parties involved, our relationships with those parties, and our reputation in the region). The way that war is fought has changed, and the way we strategize militarily is dated.

ISIS seems to be organized like a standard conventional military force. While we've been fighting so many 'asymmetrical' wars, I think that we've allowed ourselves to get 'psych'd' into thinking that any war we get into with Islamic extremists is an 'asymmetrical' war.

I expect that we will destroy ISIS, as it is, very quickly. It may be that whatever remains of ISIS will revert to a small underground terrorist group waging 'asymmetrical' war, but ISIS as a conventional military force and as a State will be destroyed withing a couple of months at most.