- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,822
- 350
The left pretends that Bush helped create ISIS, but they've thrived under Obama. They would not have gotten this far if not for Obama's foreign policy, or lack of it. It seems like Obama's policies are always friendly to the radical Muslims. He isn't doing much to stop ISIS. In a few days, Jordanians did more to stop them than all of our airstrikes. They are serious about stopping ISIS. We have 300 marines who are in danger of being overrun by ISIS and yet we do nothing. I often wonder whose side Obama is on in all this. Either let our people get the job done or get them out. We are quite capable of ending the reign of terror by ISIS, yet we go forth with a half-ass effort. The Obama administration has done poorly when it comes to having the backs of our troops.
Liberals tend to do this in wars. They send a few people and allow limited actions against the enemy. We should either retreat altogether or send in enough people to do the job quickly and efficiently. ISIS is like a raging fire and instead of turning a powerful hose on them, Obama throws little buckets of water on one end and fans the flames on the other. The radicals are more emboldened than ever, thanks to Obama's friendly approach to dealing with most of them. Obama is asking congress to proceed, but only with limited personnel and only enough boots on the ground to do rescue operations. He doesn't want U.S. forces to just kick the ass of the radical Muslims. Why is that? Does he want this to continue? It doesn't have to and he just needs to give military the go ahead or bring them home and let others fight. We can't keep up this chicken shit strategy where our troops are just hung out to dry.
I'm sure some liberals will come in with their usual talking points that aren't worth camel shit. The radical Muslims have Obama to thank for their amazing progress.
" There are several other self-defeating U.S. policies that have nurtured the rise of the Islamic State, directly and indirectly. They go beyond Syria; indeed, they span the entire Mideast:
1. The "little and late" character of the current air strikes in Iraq.
The U.S. for months ignored Iraq’s requests for help. It just let the Islamic State keep growing. The belated help has been minimalist, and it is given a false, self-limiting rationale. Militarily, the refusal to put boots on the ground means that we lack the guidance needed for fully effective air strikes. Politically, Obama has relied on Iraq’s democratic parliamentary process to make essential changes, and the most it has been capable of delivering is another leader from within Maliki’s Shi’a party, hardly a good beginning for winning back Sunni trust. What was plainly needed was a figure from Ayad Allawi’s mixed Shia-Sunni party instead.
2. The prior complete withdrawal from Iraq.
This compounded the mistake of the Bush administration in destabilizing Iraq, while undoing Bush’s self-corrective measure, the surge. Obama argues that he had to withdraw, after failing to get a new status-of-forces agreement, but that failure was far from a mere objective fact. Obama did not keep pushing by the usual methods that have gotten America status-of-forces agreements and allowed us to keep adequate long-term residual forces on the ground elsewhere. He was too interested in satisfying his domestic base with a total withdrawal.
3. Promoting "democracy" through demanding free participation of religious and sectarian parties in elections.
As I wrote earlier this week about our actions in Gaza, America regularly calls for "democratic" elections, open to all parties, including religious ones. This policy began under Bush, but he retreated when he saw that it worked badly; under Obama it became America’s fixed ideology, applied without regard for consequences throughout the Mideast. Uncritical democracy promotion is a very dangerous ideology. The elections we demanded brought Iraq to the edge of civil war. Elections have kept it there pretty much ever since. "
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-straus
You’re never going to kill the whole idea of what ISIS is about unless the rest of the Arab and Islamic word rail against. We can at least stop the carnage on the battlefield and the villages and towns that they’re over running.
Unless Obama gives the military the ability to get the job done, we aren’t going to make any progress. He lets politics obscure what needs to be done on the ground. People may have called George Bush a cowboy because of his attitude, but that’s the way you have to go about it.
The King of Jordan had the same attitude when his pilot was burned alive. But people around the world and in America respected him because he showed ISIS that he wasn’t going to back down, but instead double down on crushing them. That’s the kind of leadership and strategy we need."
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/249674-former-delta-force-operator-gives-obamas-new-isis-strategy-reality-check/
Liberals tend to do this in wars. They send a few people and allow limited actions against the enemy. We should either retreat altogether or send in enough people to do the job quickly and efficiently. ISIS is like a raging fire and instead of turning a powerful hose on them, Obama throws little buckets of water on one end and fans the flames on the other. The radicals are more emboldened than ever, thanks to Obama's friendly approach to dealing with most of them. Obama is asking congress to proceed, but only with limited personnel and only enough boots on the ground to do rescue operations. He doesn't want U.S. forces to just kick the ass of the radical Muslims. Why is that? Does he want this to continue? It doesn't have to and he just needs to give military the go ahead or bring them home and let others fight. We can't keep up this chicken shit strategy where our troops are just hung out to dry.
I'm sure some liberals will come in with their usual talking points that aren't worth camel shit. The radical Muslims have Obama to thank for their amazing progress.
" There are several other self-defeating U.S. policies that have nurtured the rise of the Islamic State, directly and indirectly. They go beyond Syria; indeed, they span the entire Mideast:
1. The "little and late" character of the current air strikes in Iraq.
The U.S. for months ignored Iraq’s requests for help. It just let the Islamic State keep growing. The belated help has been minimalist, and it is given a false, self-limiting rationale. Militarily, the refusal to put boots on the ground means that we lack the guidance needed for fully effective air strikes. Politically, Obama has relied on Iraq’s democratic parliamentary process to make essential changes, and the most it has been capable of delivering is another leader from within Maliki’s Shi’a party, hardly a good beginning for winning back Sunni trust. What was plainly needed was a figure from Ayad Allawi’s mixed Shia-Sunni party instead.
2. The prior complete withdrawal from Iraq.
This compounded the mistake of the Bush administration in destabilizing Iraq, while undoing Bush’s self-corrective measure, the surge. Obama argues that he had to withdraw, after failing to get a new status-of-forces agreement, but that failure was far from a mere objective fact. Obama did not keep pushing by the usual methods that have gotten America status-of-forces agreements and allowed us to keep adequate long-term residual forces on the ground elsewhere. He was too interested in satisfying his domestic base with a total withdrawal.
3. Promoting "democracy" through demanding free participation of religious and sectarian parties in elections.
As I wrote earlier this week about our actions in Gaza, America regularly calls for "democratic" elections, open to all parties, including religious ones. This policy began under Bush, but he retreated when he saw that it worked badly; under Obama it became America’s fixed ideology, applied without regard for consequences throughout the Mideast. Uncritical democracy promotion is a very dangerous ideology. The elections we demanded brought Iraq to the edge of civil war. Elections have kept it there pretty much ever since. "
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-straus
You’re never going to kill the whole idea of what ISIS is about unless the rest of the Arab and Islamic word rail against. We can at least stop the carnage on the battlefield and the villages and towns that they’re over running.
Unless Obama gives the military the ability to get the job done, we aren’t going to make any progress. He lets politics obscure what needs to be done on the ground. People may have called George Bush a cowboy because of his attitude, but that’s the way you have to go about it.
The King of Jordan had the same attitude when his pilot was burned alive. But people around the world and in America respected him because he showed ISIS that he wasn’t going to back down, but instead double down on crushing them. That’s the kind of leadership and strategy we need."
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/249674-former-delta-force-operator-gives-obamas-new-isis-strategy-reality-check/
