- Jun 6, 2007
- 852
- 483
- 910
President Obama's overall strategy on ISIL that he announced this past wednesday, September 10, is excellent and deserves the full backing of all the American people whatever political party affiliation. This overall strategy to lead a coalition and utilize America's air power coupled with support from coalition ground forces which America will aid is the optimally wise approach.
Although many Republican members in Congress have publically come out and said that they would agree to give President Obama what he wants to fight ISIL which is a great development for the country, the Republican Party is wrong for coming out and saying the President's efforts are not enough are insufficient because it shows they have learned very little from the last ten years of war and it makes the American people worried about what will happen if they put another Republican in the White House in these times.
The Republican Party doesn't seem to get it that if American combat troops are deployed into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIl America cannot know what we are getting into first off how do we get out without leaving a security vacuum that will be filled with God only knows it could very well be people alled with al qaeda. Aren't Republicans aware that when the U.S. military gets involved in Muslim countries it often has the effect of rallying many ultra-orthodox Muslims to support our enemies thinking they are fighting the great American Satan. Moreover, ISIL fighters are good and resourceful fighter many American soldiers will be hurt in such deployments. What we have learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that just as bad as the teriible death and physical disabilities befalling American soldiers in combat is the mental disabilities they incur which effects huge numbers and has devastating effects on these Americans lives it is very disheartening that Republicans don't get it that good leadership calls for deploying American combat troops as a last resort. In addition, the current cost to put an American soldier in this Iraq/Syria theater is probably around one million dollars a year the CIA says ISIL has around thirty-thousand fighters so it is probably fair to say you Republicans would want to put in thirty-thousand U.S. combat troops in that theater to fight them, that would be a cost of thirty billion dollars do you Republican Party members want to campaign on what government programs you will cut to find this money, if no then shut-up about this insufficient force criticism!
One hears the comments in the media by politicians, political analysts and military and security experts about this ISIL threat and one wonders how our country even survives with the stupidity that abounds. One favorite talking point these mistaken people often say is that if President Obama would have only left U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 this unraveling of Iraq would never have happened. It is not that simple the blame for the unraveling of Iraq lays fully at the feet of former Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki who sees all Sunni leaders as Baathists who he hates and so he committed rampant government discrimination against Sunni's which created a Sunni rebellion which produced ISIL America's military presence in Iraq would not have stopped that and for leaving U.S. troops in Iraq at that time the significantly powerful Iraqi cleric Muqtada al Sadr had drawn a line in the sand that he would fight the U.S. presence and he had a powerful militia, the Mehdi Army, to do so leaving U.S. troops would have just left a slow and steady stream of American troop casualties in Iraq not a good course.
President Obama is making some mistakes in his strategy against ISIL he plans to use Iraqi Kurdish forces to fight ISIL forces which when they are done with ISIL they will be so strong that the Iraq Central government will not be able to stop the Kurdish and semi Kurdish regions the Kurds control from seceding from Iraq. Further, this idea to follow the direction of Iraq'a central government and build an Iraqi National Guard across Iraq to combat ISIL forces and take back Iraqi territory is essentially an exercise of building a multitude of militia's throughout Iraq and when the ISIL threat is eliminated these militia will just add to the pressure to split the country apart, facts which also add to that assessment is the current powerful shiite militias in Iraq already are known to have Iranian agents involved in leading these groups. President Obama's team should be pushing to rebuild the Iraqi army to the nonsectarian and effective military force it was in 2011 and only work with this army to drive out ISIL. This is not to say we shouldn't give the Kurdish Peshmerga forces military aid to defend themselves from ISIL but America's policy should be we aren't helping to split the country of Iraq apart.
In the public debate on what to do about ISIL, the liberals in our country aren't without their shameful behavior. Many liberals have been covertly critical of President Obama's strategy. They recognize that ISIL is an ultra bad organization that shouldn't exist but they essentially say we shouldn't take military action here because haven't we learned the lessons from the two wars over the last ten years. I would like to know how praetel do we insure this terrorist organization is stopped? What do we just talk to them, what do you say to people whose practice is to make moving visual effects with human heads! Liberals scoff at President Obama's plan to use the U.S. military to build an army of non-extremist Syrian fighters, where you been liberals the U.S. military did this in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years and did a great job at this effort. Liberals say there is no such thing as non-extremist syrian rebels to build such an army because of a number of isolated incidents of moderate Syrian rebels killing their prisoners these liberals should check U.S. military history in the Pacific during World War II there was so much anger amongst U.S. ground troops during those island fights that there was many incidents of U.S. soldiers killing Japanese soldiers that surrendered that did not make the entire U.S. Army bad. If one really listens to what liberals are saying here one should conclude that all Syrian women should stop having children because if you give birth to a male child he will definitely become an Islamic extremist who goes around cutting people's heads off because simply there is something wrong with the Syrian gene pool, good Lord you liberals!
Although many Republican members in Congress have publically come out and said that they would agree to give President Obama what he wants to fight ISIL which is a great development for the country, the Republican Party is wrong for coming out and saying the President's efforts are not enough are insufficient because it shows they have learned very little from the last ten years of war and it makes the American people worried about what will happen if they put another Republican in the White House in these times.
The Republican Party doesn't seem to get it that if American combat troops are deployed into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIl America cannot know what we are getting into first off how do we get out without leaving a security vacuum that will be filled with God only knows it could very well be people alled with al qaeda. Aren't Republicans aware that when the U.S. military gets involved in Muslim countries it often has the effect of rallying many ultra-orthodox Muslims to support our enemies thinking they are fighting the great American Satan. Moreover, ISIL fighters are good and resourceful fighter many American soldiers will be hurt in such deployments. What we have learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that just as bad as the teriible death and physical disabilities befalling American soldiers in combat is the mental disabilities they incur which effects huge numbers and has devastating effects on these Americans lives it is very disheartening that Republicans don't get it that good leadership calls for deploying American combat troops as a last resort. In addition, the current cost to put an American soldier in this Iraq/Syria theater is probably around one million dollars a year the CIA says ISIL has around thirty-thousand fighters so it is probably fair to say you Republicans would want to put in thirty-thousand U.S. combat troops in that theater to fight them, that would be a cost of thirty billion dollars do you Republican Party members want to campaign on what government programs you will cut to find this money, if no then shut-up about this insufficient force criticism!
One hears the comments in the media by politicians, political analysts and military and security experts about this ISIL threat and one wonders how our country even survives with the stupidity that abounds. One favorite talking point these mistaken people often say is that if President Obama would have only left U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 this unraveling of Iraq would never have happened. It is not that simple the blame for the unraveling of Iraq lays fully at the feet of former Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki who sees all Sunni leaders as Baathists who he hates and so he committed rampant government discrimination against Sunni's which created a Sunni rebellion which produced ISIL America's military presence in Iraq would not have stopped that and for leaving U.S. troops in Iraq at that time the significantly powerful Iraqi cleric Muqtada al Sadr had drawn a line in the sand that he would fight the U.S. presence and he had a powerful militia, the Mehdi Army, to do so leaving U.S. troops would have just left a slow and steady stream of American troop casualties in Iraq not a good course.
President Obama is making some mistakes in his strategy against ISIL he plans to use Iraqi Kurdish forces to fight ISIL forces which when they are done with ISIL they will be so strong that the Iraq Central government will not be able to stop the Kurdish and semi Kurdish regions the Kurds control from seceding from Iraq. Further, this idea to follow the direction of Iraq'a central government and build an Iraqi National Guard across Iraq to combat ISIL forces and take back Iraqi territory is essentially an exercise of building a multitude of militia's throughout Iraq and when the ISIL threat is eliminated these militia will just add to the pressure to split the country apart, facts which also add to that assessment is the current powerful shiite militias in Iraq already are known to have Iranian agents involved in leading these groups. President Obama's team should be pushing to rebuild the Iraqi army to the nonsectarian and effective military force it was in 2011 and only work with this army to drive out ISIL. This is not to say we shouldn't give the Kurdish Peshmerga forces military aid to defend themselves from ISIL but America's policy should be we aren't helping to split the country of Iraq apart.
In the public debate on what to do about ISIL, the liberals in our country aren't without their shameful behavior. Many liberals have been covertly critical of President Obama's strategy. They recognize that ISIL is an ultra bad organization that shouldn't exist but they essentially say we shouldn't take military action here because haven't we learned the lessons from the two wars over the last ten years. I would like to know how praetel do we insure this terrorist organization is stopped? What do we just talk to them, what do you say to people whose practice is to make moving visual effects with human heads! Liberals scoff at President Obama's plan to use the U.S. military to build an army of non-extremist Syrian fighters, where you been liberals the U.S. military did this in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years and did a great job at this effort. Liberals say there is no such thing as non-extremist syrian rebels to build such an army because of a number of isolated incidents of moderate Syrian rebels killing their prisoners these liberals should check U.S. military history in the Pacific during World War II there was so much anger amongst U.S. ground troops during those island fights that there was many incidents of U.S. soldiers killing Japanese soldiers that surrendered that did not make the entire U.S. Army bad. If one really listens to what liberals are saying here one should conclude that all Syrian women should stop having children because if you give birth to a male child he will definitely become an Islamic extremist who goes around cutting people's heads off because simply there is something wrong with the Syrian gene pool, good Lord you liberals!
