WikiLeaks: Re: HRC, Obama and ISIS

[Vigilante]

WikiLeaks ^ | October 26, 2016 | John Pidesta
From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-12-21 12:00 Subject: Re: HRC, Obama and ISIS Her reference was not to ISIS but to going after Assad diplomatically because of UNSC resolution passed Friday. We will make that clear. She has given two major speeches about how we are NOT where we need to be on ISIS. On Monday, December 21, 2015, Brent Budowsky wrote: Walk back and escape from her statement that "finally we are where we need to be" against ISIS. We are not where we need to be, we are far from it, most voters do not believe it, and when...

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - blow `em to smithereens...

Is bombing the s*** out of ISIS a strategy?
Tue November 15, 2016 - "I will quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no-one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us.

"I will quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no-one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us." "I would bomb the s*** out of them." "The attack on Mosul is turning out to be a total disaster. We gave them months of notice. US is looking so dumb." These are three of President-elect Donald Trump's remarks made on the campaign trail criticizing the strategy for taking down ISIS and declaring bluntly how he'd change it. Trump pledged in September that on his first day in office he would issue his generals with a simple instruction: "They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

His premise is that the US-led coalition simply isn't ruthless enough. In an interview with Fox News in September, Trump said: "We have to lead for a change because we are not knocking them. We're hitting them every once in a while, we're hitting them in certain places, we're being very gentle about it." But promises made in the heat of a campaign are often tempered by reality later. The complexities of tackling ISIS in two countries amid an array of competing parties do not give themselves easily to campaign slogans.

As of November 2, the US and its coalition partners had conducted a total of 15,959 strikes (10,310 in Iraq and 5,649 conducted in Syria), according to figures from the coalition. There have also been hundreds of airstrikes against ISIS in Libya since August. US commanders insist the air campaign has been remorseless and aggressive, but also in accordance with international law, calibrated to avoid civilian casualties. The role of an air campaign is to aid ground forces. Short of accepting far greater destruction to cities as well as amplifying civilian suffering and displacement, it's hard to see how more intense airstrikes, as Trump has suggested, would change the military balance overnight. To borrow the words of US General Wesley Clark about NATO's campaign to evict Serbian forces from Kosovo in 1997: "The air campaign was an effort to coerce, not to seize." But ISIS is not the sort of group that's easily coerced.

The Mosul challenge

In concert with allied ground forces in Iraq and Syria, the air campaign has helped shrink ISIS' territorial control drastically and cut its lines of communication. This year the "caliphate" has lost control of the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Falluja but Mosul is different: larger, more densely populated and of much greater importance to ISIS as its spiritual capital.
Even so, ISIS undertook elaborate preparations to defend the city, and its determined resistance so far suggests the campaign will be measured in months, not weeks. After relatively smooth approaches to Mosul, entering the city has posed new challenges for Iraqi Security Forces. Airstrikes are called in daily; there were ten on Sunday alone. And using air power is difficult in densely-populated areas, where vehicle suicide bombs surge out of side streets and buildings are booby-trapped. Some sources suggest that ISIS is even forcing civilians to drive around the city to confuse the enemy.

MORE

 

[Mrs. M.]

Granny says, "Dat's right - blow `em to smithereens...

Is bombing the s*** out of ISIS a strategy?
Tue November 15, 2016 - "I will quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no-one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us.

"I will quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no-one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us." "I would bomb the s*** out of them." "The attack on Mosul is turning out to be a total disaster. We gave them months of notice. US is looking so dumb." These are three of President-elect Donald Trump's remarks made on the campaign trail criticizing the strategy for taking down ISIS and declaring bluntly how he'd change it. Trump pledged in September that on his first day in office he would issue his generals with a simple instruction: "They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

His premise is that the US-led coalition simply isn't ruthless enough. In an interview with Fox News in September, Trump said: "We have to lead for a change because we are not knocking them. We're hitting them every once in a while, we're hitting them in certain places, we're being very gentle about it." But promises made in the heat of a campaign are often tempered by reality later. The complexities of tackling ISIS in two countries amid an array of competing parties do not give themselves easily to campaign slogans.

As of November 2, the US and its coalition partners had conducted a total of 15,959 strikes (10,310 in Iraq and 5,649 conducted in Syria), according to figures from the coalition. There have also been hundreds of airstrikes against ISIS in Libya since August. US commanders insist the air campaign has been remorseless and aggressive, but also in accordance with international law, calibrated to avoid civilian casualties. The role of an air campaign is to aid ground forces. Short of accepting far greater destruction to cities as well as amplifying civilian suffering and displacement, it's hard to see how more intense airstrikes, as Trump has suggested, would change the military balance overnight. To borrow the words of US General Wesley Clark about NATO's campaign to evict Serbian forces from Kosovo in 1997: "The air campaign was an effort to coerce, not to seize." But ISIS is not the sort of group that's easily coerced.

The Mosul challenge

In concert with allied ground forces in Iraq and Syria, the air campaign has helped shrink ISIS' territorial control drastically and cut its lines of communication. This year the "caliphate" has lost control of the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Falluja but Mosul is different: larger, more densely populated and of much greater importance to ISIS as its spiritual capital.
Even so, ISIS undertook elaborate preparations to defend the city, and its determined resistance so far suggests the campaign will be measured in months, not weeks. After relatively smooth approaches to Mosul, entering the city has posed new challenges for Iraqi Security Forces. Airstrikes are called in daily; there were ten on Sunday alone. And using air power is difficult in densely-populated areas, where vehicle suicide bombs surge out of side streets and buildings are booby-trapped. Some sources suggest that ISIS is even forcing civilians to drive around the city to confuse the enemy.

MORE

Actually that quote is from over a year ago. Trump made that statement after the Paris Attack by ISIS. CNN is really reaching here and so are you. Quit monkeying around with the facts.

Donald Trump promises to ‘bomb the hell out of ISIS’ in new radio ad

Note the date of this story - 11/18/ 2015