- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obama and the military brass at odds with strategy to fight ISIL
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:10 am to SirWinston
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:10 am to SirWinston
quote:
I'm saying it's tacky for recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize their commander in chief
bullshite. If more people that had oomph behind their statements like these generals do would stand up and speak out, we'd be in a better place regardless of who is in the White House.
This post was edited on 9/19/14 at 10:14 am
1
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:18 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Bush actually had quite a bit of criticism from retired military officers (which is usually how the military lets its opinion be known) in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Bush got better at being the Commander in Chief as his Presidency went on, mostly because he eventually learned the most important rule, let the people who've spent their whole life doing their jobs, do their jobs.
I actually understand Obama's reticence to introducing ground forces to stem the ISIS/ISIL/Whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week offensive. One of the key points of his Presidency was finally getting combat forces out of Iraq.
It is, quite rightly, seen as a cornerstone of his time in office, whether one agrees with it or not. If he has to turn right around and put them back in Iraq then it is a serious blow to his administration and likely will not be meet with cheers and spontaneous celebration parades by the American public.
Unfortunately the situation may very well require an American ground presence. Sometimes being the President means doing something unpopular but necessary and taking public opinion polls hit.
I actually understand Obama's reticence to introducing ground forces to stem the ISIS/ISIL/Whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week offensive. One of the key points of his Presidency was finally getting combat forces out of Iraq.
It is, quite rightly, seen as a cornerstone of his time in office, whether one agrees with it or not. If he has to turn right around and put them back in Iraq then it is a serious blow to his administration and likely will not be meet with cheers and spontaneous celebration parades by the American public.
Unfortunately the situation may very well require an American ground presence. Sometimes being the President means doing something unpopular but necessary and taking public opinion polls hit.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:22 am to Arksulli
quote:
Sometimes being the President means doing something unpopular but necessary and taking public opinion polls hit
Obama does not have the backbone...to EVER do this.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:37 am to Iosh
quote:
Good relations with the host population are an absolute necessity in COIN.
COIN is great on paper but too expensive & time consuming in real life.
IMO McChrystal is a better listen on COIN than Petraeus
McChrystal COIN Strategy
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:45 am to WildcatMike
Most everyone is saying "political" reasons. I feel like it's more personal. This guy hates America and all it stands for. That's why he appogized to the countries we fought for in the past. So I really believe the man is protecting his Muslim friends. He would likely sign a bill allowing sharia law if he had the chance.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:55 am to Arksulli
nice post 
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:57 am to Jim Ignatowski
quote:
Obama does not have the backbone...to EVER do this.
He did it for the entire first term keeping our troops in Iraq / Afghanistan even though the majority of Americans wanted to cut and run, and even though he RAN and initially got elected (in part) on a platform of ending the wars.
Obama spoke to his advisors including the leaders overseas and decided to extend our presence in Iraq / Afghanistan despite popular opinion and despite his initial assessment of the situation as a Democratic candidate.
Even if you don't agree with anything he's done as Commander in Chief, you should at least recognize that your above statement was false.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 9:59 am to catnip
quote:
Most everyone is saying "political" reasons. I feel like it's more personal. This guy hates America and all it stands for. That's why he appogized to the countries we fought for in the past. So I really believe the man is protecting his Muslim friends. He would likely sign a bill allowing sharia law if he had the chance.
explain this graph then - nearly all killed in Obama's drone attacks are outspoken/militant Islamists who support Sharia law.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:06 am to Reubaltaich
quote:
The US generals(and GWB amoung many others) warned this two-bit street organizer not to pull out of Eye-rack too soon or the country would descend into chaos...
Well lo and behold, here we are.
Truth and Upvote.
Obama's military advisers recommended a substantial follow-on force to stay in Iraq for stabilization. Obama ignored that advice. De-stabilization ensues. No wonder.
Obama still ignores his military advisers.
We will see whether Obama's military acumen and judgment is superior to the long list of current and former military advisers whom are currently being ignored by Obama.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:15 am to dnm3305
quote:
bullshite. If more people that had oomph behind there statements like these generals do would stand up and speak out, we'd be in a better place regardless of who is in the White House.
I agree that it should be point of public knowledge whenever a POTUS ignores his military advisers and acts against their advice. The American people have a right to know when their POTUS is "going rogue". This way, any particular POTUS will think twice before ignoring his military advisers.
The American people also have the right to know whether POTUS is receiving the best military advice possible. This advice should be based on sound and tested analysis. This is an important point, that I've raised before: I hope that our "system" or "process" for formulating POTUS military advice is TESTED analysis. There are various ways to test analysis with models and simulations. I hope that our process the best it can possibly be.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:17 am to ClydeFrog
quote:BHO only surrounds himself with sycophants who never tell him when he's wrong so he doesn't believe his Iraq strategy was a mistake.
It's stunning that we (read Obama) didn't learn from the first mistake.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:17 am to SirWinston
Hi there !
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:17 am to Champagne
quote:
Obama still ignores his military advisers.
You have no way of knowing what he's being told or whether he's ignoring them. Because someone wrote an article that doesn't mean they were in the room when strategies were discussed and decisions were made.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:51 am to SirWinston
GWB's foreign policy wasn't horrible only you traitorous, scum, POS's ( including the media ) believe so.
He was dealt a horrific crisis and dealt with it.
These generals have every right to criticize this dumb POS of a president, he's an ignorant punk.
He was dealt a horrific crisis and dealt with it.
These generals have every right to criticize this dumb POS of a president, he's an ignorant punk.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 10:53 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
He was dealt a horrific crisis and dealt with it.
First president since FDR to preside over a major terrorist attack on US soil.
And I know that's completely unfair, but this entire thread is completely unfair to Obama.
This post was edited on 9/19/14 at 10:54 am
Posted on 9/19/14 at 11:02 am to SirWinston
quote:
since FDR to preside over a major terrorist attack on US soil.
I wasn't born then. What was it. Thanks.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 11:52 am to Arksulli
quote:
It is, quite rightly, seen as a cornerstone of his time in office, whether one agrees with it or not. If he has to turn right around and put them back in Iraq then it is a serious blow to his administration and likely will not be meet with cheers and spontaneous celebration parades by the American public.
Unfortunately the situation may very well require an American ground presence. Sometimes being the President means doing something unpopular but necessary and taking public opinion polls hit.
Excellent point. And this is why, IMO, Obama is doing his best to drag this out for as long as possible for the next President to deal with. I mean, does he really think arming Syria is the best way to go??
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:09 pm to ClydeFrog
quote:
Obama is ruling out combat troops on the ground for political reasons while military advisors are saying the troops may very well be necessary for victory.
Obama listened to and acted on military advisors for political reasons in Afghanistan as did Democratic senators in 2002 with Iraq. It's time to say frick no. No more American blood for those savages.
Period
End of story
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:10 pm to Chimlim
quote:
I mean, does he really think arming Syria is the best way to go??
Who is arming Syria?
Posted on 9/19/14 at 12:11 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
GWB's foreign policy wasn't horrible only you traitorous, scum, POS's
Personal Attack.
You face banishment.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News