re: Obama and the military brass at odds with strategy to fight ISIL

quote:

---

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.

---

General Keane wasn't lying when he said the words. I only repeated what came directly out of his mouth.

So, you are dead wrong here.

quote:

---

Obama and the military brass at odds with strategy to fight ISIL

---

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be?

One side needs to maintain a boogeyman to repay those who put him in office....TWICE.
The other side is trying to eradicate a perceived enemy.

quote:

---

I'm saying it's tacky for recently retired military personnel to publicly criticize their commander in chief.

---

How long should they have to wait, SirWinston?

Wait... people think the key to beating ISIS/L and calming down tensions in the middle east is to bring in the Israeli Army?

I could list the many, many reasons this is not a wonderful idea. I will stop at Number One though which is every Arab nation, at best, despises Israel. It would be like trying to put out a kitchen fire by dropping napalm.

Germany and France are a different matter. Germany almost never sends troops abroad and that is because the rest of the civilized world wrote their constitution so that they wouldn't get the urge to go on foreign adventures. They do make up a large part of the NATO force in Afghanistan and they've had their share of fatalities in doing so. They are a pacifistic country for the most part and guess what? We went out of our way to encourage that for obvious reasons.

The French said at the beginning that going into Iraq was a bad idea and they stuck by their guns. They also have sent combat forces into Afghanistan and yes, they have their share of fatalities as well. Even though the French spend a ton of money on their military its already pretty stretched with all of their defense commitments in place as is. Them being willing to lend air support is more then we could have hoped for.

Obama is probably wanting to send them rice and penicillin. Probably doesn't know where syria is located.

quote:

---

Big12fan mentioned bringing in the Israeli army into the fray, not I.

---

I did and for a reason. They have a lot more at risk than the US does. Ultimately all of the Western European countries do as well and I think Turkey being on the northern borders with Syria & Iraq has an unmet obligation.

There costs of further US involvement in Iraq far outweigh the gains. If ISIS really is the military power that everybody seems to fear, then the Germans as well as the French, Italians, Pol, and the Brits should be able to handle the situation. And what about the Iranians? They have a huge score to settle with the Sunnis.

My point is that we have no real friends in the region. Robert Gates once said that anyone who considers ground troops in the ME ought to have his head examined. Oh and what about Syria's best friend Russia? They damn sure have a military and Putin has 16 million Muslims within his borders who might well join forces with an ISIS advancement.

Why would we go there? "Fighting for our freedom" doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason any longer. ISIS would like nothing better than to get the US back in Iraq and I believe it to be sadistic to send our soldiers back into that bobbie-traped, IED-laden, sand pit and have them endure more then they've already encountered.

If ISIS is the big bad wolf, Europe will have to act or get eaten alive. I'm willing to sit this one out and force our "allies" to take more responsibility for their security.

#frickingcommunityorganizer

quote:

---

I support the inaction by our President in this instance.

---

To what "inaction" do you refer? Right now, POTUS has US troops on the ground directing air strikes, and he plans to send more.

Not only that, but, he also plans to bomb targets inside of the sovereign nation of Syria, with whom the USA is not authorized by the UN Security Council to be at war.

So, besides these US airstrikes, these US troops and this planned but illegal armed attack on Syria, to what "inaction" do you refer, Sir?

There ARE US ground troops on the ground in the Middle East. Not only that, but Obama is sending more US ground troops and the number will be several thousand at least.

Now, if you are praising Obama for not sending tens of thousands of US ground troops to Iraq/Syria, then, I understand.

But, honestly, after ignoring the military's advice to leave a follow-on force in Iraq, how could Obama now send tens of thousands BACK to Iraq so soon? He'd look like a totally clueless fool if he did that.

quote:

---

There ARE US ground troops on the ground in the Middle East. Not only that, but Obama is sending more US ground troops and the number will be several thousand at least.

Now, if you are praising Obama for not sending tens of thousands of US ground troops to Iraq/Syria, then, I understand.

But, honestly, after ignoring the military's advice to leave a follow-on force in Iraq, how could Obama now send tens of thousands BACK to Iraq so soon? He'd look like a totally clueless fool if he did that.

---

It doesn't appear that Obama is phased by optics. Regardless, you make good points, so to clarify my point of view, I'd agree with this statement in the link posted by the OP.

quote:

---

In an interview with MSNBC, Blinken insisted that such deployments would not amount to combat “where Americans are on the ground leading the fight. That is not going to happen. That’s not part of this campaign. The president’s been clear about that.”

---