Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.
How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.
What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.
Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?
I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.
What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.
Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?
I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?
I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I remember when we were told that Afghanistan and Iraq would be quick and easy too.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I remember when we were told that Afghanistan and Iraq would be quick and easy too.
I didn't say that the fight against ISIS will be quick and easy. What I said was that if ISIS wants to fight as a conventional army that controls infrastructure against the might of the US Armed Forces that they will be defeated rather handily. I don't think that will be the case however...I think that they will abandon control of things like refineries and oil fields, hide among the civilian population in large cities like Mosul or run back to the safety of Syria.
My point all along was that ISIS only moved into Iraq and took control of infrastructure that's giving them an estimated daily income of 3 million because Obama's withdrawal of all US troops created a power vacuum that ISIS was only too happy to exploit.
I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I remember when we were told that Afghanistan and Iraq would be quick and easy too.
I didn't say that the fight against ISIS will be quick and easy. What I said was that if ISIS wants to fight as a conventional army that controls infrastructure against the might of the US Armed Forces that they will be defeated rather handily. I don't think that will be the case however...I think that they will abandon control of things like refineries and oil fields, hide among the civilian population in large cities like Mosul or run back to the safety of Syria.
My point all along was that ISIS only moved into Iraq and took control of infrastructure that's giving them an estimated daily income of 3 million because Obama's withdrawal of all US troops created a power vacuum that ISIS was only too happy to exploit.
Had we left a small force in Iraq the problems in Syria might have been contained. That's what we should do now, send in a small force to bolster the Iraqi Army and drive ISIS out of Iraq. If we get involved in the Syrian civil war we're probably looking at years of fighting in a three or four sided conflict. Send in a couple of battalions of Marines, a Ranger battalion, one battalion each from the 82nd and 101st, secure Iraq, leave a residual force and call it a day. If people want to get in the middle of a civil war why not let our so called allies and friends like the Saudis or the Turks do something about it?
I think we're getting mired deeper in the swamp. We were never really in control of Iraq anyway. And if you think the past twelve years were bad that was just an appetizer, the main course is still to come. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and when it's all over this country won't recognize itself any more. American public opinion won't sustain a long ground campaign.
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I remember when we were told that Afghanistan and Iraq would be quick and easy too.
I didn't say that the fight against ISIS will be quick and easy. What I said was that if ISIS wants to fight as a conventional army that controls infrastructure against the might of the US Armed Forces that they will be defeated rather handily. I don't think that will be the case however...I think that they will abandon control of things like refineries and oil fields, hide among the civilian population in large cities like Mosul or run back to the safety of Syria.
My point all along was that ISIS only moved into Iraq and took control of infrastructure that's giving them an estimated daily income of 3 million because Obama's withdrawal of all US troops created a power vacuum that ISIS was only too happy to exploit.
Had we left a small force in Iraq the problems in Syria might have been contained. That's what we should do now, send in a small force to bolster the Iraqi Army and drive ISIS out of Iraq. If we get involved in the Syrian civil war we're probably looking at years of fighting in a three or four sided conflict. Send in a couple of battalions of Marines, a Ranger battalion, one battalion each from the 82nd and 101st, secure Iraq, leave a residual force and call it a day. If people want to get in the middle of a civil war why not let our so called allies and friends like the Saudis or the Turks do something about it?
So you're basically admitting that Barry fucked up when he didn't keep a residual force behind in Iraq like his military advisers wanted? And that he's fucking up again by his stubborn refusal to put "boots on the ground" when it's obvious that's what's needed?
Good for you!
The fight to push ISIS out of Iraq will not be a long drawn out ground campaign. The problem that ISIS faces is that they've decided to make themselves into something different than most terrorist organizations...they want to control infrastructure like refineries and oil fields to generate income. They want to field an actual army that holds territory rather than a small group of terrorists that strike at the enemy's infrastructure and territory and then melts away. The fact is that our army is so superior to them that if they DO try and fight a conventional style war they will get their asses handed to them.
As for the fight against Islamic extremists? That isn't going to go away by ignoring them. I'm sorry but it isn't! 9/11 was planned when Clinton was in the White House and would have been carried out whether Bush was the next President or Gore was the next President. The extremists don't really care about liberals and conservatives here...they hate us all regardless...something that Barry is slowly beginning to grasp.
I remember when we were told that Afghanistan and Iraq would be quick and easy too.
I didn't say that the fight against ISIS will be quick and easy. What I said was that if ISIS wants to fight as a conventional army that controls infrastructure against the might of the US Armed Forces that they will be defeated rather handily. I don't think that will be the case however...I think that they will abandon control of things like refineries and oil fields, hide among the civilian population in large cities like Mosul or run back to the safety of Syria.
My point all along was that ISIS only moved into Iraq and took control of infrastructure that's giving them an estimated daily income of 3 million because Obama's withdrawal of all US troops created a power vacuum that ISIS was only too happy to exploit.
Had we left a small force in Iraq the problems in Syria might have been contained. That's what we should do now, send in a small force to bolster the Iraqi Army and drive ISIS out of Iraq. If we get involved in the Syrian civil war we're probably looking at years of fighting in a three or four sided conflict. Send in a couple of battalions of Marines, a Ranger battalion, one battalion each from the 82nd and 101st, secure Iraq, leave a residual force and call it a day. If people want to get in the middle of a civil war why not let our so called allies and friends like the Saudis or the Turks do something about it?
So you're basically admitting that Barry fucked up when he didn't keep a residual force behind in Iraq like his military advisers wanted? And that he's fucking up again by his stubborn refusal to put "boots on the ground" when it's obvious that's what's needed?
Good for you!
I believe in the smart, well planned and decisive application of military power. I don't believe we should run in like the cavalry every time John McCain and Lindsey Graham think it's a good idea.
By the way...neither John McCain nor Lindsey Graham's decisions count. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. HIS decisions DO count!
When he bases those decisions on what's best to get Democrats elected or reelected rather than what's good for the country and the world...then he's not doing the job of President...is he?
Perhaps you should carry on with your devotions in private.This might be a good time to ask that this thread be merged with the other one devoted to masturbation.
By the way...neither John McCain nor Lindsey Graham's decisions count. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. HIS decisions DO count!
When he bases those decisions on what's best to get Democrats elected or reelected rather than what's good for the country and the world...then he's not doing the job of President...is he?
I remember people being very angry at President Nixon over his conduct of the Vietnam War........as if he started it.
The thread title is complete horse shit. Obama has neither matured nor evolved. Also, do not confuse pragmatism with Obama's governing philosophy (if he even has one).
Obama operates on 2 levels. Number one is the areas he is interested in and in which he seeks to advance an agenda. Level 2 is everything else. Obama lacks a real and effective national security policy. When a matter arises like ISIS his M.O. Is to take a reactive stance. That is, on these - what I call "level 2" - matters there is little or no proactive policy being prosecuted. Instead, Obama just reacts when something happens.
With the ISIS matter Obama has to act because of the rising discontent with televised executions of Americans. If not for that, then few would think Obama would do anything. Obama may act, but it will be with reluctance. Obama does not want to use overt American force lest he contradict his core values that hold that the west has historically acted with force in order to effect its will on the rest of the world, as well as to usurp world resources. This is, of course, obvious leftist bullshit that clouds Obama's judgment (and which should have been evident to voters well prior to the 2008 elections). Obama's world theory casts the USA as a colonial power who unjustly gains influence through international acts of militarized aggression. Thus, to send in troops to Iraq now conflicts with his world view. Hence, any such action on his part to do this is with great reluctance and is necessarily couched in terms of avoiding humanitarian crises and the odd theory of "leading from behind".
Also, has anyone noticed that notwithstanding all of the bravado about our intervention against ISIS there has been NO ACTION? Obama could order a set of air strikes right now and our military, in its current posture, can carry out orders in a matter of hours, or sooner. What is Obama waiting on? Moreover, is Obama REALLY going to follow through with strike plans at all? Or, is he up to something else? Something tells me that he is angling for something here.
Obama has not matured. He is fundamentally a different person than most Americans. He was not socialized as an American. He does not hold any real, vested connection to America. It makes me queasy to even refer to him as Commander in Chief, especially given his open hostility to our generals. His perceived maturity is merely him reacting to world events in a manner that he feels best serves his politics.
The thread title is complete horse shit. Obama has neither matured nor evolved. Also, do not confuse pragmatism with Obama's governing philosophy (if he even has one).
Obama operates on 2 levels. Number one is the areas he is interested in and in which he seeks to advance an agenda. Level 2 is everything else. Obama lacks a real and effective national security policy. When a matter arises like ISIS his M.O. Is to take a reactive stance. That is, on these - what I call "level 2" - matters there is little or no proactive policy being prosecuted. Instead, Obama just reacts when something happens.
With the ISIS matter Obama has to act because of the rising discontent with televised executions of Americans. If not for that, then few would think Obama would do anything. Obama may act, but it will be with reluctance. Obama does not want to use overt American force lest he contradict his core values that hold that the west has historically acted with force in order to effect its will on the rest of the world, as well as to usurp world resources. This is, of course, obvious leftist bullshit that clouds Obama's judgment (and which should have been evident to voters well prior to the 2008 elections). Obama's world theory casts the USA as a colonial power who unjustly gains influence through international acts of militarized aggression. Thus, to send in troops to Iraq now conflicts with his world view. Hence, any such action on his part to do this is with great reluctance and is necessarily couched in terms of avoiding humanitarian crises and the odd theory of "leading from behind".
Also, has anyone noticed that notwithstanding all of the bravado about our intervention against ISIS there has been NO ACTION? Obama could order a set of air strikes right now and our military, in its current posture, can carry out orders in a matter of hours, or sooner. What is Obama waiting on? Moreover, is Obama REALLY going to follow through with strike plans at all? Or, is he up to something else? Something tells me that he is angling for something here.
Obama has not matured. He is fundamentally a different person than most Americans. He was not socialized as an American. He does not hold any real, vested connection to America. It makes me queasy to even refer to him as Commander in Chief, especially given his open hostility to our generals. His perceived maturity is merely him reacting to world events in a manner that he feels best serves his politics.
No action? The last report was at least 150 targets hit so far.
