View Full Version : Obama expected to outline US plan to defeat ISIS militants...
Can't wait to see this.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/07/obama-on-wednesday-will-outline-us-plan-to-defeat-islamic-state-militants/
My guess is that it will involve combat forces operating at a snails pace, conducting a police action under the control of a NATO commander, whilst being culturally sensitive and ethnically diverse and following an ever changing ROE that makes everyone guilty until proven innocent.
Sound about right?
And just because we don't want an international Ferguson, Missouri..........what the hell...........
Helmet Cams for everyone!
Unleash HELL sufficient to cause unconditional surrender!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
...Oh shit, I thought this was the Lois Lerner / IRS strategy thread...
Kyobanim
09-07-2014, 10:48
Need to pull back and nuke em from orbit . . . it's the only way to be sure
Another helping of mealy mouthed mush, anyone? :mad:
Maybe he forces Obamacare on them, detailed in a speech by Jimmy Carter?
Team Sergeant
09-09-2014, 18:01
Probably the shortest teleprompter reading he'll ever do........:rolleyes:
Badger52
09-09-2014, 19:03
No tee-times were sacrificed during the production of this speech.
Never in my life have I been less inspired and less confident than in the moments after watching that speech.
An $80,000 bomb being dropped on a crew-less 82MM mortar system is not exactly what I would call a successful airstrike. Lets say half of the airstrikes actually kill bad guys..........at $80,000 a pop is it really worth it in the end to the American Taxpayer?
That equates to about $12,240,000 of taxpayer dollars on ordnance.
For what? Some degraded equipment and 183 EKIA?
Maybe I am over confident, but I certainly feel like there is a more economic/effective solution to this problem............But hey, that would require someone to actually make a decision and delegate some authority outside of the proverbial "power vacuum" that he has created.
TOMAHAWK9521
09-10-2014, 22:56
Never in my life have I been less inspired and less confident than in the moments after watching that speech.
An $80,000 bomb being dropped on a crew-less 82MM mortar system is not exactly what I would call a successful airstrike. Lets say half of the airstrikes actually kill bad guys..........at $80,000 a pop is it really worth it in the end to the American Taxpayer?
That equates to about $12,240,000 of taxpayer dollars on ordnance.
For what? Some degraded equipment and 183 EKIA?
Maybe I am over confident, but I certainly feel like there is a more economic/effective solution to this problem............But hey, that would require someone to actually make a decision and delegate some authority outside of the proverbial "power vacuum" that he has created.
That reminds me of the last time I was contracting over in Astan. The AF officer in the planning cell was high-fiving everyone in celebration after one of our pilots took out a 3-5 man team of bad guys with some pretty high end ordnance.
I asked "Where were the bad guys when this happened?" He said about 500-600m from the outer perimeter. I then asked, "How much did those weapons cost?" He said around $20K each. I shook my head in disbelief. "Why not use a sniper team from one of the infantry platoons in camp to take them out and save $39,980.00?" (I figured it might take more than one shot per target as the worst case scenario.) The AF officer looked at me like I was crazy. "You can't shoot someone that far away." My response was, "You're f*cking kidding me, right?"
"ISIL is not Islamic..." BHO
A Message to President Obama from a former Muslim - Brother Rachid رسالة لأوباما الاخ رشيد
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Xx9Uj1SZ0
The press has the ability to piss me off long before it informs me of anything. I don’t know why. It just does.
Islamic State crisis: A speech Obama hoped to avoid
By Jon Sopel BBC North America editor
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29152592
Sometimes a president is defined by what he stands for.
Sometimes a president is defined by what he doesn't.
In the field of foreign policy and military action, it feels as though the 44th president of the US is defined by what he isn't.
Barack Obama came to power pledging to bring American troops home from foreign conflicts. He said last year that Syria had crossed a red line but then did nothing.
This is a man who does not want to be a war leader. Bellicose is not a word that attaches to Mr Obama. And you can imagine that the address he gave the American people from the State Floor of the White House was something he had been desperately hoping to avoid.
So it was not surprising that in the first paragraph of his speech he made a point of talking about the 140,000 troops that had been brought back from Iraq and the drawing down of forces in Afghanistan.
But then he had to deal with the unpalatable situation that he now finds, and so for the first time Islamic State (IS) targets on the ground in Syria will be in the crosshairs of American pilots.
The president in his address told the American people: "I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against [IS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."
But he was equally emphatic that the combat on the ground would happen without US troops. Instead, the US will ramp up its military assistance to the Syrian opposition, and he called on Washington lawmakers to find the means to make this happen: "I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against [IS], we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorises its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost."
The Syrian opposition, he insisted, would be the best counterweight to Islamic State.
But the president was also at pains to express what this was not. There would be no American boots on the ground.
"We will not get dragged into another ground war," the president insisted.
"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out [IS] wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground."
To put this in management consultant-speak, America is outsourcing the ground offensive to local forces, thereby minimising the risk of American casualties.
He said that the US would lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat - but underlined that America would not be acting alone.
"American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region," he said.
When Mr Obama came to power, he led a nation that had grown weary of the drawn-out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He rode a popular wave and even at the beginning of this year, when he gave his State of the Union address, that was still a major theme. America needed to avoid "open-ended conflicts", to "give diplomacy a chance to succeed". He pledged to put an end to the United States on a "permanent war footing".
But something changed with the beheading of those two American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
American public opinion shifted quickly. To change the metaphor from surfing to curves, the president now found himself well behind the curve. He talked about containing Islamic State.
The American people demanded action. Two weeks ago he said he had no strategy. The American people told him to go and get one.
Opinion polls came up with two interesting findings. One, the American public wanted military action - a very different situation from a year ago. And secondly, they felt the president had been too cautious, and his approval ratings on foreign affairs slumped.
And so to the address to the nation. Action is going to start; who knows when it will be "mission accomplished", as President George W Bush famously and inaccurately declared over Iraq.
One other instructive comparison between those two presidents. Mr Bush characterised the start of the invasion of Iraq as "shock and awe". This president merely promises "steady and relentless".
All the American people care about is that the threat is dealt with. And - maybe reluctantly - that is the task the president is now undertaking.
Badger52
09-11-2014, 06:01
Next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks, through the pain we felt and the grueling work required to bounce back, America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.
Our technology companies and universities are unmatched. Our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Translation:
Dear Vulnerable Mid-Termers: Please don't distance yourself from me; I really like travelling around campaigning & being gazed upon (and playing other famous courses). And oh, by the way, it was Bush's fault.
With the exception of the obtuse statement , "ISIL is not islamic", I found POTUS's words last night to be at best adequate. I do have a question, when did SOF guys stop wearing boots? :rolleyes:
I do have a question, when did SOF guys stop wearing boots? :rolleyes:
As soon as he said "No boots on the ground";)
As soon as he said "No boots on the ground";)
Then flip flops? If he said no Oakelys on the ground he'd have more credibility.
Interesting in that it offers flashes (insights?) from other media in theater. But what the hell, no one ever said making a silk purse out of a pigs ear would be easy.
Suspicion, scepticism greet Obama speech
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-29157087
Middle Eastern commentators have reacted to US President Barack Obama's new strategy for dealing with the Islamic State (IS) militants with opinions ranging from praise to suspicion and scepticism.
Iraqi pro-government TV reported in positive tones on Mr Obama's speech, in which he said the US will lead a broad coalition against IS militants, who have seized large swathes of Iraqi and Syrian territory. Syrian TV criticised the strategy for excluding Damascus from the coalition.
Newspaper commentators wondered who will be pressured into providing ground forces, while others suggested Mr Obama has underestimated the task that lies ahead.
Here is a flavour of the reactions in some of the region's media:
Syrian state TV
Obama's strategy against the Islamic State exposes Washington's lack of seriousness regarding combating terrorism, as it fights against only one group while arming others.
Iraqi Al-Iraqiyah TV
US President Barack Obama said that IS gangs constitute a terrorist organization that has no vision other than killing whoever stands in its way with unprecedented violence.
Seyyed Reza Akrami in Iran's Mardom Salari
Iran has become the flag bearer for the fight against terrorism… Obama is explicitly saying that Daesh (the Islamic State) - not Iran - is a threat for the region.
Ahmad Kazemzadeh in Iran's Javan
The new Western coalition has been created to allow members to achieve their own goals:… expanding Nato's borders into new areas like the Gulf and the Indian subcontinent,… overthrowing the Syrian government and challenging Russia.
Editorial in Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds
The military confrontation with the Islamic State will only escalate the problem, and ultimately no-one will be able to resolve it.
Ala-al-Din Abu Zyna in Jordan's Al-Ghad daily
Obama repeated what former US President George W Bush did 13 years ago… talking of the war between the civilized West and the backward Islam… They should leave us alone.
Editorial in London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi
The world held its breath yesterday evening... as it listened to US President Barack Obama announce his strategy to "weaken and destroy Daesh (IS)". It won't be easy.
Fayiz Sarah in Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat
For the war on terrorism and extremism which is represented by Daesh to succeed, it should include the regime of [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad.
Orly Azoulay in Israel's Yediot Aharonot
The war that will be attributed to him [Obama] is a war against evil, cruelty, and extremism, and intended to react to the Islamic State which spat in the face of the American nation by executing some of its citizens.
Ibrahim Karagul in Turkey's Yeni Safak
We know that those who say no operation against IS can succeed without Turkey actually mean Turkish ground forces.
Ibrahim Kiras in Turkey's Star
One shouldn't forget that the USA, by hitting the IS, will anger the Sunni Arabs.
There is probably a red line out there just waiting to be crossed...
"ISIL is not Islamic..." BHO.
Wonder what BHO was trying to achieve by saying "ISIL" is not Islamic?
Was that his interpretation of Islam or the Shariah's interpretation?
I'm inclined to think he's either naive, or he's practicing al-Taqiyya.
1) Attempt to create a Caliphate - check.
2) Set up a theocracy under Shariah law - check.
3) Require Kafir to convert, pay the Jizya, or be killed - check.
4) Take women prisoners as sex slaves - check.
5) Behead Kafir to strike fear into the infidels - check.
Just what tenet of Islam is "ISIL" violating?
Snaquebite
09-11-2014, 16:13
"ISIL is not Islamic..." BHO
He refuses to call them ISIS.....There's a reason for that.
Although I'm not 100% certain, I'm in the Taqiyya camp simply for the reason you suggest. Only a Muslim would not recognize the existence of Israel...
Badger52
09-11-2014, 17:11
New name for POTUS. President IHOP because he has so many waffles :DNice.
BMT (RIP)
09-12-2014, 04:49
Since retiring in early last year after serving as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Allen has been serving as an advisor to the Obama administration, and Secretary of State John Kerry in particular.
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/09/gen-allen-will-coordinate-fight-against-islamic-state/93926/?oref=defenseone_today_nl
BMT
I wounder if he'll get 44 countries on board with his effort or if he'll have to "go it alone" like Bush did?
Lat I counted Obama had around 10.
So I am confused...
If "ISIS isn't Islamic"
...what exactly do the letters stand for again?
Badger52
09-12-2014, 05:38
I wounder if he'll get 44 countries on board with his effort or if he'll have to "go it alone" like Bush did?
Lat I counted Obama had around 10.It's all in the counting (the Chicago way). The list furnished to the press will likely contain "good intentions w/o actual contributions" - kinda like winning a Nobel Peace Prize.
Lie of the Year 2013..."if you like your plan you can keep your plan...if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor..."
Lie of the Year 2014...
"...ISIS isn't Islamic."
Since retiring in early last year after serving as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Allen has been serving as an advisor to the Obama administration, and Secretary of State John Kerry in particular.
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/09/gen-allen-will-coordinate-fight-against-islamic-state/93926/?oref=defenseone_today_nl
BMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1zDnmiSG9c
Remember this clown?
Sounds like the right person for the job............
FML, seriously.........this has to be some sort of fucking misinformation campaign.
Some recent comments by Gen. Allen regarding ISIS.
Gen. Allen: Destroy the Islamic State Now
Gen. John Allen (Ret.) August 20, 2014
Defense One Journal
The brutal murder of the brave American journalist James Foley is meant to directly terrorize the world’s media, the international community, and the United States. If all the actions of the Islamic State, or IS, to date weren’t sufficiently reprehensible, this act and the potential for other similar acts will snap American attention with laser-like focus onto the real danger IS poses to the existence of Iraq, the order of the region and to the homelands of Europe and America.
Make no mistake, the abomination of IS is a clear and present danger to the U.S. The only question really is whether the U.S. and its allies and partners will act decisively now while they can still shape events to destroy IS, an act that seems increasingly self-obvious.
President Barack Obama, our commander-in-chief, was right to order airstrikes on IS elements in northern Iraq. He was also right to order humanitarian relief for the Yazidis and other desperate Iraqi minority elements fleeing the onslaught of IS elements, but until the grisly death of James Foley much of the American public was only beginning to awaken to what IS is and the enormity of the threat it represents.
The U.S. is now firmly in the game and remains the only nation on the planet capable of exerting the kind of strategic leadership, influence and strike capacity to deal with IS. It is also the only power capable of organizing a coalition’s reaction to this regional and international threat. As a general officer commanding at several levels in the region, I can say with certainty that what we’re facing in northern Iraq is only partly a crisis about Iraq. It is about the region and potentially the world as we know it.
Weeks ago I called for this group to be attacked in the manner only the U.S. can undertake – suddenly, swiftly, surgically – to deal it a setback and to begin the systematic dismantlement of this scourge. As we consider this threat there are some important points to consider that give urgency to the imperative to act:
The Islamic State is executing a well-thought-out campaign design intended to dismantle both Syria and Iraq and install in their place an Islamic Caliphate. Though we’re keyed into it now, we missed it initially.
IS is a well-organized entity, almost certainly supported by former Saddamist regime elements whose hand can be seen in the campaign design now unfolding. This group is not a flash in the pan that will go away of its own accord or if we don’t poke at it. It is not benign. IS is reinforced by Sunni tribal elements from Syria and Iraq, and most alarmingly, is aided by a witch’s brew of foreign fighters from Chechens to Uighurs to Pashtuns, but also including Europeans and Americans. The Caliphate’s Western recruits will be felt in the European and American homelands for years to come regardless of the fate IS and its cause.
IS is quite well heeled. It is flush with recently captured American and Iraqi ordnance and armored vehicles, and awash with dollars lifted from Iraqi banks along its route of advance. It is demonstrating an alarming ability to absorb heavier and more complex military capabilities and put them to work against their erstwhile opponents. IS is able to demonstrate substantial battlefield innovation and agility — two qualities none of us can afford as IS continues its forward movement and attempts to consolidate.
So how should we “see” IS and what is this terrorist group up to?
Within its means, IS is waging total war on the region and its “unbelieving and apostate” populations. Just ask the Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, Shi’a and some Sunni populations who’ve been unlucky enough to be along the IS axis of advance. Before our very eyes, it is transitioning from being a non-state actor into a state-like entity. The leadership of the so-called Caliphate has been clear that it will focus on Western and American targets if given the chance to consolidate its holdings into the so-called Caliphate. It’s worth remembering the Taliban provided the perfect platform from which al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., and the Taliban were and remain as cavemen in comparison to IS. As well, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has attacked the U.S. at least twice, and they are a mere shadow of IS. Worse, the IS foot soldiers holding U.K., European, and American passports number in the hundreds. We need to prepare ourselves for what this will mean. Foley’s executioner spoke with a British accent.
So what now?
IS must be destroyed and we must move quickly to pressure its entire “nervous system,” break it up, and destroy its pieces. As I said, the president was absolutely right to strike IS, to send advisors to Iraq, to arm the Kurds, to relieve the suffering of the poor benighted people of the region, to seek to rebuild functional and non-sectarian Iraqi Security Forces and to call for profound change in the political equation and relationships in Baghdad.
The whole questionable debate on American war weariness aside, the U.S. military is not war weary and is fully capable of attacking and reducing IS throughout the depth of its holdings, and we should do it now, but supported substantially by our traditional allies and partners, especially by those in the region who have the most to give – and the most to lose – if the Islamic State’s march continues. It’s their fight as much as ours, for the effects of IS terror will certainly spread in the region with IS seeking soft spots for exploitation.
American and allied efforts must operate against IS from Mosul in the east across its entire depth to western Syria. In that regard, “sovereignty” in the context of its airspace and territory is not something we should grant President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Syria is a failed state neither capable of acting as a sovereign entity nor deserving the respect of one. We cannot leave IS a safe haven anywhere or a secure support platform from which to regroup or enjoy sanctuary across the now-irrelevant frontier between Syria and Iraq.
Complete article at link below.
Gen. John R. Allen, USMC (Ret.) led Marines in Anbar Province and was commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. He is a distinguished fellow of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/08/gen-allen-destroy-islamic-state-now/92012/