|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 20, 2015 1:23:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 20, 2015 8:21:19 GMT -8
You chicken hawks keep repeating the same drivel. Do you really think that the American people would stand for more 'boots on the ground' and Americans dying by the hundreds or thousands? I think not, even if you wish it so. Let the Arabs solve it themselves or have the Iranians do it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2015 9:41:16 GMT -8
You chicken hawks keep repeating the same drivel. Do you really think that the American people would stand for more 'boots on the ground' and Americans dying by the hundreds or thousands? I think not, even if you wish it so. Let the Arabs solve it themselves or have the Iranians do it. Of course that is the narrative when you have no suggestions for your brain dead President and his lame administration. We need special forces on the ground to help with air strikes. Real are strikes, not the limp dork thing that is going on now. I would kind of go along with let the Arabs solve it if nukes were not on the horizon and Israel at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 20, 2015 12:23:03 GMT -8
You chicken hawks keep repeating the same drivel. Do you really think that the American people would stand for more 'boots on the ground' and Americans dying by the hundreds or thousands? I think not, even if you wish it so. Let the Arabs solve it themselves or have the Iranians do it. I am curious about that last line. Do you see no outcome resulting from your prescription that would end up doing great damage to the U.S.? Would you be comfortable with Iranian domination of the Persian Gulf area? Or how about the consolidation of Iraq and Iran into a stable state that eventually would demand and quite possible get recognition from other nations? How about such an Islamic State asking for membership in the U.N.? Would you be okay with that? On that last point, how would U.N. membership for a country that not only murders thousands but actually brags about it, be different from a Nazi Germany that had won WWII or had achieved a stalemate and armistice? Would you be okay with a Juden-rein Germany getting a seat in the General Assembly, and perhaps even a periodic seat in the Security Council? In other words, do you seriously think that allowing matters to take there course in the Middle East would be risk-free for America? AzWm PS: If you do not know what Juden-rein means, I suggest that you study history a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on May 20, 2015 14:53:13 GMT -8
Hmmm, isn't this the same president who has been described by several White House insiders as disengaged or disinterested during foreign policy briefings?
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on May 20, 2015 16:33:14 GMT -8
Yep.this Piece of Totally Useless $#!+ doesn't give a rats ass about foreign policy and putting together a plan. In 2007 George Bush predicted exactly what is going on today in Iraq (  )if we had no plan. And Barry said Iraq is stable and secure. And Biden saying that Iraq and Yemen are the shining success stories of this administration. Life is a Bitch. Don't elect one.. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 25, 2015 11:48:40 GMT -8
Let's dispense with the Chicken Hawk rhetoric, please. There is no wide-spread call for the insertion of a couple of U.S. army divisions into Iraq. McCain is calling for more advisors, personnel who could act as spotters to make our air campaign more effective. Even he is not suggesting that we should send in whole brigades or divisions.
It's pretty obvious that the goal of the POTUS's is to rope-a-dope the anti-ISIS issue for 18 more months and then hand the mess over to Hillary Clinton or whoever else is elected in '16. He is doing the bare minimum possible without being accused to doing nothing. He would prefer to do nothing, but he understands that doing nothing runs political risks.
What he should do is make a major statement to the nation. His introduction should be something like this:
My fellow Americans, it is clear that the situation in Iraq and Syria has reached a critical stage. It is also clear that the war is trending in favor of the Islamic State in both countries. Just as an eventual Soviet victory on the Eastern Front was predictable as early as mid-1943, so now is it predictable that at the current rate, ISIL will ultimately control all of Syria and probably half of Iraq. Only by the return of many thousands of U.S. troops there will ISIL be defeated, and even their defeat may not prove decisive unless, as in Korea and Germany, we maintain strong forces there for decades to come. Since the chances of saving the integrity of Iraq and Syria are uncertain, even with the best efforts of our best forces, long-term success will be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, we must not default at this critical point in history, as we did not default in World War Two and Korea.
Then he should conclude with a statement of what he proposes to do about the situation. I think there are two defensible courses of action.
(1) Therefore, I have decided that we will withdraw all military personnel and other military assets from the Persian Gulf area and the Levant. Those people in the region will be left to settle the matter among themselves. This policy does not guarantee that the eventual outcome will be beneficial to U.S. interests around the world. Nevertheless, I have concluded that the American people would rather run that risk than send more men and women to fight in that region. All our forces will be withdrawn within three months.
2) I realize that the American people are weary of sending our men and women into harms way. Only with the greatest reluctance do I now declare that such is the only acceptable course of action. I propose to send a force of (exact number should be the lowest that military advisors believe sufficient) fighting men and women to help the Iraqi government to break the back of the would-be Islamic State. To allow events to take their own course then would almost certainly end in a situation so negative for the U.S. that we would for decades be asking why the President could not see that military action was necessary. Our goal will be to destroy ISIL's forces in Iraq and drive the remnants back onto Syria. We will not have as a secondary goal invasion of Syrian territory, but we will undertake an effective air campaign against ISIL's safe havens in that country. Furthermore, we will equip and train as many Syrians as possible to fight both ISIS and the Syrian government. If Syrian forces stand down and stop attacking those seeking to overthrow the brutal dictator Assad, we will take no further action. If those forces continue their current campaign, we will undertake an air campaign that will obliterate any Syrian government forces. And when I say air campaign, I do not mean a handful of sorties per week. I mean hundreds of sorties every day, a level of destruction so far not felt by ISIS or, should it become necessary, the Syrian government. Our goal is to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own two feet while, at the same, denying Iran to turn Iraq into a wholly-controlled client state.
Frankly, I do not expect Barack Obama to make either statement. Instead, I expect him to persist in doing essentially nothing. Well, nothing is not quite the word, but what we are doing will never stop ISIS (by the way, why does the administration continue to say ISIL?). Also speaking frankly, what he is doing (and has been doing apparently against the advice of his military advisors) is likely to lead to the absolute worst outcome, which is exactly what another President managed to achieve in Vietnam. (I'm talking about LBJ. . . by the time Nixon had been inaugurated, Walter Cronkite and other opinion makers had convinced the American people that the Tet Offensive had been a defeat rather than a victory that had crushed the Viet Cong*.)
What the President should do is expressed by the old expression fish or cut bait. If destroying the would-be Islamic State (and, one hopes, conducting a Nuremberg style trial to punish those who have proudly been murdering innocent men, women, and children) is critical, if doing nothing runs enormous risks for the U.S. and its interests, then the Chief Executive should say so, explain why that is so, and call upon the country to make the necessary sacrifices. If, on the other hand, the POTUS believes that our interests are better served by risking whatever outcome the Persian Gulf actors fashion on their own, then a complete withdrawal within a short period of time should be announced and carried out.
It's a hell of a mess, but dealing forthrightly with such messes is what a President is elected to do.
AzWm
PS: Let's say that there been television in World War II. I wonder what would have happened had Walter Cronkite and his ilk that been telecasting reports from Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge in December, 1944. I case you don't know too much about that battle, things were looking pretty grim as the 101sth Airborne Division and part of the 10th Armored were surrounded and battered by overwhelming German armored forces. Do you suppose that some would have seen those struggling, freezing Americans running low on ammunition and declared that the war was lost?)
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 25, 2015 12:37:18 GMT -8
Joshua Katz, former Ranger and former CIA operative, was on TV today and said that only U.S. (and possibly European) forces will be able to defeat ISISS.
Another news item today reports that ISIS forces are slaughtering civilians in Ramadi, including the beheading of children. Imagine a success of ISIS to the extent they have been able to establish a secure, sovereign state. Some countries may start recognizing the IS as a legitimate nation worthy of membership in the U.N. Frankly, I suspect that the U.N. would eventually recognize the Islamic State, welcoming them into the family of nations. Instead of being put on trial as war criminals, the leaders of the Islamic State would be congratulated and toasted at U.N. galas. Okay, maybe they would decline the champagne.
I wonder if whoever was POTUS at that moment would talk about trying to negotiate some sort of deal with the IS in hopes that they could thereby be encouraged to act like civilized people instead of monsters eager to slaughter anyone standing in their way. I suspect such an effort would be as futile as hoping that a pointless nuclear treaty with Iran would suddenly make the Mullahs tolerant of other religions and fans of Jeffersonian democracy.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 25, 2015 17:07:04 GMT -8
Do you fancy yourself a speechwriter this week? Let's dispense with the Chicken Hawk rhetoric, please. There is no wide-spread call for the insertion of a couple of U.S. army divisions into Iraq. But then... Joshua Katz, former Ranger and former CIA operative, was on TV today and said that only U.S. (and possibly European) forces will be able to defeat ISISS. As a practical matter... "Our goal is to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own two feet..." was our goal since 2003. We've successfully determined that it is not possible for us to accomplish this in the current climate. No, it isn't, sorry. There are plenty of resurgent neocons that want to revert policy to the disastrous 2000's-era thinking... Thankfully they are no longer in a position of power/influence. When you say things like this it sounds like you're headed off the rails. Hard to take seriously, at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on May 26, 2015 6:41:22 GMT -8
If Americans were not so easily frightened by Jihadi monsters underneath the bed, and not so eager to celebrate itself with a vision of military supremacy, we would get out while we still can. Kind of reminds me of Commie Pinko paranoia of the sixties that led to Vietnam.
Every country in the middle east is run by brutal dictators. It's ludicrous to think we could make a difference for the better. The best course is to get out and let them kill each other off while shoring up our own borders and anti-missile defense. Actually our involvement only brings more of them over here. Look at the Chaldeans(Iraqi Christians) in El Cajon. I have friends in El Cajon that complain about their aggressive nature while standing in line for EDT handouts and also them living off of Sec 8 housing subsidies..
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on May 27, 2015 13:59:02 GMT -8
If Americans were not so easily frightened by Jihadi monsters underneath the bed, and not so eager to celebrate itself with a vision of military supremacy, we would get out while we still can. Kind of reminds me of Commie Pinko paranoia of the sixties that led to Vietnam. Every country in the middle east is run by brutal dictators. It's ludicrous to think we could make a difference for the better. The best course is to get out and let them kill each other off while shoring up our own borders and anti-missile defense. Actually our involvement only brings more of them over here. Look at the Chaldeans in El Cajon. I have friends in El Cajon that complain about their aggressive nature and of them living off of Sec 8 housing subsidies all the time. Sounds. Likes good plan for our inner cities. Withdraw all the cops, let them kill each other off, and save all that money.  Just kidding!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 27, 2015 14:10:37 GMT -8
Sounds. Likes good plan for our inner cities. Withdraw all the cops, let them kill each other off, and save all that money. Just kidding!!!! Are you kidding? Suburbanite, aging ex-HS-football-player cops can't control themselves when it comes to killing "them" off themselves! Imagine the higher income bracket they'd have to oppress just to quell the boredom. ?? Just kidding!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 23:18:00 GMT -8
Do you fancy yourself a speechwriter this week? Let's dispense with the Chicken Hawk rhetoric, please. There is no wide-spread call for the insertion of a couple of U.S. army divisions into Iraq. But then... Joshua Katz, former Ranger and former CIA operative, was on TV today and said that only U.S. (and possibly European) forces will be able to defeat ISISS. As a practical matter... "Our goal is to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own two feet..." was our goal since 2003. We've successfully determined that it is not possible for us to accomplish this in the current climate. No, it isn't, sorry. There are plenty of resurgent neocons that want to revert policy to the disastrous 2000's-era thinking... Thankfully they are no longer in a position of power/influence. When you say things like this it sounds like you're headed off the rails. Hard to take seriously, at the very least.
Well, if I am a speech writer I must not be a very good one, since I guess I didn't make by point very well. What I was trying to say was that the President should choose between two very different courses of action rather than trying to chart an in-between course that may be worse than the two extremes. The first extreme is just getting out of Iraq. I think that almost certainly guarantees that we will see a long (think in terms of years) sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. That may happen in any case. Many in this country seem to favor that alternative. And I can't say that such action might not be the less bad of the options.
the other alternative, and this one Obama will never pick, is to send maybe 40,000 to 50,000 troops to Iraq tasked to drive the ISIS forces back to Syria. At the same time, our air forces could start to run hundreds of sorties a day instead of a dozen or so which is the current rate. I have no doubt that our forces could defeat Iraq. What follows then is the problem. It's a hell of a mess.
By the way, the quote you referenced ("I propose to send a force of . . . ") was what I was suggesting the President might say to the public if he chose to send enough forces to be able to defeat ISIS in Iraq. I was not suggesting that I would do that if I were POTUS. What would I do? Probably send arms directly to the Kurds and those Sunni tribes that are willing to fight ISIS. Right now we are sending arms to what passes as the central government, and they are just sitting on them. No doubt our President knows full well that's why those two groups are not getting the arms they are begging for. He keeps sending arms to Baghdad because he does not want to annoy Iran, but that is really a foolish concern. Iran is not going to play nice no matter what we do short of the entire U.S. converting to Shia brand of Islam.
As I said, it's a hell of a mess.
AzWm
|
|
)if we had no plan. And Barry said Iraq is stable and secure. And Biden saying that Iraq and Yemen are the shining success stories of this administration.
