Doomed to fail?

By Jennifer Rubin September 16 at 11:00 AM

The president’s strategy for “degrading and destroying” the Islamic State almost seemed designed to fail. Although the U.S. already has over a thousand troops on the ground, he’s determined foreclosing the possibility of “boots on the ground.” With a lack of U.S. troop commitment and a shocking attempt to drag in our Sunni allies’ arch nemesis Iran into the mix, is it any wonder that he is not being inundated with offers of troops and firepower from a coalition he promised would be broad? The Wall Street Journal reports:

ensitive to Sunni Arab states’ concerns, Secretary of State John Kerry and other U.S. officials have publicly ruled out in recent days cooperating militarily with Tehran and Damascus in rooting out Islamic State, though Washington acknowledged private discussions have been held with Iran’s rulers.

Such a stance raises the possibility that Iran’s Islamist rulers and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime could attempt to sabotage U.S. military operations, as they did in Iraq in the years following the George W. Bush administration’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Perhaps Democrats might revise their assessment of the Bush coalition that took out Saddam Hussein. (The Post editorial board observes: “Though derided by some as a ‘unilateral’ U.S. action, the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was supported by troops from 39 countries, nine of which deployed more than 1,000 soldiers.”) The magnitude of Bush’s diplomatic accomplishment as contrasted with Obama’s puny results should remind us that American leadership and credibility are essential in getting allies on board."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/09/16/a-strategic-reality-check-how-to-win-a-war/?hpid=z3

Sal wrote:Jennifer Rubin?

Are you friggin' serious?

That she would even say one word about conflicts in the Middle East is the height of hubris.

If she says it's doomed to fail, it just might work.

Don't like the messenger even though the message is clearly correct? Maybe you'll like this one better: Katrina vanden Heuvel.

But I notice you ignored that thread, as expected.

GOP 2014! The recession never ended! Unemployment is over 20%! The ACA will cause everyone to lose their health insurance! bin Laden is alive and well! We're really just making shit up but our base isn't bright enough to know the difference! GOP 2014!

boards of FL wrote:GOP 2014!  The recession never ended!  Unemployment is over 20%!  The ACA will cause everyone to lose their health insurance!  bin Laden is alive and well!  We're really just making shit up but our base isn't bright enough to know the difference!  GOP 2014!

Control C

Control V

Saves you a bunch of time entering your "posts" doesn't it?

Good thing for you the liberal base is bought and paid for by tax payer dollars. They wouldn't even vote if not for that. Register now as a Dumbobrat and get you EBT card at the same time! Shoot, we might even give you two or three!

I call it designed to fail... but whatever. How long before the left gets tired of supporting military adventurism?

Lol... just kidding. I'm sure it's already being renamed something palatable to bypass the gag reflex. Yea team..!!

Oh... I'll go ahead and throw in a "WAR CRIMINAL" for the inevitable bush did it yack.

That sounds like it was written under the direction of John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:GOP 2014!  The recession never ended!  Unemployment is over 20%!  The ACA will cause everyone to lose their health insurance!  bin Laden is alive and well!  We're really just making shit up but our base isn't bright enough to know the difference!  GOP 2014!

Control C

Control V

Saves you a bunch of time entering your "posts" doesn't it?

Good thing for you the liberal base is bought and paid for by tax payer dollars. They wouldn't even vote if not for that. Register now as a Dumbobrat and get you EBT card at the same time! Shoot, we might even give you two or three!

You just perfectly epitomized my point and you don't even realize it.

Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant. Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran. This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures. I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach. It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

His approach is a pre-election approach. Doing something that will have zero effects on ISIS....but Obama can claim "no boots on the ground.". Of course you do realize we have boots on the ground.....maybe they are wearing tennis shoes....but make no mistake we are there.

Dempsey is setting the wheels in motion for boots on the ground post election.


"Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that he would recommend deploying U.S. ground troops with the Iraqi army to combat the Islamic State if local forces fail to make progress under cover of U.S. airstrikes.
The White House has ruled out "boots on the ground," but Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that his recommendations to President Obama if the current strategy doesn't work "may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.".............
...........If it came to a recommendation of ground troops, Dempsey suggested that the first units likely would beSpecial Forces troops operating forward with the Iraqis to call in airstrikes."


I would hope the special forces ground troops, currently in Iraq, are coordinating surgical airstrikes using available intel. If not, this is a serious waste of money and manpower.

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

His approach is a pre-election approach. Doing something that will have zero effects on ISIS....but Obama can claim "no boots on the ground.". Of course you do realize we have boots on the ground.....maybe they are wearing tennis shoes....but make no mistake we are there.

Dempsey is setting the wheels in motion for boots on the ground post election.


"Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that he would recommend deploying U.S. ground troops with the Iraqi army to combat the Islamic State if local forces fail to make progress under cover of U.S. airstrikes.
The White House has ruled out "boots on the ground," but Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that his recommendations to President Obama if the current strategy doesn't work "may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.".............
...........If it came to a recommendation of ground troops, Dempsey suggested that the first units likely would beSpecial Forces troops operating forward with the Iraqis to call in airstrikes."


I would hope the special forces ground troops, currently in Iraq, are coordinating surgical airstrikes using available intel. If not, this is a serious waste of money and manpower.

Of course we have troops there . . . . it is becoming a war of semantics. I feel like Obama was saying that no boots on the ground was saying there would not be the Big Red One, the Screaming Eagles or whatever . . . no entire brigades of field combat troops . . .

I watched Gen. Dempsey today on C-Span and he seemed to be completely supportive of Obama's plan.

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

His approach is a pre-election approach. Doing something that will have zero effects on ISIS....but Obama can claim "no boots on the ground.". Of course you do realize we have boots on the ground.....maybe they are wearing tennis shoes....but make no mistake we are there.

Dempsey is setting the wheels in motion for boots on the ground post election.


"Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that he would recommend deploying U.S. ground troops with the Iraqi army to combat the Islamic State if local forces fail to make progress under cover of U.S. airstrikes.
The White House has ruled out "boots on the ground," but Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that his recommendations to President Obama if the current strategy doesn't work "may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.".............
...........If it came to a recommendation of ground troops, Dempsey suggested that the first units likely would beSpecial Forces troops operating forward with the Iraqis to call in airstrikes."


I would hope the special forces ground troops, currently in Iraq, are coordinating surgical airstrikes using available intel. If not, this is a serious waste of money and manpower.

Of course we have troops there . . . . it is becoming a war of semantics.  I feel like Obama was saying that no boots on the ground was saying there would not be the Big Red One, the Screaming Eagles or whatever . . . no entire brigades of field combat troops . . .

I watched Gen. Dempsey today on C-Span and he seemed to be completely supportive of Obama's plan.

Of course he is.....he is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Like I said, he his paving the way for the post election "boots on the ground"....... more boots than what we currently have in Iraq.

Yep Dempsey is an Obama yes man.... Bootlicking loser

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

There is nothing "complex" about people chopping off the head of Americans and other foreigners on video. Nothing complex about mass murders and mass graves. If you think that is complex, it does say a lot about you.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

There is nothing "complex" about people chopping off the head of Americans and other foreigners on video. Nothing complex about mass murders and mass graves. If you think that is complex, it does say a lot about you.

It also says alot about you... that you would commit our blood and treasure in a military adventure to get a ghost state.

Look at the problems israel has with humas... and they develope inside intelligence. These armies don't wear uniforms.

Unfortunately obama tipped his hand. Any chance of dealing a severe blow is limited now.. and that wouldn't end it.

Humans are supposed to be good at recognizing patterns.

Th Dude wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:Why anyone here cares what some editorial board thinks is irrelevant.  Reading the left and right posts it leads me to wonder whether the right is now cheering for ISIS or Iran.  This is a very complex set of circumstances with competing camps, ancient and continuing religious angst and America is tasked to sort it all out? Whatever path President Obama takes it will come with risks and the enemies of the President will certainly be there to point out the failures.  I do not have any idea what the best course is but I do appreciate Obama's measured and reluctant approach.  It is extremely difficult to accept that there is a modicum of sanity that America is asked to do what the neighboring countries are not willing to do . . . we put up the money, we provide the weapons, we provide the training and now we must again provide the blood of our troops . . . . . a very very difficult judgement but one which we as forum members can sit on the sidelines and criticize . . . . it's what we do.    

There is nothing "complex" about people chopping off the head of Americans and other foreigners on video.  Nothing complex about mass murders and mass graves.  If you think that is complex, it does say a lot about you.

It also says alot about you... that you would commit our blood and treasure in a military adventure to get a ghost state.

Look at the problems israel has with humas...  and they develope inside intelligence. These armies don't wear uniforms.

Unfortunately obama tipped his hand. Any chance of dealing a severe blow is limited now.. and that wouldn't end it.

Humans are supposed to be good at recognizing patterns.

Like you said about two weeks ago . . . it's a clusterfuck!