Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on August 30, 2014, 07:41:55 AM
-
Of all the things I loath about our current president his handling of the middle east is pretty far down the list of my grievances.
This article articulates to some degree my feelings on the subject.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/actually-obama-does-have-a-strategy-in-the-middle-east/379368/
So was Obama more dovish than Clinton or more hawkish? The answer is both. On the one hand, Obama has shown a deep reluctance to use military force to try to solve Middle Eastern problems that don’t directly threaten American lives. He’s proved more open to a diplomatic compromise over Iran’s nuclear program than many on Capitol Hill because he’s more reticent about going to war with Tehran. He’s been reluctant to arm Syria’s rebels or bomb Basher al-Assad because he doesn’t want to get sucked into that country’s civil war. After initially giving David Petraeus and company the yellow light to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, he’s wound down America’s ground war against the Taliban. Even on Libya, he proved more reluctant to intervene than the leaders of Britain and France.
On the other hand, he’s proven ferocious about using military force to kill suspected terrorists. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he’s basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don’t focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don’t really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air. Compared with George W. Bush, he’s dramatically expanded drone strikes, even though they’re unilateral, legally dubious, and morally disturbing. And, as promised, he sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden without Pakistan’s permission, even though his vice president and secretary of defense feared the risks were too high.
-
Ummmmm, he did arm the Syrian rebels. That why Ambassador Chris Stevens was meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Benghazi. To send "surplus" Libyan military hardware from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels (aka ISIS). Hence the CIA annex in Benghazi.
Benghazi makes Iran-Contra look like a kids lemonade stand operating without a city permit.
-
Obama has a strategy ???
-
Obama has a strategy ???
Yes! To play more golf.
His best strategy is to play a game with no strategy.
Very Zen of him.
-
Obama has a strategy ???
......So did George Armstrong Custer ....... [tinfoil]
-
The Atlantic piece is running interference for BHO and putting the best possible light on his actions. Few of BHO's political opponents will read the Atlnatic and is 75% aimed at morale-boosting for his supporters, 25% at keeping left-moderate folk from bolting to the right.
-
To be fair, not going along with the madness that Blair et al were banging on about - attacking Iran - is an achievement of sorts.
Why he is determined not to "put boots on the ground" against ISIS is a mystery to me though, if you want to beat them then there will never be a better time to do it than now, whilst they are all playing at being an army.
-
......So did George Armstrong Custer ....... [tinfoil]
Obama's strategy to "fundamentaly change America" seems to be working.
-
Re: The Obama Middle East Strategy
Ill take "what is Obama playing with himself for $500".
-
To be fair, not going along with the madness that Blair et al were banging on about - attacking Iran - is an achievement of sorts.
Why he is determined not to "put boots on the ground" against ISIS is a mystery to me though, if you want to beat them then there will never be a better time to do it than now, whilst they are all playing at being an army.
Why do that when he was trying to arm them and want to fight with them in Syria?
I notice no one ever talks about arming Christians over there.
-
Obama's strategy to "fundamentaly change America" seems to be working.
Correct. Sadly, many of his critics still think he actually wants to do what's best for America, but is simply inept.
. . . I notice no one ever talks about arming Christians over there.
An astute observation - you're not quite alone in making it.
-
Well, I know we don't want to help the PKK too much since they are still marked a terrorist group and Turkey would not like that. I'm sure that a few very experienced boots are already on the ground. My worry is we will get some limited ground presence built up, but one without proper support. Even in the age of satellites and drones using air support as your only lifeline is iffy. I hope that whatever troops end up there have heavy weapons, armor, tube artillery and the free authorization to use them. Don't need the PR of a captured group of Americans, whether it is 4 or 100. Or rather since we see where capture leads, we don't need a "Crap, that's a lot of Indians" moment.
-
Well, I know we don't want to help the PKK too much since they are still marked a terrorist group and Turkey would not like that. I'm sure that a few very experienced boots are already on the ground. My worry is we will get some limited ground presence built up, but one without proper support. Even in the age of satellites and drones using air support as your only lifeline is iffy. I hope that whatever troops end up there have heavy weapons, armor, tube artillery and the free authorization to use them. Don't need the PR of a captured group of Americans, whether it is 4 or 100. Or rather since we see where capture leads, we don't need a "Crap, that's a lot of Indians" moment.
Since when did we let them being a terrorist group stop us from helping them? Look at ISIS/ISIL now, they were the rebel faction in Syria that we helped out.
I think if we are going to put boots on the ground we will wind up killing a lot of civilians because just as soon as the first BDE or larger size element is on ground in force ISIS/ISIL will head for the hills and start attacking in 4-5 man teams and with the ROE that will be in place a lot of innocent people will be killed not counting our own people.
I don't want boots on the ground unless people are ready to see a scorched earth policy.
-
Since when did we let them being a terrorist group stop us from helping them? Look at ISIS/ISIL now, they were the rebel faction in Syria that we helped out.
I think if we are going to put boots on the ground we will wind up killing a lot of civilians because just as soon as the first BDE or larger size element is on ground in force ISIS/ISIL will head for the hills and start attacking in 4-5 man teams and with the ROE that will be in place a lot of innocent people will be killed not counting our own people.
I don't want boots on the ground unless people are ready to see a scorched earth policy.
It would be a classic blunder ;)
-
Ummmmm, he did arm the Syrian rebels. That why Ambassador Chris Stevens was meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Benghazi. To send "surplus" Libyan military hardware from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels (aka ISIS). Hence the CIA annex in Benghazi.
No.
The Syrian rebels that the USA armed are now fighting ISIS... and have been fighting ISIS for monthss:
Here. (http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-fighting-conflict-437/)
-
Ummm, yes. From the link that you posted:
Initially the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were fighting on the side of the moderates to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad in a conflict that began in March of 2011.
And from that bastion of conservative rumour mongering, the NY Times (do note the date):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/africa/in-a-turnabout-syria-rebels-get-libyan-weapons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-
This still doesn't bring up the conclusion that you are aiming at : that all the Syrian rebels are ISIS and that supporting any Syrian rebels = arming ISIS.
-
This still doesn't bring up the conclusion that you are aiming at : that all the Syrian rebels are ISIS and that supporting any Syrian rebels = arming ISIS.
That's not what I said. You have jumped to that conclusion. ISIS (initially) were Syrian rebels, but not all Syrian rebels were ISIS.