The GOP is all about jut being in power so they can make their true constituents, the ultra wealthy and corporate America, as rich as possible; while taking as many rights and benefits away from the American Public as possible. It appears we are stuck in an endless secretive war throughout all of North Africa and the Mideast, with no requirement for any real disclosure to the American People as to how this enormously deadly and expensive no -win military exercise is being handled. Congress should expressly deny authorization for ANY military action in the Mideast. Its a mess. Let the people who live there and have slaughtered each other for centuries sort it out. I'd rather make sure I get my Social Security check.
Moreover, it is the height of recklessness to let in more Syrian migrants. The people who truly were desperate to get out are already in camps in surrounding countries. As the NYT reported. this new desperate wave of benefit shopping migrants were primarily Assad supporters who obviously benefitted from his barbarism. Now, they realize they may have backed the wrong side. We have no idea how many terrorists lurk in this group, who in general have been taught to hate our country all their lives.
Russia is more than willing to ruin its national treasury and the quality of life of its citizens to join this no-win fight. Let them do it - alone - and relive the nightmare the Soviet Union lived when it invaded Afghanistan.
Moreover, it is the height of recklessness to let in more Syrian migrants. The people who truly were desperate to get out are already in camps in surrounding countries. As the NYT reported. this new desperate wave of benefit shopping migrants were primarily Assad supporters who obviously benefitted from his barbarism. Now, they realize they may have backed the wrong side. We have no idea how many terrorists lurk in this group, who in general have been taught to hate our country all their lives.
Russia is more than willing to ruin its national treasury and the quality of life of its citizens to join this no-win fight. Let them do it - alone - and relive the nightmare the Soviet Union lived when it invaded Afghanistan.
5
Four or five American trained fighters battling ISIS in Syria? Obviously, the rest have fled to Germany. That's what you get after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "moderate" rebels. We should get together with Russia and hammer out a plan to defeat ISIS before it's too late.
3
This story presents shades of military reporting on the Vietnam war. If the publicly released success bulletins out of Saigon had been even remotely reflective of the truth, that wholly unnecessary war would have ended in a rapid American victory, with tens of thousands American lives saved.
Now we have a Congress that refuses to actor to take any responsibility for its abject failure. That said, President Obama shares in the blame. He is Commander-in-Chief who can take military action without congressional approval. He must do so because Congress, including Senator McCain, has long since proven incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role as the legislative branch of government.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Now we have a Congress that refuses to actor to take any responsibility for its abject failure. That said, President Obama shares in the blame. He is Commander-in-Chief who can take military action without congressional approval. He must do so because Congress, including Senator McCain, has long since proven incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role as the legislative branch of government.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Lest we forget, very shortly after Bush appointed Paul Bremer governor of Iraq, he ordered (May, 2003) the Iraqi army disbanded ... a move that put 250,000 young Iraqi men out of a job with no program to assimilate them back into Iraqi society. They ended up out on the streets, angry, and armed—and all but guaranteed the violent chaos to come. They provided a ready supply of trained fighters to support ISIS's aggressive campaign of terror. Bremer's reckless and thoughtless move (prompted it is believed by Cheney) was a very serious mistake costing dearly, a price being paid in spades.
13
The lie is that we are fighting Isis. We are backing so called rebel wars against Syria. We are protecting the heroin industry of Afghanistan. We tried to rip off the oil Iraq and likely have done so through the CIAs proxy, Isis. The Saudis are taking over Yemen to steal their oil. The Israelis are stealing all the Palestinian oil and are going after offshore oil along the coast that would be considered Lebanese and Syrian. If I were the Israelis I wouldn't be so confident. They are in a no win situation. Eventually the rich of Israel will flee, leaving the poor and middle class to die or be conquered. Back to politics in the middle east... Obama is a fool (and I voted for him). He can be played by his generals and is. But Congress agreeing to fund and legitimize a war won't give them control or better results. A weakness of presidents of forty and fifty is that their testosterone is failing. Keeping them excited makes them feel virile because stress increases production of testosterone. It's easy to lead and mislead a person who doesn't understand their own weakness. Better to have a president who chases women, at least he gets his stimulus direct, without killing people.
4
The reason we don't join this war is simple: Its a no-win situation.
Defeat ISIS- You've helped Assad who has used chemical weapons for genocide.
Defeat Assad- You're helping ISIS spread even wider.
Help the moderates? How many "moderates" want to be involved in war?
Supply on weapons- been there- done that- ISIS says "Thank You."
Boots on the ground? Get attacked from all sides- Enemies on all sides.
After securing the peace, how long do the troops remain? Forever probably- during which time Anti-American sentiment gets higher and higher and terrorism skyrockets.
Pick your poison. We don't belong there and maybe we have to let that region burn- just set up help for the refugees.
Defeat ISIS- You've helped Assad who has used chemical weapons for genocide.
Defeat Assad- You're helping ISIS spread even wider.
Help the moderates? How many "moderates" want to be involved in war?
Supply on weapons- been there- done that- ISIS says "Thank You."
Boots on the ground? Get attacked from all sides- Enemies on all sides.
After securing the peace, how long do the troops remain? Forever probably- during which time Anti-American sentiment gets higher and higher and terrorism skyrockets.
Pick your poison. We don't belong there and maybe we have to let that region burn- just set up help for the refugees.
6
Let us toss in a few facts, just for the heck of it. Obama is the President and he, not congress, sets foreign policy as well as military actions. Obama's military might be misleading as well as the Obama state department and the Obama press secretary. Finally, General Austin is black so the Times attack on him is surely motivated by racial hatred. Where is Blow when we really need him?
1
Isnt it common knowledge that the weapons come from Libyas former army and were shipped to Syria with the knowledge or not and help of the CIA? According to the simple idea that to give weapons to the then there enemies of Assad would change the field? We Germans think so and thank you very much for your present. There is only one way out of this and this is to lift the sanctions against Assad and stand behind him united or the time of one united world unter US rule are completely over. That ISIS and whatever enemy of Assad aka the present gouvernement of Syria knows what is right and wrong.
For the past thirty years, our "boots" on the ground have lost to "sneakers" on the ground in nearly every incursion. ISIS can take a high school dropout and turn him into an effective in weeks, which the NVA could in 1969. Before we extend the fantasy of our wonderfully effective fighting forces, as McCain has suggested, by putting more "boots" in play, we should examine the facts. Perhaps the reason Syrian rebels aren't buying our training is that it isn't effective. Just look at our troops, dressed for a football game against committed soccer players, ready to die for a goal. Who do we think has an end game here?
13
Miss statement, engineered numbers, false reports and skewed data has caused tremendous pain to American people. Transparency in intelligence processing and oversight of these reports is perhaps the only way forward, yet every battleground information can't be shared in its entirety with public or across forums. Realistic assessment for military challenges and based on ground realities and outcome measures would enable military and politicians to actually access real challenges in an honest and prudent way.
Training fighters to fight the fighters is a short term solution, we have seen this in Afghanistan, Taliban to push out Russians are still pain the neck for US tax payers. Training Syrians to fight Syrians is a recipe for disaster, it would further de-stabilize the region, Turkey is facing the heat now, Jordan is next, Israel can't be at peace while living in fire all around.
Realistic assessment and approach adapted based on ground realities is the only way to find solutions of political problems on the ground. Military solutions and strategies based on air campaigns and skewed reports have their limitations in the short as well as long run to implement political change by military means. The world has changed therefore, the strategy to start and continue any conflict must also be changed or modified. Accountability of all the organs of state in war is the first step in the right direction.
Training fighters to fight the fighters is a short term solution, we have seen this in Afghanistan, Taliban to push out Russians are still pain the neck for US tax payers. Training Syrians to fight Syrians is a recipe for disaster, it would further de-stabilize the region, Turkey is facing the heat now, Jordan is next, Israel can't be at peace while living in fire all around.
Realistic assessment and approach adapted based on ground realities is the only way to find solutions of political problems on the ground. Military solutions and strategies based on air campaigns and skewed reports have their limitations in the short as well as long run to implement political change by military means. The world has changed therefore, the strategy to start and continue any conflict must also be changed or modified. Accountability of all the organs of state in war is the first step in the right direction.
" Of course, they are unlikely to mention that it was President Bush who negotiated the withdrawals of American troops from Iraq."
I'm no fan of W., and I'm even a Dem, but you cannot be allowed a pass on such dis- ingenuousness.
W. negotiated the withdrawal of American troops AFTER the surge, which Dems mocked, actually succeeded.
Facts on the ground then changed during President Obama's tenure, and the Left wing of my party appears to have forced this President to proceed with a disastrous withdrawal despite Obama's obligation to tell them to stuff it because there were good reasons not to withdraw so quickly.
In the end, we own that precipitous withdrawal. The Times can wish it away, and even blame it on W., but the fault lies with my Democratic party and our President.
I'm no fan of W., and I'm even a Dem, but you cannot be allowed a pass on such dis- ingenuousness.
W. negotiated the withdrawal of American troops AFTER the surge, which Dems mocked, actually succeeded.
Facts on the ground then changed during President Obama's tenure, and the Left wing of my party appears to have forced this President to proceed with a disastrous withdrawal despite Obama's obligation to tell them to stuff it because there were good reasons not to withdraw so quickly.
In the end, we own that precipitous withdrawal. The Times can wish it away, and even blame it on W., but the fault lies with my Democratic party and our President.
8
Blaming Bush for ISIS is inaccurate. It was Obama's like of leadership and typical lack of foresight which prompted him to not leave 10-20,000 troops in Iraq. That would have made a difference. We also see the result of the feckless one's failure to adhere to his own red-line in dealing with Assad. This prolonged the conflict, skewed the balance of power there and provided the opening that Putin has seized. Putin, Russia- you remember them. They were summarily dismissed as threats years before by both Obama and HRC.
4
The military has been lying to the American Public since forever. Cuba, Vietnam (over and over again), Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ISIS, and the list goes on and on. Too many generals, too big a budget, and generally an unprepared force for the battles our inept government decides it wants to fight. How about we cut the budget in half, pull out of the Middle East, reduce forces elsewhere, fix the Vet hospitals, and put some of those guys/gals to work on the border...working security (that part will keep Trump and the other yoyos happy). Obama doesn't have the guts to push back against the military and the Republicans (and he never did). A continued list of weak and ineffective compromises with the other side, and pandering to the military and the hawks. Thankfully he did get the Iran deal done.
2
Until the US gets serious about punishing ISIS and its supporters financially, military actions mean very little.
We know ISIS gets money from OIL. The individuals/countries purchasing the oil should be leaned upon quite heavily by the US. We should also be bombing oil fields and supply lines- not one drop of oil should leave that area.
Killing civilians or individual fighters does nothing to help the US in the long run- but probably helps recruitment for the terrorists.
We know ISIS gets money from OIL. The individuals/countries purchasing the oil should be leaned upon quite heavily by the US. We should also be bombing oil fields and supply lines- not one drop of oil should leave that area.
Killing civilians or individual fighters does nothing to help the US in the long run- but probably helps recruitment for the terrorists.
1
Wars are won or lost in Washington, not in theater. . . . Or the thought occurs to me.
1
This article inaccurate claims that ISIS continues to control the city of Ramadi, which in reality has been predominantly reclaimed by the Iraqi military and security forces.
ISIS must be eliminated. If president Obama is convinced of that, and determined, the nation will follow him. Congress will heed to his requests/demands.
I am very much an Obama supporter. And no one is perfect. But his eagerness to end the US involvement in Iraq made the situation much worase. ISIS keeps capturing territory. Still Obama seems to be undeterred. It's not his legacy that matters, which comes as the net result of all he does as president. His duty, his responsibility as president is what matters. No matter what he has achieved so far, which is a lot, if he doesn't succeed in dealing with ISIS he will go down in history as George W Bush who invaded Iraq without thinking. Whether it's arson or by lightning, you have to put out the blaze.
I am very much an Obama supporter. And no one is perfect. But his eagerness to end the US involvement in Iraq made the situation much worase. ISIS keeps capturing territory. Still Obama seems to be undeterred. It's not his legacy that matters, which comes as the net result of all he does as president. His duty, his responsibility as president is what matters. No matter what he has achieved so far, which is a lot, if he doesn't succeed in dealing with ISIS he will go down in history as George W Bush who invaded Iraq without thinking. Whether it's arson or by lightning, you have to put out the blaze.
3
What else do you expect from a war department that is so wedded to an arms industry that want to continue making profits by selling arms. Keep the wars going! Keep the profits coming in. Of course the higher ups are going to paint a bright picture of whats going on rather than the grim reality.
Bring the troops home. Stop killing innocent people. Deal with the victors when the fighting stops. This preventative war stuff is not what America is about.
Bring the troops home. Stop killing innocent people. Deal with the victors when the fighting stops. This preventative war stuff is not what America is about.
3
We're obviously hamstrung by ISIS being deeply embedded in areas populated by civilians. If we didn't care about blasting non-combatants to smithereens ISIS would already be a footnote.
Sounds like a corrupt bargain was made. Obama gets inaction and military complex gets paid to train nobody an bomb nothing, and all the other groups run free, meanwhile the civilians are beheaded by ISIS, gassed by Assad, exploited by Iran and flee from the bombed remains
2
There is no solution to this thing from the U.S., certainly not from air power. Anything the West does is both resented and welcomed depending on the stand-point.
I think that all the world can hope for given the condition of Syria and Iraq (and Turkey's emphasis on the Kurds) is containment for the foreseeable future, and hope it doesn't become drastically worse.
Some Republican politicians are calling for U.S. 'boots on the ground' again. That is crazy until it's not. The world cannot let ISIS take over, for example, Iraq's oil. But how much of the world would react and not leave it all to the U.S. to take action? Because we probably would go it alone if we got no help.
It's a mess over there because it looks like the only strong leadership is coming from ISIS.
I think that all the world can hope for given the condition of Syria and Iraq (and Turkey's emphasis on the Kurds) is containment for the foreseeable future, and hope it doesn't become drastically worse.
Some Republican politicians are calling for U.S. 'boots on the ground' again. That is crazy until it's not. The world cannot let ISIS take over, for example, Iraq's oil. But how much of the world would react and not leave it all to the U.S. to take action? Because we probably would go it alone if we got no help.
It's a mess over there because it looks like the only strong leadership is coming from ISIS.
The elusive truth about war on ISIS is the fact that we are not trying to eliminate them. We are not calling for sanctions on Individuals or governments that are supporting and or funding them. We are not calling for sanctions on companies that are doing business with them, buying their stolen products be it oil or antiques.
What we as a country is asking our valiant armed forces to do is very different that our government is asking and providing them the resources to accomplish. The Department of State and Department of Defense and CIA are not on the same page re ISIS.
DOS do not want to rock the boat with the Saudis, Qataris, and GCC countries along with our so called NATO member Turkey, they all are supporting, funding, and providing logistic support to ISIS.
How can one expect to actually attack and destroy ISIS when the orders from the civilians are not very clear about our end game? I guess we learnt something from our role in Libya of deposing Qaddafi. We do not have a plan for the day after Assad.
It appears now we are mulling over the fact that the devil you know might be better than the devil who follows; even if we created it. And that is the truth we can’t handle and call it elusive.
What we as a country is asking our valiant armed forces to do is very different that our government is asking and providing them the resources to accomplish. The Department of State and Department of Defense and CIA are not on the same page re ISIS.
DOS do not want to rock the boat with the Saudis, Qataris, and GCC countries along with our so called NATO member Turkey, they all are supporting, funding, and providing logistic support to ISIS.
How can one expect to actually attack and destroy ISIS when the orders from the civilians are not very clear about our end game? I guess we learnt something from our role in Libya of deposing Qaddafi. We do not have a plan for the day after Assad.
It appears now we are mulling over the fact that the devil you know might be better than the devil who follows; even if we created it. And that is the truth we can’t handle and call it elusive.
3
When the political parties place personalities before principles, the political forces will turn to propaganda to protect the personalities.
What is disturbing is that there is no 'rolling thunder' bombing campaign every time a convoy of our equipment rolls down the road. Kill them for real, in large quantities.
3
We are NOT "at war" with ISIS. We are "strategically assaulting" them with the hopes that nothing will be sufficiently standing when the dust settles to threaten us. This is not a US conflict or war, and the US people don't want one. Is it ugly over there? Of course it is. However, the unintended consequences of full military engagement in Syria are almost unfathomable.
The less we do and the more elusively we do it, the less blame we will get in the aftermath. Believe me, there will only be blame when this is over, and there will be decades worth of hatred all around. Best to keep a very low profile.
The less we do and the more elusively we do it, the less blame we will get in the aftermath. Believe me, there will only be blame when this is over, and there will be decades worth of hatred all around. Best to keep a very low profile.
1
Somebody stole the money is basically what Austin said. Atrocious arrogance. Is our military ours?
Until President Obama leaves office, the world is going to be hearing encouraging reports about how well the monitoring of Iran's nuclear development facilities is going. Then, slowly but surely, word will start out leaking out that things are not looking so good after all.
6
"He said, for instance, that the United States currently has 'four or five' Syrian fighters battling the Islamic State"
I would love to know what the exact sides of the intelligence debate are regarding the doubt as to whether there are four, or in fact five, fighters.
I am ever so grateful that there is at least a chance that there are indeed five, rather than the embarrassingly paltry four, and I commend the general for taking the time to point out that possibility and preserve our national dignity.
I would love to know what the exact sides of the intelligence debate are regarding the doubt as to whether there are four, or in fact five, fighters.
I am ever so grateful that there is at least a chance that there are indeed five, rather than the embarrassingly paltry four, and I commend the general for taking the time to point out that possibility and preserve our national dignity.
5
No info. No accountability. It's all going on behind a curtain of secrecy, leading one to question motivation, presence of strategy, goals. Something's fishy. And we're certainly not 'winning' or even making progress on ridding the region and the world of this wicked, twisted scourge. What gives, Mr. Commander-in-Chief?
1
It's déjà vu all over again...and again...and again.
2
As Senator McCain must surely know, ISIS is not the result of the United States pulling out of Iraq. It is the inevitable result of the United States invading Iraq in the first place, given the absurdity (not to mention the impossibility) of American forces remaining in Iraq in perpetuity. And who put us into Iraq in the first place? Why none other than the Cheney-Bush administration. And to cite another member of that administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Pottery Barn Principle holds: if you break it, you own it. So the Cheney-Bushes, in thrall to the New American Century, broke it, and they own it.
7
"For more than a year, Congress has failed to exercise its power to authorize the war against the Islamic State. That has given the Obama administration free rein to escalate the military campaign with virtually no oversight or guidance from Congress." Why does the Congress even exist? Their most noteworthy activity seems to be their occasional threat to shut down the government.
13
As long as you will try and make a false distinction between 'good terrorist' = those who we arm to kill our 'current' enemies and bad terrorists = who we must have killed you will have an ISIS lie problem because a' good' terrorist today can morph into a 'bad' terrorist tomorrow. So Al Qaida today is the 'baddest' terrorist but ISIS is - so we should find a way to mobilize them neutralize ISIS. The ISIS was not such a 'bad' terrorist till two years ago when they were armed to spearhead a militia, to help Sunni ( Saudi led) to dethrone Shia ( Syria - Iran led). And we suddenly feel that the militia turned Frankenstein ISIS is too hot to handle so it must be the baddest terrorist today. There are no good or bad terrorist. If some is a terrorist then we should have a global consensus on how to deal with them not a based on political and geo-strategic considerations. Al Qaida was directly responsible for 9/11. They have gone a full circle from being - good - bad - baddest to not so bad!!
1
Frankly, no "oversight" is needed, just finish the job and come back! ISIS should be uprooted totally and comprehensively.
2
Says who? First the Brits, then the US have meddled in ME political and economic life for too, too long. Why? Oil. Control the social environment around the business of digging and pumping oil. Westerners have tromped around the Mid-Eastern countries for well over a century. It/they don't belong to us.
No wonder all of the violence--spawned by greed--has defined the ME--not to mention the West's establishment of a nation dominated by very white, European Jews who brazenly stole land from the Palestinians.
I keep asking: how would American citizens (us) react to Chinese--the one nation that has the capability to execute such a move, or will have in the next decade--military and industrial invasion and control of parts of the US--parts of us? It is so obvious and so lost on Americans. We don't have the right to "finish the job" and uproot ISIS. We caused the whole mess.
We have to go. We've got an oil surplus now and technology is moving us rapidly to vehicles that don't need it.
No wonder all of the violence--spawned by greed--has defined the ME--not to mention the West's establishment of a nation dominated by very white, European Jews who brazenly stole land from the Palestinians.
I keep asking: how would American citizens (us) react to Chinese--the one nation that has the capability to execute such a move, or will have in the next decade--military and industrial invasion and control of parts of the US--parts of us? It is so obvious and so lost on Americans. We don't have the right to "finish the job" and uproot ISIS. We caused the whole mess.
We have to go. We've got an oil surplus now and technology is moving us rapidly to vehicles that don't need it.
This editorial has merely narrated a page from "Business As Usual."
The "business" that has been going on "as usual" behind the doors of the White House for many, many years is EXTREMELY disheartening. Only a few web sites (and magazines) provide a peek through cracks in the door to the bleak business as usual.
The following article provides just one peek:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176043/tomgram%3A_david_vine%2C_our_base...
There are plentiful of other peeks readily available in the archives of the extraordinary, research-based web site http://www.tomdispatch.com/.
The "business" that has been going on "as usual" behind the doors of the White House for many, many years is EXTREMELY disheartening. Only a few web sites (and magazines) provide a peek through cracks in the door to the bleak business as usual.
The following article provides just one peek:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176043/tomgram%3A_david_vine%2C_our_base...
There are plentiful of other peeks readily available in the archives of the extraordinary, research-based web site http://www.tomdispatch.com/.
5
What is to be upset about here? Propaganda to the public is not the same as the truth in the "organization"? What part of warfare don't you understand?
1
This editorial is entitled "The Elusive Truth About War on ISIS," and that title is an error. The truth is not elusive: it's right there in plain sight, in the field, the villages, and cities.
Those in its presence have no trouble discerning truth at all. The generals and commanders they work for, on reading the reports prepared by those with first-hand knowledge, have no trouble seeing the truth either. They just don't like it, what it implies about their leadership and conduct of the conflict, and the direction of the administration's strategy: nobody tells his boss that his ideas are no good.
So. Thus willfully blind and promoting fantasy, we stumble on. And civilians and soldiers die while games are played.
Those in its presence have no trouble discerning truth at all. The generals and commanders they work for, on reading the reports prepared by those with first-hand knowledge, have no trouble seeing the truth either. They just don't like it, what it implies about their leadership and conduct of the conflict, and the direction of the administration's strategy: nobody tells his boss that his ideas are no good.
So. Thus willfully blind and promoting fantasy, we stumble on. And civilians and soldiers die while games are played.
21
There is no military solution to this ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil war.
3
Obama said he was going to end the war in Iraq "responsibly"
This was not responsible.
This was not responsible.
2
Wrong. Leaving Iraq under the terms of the GWB negotiated SOFA was precisely the responsible thing to do.
Iraq didn't want us there, we signed a deal to leave on a certain date. Period.
Iraq didn't want us there, we signed a deal to leave on a certain date. Period.
No - GWB's plan never called for abandoning the country and he never would have accepted it precisely because it was NOT the responsible thing to do. The lack of a SOFA agreement was yet another Obama failure. The fact is that the Obama decision to abandon Iraq was political and ideological.
Mr Bush's agreed to withdraw combat troops WHILE LEAVING BEHIND A RESIDUAL FORCE for maintenance and support of what was a much more secure and stable Iraq. Mr Obama took everyone out. The NYT appears to rewrite history as well as some of the best partisan meme factories on social media.
6
While I disagreed with Bush's push to go to Iraq and felt he needed the agreement of most nations before taking action (he didn't get that), once the US went to Iraq it was imperative that a force be left behind to stop chaos once the left. Sadly, none of the countries in the middle east are ready for, nor want, western democracy. But Obama wanted to pull the forces out before 2012 for election purposes.
Not sure what happened after that when it came to the Arab Spring, etc. Seems that Obama wants to support conflict if he feels it is a 'good conflict.' Sadly, we cannot know what a good conflict looks like in the middle east.
Not sure what happened after that when it came to the Arab Spring, etc. Seems that Obama wants to support conflict if he feels it is a 'good conflict.' Sadly, we cannot know what a good conflict looks like in the middle east.
" But Obama wanted to pull the forces out before 2012 for election purposes"
That's because the GWB negotiated SOFA required us to leave Iraq by 12/31/11.
It's hilarious that you fault the president for abiding by our agreements with other countries.
That's because the GWB negotiated SOFA required us to leave Iraq by 12/31/11.
It's hilarious that you fault the president for abiding by our agreements with other countries.
Please, please stop covering up for our current Commander in Chief! Where does the buck stop? Somewhere always below Pres Obama or before Pres Obama. The fact is, HE was CIC when we left Iraq, HE could have secured a new SOF agreement, HE is supposed to be "In Charge" during this reluctant ISIS-fighting. Was it news to Pres Obama that we spent $500M to train 5 Syrian fighters? Did he find that out by reading the newspaper, which he has claimed as an excuse during past management failures?
22
Since Mr McCain has been to the area and wants to be an expert, perhaps he can go and recruit some more "freedom" fighters. Cant let Syrian refugees (women, children, old men) because they may be terrorists but hey, lets ramp up who it is we arm to the teeth. A proxy war fought by American stooges, all the aftermath of Mr Bush's War.
Ever hear about blowback from Afghanastan? You know, we/ The Sainted One, Ronald Reagan arm to the teeth "freedom" fighters, among them Osama Bin Laden - he of 9/11 fame. Those friends of ours became the Taliban and al Queda.
Ever hear about blowback from Afghanastan? You know, we/ The Sainted One, Ronald Reagan arm to the teeth "freedom" fighters, among them Osama Bin Laden - he of 9/11 fame. Those friends of ours became the Taliban and al Queda.
3
A tough row for you to hoe, reaching back 30 years to place blame. (And I guess you were OK at the time with allowing the USSR to annex Afghanistan?) Who but you has relegated the Syrian refugees to all BUT young men, when reports are that up 70% of them are?
Barack Obama was not President on September 11, 2001. Nor was he President on March 19, 2003. And he controls only one branch of our divided limited powered republic.
American civilian citizens brought down United 93. American civilian citizens stopped the Underwear and Times Square Bombers.
When did any American intelligence information ever prevent an attack on the homeland or become a decisive factor in America winning a war?
American civilian citizens brought down United 93. American civilian citizens stopped the Underwear and Times Square Bombers.
When did any American intelligence information ever prevent an attack on the homeland or become a decisive factor in America winning a war?
2
These doctored reports move the analytic gaze of the military to what's happening during airstrikes, instead of admitting that it won't work and that we have to either invade or negotiate a country for the Iraqi Sunnis, the winners of Sykes-Picot and losers of the American invasion. This helps justifying the 20% (?) of our taxes that the Penatgon devours. Look, the inconvenient truth reported by 60min, Time etc. is that the core and the first 3 shells of ISIS are Baathist generals and ex-army. That's just how it is but in the daily press it is always reported as just another terrorist group (who is miraculously well trained in combat and strategy). They put some religious spin on it but the fact is that ISIS exists because the great military minds from Annapolis and West Point allowed the Iraqi army to be disbanded. If they can make mistakes like that, I don't think Donald Trump would be doing any worse in the strategy sector with his secret plans.
6
Lies about war are legion, old news. What would really be an eye opener would be if someone told the truth.
5
Aren't there "politics" in crucial military affairs, as there are in many/most complex civilian organizations?
The NYT editorialists, I suppose, are discussing how apparent harsh facts are softened/manipulated for the White House's slanting of reality.
The Vietnam War's harsh, uncomforting reports were allegedly much subjected to distortions apparently by way of good ole boy military & civilian officials, perhaps on implicit orders from LBJ(?).
John McCain is a military expert whom I respect though didn't vote for, while he's wisely questions some horse-applery.
The ethical functioning of media is what ye editorialists are seemingly responsibly exercising.
The upcoming 2016 election will no doubt
The NYT editorialists, I suppose, are discussing how apparent harsh facts are softened/manipulated for the White House's slanting of reality.
The Vietnam War's harsh, uncomforting reports were allegedly much subjected to distortions apparently by way of good ole boy military & civilian officials, perhaps on implicit orders from LBJ(?).
John McCain is a military expert whom I respect though didn't vote for, while he's wisely questions some horse-applery.
The ethical functioning of media is what ye editorialists are seemingly responsibly exercising.
The upcoming 2016 election will no doubt
1
The major 2016 campaign by the GOP will probably be the Democrat Obama is the (sole) reason for withdrawing--dithering--ISIS and with the Ukraine heaped-onto the demagoguery/rhetoric.
The absolutist type of arguments will seemingly be accepted "semi hog" by GOP oriented though really not that that dumb of voters.
How much will it influence the indies decisions?
Who "lost China" circa late 1940s?
The COLD WAR was admittedly ignited/maintained by a combination of some rational fears, but was apparently also stoked by cold warriors grinding axes.
"Verona" evidence is (probably) not contrived fictions: Hiss was apparently an
agent of Soviets.
But was China ours to lose?
Did we back the wrong side, as per some evidence recently uncovered that
initially Mao suposedly did not want to oppose the US?
Who lost Nam?
Tempted to just blame GRF, President Ford, but that would be intellectually dishonest, as weren't some military funds cut by Congress?
How will independent voters trend in 2016?
The absolutist type of arguments will seemingly be accepted "semi hog" by GOP oriented though really not that that dumb of voters.
How much will it influence the indies decisions?
Who "lost China" circa late 1940s?
The COLD WAR was admittedly ignited/maintained by a combination of some rational fears, but was apparently also stoked by cold warriors grinding axes.
"Verona" evidence is (probably) not contrived fictions: Hiss was apparently an
agent of Soviets.
But was China ours to lose?
Did we back the wrong side, as per some evidence recently uncovered that
initially Mao suposedly did not want to oppose the US?
Who lost Nam?
Tempted to just blame GRF, President Ford, but that would be intellectually dishonest, as weren't some military funds cut by Congress?
How will independent voters trend in 2016?
The U.S. Military lies about its effectiveness. This is news? News would be if we ever responded appropriately, slashing our blank-check defense and national security budget and renouncing the "American Century" fantasy of global domination through military force. But the Generals and Admirals need not fear; politicians and pundits will go right back to licking their boots shortly. When it comes to foreign affairs, "We can whip them" is simply too convenient a message - tweetable, even - to deliver to an irascibly ignorant American public in the space between commercials.
35
Many millions of dollars are spent on our expensive military academies, what is the evidence for or against their value? The concept that faiure is not an option defies the reality of much of life. The hard lessons of Viet Nam seem to be morphed into a duck and cover mentality in our "professional" General staff. It is time to reconsider our adoption of the European model of military schooling.
1
We fought in Vietnam under the premise that it was to stop communism which would cause a "domino effect" to the rest the surrounding countries. False claims. Invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. All lies. Fought in Afghanistan, took over from Russia after they were defeated. This country became war weary for good reason that showed little results except for the tremendous loss of life and resources.
Now we have the situation in Syria that is causing a disastrous refugee problem as they flee to European countries. Being an ocean away does not mean we are not responsible in dealing with this crisis. The Syrian/ISIS situation cannot be allowed to fester. As once mentioned the evil forces in Syria and parts of Iraq need to be "degraded and defeated", unfortunately this will not happen by the use of drones or the use of air power.
I say this with great reluctance, as I was adamantly opposed to all three wars mentioned, but to degrade and destroy this evil may require a military force not composed of only US military, but a coalition of military forces of all countries affected by the refugee problem. A concerted effort could result in stabilizing the area, hopefully start a rebuilding program encouraging the refugees to return to Syria and take part in rebuilding their country.
Now we have the situation in Syria that is causing a disastrous refugee problem as they flee to European countries. Being an ocean away does not mean we are not responsible in dealing with this crisis. The Syrian/ISIS situation cannot be allowed to fester. As once mentioned the evil forces in Syria and parts of Iraq need to be "degraded and defeated", unfortunately this will not happen by the use of drones or the use of air power.
I say this with great reluctance, as I was adamantly opposed to all three wars mentioned, but to degrade and destroy this evil may require a military force not composed of only US military, but a coalition of military forces of all countries affected by the refugee problem. A concerted effort could result in stabilizing the area, hopefully start a rebuilding program encouraging the refugees to return to Syria and take part in rebuilding their country.
1
Exactly. Cut to the chase though: Pax NATO...not a popular notion, but relative to all other options at the moment, is becoming more palatable. And no exit date! They just wait it out. A generation or two I'll be necessary. It is the only way to address the refugee crisis. Read: Camp of the Saints.
1
The difference between the Vietnam era (or error) is that the news media was actually doing its job bank then, reporting accurately on events in real time. At the time the press took a beating, first by Johnson, then by Nixon, both calling to question the reporters' patriotism and accusing them of aiding and abetting the enemy. To prevent a repeat, the military embedded the journalists with the troops in an effort to ensure that the reporting during the Gulf Wars that was done produced only favorable analysis of the Pentagon's strategy. The Times and papers like it were labeled as left wing subversives if it released accurate information that called to question the fight. The story today is that the Military Leadership is distorting the analysis, yet at last night's debate the participants branded the civilian leadership as being the ones at fault. Not once did the CNN moderator call to question that deliberate falsehood (aka lie). Why? Probably because out of fear of being smeared by Republican Party media outlets who would brand the company the Communist News Network. And so it goes - history is again repeating itself. Conveniently inaccurate information being presented to the American people. In this case since there is no draft the repercussions are only felt by 1% of the population. Not enough to make a difference in the age of billion dollar campaigns for jobs that only pay $175,000 to $400,000. Does not make sense to me.
4
The military tends to be dishonest and deceitful when it comes to communicating with the public and the Congress about activities about which it is uncertain as to what will likely happen, because opposition in either of these groups can lead to the ending of operations and activities before they want them to be ended. If the Congress and the public lose confidence that a war can be won, they will demand proof that contradicts the evidence that caused their lack of confidence and indicates it can be won or they will refuse to support it. For wars like world War II where the country was committed to win, the Congress and the public trusted the military and gave pretty much unconditional support through a lot of horrific fighting, including a lot of losses. In wars like Vietnam where the policies and the mission of the military were just wrong facts just make the blunders more obvious to all who are willing to accept them. The military performed well in Vietnam, winning just about every battle fought but could not win the war. Many in the military truly thought that if they won enough battles, the enemy would have to abandon it's purposes and to capitulate. The loss of will to continue on the part of the public and the Congress was the reason that war was lost in the perception of this group of people and their mistrust of the people and of the Congress persists to this day. North Vietnam was determined to run the whole country and knew it would if it persisted.
1
Republicans love playing at war. It was quite evident in the debate last night.
If they were serious the Republican Congress should declare war on ISIS ( it is in the Constitution don't cha know that Congress declares war) reinstitute the draft, pass legislation to increase taxes to pay for the war, pay for a ramped-up military and force the President to get on with the defeat of ISIS.. But, as you know, none of this will happen. Playing at war is more fun than actually going to war.
If they were serious the Republican Congress should declare war on ISIS ( it is in the Constitution don't cha know that Congress declares war) reinstitute the draft, pass legislation to increase taxes to pay for the war, pay for a ramped-up military and force the President to get on with the defeat of ISIS.. But, as you know, none of this will happen. Playing at war is more fun than actually going to war.
6
However one might argue that al Qaida "uses" Islam to further anti-Islamic objectives, ISIS is in a wholly different category. They pursue a specific, fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, i.e., establishing the Caliphate described therein. They are "holy people."
"Moderate" religionists help allow fundamentalists (of any religion) to build on a terribly flawed platform. All religions contribute to the underlying falsehood that there are "divine" forces at work in the world. Blame for ISIS exists in the Muslim world, but not only there.
Want to fight ISIS? Any talk about military campaigns is fine, but they will be ultimately insufficient. Here is the plan: overcome medievalism and superstition. Fight ignorance. Improve trade and communication, and build international ties via commerce, technology, art, music, movies, charity, and common causes. Support secular education, everywhere.
For every ISIS fighter we kill or maim, we create an equal or greater interest in ISIS somewhere else in the world. People who appreciate the natural beauty of the world, and the possibility for meaningful work and productive communities, will not be entranced by notions of "heaven" and "divine" principles. They will live, more cooperatively and a bit more peacefully, in the world of reality.
"Moderate" religionists help allow fundamentalists (of any religion) to build on a terribly flawed platform. All religions contribute to the underlying falsehood that there are "divine" forces at work in the world. Blame for ISIS exists in the Muslim world, but not only there.
Want to fight ISIS? Any talk about military campaigns is fine, but they will be ultimately insufficient. Here is the plan: overcome medievalism and superstition. Fight ignorance. Improve trade and communication, and build international ties via commerce, technology, art, music, movies, charity, and common causes. Support secular education, everywhere.
For every ISIS fighter we kill or maim, we create an equal or greater interest in ISIS somewhere else in the world. People who appreciate the natural beauty of the world, and the possibility for meaningful work and productive communities, will not be entranced by notions of "heaven" and "divine" principles. They will live, more cooperatively and a bit more peacefully, in the world of reality.
3
The light at the end of the tunnel.
I read yesterday that the Free Syrian Army we have created consists of five men. And they are all on leave or AWOL.
At a cost of what, a billion per man?
Unless it is Superman, Batman, the Incredable Hulk,Captain Marvel, and The Heap we are in deep trouble.
The Kurds and Turks who claim to be our friends fund ISIS through oil sales.
The Saudis and Emirates fund Isis directly.
Let all the fine folks over there who all claim to be gods chosen people go at it. But not on our dime.
Spend the money here rebuilding American infrastructure, employing Americans.
That philosophy could get somebody elected president. Sadly, no takers.
I read yesterday that the Free Syrian Army we have created consists of five men. And they are all on leave or AWOL.
At a cost of what, a billion per man?
Unless it is Superman, Batman, the Incredable Hulk,Captain Marvel, and The Heap we are in deep trouble.
The Kurds and Turks who claim to be our friends fund ISIS through oil sales.
The Saudis and Emirates fund Isis directly.
Let all the fine folks over there who all claim to be gods chosen people go at it. But not on our dime.
Spend the money here rebuilding American infrastructure, employing Americans.
That philosophy could get somebody elected president. Sadly, no takers.
26
Well, here we go again. The Times just can't bring itself to place blame on Barack for anything. Clearly, the failure of the Status of Forces agreement negotiation with Iraq set the stage for the complete implosion of the Middle East. Like everything the President does, he could not make a deal with the Iraqi's. It just isn't his thing. We can only hope that the next President will be able to work with people. God help us and our children if he or she can't.
6
Not only should we leave Iraq, we should leave Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the entire Middle East. We have been there for over a decade fighting war after war and have accomplished nothing. We have wasted the lives of our men and women, Trillions of dollars and the resources of our country. Until the people of the Middle East desire peace, nothing is going to change.
Come home and improve our country, shelter our homeless, feed our hungry, nurture our poor, educate our youth, stimulate our economy; let the crazies in the Middle East determine their own fate.
Come home and improve our country, shelter our homeless, feed our hungry, nurture our poor, educate our youth, stimulate our economy; let the crazies in the Middle East determine their own fate.
41
"Four or five" trained soldiers makes me think of the old TV show "The A Team." Only I'm not thinking they will be as successful as Mr. T and gang.
2
Republicans in congress have dodged responsibility for all of the duties they are paid to perform. We need term limits. And we need to get out of fighting in the middle east. Let the cards fall where they may, see how long the fighting goes on when there is NO money from our country to fuel it.
3
Fifty years ago President Eisenhower warned that America's excessive spending on war infrastructure (our "military industrial complex") would come back to haunt us. Smart General, Mr. Eisenhower was.
As Rome before, Uncle Sam just gets fatter, richer, pushier, dumber.
As Rome before, Uncle Sam just gets fatter, richer, pushier, dumber.
17
The responsibility for telling the truth about what is happening in the Middle East falls directly in the lap of the press. Ever since Vietnam, it has been clear that the military alters the truth to fit a more positive picture of how they are carrying out their mission. It happened in Afghanistan (as Wikileaks showed) and in Iraq, first with the WMD assessment and then with the war and its aftermath. The majority of reporters simply took their information directly from their military sources. Republicans have already painted the picture that these distortions are the product of an administration that wants to give a positive spin to its efforts to quell ISIS, despite the fact that these are military lies, which are being fed even to the president. But we can't expect the administration to contradict its own military's intelligence assessments. The Syrian and Iraq conflicts right now are totally confusing. What exactly is Assad doing? What is ISIS doing? What are the different rebel groups doing to Assad's forces and to ISIS and what about the Iranian efforts? And what effect are the U.S. bombs having (are they even being dropped)? Administration critics focus on whose fault the war is and the administration focuses on warning Iran and Russia, but no one tells us what is actually the situation on the ground. It is time for old-fashioned, hard-nosed, courageous investigative reporting.
20
The policy the President outlined a year ago was to provide air strikes and air support to other Arab countries while they did the heavy lifting of providing ground forces. The reason for the lack of progress is that Arab troops to fight ISIS haven’t materialized. We have trained the Arabs, going back to the first Iraq war, to bide their time and wait for the US to do all the work. Despite a treasonous Republican Party that wants to use the crisis to bash the President, he has resisted using American troops. He knows it is time to wean the Arabs of their reliance on American force.
The only way to keep from escalating this crisis into another ground war is to put lipstick on a pig, hence the rosy estimates from the defense department. Until the Arabs decide to fight ISIS or Iran and Saudi Arabia decide to negotiate a settlement to their rivalry and end their proxy war in Syria we are stuck with the status quo of keeping ISIS in check.
The Times, in typical current left-wing fashion, chooses to be just as unhelpful to the President as the Republicans. Grousing about defense department reports is trivial and counterproductive. It doesn’t matter what the defense department says, it matters what the President does and that should be to keep American kids out of another war in the Middle East.
The only way to keep from escalating this crisis into another ground war is to put lipstick on a pig, hence the rosy estimates from the defense department. Until the Arabs decide to fight ISIS or Iran and Saudi Arabia decide to negotiate a settlement to their rivalry and end their proxy war in Syria we are stuck with the status quo of keeping ISIS in check.
The Times, in typical current left-wing fashion, chooses to be just as unhelpful to the President as the Republicans. Grousing about defense department reports is trivial and counterproductive. It doesn’t matter what the defense department says, it matters what the President does and that should be to keep American kids out of another war in the Middle East.
17
The war policy is understood to be a Training mission. Recent ineffectual progress of this mission in all of SW Asia leads to a US military withdrawal.as best course now. Israel anf zTurkey are incentivized but culturally compromised. This leaves who to train and equip? Turkey and Israel for better or worse.
1
Not so sure about this unbroken thread of logic: (1) It is bad to conduct a secret war against ISIS that lacks accountability and transparency (2) this is the war being waged by Obama but (3) it is not Obama's fault because Congress did not tell him no and (4) Congress is Republican (5) proving once again Republicans are bad.
Bad, bad Republicans! Shame on you all!
Huh? Is our commander in chief held to the standard of a 4 year old?
Bad, bad Republicans! Shame on you all!
Huh? Is our commander in chief held to the standard of a 4 year old?
4
There are tons of video out there showing Obama telling the crowds that HE withdrew the troops from Iraq just like he promised on the campaign trail. Tons. "I withdrew the troops just like I promised". The crowd yelling, clapping, screaming with joy. "I kept my promise" said Obama. More screaming and clapping. Never was Bush's name mentioned. Never. And now? As things go to hell in a hand basket, it's Bush's fault. Obama HAD to withdraw the troops. This covering for this inept president by the NYT is truly getting pathetic. You know, if the NYT was to be honest on their reporting, maybe it would make Obama a better president. Getting an "A" for showing up is fine for preschoolers, the presidency, not so much.
8
The Obama Administration and the military are conducting the fight against ISIS in a prudent and effective way. Any criticism by Senator McCain is the highest form of praise because the Senator continuosly wants to put the lives of thousands of young American soldiers at risk. Yes, the air war is taking place beyond the gaze of the press. What we know from the past is that the press has consistently underestimated air power. Air attacks have halted the expansion of ISIS. More importantly, air attacks make it impossible for ISIS to become a normal government. Over time, it will occur to ISIS adherents that it is utterly impossible to realize the dream of a caliphate because a bomb will fall whenever an ISIS leader appears in public. More and more civilized countries are joining the United States in the air war: an encouraging sign.
Commenters compare the war on ISIS to the Vietnam War. One major difference is that ISIS does not have the support of great powers as did North Vietnam (the Soviet Union and China). Another difference is that allied casualties are almost non-existent.
The Times should praise the military and the government for studying the issue of possibly biased intelligence. Whether or not current intelligence is perfectly accurate, the civilized world is engaged in a long-term war of attrition with ISIS. We need to be patient - neither rushing in with ground troops McCain-style nor underestimating the power of air. That is just what we are doing.
Commenters compare the war on ISIS to the Vietnam War. One major difference is that ISIS does not have the support of great powers as did North Vietnam (the Soviet Union and China). Another difference is that allied casualties are almost non-existent.
The Times should praise the military and the government for studying the issue of possibly biased intelligence. Whether or not current intelligence is perfectly accurate, the civilized world is engaged in a long-term war of attrition with ISIS. We need to be patient - neither rushing in with ground troops McCain-style nor underestimating the power of air. That is just what we are doing.
1
When was the last time you saw the Republicans take responsibility for any action that turned out to be negative?
Whether it is the ISIS fiasco or the disbanding of a standing Army of Iraq on the pretext of de baathification of the forces. Or the increase in the number of centrifuges in Iran from 0 to 5000 during President Bush and Cheney’s reign.
Senator McCain is no different he along with other Senators are trying to pass the buck down the chain and wants to keep their distance from responsibility.
ISIS is not something that came from nowhere, Saudi Intelligence along with our help got the old Republican guards together to fight us and have a hedge against Iran. We used the same MO in Afghanistan, and we built a fighting force of Religious Zealots (Taliban) to counter Iran. Now as we are moving in a different direction with Iran, we need to muzzle these Jihadis. But just like General Zia of Pakistan, King Salman and Prince Naif are not playing ball with us. They feel they can continue spewing their message of hate and extremist ideology throughout the Muslim World and throughout the world. They already have so called Religious centers in the US funded to propagate their Wahhabi/Salafi/ISIS ideology in the US.
Time has come to chop the snake's head; time to do what was done to Zia in Pakistan. Part Company with the Saudis it will result in controlling the other despots in the region such as Sisi, and UAE governments.
Whether it is the ISIS fiasco or the disbanding of a standing Army of Iraq on the pretext of de baathification of the forces. Or the increase in the number of centrifuges in Iran from 0 to 5000 during President Bush and Cheney’s reign.
Senator McCain is no different he along with other Senators are trying to pass the buck down the chain and wants to keep their distance from responsibility.
ISIS is not something that came from nowhere, Saudi Intelligence along with our help got the old Republican guards together to fight us and have a hedge against Iran. We used the same MO in Afghanistan, and we built a fighting force of Religious Zealots (Taliban) to counter Iran. Now as we are moving in a different direction with Iran, we need to muzzle these Jihadis. But just like General Zia of Pakistan, King Salman and Prince Naif are not playing ball with us. They feel they can continue spewing their message of hate and extremist ideology throughout the Muslim World and throughout the world. They already have so called Religious centers in the US funded to propagate their Wahhabi/Salafi/ISIS ideology in the US.
Time has come to chop the snake's head; time to do what was done to Zia in Pakistan. Part Company with the Saudis it will result in controlling the other despots in the region such as Sisi, and UAE governments.
3
Whether or not you think Obama's going AWOL on his "red line" pronouncement was a good or bad thing, he really has pretty much fiddled around while Syria burns.
3
Sen. McCain is partially right; George W. Bush's decision to leave Iraq did make it easier for ISIS to spread. However his decision to attack and destabilize Iraq had a lot more to do with it. Going back into Iraq won't fix the problem, at best we will contain ISIS while we have troops there, at great expense to the U.S. Also, arming Syrian rebels will not help against ISIS much either, as they haven't been reliable partners in the past since it's difficult to identify whether they are part of ISIS itself. There are three parts that need to be acknowledged in order to eliminate ISIS: reduce Saudi Arabian support, reduce Turkish support, and strengthen Assad. ISIS is financially backed by Saudi Arabia, our wonderful friends that funded 9/11. Cut that money supply and ISIS is weakened. In addition if we put more pressure on Turkey we can cut the flow of arms to ISIS,as it has been proven that Turkey is supplying them arms. Finally, no matter how much we despise Assad, his governments stability is the only thing that will lead to any kind of normality for Syria. He leads a secular government that would fight ISIS and push them out of Syria if we weren't busy supporting the "rebels." With this three pronged approach ISIS can be destroyed and we can move to help stabilize the Middle-East. Anything else will be more of the same.
8
Nope...can't place blame on the Obama administration.
You just can't do it can you??
ISIS, the JV team, is still in the hunt for the Middle Eastern playoffs and we can thank Obama's debacle w/ Syria for ensuring that is the case...and those refugees?? Yep, we can thank his administration for that too. And when that General pointed out that $500 million bought us 4-5 trained rebel fighters, I can only imagine how you would have went ballistic had it been Bush still in charge..
And speaking of Bush, when he signed that status of forces agreement it was more than 3 years out from happening and somehow as events on the ground evolve or devolve, it is impossible for Obama to alter that status?? The most powerful person in the world could not twist the Iraqis' arm to ensure an adequate force stay behind to ensure stability?? AND you believe that??? REALLY??? Come on...your Editorial Board can do better than that.
You just can't do it can you??
ISIS, the JV team, is still in the hunt for the Middle Eastern playoffs and we can thank Obama's debacle w/ Syria for ensuring that is the case...and those refugees?? Yep, we can thank his administration for that too. And when that General pointed out that $500 million bought us 4-5 trained rebel fighters, I can only imagine how you would have went ballistic had it been Bush still in charge..
And speaking of Bush, when he signed that status of forces agreement it was more than 3 years out from happening and somehow as events on the ground evolve or devolve, it is impossible for Obama to alter that status?? The most powerful person in the world could not twist the Iraqis' arm to ensure an adequate force stay behind to ensure stability?? AND you believe that??? REALLY??? Come on...your Editorial Board can do better than that.
2
Wasn't much the same written about Viet Nam fifty years ago? Then as now the military will always appear optimistic about body counts, light at the end of the tunnel, and winning hearts and minds. Lloyd George, prime minister of the United Kingdom, in The Great War summed it all up, "War is too important to be left to the generals."
4
America spends more on it's military than the next 8 nations combined. America spends about 8x Russia and 3x China. America has it's first $13 billion a piece Ford Class Aircraft Air Carrier. America has a fleet of F-22 Raptors at $ 150 million a plane. America has a fleet of B-2 Spirit bombers at $ 2 billion a piece. America has V-22 Ospreys and is about to have F-35 Lightning. America has Ohio Class SSBN's at $5 billion and Virginia class SSN at $ 2.7 billion. Americans have been to the Moon. Only Russia has as many nuclear weapons and delivery systems as America.
Since 9/11/01 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on a military uniform of an American armed force. When was the last time that Congress declared war?
America did eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait once upon time. Once upon a time America did defeat mighty Grenada and Panama in war. America has armed it's Middle Eastern "allies" Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, Bahrain and Iraq with the best and latest technology. And the Muslim Brotherhood, Shia Muslims, Kurds, Houthis and Palestinians are left "to stand in fear".
What weapons does ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH have? The Death Star? Who is the leader of ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH? Darth Vader? Which nations are allied with ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH? The Mongol Empire and Temujin the Genghis Khan? The leader of ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH is not the return of Khalid, Hamza, Saladin, Suleiman nor Tamerlane.
The truth of ISIS war is clear.
Since 9/11/01 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on a military uniform of an American armed force. When was the last time that Congress declared war?
America did eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait once upon time. Once upon a time America did defeat mighty Grenada and Panama in war. America has armed it's Middle Eastern "allies" Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, Bahrain and Iraq with the best and latest technology. And the Muslim Brotherhood, Shia Muslims, Kurds, Houthis and Palestinians are left "to stand in fear".
What weapons does ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH have? The Death Star? Who is the leader of ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH? Darth Vader? Which nations are allied with ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH? The Mongol Empire and Temujin the Genghis Khan? The leader of ISIS/ISIL/DA'ISH is not the return of Khalid, Hamza, Saladin, Suleiman nor Tamerlane.
The truth of ISIS war is clear.
3
It would seem that our highest professional military officers are confused as to what to conceal and what to disclose concerning politically sensitive circumstances. We rely upon the professional military to fight our wars but we have no way to assure that they are conducting themselves honestly and competently if they are unwilling to do so. The public discussion relates a paradox, public disclosure of formal investigation by professional military of professional military that relates spinning of rather than candid reporting of intelligence findings to mislead the Congress and the public. Why mislead if the misleading cannot be concealed?
I think it goes back to a very confused mental state which seemed to prevail amongst many in the military after the loss of Vietnam in 1975. Rather than accepting that the policies and the mission were simply wrong they concluded that allowing the Congress and the public to know how ugly and inconclusive our efforts were led to a failure of will to win that conflict, which could have been prevented by keeping as much about the conflict as could be known only to the military.
I think it goes back to a very confused mental state which seemed to prevail amongst many in the military after the loss of Vietnam in 1975. Rather than accepting that the policies and the mission were simply wrong they concluded that allowing the Congress and the public to know how ugly and inconclusive our efforts were led to a failure of will to win that conflict, which could have been prevented by keeping as much about the conflict as could be known only to the military.
2
Someone is absolutely incompetent, Isis moves large forces, men and equipment back and forth from city to city telegraphing their every move and offering the "mother of all targets" and our military sits on its thumbs and then acts surprised when Isis takes large cities.
You would think someone at the Times would have noticed, you would think someone somewhere would have noticed.
You would think someone at the Times would have noticed, you would think someone somewhere would have noticed.
2
We can gnash teeth and wring hands and reassess every policy decision ad nauseum without ever solving any problems. So, rightly, Obama said bring our people home. Notice that the rest of the world did not pounce to fill the void. Observing events unfolding in the Middle East is like watching your least favorite sports teams playing each other and each time the game is supposed to end it goes into another overtime period.
As to the military doctoring the facts, this is still America: "[DOD] inspector is investigating..." And, it's being reported publicly without threat of censor or retribution. It's easy to forget we have it pretty good.
As to the military doctoring the facts, this is still America: "[DOD] inspector is investigating..." And, it's being reported publicly without threat of censor or retribution. It's easy to forget we have it pretty good.
The elusive truth is that Islam began waging jihads of militant conquest during the 7th century of the common era, hundreds of years before the West responded with the first Crusade into the muslim conquered birthplace of Judaism, and Christianity.
The elusive truth is that Islam ceased military operations against the West only after being decisively defeated militarily by overwhelming technological superiorit,y and force of arms.
The elusive truth is that Islam began to renew its war of conquest on the West when the West began to show moral and psychological weakness, not to mention Western enrichment of Fundamentalist Islamic States due to a drug like dependence on oil.
The elusive truth is that lying about what has been happening was exactly how the Obama Administration came into being in the first place. Peace in our time.
The elusive truth is that the American people have gone on their merry ways, while the Obama Administration continues to lie. Predator drones, anyone?
And finally, the elusive truth the Iran nuclear deal is firmly based on lies sold to the West about the power of a piece of paper against the sword of Islam.
Whose two hate filled edges Sunni, and Shia, continue to be firmly set towards the West. As they have been for a millennia, and more.
The only question remains, why is the truth so elusive?
The elusive truth is that Islam ceased military operations against the West only after being decisively defeated militarily by overwhelming technological superiorit,y and force of arms.
The elusive truth is that Islam began to renew its war of conquest on the West when the West began to show moral and psychological weakness, not to mention Western enrichment of Fundamentalist Islamic States due to a drug like dependence on oil.
The elusive truth is that lying about what has been happening was exactly how the Obama Administration came into being in the first place. Peace in our time.
The elusive truth is that the American people have gone on their merry ways, while the Obama Administration continues to lie. Predator drones, anyone?
And finally, the elusive truth the Iran nuclear deal is firmly based on lies sold to the West about the power of a piece of paper against the sword of Islam.
Whose two hate filled edges Sunni, and Shia, continue to be firmly set towards the West. As they have been for a millennia, and more.
The only question remains, why is the truth so elusive?
2
This situation in Syria and Iraq is a humanitarian crisis that is now affecting all of us. We've been ignoring the fact that Christians, Jews, and Shiite Muslims are getting slaughtered, that young women are getting enslaved, that we've got the second coming of the Nazis gaining ground in the Middle East. That's a shame. We shouldn't ignore those atrocities.
Well, now we CAN'T ignore the fact that millions of displaced people are now showing up on our doorstep. And they're likely bringing with them members of the terrorist regime that has publically told us that it will use this migration to infiltrate our countries.
So what do we do? Just take in all these refugees, hope we do a good job vetting them, and continue to ignore the source of the problem? This is no longer an issue isolated to the other side of the world. Time for a coalition to go in and ensure that these displaced people can stay in their homes. As much as we don't want another war, isolated air strikes is not solving this problem, which is now an existential crisis for us.
Well, now we CAN'T ignore the fact that millions of displaced people are now showing up on our doorstep. And they're likely bringing with them members of the terrorist regime that has publically told us that it will use this migration to infiltrate our countries.
So what do we do? Just take in all these refugees, hope we do a good job vetting them, and continue to ignore the source of the problem? This is no longer an issue isolated to the other side of the world. Time for a coalition to go in and ensure that these displaced people can stay in their homes. As much as we don't want another war, isolated air strikes is not solving this problem, which is now an existential crisis for us.
1
I was not aware that reporters are fundamental to our military strategy. I guess they take it literally when folks say that the pen is mightier than the sword. I'm not sure, though, they can defeat ISIS with their ball points.
2
A half a billion dollar U.S. military training program has produced 5 moderate rebels fighting the Islamic State in Syria. That's about $100 million dollars per rebel soldier. The only way such absurd expenditures can be justified and continue to move forward is because the Pentagon is one of the major players in Washington, DC politics. Their spokesmen and lobbyists stoke inordinate fears of the latest Islamic jihadist threats and tell us they have workable plans to fight them.
Meanwhile, every U.S. military effort to fight Muslim extremists in the past 15 years has gone nowhere and done almost no good at all. What victories do we have to show for our huge military expenditures in this area of foreign policy? Name me one of them besides the killing Osama bin Laden where he lived, an effort which, while emotionally satisfying, did almost nothing to curb Islamic extremism. In fact, it likely helped their recruiting efforts. We have become a rich, ineffective, entitled country run largely by our military decisions, ones which make very little practical difference in the world, but which cause much of the rest of the world to despise us. We have gone off the rails of greatness since World War II, and I don't see how we get back on track again.
43
When these military officers are identified they should be fired period. The money and lives they are wasting is criminal
Sounds way too much like the problems with military assessments of progress during the Viet Nam era. I realize no one wants to just say "We're losing, because we can't control our worst impulses," but that is what appears to be he truth.
1
The enemy knows those facts so the people that were being deceived were the Congress and the public. Why would those who misrepresented the facts do so if a formal inquiry by the inspector general could so easily reveal it and it being obvious that such revelations being newsworthy would be reported by the mass media? They did not think through the problem, which should concern us all.
Checks and balances of the Congress vis-a-vis the executive branch hardly exist. There are instances of violations of the constitution and individual rights by the DOJ, Social Security, the VA and other agencies besides the armed services. As Carly Fiorna just said in debate -- corruption is everywhere. This is true throughout the executive branch of the U.S. government: These executive agencies do and say whatever they think makes them look good or strong or effective or blameless. It is well past high time for an investigation in honor of President Eisenhower -- MICGate!
Above all, the Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Salafi madrasas throughout the Sunni Muslim world is responsible for the spread of ISIS, and the success of ISIS. We are constrained by monetary relationships with the Saudi and other monarchies from cutting off funds, training, and education to the Wahhabi madrasas or from arresting the teachers/preachers who indoctrinate young Muslims. Washington chatter from the Pentagon and Republican war fetishists masks the real problem: oil money, defense contracts, and greed. The American people do not want to fight any more oil wars. The American people do not want the oil servants in Congress to change our law so that we can export oil. The American people want clean renewable energy instead of war. The 1 % want to continue our addiction to oil and war to feed their insatiable gluttony for more profits and they don't care whose blood we spill to get more money for themselves.
7
We don't get any oil from the Middle East. Our intervention there is not about oil, and if it once was it hasn't been for a while. We can have all the clean renewable energy in the world, and it won't allow us to turn a blind eye to the refugees who are fleeting genocide and showing up on our doorsteps.
1
We, the exceptional nation, cannot and will not accept that we have very limited power in this part of the world, in spite of our massive military hardware. We need another approach.
Follow the money, stop ISIS' funding, and we'll start to unravel the true evil empire, Saudi Arabia.
Follow the money, stop ISIS' funding, and we'll start to unravel the true evil empire, Saudi Arabia.
12
I suppose I know this answer, but is it possible that blaming the ISIS crisis on Obama withdrawing from Iraq will actually be a political weapon for the GOP? The alternative, the US maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq over the past 5 years, is just unimaginable. We basically ran out of soldiers. VA hospitals are overrun by thousands of Americans suffering disabling physical and mental damage. Exactly how much longer were we to stay in Iraq, especially knowing that the sectarian civil war would breakout the moment we left? ISIS was an inevitability the day we recklessly invaded Iraq.
51
There was no scenario where we would have kept hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. We would have maintained about 20,000, mostly to help with patrols and train the Iraqi military. We have bases like that in various countries around the world. Remember, the war was over when we withdrew our troops. Iraq was mostly stable. Keeping troops there wasn't about continuing to fight a war. It was about making sure our hard-fought victory stayed that way.
18
Hard fought victory? Are you looking at somewhere other than Iraq?
1
The truth is spoken by the number of refugees. The truth is spoken by the number of dead bodies. The truth is spoken by the number of slaves and rape victims. The truth is spoken by the destruction of antiquities.
We have the truth. It is staring us in the face. The United States, the West, the world, and the Arabs have all failed in defeating ISIS. In fact, it would be more accurate to describing the effort not as a war, but as a maneuver. There is no war against ISIS. If there was, ISIS would have long since been crushed. The barbarians basically just walked in and took over.
Instead of a war, the world fights ISIS with politics, press releases, basically a public relations campaign. Talk to any of the millions of refugees. They can provide the truth.
We have the truth. It is staring us in the face. The United States, the West, the world, and the Arabs have all failed in defeating ISIS. In fact, it would be more accurate to describing the effort not as a war, but as a maneuver. There is no war against ISIS. If there was, ISIS would have long since been crushed. The barbarians basically just walked in and took over.
Instead of a war, the world fights ISIS with politics, press releases, basically a public relations campaign. Talk to any of the millions of refugees. They can provide the truth.
9
"Mr. McCain appeared to do by asserting: “This is a result of leaving Iraq.” This specious attack may well be used by Republicans in the presidential campaign. Of course, they are unlikely to mention that it was President Bush who negotiated the withdrawals of American troops from Iraq."
This is an intentionally misleading and false statement. Bush agreed to a troop withdrawal deadline, BUT with the intention of entering into a longer term status of forces agreement that would have kept troops in Iraq for a longer period to continue training Iraqi troops and maintaining stability. This is FACT. Obama could have entered into a status of forces agreement and didn't. Obama instead choose to withdraw all of our troops for purely political purposes, and he turned a win into a devastating loss.
Shame on the Times for spreading this LIE!
This is an intentionally misleading and false statement. Bush agreed to a troop withdrawal deadline, BUT with the intention of entering into a longer term status of forces agreement that would have kept troops in Iraq for a longer period to continue training Iraqi troops and maintaining stability. This is FACT. Obama could have entered into a status of forces agreement and didn't. Obama instead choose to withdraw all of our troops for purely political purposes, and he turned a win into a devastating loss.
Shame on the Times for spreading this LIE!
4
You may not have noticed but the American public are tired of these wars and want them to end. When Obama was running for office he promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country is broke as a result of these 2 wars. We need to repair our country and take care of ourselves. We have little strategic need to be in an area where we are hated. No one has ever been able to solve the problems those societies have. Leave them to themselves,when they are tired of killing each other maybe they will stop.
In what universe was the invasion of Iraq a win? The placement of a puppet government that instigated Sunni-Shia troubles. The removal of all military, which provided trained troops for warring factions. The failure to control sectarian violence. All of this was the work of the Bush administration. ISIS has it's roots in the discord that was started and fomented by the Bush administration. The rot had already set in by the time the troops were withdrawn and the reigning government in Iraq was left to deal with the mess that it had created with the help of Bush and his incompetent buffoons. If Obama had kept troops in Iraq, more americans would have died trying to clean up the mess that was created by the previous administration.
I think that the public must realize that the US intelligence (an oxymoran if there ever was one) community is wrong more often than not. They don't even guess very well.
Wrong about Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Russia, Turkey, Egypt.....the list is endless.
This is what foreign policy and defence policy is based on? GOOD LUCK.
Wrong about Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Russia, Turkey, Egypt.....the list is endless.
This is what foreign policy and defence policy is based on? GOOD LUCK.
6
Dear Editors,
There is nothing "elusive" about the "war on ISIS."
On This Week with George Stephanoupoulus, the question being debated was "Is the US Winning Against ISIS?"
Facts
1) The U.S. NOT at war with ISIS; ISIS is at war with anyone who opposes their vision for the world.
2) The U.S. has NOT even really begun to fight ISIS since we have no plan, no strategy and no will to fight ISIS at the national or international level.
3) Even you folks in the news media and your experts seem to be completely clueless about what is going on.
4) Give 1) through 3), putting our pilots' lives at risk to drop bombs is NOT fighting anyone, or accomplishing anyone.
There is nothing "elusive" about the "war on ISIS."
On This Week with George Stephanoupoulus, the question being debated was "Is the US Winning Against ISIS?"
Facts
1) The U.S. NOT at war with ISIS; ISIS is at war with anyone who opposes their vision for the world.
2) The U.S. has NOT even really begun to fight ISIS since we have no plan, no strategy and no will to fight ISIS at the national or international level.
3) Even you folks in the news media and your experts seem to be completely clueless about what is going on.
4) Give 1) through 3), putting our pilots' lives at risk to drop bombs is NOT fighting anyone, or accomplishing anyone.
2
It's true that "for more than a year, Congress has failed to exercise its power to authorize the war against the Islamic State". But there has been no appetite to put boots on the ground. As it has shown airstrikes alone aren't enough to fight ISIS, and this allows Obama's opponents, like John McCain to call it an "abject failure". Thanks God Obama hadn't got more deeply involved in Iraq. Given the inaccurate information Centcom officials had provided, it could have been another debacle.
4
What we need is a candidate who is clearly pro peace..who has no skeletons in the closet concering these wars, Israel and the ever selfish Saudi's schemes. So far, Bernie Sanders is pretty good, but not as pure as Jill Stein. He has voted for money for wars and has invited a base to Vermont. Bernie Sanders needs to NAME the neoliberals and their dastardly deeds and call them out..separate himself if he is to be an honest candidate.
Go to Utube and watch Gen. Wesley Clark's interview on Democracy Now, 2007.
Go to Utube and watch Gen. Wesley Clark's interview on Democracy Now, 2007.
6
I'm really not sure what Israel has to do with this? ISIS is a threat to them too, though it would be pretty amusing in an ironic sort of way if the threat of ISIS forced them to make peace with Hamas and the PLO (neither of which gets along with ISIS either).
5
I think you are on to something M.
Disingenuous or clueless? Clueless or disingenous? Don't know, inaufficient intelligence.
Nothing, that is NOTHING, in this "bombshell" news that I did not know from reading the NYT's consistently biased, dog clearly in the fight coverage. Different american narcissists cultivate different narcissisms. The Prez wants a jv and a social work story--if only we understand and do nothing to upset the young adult males we will have peace-- no combat, no hard power imperialism, only the soft power kind his team deny exists. Fits their self image. Brand enhancing special operations, fine.
The NYT wants a social work story, pro peace editorials, reassuring sociology gibberish.
Todays gem: "But basic facts like the number of civilians killed in airstrikes, the strength of the Islamic State and the extent to which the international coalition’s strategy might be having a radicalizing effect have remained disturbingly elusive."
First, duh.
Second, this fetish on the "radicalizing effect" party line is pure, 100%, arrogant american narcissism. It suits the politics of some americans to worship at the altar of this simple, fictional, cause effect relationship. Messy reality forces unwelcome conclusions.
Third, this is just a high level blame game fraud. Rather than face their narcissim frauds, all agree, "We wuz lied to!" Then return to their own comfortable narcissism. Yeah, lied to by yourselves. Rich coming from the War on False Pretenses cheerleader in chief, the NYT.
Nothing, that is NOTHING, in this "bombshell" news that I did not know from reading the NYT's consistently biased, dog clearly in the fight coverage. Different american narcissists cultivate different narcissisms. The Prez wants a jv and a social work story--if only we understand and do nothing to upset the young adult males we will have peace-- no combat, no hard power imperialism, only the soft power kind his team deny exists. Fits their self image. Brand enhancing special operations, fine.
The NYT wants a social work story, pro peace editorials, reassuring sociology gibberish.
Todays gem: "But basic facts like the number of civilians killed in airstrikes, the strength of the Islamic State and the extent to which the international coalition’s strategy might be having a radicalizing effect have remained disturbingly elusive."
First, duh.
Second, this fetish on the "radicalizing effect" party line is pure, 100%, arrogant american narcissism. It suits the politics of some americans to worship at the altar of this simple, fictional, cause effect relationship. Messy reality forces unwelcome conclusions.
Third, this is just a high level blame game fraud. Rather than face their narcissim frauds, all agree, "We wuz lied to!" Then return to their own comfortable narcissism. Yeah, lied to by yourselves. Rich coming from the War on False Pretenses cheerleader in chief, the NYT.
6
There are no easy answers because there are multiple reasons for this.
For starters, none of the recent presidents have served in the defense forces, so they have no first-hand experience of what it is like to be in war. They just send other people into battle and rely on retreads from other administrations to assess and plan wars which cannot be fought solely in traditional manners. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are fluid.
Second, the U.S. cannot continue to do business with its enemies and fight them at the same time. It cannot kowtow to any group in order to be politically correct. Regardless of religion or territory, the U.S. needs to define the enemy.
Finally, the U.S. cannot force its values on countries in the Middle East. Many presidents have tried. All have failed. The Middle East is not the Midwest.
For starters, none of the recent presidents have served in the defense forces, so they have no first-hand experience of what it is like to be in war. They just send other people into battle and rely on retreads from other administrations to assess and plan wars which cannot be fought solely in traditional manners. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are fluid.
Second, the U.S. cannot continue to do business with its enemies and fight them at the same time. It cannot kowtow to any group in order to be politically correct. Regardless of religion or territory, the U.S. needs to define the enemy.
Finally, the U.S. cannot force its values on countries in the Middle East. Many presidents have tried. All have failed. The Middle East is not the Midwest.
16
I agree with much of what you say with the exception of the military service bit. Two of our biggest hawks had military service, John McCain and Tom Cotton. They are the most extreme in their calls for war and throwing American troops into every fray.
The Pentagon is a major political force in this country that actively lobbies for what it perceives are its interests and has an impressive ability to embarrass - and thereby influence - any president. Vietnam demonstrated the military does not hesitate to lie to the president and the country with disastrous results.
The Pentagon lobbied hard and mostly succeeded i taking on most of the CIA's missions, leaving the CIA to fly drone and act as in country kill teams. It appears there are no longer many civilian intelligence analysts to challenge them with opposing views. Few presidents have the military background to independently assess the advise received from the Pentagon. It is important to wrest some power from the Pentagon's hands and re-establish independent sources of intelligence assessments.
The Pentagon lobbied hard and mostly succeeded i taking on most of the CIA's missions, leaving the CIA to fly drone and act as in country kill teams. It appears there are no longer many civilian intelligence analysts to challenge them with opposing views. Few presidents have the military background to independently assess the advise received from the Pentagon. It is important to wrest some power from the Pentagon's hands and re-establish independent sources of intelligence assessments.
4
This sorry situation confirms the accuracy of the old adage that truth is the first casualty of war. The less popular the conflict, moreover, the greater the incentive to distort the facts as a way of convincing the electorate that its doubts about administration policy were mistaken. Governments take a creative approach to the truth in all wars, but that tendency has been more pronounced in recent military ventures than it was during WWII.
Voters are not always the best judges of the wisdom of a particular war, but a government that finds it necessary to conceal the facts about a conflict has, at the very least, done a poor job of explaining the rationale behind its policy. The seemingly open-ended conflicts in the ME, without a clear definition of our goals, have been misrepresented by presidents from both political parties.
As a good rule of thumb, a war about which the government feels unable to inform the voters accurately as to its course and probable outcome is a conflict that should have been avoided. In the ME, as in Vietnam, deception has been the rule in government communications with Americans.
Despite this, some of the Republican candidates seem intent on using American troops to fight ISIS, an organization whose existence is due in part to prior American military intervention in the ME. One of the surest signs of unfitness for leadership is an inability or unwillingness to learn from earlier mistakes. Stay tuned for more lies, if one of them wins.
Voters are not always the best judges of the wisdom of a particular war, but a government that finds it necessary to conceal the facts about a conflict has, at the very least, done a poor job of explaining the rationale behind its policy. The seemingly open-ended conflicts in the ME, without a clear definition of our goals, have been misrepresented by presidents from both political parties.
As a good rule of thumb, a war about which the government feels unable to inform the voters accurately as to its course and probable outcome is a conflict that should have been avoided. In the ME, as in Vietnam, deception has been the rule in government communications with Americans.
Despite this, some of the Republican candidates seem intent on using American troops to fight ISIS, an organization whose existence is due in part to prior American military intervention in the ME. One of the surest signs of unfitness for leadership is an inability or unwillingness to learn from earlier mistakes. Stay tuned for more lies, if one of them wins.
63
The Pentagon is in the business of war. They want more of it. Preferably perpetual war. Their pay and promotions depend on it. In a war zone they dispense hundreds of billions with little to no oversight. They do not want to derail the freight cars loaded with gold.
Understandably, when the job is slaughtering human beings, as a career, it does not attract the best and the brightest. Look at the freshmen at West Point, the Army's future leaders, turning a pillow fight in a mass mugging complete with broken legs.
In the process of slaughtering 3,000,000 Vietnamese there was light at the end of the tunnel, after the smoke from napalm incinerated women, children and old people cleared and the haze from 22,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange settled.
Right up until we were tossing $5M helicopters into the ocean.
Understandably, when the job is slaughtering human beings, as a career, it does not attract the best and the brightest. Look at the freshmen at West Point, the Army's future leaders, turning a pillow fight in a mass mugging complete with broken legs.
In the process of slaughtering 3,000,000 Vietnamese there was light at the end of the tunnel, after the smoke from napalm incinerated women, children and old people cleared and the haze from 22,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange settled.
Right up until we were tossing $5M helicopters into the ocean.
4
I hate to be sarcastic but asking the top brass of our military to be open, honest and transparent is like asking a snake to quit eating rats and mice. Not gonna happen. Don't be surprised if a man is dis honest when his paycheck is wrapped around his willingness to lie.
2
The Middle East continues to be a morass. We cannot get it right, in good measure because no one could get it right. We should not have invaded Iraq. We should not have left when we did. We should not have tried to push out Assad and Qadaffi. The military, like most everyone else, likes to act like they know what is going on. They do not want to be seen as confused. Obama, the military, and Congress do not know where we go from here. I certainly do not. This mess will continue for a long time, and, for the most part, all we can do is watch and provide humanitarian aid to countries like Jordan.
3
Our new Vietnam...the Iraq, Afghan and Syrian wars.
Apparently our military leaders didn't learn from our drastic mistakes in the Vietnam War and the horrible results, which lead to the death of 50,000 American soldiers, the deaths of a countless numbers of Vietnamese, all for nothing.
So now they are back to their lies, distortion and fabrication of the facts and truths, all again with disastrous results...the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the wounding of tens of thousands more soldiers, the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis, Afghans and Syrians, again all for little or nothing.
No words of any President have ever been truer than those of President Eisenhower when before leaving office warned Americans of the of the over reach and influence of our military-industrial complex.
The Iraq, Afghan and Syrian wars have only served to increase terrorism, weaken the safety of Americans here at home and abroad and cause death, destruction and now the greatest migration of refugees since World War II.
Apparently our military leaders didn't learn from our drastic mistakes in the Vietnam War and the horrible results, which lead to the death of 50,000 American soldiers, the deaths of a countless numbers of Vietnamese, all for nothing.
So now they are back to their lies, distortion and fabrication of the facts and truths, all again with disastrous results...the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the wounding of tens of thousands more soldiers, the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis, Afghans and Syrians, again all for little or nothing.
No words of any President have ever been truer than those of President Eisenhower when before leaving office warned Americans of the of the over reach and influence of our military-industrial complex.
The Iraq, Afghan and Syrian wars have only served to increase terrorism, weaken the safety of Americans here at home and abroad and cause death, destruction and now the greatest migration of refugees since World War II.
2
“For more than a year, Congress has failed to exercise its power to authorize the war against the Islamic State. That has given the Obama administration free rein to escalate the military campaign . . .”
A new way of governing has crept into our republic.
When it does not authorize a war, the executive can act as if Congress has given its approval.
Congress does not vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) so it becomes official policy of the United States.
If Congress does not authorize the new budget, the president keeps most of the government running as if Congress as actually approved a spending plan.
Wonderland seems sane in comparison.
A new way of governing has crept into our republic.
When it does not authorize a war, the executive can act as if Congress has given its approval.
Congress does not vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) so it becomes official policy of the United States.
If Congress does not authorize the new budget, the president keeps most of the government running as if Congress as actually approved a spending plan.
Wonderland seems sane in comparison.
1
There is another way of looking at the cover up (aka "alter" or "distort") the military's failure in its campaign against ISIS which is the real "elusive truth." Defeating ISIS ultimately requires a political solution to the ongoing Syrian civil war now inundating Europe with refugees. Syria is, and has been, the "safe haven" of ISIS where the U.S. and its allies have been unable to gain any traction due to the no "boots on the ground" air campaign. Until we engage with Russia, as we did very successfully, with the recently concluded Iran nuclear deal, the military-only approach will continue to keep us in the quagmire of our making stemming from toppling Saddam Hussein. The U.S. should heed to overtures from Russia to reconvene the P5+1 at the forthcoming annual meeting of the United Nations. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have shown that peace is possible in the Middle East by engaging with one's enemies. It's imperative that they follow up on the goodwill generated by successfully working with Russia and the other members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany to resolve diplomatically the Syrian civil war before it escalates into a larger East-West confrontation.
4
President Obama's legacy is "elusive truth".
When misleading statements,distortion of facts and non-transparency are used for political gain, the credibility of the President is undermined and those under him,follow his example.
The arrogance is the belief that the American people are clueless.
When misleading statements,distortion of facts and non-transparency are used for political gain, the credibility of the President is undermined and those under him,follow his example.
The arrogance is the belief that the American people are clueless.
3
What incentive do senior military leaders have to alter assessments to make the situation look better? Perhaps that is what the administration wanted? After all, who was it who referred to ISIS as "the JV team"? According to The Guardian, the DNI, James Clapper, talked almost daily with Centcom's head of intelligence, Major General Steven Groves. Why would he do that except to tell Groves how to frame the assessments?
I hope this investigation is comprehensive, and finds out not just who was altering assessments, but why they were doing it.
I hope this investigation is comprehensive, and finds out not just who was altering assessments, but why they were doing it.
4
Jim...there are many reasons why Clapper would call Groves. Why do you assert that is had to be to "frame the assessments"? Unless you have some facts to support your assertion, you're just making that up!
" it was President Bush who negotiated the withdrawals of American troops from Iraq." This is a fallacious argument, if you infer that Obama was simply complying with what Bush negotiated. Obama had ample opportunity to re-assess the situation, as any incoming leader would be expected to do, and make adjustments to the planned withdrawal. No, Obama kept insisting on withdrawing troops - the Republican argument is a valid one.
5
What is "particularly alarming" to me is that the government of the United States routinely lies to its citizens, and we cannot fully trust anything our leaders tell us.
There is a vast, secret apparatus that in effect decides the fate of people here and in countries around the world. Much of what America does these days "has unfolded out of sight by design."
Occasionally someone like Edward Snowden gives us a glimpse into the black hole of secrecy, just enough to make us realize how little we know about what those who govern us are up to. And usually what is revealed is not good news for ordinary people.
There is a vast, secret apparatus that in effect decides the fate of people here and in countries around the world. Much of what America does these days "has unfolded out of sight by design."
Occasionally someone like Edward Snowden gives us a glimpse into the black hole of secrecy, just enough to make us realize how little we know about what those who govern us are up to. And usually what is revealed is not good news for ordinary people.
9
Before excoriating the military's supposed bungling of the 'war' against ISIS (when did this become a war, except in ordinary hyperbole of today?), the military's mission against ISIS should be clearly defined, couched it in terms of a militarily-achievable objective.
Which can't be done.
If there is no definition of victory, then how could we be losing?
This isn't a war. It isn't even much of a show of force meant to bend a foe to our will. It's just a "do something" exercise so that politicians can show that they are (doing something).
The military can't be overstating its successes so long as it is actually, occasionally, doing something, because that's all the politicians want out of it.
Which can't be done.
If there is no definition of victory, then how could we be losing?
This isn't a war. It isn't even much of a show of force meant to bend a foe to our will. It's just a "do something" exercise so that politicians can show that they are (doing something).
The military can't be overstating its successes so long as it is actually, occasionally, doing something, because that's all the politicians want out of it.
9
Obama is continuing the Oil Wars that have been utter failures and have turned the region into a kill zone. The U S Government started these wars to steal the oil and since then we have been stumbling around killing people and lying about what is happening. Our Republican Congress is howling for more war so I don't see them being any help.
The real problem is we are fighting over what is left of the oil instead of looking for sustainable energy sources.
The real problem is we are fighting over what is left of the oil instead of looking for sustainable energy sources.
7
Obama is running the least transparent administration in history, setting deception and obstruction as the norm. This cultural norm of the Obama administration is being followed by the various governmental departments, because they are just following the leader.
The truth that is not elusive, except to the editorial board of the Times, is that the commander in chief bears responsibility for the actions of the government.
The truth that is not elusive, except to the editorial board of the Times, is that the commander in chief bears responsibility for the actions of the government.
3
Once again we're going to see politics being played with a war that we should not be fighting in the first place. Most Americans simply do not pay attention to our various "little wars" Why? Because the burden of our wars is borne by a very small group of our citizens, about 1% of the population at most. 99% of us remain untouched by these military misadventures.
Here are some things that would change that. First, we should impose universal military service in which the children of politicians and the 1% are drafted first. This idea comes from ancient Rome, where if you were wealthy, you were expected to fight to defend your wealth.
Second, absolutely no military action should be allowed without a specific declaration of war by both Houses of Congress.
Third, all military action should be paid for exclusively through a corporate "war tax".
Put these three policies into action, and we'd have fewer wars. Also, we could be sure that any war we fought was absolutely necessary, and not merely an exercise in bullying on an international scale and profiteering.
Here are some things that would change that. First, we should impose universal military service in which the children of politicians and the 1% are drafted first. This idea comes from ancient Rome, where if you were wealthy, you were expected to fight to defend your wealth.
Second, absolutely no military action should be allowed without a specific declaration of war by both Houses of Congress.
Third, all military action should be paid for exclusively through a corporate "war tax".
Put these three policies into action, and we'd have fewer wars. Also, we could be sure that any war we fought was absolutely necessary, and not merely an exercise in bullying on an international scale and profiteering.
11
One would doubt very much that military intelligence assessments are taken very seriously by their political masters unless those estimates matched their own biases.
The military uses 'intelligence' basically to support 'its' own agenda especially regarding budgetary issues and procurement.
It will also use it to embarrass those officials that are seen as obstacles to their own set of goals which may not necessarily be those of the administration.
The military uses 'intelligence' basically to support 'its' own agenda especially regarding budgetary issues and procurement.
It will also use it to embarrass those officials that are seen as obstacles to their own set of goals which may not necessarily be those of the administration.
3
The military is victum of the Administrations efforts to hide anything that might detract from the Iran Deal. The entire Islamic Jihad wars and terror has been papered over. Remember the man caused disaster and the work place violence that were used to paper over domestic Jihad attacks?
3
"The Elusive Truth About War on ISIS" is that there is and never was a War. Mr. Obama called for a War and then watered down the strategy for it to be-do just enough to get me off the stage in 2016. You can't win an air war without collateral damage, or where only 1/3 of available targets are hit, or where smart bombs are occasionally shown blowing up fixed targets to make it look like a real war but fuel-air isn't used against mass open field and highway congregations constantly shown on tv riding tanks and trucks.
The CentCom testimony, as embarrassing as it is, merely confirms that no War was ever fought or planned to be fought. It was and is all merely a political cover risking a few thousand US lives so Obama could get off stage.
The CentCom testimony, as embarrassing as it is, merely confirms that no War was ever fought or planned to be fought. It was and is all merely a political cover risking a few thousand US lives so Obama could get off stage.
27
It reminds me of the movie Wag the Dog.
No transparency in the Obama Administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
6
Do you really expect the military to give the people an honest assessment of war? I worked once at the Pentagon; its a Nether-Nether Land of falsehood and fantasy. It woke up after 9/11 because once again it had a reason to exist. One could taste the testosterone in the halls of the Pentagon. It has been doing all it can since to remain relevant. We have the making of another Pentagon Papers here. Cheers!
8
We all have such short memory's. The world sees images of brutal dictators slaughtering innocents throughout the worrld and we react with horror. We demand that our leaders do something to stop the carnage. So we bomb them and remove the offending dictator only to be left with our current situation. The Sunnis created ISIS to fight Assad and we are complicit. We need better friends and a divorce from every Sunni country in the world. Let the countries like China and India who benefit the most from gulf oil deal with this Islamic civil war.
4
If Vietnam learned us one thing, it is that when the military faces an impossible task it starts getting creative with the facts. In Vietnam it was the fact that a guerrilla war fed from the outside and with considerable support among the locals cannot be won - what the politicians refused to acknowledge.
With ISIS the situation is even more impossible. There is the weak Iraqi army. There is a leadership in Washington that for a very long time seemed to happy with a bombing campaign that was so meager that it could only be described as symbolical. There is the strange denial in Washington that many of the Syrian rebel groups regularly cooperate with ISIS. There is the mysterious cooperation of the US with Turkey - while it is clear to everyone that Turkey has provided major support for ISIS. And then there is the continuing hostility towards Assad that raises the question what really has Obama's priority.
So I am not astonished that some soldiers believe they are playing in some mysterious fictional theatre play and in a reaction start to invent facts themselves too.
With ISIS the situation is even more impossible. There is the weak Iraqi army. There is a leadership in Washington that for a very long time seemed to happy with a bombing campaign that was so meager that it could only be described as symbolical. There is the strange denial in Washington that many of the Syrian rebel groups regularly cooperate with ISIS. There is the mysterious cooperation of the US with Turkey - while it is clear to everyone that Turkey has provided major support for ISIS. And then there is the continuing hostility towards Assad that raises the question what really has Obama's priority.
So I am not astonished that some soldiers believe they are playing in some mysterious fictional theatre play and in a reaction start to invent facts themselves too.
6
Government by fad, war by proxy and drones....is this latest revelation of Pentagon distortions and lies anything new? The element of surprise has quite disappeared from such reports of official prevarication, so much so, that it would be news indeed to hear the truth about out military adventures and entanglements.
5
Remember; we were told we were 'winning' in Vietnam until we lost in Vietnam.
Same tune, different century.
Same tune, different century.
15
General Westmoreland also got caught in such antics lo these many years ago. It shows we have learned from our mistakes - and are able to repeat them exactly.
55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU
A reminder of the big picture by Gen.W. Clark
A reminder of the big picture by Gen.W. Clark
1
The civilized countries are not serious about ending the radical Muslim murders.
Jihadists get their encouragement from the success of ISIS' dream of a calipharte.
ISIS has about 50,000 terrorists winning the game in Iraq-Syria, Boko Haram has a field day destroying villages in Nigeria, and these groups and organizations can be beaten if there is the will to make the commitment.
A coalition of nations of 200,000 or 300,000 thousand soldiers and a contingent of air and sea support can do the job in a matter of weeks.
This pussy-footing with the terrorists only make them stronger and gain more volunteers for this most evil cause.
We can stop it if there is the will.
We have the ways.
Does our president have the will?
1
Elusive is indeed the right word to describe a coalition of air forces from 60 countries air bombing for a year and missing almost every ISIS target. This goes back to how ISIS was cultivated and never really harvested. The military industrial complex is reaping handsome rewards from advanced war weapon sales. Do you see an economic need to eliminate ISIS?
50
Correct. Plus military general officers need wars and conflicts to maintain "slots" open for promotion. Generals need conflict to earn their medals and expand their experience to help garner promotions and practice their "art". I think the military likes constant conflict in the Middle East. It helps with arm procurement and advancement of careers.
1
The details are elusive, the overall picture is clear. When somebody lies, takes action to prevent release of basic facts, attempts to coerce others into changing reports, etc., it is obvious that things are not going well and also not as planned. In this case, it means that ISIS is winning. The details are less important than that basic fact.
In conventional warfare, in general, you cannot win without boots on the ground. Period.
And - you cannot win a war by being nice. If the prime worry of the USA is that no civilian be killed - we might as well pack it up and go home. Civilians will be killed. We can make sure that it happens only inadvertently and not by design but if we lose a battle or do not fight it because a civilian will be killed, we will lose the war and ISIS will kill the civilians, deliberately and, as they have been doing from the start, in huge numbers. So - it is time to decide if we are in it to win - or to play mind games.
In conventional warfare, in general, you cannot win without boots on the ground. Period.
And - you cannot win a war by being nice. If the prime worry of the USA is that no civilian be killed - we might as well pack it up and go home. Civilians will be killed. We can make sure that it happens only inadvertently and not by design but if we lose a battle or do not fight it because a civilian will be killed, we will lose the war and ISIS will kill the civilians, deliberately and, as they have been doing from the start, in huge numbers. So - it is time to decide if we are in it to win - or to play mind games.
3
In Salafi eyes we are Crusader Infidels waging war on Islam; why they wage Jihad against us. That fact alone should determine the correct military strategy: up and out.
We cannot accomplish anything good there so we shouldn't be there. No "boots on the ground". Or bombing from the air.
We cannot accomplish anything good there so we shouldn't be there. No "boots on the ground". Or bombing from the air.
24
They hate us for existing. ISIS would track down the last infidel left hiding in Antarctica and demand they submit or die. There is nothing political about salafi ideology. It is a corrupted version of Islamic religious fervor
It's quite clear that there IS no war against ISIS. It may be that military leaders are under pressure from political leaders to pretend that there is, to answer the natural questions about how we're responding to a force as predatory, destructive and regionally dangerous as ISIS, and one that is metastasizing throughout the greater region; but it's quite plain that no concerted war, even a primarily air war, with clear aims and a targeted outcome, is being waged. We mount merely a handful of sorties, apparently for no other reason than to keep ISIS watchful at the sound of jet engines -- and this MANY months into a "war" against ISIS declared by the president if not by Congress.
Mr. Obama is the U.S. president least comfortable with American power of any president since we've HAD any power on the world stage. NOTHING he does in his foreign policy suggests a strategy for how we can facilitate a more stable world, other than the Iran "deal", and half of us, including important Democrats, disagree with that strategy. What's more, it was clearly developed to avoid the need to project U.S. power, regardless of costs.
We can expect to see major initiatives by ALL destabilizing forces in the world for the duration of the Obama presidency, because over almost seven years it's become painfully evident that they won't be countered, not merely effectively but at all.
Mr. Obama is the U.S. president least comfortable with American power of any president since we've HAD any power on the world stage. NOTHING he does in his foreign policy suggests a strategy for how we can facilitate a more stable world, other than the Iran "deal", and half of us, including important Democrats, disagree with that strategy. What's more, it was clearly developed to avoid the need to project U.S. power, regardless of costs.
We can expect to see major initiatives by ALL destabilizing forces in the world for the duration of the Obama presidency, because over almost seven years it's become painfully evident that they won't be countered, not merely effectively but at all.
12
After eight years of near total failure in foreign affairs by the Bush admin, US citizens wanted sensibility and maturity applied to these affairs and that is what they have with Obama. Remember the “axis of evil,” about which nothing was done, other than the Iraq failure. Really rolled back N Korea’s nuclear program, too, didn’t he? How about the “Bring ‘em on” swagger and of course the “Mission Accomplished” boast. Remember Bush’s claim to having a view of Putin’s soul and something about doing business with him. On and on and on. No one respected him, and not just because of his lack of intelligence.
Perhaps the bombing campaign against ISIS is constrained by their soldiers’ dispersal amongst civilians. You mistake Obama’s prudent use of power for discomfort. Obama certainly seems comfortable with power, to some perhaps too comfortable. Who has pursued the expansion of drone use? And, of course, who got Bin Laden? Who kept us out of an Iraq-like quagmire in Libya, as well as elsewhere in the Mideast? His accomplishments have facilitated the maintenance of what little stability was left in the world following the cowboy years of Bush/Cheney.
As for costs, you forget that because of the drunken sailor spending of Bush we are broke financially, not to mention morally. We can’t afford any more off the books wars. It’s over. The Bush presidency inspired “destabilizing forces” in countries that had lost all respect for us. Spreading fear did not earn us anyone’s respect.
Perhaps the bombing campaign against ISIS is constrained by their soldiers’ dispersal amongst civilians. You mistake Obama’s prudent use of power for discomfort. Obama certainly seems comfortable with power, to some perhaps too comfortable. Who has pursued the expansion of drone use? And, of course, who got Bin Laden? Who kept us out of an Iraq-like quagmire in Libya, as well as elsewhere in the Mideast? His accomplishments have facilitated the maintenance of what little stability was left in the world following the cowboy years of Bush/Cheney.
As for costs, you forget that because of the drunken sailor spending of Bush we are broke financially, not to mention morally. We can’t afford any more off the books wars. It’s over. The Bush presidency inspired “destabilizing forces” in countries that had lost all respect for us. Spreading fear did not earn us anyone’s respect.
1
Any policy that would not "avoid the need to project U.S. power, regardless of costs" would be rather foolhardy. Everything in life (and in politics) has a cost-benefit ratio, and so it would be very important to know what the benefits of a power projection would be. To steer the country into a position where there would be a "need to project U.S. power, regardless of costs" (as happened in Iraq for a while) would mean we are at the point of desperation.
14
Jim:
Try to return to Planet Earth. After 8 years of Dubya, like after 8 years of Clinton, the people wanted a change. But not even that would have been enough for Barack Obama to win in 2008 if our financial system wasn't dropping off the end of the Earth, where monsters dwell, just as people were getting into their cars to go vote. Pity that his response was so insipid after the people went to the trouble of electing him with less than 53% of the popular vote.
Every one of our adversaries in the Middle East embeds itself among civilians -- if that must stop us from attacking them, then they simply can't be attacked, which is simply an unacceptable outcome. Yet we kill people with drones, and that has a collateral effect, as well. Beyond that, does ISIS not have ammo and fuel dumps, do they not have bank accounts and move money around to purchase weapons? War can take on many aspects, yet we pursue none of them against ISIS.
Clearly, we disagree about Dubya, and I'm satisfied for the time being that the people have spoken as to which viewpoint prevails, since we have an undivided Republican Congress, a majority of Republican statehouses and governors' mansions, and a year from November we'll go again for the hat trick.
Try to return to Planet Earth. After 8 years of Dubya, like after 8 years of Clinton, the people wanted a change. But not even that would have been enough for Barack Obama to win in 2008 if our financial system wasn't dropping off the end of the Earth, where monsters dwell, just as people were getting into their cars to go vote. Pity that his response was so insipid after the people went to the trouble of electing him with less than 53% of the popular vote.
Every one of our adversaries in the Middle East embeds itself among civilians -- if that must stop us from attacking them, then they simply can't be attacked, which is simply an unacceptable outcome. Yet we kill people with drones, and that has a collateral effect, as well. Beyond that, does ISIS not have ammo and fuel dumps, do they not have bank accounts and move money around to purchase weapons? War can take on many aspects, yet we pursue none of them against ISIS.
Clearly, we disagree about Dubya, and I'm satisfied for the time being that the people have spoken as to which viewpoint prevails, since we have an undivided Republican Congress, a majority of Republican statehouses and governors' mansions, and a year from November we'll go again for the hat trick.
It seems to me that the elusive truth is that the Western powers are more concerned about ISIS than the neighbors in the Middle East. They just do not seem all that interested. Maybe we should introduce them to the Neighborhood Watch program.
8
Such reports that 500 million USD was used to train 5 fighters should be used as a teachable moment for Obama. Obviously, his strategy to defeat ISIS has failed and it needs a re-work.
To civilians, this failure was already obvious. We could tell from the number of refugees flooding into Europe.
So, moving forward, Obama should consider:
1. Meeting with Putin to discuss a Russian-American coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria.
2. This would include support of Assad as the least bad choice.
3. Matching Russian ground troops in Syria with our own, boot for boot. We already have 3,500 or so American troops in Iraq. Another 2,000 along with the 2,000 estimated Russian troops would open a second front on ISIS.
To civilians, this failure was already obvious. We could tell from the number of refugees flooding into Europe.
So, moving forward, Obama should consider:
1. Meeting with Putin to discuss a Russian-American coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria.
2. This would include support of Assad as the least bad choice.
3. Matching Russian ground troops in Syria with our own, boot for boot. We already have 3,500 or so American troops in Iraq. Another 2,000 along with the 2,000 estimated Russian troops would open a second front on ISIS.
6
Here are a few facts, which seem to be lost on the desperate need of the Left to excuse President Obama's "abject failure:"
1. President Obama has been president for almost seven years.
2. Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen were all relatively stable when President Obama took office.
3. As late as 2011, President Obama, himself was celebrating the success of Iraq as relatively stable, secure, and democratic, and trying to take credit for what had been achieved through the Bush era surge, which he opposed.
3. Overwhelming evidence exists, including the President's own admission during his debate with Mitt Romney, that Obama did not want to keep troops in Iraq.
4. It was always understood that the agreement President Bush reached with the Iraqis would be followed by negotiations to achieve a status of forces agreement for US troops to remain in Iraq. The Obama Administration, which touts the importance of diplomacy, failed in this its important diplomatic task.
5. In what is probably the most colossal foreign policy misjudgment by a president in history, Obama considers the Islamic State to be a "junior varsity" threat.
6. Obama and his allies destroyed the government of Libya and then abandoned the country, but somehow this too must be Bush's fault.
7. Then Obama dithered in Syria, abandoned his own red lines, and could never actually articulate a strategy in Syria or against ISIL, but I suppose his lack of a strategy is also Bush's fault.
1. President Obama has been president for almost seven years.
2. Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen were all relatively stable when President Obama took office.
3. As late as 2011, President Obama, himself was celebrating the success of Iraq as relatively stable, secure, and democratic, and trying to take credit for what had been achieved through the Bush era surge, which he opposed.
3. Overwhelming evidence exists, including the President's own admission during his debate with Mitt Romney, that Obama did not want to keep troops in Iraq.
4. It was always understood that the agreement President Bush reached with the Iraqis would be followed by negotiations to achieve a status of forces agreement for US troops to remain in Iraq. The Obama Administration, which touts the importance of diplomacy, failed in this its important diplomatic task.
5. In what is probably the most colossal foreign policy misjudgment by a president in history, Obama considers the Islamic State to be a "junior varsity" threat.
6. Obama and his allies destroyed the government of Libya and then abandoned the country, but somehow this too must be Bush's fault.
7. Then Obama dithered in Syria, abandoned his own red lines, and could never actually articulate a strategy in Syria or against ISIL, but I suppose his lack of a strategy is also Bush's fault.
24
OK I'll take a stab at refuting these Fox taking points:
1 - yes we know.
2 - Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are each different countries with their own distinct histories and cultural dynamics. Iraq destabilized itself (see #4), Syria and Libya were destabilized by their leaders violent response to the Arab Spring. The idea that Yemen was ever stable is just a joke.
3 - Yes, along with just about all the America people.
4 - We were asked to leave. And immediately upon our departure, the Iraqi government went right back to their violent power struggles, having learned nothing from the previous bloody 8 years of Sunni-Shia fighting. And, 150,000 troops and 8 years barely got things under control. 10,000 remaining troops would have been nothing other than target practice for ISIS.
5 - This is simply delusional. The most colossal foreign policy blunder in history was Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And, ISIS is the JV. Unfortunately the Iraqi Army (trained by Bush) is Little League.
6 - You wanted to occupy Libya? Because Iraq worked out so well? Whether we should have stepped in to prevent the slaughter is debatable. Occupation would have been foolish.
7 - By dithering you mean not rushing into another quagmire? Another unwinnable conflict with constantly changing sides and our guys in the middle? I'll take dithering over Bush's simplistic saber rattling any day.
1 - yes we know.
2 - Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are each different countries with their own distinct histories and cultural dynamics. Iraq destabilized itself (see #4), Syria and Libya were destabilized by their leaders violent response to the Arab Spring. The idea that Yemen was ever stable is just a joke.
3 - Yes, along with just about all the America people.
4 - We were asked to leave. And immediately upon our departure, the Iraqi government went right back to their violent power struggles, having learned nothing from the previous bloody 8 years of Sunni-Shia fighting. And, 150,000 troops and 8 years barely got things under control. 10,000 remaining troops would have been nothing other than target practice for ISIS.
5 - This is simply delusional. The most colossal foreign policy blunder in history was Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And, ISIS is the JV. Unfortunately the Iraqi Army (trained by Bush) is Little League.
6 - You wanted to occupy Libya? Because Iraq worked out so well? Whether we should have stepped in to prevent the slaughter is debatable. Occupation would have been foolish.
7 - By dithering you mean not rushing into another quagmire? Another unwinnable conflict with constantly changing sides and our guys in the middle? I'll take dithering over Bush's simplistic saber rattling any day.
5
"Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen were all relatively stable when President Obama took office."
Right. As "stable" as a three-legged chair.
Thanks for the "facts," Charles.
Right. As "stable" as a three-legged chair.
Thanks for the "facts," Charles.
4
Three-legged chair's known as a stool. Very stable as a matter of fact.
2
Seven years in to the Obama Administration and the Editorial Board is some how finding cause to blame the Bush Administration for the battle against ISIS in Iraq. I thought perhaps I was reading the Onion, but the ponderous seriousness and the complete lack of irony reassured me I was reading the NY Times. And that the Editorial Board continues to live in some parallel universe with its own magical reasoning for conditions in the Middle East.
16
The NYT accepts Senator McCain's view that "the military's assessment of progress is 'divorced' from reality" and that the "status quo in Syria" is "an 'abject failure'."
However, at the same time the NYT seeks to absolve the Obama administration of blame, mentioning former President Bush on one hand and various forms of Congressional interference or inaction on the other.
The editorial "rings hollow" to use the phrase of the editorial itself as it passes the guilt buck to everybody and everything except for POTUS and his administration. Another Democratic president, Harry S. Truman, said it and had a sign on his desk to remind him of the ultimate truth for any president: The Buck stops here, i.e. right on the desk of POTUS. The attempts of the editorial to divert blame elsewhere are disingenuous. The truth regarding responsibility and blame is not elusive.
However, at the same time the NYT seeks to absolve the Obama administration of blame, mentioning former President Bush on one hand and various forms of Congressional interference or inaction on the other.
The editorial "rings hollow" to use the phrase of the editorial itself as it passes the guilt buck to everybody and everything except for POTUS and his administration. Another Democratic president, Harry S. Truman, said it and had a sign on his desk to remind him of the ultimate truth for any president: The Buck stops here, i.e. right on the desk of POTUS. The attempts of the editorial to divert blame elsewhere are disingenuous. The truth regarding responsibility and blame is not elusive.
18
The American policy of continuous war seems to correlate well with the American (read Wall Street/Silicon Valley) policy of free trade. American free trade policy is mostly about the greed of the Mandarins of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, not about improving the general economy or serving the economic interests of middle- and working-class Americans.
Contemporary American free trade is very much like free trade during the reign of England's Queen Victoria. During Queen Victoria's reign, free trade served only the One Percent of that era but it had to be supported by foreign military interventions and intense poverty prevalent in England. These foreign military interventions eventually led to the destruction of England's empire.
The Wall Street and Silicon Valley Mandarins will argue that free trade brings affordable/inexpensive goods to America. When you consider the cost of military interventions to support this free trade policy and the destruction of the American Middle Class, then the claim of affordable/inexpensive imported goods does not pass the smell test.
Contemporary American free trade is very much like free trade during the reign of England's Queen Victoria. During Queen Victoria's reign, free trade served only the One Percent of that era but it had to be supported by foreign military interventions and intense poverty prevalent in England. These foreign military interventions eventually led to the destruction of England's empire.
The Wall Street and Silicon Valley Mandarins will argue that free trade brings affordable/inexpensive goods to America. When you consider the cost of military interventions to support this free trade policy and the destruction of the American Middle Class, then the claim of affordable/inexpensive imported goods does not pass the smell test.
15
Inasmuch as we are rapidly approaching the 500th anniversary of the start of the Protestant Reformation (October 31, 2017), it's instructive to note that a Counter-Reformation in Islam has been underway for at least 50 years (if not longer), a Counter-Reformation spurred by the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.
So long as the forces of Counter-Reformation in Islam are permitted to spread this hateful, reactionary, nihilistic ideology far and wide, there's likely not a thing that either the US or European military will be able to do defeat groups like ISIS - short of occupying the entire Sunni Muslim world and eradicating every last advocate of this ideology, a task that no one in their right mind should contemplate.
And yet this ideology must be halted - by any means necessary, if we hope to preserve western civilization and what remains of moderate Islamic civilization.
For all the manufactured fear of the Ayatollahs of Iran, they are, comparatively speaking, house-trained puppy dogs next to the monsters that this Saudi ideology has produced.
The war against ISIS is going badly because we have been fighting the wrong war all along - and we did so willfully, in an effort to preserve and protect petroleum interests rather than those of a defensible secular civilization.
Islam badly needs authentic Reformation - but I'm not even sure that a Martin Luther could have much impact on a bunch of psychos who are taught that blowing themselves up will get them laid in heaven.
So long as the forces of Counter-Reformation in Islam are permitted to spread this hateful, reactionary, nihilistic ideology far and wide, there's likely not a thing that either the US or European military will be able to do defeat groups like ISIS - short of occupying the entire Sunni Muslim world and eradicating every last advocate of this ideology, a task that no one in their right mind should contemplate.
And yet this ideology must be halted - by any means necessary, if we hope to preserve western civilization and what remains of moderate Islamic civilization.
For all the manufactured fear of the Ayatollahs of Iran, they are, comparatively speaking, house-trained puppy dogs next to the monsters that this Saudi ideology has produced.
The war against ISIS is going badly because we have been fighting the wrong war all along - and we did so willfully, in an effort to preserve and protect petroleum interests rather than those of a defensible secular civilization.
Islam badly needs authentic Reformation - but I'm not even sure that a Martin Luther could have much impact on a bunch of psychos who are taught that blowing themselves up will get them laid in heaven.
138
Why authorize a war? That would screw up a good thing as far as the war profiteers are concerned. We used to have a military under the command of the president. Now we have mercenaries also under the command of the president through the CIA is what I understand. They are called government contractors or the defense "industry". I call them war profiteers. This is convenient on many counts, because legally, under the Geneva convention, the mercenaries do not follow the rules, and they are seldom watched or caught. Like the corporate rule that we have in this country, law breakers are not held accountable, because they can't be held responsible individually because of the corporate structure that protects them. The rule of law has totally broken down, among sovereignties and within our own government, with a government within the government, leaving out the representatives of the people. Our wars are manipulated to suit the needs of our multinational corporations' interests. They do not "protect" Americans, but protect the corporations, which have become so immeshed in our government that one can't tell who runs the show..the corporations or our elected representatives. The veil is lifted off. The corporations run the show, and have for a long time. But they have done such a poor job of ensuring the welfare of the people, that the people are rebelling. Enter Bernie Sanders.
93
If you really want to get angry, google a website 'dangerzonejobs'. It is for a recruiting company for mercenaries, but the most interesting/appalling thing it shows is the contracts issued by the DoD (and other nations). It describes when the contract was authorized, the company which recieved the contract, a short description of purpose, dollar amount and duration.
Example:
In July of this year an American company was awarded $18,500,000 for maintenance on the "Joint Special Operations Unit" in the Phillipines. Only problem is that the US officially closed this place, to much fanfare, in February 2015.
Example:
In July of this year an American company was awarded $18,500,000 for maintenance on the "Joint Special Operations Unit" in the Phillipines. Only problem is that the US officially closed this place, to much fanfare, in February 2015.
1
The key here is that somebody of considerable military rank may have altered the "facts" in order to control the military policy.
That is a direct challenge to civilian control of the military.
Civilians are not in control of decisions if others can change the facts on which those decisions must be based, to manipulate the decisions.
Mistakes are different. Those happen. Decision makers must consider that possibility. Deliberate sabotage of civilian control is another thing entirely.
The military is set up so that the uniformed services are advisers, offering their professional expertise. The Joint Chiefs of Staff expressly are not in command. They are advisers, the highest staff of the highest decision makers. The President is Commander-in-Chief, via his Secretary of Defense.
Deliberate, calculated manipulation of facts reported changes that relationship. It is not just a technical issue. It is fundamental to civil-military relations.
This is a vital matter.
That is a direct challenge to civilian control of the military.
Civilians are not in control of decisions if others can change the facts on which those decisions must be based, to manipulate the decisions.
Mistakes are different. Those happen. Decision makers must consider that possibility. Deliberate sabotage of civilian control is another thing entirely.
The military is set up so that the uniformed services are advisers, offering their professional expertise. The Joint Chiefs of Staff expressly are not in command. They are advisers, the highest staff of the highest decision makers. The President is Commander-in-Chief, via his Secretary of Defense.
Deliberate, calculated manipulation of facts reported changes that relationship. It is not just a technical issue. It is fundamental to civil-military relations.
This is a vital matter.
83
Follow the oil is like follow the money in an investigative sense, but we are conditioned to rebel at the notion that all of this has to do with something as prosaic as greed for black gold, but of course it does.
As anyone who can read knows, it is our Sunni allies who have created ISIS as a surrogate by ponying up billions of dollars in order to own the Sunni rebellion in Syria, and it should be expected that jihadists will always be the most dedicated fighters.
War is very good for the tiny minority of men who conspire to bring it about, and propaganda along with necessary revisions like we now have should be assumed. There is nothing elusive about the discovery of the truth about ISIS, but the purpose of ISIS is to change the Map of the ME to favor the Sunni Royals and revisions must be expected to any plan. It is being revised.
As anyone who can read knows, it is our Sunni allies who have created ISIS as a surrogate by ponying up billions of dollars in order to own the Sunni rebellion in Syria, and it should be expected that jihadists will always be the most dedicated fighters.
War is very good for the tiny minority of men who conspire to bring it about, and propaganda along with necessary revisions like we now have should be assumed. There is nothing elusive about the discovery of the truth about ISIS, but the purpose of ISIS is to change the Map of the ME to favor the Sunni Royals and revisions must be expected to any plan. It is being revised.
1
There are reports in other publications that appointed officials in the Obama administration, not the military, is behind this. Allegedly James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, is putting the squeeze on the military:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/james-clapper-pentagon-mi...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/james-clapper-pentagon-mi...
1
The problem is with a self-appointed Commander in Chief. Like this one? You may rue the next one.
1
“This is a result of leaving Iraq.”
No. This is a result of getting involved in Iraq and everything that has ensued sources from there.
This is a result of failed and corrupt Middle East policies dating back decades.
This is a result of inconsistent policy and philosophy.
This is a result of racist policy. Listening to Rand Paul and the others in yesterday's GOP debate should have given chills to any decent person listening. Paul talked about having deposed Saddam Hussain and leaving a vacuum for Iran to fill, without any regard for the consequences borne by Iraqis ever since. None of the candidates showed any remorse over the fact that the people of Iraq were left high and dry, with no strategy for after Saddam.
We had no business going into Iraq. We had no business leaving Iraq without doing as we have in other wars, putting affairs in order before leaving.
We don't have the lawmakers to demand anything. This country needs a political revolution, one that will bring leaders with the moral fiber and fortitude to change the ethical basis from which we operate.
These messes are the result of hawkish policy.
No. This is a result of getting involved in Iraq and everything that has ensued sources from there.
This is a result of failed and corrupt Middle East policies dating back decades.
This is a result of inconsistent policy and philosophy.
This is a result of racist policy. Listening to Rand Paul and the others in yesterday's GOP debate should have given chills to any decent person listening. Paul talked about having deposed Saddam Hussain and leaving a vacuum for Iran to fill, without any regard for the consequences borne by Iraqis ever since. None of the candidates showed any remorse over the fact that the people of Iraq were left high and dry, with no strategy for after Saddam.
We had no business going into Iraq. We had no business leaving Iraq without doing as we have in other wars, putting affairs in order before leaving.
We don't have the lawmakers to demand anything. This country needs a political revolution, one that will bring leaders with the moral fiber and fortitude to change the ethical basis from which we operate.
These messes are the result of hawkish policy.
160
Exactly. Thank you.
Mary Lynch Mobilia
Mary Lynch Mobilia
1
The failure here is compounded by the fact that Obama leads from behind. It's not just an overused Republican talking-point. In the case of ISIS, it happens to be true. Why didn't Obama come out and arm the moderate Syrian opposition earlier in the war, why wait for an ISIS-like group to fill the void left by American inaction? Why did Obama blink in the face of Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people (after Obama said that that would consitute crossing "red-line" for American military intervention)? Why is the administration not doing more to help the thousands of displayed refugees streaming from the region?
Obama only wants to hear what he wants (from the Intelligence community, the Pentagon, and his advisors) regarding this conflict in order to avoid any excuse to intervene more directly or put American troops back in harms way. The void left by American inaction is being filled by the Russians who now have aircraft, arms, and at least 500 troops on the ground shoring up Assad's regime. The "elusive truth" of the War is that it illustrates Obama's failure to provide effective leadership on the world stage.