American-led airstrikes killed at least 180 Islamic State fighters as local Kurdish forces scrambled to repel a bold, multi-pronged assault by the militants, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.... The fighting in northern Iraq comes as President Obama struggles to defend his policy — called feeble by some critics in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. — and his handling of the war in Syria, where Russia’s new air campaign has added to the complexity of an already tangled conflict.I have no idea what Obama should or will do in Iraq in the next 11 months. I just want to observe that he's in a position to manipulate presidential politics. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that he would be willing to corrupt his military decisionmaking with calculations about what will help his party in the 2016 election.
And resist the sarcastic commentary on the assumption. Everyone can see that side road. Don't waste your time going over there. The scenic road is up ahead: Could Obama undercut the GOP candidates (some/all of them) by going big in an effort to defeat ISIS? Ted Cruz has said he wants to "carpet bomb" and Donald Trump has said he would "bomb the shit out of them." What if Obama beats them to it? Who benefits?
Help me puzzle through this. I'm thinking: First, Hillary needs to get the nomination. That must be locked in, but after that, Hillary is free to be the hawk that is one of her multiple personas. She can play that well, I think. But she'll lose some Democrats. Sanders could become a third party candidate. He only recently joined the Democratic Party, and he's already the candidate of the Working Families Party. There's some risk, but the GOP candidates will lose some of their foundation if Obama shifts into warrior mode.
What if it becomes an argument about who can best continue Obama's vigorous, popular war on ISIS? Republicans can talk about how Obama squandered what had been a Bush victory in Iraq and allowed ISIS to flourish and force us into this new war, and so a GOP President is more trustworthy. But which GOP candidate will be the one making this argument? Hillary will argue for continuity and Obama-style smartness, as opposed to the carpet-and-shit bombing from The Stupid Party.
There are many unmentioned permutations. I'm trying to start a discussion. The topic is: How can Obama stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party by going big against ISIS?
Posts
64 comments:
I believe Obama will play golf and contemplate how much to charge for speeches after he leaves the presidency. No large changes on any policy will be made in 2016.
I'm pretty sure this is all funded by the Saudis. Go after the money.
Of course, there have always been rumors about Obama, and the Saudis.
A lot depends on how well he does it. His record suggests a half-effort, and failure. That boosts GOP hawks. If he does a thorough job then 1) good for him and 2) if Hillary endorses it she wins the election and 3) it absolutely undercuts Trump at least. Trump's appeal is due in large measure to his being the only guy to treat some issues as important. Never mind if he's good or bad on them; what matters is that at least he's aware of them. He will be seriously undercut. Cruz I do not know.
I know what Obama is going to do with ISIS over the next 11 months: Run out the clock. Stall. Hold the ball. Look like he is doing something but doing little. No boots on the ground. Waiting for Hillary.
That works until ISIS takes Baghdad. Or Mecca.
There is zero chance that Obama will go apostate and attack JV team. It is the Caliphate giving Hope And Change thrills up the legs of patient Jihadists cells around the base camp mosques established at great cost by the Saudis in Dar es Islam (Europe and the USA.
But of course the media will run nightly news highlights whenever the White House issues Official Lies that we are attacking ISIS with overflights which can scare the Jihadists with fake bomb runs and send in a few more Ranger Teams whose mission is to sit there and be Propaganda props.
Just look at the 7 years of horrid decisions and lies by the Obama-Clinton-Kerry triad in foreign policy, poor decisions by the administration re the Defense Department, poor decisions re energy policies
1) Even if Obama does take the correct approach now, you can't logically think that a Democrat would be the best choice to continue the prosecution of the war.
2) If Obama does significantly change his approach now, it would obviously because of political considerations, and it would be foolish to think that a Democrat would make the correct decisions going forward. More likely they would go back to stupidity after the election.
And, by the way, is not just against ISIS - thinking that it is (which apparently Obama does) shows a complete lack of understanding. If ISIS is defeated, AQ will rise back up again, along with other groups. This SHOULD be a war against radical Islam, not just against ISIS.
Obama is completely boxed in. Syria is increasingly a Russian theater of operations. Turkey wants to destroy the Kurds, who would otherwise be our allies.
DOD operations have always been mircomanaged by the West Wing. Whatever Obama does, it will be distorted by media optics. Always giving Obama the participation trophy.
That said, 2016 is Hillary's to lose.
Obama has neither the makeup nor the inclination to wage a successful campaign against ISIS. With San Bernadino in the near background and the inability to pin that on the "gun crazies" he has to do something in the ME because he can not distract us with a "gun control" fight. He has turned his generals a little loose and we are finally dropping a few bombs rather than taking them out and bringing them back. This change is still sub-rosa; reported only after the fact. Has Obama let us know up-front anything specific that he is going to do differently against ISIS? No. Obama is not a warrior, he has never been a warrior. His personal belief system seems to be that one should avoid conflict wherever possible, regardless of the threat to our own interests. ( Unless ,of course, the conflict is with the legislature.)
I don't see how he can impact the presidential race by becoming aggressive about ISIS. Hillary is beholden to the far left in the primaries. They will oppose any significant military action that causes losses. That has been part of their make-up since prior to WWII. Unless Obama puts boots on the ground, or takes on a more martial tone he is not going to impact Republican voters. Obama will never be a guy who can't be "out-toughed"
It disturbs me that we now are gauging success by body count. They weren't truthful or meaningful in VN; they won't be in the ME either. When it comes to the arithmetic of bodycounts one should read Philip Caputo. Specifically, Part Two of his book "A Rumor of War" which is entitled "The Officer in Charge of The Dead".
Targeted strikes don't sound like the Cruz strategy. I can't see Obama ordering carpet bombing. This isn't Viet Nam.
He would be more likely to send in more ground troops, which is the Rubio strategy. The rise of ISIS is going to hang around Hillary's neck.
Cruz and Trump have a good point that this foray into the Middle East -- Iraq, Libya, and Syria -- has been a disaster and that it was not as bad under tyrants/autocrats of Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad than the current situation.
I don't understand, other than to someone me like a tough idiot, why Cruz calls for bombing in Syria. This problem belongs to Assad, Putin, and the mullahs. Our job is to keep ISIS down and out in the US (I hate the fact the term "homeland" which sounds Soviet).
Obama's current approach to ISIS in Syria isn't going to change, nor should it. He's doing enough to plausibly appease our NATO allies.
If Obama gets serious about the war against ISIS...
LOL
Good one!
This is a question that supposes the normalcy of the voters, which is not true. There are too many women.
How will women react?
Trump is the anti-woman, in the sense of not supporting their soap opera narratives.
So Trump's voters may be indifferent to Obama's tricks, as transparent and idiotic, which they already think.
What if any reason does Obama really have to change anything he has been doing to date? He "owes" no one, especially not Hillary! and his ticket is punched for his post presidency already. He will clean up on the TV / lecture circuit like Bill did, if he wants to. Doing anything different [from his point of view] would be a risk that he likely does not feel he needs to take. I predict he will "stay the course".
First, Hillary needs to get the nomination.
Hillary needs to be given the nomination.
She won't be earning it. Mainstream Media is avoiding asking her any embarrassing question. That is great cover.
The President and his advisers are playing a three shell Monte game with no pea. We can sit here and choose which shell all day. The pea has been palmed.
For Obama to stymie Republicans, he has to prove them right. He has to put more boots on the ground (we already have a significant amount, but they are all special forces doing specific missions and helping other forces). He has to loosen ROE. And he has to show territorial progress - that territory is re-captured, significantly, and then held and repelling attacks.
OR
He has to kill Al-Baghdadi, who is not just a leader who can be replaced since he has declared himself a caliph.
Hillary then has to claim that she was for all of these actions which she is not currently calling for - which God knows she would be able to pull off claiming.
The problem in your scenario is not that Obama couldn't become Hawkish - it's that he's already claiming tons of bombing runs with very little progress as a result. He needs to show actual, provable progress and then HOLD that for that strategy to be successful.
And that's not normal politics for him. He's used to using vague rhetoric. Successful warfare, carried out over ~11 months, requires sustaianed victory and he has no history of that in any foreign policy nor in any military endeavors.
If specifically Obama suddenly decided to really commit to getting rid of ISIS (or ISIL as he prefers to call them) by sending in >30k boots on the ground and upping the number of air strikes to early Iraq war levels, I could see it really hurting the Republicans, yes. Combine all those very highly implausible assumptions with Hillary going all hawk, then yes, I think the Dems could easily win the presidency.
Is 30k boots on the ground 30k people or 15k?
This is only another part of Obama's protections, whenever possible, of Muslims and other terrorists (eg Missouri's Michael Brown).
Let Turkey deal with all the refugees and let Putin, Assad, and the mullahs fight ISIS in Syria. The Saudis can send in their miltary if they want.
All these countries are US enemies. Let Islam clean up its own shit.
I question one assumption: Does Barack Obama really want Hillary Clinton to be the next President?
If he is followed by anyone from the GOP, ex-President Obama can spend the rest of his life blaming any negative fallout from his administration on his GOP successor.
And he doesn't even like the Clintons.
Is 30k boots on the ground 30k people or 15k?
30k people. Obviously I was envisioning an army of 1 legged soldiers.
Get serious?
Our president is a fundamentally unserious man. As far as our foreign policy is concerned he is a child.
I don't think it matters what Obama does or doesn't do against ISIS.
Everything depends on whether or not there is a domestic terror attack by ISIS supporters (of one ilk or another). If that happens, then no matter what the White House does will be portrayed as causal.
If our policy is very aggressive, then it will be portrayed as triggering extremism in domestic. This is a favorite causal hypothesis of the left, but the Republicans will happily adapt it if necessary. If our policy is restrained, then it will be portrayed as negligent.
If there is no domestic terror attack before the election, what we do in Syria won't matter.
mccullough said...
Let Turkey deal with all the refugees and let Putin, Assad, and the mullahs fight ISIS in Syria. The Saudis can send in their miltary if they want.
All these countries are US enemies. Let Islam clean up its own shit.
Until they shit in our house. And then it's our problem.
The will be more San Berardinos.
Why?
Because we are unserious as to their threat.
Of course if Obama had gone big against Isis in the first place he wouldn't then be having to weigh the politics of going big against ISIS.
Knowing Obama I don't know if he actually would change course.
But it wouldn't hurt republicans. They can say Obama did what they would have done just not big enough and too late. It would highlight that his policy up till now has been feckless.
He would be showing the "neocons" and warmongers were right.
A lot of dems will say it's right no matter what it is because Obama did it.
If he closed gitmo it was right. If he keeps it open, hey he just can't close it now. They are not looking for right policy they are simy there to cheerleader the president. Even if they support policies they opposed YESTERDAY.
But then there are commited liberals who r anti war. These types will go to Bernie sanders. If Hillary continues pushing hawkish policies it's a sign to them that she is a neocon
That's going to be the battle for democrats. The commited ones or the apathetic ones who just parrot what dems say is right.
"Cruz and Trump have a good point that this foray into the Middle East -- Iraq, Libya, and Syria -- has been a disaster and that it was not as bad under tyrants/autocrats of Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad than the current situation."
what do they think would happen if Isis took control? They'd be the tyrants/autocrats.
And at any rate Kerry just said that they are no longer viewing Syria as regime to be toppled.
Which is Cruz's and trumps policy suggestion.
Are they going to defend Syria against Isis? Or are they going to let the current situation continue and have their stable autocratic dictatorships be attacked by Isis?
In other words, the current situation is not that much different than the situation they say was better. I don't see them why their posts on is either that different from or better than Obama's.
Nuanced, Pragmatic, Dr Spock, NoDrama Obama has made it quite clear that slow and steady is the way to "denigrate and ultimately destroy" these Non-Muslim, lying, thieving, thugs. To give them any more than slow and steady, leaflet dropping, no collateral damage, not during Ramadan or Iftar Dinner, would just play right into their hands. They might use it to recruit more Non-Muslim thugs. "Just what they want us to do," he says. We gotta be cool, ya'll. Send the message that they ain't shit. Why do you think he plays golf every weekend? Since he always tells the truth, why would anyone expect him to change course?
It seems to me like a far-fetched assumption that he would corrupt his military decision making to help his party. Haven't we heard his crowing about being better at everything. Better at speech writing, policy analysis, campaign managing than all the idiots that work for him. He has given no indication that he wants to help his party win anything. What do the lawyers say about facts not in evidence?
Now, he might change channels from ESPN over to MSNBC and find out that U.S. Americans are worried about like I-Rack and everywhere like such as. But I really don't expect that.
I know, leave the sarcasm to the hostess.
Trump's appeal isn't grounded in national defense.
He says what many people believe; our leaders are stupid, our leaders are corrupt, they are selling us out for personal and political gain.
If Obama bombs ISIS it doesn't change Trump's story. INS doesn't check the social media posting of Muslims that want to come to the US because it may be a privacy violation. It doesn't get anymore stupid than that.
Obama get serious? Get serious. Anyway, Hillary doesn't really fit the mold of a wartime consigliere
MadisonMan sed this:
She won't be earning it. Mainstream Media is avoiding asking her any embarrassing question. That is great cover.
You've gotta be kidding! I specifically heard Topo Gigo ask her the other day about Benghazi. Great opportunity for her to give the 11 hours answer.
What if Hilary, in order to win the election "triangulates" as Bill did on welfare, that is, persuades Obama to triangulate? (Obama on his own will continue his preferential option for the penguins and the Moslems but perhaps Bill could persuade.) Well, first she has to see who the GOP opponent is because the GOP has candidates with varying strategies vs. ISIS. Say she decides to use trump Trump starting now. Then the Donald would win the election if the strategy was successful as the Donald would make very sure everyone knew whose ideas were winning; and he would lose the convention if the strategy was a failure, so another candidate would run vs. Hilary and her failing ISIS strategy. And that candidate would win.
Or what if she called in Petraeus, McCrystal and all the people Obama fired and had them draw up a strategy and implemented it; and called in IT brilliance vs. ISIS; and stepped up the defense appropriation (The Fiorina strategy). I think it would work as triangulation but then Bernie probably would run a third party challenge as did McGovern and split the vote and no Republican would vote for her anyhow.
Essentially Hilary has to run as the candidate of centralized, scientific government - a Detroit car running against Honda. The time for the over-theme, that centralized, scientific government is a good thing, is past. Though the lords and ladies are congregating at Versailles in ever larger numbers and the peasants are very busy being poor without dying of it - it's just a matter of time till, as my Classic comic book on The Tale of Two Cities, put it: " from the palace came the fatal words of a laughing queen: "They have no bread, why don't they eat cake." What the fatal words will be I have no idea but if I were Hilary I would run, not for President, just run, right now.
Obama doesn't like the Clintons but he needs a Democrat in the White House: A Democrat buys four more years of Keystone not getting built, EPA regulations standing, illegal work visas for aliens etc. etc...
Even if Obama had it in him to wage real war against ISIS (he doesn't), it is too late for him to learn how. Even GWB, with a far more flexible mind, took 6 years to learn how to fight this kind of war.
But let's say BHO wages serious and successful war against ISIS: The Republicans will say (correctly IMHO) "The President is finally getting off his ass and taking action because he needs another lawless Democrat to follow him in office and protect his failed domestic policies. Right after the election, they will go right back to not caring about national security."
There's some risk, but the GOP candidates will lose some of their foundation if Obama shifts into warrior mode.
Not much of the foundation. First of all, because Obama, being who he is, isn't going to tell his uniformed warriors "Win me this war!" and turn them loose. He's going to micromanage it and he's not very good at managing anything at all. Besides which, the evidence is that he's pushed his real warriors out the door in favor of uniformed yes-men. So the war against ISIS will go poorly.
Secondly, Hillary is going to have to say some thoroughly dovish things to keep her base in line -- with high disapproval ratings among independents she can't afford to have Democrats stay home on Election Day! So a strong campaign against ISIS won't help her at all unless she says she favors continuity but her operatives tell the base that she doesn't really mean it. And that would surely get out and not play well with independents, who already think she prevaricates at every opportunity.
So in answer to the question "What how [sic] can Obama stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party by going big against ISIS?" I'd say that he'll try to hit ISIS hard but it won't work and wouldn't help Hillary much if it did.
obama has no interest in doing anything about ISIS. His focus is to make it seem as if he is doing something. The media is happy to help him do so. Once that is done, and its underway now, then the Dems will have gotten tougher on ISIS. It's Orwellian. The perception is more important than the actual doing.
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, Jimmy Carter shifted his foreign and defense policies toward a much more confrontational stance. The American people, however, believed that boycotting the Olympics and imposing a wheat export embargo were the heart of the change in policy, not the increase in the defense budget (which included covert support for the Afghan resistance). He had dug too deep a hole to get out of in 11 months, especially with the Iranian hostage crisis dragging on and on and on and Carter's implicit admission in the "malaise" speech that he could not govern.
Similarly, I think that at this point, Obama can do almost nothing to reverse what is a fixed impression that he is unduly accommodating to opponents of Western values, whether they are Shia mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, or Vladimir Putin. A shift in the Obama foreign and defense policy that would be considered middle of the road for a Republican presidential candidate would unsettle almost everyone because no one would trust his judgment. Having said that, I am convinced that the President is incapable of reconsidering his point of view. If he has never done so during the past seven years, why would he start now?
"What if Obama beats them to it? Who benefits?"
It all depends on how it turns out, and what ISIS does in response. Nothing in war is static, and defeat is sure to follow if you assume the enemy won't come up with tricks of its own. Taking the (counterfactual) hypo that Obama decides to become a real war-time president but only in a 'bomb them back to the stone-age' way, ISIS is quite likely to take a Hamas-style approach and hide in plain sight among the civilian population of whatever cities it may control. You know how Obama and Kerry reacted when the Israelis tried to deal with that problem militarily. And the (heavily criticized) Israeli approach was quite different from adopting a Dresden-type bombing campaign, where massive civilian casualties are deemed acceptable. Up to now, the type of thing Obama has been willing to do (or that his critics have urged him to do) has been very different -- e.g., bomb ISIS camps in the desert or convoys of trucks. But even if Obama adopted a Dresden-bombing strategy, it does not help politically in 2016 if ISIS manages to inspire a larger, domestic attack of the San Bernardino sort. Whatever Obama may claim to have achieved in the Middle East will not help Hillary! if ISIS manages to pull off a few more of domestic attacks of any size. I suspect that the ISIS team is much more skillful and quite well tuned in to the political realities of Western societies, so that it can come up with some tricks of its own in playing the psychological games that are so important in determining the American public's reaction to (and disinclination to participate in) foreign wars.
War is a complete bitch.
"Hillary the hawk" has the bodies of four dead Americans in Benghazi that will trip her up if she campaigns that way. The scornful laughter of her opponent won't shame her, she is shameless, but it will inform more people of her lack of seriousness. Plus, "Hillary the Hawk" loses leftist votes fast.
Rusty,
The radical Islamists are already here. Wasting our money and last he's in Syria isn't going to change that. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, whatever the he next iteration is going to be doesn't matter.
Going after radical Islam here is a good idea, but Obama hasn't done enough. He's got about 1% of the Muslim Americans listed in the TSDB and has done a better job than W and Clinton of penetrating the mosques but he hasn't cut off student visas, travel visas, and other visas to these shithole countries, especially Saudi Arabia.
There is no reason anyone from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan should be let into the US anymore. Or Syria or Yemen. There is no way to get the extremists from a head countries.
Obama, like W, has done a poor job of addressing radical Islam in the US. But he is right to engage as little as possible in Syria. There are no good guys there.
Ted Cruz has said he wants to "carpet bomb" and Donald Trump has said he would "bomb the shit out of them." What if Obama beats them to it? Who benefits?
The Americans in America who are not killed by Islamic terrorism because the Caliphate is destroyed. They benefit.
But also Trump – because Trump will congratulate Obama for ditching Obama’s failed ISIS strategy(let the next POTUS deal with ISIS) and switching to Trump’s far better strategy. How would Trump NOT benefit?
What how can Obama stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party by going big against ISIS?
Obama can’t “stymie” Trump. Obama and what Obama can do are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Public opinion is not dictated by Obama, the MSM, the Democrats, the GOP elite or Academia anymore. They’ve all frittered away their credibility. Obama has gotten himself into a spot where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Chickens … home … roost.
But it’s academic because Obama will never order an all-out war and nothing else will suffice.
Trump will win the nomination. Trump will trounce Hillary in the general. Trump will remake the GOP into a viable, responsive institution. In fact Trump will not need a “third party.” He already has that, in all but name, manifested by the hordes of disaffected voters at his rallies. Bestselling books will be written about the phenomenon of Trumpism, how the crossover vote, the unexpected strength among Hispanics, women and other “surprising” factors gave Trump the Whitehouse. All this is beginning to sink in on the Sunday shows.
Obama is not going "big" against ISIS. He is too lazy. Gong big would mean many many meetings and reports to read. He is not going big, he is going little. Stated goals are those he can accomplish from his bedroom: close Gitmo, tweak some gun bullshit, tweak more global warming. Done.
"Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that he would be willing to corrupt his military decisionmaking with calculations about what will help his party in the 2016 election."
I have no doubt (based on 7 years of empirical evidence) that Obama is "willing to corrupt his military decision making with calculations." I just don't buy that he'd ever do it to "help his party in the 2016 election." His calculations are ALWAYS based on what he thinks is good for OBAMA personally.
So, at the risk of resisting your given assumption, he won't change anything unless he thinks it'll help Obama. And at this point, he will stay the course with little or no changes (nothing meaningful or capable of winning) because he can't stand the possibility of his presidential legacy being associated with "war" vs. "peace".
But we will get more lectures on how we're all "un-American" or something.
Ann,
There's some nuance required here. You ask:
"What if it becomes an argument about who can best continue Obama's vigorous, popular war on ISIS?" and then later "What how can Obama stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party by going big against ISIS?"
In answer to your second, the easiest way that President Obama could stymie Trump/Cruz/Garrison's "bomb/f*** 'em all to death" ISIS proposals (if in fact that's what Trump and Cruz are saying- I don't really follow domestic politics) would be, as you suggested in your post, to simply co-opt their proposal. The Administration relaxes the rules of engagement and steps up the bombing campaign in northern Iraq and Syria. Trump and Cruz claim that Obama is finally adopting their proposals and victory is imminent.
Only victory probably won't be "imminent." Sans an effective ground force (and we don't have suitable proxies across the entire battlespace), Daesh will have little reason to mass their fighters, making it extremely difficult for aerial controllers to parse out targets and conduct effective strikes on the ground. Oh, there will be lots of deaths and some or many of them will be fighters, but as khesanh0802 pointed out above, body counts aren't very meaningful. And the bombing campaign will almost certainly multiply the number of refugees and displaced persons rushing to escape the land that was once called Syria, and Daesh fighters have long demonstrated proficiency at blending into crowds when it suits their interests to be invisible, re-grouping at a follow-on location and making another go.
Moreover, while there's something to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here," it's not so quick and easy as that in the short-term (that's a long-term development, depending on how you're defining "fight"), and the Obama/Trump/Cruz/Garrison bombing campaign would probably do very little to reduce the Paris and San Bernardino style attacks in the West over the next 11 months until the election; repeats of those could also be electorally de-stabilizing in a whole different way and would suggest to the public that we're not winning.
But it's possible that the lag time between the intensified air campaign and its inability to demonstrate victory is long enough that Hillary gets elected. If that's the case, then your scenario could unfold just as you wrote. If it's not- if people are frustrated because despite dropping ten times more bombs Daesh has not been defeated, are still carrying out attacks in the Levant, with surrogates carrying out attacks everywhere from Afghanistan and Nigeria/Congo to the West - this is where your first question comes in - then I'm guessing the war won't be seen as "vigorous" or "popular" by the electorate.
I can't really wargame this much further as I have little understanding of what the candidates would do in the second turn, nor do I have any idea whether the anti-war candidates, Sanders or Paul, would be willing to lead a third party movement over a bombing campaign Syria. But Clinton becoming the favorite to carry out a "successful" Obama strategy against Daesh relies heavily upon it being perceived as a success by the public, and co-opting the Trump/Cruz "bomb 'em back" strategy is unlikely to do that in the short-term and almost certainly will not do that in the long-term.
The President is already affecting the Presidential race simply by being the anthesis to Trump and the extreme nuttiness of today's Republican Presidential top candidates. All he has to do is continue to give those updates regarding the actions against ISIS. He did two recently in a very short period of time. He needs to keep this up, maybe give one weekly. Contrast his televised serious level headed reports to the over the top rhetoric by Trump and Cruz. In actuality, Obama doesn't have to do a thing to affect the Presidential race because the over the top rhetoric by Trump and Cruz make them pretty much unserious and incredible to the majority of rational Americans who are probably the majority.
We are fighting an assymetric war with the terrorists and a semi assymetric war with ISIL. No assymetric war in our history has been won in a matter of months and there is no way we can prevent every act of terrorism perpetrated by our own citizens. To think either of those thoughts is ignorant, just look at the history.
We've already put boots on the ground for over a decade and look at the results. How is doing the same thing going to help?
HW Bush and Dick Cheney made the decision not to take over Iraq in 1991 - a decision I praised as I was in the midst of the battle at the time - and relative peace broke out. When Cheney/Bush made the opposite decision a decade later, we are still paying the price in treasure and lives. This is the point that Trump made in the debate.
The San Bernadino terrorists had no direct contact with ISIL but they were radicalized well before the shooting. The same could be said for the OK City bombing and it was impossible to predict that particular incident. I am sure that there will be another soft target taken by terrorists in the US by independent actors. ISIL does not send troops to us, they inspire radicals to act. ISIL is interested in taking over land and oil for the caliphate but even if we destroy them, the terror will continue.
Simple answers such as carpet bombing (which isn't even realistic) are not the answer, more sophisticated actions, mostly covert are probably more effective including destroying their ability to fund themselves and dealing with the pervasive effects of the Internet without destroying the Internet.
If Obama was willing to let the US military be serious about fighting ISIS, they'd be destroyed before the election.
Consequences:
1: Dem base will be incredibly pissed. Hillary will be forced to be pro-the attacks. So we'll either get 3rd party Bernie, or some other 3rd Party candidate who will suck down a good part of the vote.
Either that, or we end up with a lot of Dems sitting this one out.
2: Most Republicans will endorse the attacks, endorse the success of the US military and over and over again play video of Obama saying he wanted "no victors, no vanquished." So they'll drive home the point that all the evil that happened there happened because Democrats don't want America to win, and don't want to fight terrorism. They will be aided in this by A: the fact that's it's true, B: Hillary will be constantly trying to calm the Dem base, and everything she says to them will prove the Republican case more.
3: Destruction of the Islamic State would allow press to get in there, and video of the ISIS sex slaves damning Obama for taking so long will be priceless for Republican candidates.
Real feminists don't care about brown skinned girls in other countries getting raped, they care about Roe. Fortunately, most Americans are decent human beings, not real feminists, so those videos will be devastating.
We've got an effective ground force, it's called the Kurds. Given effective air support they'd slaughter ISIS.
It's a win-win for Cruz.
1: Finally President Obama is claiming he'll do the right thing. The only way we can fail now is if Obama Administration incompetence keeps our marvelous American fighting men and women from winning.
2: Things go poorly? Get some of the multitude of US military people who's plans weren't followed to make ads about how Obama Administration incompetence and interference is keeping us from victory. Since it's already been documented that Obama Administration incompetence and dishonesty lead to bad intelligence about ISIS, and terrorists targeting the US, this is an easy play.
3: Things go well? Dem base is pissed. Hillary is desperately trying to triangulate between them and the American people, and Cruz is crowing about how much better things would have been if Obama had just done the right thing 4 years ago.
So bring it on
Obama could shift into public abortion mode, but that will not improve the optics clouded by his other choices.
I don't see the US winning this, or looking like they are winning.
The winners will be Assad, the Russians and Iran.
The Kurds don't look like they are about to take Mosul, as they haven't been armed and aren't about to be. Ramadi is falling to the Iraqi army and militias, which are Iranian proxies.
Assad will credit the Russians for whatever.
There will be another flood of refugees into Turkey when the positions around Aleppo are taken.
The Syrian Kurds may take Raqqa, but at this point its more likely Assad will.
And since we have the Russians, British, French, Canadians, and for all I know the Norwegians bombing this and that and each with their own special forces dudes sneaking around, I don't know how the US can stand out.
There are just too many players in this game, a really absurd number, for the US government to be credible as a decisive player.
Or another way to put it - HOW can Obama get "more serious" ?
The one really decisive thing the US could do is fully back the Kurds and arm them to the teeth, but this opens many cans of worms.
The US cant bomb its way to victory because there isn't that much to bomb, the US has nowhere to deploy ground troops to, or supply them from, and limited bases to do any bombing and all of them politically constrained.
Trump said the US has wasted $4 trillion in the Middle East and Afghanistan during the last two administrations and has nothing to show for it. This is the most sensible thing any political candidate has said this century.
Almost 5,000 troops were killed in Iraq and Afganistan under W and about 2,000 under Obama. More than 75% of US deaths in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama while he fights "the good war." It's ridiculous.
Obama let Hillary and Susan Rice talk him into bombing Libya, which is now even more fucked up than under Qaddafi. Our ambassador and three other brave Americans died there for no reason other than Obama and Hillary's stupidity in getting involved in Libya. And so Obama and Hillary had to lie their ass off to the public to pretend that they didn't open up another country to radical Islamists.
Yemen, another touted "success" of Obama, is also in chaos. It's not Obama's fault that Yemen is another failed state. It's just another Arab shithole. But he displayed his frequent stupidity when he touted Yemen, just as he displayed his stupidity when he called ISIS the JV team. Again, it's not Obama's fault the Middle East is shit. It's been shit for ever. Going there in 2009 to make a speech about the Arab world and Islam was hilarious. That speech was absurd at the time but is now a treasure of American stupidity along with W's freedom lover beliefs about these cretins. Hillary's "Muslims are peaceful" speech is up there. If she becomes President that one will be one for the ages as well.
We're supposed to be worried about Trump after W, Obama, and Hillary?
I don't think even capturing Raqqa would stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party, which is anyway focused more on internal danger. And the pplan is to caoture Raqqa in about tree or four months. What just happened in Iraq was like the Battle of the Bulge - ISIS threw everything into an attack, and is now weaker than before..
They may get Raqqa before Mosul.
Of course, Obama thinks he is going to settle the Syrian Civil War first. Just like he did, he thinks, the war in Libya.
McCain is flabbergasted at what Obama and Kerry are trying to do. He's seeking an alliance with Russia in Syria (although not on such pro-Russian terms as Putin wants)
McCain noted that Russia bombed Syrian rebels we support, and when they bombed ISIS in Raqqa, their bombing was indiscriminate.
http://breaking.cyber1news.com/news/mccain-%E2%80%98i-am-not-making-this-up%E2%80%99%E2%80%94kerry-said-russia-helpful-in-syria
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/mccain-i-am-not-making-this-up-kerry-said-russia-helpful-in-syria/
Arizona’s senior senator rhetorically asked, “Was Russia making progress when it bombed U.S.-backed Syrian forces fighting the Assad regime? Or was that when it took a brief pause from bombing Syrian moderates to indiscriminately drop dumb [unguided] bombs in ISIL territory in Eastern Syria, killing untold numbers of civilians? Is that the significant Russian contributions?”
McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then turned to the future of Assad, quoting Kerry from earlier this week when he said, “‘The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change [in Syria].’ The focus now is [quoting Kerry again] ‘not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad.’”
The chairman characterized Kerry’s remarks as essentially telling the world, “Dear Mr. Assad, here’s a blank check. Here’s your card. Do whatever you want to … Continue your barrel bombing. Continue your torture. Continue the war crimes that you have committed. You’ve only killed 250,000 of your own people … drive some more into exile, and murder more.”
McCain added that the Obama administration’s position at the beginning of this year was Assad could not remain in power, “but now, as one [administration] official said, ‘the meaning of Assad has to go has evolved.”
http://breaking.cyber1news.com/news/state-department-spokesman-struggles-to-answer-questions-on-future-of-assad
The only problem is: McCain can criticize Obama that way. Not too many of the Republican presidential candidates may, and Donald Trump and Rand Paul, and maybe Ted Cruz would be happy.
gregq.
"We've got an effective ground force, it's called the Kurds. Given effective air support they'd slaughter ISIS."
Yes, but they're only operating in Kurdish areas and their immediately surrounding villages and countryside. The Kurds don't want to over-extend themselves and have no desires or ambitions to clear and hold in the non-Kurd villages and areas. In the Kurdish view, they believe: the gains would only last as long as Kurdish forces held the territory; the locals (the Sunni and Alawite Arabs and the Turkmen especially) would see them as "occupiers" and expose Kurdish peshmerga to a stream of harassing attacks; it would come at a cost of leaving them less able to defend Kurdish territory; and the resources they would need to undertake such an effort would be heavily dependent on US air/fire support, and financial and logistical support-- and they don't trust us not to pull the rug out from underneath them when it's no longer convenient for us. [Note: This doesn't mean their commandos aren't willing to participate in combined operations with our SOF, but those are precision targeting raids, not the conventional forces needed to seize territory]. They've repeatedly informed US officials of this, so no one should be expecting differently of them.
Obama is never going to change his policy to help Hillary. But even if he would, changing his policy and getting more serious about Syria would probably hurt Hillary. First, nothing substantial would actually be accomplished in the time remaining in Obama's term, barring an American invasion, so there'd be no credit. There would just be more chaos and questions about whether Hillary would be up to the job of handling a full out war. Furthermore, the base of the Democratic party and are Obama followers are still looking for some peaceful solution to the problem -- hit ISIS where it counts, their bank accounts. Squeeze them out. Democrats just want to focus on electing the first woman president and ignore the war. So keep the war as small as possible.
"How can Obama stymie the Trump-and-Cruz Party by going big against ISIS?"
What if it is Paul Ryan's strategy do to something similar on domestic policy with the Democrats? The Omnibus just passed gave the Democrats everything they wanted--what can they campaign on. Republicans, on the other hand, are now free to introduce legislation more favored by their party throughout the campaign, and, continue to hammer Democratic weakness on defense and security. Obama vetoes the legislation and continues to dither internationally, which feeds into the narrative that we need a Republican President, regardless of who becomes the eventual nominee.
The difference is, Obama will not go big against ISIS (he won't even engage), but Ryan and the Republicans have already made their first move, and Ryan indicated earlier that he wants the Republican Congress to play a part in setting the Republican agenda during the campaign.
Bobby,
You think the Kurdish leadership won't be willing to expand the concept of what counts as "Kurdish territory"?
You think ISIS can survive if their leadership gives up all "Kurdish" territory? You think Kurdish victory under American auspices wouldn't bring forward other groups wanting the same?
The issue is not the US's inability to win. The issue is the Obama Administration's unwillingness to let the US win.
gregq,
"You think the Kurdish leadership won't be willing to expand the concept of what counts as "Kurdish territory"?"
If Mosul plays out the way it looks like Kirkuk is going, I'd say the answer is quite clearly yes, of course they do. However, I'm not talking about Kurds expanding "Kurdish territory" into an area that was once a Kurdish capital (Kirkuk) or has always had a large Kurdish presence (Mosul). I'm talking about cities like Deir el-Zour, Idlib or Homs that are outside of historic "Kurdistan" -- places with few Kurdish populations. Occupying those cities would require Kurdish peshmerga controlling (likely hostile) Arab populations and/or "Kurdizing" the cities by importing large numbers of Kurds from other provinces and countries. There precedence for this- this is essentially what Saddam and several of his predecessors did to Arabize Kirkuk to dilute the Kurdish presence there- but the Kurds have far fewer numbers and doing so would come at the cost of weakening their heartland while inflaming their relations with their Arab and Turkish neighbors. They've shown no indication that they're willing to do that- none.
"You think ISIS can survive if their leadership gives up all "Kurdish" territory?"
It depends on how you define ISIS, but essentially their brand of violent Islamist extremism will absolutely survive, yes- it's already getting pledges of allegiance from Islamist radicals everywhere from Afghanistan to Europe to Africa, there's no reason to believe any of those guys would just pack it in because the current idiot, al-Baghdadi, would find his claims of leading a global Caliphate confined to some Sunni Arab villages in parts of Syria and Iraq. But even when he winds up swinging from a tree, "ISIS" will survive, yes- it's an ideology, not a state.
"You think Kurdish victory under American auspices wouldn't bring forward other groups wanting the same?"
Absolutely- but that's a slow, steady strategy that takes months and years- not days and weeks- to work. The Kurds have already had some (rather impressive) victories, and we've been working on building up numerous non-Alawite, anti-Daesh communities for quite a while now: Assyrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Druze, secular Sunni Arabs, etc. etc.
As Mikeyes said earlier "No asymmetric war in our history has been won in a matter of months and there is no way we can prevent every act of terrorism perpetrated by our own citizens" -- the best thing any great political leader could do right now is expectations management about how long and difficult the fight ahead of us is going to be (however we choose to fight it). I'm not seeing much of that from any of the candidates, though.
"If he is followed by anyone from the GOP, ex-President Obama can spend the rest of his life blaming any negative fallout from his administration on his GOP successor." Oh, the blame will fall elsewhere no matter which person follows this person.
If 2014 was the year of Russia (with the annexation of Crimea)
If 2015 was the year of ISIS (middle east turmoil plus terrorism in europe and america)
Then 2016 will be the year of China (south china sea).
@Althouse, did we help you puzzle it through?
All the simple options are taken. A "me too" is not enough to make a difference. He's a lame duck, and could care less about congress and the naysayers. He could ask his generals for a plan to accept the Iraq government's begging of us to return and both stabilize the area and their government, giving them a little stability and a chance to blossom and have the Saudis pay most of the bill, other than in our kid’s blood. Don't call it a return to the Bush plan but it is, "let's have our enemies attack our military there rather than terrorize us around the world. We'd be such a thorn in their side in terms of being in their face all the time they will either reign in their kids or find themselves facing their prophesized apocalypse. Even better, our Army could use and wants the practice. Cheaper than having all those unemployed kids drawing veteran's benefits. An army unused is no army. See the German army for an example. They are unionized, work only 9 to 5 5 days a week, without enough practice to operate their weapons with any skill. If the Turks wanted to run to the Channel it wouldn't take more than a week. Most of the German army would run for cover. This would more than match the "bomb the crap out of 'em" theater which solves nothing and builds resentment *consider how much the germans and Japanese hated us after WW2, and worse yet it would unite the country and Congress would write any check he'd like. Including unlimited immigration. I just hope he doesn't do any good drugs on Maui, else this might just occur to him and his opposition couldn't say a word. And if they did say he was implementing GWB's failed policy he could just ignore it, as he does all other criticism. Oh my.
mikeyes:
HW Bush and Dick Cheney made the decision not to take over Iraq in 1991 - a decision I praised as I was in the midst of the battle at the time - and relative peace broke out. When Cheney/Bush made the opposite decision a decade later, we are still paying the price in treasure and lives.
Actually, the 2003 decision was a consequence of the 1991 decision, not opposite. The casus belli that restored Iraq's status to the Gulf War in 2003 was Iraq's material breach of the ceasefire that suspended the Gulf War in 1991.
On the law and the facts, the decision for OIF was correct; see:
1. Explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
2. Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey* draws from the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism). * Dr. Lacey was a researcher and author for the Iraqi Perspectives Project (link).
3. UN Recognizes 'Major Changes' In Iraq (link) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council.
4. Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit (link) by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan.
5. How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq (link) by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.
china will turn obama into a p-ssy in the south china sea.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-19-00-39-33
as for obama going after ISIS, it wont be serious. it'll only be for show and domestic consumption.
"I have no idea what Obama should or will do in Iraq in the next 11 months"
He'll fuck it up. If the last several years are any indication.
Post a Comment