Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS.....

[ttwtt78640]

The lesson of WWII and our subsequent wars is that the only way to have a complete and final victory is to kill and destroy your enemy to the level that we did to Germany and Japan and then occupy them for over a decade. I suspect most of us aren't willing to do that to people who have not attacked our territory.

We have been in the "war on terror" for well over a decade and, by any reasonable estimate, it will last another decade. The point is that it is not possible to "manage" the terrorist threat or limit the damage done to ourselves (and others) by those terrorists without removing their safe havens and funding sources. It is obvious to all that many current ME gov'ts cannot (or will not) act to stop them either with or without our financial and military aid. When Assad kills them we call them freedom fighters with needless civilian casualties but when we do so they are called terrorists with some collateral damage. There is no sense in trying half measures in a war - you either go for the win, as quickly as possible, or leave the fighting for a later time.

 

[eohrnberger]

No more nation-building, no more weapons giving.

We go in, we destroy the enemy, everything related to the enemy, destroy their weapons, technologies, etc. and leave.

We need to have a clear objective, follow through that objective, take preventative measures for the future, and be done with this ****ing mess.

I think the Russians tried doing that in Afghanistan, and it resulted in the raise of Taliban control, which promptly hosting Al Qaeda and their training camps.

So far, seems like the closest to success was in fact nation building in Iraq, just that poor presidential judgement removed the troops far to early, and resulted in the mess there once again. I hate paying for the same real estate twice, especially when it comes to casualties.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I think the Russians tried doing that in Afghanistan, and it resulted in the raise of Taliban control, which promptly hosting Al Qaeda and their training camps.

So far, seems like the closest to success was in fact nation building in Iraq, just that poor presidential judgement removed the troops far to early, and resulted in the mess there once again. I hate paying for the same real estate twice, especially when it comes to casualties.

Only reason it didn't work was because Mujahideen were backed by UK, US, China, Pakistan, etc.

Who exactly supports ISIS?

If their weapons are gone, their troops decimated, and their technologies reversed, who would help them all the way back to their feet?

An economically devestated Russia?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Only reason it didn't work was because Mujahideen were backed by UK, US, China, Pakistan, etc.

Who exactly supports ISIS?

If their weapons are gone, their troops decimated, and their technologies reversed, who would help them all the way back to their feet?

An economically devestated Russia?

Anyone not willing to aid in removing them.

 

[eohrnberger]

Only reason it didn't work was because Mujahideen were backed by UK, US, China, Pakistan, etc.

Who exactly supports ISIS?

If their weapons are gone, their troops decimated, and their technologies reversed, who would help them all the way back to their feet?

An economically devestated Russia?

Would it be to China's or Russia's advantage to have the US mired in ME conflict? Have to ask yourself cui bono.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Kerry and BO just do not get it.....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests. How can he say we are not at War with them and then Defend the Bush policy of going after AQ with the War on Terror? Does this sound like an Administration that wants to get rid of the problem? What say ye?


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it. Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration's insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. "This group is and has been al Qaeda," Kerry said. "By trying to change its name, it doesn't change who it is, what it does.".....snip~

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS - CNN.com

Oh please, can we cut Mr. Kerry some slack?

He's had it rough. With all that "I was for it until I was against it" stuff and "teeny attack" on Syria, he is confused.

His normal level of "nuance" is strained, so now he has to somehow make it look like this "not-so-teeny attack" is not really a "war" per ce. Although it involves generals, military planners at the Pentagon, uses war machines from air craft carriers to drones, B1 bombers, bombs, rockets, bullets, bandages, death, wounds, dead babies and mayhem, it is not at all a war because, well, Kerry doesn't like the word since Obama told him to stop using it.

Korea by the way wasn't a war either.,....they called that a "police action". That was 65 years ago and US troops are still deployed there.

Frankly, with the kind of non war record Mr. Kerry seems to be referencing, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan....I would be a lot more comfortable if they said it is all out war...when the US has done that, like 1941, it's usually all over in a few years.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I don't think they would get the authority. There are lots of groups out there saying just leave it alone and let the ME take care of it.

EDIT: Remember, this is an election year. Thre is a VERY good chance people up for re-election wouldn't vote for action. This way the adminisrtation can take action. If the administration were to lose an action vote, then they would effectively be crippled from doing anything.

Mr Obama has some selling to do on this plan.

He has not convinced the people on HIS side this is the right action. I suggest you are going to see a lot more of this while Obama confronts his "enemies" in congress with the mid-terms looming. The electorate has always been kind to wartime presidents except when they are not.

A review of what happened to Bush at this point in his tenure is in order....

 

[Fearandloathing]

Would it be to China's or Russia's advantage to have the US mired in ME conflict? Have to ask yourself cui bono.

So that's how you spell Cui bono...

Wasn't he some rock star?

 

[eohrnberger]

So that's how you spell Cui bono...

Wasn't he some rock star?

:lamo Click the link. All will be revealed. :lol:

 

[MMC]

Who's winning the wars on drugs and poverty?

Any ideas on that?

Heya SN :2wave: .....yeah who is winning that war on poverty? Who is winning the war on Women?

Who is winnin the War on English.....my brutha. :2razz:

 

[MMC]

Proof? Is most of the world "US Interests? or just the middle east?

Are American People.....US Interests?

 

[shrubnose]

Heya SN :2wave: .....yeah who is winning that war on poverty? Who is winning the war on Women?

Who is winnin the War on English.....my brutha. :2razz:

That war was lost and over with a long time ago.

 

[MMC]

Oh please, can we cut Mr. Kerry some slack?

He's had it rough. With all that "I was for it until I was against it" stuff and "teeny attack" on Syria, he is confused.

His normal level of "nuance" is strained, so now he has to somehow make it look like this "not-so-teeny attack" is not really a "war" per ce. Although it involves generals, military planners at the Pentagon, uses war machines from air craft carriers to drones, B1 bombers, bombs, rockets, bullets, bandages, death, wounds, dead babies and mayhem, it is not at all a war because, well, Kerry doesn't like the word since Obama told him to stop using it.

Korea by the way wasn't a war either.,....they called that a "police action". That was 65 years ago and US troops are still deployed there.

Frankly, with the kind of non war record Mr. Kerry seems to be referencing, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan....I would be a lot more comfortable if they said it is all out war...when the US has done that, like 1941, it's usually all over in a few years.

Heya F&L. :2wave: While I don't mind him trying to get the Money from those whose should be paying for the Endeavor. But He shouldn't be so invested that this will get specific commitments out of them. Especially with Iran mobilizing Shia in Iraq, and Syria.


In addition to support for a military campaign against ISIS, administration officials said the United States would be looking to its Gulf allies to crack down on ISIS funding and stop the flow of foreign fighters, both seen as the lifeblood of the jihadist group. The United States also wants Sunni Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, to counter ISIS by helping to persuade other Sunnis to eschew its ideology. "It's going to be a very difficult, long road to get there, but it's something that the region and our partners in the Gulf can play a really important role in," a senior State Department official traveling with Kerry said.

Obama will chair a meeting later this month at the U.N. General Assembly, where the global strategy is expected to be hammered out.....snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/kerry-mideast-visit-isis/index.html


So, he thinks the Saud can get other Sunni to not take to the ISIL ideology. I don't know if I like the Saud influencing all of the Sunni.

As you can see next month BO will grab a Chair at the UN and Hammer out the global strategy.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Heya F&L. :2wave: While I don't mind him trying to get the Money from those whose should be paying for the Endeavor. But He shouldn't be so invested that this will get specific commitments out of them. Especially with Iran mobilizing Shia in Iraq, and Syria.

would be looking to its Gulf allies to crack down on ISIS funding and stop the flow of foreign fighters, both seen as the lifeblood of the jihadist group

Now? Now they are "looking" to stop the lifeblood funding to ISIS?

Ah, gee, when "allies" allow the funding of terrorists, isn't that what was kind of the reason for the war on terror and 'chasing them if the run" ****?

How come they're still "allies"?

 

[MMC]

Oh please, can we cut Mr. Kerry some slack?

NO!

 

[Perotista]

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Well if you recall BO saying he had his Team working on a strategy.....he still decided to, not follow what their advice was and go with this 4 pronged attack. So for myself, I am wondering if he is really going to give it his all.


Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS.....

The Washington Post reports today that when the president tasked military leaders with devising the best strategy to defeat ISIS, the Pentagon presented a plan that involved a limited number of combat "boots on the ground." They were rebuffed, in favor of a more politically-palatable light footprint approach:

Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House...Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis said. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”.....snip~

Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS - Guy Benson

Generals hate the light footprint approach. I was part of Project 404 in Laos, 69-71, talk about a light footprint. There were approximately 120 of us in Laos, half were Air Force mostly Ravens with AIRA, I was with ARMA. Our light footprint advising, supplying, logistics, commo, intel etc to the Royal Lao military helped them fight the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao to a stalemate utilizing Lao troops and our air power from 1966-1973 when congress made us stop the bombing and ceded Laos to the commies.

Let me remind you of something more recent, Afghanistan. With just a few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the Northern Alliance troops, we were able to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan in about a months time. Only after the Taliban had been driven out did we introduce a huge number of troops and those were for nation building.

Having said the above, what is needed for a light footprint to work is a sound indigenous force on the ground capable of at least standing their ground and better yet to be able to advance given enough air support and firepower from above. The Kurds have shown they can do this, but they do not want to get too far from their homeland. That means we have to wait on the Iraqi forces to be reconstituted and trained, supplied and organized. A quicker route would be to make nice with Assad, his military along with our air power has the ability to advance and drive ISIS out of Syria, possibly towards the Kurds. But would the Iraqi army be read for that third pincer from Baghdad? That is the question.

 

[Perotista]

No more nation-building, no more weapons giving.

We go in, we destroy the enemy, everything related to the enemy, destroy their weapons, technologies, etc. and leave.

We need to have a clear objective, follow through that objective, take preventative measures for the future, and be done with this ****ing mess.

This country has fought its wars with half measures and half goals, objectives since the end of WWII.

 

[Fenton]

I don't think they would get the authority. There are lots of groups out there saying just leave it alone and let the ME take care of it.

EDIT: Remember, this is an election year. Thre is a VERY good chance people up for re-election wouldn't vote for action. This way the adminisrtation can take action. If the administration were to lose an action vote, then they would effectively be crippled from doing anything.

Oh I do.

Imagine the GOP refusing to give him the authority to go to war with Isis and the soon after they pull off a attack on American soil ?

 

[MMC]

Generals hate the light footprint approach. I was part of Project 404 in Laos, 69-71, talk about a light footprint. There were approximately 120 of us in Laos, half were Air Force mostly Ravens with AIRA, I was with ARMA. Our light footprint advising, supplying, logistics, commo, intel etc to the Royal Lao military helped them fight the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao to a stalemate utilizing Lao troops and our air power from 1966-1973 when congress made us stop the bombing and ceded Laos to the commies.

Let me remind you of something more recent, Afghanistan. With just a few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the Northern Alliance troops, we were able to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan in about a months time. Only after the Taliban had been driven out did we introduce a huge number of troops and those were for nation building.

Having said the above, what is needed for a light footprint to work is a sound indigenous force on the ground capable of at least standing their ground and better yet to be able to advance given enough air support and firepower from above. The Kurds have shown they can do this, but they do not want to get too far from their homeland. That means we have to wait on the Iraqi forces to be reconstituted and trained, supplied and organized. A quicker route would be to make nice with Assad, his military along with our air power has the ability to advance and drive ISIS out of Syria, possibly towards the Kurds. But would the Iraqi army be read for that third pincer from Baghdad? That is the question.

That would only work for Iraq.....which leaves Syria. Which other than Assad.....who can put troops on the ground. Plus the fact that Assad already has troops on the ground and is fighting them.

Plus now our CIA released today that Theses terrorists have up to 3 times the numbers than thought previously. 30k in Iraq alone.

 

[Perotista]

That would only work for Iraq.....which leaves Syria. Which other than Assad.....who can put troops on the ground. Plus the fact that Assad already has troops on the ground and is fighting them.

Plus now our CIA released today that Theses terrorists have up to 3 times the numbers than thought previously. 30k in Iraq alone.

I know, but if you remember I been calling for us to make nice with Assad since this ISIS thing began. I think we as a nation has to decide which one we want gone, which one we want to defeat, which one we want left in place. I do not think we can do away with both. We need Assad's military on the ground to be successful and they need our air power. If we can make nice with Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler which at the time we thought was a much worst evil menace, we can make nice with Assad and do away with ISIS.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Generals hate the light footprint approach. I was part of Project 404 in Laos, 69-71, talk about a light footprint. There were approximately 120 of us in Laos, half were Air Force mostly Ravens with AIRA, I was with ARMA. Our light footprint advising, supplying, logistics, commo, intel etc to the Royal Lao military helped them fight the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao to a stalemate utilizing Lao troops and our air power from 1966-1973 when congress made us stop the bombing and ceded Laos to the commies.

Let me remind you of something more recent, Afghanistan. With just a few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power with the Northern Alliance troops, we were able to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan in about a months time. Only after the Taliban had been driven out did we introduce a huge number of troops and those were for nation building.

Having said the above, what is needed for a light footprint to work is a sound indigenous force on the ground capable of at least standing their ground and better yet to be able to advance given enough air support and firepower from above. The Kurds have shown they can do this, but they do not want to get too far from their homeland. That means we have to wait on the Iraqi forces to be reconstituted and trained, supplied and organized. A quicker route would be to make nice with Assad, his military along with our air power has the ability to advance and drive ISIS out of Syria, possibly towards the Kurds. But would the Iraqi army be read for that third pincer from Baghdad? That is the question.

We'll never make nice with Assad, no matter what kind of asset he can be, he's a "hitler"

Should've never kicked out Hussein, this mess wouldn't be happening if he was in power and ruled Iraq with an iron fist.

 

[MMC]

I know, but if you remember I been calling for us to make nice with Assad since this ISIS thing began. I think we as a nation has to decide which one we want gone, which one we want to defeat, which one we want left in place. I do not think we can do away with both. We need Assad's military on the ground to be successful and they need our air power. If we can make nice with Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler which at the time we thought was a much worst evil menace, we can make nice with Assad and do away with ISIS.

Well Susan Rice was on with Wolf Blitzer mimicking Kerry. Also she wouldn't use the word War. Again a counter insurgency. They are trying to avoid that term.

Btw you know the UN did send a New Envoy to Syria. He says he will look for a political solution for Syria.

 

[Perotista]

We'll never make nice with Assad, no matter what kind of asset he can be, he's a "hitler"

Should've never kicked out Hussein, this mess wouldn't be happening if he was in power and ruled Iraq with an iron fist.

That is true about Saddam and I feel the same way about Qaddafi as you do with Assad. Libya is a basket case today because we helped overthrow Qaddafi and a training ground for terrorist. Better off with Qaddafi with all his faults, the same with Assad and as you pointed out with Saddam. What all three did or could do is bring stability to their countries and in the long run the middle east.

I stated before, if we can make Uncle Joe Stalin an ally and friend to accomplish the defeat of Hitler, we can do the same with Assad. None of these guys are good guys. Brutal dictators one and all. But what each did was make their country stable, turmoil and chaos did not reign when they reigned.

I wonder if we had let Assad crush the rebels if ISIS would have ever been born. That is a what if that can never be answered. But if you remember both Assad and Putin told us we were supporting the wrong people in Syria, that they were terrorist. It is understandable we didn;t listen to them, but perhaps we should have.

But the bottom line is if the President's strategy is going to work we need some sound ground troops on the ground. If those ground troops are not going to be American, then who or whose are they going to be?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

That is true about Saddam and I feel the same way about Qaddafi as you do with Assad. Libya is a basket case today because we helped overthrow Qaddafi and a training ground for terrorist. Better off with Qaddafi with all his faults, the same with Assad and as you pointed out with Saddam. What all three did or could do is bring stability to their countries and in the long run the middle east.

I stated before, if we can make Uncle Joe Stalin an ally and friend to accomplish the defeat of Hitler, we can do the same with Assad. None of these guys are good guys. Brutal dictators one and all. But what each did was make their country stable, turmoil and chaos did not reign when they reigned.

I wonder if we had let Assad crush the rebels if ISIS would have ever been born. That is a what if that can never be answered. But if you remember both Assad and Putin told us we were supporting the wrong people in Syria, that they were terrorist. It is understandable we didn;t listen to them, but perhaps we should have.

But the bottom line is if the President's strategy is going to work we need some sound ground troops on the ground. If those ground troops are not going to be American, then who or whose are they going to be?

Now we wait for ecofarm to come in and cry and call us "Hitler supporters"

 

[Perotista]

Well Susan Rice was on with Wolf Blitzer mimicking Kerry. Also she wouldn't use the word War. Again a counter insurgency. They are trying to avoid that term.

Btw you know the UN did send a New Envoy to Syria. He says he will look for a political solution for Syria.

Counter insurgency, counter terrorism, counter this or counter that. All those counters are just another name for war. Perhaps in this administration, they are a PC term for war. I wonder what the UN Envoy will come back with, I mean as far as suggestions and briefing.