The clues were there and some of us saw them. It became very clear in 2014.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is preparing to carry out a campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that may take three years to complete, requiring a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office, according to senior administration officials.
The first phase, an air campaign with nearly 145 airstrikes in the past month, is already underway to protect ethnic and religious minorities and American diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel, and their facilities, as well as to begin rolling back ISIS gains in northern and western Iraq.
The next phase, which would begin sometime after Iraq forms a more inclusive government, scheduled this week, is expected to involve an intensified effort to train, advise or equip the Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters and possibly members of Sunni tribes.
Three years. Why three years? We’ll get back to that.
Obama boasts of “degrading” and “destroying” ISIS. Or maybe not.
At first, the president offered what seemed to be an unambiguous goal. “The bottom line is this: Our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat,” he said.
That would be an expansion of what the president and top White House officials have said previously. They have steadfastly avoided saying the goal of U.S. policy is the destruction of ISIS, instead citing more modest objectives: protecting Americans, protecting Iraqi infrastructure, stopping a humanitarian disaster, etc.
But when ABC News Radio White House correspondent Ann Compton today asked the president to clarify whether the United States now wants ISIS destroyed, the president seemed to significantly backtrack.
“Our objective is to make sure they aren’t an ongoing threat to the region,” he said.
Then, in response to another question, he seemed to backtrack even further: “We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem.”
Making ISIS a “manageable problem” sounds like a far cry from destroying it.
The part about destroying ISIS? He’s counting on someone else to do that.
ISIS is gaining ground. Fast.
Although many leaders dismissed IS as vainglorious when it declared its cross-border caliphate in eastern Syria and western Iraq last summer, in its cohesion and purpose it is now seen by some – particularly Iraq’s minority Sunnis – as more of a state than the Iraqi government it is fighting.
“Simply put, the Islamic State is, or is on the verge of becoming, what it claims to be: a state,” wrote David Kilcullen who was a key player in the US 2007-08 Iraq troop ‘surge’ and a close observer of the rise of Islamic State.
He argues that unless Washington and its allies urgently change their counter-terrorism strategy the threat will only get worse. A coalition including the United States has been engaged in air strikes against Islamic State last summer, yet the group’s advance has continued.
“ISIS fights like a state… It fields more than 25,000 fighters, including a hard core of ex-Baathist professionals and Qaida veterans. It has a hierarchical unit organization and rank structure, populated by former regular officers of Saddam Hussein’s military,” added Kilcullen in the Australian Quarterly Essay.
It’s disgraceful to realize one must visit the foreign press to find the truth.
Frighteningly, ISIS is expanding into West Africa and forging an alliance with Boko Haram:
ISIS is expanding into West Africa after it accepted a pledge of allegiance from Boko Haram, the Islamist militant group that has killed and kidnapped thousands of people over more than a decade of terrorizing Nigeria, according to an ISIS audio released Thursday.
In the audio, which was verified by Flashpoint Intelligence, a global security firm and NBC News consultant, a spokesman says ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi congratulated Boko Haram on joining the radical terrorist movement that controls parts of Syria and Iraq.
And yet Obama sees no problems at all.
The United States is not losing its fight against the Islamic State, President Barack Obama said in an interview published Thursday.
“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, referencing the group’s taking of Ramadi. “There’s no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced.”
Our new SecDef had a decidedly different take on things:
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in his first comments since the key town of Ramadi fell to ISIS, blamed the weak state of Iraq’s military as one major reason for the city’s fall, in an exclusive interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” aired Sunday.
“What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight,” Carter told CNN’s Barbara Starr. “They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight, they withdrew from the site, and that says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves.”
He seems to think we have given them training:
“We can give them training, we can give them equipment — we obviously can’t give them the will to fight,” Carter said. “But if we give them training, we give them equipment, and give them support, and give them some time, I hope they will develop the will to fight, because only if they fight can ISIL remain defeated.”
The administration about crapped its pants over that and sent Crazy Uncle Joe to sooth hurt feelings:
According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Iraqi army wasn’t driven from Ramadi- they drove away from Ramadi.
That sounds very different from what President Obama Bin Lyintoowus said.
On the plus side, the ever unflappable Obama had a great day yesterday:
Yesterday, Barack Obama played golf, on the same day that 400 women and children and hundreds of troops were slaughtered in Palmyra. Today he’s yucking it up with reporters and eating ice cream while a British Lord is calling out for action, saying “we can no longer rule out boots on the ground.”
So why is Obama so gay?
Because he knows he won’t win the war.
He doesn’t want to win the war.
That’s why his is a three year plan. That’s why all his plans now have a three year span. They reach into the next administration and he will have left the building. This philosophy now pervades the Obama administration.
Remember this Obama promise?
“As long as I am President of the United States Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.”
The deal he’s making with Iran might assure that. What about after he leaves office? Well, heck, that’s not his problem.
So what explains the president’s own unprompted comments in an NPR interview in April that, under the terms already announced, Iran would have the right to go nuclear by 2028 — when he will, God willing, be a mere 67 years of age?
“A more relevant fear,” he said, “would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
Obama offered an answer. “The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished,” he said.
So it will be up to his successors to bail him out in the eyes of history and make it appear as though his legacy wasn’t the nuclear destabilization of the Middle East!
And what about Obamacare? Insurance companies are being bailed out for their losses now. It’s described as “risk corridors.” They expire in 2017.
2017- as in Obama out of office and can’t be blamed. Premiums are expected to explode.
No matter who becomes President in 2017, there will be a huge pile of manure waiting- courtesy of President “What me worry? “Barack Hussein Obama.