Thread: Obama might as well announce plans to hit ISIS W/coalition of hobbits, elves, & drago

Human Events

The White House might as well be announcing plans to hit the Islamic State from the north with a coalition of hobbits, elves, and dragons:



Half the Iraqi army is useless, and the other half needs work | Human Events
The Iraqi side of the anti-ISIS triangle is shaky, the Syrian side is sheer fantasy, and there is no Plan B.
humanevents.com

Half the Iraqi army is useless, and the other half needs work


By: John Hayward
9/17/2014 08:36 AM

Video at the page link:

Since the beginning of this crisis, I’ve been highly skeptical of the three-way alliance President Obama apparently expects to topple ISIS for him. The Kurds are solid players, but they’re mostly on defense, protecting territory that is likely to become an independent nation. That nation will make a fine regional ally for the West, but it will not be well-liked by either of its “partners” in the three-way alliance: what remains of Iraq, and the busload of Syrian rebels who aren’t already allied with al-Qaeda or at peace with the Islamic State.

The Syrian front in this anti-ISIS effort is a point of particular concern. Well, let’s be blunt: what the White House is talking about is sheer fantasy. They might as well be announcing plans to hit the Islamic State from the north with a coalition of hobbits, elves, and dragons. Most of the Islamic State’s strength is in Syrian territory. The relatively small and ineffective segment of the Syrian rebellion that isn’t composed of outright terrorists and al-Qaeda subsidiaries is much more interested in throwing Bashar Assad out of Damascus than flinging themselves into battle against the caliphate, while Assad sits back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoys the show. In addition to its legendary low-tech savagery, ISIS is also thought to have chemical weapons taken from both Syrian and Iraqi WMD stockpiles (which our friends on the Left spent a decade claiming were non-existent – yet another thing they were wrong about.) There have been reports of ISIS using chemical weapons.

Convincing a small and not-terribly-fierce subset of the Syrian resistance to forget about the guy they were resisting and charge into that chlorine-laced meat grinder with Barack Obama, of all people, watching their backs is not going to be easy. This President’s fecklessness, his view of foreign policy as an annoying distraction, and his penchant for turning on U.S. allies – because pushing them around is easier than taking bold stands against barbarians – will all come back to haunt us, as we try to round up proxies for an operation where the President keeps loudly declaring we won’t be on the front lines, no matter what happens. What this “no boots on the ground” stuff is saying to prospective Syrian proxies is: We won’t be there to save you, if this all goes wrong. We’ll be your air force, but that’s it.

Likewise, the endless public arguments between Obama and his subordinates about whether we’re at war or not – they’re basically arguing with each other on-camera, while the world watches in slack-jawed amazement – sends this message: We’re not really serious about this. It’s all about U.S. politics and media spin. If things go bad and our poll numbers dip, we’ll hang you out to dry in a single news cycle.
With that in mind, I wonder if the cagier members of the Syrian resistance will be able to resist the temptation to get some of that American air power turned against Assad, perhaps with a false-flag attack or two. Or if Assad sees his erstwhile enemies bleeding themselves out in battle against each other, what’s to stop him from rolling in at the end of the bloodbath to mop up the resistance and declare victory in the Syrian civil war? What if the rest of the Syrian resistance decides America’s willing proxies against ISIS are a distraction from what they see as the more urgent business of knocking down Assad, and turn against the American-allied Syrians in the kind of scrum that can’t be easily broken up from 30,000 feet? There are so many ways the Syrian side of this triangle can go wrong.
Which brings us to Iraq, where things are not looking good at all. In fact, the Iraqi military in such bad shape that General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that American “boots on the ground” might just be in the picture after all… a burst of candor that will not endear him to the panicked White House.
In separate press conference, Dempsey also made remarks that have been widely reported as saying only half the Iraqi military is ready to fight. It’s actually much worse than that. What he said was that half the Iraqi military is almost completely useless against the Islamic State for sectarian reasons, and the other half needs work before it’s ready for heavy combat. From Fox News:

The U.S. military’s top officer said Wednesday that almost half of Iraq’s army is incapable of working against the Islamic State militant group, while the other half needs to be rebuilt with the help of U.S. advisers and military equipment.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey made the remarks to reporters while traveling to Paris to meet with his French counterpart to discuss the situation in Iraq and Syria. The general said that U.S. assessors who had spent the summer observing Iraq’s security forces concluded that 26 of the army’s 50 brigades would be capable of confronting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Dempsey described those brigades as well-led, capable, and endowed with a nationalist instinct, as opposed to a sectarian instinct.
However, Dempsey said that the other 24 brigades were too heavily populated with Shiites to be part of a credible force against the Sunni ISIS.
Sectarianism has been a major problem for the Iraqi security forces for years and is in part a reflection of resentments that built up during the decades of rule under Saddam Hussein, who repressed the majority Shiite population, and the unleashing of reprisals against Sunnis after U.S. forces toppled him in April 2003. Sunni resistance led to the relatively brief rise of an extremist group called Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That group withered but re-emerged as the Islamic State organization, which capitalized on Sunni disenchantment with the Shiite government in Baghdad.
On Tuesday, Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would consider recommending the return of ground forces to Iraq if an international coalition sought by the Obama administration proves ineffective.

The first “degrade and destroy” American air attack yesterday hit an ISIS position that had been firing on Iraqi troops for several days. It was only about fifteen miles away from Baghdad. That’s how combat-effective the Iraqi military is. They needed American air power to take out shooters who were close enough to deliver pizza to Baghdad.
Dempsey wasn’t finished trashing Obama’s non-strategy:

On Wednesday, Dempsey said no amount of U.S. military power would solve the problem of ISIS’s takeover of large swaths of northern and western Iraq. The solution, he said, must begin with formation of an Iraqi government that is able to convince the country’s Kurdish and Sunni populations that they will be equal partners with the Shiites in Iraq’s future.
“I’m telling you, if that doesn’t happen then it’s time for Plan B,” he said. He didn’t say what that would entail.
Dempsey also said that ISIS fighters in Iraq have reacted to weeks of U.S. airstrikes by making themselves less visible, and he predicted they would “literally litter the road networks” with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, in the days ahead. That, in turn, will require more counter-IED training and equipment for the Iraq army, he said.

With all due respect, General, you just told those reporters in Paris that the Shiite brigades of Iraq’s army can’t be trusted to fight alongside the Sunni brigades against the monstrous enemy nation that invaded and conquered a significant portion of Iraq, leaving a large number of Iraqi citizens hanging from crucifixes, buried in mass graves, and imprisoned in rape camps. The Iraqi’s don’t even have a defense minister at the moment – their parliament voted down the nominee put forth by new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi yesterday. The Kurds are going to think independence looks better as conditions in Iraq get worse, and they take more valuable, formerly Iraqi territory away from ISIS with American air support. Iran’s going to keep stirring the pot with Iraqi Shiites – some of whom have experience at launching below-the-belt attacks on American forces under Iranian tutelage. Equal partnership in unified Iraq seems like a very distant goal, especially if a dubious Iraqi military that has already been routed by ISIS once gets stuck in a quagmire.
Which makes it very unsettling for Dempsey to clam up when reporters asked what Plan B is. The prospect of Barack Obama and his Ship of Fools coming up with a Plan B on the fly – possibly live on the stage of Sunday-morning talk shows, sometime next year – is terrifying, especially when you remember how thoroughly this President botched Iraq over the past six years, saddling us with the current crisis:

According to the general, a renewed U.S. training effort might revive the issue of gaining legal immunity from Iraqi prosecution for those U.S. troops who are training the Iraqis. The previous Iraqi government refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops who might have remained as trainers after the U.S. military mission ended in December 2011.
“There will likely be a discussion with the new Iraqi government, as there was with the last one, about whether we need to have” Iraqi lawmakers approve new U.S. training, he said. He didn’t describe the full extent of such training but said it would be limited and he believed Iraq would endorse it.

Too bad the Golfer-in-Chief didn’t get all that squared away years ago, huh? But he walked away from those negotiations, because he got tired of them, and he wanted a nice shiny talking point about how he pulled all the Americans out of Iraq. Now he’s on record saying, dozens of times, that under no circumstances will he put combat forces back in. Which means that if the (highly likely) scenario Dempsey warned about comes to pass, it will be taken as an embarrassing defeat for U.S. policy, and one of the few imaginable Obama betrayals that Democrat base voters won’t obediently swallow. Does anyone really think Obama will have the spine to make that call, when the time comes? More to the point, do you think any of America’s prospective front-line proxy fighters are confident Obama will make it?

http://humanevents.com/2014/09/17/ha...paign=heupdate

Lt. Col. Oliver North: Someone Needs to Tell The Truth, Obama's ISIS Strategy is Mission Impossible

Katie Pavlich | Sep 18, 2014



Video at the page link:

Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Oliver North made an appearance on The Kelly File last night to assess President Obama's latest strategy against ISIS. His message is a discouraging one, saying what President Obama is asking the military do is mission impossible and that it's time someone step up and be honest about it.
"In my military mind what you have is Operation Enduring Confusion. You have a President who cannot make up his mind about what he wants," North said. "Megyn, I've spent my whole life hanging around the U.S. military. I've been on plenty of times with you from Iraq and other places. I've spent my life with these young guys. I'm waiting for the general or admiral who will stand up on his hind feet and say this is mission impossible. Given the constraints that you've [Obama] given we cannot accomplish the objective you have set. It is impossible to do."
"Somebody has to tell the truth," he continued. "Some general or admiral at the Pentagon or somewhere else in Central Command has got to stand up and say, 'The mission we've been given we can do but we can't with the constraints you've places upon us.'"

Watch the latest video at
http:video.foxnews.comvideo.foxnews.com

This isn't the first time Obama has been at odds with U.S. Generals and based on history, those who speak out against him have a high chance of being fired.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...campaign=nl_pm

Mark Levin

As I've been saying, the generals are rebelling
http://therightscoop.com/gen-jack-keane-frustration-level-with-obama-in-the-pentagon-centcom-and-among-military-is-as-high-as-ever/


Gen. Jack Keane: Frustration level with Obama in the Pentagon, CENTCOM and among military is as...
Gen. Jack Keane was on with Megyn Kelly tonight and told her that the level of frustration with Obama in the Pentagon, CENTCOM and among the military is as high as it's ever been, noting that Obama...
therightscoop.com

Video at the page link:

http://therightscoop.com/gen-jack-ke...-high-as-ever/

Gen. Keane: Obama Has Rejected Every 'Force Level Plan' Since '09, Always Limits Military's Options



by Fox News Insider // Sep 19 2014 // 10:12am
As seen on America's Newsroom

Video at the page link:

Fox News military analyst Gen. Jack Keane (Ret.) told Martha MacCallum this morning that he does not believe the current White House plan will work against ISIS.

He said U.S. air power will have a significant effect against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but called the plan for forces on the ground a "weak hand."
President Obama has said U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq will not have a "combat mission," only supporting the Iraqis. Congress has now approved funding for arming and training Syrian rebels to combat ISIS.
Keane believes these measures on the ground are insufficient, pointing to military leaders who are urging the president to "strengthen this weak hand on the ground."
He called out Obama for repeatedly, since 2009, rejecting "force level plans" from his generals.
"Every time he has limited our military options to be able to accomplish the mission," said Keane.
On the subject of Arab allies - such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan - putting troops on the ground against ISIS, Keane believes these nations are wary of aggravating radical Islamists within their own countries.
He said it will take President Obama's personal leadership to convince them to join the fight, arguing that right now "they're not convinced that the president is serious about actually seeing this through to the end."
Watch his full analysis above.

---

Shep Challenges Earnest: Bet You ‘Every Penny’ Saudis Won’t Put Boots on the Ground

Posted in: // Jack Keane // ISIS // Syria // Iraq


http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/19...itarys-options

http://www.alipac.us/f19/rush-limbau...1/#post1436415

Anarchy In Washington: Is Anybody In Charge?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/19/2014 13:55 -0400

Submitted by Justin Raimondo via Antiwar.com,

The President pledges "no combat troops" in Iraq.
The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, says he may recommend combat ground troops in the battle against ISIS.
The President, in a speech, reiterates "no ground troops," and "no combat troops."
While Hillary Clinton, Obama’s presumptive heir, waits in the wings as her scheme to arm the Syrian rebels is implemented and the fuse is lit on the Levantine tinderbox. It isn’t a very long fuse….
So what is going on with the US government, and especially over at the Pentagon? Are they directly challenging the President – who is then acting to quickly quash them? Sure looks like it.
Amid reports of a titanic battle within the Obama administration, the conflicting messages being put out there by various wings of the national security establishment remind us of the Empire’s sheer size and the scale of the bureaucracy: it is large enough to constitute what are, in effect, competing governments – a condition statists of every variety always told us was unworkable.
In short, when it comes to the making of American foreign policy what we have in Washington is what appears to be the functional definition of anarchy! And the libertarians haven’t even taken over yet.
The mess that is the Obama plan for defeating ISIS perfectly illustrates the central dictum of what I call "libertarian realism" – a theory of international relations that attributes foreign policy decision-making to primarily domestic political pressures, i.e. to the chief motivation of politicians everywhere, which is to maintain and expand their own power and their own term in office. The result is that US policy – or, indeed, the foreign policy of any nation – has little to do with facts on the ground, or how to utilize them to serve legitimate national interests. Instead, it’s all about how to appease the various domestic pressure groups with a stake in the matter.
This is why war propaganda is such a vital component of modern warfare, arguably the most important weapon in any country’s arsenal. That’s because the real target is domestic public opinion, with the targeted cities of the enemy only a secondary consideration.
Left with the Iraqi mess he inherited from the Bush administration, President Obama had few viable options. Constrained by his own campaign promises and public opposition to any further fighting in Iraq, he is nevertheless confronted with the blowback – and his "plan" reflects the only possible means to deal with it within the theoretical framework of libertarian realism. The public opposes troops on the ground – and so the President sticks that in his "plan." The political elites want to aid the Syrian rebels, so he sticks that in there, too. A general who knows better tells the country the truth: it will take ground troops to accomplish the mission. Yet the mission being accomplished is beside the point – because the real mission is winning the hearts and minds of the American people. That’s the battlefield this President – and every President – must fight on.
The Sunni-Shia civil war we encouraged throughout the region for our own purposes has now given birth to the monstrous ISIS, the Frankenstein creature that crawled out of the chaos we created. Like those scary mutations depicted in post-nuclear war movies, all scales and fangs, ISIS gibbers and glories in its monstrousness, doing for the War Party what Bill Kristol and his fellow neocons could never have pulled off by their own efforts. All it took was a few Youtube videos and the social media savvy of the ISIS public relations department.
Funny how that worked out, eh?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...anybody-charge

Summarizing Obama's ISIS Strategy Endgame (In 1 Cartoon)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/20/2014 19:28 -0400

Presented with liitle comment aside to ask "who could have seen 'that' coming?"



Source: Cagle

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...game-1-cartoon

Mad World News

Top Marine General on Obama’s ISIS Plan – Not a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Success
http://dcgazette.com/top-marine-gene...ll-of-success/




Top Marine General on Obama’s ISIS Plan – Not a Snowball’s Chance in...
Retired Marine General James Conway served as Commandant of the Marine Corps from 2006 until 2010. He was at the top of Marine leadership during...
dcgazette.com

Top Marine General on Obama’s ISIS Plan – Not a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Success

09/20/2014 News, Opinion, Politics

Retired Marine General James Conway served as Commandant of the Marine Corps from 2006 until 2010. He was at the top of Marine leadership during the transition from Bush to Obama and knows the challenges that our present-day military leadership faces in dealing with the current occupant of the White House.
General Conway offered his knowledge and expertise in evaluating the Obama “strategy” for dealing with the ISIS terrorist threat and how effective, in his opinion, the plan will be. In making his comments Friday at the Maverick PAC Conference in Washington, DC, Conway said, “I don’t think the ‘president’s’ plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.”
Among Conway’s concerns was the absence of a sufficient, reliable ground force in Syria. The Obama regime is betting on the unproven “Syrian rebels,” whose loyalties remain difficult to determine and whose fighting capabilities are not of a caliber equal to those of the Peshmerga in Kurdistan and much below the now off-limits American foot soldiers.
Obama’s oft-repeated proclamations that there will be no U.S. military ground troops in combat has resulted in a situation in which there are no good options for military planners. The time involved in training what is an unproven and unknown “Syrian rebel” army could easily be over a year. In the mean time, our enemy continues to grow exponentially as Obama delays any meaningful action. It has been ten days since he announced Syrian air strikes and nothing other than talk has taken place.
Conway noted in June of this year that the ISIS terrorists had largely reached the limit of what had been their easily taken, poorly defended territorial expansion. He correctly predicted that they would not challenge the Peshmerga or the Shiite oil field areas or Baghdad.
Conway’s Friday comments echo those of a broad spectrum of military experts who are increasingly frustrated with the ineptitude and indecision coming from the White House.
Obama is clearly buying time for ISIS. Whether that is an unintended consequence of his efforts to preserve his perception of a legacy as a peacemaker, a result of his inability to perform the functions of his position or something more sinister is still to be determined. There are mounting suspicions that his known sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations may be influencing his already lengthy decision making process.
Every day that he debates about who will be on the ground, every day that he delays substantive air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria is another day that our enemy is able to harden and relocate their assets.
At a time when America desperately needs a president we don’t have one. We have an Obama.

Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

http://dcgazette.com/top-marine-gene...ll-of-success/