Obama briefed for over a year on ISIS and still has 'no strategy'

[homersapien 11,383]

It's called leadership, something our current CIC lacks. He prefers to lead from behind.

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

[autigeremt 6,641]

You say you agree with me 100% but you still think it's all Obama's fault. You are so pent up with Obama Derangement Syndrome that you fail to take an in depth look at the needed military strategy. I'll say it again. He is a politician and is doing what he said he would do. The truth of the matter is, a majority of the American public agreed with the decision to pull out of Iraq.

Therein lays the problem. The chasm between those who have served and those who haven't is growing every day. A consequence of that is an American public who is largely ignorant on the application of the Military IOP and let a slick, 24 hour media cycle dictate their thoughts on the matter. The military went to war, America went to the mall. I'm not suggesting that we need a population full of Military operational specialist but we do need a public that understands if you leave Iraq completely, chaos will ensue.

Your rage should be directed at the Pentagon. They treated the Iraq conflict as a nuisance and a "temporary conflict" getting in the way of their grand budget plans. As Secretary Gates wrote in his book: "There never was intentional neglect of the troops and their well-being. There was, however, a toxic mix of flawed assumptions about the wars themselves; a risk-adverse bureaucracy; budgetary decisions made in isolation from the battlefield; Army, Navy and Air Force focus in Washington on the routine budget process and protecting dollars for future programs; a White House unaware of the needs of the troops and disinclined to pay much attention to the handful of members of Congress who pointed to these needs; and a Congress by and large so focused on the politics of the war in Iraq that it was asleep at the switch or simply too pusillanimous when it came to the needs of the troops. A "gotcha" climate in Washington created by investigative committees, multiple inspector general and auditing organizations, and a general thirst for scandal collectively reinforced bureaucratic timidity and leadership caution. All this translated into a ponderous and unresponsive system, the antithesis of the kind of speed, agility, and innovation required to support troops at war."

So just blaming Obama on the rise of ISIS is intellectually lazy. That's what irks me because I know it's not the truth and it detracts from what is needed to fight global terrorism.

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

And that is Bushes fault. However, the American people were blood thirsty for revenge and Iraq became a commonality in their eyes. Water under the bridge! We need to deal with the threats that exist today.

[autigeremt 6,641]

You say you agree with me 100% but you still think it's all Obama's fault. You are so pent up with Obama Derangement Syndrome that you fail to take an in depth look at the needed military strategy. I'll say it again. He is a politician and is doing what he said he would do. The truth of the matter is, a majority of the American public agreed with the decision to pull out of Iraq.

Therein lays the problem. The chasm between those who have served and those who haven't is growing every day. A consequence of that is an American public who is largely ignorant on the application of the Military IOP and let a slick, 24 hour media cycle dictate their thoughts on the matter. The military went to war, America went to the mall. I'm not suggesting that we need a population full of Military operational specialist but we do need a public that understands if you leave Iraq completely, chaos will ensue.

Your rage should be directed at the Pentagon. They treated the Iraq conflict as a nuisance and a "temporary conflict" getting in the way of their grand budget plans. As Secretary Gates wrote in his book: "There never was intentional neglect of the troops and their well-being. There was, however, a toxic mix of flawed assumptions about the wars themselves; a risk-adverse bureaucracy; budgetary decisions made in isolation from the battlefield; Army, Navy and Air Force focus in Washington on the routine budget process and protecting dollars for future programs; a White House unaware of the needs of the troops and disinclined to pay much attention to the handful of members of Congress who pointed to these needs; and a Congress by and large so focused on the politics of the war in Iraq that it was asleep at the switch or simply too pusillanimous when it came to the needs of the troops. A "gotcha" climate in Washington created by investigative committees, multiple inspector general and auditing organizations, and a general thirst for scandal collectively reinforced bureaucratic timidity and leadership caution. All this translated into a ponderous and unresponsive system, the antithesis of the kind of speed, agility, and innovation required to support troops at war."

So just blaming Obama on the rise of ISIS is intellectually lazy. That's what irks me because I know it's not the truth and it detracts from what is needed to fight global terrorism.

It's called leadership, something our current CIC lacks. He prefers to lead from behind.

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

[homersapien 11,383]

Stry....you must not have seen the latest polls.

Polls told me that more people favored removing Saddam in 1992, more people supported invading Iraq in 2003, and then that more people supported withdrawing from Iraq leading up to and during the actual withdrawal. Polls tell me that more people support bad ideas, probably because they had their opinion given to them by the media as opposed to looking into the situation for themselves.

The reality of fighting terrorism is that you cannot bomb it, or eradicate it with special operations. You can kill terrorists, but they are not really the problem. The problem is the ideology, the cause and effect that leads to it, and any potential solution requires long-term strategic thinking (which most politicians I've seen in my lifetime lack), and a substantial commitment of men, hardware, resources, diplomacy, and joint action. It is expensive, difficult, very drawn out, and it is not politically expedient.

It's not the media who is at fault. It's "leadership" that was driving American opinion. Otherwise you are totally correct.

[autigeremt 6,641]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUUSN....well I guess I must concede to your superior understanding of things. And that being the case, I will defer to your superior grasp of all things and tell little old me what Bush's military failures were.

[AUUSN 823]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an intrenched insurgency.

Only problem is we didn't have 300,000 troops at our disposal which is another failure of times gone by. Bush listened to Rumsfeld which was failure #1.

[homersapien 11,383]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

And that is Bushes fault. However, the American people were blood thirsty for revenge and Iraq became a commonality in their eyes. Water under the bridge! We need to deal with the threats that exist today.

It doesn't take much to get the American people riled up and blood thirsty for revenge. That's easy.

Real leadership focuses on the real solutions that Strychnine and USN are talking about. Of course that's not universal. In the case of an existential threat, like the Nazis, it can work the opposite way. It takes wisdom and vision to make the distinction.

[homersapien 11,383]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

[AUUSN 823]

AUUSN....well I guess I must concede to your superior understanding of things. And that being the case, I will defer to your superior grasp of all things and tell little old me what Bush's military failures were.

Let's start with:

Vacating Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Disbanding the Bath party.

Walter Reed.

Slow rolling the deployment of MRAPs.

I'll add more later.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Which we have not had in decades (vision and wisdom). But 9-11 made us all pretty angry....which is reasonable.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

[autigeremt 6,641]

AUUSN....well I guess I must concede to your superior understanding of things. And that being the case, I will defer to your superior grasp of all things and tell little old me what Bush's military failures were.

Let's start with:

Vacating Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Disbanding the Bath party.

Walter Reed.

Slow rolling the deployment of MRAPs.

I'll add more later.

Spot on!

[homersapien 11,383]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

What's not true?

And you may be right about no 9-11, no Iraq, but 9-11 was used cynically by our leadership to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[autigeremt 6,641]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

What's not true?

And you may be right about no 9-11, no Iraq, but 9-11 was used cynically by our leadership to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Dude! Can you not see what I meant?

No 9-11, no Iraq.

[homersapien 11,383]

Which we have not had in decades (vision and wisdom). But 9-11 made us all pretty angry....which is reasonable.

Don't get your first sentence, but the fact that 9-11 made us angry is understandable, not reasonable.

[homersapien 11,383]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

What's not true?

And you may be right about no 9-11, no Iraq, but 9-11 was used cynically by our leadership to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Dude! Can you not see what I meant?

No 9-11, no Iraq.

Sorry, but no, I don't see what you meant. Are you saying that 9-11 on its own, caused the invasion of Iraq?

[homersapien 11,383]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUUSN......again I don't disagree. But I don't think I have said anywhere that I thought Bush was a fantastic CIC and I could use some of the same things you said earlier about the CIC in his case. You brought up Bush not me, and I would note Bush is not the current POTUS, Obama is.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Which we have not had in decades (vision and wisdom). But 9-11 made us all pretty angry....which is reasonable.

Don't get your first sentence, but the fact that 9-11 made us angry is understandable, not reasonable.

You don't get a sentence in which I used your own words to describe leadership in decades? Geesh, and you talk about others and their ability to recognize I formation? Oh well....

As for what's reasonable and understandable? That relates more to ideology than reality. Anyone who watched what happened on 9-11 should have been angry at the people who did it. That's reasonable. Not understandable.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

We will never know, will we? But I would bet you that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq without 9-11. Iraq became a part of the strategy once 9-11 occurred and the former administration (using intel from the Clinton administration) decided Saddam was a part of the training mechanism for Bin Laden.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

Now we are getting somewhere. We already knew this to be the case. This is why H.W. Bush didn't "go all the way to Baghdad". You cannot destabilize a country without knowing how the vacuum of power will be filled. Bushed failed it in Iraq, Obama failed it in Lybia. Hopefully, our next President will have a better understanding of the Middle East and the world.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

Now we are getting somewhere. We already knew this to be the case. This is why H.W. Bush didn't "go all the way to Baghdad". You cannot destabilize a country without knowing how the vacuum of power will be filled. Bushed failed it in Iraq, Obama failed it in Lybia. Hopefully, our next President will have a better understanding of the Middle East and the world.

I doubt it. We will get another version of the same unless we get lucky.

[homersapien 11,383]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

We will never know, will we? But I would bet you that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq without 9-11. Iraq became a part of the strategy once 9-11 occurred and the former administration (using intel from the Clinton administration) decided Saddam was a part of the training mechanism for Bin Laden.

Agreed.

Sorry I misunderstood your "decades" statement. It was an awkward sentence.

But seriously, you really think Cheney and the other neo-cons were relying on intelligence developed under Clinton? No doubt they were cherry picking and weighting whatever they could dig up to hoodwink the American public, but they certainly weren't acting on the basis of any earlier intelligence.