stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 86,713
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 11976
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: Hell House |
RE: ISIS #2 - Buh Bye!
(03-25-2016 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (03-25-2016 11:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote: (03-25-2016 10:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote: (03-25-2016 09:19 PM)dawgitall Wrote: (03-25-2016 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote: I would too. But Obama is calling the shots, not the military leaders.
Well he is the Commander-in-Chief but I'm confident the actual career military advisers are providing excellent council.
nope....they only tell him what they are allowed.....
ya gotta be shittin' me with that.....
it's just not possible for yaz to get a clue.....and I absolutely mean not a semblance....
Stinky, Stinky, Stinky it is impossible to take you seriously. 
Perhaps you should take him seriously because he's dead on with his claim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html
Quote:Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.
Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.
http://www.ibtimes.com/former-intel-chie...rt-2206975
Quote:President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, told CNN on Tuesday that the White House ignored reports about the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because they did not fit Obama's re-election “narrative.” According to Flynn, the president was served poorly by a small circle of advisers who were worried about his re-election prospects at the time. Flynn has also criticized both President Obama and former President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War and involvement in the Middle East.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-isis.html
Quote:On November 1, 2013, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the White House, and made a rather stunning request. Maliki, who celebrated when the last U.S. troops left his country in 2011, asked Obama to quietly send the military back into Iraq and help his beleagured Air Force develop targets for air strikes; that’s how serious the threat from Sunni insurgents led by the extremist group ISIS had become.
Twelve days later, Brett McGurk, a deputy assistant secretary of state and the Obama administration’s senior U.S. official in Baghdad since the crisis began last month, presented to Congress a similarly dark warning. ISIS was launching upwards of 40 suicide bombers a month, he said, encouraged in part by the weakness of Maliki’s military and the aggressively anti-Sunni policies of the Shi’ite prime minister. It was the kind of ominous report that American intelligence agencies had been delivering privately for months. McGurk added that ISIS had “benefited from a permissive operating environment due to inherent weaknesses of Iraqi security forces, poor operational tactics, and popular grievances, which remain unaddressed, among the population in Anbar and Nineweh provinces.”
Maliki's requests were rebuffed; McGurk’s warnings went largely unheeded. The problem for Obama was that he had no good policy option in Iraq. On the one hand, if Obama had authorized the air strikes Maliki began requesting in January, he would strengthen the hand of an Iraqi prime minister who increasingly resembled the brutal autocrat U.S. troops helped unseat in 2003. Maliki’s heavy handed policies—such as authorizing counter-terrorism raids against Sunni political leaders with no real links to terrorism—sowed the seeds of the current insurrection in Iraq.
Quote:While the policy process in Washington was frozen, U.S. intelligence analysts still filed their warnings about major weaknesses in Iraq’s military. Both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have issued reported analysis for nearly a year warning that Iraq’s military would not be able to stand up against a sustained campaign from ISIS.
“Since last year, U.S. intelligence analysts routinely highlighted the growing problems and deficiencies within the Iraqi Security Forces,” one senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. This official said beginning in 2013, analysts routinely warned about morale problems inside the Iraqi military, what he called “leadership shortfalls” and a “steady degradation in capabilities that was making it difficult for Iraqi Security Forces to combat ISIS.” Despite this, this official stressed it was difficult to see the historic and rapid collapse of Iraqi forces in Mosul last month nonetheless.
Quote:"My questions about the Iraqi military in 2011 arose from concerns expressed to me by General Lloyd Austin, who was then the commander of all U.S. forces in country,” he told The Daily Beast. “That year, he had to put out a number of fires in Iraq, the most serious of which arose in Kirkuk during the spring. That contentious engagement revealed the substantial tensions that existed between the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army, tensions that could have led to combat had the U.S. not intervened.” Bowen said that both Austin and Jeffrey “indicated to me that there would be—because there needed to be—a continuing U.S. military presence after 2011.”
Quote:And while the U.S. military builds up in Iraq, Obama still has not made a decision to weigh into Iraq any deeper. Speaking to the foreign press on Tuesday, Ben Rhodes, the White House Deputy National Security Adviser for strategic communication, said, “In terms of additional U.S. military action, President Obama again made clear that while he has not ordered any military action, he reserves the right to do so as necessary.”
Many of Obama’s best advisers on Iraq have been saying such military action has been necessary now for months.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...es-ignored
Quote:"We have made gains over the past year that will put Afghanistan on a better path,” said Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on January 27, in a message of congratulations to outgoing commander General John Campbell. But the upbeat pronouncements of top administration officials are inconsistent with nearly all the information coming out of Afghanistan. On the day after Carter’s statement, the latest quarterly report from the Pentagon’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction observed, “In this reporting period, Afghanistan proved even more dangerous than it was a year ago. The Taliban now controls more territory than at any time since 2001.” An independent assessment by Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal also concluded that the Taliban has rapidly extended the terrain it controls since President Obama announced the official end of the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan. The U.S. has the ability to blunt the Taliban’s momentum, but a President who refuses to recognize the problem is not likely to provide the necessary resources.
Quote:From the vantage point of the White House, these activities do not amount to war. On the White House website, a list of President Obama’s accomplishments says he “responsibly ended the U.S. combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Shortly before the President’s final State of the Union address, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price tweeted, “The U.S. ended two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing home 90% of 180K troops deployed.” In the address itself, President Obama offered nary a word of thanks to the 9,800 troops who remain. He mentioned the country only once, as part of a list of places where “instability will continue for decades.”
Within the military, many dispute the White House portrayal. “I still call it a war,” said General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, adding, “What we’ve shifted away from is a large presence of U.S. combat forces fighting that war.” Defense correspondent Nancy Youssef reported that “several defense officials just shook their heads” when they learned of Price’s claim that the U.S. had “ended” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of “the war we must win,” Afghanistan has become the war that must not be named.
thanks Kap!
|
|
