Well?
Which one, the war on drugs or the war on terror? Or are you talking about the new war on women?
Heavy action over Syria. But, I’m sure you knew that.
Which one, the war on drugs or the war on terror? Or are you talking about the new war on women?
Funny how that War on Women seems to ramp up every two years in late September/early October.
No.
Admin messaging says the WOT ended, and this ISIS thing is not a war, and is not against Islamists. It's really funny to read some of the ways Kerry describes what is happenning, and what we want to happen there, while being extremely careful not to utter that it is either a war or that our problem is with Islamists.
Again? I believe we have never stopped being at war with N. Korea
Good point.
We’ve always been at war with East Asia.
Just say Asia, it’s never ending.
For over a thousand years it has been never ending. I understand the potential issue if ISIS gains a serious footing in Syria but right now Assad can kill ISIS for us so why don’t we just sit back for a bit longer and let them keep killing each other? The rational seems to be similar to the domino effect and our involvement in Vietnam, loose Vietnam to the communists we loose most of the pacific to the communists. Loose Syria to ISIS we then loose Iraq, Iran joins in, then that power swing gets the Afghans excited and so forth and so on. I have two goods friends who are both on tier one spec ops units (these guys have been around the block and are smart) and both have argued the same strategy: let them kill each other for as long as possible, let them grow in numbers so that they become a more defined entity, and unleash the entire air force, no boots on ground, no rebuilding effort. Of course that would involve significant collateral damage and decisive action from the president which will never happen so we will again half commit to an undefined “conflict” where our military will once again make massive sacrifices for leaders who do not know what it means to win a war (excuse me…conflict). I am sure you can assume how my friends feel about or current leadership (military and political) in regards to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, North Africa, etc.
I am sure you can assume how my friends feel about or current leadership (military and political) in regards to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, North Africa, etc.
Plenty of recent and continuing stories making note of the divide between what Obama is saying/doing, and what the military (and most of his chosen civilian leaders ) want. This seems to be a very Whitehouse controlled effort...which generally has meant that there is a timid guy making the decision (okay, Valerie Jarret) and a bunch of pollsters and political strategists giving the input. I'm just saying that in this case, the military brass looks to be publicly in a different place than Obama, so if one is disappointed in their approach, it may be for different reasons.
I just had the rare chance to visit with one friend who just returned from a huge pre-deployment training block and he is 100% as professional as they come (probably why he has made it so far in the teams) and rarely gives a strong opinion about leadership over the years, but recently you can see the frustration. These guys are smart, most have post graduate education and 10-15 years of hard core military training, extensive deployment backgrounds and know how the game works. Problem is they are never in the decision making process, it’s all political, and in their opinion is that the top end of the military is just an extension of the white house. Their primary frustration with the military leadership which is simply not leading and rather cowering to the white house. As they say the military today is more concerned with winning the war on an equitable military (gays, minorities in leadership, religious issues etc) or winning the war on politically correct ROE (that is the one that really gets them going because they have team members who have died because of excessive limitations). To be honest i do not think there are many leaders left on either side of the isle today who are willing to win a war because winning a war is never politically correct (you are going to piss somebody off).
The other problem is that they hire the top political science Phd’s from Harvard, Wisconsin, Yale, etc…these people are the furthest thing you can get from leaders (i did a year of my poli sci Phd before joining the navy and know all too well their traits).Political science is massively flawed because it is most often abstracted from history and driven 100% by statistics, if the numbers are not there then it is not true. But these kinds of conflicts are impossible to study from a statistical standpoint and so their Phd’s are then stuck just shaking their heads in indecision. But since they are pressured they rely on their very liberal mindset and no military knowledge and we get Iraq. Any idiot who has studied the history of Iraq knew what was going to happen. Syria is similar but slightly different, but again you can tell that the white house has no clear strategy or plan. That was the same thing that happened in Iraq, we basically went in without a plan other than lets establish Democracy and kill the bad guys (that was a literal quote from one of the key political leaders). At least with Afghanistan we had a slightly more cohesive “plan” and in general the outcome was not a total disaster, though many argue it could have been handled more quickly (bing west’s argument).
Sorry for the book response but this is an issue that i have a vested interest because my friends have devoted their lives to doing their best and are willing to die, leadership needs the same approach and needs to stop worrying about being PC.
Again? I believe we have never stopped being at war with N. Korea
That was a conflict.
For over a thousand years it has been never ending. I understand the potential issue if ISIS gains a serious footing in Syria but right now Assad can kill ISIS for us so why don’t we just sit back for a bit longer and let them keep killing each other? The rational seems to be similar to the domino effect and our involvement in Vietnam, loose Vietnam to the communists we loose most of the pacific to the communists. Loose Syria to ISIS we then loose Iraq, Iran joins in, then that power swing gets the Afghans excited and so forth and so on. I have two goods friends who are both on tier one spec ops units (these guys have been around the block and are smart) and both have argued the same strategy: let them kill each other for as long as possible, let them grow in numbers so that they become a more defined entity, and unleash the entire air force, no boots on ground, no rebuilding effort. Of course that would involve significant collateral damage and decisive action from the president which will never happen so we will again half commit to an undefined “conflict” where our military will once again make massive sacrifices for leaders who do not know what it means to win a war (excuse me…conflict). I am sure you can assume how my friends feel about or current leadership (military and political) in regards to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, North Africa, etc.
Problem is…Assad has actually been helping ISIS. The Syrian regime has been attacking the “moderate” rebels, while leaving ISIS be to grow and get stronger.
Spot
If you’re talking about with ISIS/ISIL then during the last presidential address on a Wednesday night we were not and it would not become a war. However by that following Friday it was a confirmed “war.” Funny what changes in 1.5 days.
Unfortunately, I suspect we’ll virtually always be at war. Even if we seriously tried to completely disengage now, we have so many enemies that we’ll be forced to do something.
That is the report i am starting to hear and i wonder if that has been somewhat contrived to lend credence to attacking Asad? Two years ago there was a fairly clear distinction between Asad’s ruling party, the syrian rebels and then the entrance of more radical elements, which seemingly was initiated by the rebels request for more support. My primary concern with the Notion of Asad working with ISIS is that they have no common mutual interest, unless ISIS helps Asad put down the rebellion and they are given a safe haven for training/financing/orginization. I need to spend a few evening reading at more depth.
Which one, the war on drugs or the war on terror? Or are you talking about the new war on women?
I thought he meant the war on poverty…
~Matt
Allowing ISIS to grow and become a threat to the west means that Assad can focus his forces on the moderate rebels that the West support, while the West does his dirty work for him against ISIS. It also allows him to cast the entire rebellion against his regime as one of violent jihadists. And, there is one common mutual interest…neither ISIS nor Assad want the moderates to win. ISIS wants an extremely strict Islamic state governed by Sharia law, while I believe the moderate rebels just want to get rid of Assad.
Spot
Can someone explain to me why we don’t just play all these sides against each other or is that what we are doing?
As soon as one gets stronger then the other we should just build up the other side and let them knock them down a notch. Mutually assured destruction. Seems better then us going and killing them and becoming “The bad guys”.
Every week some new “Bad group” shows up. Syrian Liberation Fighters, Muslim Brother Hood, ISIS…ISIL, Alqueda and I heard another one was in Syria and we attacked them as well. Why don’t we take all our WWII surplus weapons and just start feeding them to the weak ones and let them kill off the stronger ones and back and forth?
~Matt