Why did it take so long to try and cripple ISIS?

[Herkmeister]

Actually with all the doping we are learning about in Russia their testies are probably on the small side.

Perhaps that is because they are showing up on the wrong gender.

 

[aflachawk]

I'm guessing that this wouldn't have been realistic. Firstly, you can't just drop leaflets out of planes on the first day and expect good results. You have to do a lot of intelligence gathering to determine where to drop the leaflets, to whom they should be dropped, and somehow let everyone involved know when, all while keeping it hidden from ISIS. This takes time.

To me, it's similar to our invasion of Normandy during WWII. That attack took the better part of a year to plan and execute. I can see why this would take time as well.

Comparing this operation to Normandy is like comparing a heart transplant to a flu shot. Your usual rhetorical dud. Any thing to protect an inept administration.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I'm guessing that this wouldn't have been realistic. Firstly, you can't just drop leaflets out of planes on the first day and expect good results. You have to do a lot of intelligence gathering to determine where to drop the leaflets, to whom they should be dropped, and somehow let everyone involved know when, all while keeping it hidden from ISIS. This takes time.

To me, it's similar to our invasion of Normandy during WWII. That attack took the better part of a year to plan and execute. I can see why this would take time as well.

If they were able to suddenly gather this information after a crisis, they had the information already. Your description is not how it works by the way.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Convenient excuse for you to bitch about Obama, don't you think? Nobody in the world has a solution, including the Republicans, and yet Obama is still to blame. Do me a favor and save this complaint for the things that Obama can actually do something about.

Wrong, lots of people have solutions, you just don't like the ones that don't come out of Obamas mouth. Rand Pauls solution for instance, is that we should quit f'n around with everyone over there.

Obamas solutions, airstrikes, airstrikes, airstrikes, if it kills civilians, including women and children,..oh well.

 

[Huey Grey]

Comparing this operation to Normandy is like comparing a heart transplant to a flu shot. Your usual rhetorical dud. Any thing to protect an inept administration.

Nice non-response to anything I wrote. Do you know anything about military strategy? You can't conduct bombing raids without first gathering intelligence and orchestrating a response. And both of these take time. Thank god people like you aren't in charge of protecting this county.

 

[Huey Grey]

Wrong, lots of people have solutions, you just don't like the ones that don't come out of Obamas mouth. Rand Pauls solution for instance, is that we should quit f'n around with everyone over there.

Obamas solutions, airstrikes, airstrikes, airstrikes, if it kills civilians, including women and children,..oh well.

You're really avoiding my point. No solutions means no solutions to take out ISIS. Sure we could go down Paul's route and simply pull out, but that won't destroy ISIS. Same with the Republicans. Their solution is to set up no-fly zones, which is strange considering that ISIS doesn't have an air force, and to put in some ground troops. Neither of which looks promising to eradicate ISIS.

 

[Huey Grey]

If they were able to suddenly gather this information after a crisis, they had the information already. Your description is not how it works by the way.

My description is absolutely how it works. Read a book about military strategy sometime.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Asked why the U.S. had waited so long to hit fuel trucks, which are highly vulnerable and easily targeted by air, Davis said the U.S.-led coalition

[1] has been mindful of civilian casualties and

[2] sought to limit damage to Syria's oil resources to preserve them for future generations.

[1] He said this with a straight face? Does ANYONE buy this lame posturing?

[2] Isn't this sort of an admission that Assad will stay in power? Or that ISIS will win? If you think the "good rebels" will end up running the country, then you preserve the infrastructure. If we are now targeting the infrastructure, that suggests we no longer expect a good outcome.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I like this one. But why are the people who brought us the first 2 saying that Obama is being too timid?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

B.S. You go in and crush them. Sherman did it to the South. Eisenhower did it to the Nazis. We know how to do this.

So . . . massive boots on the ground?

How many casualties should we be willing to accept?

Will we be going back to the draft?

 

[Huey Grey]

So . . . massive boots on the ground?

How many casualties should we be willing to accept?

Will we be going back to the draft?

Additionally, what happens when we leave? Do we have to do some serious nation building after? So we employ more boots on the ground when ISIS moves somewhere else?

This strategy didn't work with Iraq. Why should it work with Syria?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sure they do. You just don't like their solutions.

Who has solutions and which of their solutions do you support?

 

[Huey Grey]

Who has solutions and which of their solutions do you support?

The most ridiculous solution I've heard of comes from Ben Carson. He basically says he wants to start a war with Russia to deal with ISIS after his no-fly zone runs into problems:

"CARSON: And I would make sure that the Russians understood that we are going to do that.

WALLACE: If I may press my point, what do you do if – after we shoot down a Russian plane, they shoot down one of ours?

CARSON: If they violate it, we will, in fact, enforce it. And, you know, we’ll see what happened. You know, too, for us to always be backing down because we are afraid of a conflict, that’s not how we became a great nation, Chris.

WALLACE: But you’re talking about getting potentially into a shooting war with Russia over Syria?

CARSON: Well, if we established a no-fly zone and we make clear the rules, if they violate it, that’s why you have a no-fly zone. That’s the very definition of a no-fly zone. You can’t fly there."

 

[HawktimusPrime]

My description is absolutely how it works. Read a book about military strategy sometime.

LOL, no it doesn't Huey.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

You're really avoiding my point. No solutions means no solutions to take out ISIS. Sure we could go down Paul's route and simply pull out, but that won't destroy ISIS. Same with the Republicans. Their solution is to set up no-fly zones, which is strange considering that ISIS doesn't have an air force, and to put in some ground troops. Neither of which looks promising to eradicate ISIS.

We won't need to destroy ISIS if we get the #$# out of their countries. In case you didn't realize, that is their big issue with us. If Obama would just the balls to say that we are no longer going to kill people and expect them not to be pissed about it, then that would be one thing. You're looking at this in the wrong light.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Nice non-response to anything I wrote. Do you know anything about military strategy? You can't conduct bombing raids without first gathering intelligence and orchestrating a response. And both of these take time. Thank god people like you aren't in charge of protecting this county.

They take take time, yet the french pulled it off in under 2 days. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Joes Place]

B.S. You go in and crush them. Sherman did it to the South. Eisenhower did it to the Nazis. We know how to do this.

Cool. Why don't you go enlist and head on over there then?

 

[TexMichFan]

[1] He said this with a straight face? Does ANYONE buy this lame posturing?

[2] Isn't this sort of an admission that Assad will stay in power? Or that ISIS will win? If you think the "good rebels" will end up running the country, then you preserve the infrastructure. If we are now targeting the infrastructure, that suggests we no longer expect a good outcome.

1) Obama fought his battles before he was President with words and is very good at it. Now I think he is has backed himself into a corner and to admit that anything could have been done differently is something he can't bring himself to do.

2) Refineries can be rebuilt and to cripple one does not take a total leveling.

Taking money away from your enemy is more important.

 

[Huey Grey]

They take take time, yet the french pulled it off in under 2 days. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

The French used previously gathered intelligence for these raids. They also piggy backed off of previously gathered U.S. intelligence. You're clearly talking out of you ass when you claim that you can conduct these strikes without having done any prior work.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

To me, it's similar to our invasion of Normandy during WWII. That attack took the better part of a year to plan and execute. I can see why this would take time as well.

This is similar to Operation Overlord? The biggest sea born invasion in human history. Uh huh.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The French used previously gathered intelligence for these raids. They also piggy backed off of previously gathered U.S. intelligence. You're clearly talking out of you ass when you claim that you can conduct these strikes without having done any prior work.

So we had the information then? You just negated your entire argument. I guess the information gathering just happened to be where it needed to be just before the attacks? Or could it be we've had it, but we just didn't use it in time?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

We will not destroy the stuff we funded in joint venture with saudis

 

[22*43*51]

Who has solutions and which of their solutions do you support?

I continue support immigration freezes, or at least tightening of immigration.

We can't pay for the masses that are being recruited under Executive Order from Central/South America as it is.

The fact that some of the invitee's could be wearing a bomb vest is ancillary.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Look out: gasoline prices

 

[HawktimusPrime]

We will not destroy the stuff we funded in joint venture with saudis

Exactly, Obama(and DC as a whole), do not want to destroy ISIS. They aren't done using ISIS to further destabilize the region. If ISIS is destroyed, we lose another reason to be over there. Just as we did when we finally 'killed' OBL.

 

[Jan Itor]

Nice cartoon. It forgets to include the GOP and the rest of the world for not knowing how to deal with ISIS. This isn't an Obama problem. Nobody has a strategy against ISIS.

So the GOP, the ones not in the Oval office and meeting with the Joint Chiefs are supposed to come up with a strategy? And even if they did, do you think Obama would listen or act on it? This is on Obama.

 

[Huey Grey]

So the GOP, the ones not in the Oval office and meeting with the Joint Chiefs are supposed to come up with a strategy? And even if they did, do you think Obama would listen or act on it? This is on Obama.

Paris getting attacked is somehow Obama's fault? You've jumped the shark.

 

[Jan Itor]

Don't want to admit that there is no real strategy for dealing with ISIS, do you? Once again, this isn't an Obama problem. This is a world problem. Russia doesn't know what to do with ISIS. Turkey doesn't know what to do with ISIS. France doesn't know what to do with ISIS. And the Republicans don't know what to do with ISIS. So why are you pretending that Obama is unusual in this respect?

You defend the man no matter what. He is so against putting boots on the ground when he campaigned and celebrated getting us completely out of Iraq, that he's handcuffed himself.

If he just decided to lead, others would follow. Instead we kept hearing about this non-existent coalition for months. He needs to man up like Bush Sr. and pick a strategy. I guarantee some of his advisers have proposed a strategy with potential, and he has shot it down because, as I've said, he's handcuffed himself.

 

[Jan Itor]

Paris getting attacked is somehow Obama's fault? You've jumped the shark.

When did we narrow this discussion down to just Paris? I honestly don't think you're playing with a full deck.

 

[Huey Grey]

You defend the man no matter what. He is so against putting boots on the ground when he campaigned and celebrated getting us completely out of Iraq, that he's handcuffed himself.

If he just decided to lead, others would follow. Instead we kept hearing about this non-existent coalition for months. He needs to man up like Bush Sr. and pick a strategy. I guarantee some of his advisers have proposed a strategy with potential, and he has shot it down because, as I've said, he's handcuffed himself.

You're insane in this thread, you know that? How can I take anything you say seriously after your claim that the Paris attack is Obama's fault? It's also sad to see you glom onto the "Oh, why won't Obama lead" bumper sticker. Nobody is leading against ISIS. We're all just running around like chickens with out heads cut off. The least you could do is be honest with yourself and admit this.

 

[Jan Itor]

You're insane in this thread, you know that? How can I take anything you say seriously after your claim that the Paris attack is Obama's fault? It's also sad to see you glom onto the "Oh, why won't Obama lead" bumper sticker. Nobody is leading against ISIS. We're all just running around like chickens with out heads cut off. The least you could do is be honest with yourself and admit this.

You ****ing idiot. Point to where I blamed Obama for the Paris attack. After you do that, I'll respond to the rest of your gibberish. Are you bi-polar or just plain stupid?

 

[86Hawkeye]

We knew they were selling oil on the black market why not take out the fuel trucks and some infrastructure long ago?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-destroyed-116-islamic-state-fuel-trucks-193133278.html

US says it destroyed 116 Islamic State fuel trucks

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a new twist to an intensifying campaign to squeeze Islamic State oil revenues, U.S. warplanes have destroyed 116 oil-hauling trucks in eastern Syria that were a key part of a smuggling operation that brings the group an estimated $1.4 million a day.

The strike conducted Sunday and announced Monday was the first of its kind in more than a year of U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria. Four A-10 Thunderbolt II attack planes and two AC-130 Spectre gunships pounded the trucks as they clustered near Abu Kamal, a town close to the Iraqi border.

U.S. officials previously had said they avoided attacking fuel trucks out of concern for civilian casualties.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said that in an effort to warn the truck drivers to leave the area in advance of Sunday's attacks, leaflets were dropped and coalition planes conducted low-level "show of force" flights over the site.

Davis said the coalition had determined that more needed to be done to inhibit the Islamic State's generation of oil revenues in Syria and Iraq. The Treasury Department said last year that the group earned nearly $1 million a day from illicit oil sales; the Pentagon believes that sum has risen to nearly $1.4 million a day. Since the earliest days of the U.S.-led bombing campaign, some parts of the Islamic State's oil infrastructure have been attacked, but the effort is now intensifying.

"This part of it was designed to attack the distribution component of ISIL's oil smuggling operation," Davis said, referring to attacking the fuel trucks. "ISIL is stealing oil from the people of Iraq and Syria to fund its campaign of terror."

Although Sunday's strikes came just two days after the Paris attacks for which the Islamic State had claimed responsibility, Pentagon officials said there was no direct connection between the two events.

The attacks were part of a broader U.S.-led coalition campaign to cripple a key source of revenue for the Islamic State. Davis said it would take "some time" to fully realize the long-term effects of targeting key elements of the oil network.

"In the short term we know we are disrupting a significant source of funding that's being used to kill innocent people," he said.

Asked why the U.S. had waited so long to hit fuel trucks, which are highly vulnerable and easily targeted by air, Davis said the U.S.-led coalition has been mindful of civilian casualties and sought to limit damage to Syria's oil resources to preserve them for future generations.

"We're balancing that with the fact that this revenue is presenting a clear and present threat to Syrians today, in that it's being converted into funds which are being used for military equipment, which is being used to kill innocent civilians," Davis said.

Army Col. Steve Warren, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said last week that the U.S. has learned over time that the militants were quickly replacing or repairing damage to oil distribution centers and other infrastructure. In many cases, he said, within days of an airstrike the targeted piece of oil infrastructure was up and running again.

"We don't want to completely and utterly destroy these facilities to where they're irreparable," Warren said. "So what we've done is we've used very precise targeting, a very detailed analysis to strike certain parts of these facilities that will cause them to shut down for an extended period of time."

Warren said the military did detailed analysis to determine how to knock out the facilities for more than a day or two.

"We wanted them broken longer. Rather than 24 to 48 hours, we're looking at, you know, something that would take maybe a year to repair," he said.

The goal, he said, was to destroy machinery or facilities for which the militants don't have the needed replacement parts.

The overall campaign against oil infrastructure, dubbed Operation Tidal Wave II, is about 70 percent complete, Warren said. He said Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the top U.S. commander in charge of the counter-Islamic State campaign, approved the operation, which was named after a World War II mission - Operation Tidal Wave, conducted against Nazi oil fields in Romania in August 1943.

___

It took so long, because why bother with the JV Team?

 

[Greenway12]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein sharply contradicted President Barack Obama on Monday, disagreeing with his claim that the Islamic State is "contained."

“I’ve never been more concerned,” the California Democrat and Intelligence Committee ranking member told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Monday. “I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/dianne-feinstein-obama-isil-215935


But, but where is the Republican strategy for dealing with ISIS....? Obama's strategy (if there is one) is not working and even Dems are backing away. Only the most loyal sheep are defending it. History will judge Obama harshly on this from calling them the "JV" to the vanilla and feckless response.

 

[86Hawkeye]

So . . . massive boots on the ground?

How many casualties should we be willing to accept?

Will we be going back to the draft?

Which politicians have suggested "massive" boots on the ground? How many is "massive"?

 

[The Tradition]

Which politicians have suggested "massive" boots on the ground? How many is "massive"?

Massive boots on the ground would reduce casualties. Go with overwhelming force.

Worked in the First Gulf War.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Don't want to admit that there is no real strategy for dealing with ISIS, do you? Once again, this isn't an Obama problem. This is a world problem. Russia doesn't know what to do with ISIS. Turkey doesn't know what to do with ISIS. France doesn't know what to do with ISIS. And the Republicans don't know what to do with ISIS. So why are you pretending that Obama is unusual in this respect?

Obama is the Command in Chief...it is 100% on his plate and in his name. His "strategy" has and is failing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/feinstein-clear-that-obamas-isis-strategy-is-insufficient/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-official-crystal-clear-obamas-isis-strategy-not-working/

http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/obamas-anti-isis-strategy-failed-says-nasrallah/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...neral-just-set-his-isis-war-plan-on-fire.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...gence-chief-says-obama-s-isis-strategy-failed

 

[Eternal Return]

This isn't your father's al Qaeda.

They've declared themselves to be a state. They fly flags. They wear uniforms. They maintain borders. They have a criminal justice system and a currency and all the other trappings of a country.

Therefore, we do in fact know where they are.

Ha, I like that, "This isn't your father's al Qaeda." Cute.

But, you're right, we do know where they are: Paris. Let's bomb Paris!!!

In fairness, they were in Syria, but we bombed the hell out of that space and now they're in France ... and Germany and Belgium and Denmark and ... so let's bomb Europe!!!

This is beginning to look like World War III. The good news is that at least Germany isn't starting this one. So that's a win right there. I think they might even be on our side this time -- Now that's progress!

 

[KennyPowers_96]

You're insane in this thread, you know that? How can I take anything you say seriously after your claim that the Paris attack is Obama's fault? It's also sad to see you glom onto the "Oh, why won't Obama lead" bumper sticker. Nobody is leading against ISIS. We're all just running around like chickens with out heads cut off. The least you could do is be honest with yourself and admit this.

Who is the leader of the free world? Nobody is leading because we have an over matched president, which is on the us. Usually people expect the most powerful leader in the world to be able to, you know, lead. Do you disagree with the statements above?

Before you lose your $hit (again), I'm not a republican.

 

[cigaretteman]

Who is the leader of the free world? Nobody is leading because we have an over matched president, which is on the us. Usually people expect the most powerful leader in the world to be able to, you know, lead. Do you disagree with the statements above?

Before you lose your $hit (again), I'm not a republican.

Of course any sane person would disagree with the above statements. You may not be a Republican, but you are most assuredly suffering from a severe case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

 

[sijoint]

Additionally, what happens when we leave? Do we have to do some serious nation building after? So we employ more boots on the ground when ISIS moves somewhere else?

This strategy didn't work with Iraq. Why should it work with Syria?