No Strategy

Probably an honest idiot..

But I see for the 10,000th time our resident critics do what they do best: Cry without offering an alternative. They're so cute.

So lets hear it. What genocidal group does Hoops, DrMilled, Chefantowan, and Adolf-beadle think the US should side with? Chemical Weapons Assad...or slaughtering-innocents ISIS? Counsel our idiot president (and the rest of us) regarding which side he should take....and which group of people are the good guys.

Better yet - don't weigh in. The last guy you collectively cheered into the Middle East sent our country trillions of dollars into debt (not to mention countless lives and casualties). If the current president is an idiot then what is the correct word for people who supported the earlier endeavor?

+1 Bravo Sir!!! I haven't heard one republican come up with a decent alternative for today's foreign policy. Guess that's because they're too busy with fucking up everything else they do.

How about bombing Isis into the stone age? Since we joined forces with Stalin, who throws the first stone if Assad gets a little help? And how did throwing out that other dictator in Libya work out for us?

Instead of playing golf for 2 weeks, obama should have returned home to work on something, like PM Cameron did. After declaring he had no clue, he promptly left for a weekend in NY to attend fund raisers and a wedding. Perhaps he should have spent the weekend working on a strategy.

Still no alternative? Which group are the good guys, Hoops? You're dodging. We know how much you hate it when Forkush doesn't answer your questions.

How about this: The US Strategy should be to let someone else drive for a change. Many countries in the immediate area have far more at stake than our country does. I'm thinking specifically of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE. But their strategy is the same is as it has been for decades...let US taxpayers solve their problems and pay for their security and pay the consequences of retaliation. I have a problem with that.

Meanwhile Hoops doesn't offer much. We know he wants more tax cuts...and we know he wants more blank-check Middle East policy (even if he cant articulate what that policy should be)...and he wants those two things in the context of complaining about deficits. There's a reason why I stopped trying to have an intelligent debate about politics on this board.

If Obama sent the Marines in there to exterminate the vermin, the right would be up in arms about Presidential over reach, lack of Congressional approval, and condemning our role as global police officer.

Regardless of whether we have strategy or don't have a strategy or whether the Republicans have a strategy or not; it was unwise for President Obama to say 'We have no strategy'. He should have said he can't discuss it at this time and moved on.

I don't care if members of this forum have solutions to this or not. They were not voted in to office and I damn sure wouldn't want them to lead. I think it is fair to expect a leader to have the answers. Any leader, regardless of party, needs to be prepared to make tough decisions that are ideally supported by the majority of our citizens.

Ignore President Assad: i. he is no danger to the United States and ii. there is evidence that it was the "rebels" (e.g. al Qaeda and ISIS) who actually employed the chemical weapons. The Russians knew this and that is why they convinced President Assad to give up his chemical stores, bailing The Obama out of his "Syrian Red Line" debacle.

Concentrate on the Islamic State and allied Islamist groups, which bear the US ill-will.

Set the objective to eliminate ISIS. (Recognize War is unpleasant and lethal. Allies will die; enemies will die. Non-combatants will die. If one is not willing to accept significant damage and casualties do not engage in this exercise, . . . do not even bother to set an objective.)

Obstacle: The US public does not want "boots on the ground". The Obama has promised there will be no boots on the ground. So, it is up to the US to lead others in the anticipated War.
This is the hard part: the US must convince Iraq (the Iraqi Kurds already know), Saudi Arabia (whom the US has armed for years), Turkey (doubtful, and maybe not trustworthy), and any other potential regional allies and other US allies (e.g. Great Britain) that it is within their interests to eliminate ISIS.
Provide whatever arms they require. Provide training. Provide air support.
Take out ISIS, . . . while it is still only an Army, before it actually does become a State.
(It is the hard part because The Obama has demonstrated no competence in matters such as "negotiation", preferring to set "red lines" which he abandons as soon as they are challenged.)

Secure the US borders.

QED

n.b. DonDiego does not expect this to happen. He especially does not expect The Obama to pursue such a plan.
The US and most of "the West" don't really have a plan or objective. They just want to get along. Why, heckfire, all DonDiego wants to do is get along.
But the Islamists do have an objective and a plan. They wish to destroy Western civilization. They have a good start in the Mid-East. DonDiego expects significant conflicts to arise in, f'rinstance France, as the Muslim immigrants there see the wisdom of embracing the Islamist objectives. And Great Britain too; does the reader realize that for several years now the most common name for newborns in Great Britain has been "Mohammed"?

The Islamists wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate, . . . eventually worldwide. And if/when the Islamists get ahold of nukes, . . . f'rinstance in Pakistan, . . . they will use them, with little regard for collateral damage.
Part of the West's problem is: How does one bomb someone back to the stone age, if their intent is to return everyone back to the stone age ?

Destroying ISIS is only a first step. However, it is a necessary first step if one wishes to stop the Islamist plan. There will be combat; the longer it is delayed the greater the damage will be.
DonDiego expects it to be delayed.

***EDITED TO ADD***
Apparently someone does have a strategy.

From NBC's Richard Engel :
“Well, I spoke to military commanders, I speak to former officials, and they are apoplectic. They think that this is a clear and present danger. They think something needs to be done.”

I'm not so sure that the American public does not want boots on the ground with regards to ISIS. I'm in favor of boots on the ground to eliminate them.