Why Obama’s lack of response to ISIL was a huge mistake

a reply to: seeker1963

I absolutely agree with that........

Im assuming if we found out who was really funding these guys it would out some serious people, and some serious backlash would occur......

Im all for it, even if its our own damn gov doing it, the world needs to know, the American people needs to know.....

And we need to set some wrongs right by making sure it doesnt happen anymore

I would bet my money on the very real possibility that the IS is a joint Mossad / CIA operation with the ultimate intention to grow enough in numbers to cause extreme turmoil in Iran....

And the fact that their getting a little bit of population reduction along the way is, for them, just killing two birds with one stone... I believe that is the reason for the extreme lack of action by our administration...

a reply to: SUBKONCIOUS

I wouldn't take that bet, but I'd bet a dollar of my own money that IS belongs to Reza Pahlavi and his group and they are training in Iraq for the war they'd enjoy launching upon the Mullah's in Iran with the CIA's help...

the Shah's people just asked for help from the United States last week and their relationship with the CIA goes back a long way.

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
I would bet my money on the very real possibility that the IS is a joint Mossad / CIA operation with the ultimate intention to grow enough in numbers to cause extreme turmoil in Iran....

And the fact that their getting a little bit of population reduction along the way is, for them, just killing two birds with one stone... I believe that is the reason for the extreme lack of action by our administration...

I dont see how that would benefit Israel, theres too much of a risk of them turning to arm Hamas or join the cause and try to make their way to cause trouble for Israel itself.......

Thats just my opinion though

Who knows how contrived things can get

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Here a good piece about how the US/EU/NATO created IS(is) basicly:
www.globalresearch.ca...

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: MrSpad

You seem to think you are a military strategist or something. Are you really going to suggest Obama couldn't have severely limited ISIS rise to power with airstrikes, drone strikes, and cruise missiles? They were sitting ducks for large stretches of time, with convoys wide open and vulnerable as they traversed open terrain. The Iraqi government even pleaded with the U.S for airstrikes, with no answer from the Obama administration until it was too late.

In fact I am a retired one. I am sure you are aware nobody even talked about ISIS until they were suddenly rolling towards Baghdad. They were halted by the Iraqi Army who moved from a counter terrorist force deployment to a conventional one.

I am also sure you are aware that ISIS is only a part of the forces fighting the Iraqi Goverment. Sunni militias and Baath party offcers from Iraqs old military are what has given ISIS its true military punch. They want a unity Goverment in Iraq and not a Shia dominated one as it has. They saw teaming up with ISIS as a way to make that happen and then they could deal with ISIS after. The push on Baghdad failed and ISIS actions in Sunni territory began causing problems.

The US told Iraq you need to form a unity government with Sunnis and the Kurds and that will destroy most of ISIS support and we will help you clean up what is left. At that point Iraq had taken back some cities and was moving on Tikirt. So they rejected the idea out of hand. Meanwhile clashes have broken out between the Sunnis and ISIS.

So knowing this, what is the one thing that would ruin any chance of the Sunnis turning on ISIS? What would create a much longer deadlier campaign to retake every city, town and villiage with a Sunni population now backing ISIS 100% instead of being happy to them gone? What would give ISIS a big new bunch of recruits? A US air campaign in support of Shia dominate Iraqi government you say? Then yes you are correct.

The US now is conducting limited airstrikes against agressive ISIS units attacking the Kurds. What you will not see it them doing is launching strikes on Sunni cities that would fill ISIS ranks with volunteers and ruin any chance of the Sunnis expelling ISIS.

If you are going to conduct military operations you have to be aware of who your enemy is and what repercussions your actions will create. You then come up with a measured response.

Thanks op for proving that america is lost and couldent find its way out of a paper bag.

Lets recap, its obamas fault where still in iraq.
Its obamas fault we left too early.
Its obamas fault isis is taking over.

Serious question, what reality do people live in, obumer is just another pupet bought by big corp.

Say it with me, obama is not the anti christ, obama,bush,clinton,bush,ect all bought by big corp.

Now what is america going to do, im guessing the same old, the left will rape and pillage america while the right hangs itself with the faux outrage and pretend they care about america.

a reply to: MrSpad



ISIS is genociding people by the hundreds

There will be time later for making Iraq governable and functional, a responsibility of the US because they messed it up in the first place.

This is an international humanitarian issue somthing that Obama should have seen long ago not just now.

Because of his lack of common sense hundreds, maybe thousands of people are dead and many more threatened.

Anyway here is what I said to do. I didn’t say send in the US ARMY in full force.

“Immediately bombed these columns of ISIL running around in those dump trucks and call in thousands of US troops and to go back in after he got consent from the congress. Besides that call in much more than the measly 800 advisers he sent. Declared to the UN to attempt to create form expeditionary forces of at least 5000 from each individual country who participates…to get a force of at least 50,000 troops, this is the Colin Powell doctrine of a massive force to quickly get it over with. Then, like the first Bush did in the first Iraq war in Kuwait, he needed to create an international coalition of willing partners to go in and exterminate ISIL AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. AND I MEAN EXTERMINATE! Let the Iraqis fumigate the country afterwards.”

a reply to: MrSpad You are very close. The State Dep. thought that the Kurds would ally with certain Syrian and Sunni factors and take out ISIS without US intervention. These proposed alliances never materialized.

a reply to: MrSpad

It’s called strategic thinking. Looking ahead. They knew ISIL was an extremely mad group who would and already has committed genocidal acts

Obama has an example of what the first Bush did in the first Iraqi war in Kuwait.

Create a groundswell of international support. In fact Obama would have an easier task than Bush with the known track record of ISIL.

Why the excuse for not acting is absurd: that the US would end up in a sectarian war.

The idea that this war would end up a sectarian only war is not viable.

ISIL is committing genocide against EVERYBODY: Yezidis, Christians; Shia Muslims, even Sunnis who don’t kiss their ring. There so bad NOT EVEN AL Qaeda supports them

They are uniquely savage. NO SUNNIS WOULD SUPPORT THEM, that is a myth, imo. They are getting support through fear.

Just became they might have a few disgruntled ex-Saddam Generals doesn’t mean they have a Sunni army within Iraq.

Finally if that rational was true, then why go in at all.
To stop the genocide?…Any one could have already predicted this.

They have already murdered Christians in Iraq. What does the US government need 1 million dead?

Obama is in denial and has terrible advisers.

Obama’s excuses don’t hold up to Logic

So Obama’s excuse for not getting into this Iraq slaughter earlier when ISIS first took Mosul is that he doesn’t want to be Maliki's air force

But didn’t he become the Libyan rebellions air force?

He didn’t even know those people. Who ended up murdering the US Ambassador.

Or the other excuse;
They don’t want to get into a sectarian rebellion.

Oh Really? Then why did they try so hard to get into the sectarian Syrian rebellion.

Well done for expressing perfectly feelings many of us were feeling...
If the American & British establishments are so butt hurt by their citizens anti war sentiment since Syria military intervention was overwhelmingly rejected that they would intentionally ignore Isis for diplomatic "consistency" in their "outlook" / foreign "policy agenda" in the eyes of the world media to appear to be now so sensitive & "intune with the will of their people" They SHOULD GET A F#ING REALITY CHECK, STOP F##KING AROUND IN THE MIRROR OF DIPLOMATIC INTERN RELATIONS AND F#ING BEHAVE LIKE REAL HUMANS BEING FOR ONCE

ETA& apologise for doing such a terrible job

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: MrSpad

It’s called strategic thinking. Looking ahead. They knew ISIL was an extremely mad group who would and already has committed genocidal acts

Obama has an example of what the first Bush did in the first Iraqi war in Kuwait.

Create a groundswell of international support. In fact Obama would have an easier task than Bush with the known track record of ISIL.

Why the excuse for not acting is absurd: that the US would end up in a sectarian war.

The idea that this war would end up a sectarian only war is not viable.

ISIL is committing genocide against EVERYBODY: Yezidis, Christians; Shia Muslims, even Sunnis who don’t kiss their ring. There so bad NOT EVEN AL Qaeda supports them

They are uniquely savage. NO SUNNIS WOULD SUPPORT THEM, that is a myth, imo. They are getting support through fear.

Just became they might have a few disgruntled ex-Saddam Generals doesn’t mean they have a Sunni army within Iraq.

Finally if that rational was true, then why go in at all.
To stop the genocide?…Any one could have already predicted this.

They have already murdered Christians in Iraq. What does the US government need 1 million dead?

Obama is in denial and has terrible advisers.

Let us try this again. ISIS is just a part of the group in Iraq that is fighting in Iraq. They are allied to Sunnis militias and Baath party soldiers. ISIS has been in Iraq since Saddam was in power. They resisted US forces using traditional terrorist tactics IEDs ambushes snipers etc. Then the US left. ISIS concentrated in Syria attacking the FSA along with Assads forces in an unofficial ceasefire. Meanwhile in Iraq ISIS was not capable of much beyond terror attacks. Niether welcome by the Sunnis and hated by the Shia. Iraqs unity government flailed to come to pass and the Sunnis walked away now looking to force regime change by force where diplomacy failed. They teamed up with Saddams former Baath party officers and ISIS formed a coalition to take Baghdad.

Iraqs forces were unprepared for an conventinal attack and disperesed in small units for counter terror operations. As large formations of ISIS/Sunni militias attacked the small widely spread formations of the Iraqi Army ran along with their leadership who were asleep at the switch. In days ISIS was outside Baghdad but, by that time Iraqs Army had regrouped and repulsed them. At this point Iraq could have opted for a unity Government as the world and the US demanded and that would have been the end of ISIS, at least in Iraq. However, Iraqs Army was already making good progress on a counter offensive that would later stall out. So the Shia said no to the Kurds and the Sunni. The Kurds cut off cooperation with the Iraqi gov and took over Iraqi territory with no resistance. And then stopped letting Iraq deal with ISIS on their own. They like Assad thought if they stayed out of the way ISIS would leave them alone. Recall at this point ISIS had not done any to crazy, that would come after the Iraqi offensive.

So when was the US suppose to act and what was it suppose to do. Forces were not present to do anything during the ISIS rush across the north. The US then moved more forces into the region in response. At this time Iraq was on the offesive and its government driving the Sunnis completely into ISIS arms and the Kurds into not helping out.

Attacking at this point supporting what would be seen as a shia offensive againts Sunnis would have caused a total Sunni uprising in support of ISIS. As their only hope of getting a unity goverment lay in US influence of Iraqs government and the US was bombing them.

Only now acting in limited support of the Kurds could the US do anything without making the war even larger and more bloody.

The Sunnis and ISIS have clashed but so far kept from a total break and fighting each other do to a common threat of large scale Iraqi/Shia militia offensive building in the South. Still that coaltion is very fragile and the US knows it. If the US can get the Iraqi gov to offer the Sunnis some power sharing the would take it still and ISIS would be rolled out Iraq. If the Iraqi govs attempts to make this military solution, even with US air support it will be a long bloody war that will end up with a near genocide of the Sunnis in Iraq who ISIS will abandon and head back to Syria.

I understand the the situation is complex and that if one is not well versed in the region or what US military capabilites are that you might think just bombing them earlier would some how have been a good idea. It would have been a bad idea, just as expanding airstrikes into Sunnis cities would be a bad idea.

For those who compare what I call the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to this, they're not the same cup of tea.

This is an outrageous murderous campaign, that has beheaded civilians and military, and wants to sexually mutilate millions of women.

The UN should have the power to call in a world police force to right this immediately and if the demons in training don't surrender, they have to be put down. Its Serve and Protect citizens of the world time.

This whole thing is a joke - Benghazi is the tip of the iceberg - Stevens was overseeing weapons shipments from Libya to Syria via Turkey. That's why the Republicans bitch & moan about it but they never uncover anything cause they don't want to.

Total CIA Op to get a second front against Assad in Syria after Obama's airstrike campaign was slapped down by the US Taxpayers- we trained ISIS & equipped them as a backdoor into Syria. The only problem is they flipped the script and went East into Iraq - lol

The plan is take down Syria than Iran & Russia & China or China & Russia but Syria has to go first and than Iran and than WWIII.

Peace

U.S. Trained ISIS at Secret Jordan Base

JERUSALEM – Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.

The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.

U.S. Trained ISIS at Secret Jordan Base

most of what i've seen on t.v. the younger guys are pretty much hoodlums, thugs or regular trouble makers
they always wear ski masks and try to look tough and anonymous
waving rifles around isn't 'cool' anymore..
it's the older men, the leaders and role models that need to discourage hatred and rioting among the younger men and boys, girls too if they are out on the streets fighting

just my opinion

a reply to: Willtell

Obviously he funds them indirectly through the Syrian rebels which will allow for a future invasion. That's why he did nothing when they had a ten mile convoy entering Iraq. He could have drone them all and be done with but he didn't. This is all pre planned.

inexplicable double post.

a reply to: Willtell

This admin (and the last) have no foresight. They had to know this would happen. If they would've calculated the risks of arming radicals in Syria, Isis wouldn't exist, but when Isis started they had to figure " we are going to have to bomb these guys" and done it. I guess they waited until they had deaths so they could justify it to the people, but if you know it's going to happen just do it (jets and drones, i am not for ground forces - that would be stupid. Although honestly, we might as well arm the iraqi and kurdish army. I mean our weapons have already fallen into the worst hands possible so I doubt a few more will really affect much).