Obama Just Threw His Top Military Commander Under The Bus

a reply to: BobAthome

Well he did it for Bergdahl right??

u know Military,,guy,,

10 for 1 deal,,,,anyone??

He didn't throw anyone under a bus, he simply made it absolutely clear to ISIL what he would NOT do in the fight against them.

originally posted by: ausername
He didn't throw anyone under a bus, he simply made it absolutely clear to ISIL what he would NOT do in the fight against them.

yess not do,,,

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe

Boots or no boots? Troops or no troops? I'm so f'n confused with this administration that jaw-dropping doesn't even come close any more. Every day there is a change, something different said

I think the confusing messages that TPTB are giving out...is being done on purpose...as part of a strategy...to keep our enemies off-guard; while behind the scenes there may be a lot going on.

a reply to: caladonea

to keep our enemies off-guard,

,little paranoia maybe,,setting in,,?

a reply to: BobAthome

Well at least they have a starting point for dialog, an ice-breaker so to speak. Catholic clergy and Muslims both like young boys. Something in common to start a discussion?

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

or have pictures,,,

a reply to: caladonea
Well it's keeping the American people off-guard too. You could be right though, a little optimistic and far-fetched if you ask me. Definitely thinking outside the box.

a reply to: buster2010

Oh you bet Libya worked out just peachy and is currently in great shape:

Many Libyans think fragmentation is now inevitable, with Islamist-led forces strong in Tripoli, and tribal and nationalists dominant in the east of the country.

"It's gone into complete madness," said Hassan el Amin, a Libyan politician who fled to Britain after receiving death threats from Misrata militias. "There's another battle coming up, between east and west."

The key to victory could be as much economic as military. Libya's government might have lost control of the capital but for the moment it has international recognition, ensuring access to the country's rich oil reserves and foreign assets, worth an estimated £80bn.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Yet another example of extremely poor leadership by his Highness.

"The buck stops anywhere but here!"

originally posted by: caladonea

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe

Boots or no boots? Troops or no troops? I'm so f'n confused with this administration that jaw-dropping doesn't even come close any more. Every day there is a change, something different said

I think the confusing messages that TPTB are giving out...is being done on purpose...as part of a strategy...to keep our enemies off-guard; while behind the scenes there may be a lot going on.

It is not confusing just certain people do not bother to read entire statements before they write articles.

He can only hold back the US for two more years.
Let the next guy deal with it syndrome.
All he is interested in is dreaming of all the tee times in between 100000 dollar luncheon speeches that are to come.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

I heard Obama's speech, and he said pretty forcefully, "As The Commander In Chief I Can Tell You There will be No boots on the ground, Period".

They always say that. No boots (just bombs) is what they mean--- for now. Of course bombs hit the ground anyway and we all know that bombs with no boots doesn't fulfill the objective.

I heard Dempsey's remarks, sort of taken out of context by some media outlets.

The full statement was something like, If Washington gives me a scenario that requires boots then I will make that recommendation.

Don't be confused by how they say stuff. That is their intent to sow confusion and then get away with murder. Just like every scenarios is built up to the solution of war.

Take the current evil enemy. ISIS is an Islamic State, right? So we got the usual Islam (they are always to blame) and the word State, which they don't have but sounds good to make them bigger in our minds.

When they say advisors they mean boots on the ground. But build that idea slowly as Americans are always glad to hear of another endless war somewhere that needs fresh blood and treasure dumped on it.

We'll said.

a reply to: ausername

Yes, and limiting yourself, and telling the enemy is a very smart thing to do!

He is an idiot of the highest order. More interested in the politics than in the results.

a reply to: lostbook

Except here are the actual words spoken:

To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President," Dempsey said during testimony before the committee.

The basic issue is that "advisors" that accompany Iraqi troops on attacks is not a whole lot of difference from boots on the ground. (Vietnam)

On the other hand, he didn't say that he would recommend large deployments of troops to conduct operations themselves.

This administration is one of the worst crimes perpetuated on this great nation in its entire history. Hope and change... I still cant believe that asshat got elected on a stupid catchphrase he didn't even try to honor. And now we can look forward to another eight years of the clintstones. If that isn't real life doom porn, I don't know what is.

a reply to: BobAthome

is it just me or does anyone else, think of Vietnam,, and the order u can go anywhere u want,,except Cambobia,,or downtown Hanoi.

Not that they eventually went anyway… but I feel ya. How to protract endless war and fill the coffers without the war becoming wider or winnable.

Cha - Ching!

War does not operate independently of politics. It never has and never will. But on most occasions it would be easier for the commanding officers to fight a war with no political considerations, even though this cannot happen. So the best case scenario is the one that imposes the fewest political constraints. Now whether people know this or not, commanders have been canned often throughout history for not being willing to operate with regard to the political situation. A great example of this is MacArthur during the Korean War. MacArthur and Truman did not agree, and the firing of the general caused uproar among the American public. The Senate ruled that the President has the Constitutional authority to do such a thing. MacArthur's plan was understandable from a strategic point of view, as he wanted to expand the war into China because China was engaging the US, and was a potential future threat. However this was not a good political move, not a good move for the nation overall, and thus a commander's beliefs collided with the administration's foreign policy beliefs.

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Rues of engagement should be determined by the people who actually fight the wars.

Not by any suited politicians who have never fought.