Obama, allies plot anti-IS strategy

Obama, allies plot anti-IS strategy? What strategy? Oh, the same one, just more bombing (which hasn't worked) and putting more pressure on Turkey, to do what we want them to.

"What strategy?"

Something to take over from the failed Bush strategy: Iraq's armed forces were supposed to have been battle-ready from about 2006 onward. That was supposed to be the basis of the transition strategy, but Iraq troops immediately crumbled in the face of smaller units of ISIS, despite 10s of billions of us taxpayers' (wasted) money spent on their training.

So it's back to square one, and Obama needs to fix all the failures of the past....once again. And he needs to come up with something quick. Oh, what a mess.

While Obama and his on the air coalition busy talking, Isis is advancing. ISIS 2.0 or 3.0 would not exist if Obama listened to general's recommendation to secure some forces in Iraq, but he failed to do so in playing his own political agenda. Blaming on Bush who predicted about future Iraq's disaster is a cheap shot. Obama has had Intel given to him over the years, and still he made the wrong calculation on ISIS. Obama does not want to step on the ring by doing very little, thus allowing the misery to carry on for next presidency. No matter how much suffering and blood shed, Obama aims to keep his campaign promise over the reality of the world. Deficit, dictators gone wild, war, be headings,... still I am the One!

They not plotting. this is all being done on the 9 o'clock news. Another war without end.

"Obama has had Intel given to him over the years, and still he made the wrong calculation on ISIS"

So who made the right "calculation"? The British? The UN? The Republicans? I don't recall any of Obama's critics shouting about the existence of ISIL before it actually started defeating the much larger units of US-trained Iraqi troops.

Seeing the discussions of the former US president Bush and current President Obama in this thread is interesting from the perspective of leadership approaches for the 2 x situations (invasion of Iraq & handling of ISIS/ISIL). How I wonder what may have come if President Obama was president during 9-11 and the eventual invasion of Iraq when compared to how the current situation with ISIS/ISIL would have been handled by the former president Bush?

From the outsiders perspective, it appears that President Obama is looking to exude leadership by encouraging Middle Eastern countries to take a more active role in being part of the solution to ISIS/ISIL and even encouraging one of them to be the leader with the US playing a supporting role to a certain extent. When compared to the invasion of Iraq, with the US leading from all fronts by almost dragging each coalition member to the proverbial bar, it may seem that "leadership" is lacking especially in light of the atrocities that are occurring. I can't help but wonder if a more forceful approach, as with the invasion of Iraq, would help to solve or compound the situation with ISIS/ISIL? Of course there are no clear cut answers, but it does make me wonder.

Finally, what is interesting when comparing both scenarios is the UN's involvement. With the invasion of Iraq, there was a presenting of cases for and against the invasion (which were vigorously presented by all sides) that was put before the UN Security Counsel, though the foundation was based upon the never ending weapons inspection (more particularly the violations that occurred) which was an existing resolution imposed upon Iraq. Given the atrocities that are ongoing by ISIS/ISIL, and the gravity of the situation notwithstanding the claims (and threats) that it has presented to the region and world, it is curious to see the UN's handling of the events as if the threat and atrocities will lessen or go away with time. It appears that the UN is also take the position of a "wait and see" leadership approach where time is on their side.

I just hope that time and patience are truly on our side, though my concern and fear are that ISIS/ISIL will only grow stronger (monetarily, in numbers, influence and capabilities) with time and the price of action being much greater in loss of life and resources.

Turkey needs to decide which is the lesser evil - Kurds or ISIL, and perhaps forfeit a political battle to win the war.

They can't have their cake and eat it.

Obama and his unwilling allies are "plotting".... oh what a picture. Absurd theater at its best.

Seeing that the so-called allies have completely different goals from Obama, and that Obama simply does not understand the reality of the situation, whatever comes out of this plotting can only be more absurd, adding to the current absurdity.

ISIS or ISIL are AL Qaeda 3.0. Many predicted of troubles in Iraq and the region, if U.S. did not secure some forces in Iraq when Obama left Iraq as he promised during the campaign. The right calculation would be to listen generals'l advice and helping to build the full participation of all sectarian in Iraq, instead of playing self serving politics. Remember Obama's red line for Assad, called free Syrian fighters as fantasy that now he is in full support, and six years of intel regarding Iraqi forces??? Many democrats are now called for a new white house staff who will not just want to please the anointed One.

I had no idea that Obama and his admin had a strategy. Susan Rice said a few days ago that the bombing campaign won't change and this campaign is the best solution to beat ISIS, not to mention that they are hoping more for a broader coalition. Are you kidding me???!! Obama is at best doing 200 Sorties a week, compare that to Operation Desert Storm, where they did over 500 to 1000 sorties a day. 23 days later, the Iraqis gave up. As long as the Obama admin. are only content with making small pion shots, nothing will happen and all the enemy has to do is wait out, not to mention, the other Arab nations as well as Turkey are holding back for as long as they can. As I said before, if Obama doesn't believe in the mission, don't do anything, fine! But stop worrying about the polls and stop sending our men in harms way.

One reason why the "sorties" are much less than back in the days of the invasion of Iraq, is because the targets in Iraq where easy pickings compared to dealing with the targets of IS. Also they are trying to be very careful with their targeting so the civilian casualties will not be excessive, so it takes more time.

"President Barack Obama and military chiefs from more than 20 nations gathered Tuesday in a show of strength against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria. "

It's too bad Russian and Chinese military chiefs didn't join this gathering.

Serano;

" It's too bad Russian and Chinese military chiefs didn't join this gathering. "

Why should Russia join this stupid meeting? Putin was spot on in his warning about arming the so-called "free Syrian armee" against Assad, and Putin is the only poitician who is doing currently the correct thing by supporting Assad. Why in the world should he join Obamas band of fools?

And China does not give a yuan anyway about the rest of the world, as long as they get resources.

What is your point in repeating this polemical question?

Bgood41: While Obama and his on the air coalition busy talking, Isis is advancing. ISIS 2.0 or 3.0 would not exist if Obama listened to general's recommendation to secure some forces in Iraq

Always interesting to get a peek into the Republican bubble.

The fact is that troops were not left because the Iraqis refused to grant immunity to those troops. Obviously no Republican on earth would agree to that demand, but if you leave that part of the situation out then Republicans can craft a position that the knuckle draggers will be able to repeat.

Let's also not forget that Republicans on this board were in full support of bombing Assad early on. I'm surprised that those same people think their voice should be heard now.

Always interesting to get a peek into the Republican bubble.

The fact is that troops were not left because the Iraqis refused to grant immunity to those troops.

Obama could have pushed Maliki to keep a residual force in Iraq, but that's NOT what Obama a wanted, it was like Maliki was twisting the knife ever so gently and Obama just conceded. Everyone, close to about 8 of some of the top military strategist warned Obama to keep the troops in Iraq and to push for a SOFA agreement, as usual, this president THINKS he knows better than everyone else in the room.

Obviously no Republican on earth would agree to that demand, but if you leave that part of the situation out then Republicans can craft a position that the knuckle draggers will be able to repeat.

Of course they would have, if Obama would have guaranteed Maliki to keep a minimum of 15,000 to 35,000 troops it would have worked out. But that's not what happened.

Let's also not forget that Republicans on this board were in full support of bombing Assad early on. I'm surprised that those same people think their voice should be heard now.

I don't know why you label many of us as Republicans. Many that don't follow the progressive liberal ideology are conservatives, traditionalists and libertarians. I'm not a party towing guy and many of the others on JT are probably not as well, I assume, but I could be wrong, but I think it's not right you lump us all as Republicans when you don't know us or know how we vote or politically think. Having said that, most Republicans in Washington wanted Assad out or out of power, but given the fact that Obama knew about ISIS for more than a year and did absolutely nothing and now we see almost weekly news coverage how they are expanding their numbers, capturing territory and establishing a Caliphate. That is predominantly the reason why they supported the bombing. Now essential, it's a bit too late for that, so why bother. Keep Assad in power, make a deal. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." so it actually makes sense.

I don't know why you label many of us as Republicans. Many that don't follow the progressive liberal ideology are conservatives, traditionalists and libertarians. I'm not a party towing guy and many of the others on JT are probably not as well, I assume, but I could be wrong, but I think it's not right you lump us all as Republicans when you don't know us or know how we vote or politically think.

It needed to be said, and you said it very well.

Having said that, most Republicans in Washington wanted Assad out or out of power, but given the fact that Obama knew about ISIS for more than a year and did absolutely nothing and now we see almost weekly news coverage how they are expanding their numbers, capturing territory and establishing a Caliphate.

That's presuming Obama actually read his security briefings instead of going golfing with Hollywood and NBA stars. Are you giving Obama the benefit of a doubt? That's very generous of you. ;)

Is it Great how the Western world Tells its opponents before they strike , where and what they intend to do . Who needs spy's any more . Just read the News and go on the Internet.

Just a matter of time before Obama sends the boots in.