world

U.S. orders more troops to Iraq, but no overhaul of strategy

57 Comments
By JIM KUHNHENN and LOLITA C. BALDOR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

ISIS is an obvious extremism in response to Bush Wars. The nihilism of ISIS is the unsurprising result of George AWOL Bush's invasion of Iraq. So much for cause.

As to response. If the nations of the Mideast are content and supportive of beheadings and live burial of children and women they are certainly free to support these psychopaths.

George AWOL Bush made that clear in his illegal and falsified invasion of Iraq to deliver Democracy. Obviously the people of the Middle East welcome ISIS. Why not let them enjoy the Democracy George AWOL Bush and the GOP-Tea profited so much from?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Correction: America cannot beat them. Full stop.

Obama certainly can't win if he isn't even going to even try. If you aren't winning you most probably losing. How can I come to that conclusion? Because Obama has stated many times that his goal is to defeat ISIS. He has even made ridiculous statements about how he believes he is winning. The only problem with that of course is that ISIS keeps taking more and more territory, cities and towns and Obama is sitting back and watching it happen in blissful ignorance.

Obama is trying to tell the public he is doing something by putting in a few token troops here and there but he never does enough to make a difference on the battlefield. ISIS and the Iranians know that. Obama is just running out the clock so he can hand off a Middle East in chaos to the next president.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Bass4funk,

Check out Alternet.org

There are plenty of criticisms of Obama on this site, nearly all by those of the "liberal" persuasion. They actually have better criticisms than many I have heard (like those criticizing his race, etc.).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America cannot beat them. Full stop. Even if they beat ISIS, that will just be a propaganda point for the next group. It's stupid to think that this can be won.

We don't need to beat the ideology, just kill as many of them want to kill us, because if we don't, then they'll always have the upper hand and try to force their radical ideology or force their interpretation of Sharia on us. So I don't think we need to have any sympathy for the radicals I don't. But going back to what you said is the exact reason and positioning as to why I don't understand or accept the liberal premise of retreat and surrender, certainly not the way this president sees it.

It's amazing that the Americans didn't learn anything from Viet Nam.

This has nothing to do with Vietnam and everything about Rules of engagement. If we wanted to and if we took the gloves off and had Obama acted on the recommendation to take action against ISIS, a lot of this what is unfolding in the ME could have been prevented, but given the fact of this presidents pacifist liberal politics, we are in this mess now, bigger then ever before.

Americans can thank AWOL Bush (finally) for his leadership into the perpetual Middle East Religious Wars. Crusade On Mr. Bush!

You mean, Obama. Remember, he's been president since 2008 ISIS didn't exist during that time and before Obama there was still a country known as Iraq and Syria. So, thank you Obama.

Finally Geo. W. Bush's war on America is showing some results.

They did in 2007 when Bush left Obama a Semi-stable and somewhat functioning Iraq.

While infrastructure collapses and grandma and grandpa are thrown into the gutter, at leaste the failed school system will teach AWOL Bush was greeted as a liberator and Mission Accomplished won't be misunderestimated or misunderreported.

Didn't Obama say, "Al Qaida is on the run" and ISIS is a JV team?

'>Death to America' might be the GOP-Tea's new campaign slogan? It's worked well so far.

And the Dems slogan should be, give America to the socialists and Jihadists, we don't fight, we just surrender.

The GOP-Tea have tried awfully hard for fifteen years and spending fifteen trillion to destroy the future of millions of Americans, how is it those Libs are so stupid not to embrace the sacred goals of the Religious Right?

If that were true, then we never would have had Obama!

Those damn Libs are always crying that they can't afford another Bush disaster. How unreligious is that?

Ha, the Dems are exactly where the GOP was in 2007 with this lame duck president.

Maybe Concentration Camps in the States will create a new profit center?

The way the country is going, the libs are talking virtually all of our rights and want to increase even more the size of government. Might as well build some camps. Our freedoms are eroding anyway, doesn't make much difference now.

Hey, after killing the Unions why not start on ordinary Citizens? But that's just a rumor. No one is saying the GOP-Tea plans on a religious war in the Middle East paid for by the American Taxpayer without their consent or council. That would be wrong, and probably mistakes would be made.

Personally, I wish we could get rid of the majority of Unions. But then again, I have never seen a tax a liberal never loved.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama cannot beat them without some idea of what to do.

Correction: America cannot beat them. Full stop. Even if they beat ISIS, that will just be a propaganda point for the next group. It's stupid to think that this can be won.

It's amazing that the Americans didn't learn anything from Viet Nam.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@kcjapan-Tea

Americans can thank AWOL Bush (finally) for his leadership into the perpetual Middle East Religious Wars.

Bush left Obama a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama even said so when he abandoned the Iraqi's in 2011 despite warnings from just about everyone that the country would fall apart. Syria, Yemen, and Libya were stable. So kcjapan-Tea thinks seven years of Obama has had nothing to do with the chaos in the Middle East? Obama broke Libya and then abandoned it and his ambassador to the tender mercies of Islamo-facist terrorists.

Seven years is long enough for Obama to come up with something. ISIS has a plan. Obama cannot beat them without some idea of what to do. He has repeatedly stated that he will defeat ISIS. Day after day ISIS only gets stronger. Obama is simply incompetent.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The U.S. forces will open a fifth training site in the country" - article

Americans can thank AWOL Bush (finally) for his leadership into the perpetual Middle East Religious Wars. Crusade On Mr. Bush!

Finally Geo. W. Bush's war on America is showing some results.

While infrastructure collapses and grandma and grandpa are thrown into the gutter, at leaste the failed school system will teach AWOL Bush was greeted as a liberator and Mission Accomplished won't be misunderestimated or misunderreported.

'Death to America' might be the GOP-Tea's new campaign slogan? It's worked well so far.

The GOP-Tea have tried awfully hard for fifteen years and spending fifteen trillion to destroy the future of millions of Americans, how is it those Libs are so stupid not to embrace the sacred goals of the Religious Right?

Those damn Libs are always crying that they can't afford another Bush disaster. How unreligious is that?

Maybe Concentration Camps in the States will create a new profit center?

Hey, after killing the Unions why not start on ordinary Citizens? But that's just a rumor. No one is saying the GOP-Tea plans on a religious war in the Middle East paid for by the American Taxpayer without their consent or council. That would be wrong, and probably mistakes would be made.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

'It's not just one from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan....It's all of them.

So when will you and the other libs EVER criticize, Obama instead of giving him a pass on everything?'

Read my sentence again slowly. Try to calm down and strive to become at least semi-literate. I'm criticizing the Middle East policies of all the presidents I mentioned, including Obama.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The irony in this statement is rich coming from a guy who has never given Obama credit for anything.

I do give him credit! From increasing the national debt and doing nothing to stop ISIS, oh, he just sent 450 troops, my bad! From his immigration to the destruction of healthcare and to his deplorable way of handling his foreign policy, how much more credit do I need to give to Obama. How embarrassing this guy is! I have never seen anything like this. I'll say this again, if Obama wants to pull out, do it 100%! Don't try to appeal the sake of visual optics! If he's in, he's in, if NOT, stay completely out. But sending 450 troops to fight ISIS, what a joke, I'm surprised that he's not hanging his head in shame, but then again, he admitted, he has no strategy, but he'll let us all know when he has one put together. Unbelievable!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama has 'No Plan' - after six and-a-half years - still 'No Plan.] The commander-in-chief is still waiting well into his second term for someone to give him the plan. So until those lazy generals get off their butt's and come up with some strategy to fulfill Obama's pledge to defeat ISIS - there will continue to be 'No Plan.'

Well, perhaps Obama just hasn't ask for a plan to defeat ISIS - maybe that's the reason there is 'No Plan'. Maybe one of those fabulous Left wing journalists - say George Stephnapolous - will inquire as to whether or not President Obama has actually asked the Pentagon to formulate a 'Plan' to defeat the JV team that is taking over Syria and the stable and successful Democracy in Iraq that Obama left behind in 2011.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Possibly YuriOtani. More likely a massacre will be the divide. If not an killed or exiled people's who would get the oil fields? It is quite complicated.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US should equip and train the Kurds who will fight. However they do not want to upset the Turks who want the Kurdish people dead. The Iraqi cowards are not worth their weight in manure. The government in Iran would be more helpful but only defending the Shiites but then America does not want them in Iraq. ISIL is made up of Sunni who were trained by the USA as a counter to the Shiite militia. Oh what a web of deception and lies is made and think about all that have perished in America's folly. Sending in more troops will not help. They should allow nature to take its course and let Iraq and Syria break apart.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please list the credits Obama deserves! I can list numerous pains to the nation he deserves. And only one comes to mind that he can be proud of.

Foremost here is dealing with ISIS. they are an out of control bunch of phanatics with nothing good to offer humanity and Obama STILL has no plan. The 60 nation coalition didn't work, ISIS grew in size as well as conquered more lands. Leave the alone we are still the enemy as we have been for decades. Or go in and destroy them! I said do it over a year ago and still nothing. It is not rare to see columns of ISIS vehicles in the news media. Find those movements and enilete them. Finding armored vehicles in a desert is quite easy. Finding most anything in a desert is easy for that matter. Satellites and survalence drones could pinpoint them air strikes could target the vehicles and supplies. Do it enough and the ISIS enrollment is way down. Or, we can wait more time and allow ISIS to expand into two or three dozen nation instead of the dozen right now.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For the first time in history, there might be an act of aggression on US soil.

No, the jihadis have largely agreed that attacks on foreign soil waste resources.

They're succeeding by creating turmoil on their own region.

ISIS funding hinders a foreign soil attack. All their oil, blackmarket antiquities and extortion revenue is cash in hand - not easily transferrable to terror groups overseas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So when will you and the other libs EVER criticize, Obama instead of giving him a pass on everything?

The irony in this statement is rich coming from a guy who has never given Obama credit for anything.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Then, again, America uses the Japanese taxpayers' money for this fight. Every Japanese should be aware of this. Think hard to stop providing your money to this war.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Can you see where this is going? You can't start the clock in 2009 with Obama. Western intervention in these places has been a running farce of backing random horses, funding and supporting lunatics, removing previously supported and armed murderous despots who kept lunatics in check and then chasing after these lunatics after he was removed after declarations of mission accomplished.

Ok, if you see it like that and you and the other libs want to give Obama and pass for anything over the last 6 years and hang everything on Bush, then since Bush advised and recommended Obama to use the best of the best SEAL Team 6 for any covert operation, Bush should therefore technically get all the credit as well as initially starting the process of having the troops withdraw from Iraq. So if you libs want to shove it all down his throat for mucking everything up, give him props for also having a major part in getting rid of OBL and having our troops exit Iraq. Or do you libs want to cherry pick as usual what you feel comfortable with?

This stupidity has been going on for a very long time. Drop the partisanship and look at the bigger picture for once.

LOL, I'm not the one that is partisan, I just hear more hypocrisy coming from libs....a whole lot more, that's why I'm criticizing more.

It's not just one from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan....It's all of them.

So when will you and the other libs EVER criticize, Obama instead of giving him a pass on everything?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

'It stirred up more hatred towards the US and made it a target.

Bull, the US was already a huge target from 1993 on....'

One of the reasons for this was the US support for radical religious nutcases in Afghanistan against those damned commies. Can you see where this is going? You can't start the clock in 2009 with Obama. Western intervention in these places has been a running farce of backing random horses, funding and supporting lunatics, removing previously supported and armed murderous despots who kept lunatics in check and then chasing after these lunatics after he was removed after declarations of mission accomplished.

This stupidity has been going on for a very long time. Drop the partisanship and look at the bigger picture for once. It's not just one from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan....It's all of them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Will see what guy can do. If he's really serious or just talk as usual, personally, I think sending those troops is just for show, good camera op and that's about all we can get from his majesty.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

no ISIS and since they sprouted out like weed under Obama

Probably because Obama "emboldened" them, or something like that.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So what you're saying is the last intervention in this area didn't make the US safer.

No, I'm saying Obama didn't do his job to make us safer, during the last intervention there was no ISIS and since they sprouted out like weed under Obama, I think it's fitting and deserving that he would do more to safeguard the country and focus on wiping out ISIS.

It stirred up more hatred towards the US and made it a target.

Bull, the US was already a huge target from 1993 on....

So go in, wipe out this crowd, and a few years down the line wipe out the next crop of head cases stirred up by that intervention who want to attack the US. What do you call this long-term strategy? Operation whack-a-mole?

As long as it takes and as long as we can manufacture the bullets, of course. The Jihadists will never, ever give up to fulfill their radical destiny, but we should give up because of political correctness? Typical lib talk, just surrender to the enemy or just ignore them and they'll go away. Yeah, right!

The executives of the arms manufacturers love this type of thinking.

They got my support.

What the US is doing in the Middle East is going to rebound on them in the end.

If we elect another president like Obama, you may be right!

For the first time in history, there might be an act of aggression on US soil.

You saw what happened in Texas with the two guys that TRIED to kill people participating at that Muhammad drawing, right? I'll just say this, Texas ain't France and they won't run from the terrorists either.

And if there is, wow are there going to be some squeals!

Yeah, but it'll probably be from the terrorists.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The U.S. govt needs to adopt a policy of either "All In" or "All out." The token measures that have been implemented seems merely to prevent ground troops and to run out the clock until time to change.The problem with trying to nurse a lead leaves you vulnerable to being caught because you're tentative as the Cavs found out in Game 1.Half measures won't get it done.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"

For the first time in history, there might be an act of aggression on U.S. soil

." Didn't that already happen? Or was September 11, 2001 just a movie?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What the US is doing in the Middle East is going to rebound on them in the end.

For the first time in history, there might be an act of aggression on US soil.

And if there is, wow are there going to be some squeals!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

'You and I are on the same page, I don't want innocent Americans to die either, but the difference is, I believe we should take the fight to the enemy since they are preparing to attack us at some point, so if you want to call it a preemptive strike, go right ahead.'

So what you're saying is the last intervention in this area didn't make the US safer. It stirred up more hatred towards the US and made it a target. So go in, wipe out this crowd, and a few years down the line wipe out the next crop of head cases stirred up by that intervention who want to attack the US. What do you call this long-term strategy? Operation whack-a-mole?

The executives of the arms manufacturers love this type of thinking.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'If life were cheap to me, I would've became a liberal a long time ago.'

I don't quite follow this one. It's the 'liberals' as you call them who were and are against throwing more lives at this region - something you have attacked. I agree Obama should just come out with the commonsensical reason that he knows that throwing more lives at this region will not solve anything.

You and I are on the same page, I don't want innocent Americans to die either, but the difference is, I believe we should take the fight to the enemy since they are preparing to attack us at some point, so if you want to call it a preemptive strike, go right ahead.

Erm, dead people can't offer opinions as far as I know. Do you conduct your journalistic interviews through a medium? I'll take your anecdotal burblings from the beyond with a pinch of salt.

No, but the families can and the people that I personally know, knew what we were facing and were very proud to serve their country, I was just stating the truth, whether you want to believe it or not, makes no difference and trying to make light of the issue won't change the facts one bit, I'm just saying, there are many in our military that will do whatever it takes to take out the enemy, but there is a lot of disenchantment with our president that is fact and I'm going by the people I know.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The only way to get the Iraqi Sunni Arabs to stand up against ISIS is to make sure they get some freedom from the central Sha government in Baghdad.

But Obama either does not realize that or is not interested in realizing that. Instead, he wants to throw more good ressources down into the same black hole.

Even Rumsfeld has now admitted that GWBs idea of introducing Western style democracy in Iraq was hopelessly futile But Obama clings to the same belief, and still he is touted by his followers as some kind of alternative??

Go figure.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

'If life were cheap to me, I would've became a liberal a long time ago.'

I don't quite follow this one. It's the 'liberals' as you call them who were and are against throwing more lives at this region - something you have attacked. I agree Obama should just come out with the commonsensical reason that he knows that throwing more lives at this region will not solve anything.

'By the way, I do know quite a few people that died in Iraq. One from my neighborhood and known of them are screaming for Bush's head, but many of them are ashamed to have a president that just doesn't know what he wants, let alone what he is doing.'

Erm, dead people can't offer opinions as far as I know. Do you conduct your journalistic interviews through a medium? I'll take your anecdotal burblings from the beyond with a pinch of salt.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Readers, please focus your comments on the current situation in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, sorry, the main objective, the TRUE main objective was to remove Saddam from power.

Hmm, surprisingly, I actually agree with you on that. Baby Bush wanted to finish daddy Bush's unfinished business, and used lies about the existence of terrorists and WMDs as an excuse for which to do so.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That's how far you've slipped?

Why? Because I totally supported the removal of Saddam?

The hell unleashed which claimed thousands of US lives isn't really a valid point? You don't think that even a back of a cigarette box plan to bring order to an area where US soldiers were being killed in the thousands was something worth considering?

So then why are you not blaming the sectarian violence and the soldiers that were caught in the middle of the fight? Guess what? Now we are back and Obama, YES, that Obama is dithering on what and how to spin this so that he doesn't look bad. So he'll stick his big toe in the water, test it and see if he can drag this on at least until he's out of office.

Life may be cheap to you but tell it to the families of those killed in this deceitful disgrace.

If life were cheap to me, I would've became a liberal a long time ago. By the way, I do know quite a few people that died in Iraq. One from my neighborhood and known of them are screaming for Bush's head, but many of them are ashamed to have a president that just doesn't know what he wants, let alone what he is doing.

No it wasn't. The main objective was to find the WMDs. How short your memory is.

No, sorry, the main objective, the TRUE main objective was to remove Saddam from power. The WMD farce was good, but I never bought it for a second and I fault Bush for just not saying it outright, but other than that, I was fine with getting rid of Saddam.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The man objective was to remove Saddam and I was totally fine with that

No it wasn't. The main objective was to find the WMDs. How short your memory is.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

'Even the defenders of the last 'intervention' are forced to admit that the planning for restructuring was inept in the extreme.

So what's your point? The man objective was to remove Saddam and I was totally fine with that.'

That's how far you've slipped? The hell unleashed which claimed thousands of US lives isn't really a valid point? You don't think that even a back of a cigarette box plan to bring order to an area where US soldiers were being killed in the thousands was something worth considering? Life may be cheap to you but tell it to the families of those killed in this deceitful disgrace.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

let them oust ISIS by themselves , they did it in the past and they will do it in the present , Outsiders worsen the conflict more than it is ,,, Iran leader can't be toppled his popularity is high , the cost of victory against iran is a big fortune and a lot of blood and they already learned how to quell an uprising ,,, its like 30 ~40 million dead to win a war like that ,,, But they want to drag US troops into their stupid conflict they know that they will lose ... Winning the war means compensation and country building , all of that is costly

If i were the US administration i will never put a single boot on the ground one year only and there will be a big civil war and middle east war will erupt ......they can do nothing about it

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Was the last plan in this region more to your liking? Remove Saddam and then...erm...we'll be greeted as liberators...and..oh, mission accomplished?

No, I just cared about getting rid of the butcher of Baghdad.

Even the defenders of the last 'intervention' are forced to admit that the planning for restructuring was inept in the extreme.

So what's your point? The man objective was to remove Saddam and I was totally fine with that.

However, there is pressure from the right who are itching to get that enormous military entertaining the folks on Fox and there is money to be made for some.

No, but there is a strong incentive to rid or kill as many Jihadists as we can.

As for damaging the troops morale, I can't imagine anything more destructive to that than an occupation of a hellhole of a failed state with your comrades being blown to pieces in a catastrophic failure.

No, it's having a leader that is indecisive and doesn't give a fig and strings our military along, either we are in all the way or we get out completely and NEVER look back and Obama is NOT ready to do neither. That is frustrating, I have interviewed enough military people that complained about this.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

'No, I blame Obama for being incompetent, not having a plan'

Was the last plan in this region more to your liking? Remove Saddam and then...erm...we'll be greeted as liberators...and..oh, mission accomplished? Even the defenders of the last 'intervention' are forced to admit that the planning for restructuring was inept in the extreme. I'm not convinced that this area will ever find peace but I am 100% convinced that the west sticking its size 13 in again will cause even more problems.

I agree that Obama is equivocating. I truly think he has the intelligence to want to stay out of another boneheaded, bloody attempt to sort this area out and should say it. However, there is pressure from the right who are itching to get that enormous military entertaining the folks on Fox and there is money to be made for some.

As for damaging the troops morale, I can't imagine anything more destructive to that than an occupation of a hellhole of a failed state with your comrades being blown to pieces in a catastrophic failure.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Your reply is once again completely unrelated to the comment which you quoted.

You mean, you only want to listen to liberal talking points?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Stupid , Iran was going to win iraq even if saddam wasn't toppled look at the history ,,, Putting those troops is demoralizing iranian shiaa against ISIS and their supporter's war

Not a single boot should be there , let them fight it , the more they suffer the more they are stronger ,,,, Babysitting is disgusting idea

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Is it you prefer a less safe society in the west? How would you feel if it was your brother who got killed in his home country by someone who became a terrorist because they were bitter about the US being in their country and killing their people? Cold hearted if you think that's preferable.

If my brother were that dumb and radical to join a terrorist and murdering Jihadists, then that is his choice and if he gets killed by allied forces, that's his fault.

Your reply is once again completely unrelated to the comment which you quoted.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Secret info that ISIS are close to having the bomb. Probably throw in an Iranian connection as well.

With the money that they're sitting on, there is always that possibility.

The fact is that the West increases their chances of being attacked by fighting them in the Middle East.

Sorry, won't make much of a difference. Before there was an Al Qaida and ISIS from 1993 the Jihadists were trying to attack us, so that it will liken the chances of us being attacked is pure ludicrous.

Is it you prefer a less safe society in the west? How would you feel if it was your brother who got killed in his home country by someone who became a terrorist because they were bitter about the US being in their country and killing their people? Cold hearted if you think that's preferable.

If my brother were that dumb and radical to join a terrorist and murdering Jihadists, then that is his choice and if he gets killed by allied forces, that's his fault.

Now you blame Obama for not adding to this list of unmitigated disasters.

No, I blame Obama for being incompetent, not having a plan and is just a huge embarrassment for the country. But I agree, if Obama doesn't want to fight, then say so, don't weeb and wobble and pretend that you care when in reality you don't. He's also stringing along the troops, which is also hurting their moral. 516 days left before the celebrations begin!

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I assume they are going in barefoot as we were assured there would be no "boots on the ground".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm fine with it, as long as none of them get killed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Dragging US Troops step-by-step troublemakers ,,, 500 then 450 then it will become 10 K making an invasion dragged into a cesspool ,,,,,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hogwash! The West increases their chances of being attacked by simply existing. If you listen to what the radicals are saying you would know that already.

Hogwash. If you think that the US killing people in the region doesn't increase disaffection and cause people to join the terrorists, you are kidding yourself.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The plan is not a change in the U.S. strategy, the administration says

So Obama is going to continue his "no strategy" strategy while simultaneously pledging to defeat ISIS. Someone should tell Obama that the 'no strategy' strategy is not working. Can he not sit down for ten minutes with his military commanders and come up with something. He says his goal is to defeat ISIS. Well, come up with a plan to defeat ISIS! Based on his own standard - he is failing.

If Obama does not want to fight wars he should just say so and "really" leave the Middle East. Stop saying that he is winning while at the same time his 'no strategy' strategy has ISIS taking over major cities all over Iraq and Syria. Not to mention capturing billions of dollars worth of Obama supplied military hardware and ammunition.

Obama's failure to lead and engage in the region has left a huge power vacuum that ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Iran (among other bad actors) have gladly filled. Obama's idiocy would be humorous if it were not so terribly serious for the future of people of the region. The Jews are always a target but now Christians are being cleansed from the region as well. Next, Muslims who are not correctly devout will be next.

@Strangerland

The fact is that the West increases their chances of being attacked by fighting them in the Middle East.

Hogwash! The West increases their chances of being attacked by simply existing. If you listen to what the radicals are saying you would know that already.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

'Obama has no policy to cope with crisis as he admitted regarding ISIS. The next generation will pay a big price for this failure of the century.'

Soldiers and civilians have paid for the disastrous decisions made by many politicians in this region for decades. Backing Saddam and arming him with conventional and chemical weapons in a war which left a million dead, invading and removing him in another bloodbath leaving the door wide open for sectarian nutters to run around with Kalashnikovs. Now you blame Obama for not adding to this list of unmitigated disasters.

When are some people going to get it? Intervention in this area does not do any good.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

is it you prefer these vile barbarians to continue murdering brutaly Chistians and other non believers? How would you feel if that was your brother being burned in that cage? Cold hearted if you don't see the need.

I see the need - for it to be taken care of by the Middle Eastern countries.

The fact is that the West increases their chances of being attacked by fighting them in the Middle East. Is it you prefer a less safe society in the west? How would you feel if it was your brother who got killed in his home country by someone who became a terrorist because they were bitter about the US being in their country and killing their people? Cold hearted if you think that's preferable.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Drip, drip, drip. Just like Vietnam.

Coming next: Secret info that ISIS are close to having the bomb. Probably throw in an Iranian connection as well.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It may be Stranger but it must be done. Or is it you prefer these vile barbarians to continue murdering brutaly Chistians and other non believers? How would you feel if that was your brother being burned in that cage? Cold hearted if you don't see the need.

China has the finances to intervene, do you want that's?

Russia also has the finances to intervene, do you want that?

Or, remain pointing fingers and let more innocents be savagely brutalized. More women sold for a pack of cigarettes. And the list can go on and on.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Throwing good money after bad.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So much wasted effort.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What is the product the U.S.A. is going for here?

To hopefully kill as many jihadists as possible, that's the hope and plan at least, but it all depends if our sainted Anointed ruler will allow these soldiers to engage the enemy or if this is just another WH political bureaucratic window dressing from Obama.

"Kill everything that moves?"

No, just the Jihadists.

Like in Vietnam.

I think you need to stop watching to much of Oliver Stone.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Foolishly the U.S. Will train more cowards and turncoats and ISIS will continue to thrive. This organization of brutal heartless people need to be wiped out. If you can't see there is no other solution your delusional. These people not only execute they painfully and disgustingly murder innocent people and value women equal to livestock.

Kurds with US help and arms can slow the living devil ISIS. The general population in Iraq has never had any success in military conflicts in the last 20 years.

Other nations are very limited in active assistance in Iraq. USA is the only chance to crush the reincarnated Arab Nazi's known as ISIS. Yet Obama stubbornly chooses to take the necessary steps to do so. Does he have too much pride and allow the world to see his withdrawal was not well planned and his support for the Arab Spring also a costly mistake!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Delusional at best! Again the advises of generals who wanted to maintain small contingency of troops in Iraq, Obama acted on his own agenda and ignoring the reality. He pulled out and now slowly bring them back (~4K U.S. advisers in Iraq) to patch up the broken relation with Sunni tribes. It's so obvious of band aiding the lack of understanding and commitment to solve crisis, rather than showing a minimum of action. In a nutshell: Obama has no policy to cope with crisis as he admitted regarding ISIS. The next generation will pay a big price for this failure of the century.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What is the product the U.S.A. is going for here?

"Kill everything that moves?"

Like in Vietnam.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Wonder is Boner criticized Bush and the neocons for not having "an overarching strategy". Seems like that lack is what created the mess that is still being revisited.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

450 american troops be killed by ISIS , america start a war ,, KSA says go to holy war actually no one is gonna buy saudi arabia stupid warmonger phrases and victims die in the extremist holy war , they say oh we were peaceful and we did nothing go crush invaders and blah blah blah , sunni morals are over and bankrupt ,,,,, Shiaa will crush ISIS and haunt them until tikrit kicking out until the last bug ......

-4 ( +1 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites