Democratic senator: Obama still has no strategy for Syria

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/democratic-senator-obama-still-has-no-strategy-232123279.html
Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Tim Kaine, D.-Va., says he has yet to see a “credible strategy” for battling the Islamic State in Syria. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Sen. Tim Kaine said Wednesday that President Obama still does not have a clear strategy for confronting the so-called Islamic State in Syria. Kaine, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a Virginia Democrat, also cautioned his party’s candidates not to prioritize issues like restrictions on gun ownership above improving the economy.
community organizers are pretty worthless .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
I just agreed with you on something. Excuse me while I go reevaluate everything I've ever believed in.....
This is one of the huge things that tea-party anti-establishment conservatives and liberals / hippies agree on. I think together, those two groups make up a pretty good majority of the country. With that in mind, why do we keep electing these crazy "pro-defense" a/k/a warmongering politicians?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
This is one of the huge things that tea-party anti-establishment conservatives and liberals / hippies agree on. I think together, those two groups make up a pretty good majority of the country. With that in mind, why do we keep electing these crazy "pro-defense" a/k/a warmongering politicians?
sadly, that is all that is running. with the exception of Rand Paul even Bernie thinks we should keep troops abroad.
 

Praxis91

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2011
103
884
Isn't that what Obama is doing?
If he issued an EO to bring all our troops home, that would be not meddling. Reducing troops in Iraq and then sending more to Afghanistan (after promising withdraw) is meddling.

FWIW, I'm 3rd party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

WarHeadz

macrumors 6502a
Aug 30, 2015
900
5,068
Long Beach, California
This is one of the huge things that tea-party anti-establishment conservatives and liberals / hippies agree on. I think together, those two groups make up a pretty good majority of the country. With that in mind, why do we keep electing these crazy "pro-defense" a/k/a warmongering politicians?
Because there are no other options on either side of the political spectrum. Except maybe Bernie, who I will be voting for in the Democratic primary. But I would say that "pro-defense" politicians are the majority in politics.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
Because there are no other options on either side of the political spectrum. Except maybe Bernie, who I will be voting for in the Democratic primary. But I would say that "pro-defense" politicians are the majority in politics.


Bernie ceased to be an option for me.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,830
Midlife, Midwest
Simply "having a strategy" is no guarantee of success.

The US had several strategies in place during the Vietnam War, and each one of them ("dominos"; "search and destroy"; "body counts"; etc.) simply made the situation worse. We had strategies in place to "whip inflation" and we declared a "war on drugs" - neither of which worked out quite the way they were planned to.

Its very easy for politicians to make statements like Senator Kaine. A little more difficult for them to articulate exactly what would be preferable to what we are doing right now. It also bears considering that, if we actually did come up with a surefire plan for defeating the spread of ISIL; replacing the Assad regime with a popularly elected and supported government in Syria; and allowing the Iraqi government to build robust institutional rule of law - then it may not necessarily be a good idea to tell the world exactly what that plan is.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
Simply "having a strategy" is no guarantee of success.

The US had several strategies in place during the Vietnam War, and each one of them ("dominos"; "search and destroy"; "body counts"; etc.) simply made the situation worse. We had strategies in place to "whip inflation" and we declared a "war on drugs" - neither of which worked out quite the way they were planned to.

Its very easy for politicians to make statements like Senator Kaine. A little more difficult for them to articulate exactly what would be preferable to what we are doing right now. It also bears considering that, if we actually did come up with a surefire plan for defeating the spread of ISIL; replacing the Assad regime with a popularly elected and supported government in Syria; and allowing the Iraqi government to build robust institutional rule of law - then it may not necessarily be a good idea to tell the world exactly what that plan is.
Muslim brotherhood was "elected" in Libya, how well did that work out?
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
He does have a strategy but it includes more than just this little nuisance of Syria.

1) Minimal engagement while maximizing the twisting of past statements to reflect today's actions and situations.

2) Enforce the the idea that whatever extra "advisors" he has to send over that perform combat related activities are not considered boots on ground, they are direct support "advisors" who participate in active support of the local nationals.

3) Keep the airstrikes and drone strikes moderate, for high value targets, so Josh Earnest can say the president is kicking butt, while nothing worthwhile is actually happening.

4) Attend fund raisers to make money for the DNC to get get Hillary elected.

5) Leave office

6) Give speeches for a million an appearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda