Why is Obama outlining our defense strategy?

76ShovelHead

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 30, 2010
524
31
Florida
Am I the only one who thinks this was a bad Idea???

Our great country was conceived with great military strategy, who remembers "One if by land, and two if by sea?"

The british had no clue. And neither should Isis/Isil or whatever the heck they're calling themselves.. Publicizing the strategy on national TV is just a big no-no.

God Bless America, I sure hope the man upstairs still can.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
ISIS already knows our tactics from watching the United States over the past 12 years. As far as a strategy, we don't have a strategy. We are in full react mode.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,476
OBJECTIVE reality
Obama outlined his strategy because over the last few weeks various Republicans were complaining that he didn't have one...and also to reassure the American public that this wasn't going to be a repeat of the last Iraq war, fought mainly alone and with tens of thousands of troops on the ground.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Due to a complete failure of leadership, the United States is in yet another long protracted war that it cannot win. We will waste billions of dollars to bomb Syria and Iraq. Nothing will change.

The reason the Republicans were claiming that the President didn't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS/ISIL is because the President, himself went on national television eight weeks ago and told the world exactly that.

This election will be a very tough one for anyone with a (D) after their name.
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,748
502
Hawaii, USA
Due to a complete failure of leadership, the United States is in yet another long protracted war that it cannot win.
What would successful leadership look like in this scenario? I'm not asking to be snarky or defend Obama, I just happen to think that unless you went the Ron Paul route of veering toward isolationism then situations like where we are now would be unavoidable.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
This election will be a very tough one for anyone with a (D) after their name.
Which is a shame because it should be tough for everyone of those idiots up for election whether they have a D, R, I, etc next to their name. All are incompetent and only doing things to score political brownie points with the other partisan hacks and voters.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
This election will be a very tough one for anyone with a (D) after their name.
That's okay, give the Republicants another two years to run the country further off a cliff and then we can get some new leadership in 2016.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
What would successful leadership look like in this scenario? I'm not asking to be snarky or defend Obama, I just happen to think that unless you went the Ron Paul route of veering toward isolationism then situations like where we are now would be unavoidable.
I'm glad you asked. It is certainly a fair question. It is well known that I'm an isolationist. I don't believe in drawing any lines in the sand that we are not willing to enforce. While I don't want our servicemen and servicewomen fighting other people's battles, anyone that had the audacity to attack the USA would feel the wrath that the full power of our country could bring to bear upon them. See why we'll never see a President Southern Dad?

As it relates to the situation in Iraq, I wish the President would remind them that they didn't want us there. They refused his offer of leaving a residual force in place. We're sorry but it's not our fight.

Which is a shame because it should be tough for everyone of those idiots up for election whether they have a D, R, I, etc next to their name. All are incompetent and only doing things to score political brownie points with the other partisan hacks and voters.
One of the problems with polling is that when you ask a voter about the Congress (House & Senate) they give a negative response. However, when you ask about their particular Representative or Senator, they say that he/she is doing the best that they can. Truth be told, a good number of voters don't know who their Representative is. The people who come in these forums, left and right, are far more educated on these subjects than the general public.

That's okay, give the Republicants another two years to run the country further off a cliff and then we can get some new leadership in 2016.
But my friend, the Republicans aren't running the country. Remember, the US Senate has now been controlled by Democrats for almost 8 years. The US House has only been in GOP hands since the 2010 "Shellacking." Of course, the White House has been in the Democrats hands for 6 years.
---------------------------------------
Many years ago, our President had this sign on his desk. That was leadership.



Watch this simple one minute and you see what leadership is not.

 
Last edited:

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Bush is one of the biggest morons in history, go into war with no real plan to win or GTFO, amazingly stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I was big time against the war and to quote a line from the Princess Bride,
Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
But no one who is a moron gets elected President.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,830
Midlife, Midwest
Publicizing the strategy on national TV is just a big no-no.
From the earliest days of Nation States, effective Foreign relations essentially relies on telling other actors what your policy/strategy is.

This is referred, in Diplomatic circles, as having a coherent and consistent Foreign policy.

Sometimes this works: NATO worked for forty years on the simple concept that an attack on any one of the Member states was essentially going to war with all of the rest of them. Sometimes it doesn't work: The "Christmas Bombing" campaign of 1972, in which President Nixon told North Vietnam he was going to keep bombing them till they surrendered - failed to achieve its objectives.

Why some strategies work and others don't is an interesting question. Sometimes its because your opponent doubts your sincerity. Sometimes its because your opponent doesn't care.

ISIL/The Islamic State told us what their strategy was going to be. "Stay out of Iraq/Syrian affairs, or we'll cut off more American's heads. And put the footage on YouTube." The American people demanded a response to this statement.

Now they've got one. Sort of.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
President Barack Obama gave a speech at Ft Bragg, NC in December of 2011.

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.”
During the 2012 campaign he touted over and over again that HE had ended the war in Iraq. Now that everything is going to heck in a hand basket, he's wanting to say that it wasn't his decision to end the war. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the White House, when he tossed this idea out there.
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,748
502
Hawaii, USA
As it relates to the situation in Iraq, I wish the President would remind them that they didn't want us there. They refused his offer of leaving a residual force in place. We're sorry but it's not our fight.
I tend to think that we should be more isolationist, too, but IS poses an interesting problem. They have stated their goal of creating a massive caliphate, and while they are not unique in this goal they seemed to make the most progress toward it. Unlike other groups that attempted this goal, IS is also incredibly violent and barbaric. We (America) often talk about using our military might to do the "right" thing, but what is "right" is rarely clear. This is a situation where "the right thing" becomes a lot clearer. Worse yet, if we leave them alone, then what? It's quite possible that the establishment of a formal caliphate would calm them down, as they'd become bogged down in actual governance... but it's also possible that they'd be the next Ghengis Khan, the next conquesting Romans, the next Nazis. Allowing a group like that to take foot and then expand could result in much larger problems down the line.

So in this situation, while I still don't want us to get much more involved than we already have become, I'm not in complete disagreement with doing something. Still thinking about it...
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,830
Midlife, Midwest
During the 2012 campaign he touted over and over again that HE had ended the war in Iraq.
Really?

Lets be very clear about this: There wouldn't be an Islamic State if the US had not made that catastrophically tragic decision to invade Iraq (on false pretenses) in 2003.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney basically crapped the bed in the entire Middle East. And now Cheney - and you, apparently - are complaining about the smell?

That might be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Its never easy to end a war. If, for no other reason than the fact that nobody wants to be the last man to die in one. So we had problems in the last hours of WWI. And we had problems in the last weeks of WWII. And those were wars we won.

We're out of the war in Iraq. Yes - we're probably going to be dropping some bombs and flying some drones. We'll even send some trainers. And some of them might be killed or injured.

But thats a far cry from going back to a situation where we had the cream of our army rotating through a turdstorm of Iraq every four years, pretty much indefinitely. And as a cost in blood and treasure that came perilously close to breaking both our Treasury and our Military.

If US airpower can give the Iraqi military the moral backbone to stand up and protect their own people - it will be money well spent. And if they can't - well, I guess we can always just pack up our drones and go home.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
Due to a complete failure of leadership, the United States is in yet another long protracted war that it cannot win. We will waste billions of dollars to bomb Syria and Iraq. Nothing will change.

The reason the Republicans were claiming that the President didn't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS/ISIL is because the President, himself went on national television eight weeks ago and told the world exactly that.

This election will be a very tough one for anyone with a (D) after their name.
And which political party was the guy who started all this ******** in the Middle East from? Also which party are Warhawks like John McCain primarily in?

Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with Obama's approach the Middle East at all. It is little more than an continuation of the Bush era. But in part that's because people like Obama and much of the Democratic Party in Washington DC these days are effectively Republican-lites. True progressives have been largely driven out by corporate interests.
 
Last edited:

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Really?

Lets be very clear about this: There wouldn't be an Islamic State if the US had not made that catastrophically tragic decision to invade Iraq (on false pretenses) in 2003.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney basically crapped the bed in the entire Middle East. And now Cheney - and you, apparently - are complaining about the smell?

That might be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Its never easy to end a war. If, for no other reason than the fact that nobody wants to be the last man to die in one. So we had problems in the last hours of WWI. And we had problems in the last weeks of WWII. And those were wars we won.

We're out of the war in Iraq. Yes - we're probably going to be dropping some bombs and flying some drones. We'll even send some trainers. And some of them might be killed or injured.

But thats a far cry from going back to a situation where we had the cream of our army rotating through a turdstorm of Iraq every four years, pretty much indefinitely. And as a cost in blood and treasure that came perilously close to breaking both our Treasury and our Military.

If US airpower can give the Iraqi military the moral backbone to stand up and protect their own people - it will be money well spent. And if they can't - well, I guess we can always just pack up our drones and go home.
On January 20, 2009 George W Bush retired. Barack H Obama took the oath of office. In Dec 2011, nearly three years after taking office the President, told the American people that he was bringing the troops home. He said that we were leaving a stable and sovereign Iraq. He then spent 2912 on a victory lap. Speech after speech he said took credit for ending the war.

Now, in 2014, when Iraq is falling apart he wants to act as though ending the war wasn't his decision. The really crazy part? Some of you in here are still trying to find a way to blame Bush. Big question, was President Obama ignorant or lying when he said we were leaving a stable and sovereign Iraq?

There is no doubt that Bush is a leader. We hold him accountable and blame him for all the ills of his term. That is the mantle of leadership. But for some reason no one holds Obama accountable for anything. Should Bush have ever went into Iraq or Afghanistan? No, he shouldn't have. But Barrack Obama owns this mess. He took the bow and claimed the victory. You can't have the glory without owning it.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
On January 20, 2009 George W Bush retired. Barack H Obama took the oath of office. In Dec 2011, nearly three years after taking office the President, told the American people that he was bringing the troops home. He said that we were leaving a stable and sovereign Iraq. He then spent 2912 on a victory lap. Speech after speech he said took credit for ending the war.

Now, in 2014, when Iraq is falling apart he wants to act as though ending the war wasn't his decision. The really crazy part? Some of you in here are still trying to find a way to blame Bush. Big question, was President Obama ignorant or lying when he said we were leaving a stable and sovereign Iraq?

There is no doubt that Bush is a leader. We hold him accountable and blame him for all the ills of his term. That is the mantle of leadership. But for some reason no one holds Obama accountable for anything. Should Bush have ever went into Iraq or Afghanistan? No, he shouldn't have. But Barrack Obama owns this mess. He took the bow and claimed the victory. You can't have the glory without owning it.

Educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement