Let's be accurate here...

The Left crucified him in the next election for his Read My Lips blunder...

Michale

I was researching Bush the Elder recently and was a bit surprised at how well he holds up. He went into Kuwait only after it was invaded. He stopped after taking Kuwait. He also recognized that Reagan's tax cuts were too extreme and restored some of the lost revenue.

Of course, many conservatives hated him for all of this and he was crucified in the next election.

*sigh* I guess it doesn't pay to be sane and Republican. :)

-David

Or channel surf.

I haven't had the capability (nor the desire) to "channel surf" since 2003... :D

Michale

I think it's true more often than not in just about every military engagement since WW2. There might me more but the only ones I can think of that worked out well are Panama and Grenada...

I hate to say it, but I think the only person who really knew what they doing as far as Iraq is concerned was H. W. Bush: Yes, Saddam sucks, but so does everyone else in the region. Lets not mess with it too much...

It hasn't been conceded by anyone in Weigantia...

Well, until now..

Thank you... Common ground is a wonderful thing.. :D

Kadhafi's military was defeated by a combination of indigenous (often squabbling) ground forces and NATO air power. It follows that Libya doesn't offer any insights about defeating an enemy with air power alone.

Libya does show that the aftermath of a military victory can be pretty disappointing.

That's because there was no military victory..

We simply traded one enemy for a different enemy..

It is simply impossible to win a war by air power alone..

Because to win, land must be taken and held..

It simply cannot be done by air power..

These are the facts...

Michale

"I was amazed at how much Obama sounded like Bush.."

"The fact that no one on the Left will concede the similarities??"

Oh, it's been conceded, just Google Obama Sounds Like Bush. Or channel surf.

All Presidents eventually hew pretty close to the military establishment line. Too many briefings.

(2) "You simply cannot defeat an enemy with air power alone..

Obama's bonehead move in Libya proved that beyond any doubt."

You kind of wrapped yourself around a Red Herring.

Kadhafi's military was defeated by a combination of indigenous (often squabbling) ground forces and NATO air power. It follows that Libya doesn't offer any insights about defeating an enemy with air power alone.

Libya does show that the aftermath of a military victory can be pretty disappointing.

Except for "How To Tell When Our Strategic Objectives Are Acheived"

Iraqis doing for themselves is a big part of the problem.

Or, more accurately, what Iraqis are incapable of doing for themselves..

I was amazed at how much Obama sounded like Bush.. If one closed their eyes and mentally modified the voice, it was as if Bush were speaking of Iraq and why we need to go to war...

It was amazing..

The fact that no one on the Left will concede the similarities??

Not so amazing.. :D

Michale

The first five paragraphs were strong, especially the:

ISIS/ISIL is not Islamic - is not a state - is not recognized by other states - bit. Branding is important, and the administration should have been hammering this for months. If you have doubts, read up on term Bolshevik. How about adopting the acronym OPRIL for Opportunists and Psychopaths Rampaging In the Levant?

The Strategic Objectives were clearly defined:

"degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy."

Four enumerated means to implement the strategy, plus one 900 lb gorilla:

1) US/other (who?, where based?) air strikes to leverage friendly combat units. Not mentioned, but also useful in savaging unfriendly lines of communications, including cash flow, to the outside world.

2) Local and regional ground troops (who?, uh we'll get back to you on that)

3) US advisors, training, "intel" and equipment. Traditional.

4) Humanitarian aid. Also traditional.

900 pound Gorilla) No ISIS refuge in Syria or anywhere else, aid to "moderate" Syrian resistance, airstrikes in Syria? Is Bashar-al Assad to ISIS as Stalin to Germany?

Not mentioned, patience and time. Public and pols both have little patience. The potential for escalation is very high = Iraq 3.0.

Iraq and Iraqi were used a lot in the speech. What does the President mean when he uses these terms? The formally recognized boundaries, containing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, or the Shiite rump controlled by the new "Iraqi" government. Obama distinguishes between Kurdish and Iraqi military forces in some portions of the speech. That's basically de facto recognition of Kurdish autonomy.

There is some serious cognitive dissonance when I here the President say "we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves." Iraqis doing for themselves is a big part of the problem.

Sometimes it's tough being right all the time.. :D

Michale

That is just too funny!!! :D

Michale

The Joe Biden plan! Heheh. Liz would be proud.

The North Koreans are pretty nasty and depraved and they have WMD. I'm sure that they will have better production values when they start producing snuff films to get our attention.

They're really going to have to step up their game to keep up with ISIS. ISIL is a much better name btw. Everyone under 30 thinks ISIS is the secret agency Archer works for and everyone over 45 thinks Isis fought with Shazam.

I would think that that should be up to the Iraqi people, no??

Unless you have suddenly become an advocate of Nation Building X3....

Michale

If Iraq is going to remain a single state (instead of fracturing into three)

Why can't Iraq become three states? Wasn't Iraq a "construct" post WWI anyway?

I'm just sayin'..... :D

Michale

Ah, it felt good to dust that one off. Heheh.

Or, in Obama's case, cowering from behind...

Michale

Most Americans are no longer buying the hysterical Anti-War propaganda that spewed from the Left at every opportunity..

Probably because it's obvious that it was simply Partisan BS and nothing to do with war itself..

Michale

Suddenly, he's everywhere in the news. You'd think all his 'effups would have hurt his credibility. Apparently not.

-David

OBAMA TO SEND 475 ADDITIONAL TROOPS TO IRAQ
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_IRAQ_TROOPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-10-21-03-18

Michale

I see no need, however, to have any more details revealed through a debate in Congress or a presentation to the United Nations. What I'll be looking for over the course of the next months and, indeed, rest of the Obama administration, is a demonstration that what the president spoke of last evening is all being effectively accomplished

And that's what it's all about...

Obama has NEVER had a problem making great and flowery speeches....

His problem has always been living up to the speeches he makes...

Remember his "red line" in Syria???

You are dead on ballz accurate.. It's not the speech that is important..

What is important is will Obama actually DO what he says he will do...

To date, he has failed miserably..

Michale

A promise he will find IMPOSSIBLE to keep... You simply cannot defeat an enemy with air power alone..

Obama's bonehead move in Libya proved that beyond any doubt..

Here is something you can take to the bank. Before this is over, American troops will be back in Iraq, fighting for the exact same ground they fought for before..

I found it interesting how Obama cited the same reasons that HW Bush and GW Bush cited for going into Iraq.. Also all 3 cited that they were going in with a coalition of the willing..

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? :D

So, once again, America is going to war...

Let's stick our microphones outside and listen to the hysterical roar of disapproval from the anti-war Left....

{{chiiirrrrppp}} {{chirrrrrrpppppp}}

The silence is deafening...

Michale

For a speech he was forced to make, I think President Obama did a surprisingly adequate job in outlining the basics of a strategy for "degrading and ultimately defeating" IS.

I see no need, however, to have any more details revealed through a debate in Congress or a presentation to the United Nations. What I'll be looking for over the course of the next months and, indeed, rest of the Obama administration, is a demonstration that what the president spoke of last evening is all being effectively accomplished.

The time for flowery speeches and waxing lyrical on this subject, at home or abroad, is over. What we see in terms of action and progress will be enough for us to judge whether or not the Obama administration's strategy is the right or wrong course.