Featured Will Obama join with France after meeting with Hollande?

The US has been bombing Daesh targets since the spring. What more would the president do to join the fight? Boots on the ground?

 

Which has been very limited and ineffective even by Democrat Senator Feinstein. it has been only within the last week that he has stepped up the bombing which only came after he found himself isolated by the word when he said he was not going to change his tactics in a speech he gave somewhere over yonder. Since he is buddies with some questionable Syrians who reside in Chicago all his motives are also questionable.

 

I wouldn't say limited or inneffective.

http://www.vocativ.com/news/222962/...isis-in-iraq-and-syria-surge-to-record-levels

These aren't marginal numbers either.

http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve


Even before Paris the United States had taken out another HVI and top Commander as well as Jihadi John. The U.S. has also provided air support allowing the Pershmerga to retake Sinjar.

The question should be, now that France has been stung, will they join the U.S. in it's actions against Syria.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/13/obama-isis-is-not-getting-stronger-we-have-contained-them/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/16/sen-feinstein-isil-is-not-contained-isil-is-expanding-video/

Yes ineffective is the appropriate word.

 

First article says nothing about airstrikes or anything closely related to the OP...also, it's Breitbart. Airstrikes serve to deny freedom of movement and diminish the capabilities of ISIS by destroying heavy targets. This has been done and has helped the Pershmerga forces tremendously. You can't downplay that to those forces that have counted on it.

The second article is a scared lady that wants to put Soldiers on the ground but has no idea how many . Also, mentions nothing about air strikes or their effectiveness except she doesn't think it's enough. Doesn't really mention why. In short, she has no ideas except that ISIS is bad and it needs to go away.

People love to point at Paris and say that ISIS is on the loose but there is absolutely no solution to that whatsoever. Most of the attackers in Paris were European citizens anyway. Paris was roughly 8 people acting in one night with small arms and homemade explosives. Putting Bridages in Iraq and Syria isn't going to fix that. ISIS isn't just a group of bandits in Iraq and Syria. It is a world wide ideology and people fail to grasp that.

 

What the article does say is that Obama claimed his tactics have contained Daesh. His tactics have been the airstrikes. So the exact details of the airstrikes are not needed to prove Obama claimed he has contained them. Not sure why I need to explain this.

Senator Feinstein is not a scared lady. She is on the intelligence committee and has info that we have recently discovered Obama refuses to even look at. I do not want troops on the ground either, We cannot afford to do that but that fact is that my earlier comment stands and is proven correct. Obama's lunacy has been ineffective.

 

How are they not contained in Iraq and Syria? They can't mobilize on a large scale and they can't hold on to equipment as shown in the statistics I posted. I know you used to be an MP but surely you know what he is talking about operationally when he says ISIS is contained. You understand he doesn't mean every single solitary member or supporter of ISIS is in a nice little box. Surely you understand the context there.

Senator Feinstein offered absolutely nothing of any value to the conversation except.."uh just send more troops in." You yourself acknowledge that ground troops isn't the answer and then call Obama an ineffective lunatic? So what options does he have here and what do you think his solution is?

 

The premise of the title of the thread and the OP are flawed. The US, France, Australia, Jordan and several other countries have been involved in many thousands of air strikes against Daesh for over a year. The US does not need to 'join France' since they are already partners.

 

1. I did not say ground troops are not the answer I said we cannot afford it.
2. You do not know that what Feinstein said is not of value. In fact it has been suggested that some ground forces are needed even if limited Although more than the 50 proposed by Obama is what is meant.
3. I did not say "ineffective lunatic". Please stop adding to my words. I said what he has done is ineffective. This is in contrast to his false claim that he has contained them.

 

Interesting article - thank you for posting it.

 

1. Okay, we can't afford it and Obama knows this. Now what? He's a lunatic because he won't do something we can't afford? Help me with that logic.

2. All she said is "more troops" That isn't anything that any crazy uncle couldn't come with at an uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinner. Just saying more troops without any rationale in that article is absent of validity.

3. Splitting hairs here but that's what we are going to do I guess. His "lunacy" then, whatever you mean by that I would love to know. Can you explain why you say ISIS hasn't been contained militarily in Iraq and Syria?

Offering up simple criticism and using ad hominem attacks on Obama without offering up any viable alternative is showing that this is just more partisan politics then actual strategy.

I listened to Trump on Fox the other day and when he was asked about what his military response would be against ISIS he basically said that he was against the invasion in 2003 and that we would bomb them and seek to share intelligence with allies while forming a coalition. It was hilarious. His plan to combat ISIS has been implemented for almost a year by the current administration.

 

Please read my posts carefully. I did not say he was a lunatic. I did not say that he should do anything in particular. I said his policy has been ineffective. I did not go beyond the perimeter of he has made false statements saying he has contained them and he has been ineffective. That is it nothing more.

 

This is a good article and I used to be an FSO so it was a fun read. This is where I think the Special Operations community could be of assistance. I wouldn't be opposed to plussing them up with FO support but a lot of the operatives in the Special Forces have this training.

 

You forgot that you used the word "lunacy" for some reason. If he shouldn't do anything in particular then what are you complaining about and why would his policy be "lunacy" especially if it's basically going to copied by the current GOP frontrunner according to his own words.

You are also conveniently ducking my other responses.

 

Saw that article last summer, but as UoT has posted, the bomb drops have significantly increased since June.

 

Question: In the first Gulf War we had operatives on the ground that would shine lasers on bombing targets. Do we still rely on personnel on the ground to perform this duty or has technology increased so that perhaps a couple of satellites could triangulate the position without lasers and pinpoint the target?

 

Also, a lot of the sorties do not require FO ground support but I'd have a hard time believing they didn't have it though when they got the ISIS Commander in Syria and Jihadi John the last couple of weeks. That is the work of an active intelligence cell. Believe me, if they need to hit something in Iraq and Syria, they can do it.

 

It depends. When they are going after something like an oilfield then no, they just know the grid coordinate. Munitions and delivery platforms vary in these strikes so I can't comment on a specific strike without doing some digging. I'm not even sure FO support is the right term for the softer more delicate targets. When we are going after specific personnel or high value targets, it's more of an issue of confirming the grid coordinate and confirming that the target is actually there.