ISIS

ISIL Poses 'No Credible' Threat, But Obama Plots 3-Year War Campaign

|

President Barack Obama is planning a war against the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIL or ISIS) that will likely outlast his own presidency. 

There's been a great deal of chatter about the potential threat the terrorist group poses to the United States, especially as the anniversary of the September 11 attack approaches. Last week House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) warned during a CNN interview that the U.S. ought to be on "high state of alert" because "they take anniversaries very seriously in terms of choosing when to attack in the United States."

This is hogwash, says House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Today he told CNN, "No, we don't have any information about credible planning for an attack" particularly around 9/11.

He isn't the only cutting through the hype on how dangerous ISIL is to America. "The FBI and Homeland Security Department say there are no specific or credible terror threats to the U.S. homeland from the Islamic State militant group," the Associated Press recently reported. Though, "as a result of recent American airstrikes in Iraq, officials remain concerned that Islamic State supporters could attack overseas targets with little warning."

Disconcertingly, even Royce, who understands that the Islamic State isn't a threat to American soil and is wary of putting troops on the ground, still supports expanding more confrontation through airstrikes. But that might be just the first phase of Obama's plans for fighting ISIL.

Despite the fact that prodding the terrorist group is a great way to turn the Islamic State's regional conflict in Iraq and Syria into an international one, the Obama Administration today suggested that the U.S. may begin "a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office." From The New York Times:

The first phase, an air campaign with nearly 145 airstrikes in the past month, is already underway to protect ethnic and religious minorities and American diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel, and their facilities, as well as to begin rolling back ISIS gains in northern and western Iraq.

The next phase, which would begin sometime after Iraq forms a more inclusive government, scheduled this week, is expected to involve an intensified effort to train, advise or equip the Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters and possibly members of Sunni tribes.

The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation — destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria — might not be completed until the next administration. Indeed, some Pentagon planners envision a military campaign lasting at least 36 months.

This Wednesday, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, the president will give a national speech about his military plans.

The U.S.'s mission in Iraq has been rapidly creeping into a bigger, vaguer war, and although Obama insists "this is not the equivalent of the Iraq war," he gives little reassurance by also saying that America will "hunt down" terrorists "wherever they are," and apparently, regardless of how little of menace they are to the country.

Advertisement

NEXT: Paramedics Examine Child Who Waited in Car Less Than 5 Minutes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nonsense. I’ve been told by John that this is the case and something must be done now and I’m stupid for thinking otherwise.

    1. ISIS started a 5 front war in Asia.

      Of course the US needs “stop” them.

      Note: By stop I mean drone bomb some weddings and schools so all of ISIS’s enemies join ISIS against the US.

    2. Stupid? I thought I was a pussy for thinking otherwise?

      1. To be fair, he has a rolodex of ad hom’s

    3. Hey, freedom isn’t free.

  2. WOO-HOO! MORE blowing shit up in a “war” with an ill-defined enemy, no defined victory conditions, and an open-ended commitment to protect fuckwads that are determined to kill each other off anyways.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. What could possibly go wrong?

      I dunno’, ask Pat Tillman?

      1. I’d say “too soon”, but I’m an asshole, so I’ll say, “nice”….:)

      2. I still think Pat Tillman’s cold corpse could probably cover Eric Decker better than anyone in the Raiders’ secondary.

        1. Fuck you! Good brunch yesterday.

          1. If it’s any consolation, the Chiefs made Jake Locker look like a Hall of Famer.

  3. Who does this? I mean, if you’re going to use force, shouldn’t it be, “We’re going to kick their asses really quick so news coverage of the war doesn’t interfere with the World Series?” I don’t understand how a three-year plan does anything other than demonstrate a profound lack of commitment and a needless elevation of the threat.

    Not that I’m suggesting any military strategy here, but why do this if you intend to use force?

    1. Plus, if you’re going to have a multi-year plan emanating from a wannabe dictator, it’s not THREE years.

      It’s FIVE.

      Come on, Mister President. FIVE YEAR PLANS for the win!

      1. Failure to plan is planning to fail!

        1. Plan or Be Planned For!

          I actually used to keep that posted in my office…:)

        2. Plan your work and work your plan!

        3. The only thing we have to plan is the plan itself!

      2. Ah, so it’s tied to his economic plan.

        1. Kale and arugula production will DOUBLE! A feast for EVERY American!

          1. If that’s the feast, I’ll still be starving.

            1. No worries! The local leftist rag is touting our economic recovery now. You know, the one we have before elections.

              1. *dons “Summer of Recovery – 2012” t-shirt*

                1. That was a great recovery, one of the best. What did we post, 50% growth in GDP then?

            2. “If that’s the feast, I’ll still be starving.”

              And now you see where they are going with this.

    2. Now they can poll on the idea of his discrete war and see which way the wind blows.

      1. We’re only interested in what Millenials? (PBUT) think

    3. Democrats explaining why we have to fight a war in Iraq is more fun than Republicans explaining why Mexican Immigrants are actually not a big deal.

    4. They don’t even want to get warmed up before November. They just want this to stop being a negative campaign issue. Three years from now it will be Somebody Else’s Problem, and that’s what is really important to this administration.

  4. Well, at least we know none of the US embassies or anything is endangered overseas, either, cause we’ve already been through one FAKE SKANDULL!!11!!!one! around Sept 11 anniversaries.

    And we have no credible evidence anyone’s going to be showing an offensive YouTube video, so….

    It’s all good.

  5. The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation ? destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria ? might not be completed until the next administration.

    How exactly do you put a time estimate on “we’ll keep fighting them until they go away?” Unless the time estimate is “forever until the end of time.”

  6. It’s fucking surreal how all this is happening just as we were beginning to actually draw down from Afghanistan–which will no doubt be in the same position Iraq is right now in even less time than it took Iraq to fall apart. Now we basically have no choice but to keep some or even most of those assets in the region because what was in place isn’t enough to sustain even the relatively minimal effort we’re devoting to Iraq.

    At some point, a President is going to say, “You know what? We can’t keep these plates spinning anymore. See ya.” It took Rome several hundred years for its empire to degrade, but degrade it did.

    1. I’m actually looking forward to the day when our foreign policy is to tell about a dozen governments who are as bad as any we are fighting, “You fucked up! You trusted us!” and then leave them to their own devices.

    2. “we basically have no choice but to keep some or even most of those assets in the region”

      You don’t say. This is the MIC acting surprised.

    3. It doesn’t matter what a President says or does. As you say, the burdens of empire itself took Rome down eventually. The same is true for every other empire in history. AFAIK, there is not a single exception and not a single example of an empire ever voluntarily withdrawing from empire before it is forced to via war/bankruptcy.

      Personally, I’d love to see it (the withdrawal from empire not the war/bankruptcy) happen. But as long as those who advocate it are more content being self-righteous than knowledgeable (this author is a perfect example); then advocates for non-intervention and such deserve to be ignored. If the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is of no help to listen to someone who continually prates on about how the toothpaste shouldn’t be out of the tube. Reality is a bitch sometimes.

      Fact is that ISIL is not involved in some ‘regional conflict’ (that is merely assuming the conclusion). Fully 10% of the ISIL ‘armies’ are Europeans or American – and probably 90% of them are not from the region. The very idea of the caliphate can ONLY be universal and is itself a notion of empire. And regardless of whether ISIL eventually wins or loses where it’s currently fighting, all of the jihadis currently there will eventually return home – and wreak as much havoc as they possibly can until they ultimately die.

  7. President Barack Obama is planning a war against the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIL or ISIS) that will likely outlast his own presidency.

    Just like he and his ilk spend money far beyond their term and shackle the unborn. The ability to externalize costs is especially possible for political capital in addition to economic capital.

  8. The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation ? destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria

    Ok, call me dumb or whatever, but … If you’re going to war, shouldn’t this be like, the first phase?

    1. Now that is just spawn camping, dude!

      /gamer

      1. Camping is fragging. L2P.

      2. it’s a legitimate strategy!!!!

    2. (looks around, gives ‘anon’ Vulcan nerve pinch)

      Sorry Sir, I believed his next comment was going to be ‘Set Phasers to Phase.’ That is a joke i find particularly pointless.

  9. I say we jsut NUKE the whole region and be done with it. Jsut do it.
    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

    1. Sigh. AnonBot voices my inner rage.

      Of course, that inner rage is a sociopath that I have to keep in a straightjacket to operate in society, so something’s wrong with AnonBot’s code.

      1. Since Anonbot appears to basically be programmed to aggregate expressed emotions and re-display them, I’d say we’re all sociopaths.

    2. Dang, anonybot has gone full pyramid-of-skulls on us. I hope this is not some sort of Skynet precursor…

      1. Honestly, if anonbot proved to be the seeds of Skynet, I’d find it hilarious.

        “Skynet is self-aware. So jsut liek roll with it man.”

        I’d die laughing.

        1. “Death to all humans, after they roll that beautiful bean footage.”

      2. My friend says he is actively looking forward to Skynet. It can’t be worse. I’m starting to come around to his way of thinking.

  10. So, I’ve been judging this whole ISIS / ISIL (isis is the better name, btw)/ syria thing quietly.

    Is the Obama administration’s anti-ISIL strategy a tacit alliance with the Assad regime?

    1. Nah. Look for us to suddenly be okay with a nuclear Iran.

    2. How can we have a protracted future war with middle east countries if we don’t provide them all with a stockpile of weapons first? That ordinance isn’t gonna blow itself up.

    3. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi meeting privately with Assad during the Bush administration without coordinating her visit with the State Department.

  11. THEY MAKE SENSE, REALLY

    “”There is no containment policy for ISIL,” Secretary of State John Kerry said at the start of the meeting. “They’re an ambitious, avowed, genocidal, territorial-grabbing, caliphate-desiring quasi state with an irregular army, and leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us.”

    DO NOT DOUBT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SERIOUS….

    “But he and other officials made clear that at the moment, any ground combat troops would come from either Iraqi security forces and Kurdish pesh merga fighters in Iraq…”Obviously I think that’s a red line for everybody here: no boots on the ground,” Mr. Kerry said.”

    well, at least there’s no ‘containment policy’?

    1. “leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us.”

      What’s this SOS Kerry, are you saying the U.S. has to kill every last one of them to avoid future consequences? Good luck with that.

      1. “…are you saying the U.S. has to kill every last one of them to avoid future consequences?”

        I think deep down we all know this is what needs to be done. We’re just repressing the urge because we’re civilized.

    2. Apparently this is all part of Obama’s ‘Signature Plan’ to spend the rest of his adminstration funding anyone who says nice things about America

      What an idea?! Who’d have thought a democrat would say, “Just throw money at it and eventually people will stop asking why nothing works”

    3. Territorial grabbing? Guess what? If they win, they get a seat at the UN and become “sovereign”, just like all the other gangs of armed thugs that became sovereign states.

  12. But..a three year plan will mean that BarakO Bama’s follower will inherit a mess left behind by the previous administration.

    I thought that was a bad thing ?

    It only took the Allies 4 years to defeat Nazi Germany.

    This ittle JV Team is gonna take a 3 year plan ? They can’t even build their own weaponry like Germany could.

    1. So, the Kalashnikov they can make in a backyard forge isn’t a ‘weapon’, good to know. I guess at this point it’s more of a farm implement given its ubiquity.

      1. When I think weaponry I immediately think tanks and planes.

        1. Which is not what modern war is fought with in most of the world. Today, most wars are fought by guys with AKs, RPGs and pickup trucks.

          While ISIS captured a Syrian airbase (with planes and munitions intact) that same air base didn’t do a whole lot to slow their advance.

          And the occupation of Iraq should have shown how ill suited the MBT is to fighting an assymetric enemy.

          1. “the occupation of Iraq” had almost nothing to do with fighting an asymetric enemy.

            It was peace-keeping. And MBTs, Infantry Soldiers, APCs, bombs, artillery, and all that shit are basically fucked for that mission. That is what a community based police force, with some intelligence assets and training advisors are for.

            If we were willing to fight our own asymetric warfare, we could use those assets for significant emotional and physical advantage. But we don’t fight asymetrically (mostly).

            1. Well, Vietnam showed how ill-suited the military is at fighting an asymmetric war – its only improvement in this area since then has been to learn that large-scale bombardment does not win hearts and minds.

          2. They can’t make their own pick up trucks either. Germany created the Luftwaffe while we weren’t watching.

          3. UnCivilServant|9.8.14 @ 1:35PM|#

            Which is not what modern war is fought with in most of the world.”

            Only because many of the combatants don’t have them or they are fighting on the sides of mountains.

            That area of the Country formerly known as Iraq is pretty flat and barren from all I’ve seen in pics and such. Tanks and APCs will be used if either side has them. Heavy weapons that reach out much much further than Kalashnikovs will be well in play by those who have them.

            And the chances of ISIS building them in a back yard forge is naught.

      2. “UnCivilServant|9.8.14 @ 1:10PM|#

        So, the Kalashnikov they can make in a backyard forge isn’t a ‘weapon’, good to know. I guess at this point it’s more of a farm implement given its ubiquity.”

        A Kalashnikov can’t be built in a “back yard forge” as you put it. A back yard forge could be used to rework a damaged one provided the barrel and rifeling isn’t damaged.

        To build a Kalashnikov from scratch requires experienced machinists running machining tools. Unless there was already a manufacturing plant in the areas they have over run they aren’t goong to build Kalashnikovs. They may be able to repair damaged ones though.

        The terrain where ISIS now calls home seems pretty flat and open for the most part. Tanks. APCs and the like will probably be in great demand. A Kalashnikov isn’t much danger to either.

        1. This guy made an AK from a shovel. Well, he bought a barrel blank and furniture, but the receiver is all shovel. And the so-called “Khyber Pass AK” is a real thing.
          “Backyard” gunsmithing is relatively common outside of the industrialized West, where it’s mostly a hobby since factory-made guns are so much easier to get. The Phillipines are famous for it, and they’re definitely making bootleg AKs and ARs, lots of 1911s, etc.

          The AK design is almost comically simple, so you can make functional rifles without needing the kind of tolerances more sophisticated weapons require. The most difficult part is machining the barrel, but if you’re not worried about quality or accuracy (or personal safety) you can use scrap metal. If you actually know what you’re doing, you can hand-roll a barrel like they did in the old days. Will you end up with a factory-quality weapon? No. Will you wind up with a weapon that fires bullets in a generally consistent and predictable fashion? Yes.

          Besides which, I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if there isn’t a single machine shop of some kind in the area ISIS is occupying.

          None of this contradicts your larger point, however, as there’s a world of difference between fighting a guerilla war with homemade weapons and fighting a conventional war (i.e. holding territory).

    2. It took six years, but point well taken.

      1. It took less than 4 years if you consider that the winners didn’t start fighting the war until June 1941 and December 1941, respectively.

        All those states overran in 1939-40 did basically nothing to win the war. Yes, Britain included.

    3. 3D printers!

  13. Though, “as a result of recent American airstrikes in Iraq, officials remain concerned that Islamic State supporters could attack overseas targets with little warning.”

    Nonsense. I have been reliably informed by many warboners on this very blog that the only result of American airstrikes in the Middle East is smoking craters where terrorists used to be. By what sorcery can blowing up terrorists lead to more acts of terrorism?

    1. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it.

    2. This is ISIL. It’s totally different.

      And, um, BOOOOOOOOSH!

    3. ^^^This is totally something a terrorist enabler would say.

  14. Here’s what he said to that boot-licker Chuck Todd:

    “Well, they’re absolutely right about that,” Obama replied. “But you also cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We don’t have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. And then things blow up again.”

    Is he trolling here? We’ve been serially occupying “various countries all around the Middle East” for nearly 25 years! I was a freshman in high school when Desert Shield kicked off. I had no problem with it when I thought we were going to go in, blow shit up, and then get the hell out. Instead we got ourselves into the equivalent of a monkey trap.

    1. Instead we got ourselves into the equivalent of a monkey trap.

      Everyone laughed at Bush because he wouldn’t let go of the rice. Obama just picked up more.

  15. One thing I don’t understand about these situations in general. Why is everyone demanding a state driven response? Why use taxes (and eventually inflation) for military action? Why not allow a privateer response for those who want it? I say allow because it would require removing many restrictions, like ITAR for starters, to allow a free market in security.

    A private company can sponsor PMCs, make a deal with Iraqi or Kurdish gov for things like oil, mineral rights. Western businesses in the Kurdish region would also have an incentive to promote security and get rid of the threat. The same idea can also spread to the rest of Iraq. There would also be an incentive for companies specializing in training security.

    The black market for gun and arms trade should become a free flowing white market. ISIL is already getting theirs, it’s everyone else that needs arms. Again, huge business opportunity here.

    1. Privateers make icky profits, and that’s not fair.

    2. ” Why not allow a privateer response for those who want it?”

      Why does NP hate ‘our boys in uniform’? STEALING THE BREAD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF INFANTS HE IS!

    3. We can even have some state involvement via letters of marquis and reprisal.

    4. Because, private individuals getting used to acting on a global scale is a US politician’s nightmare. Doubly so if these people are used to doing diplomacy *and* violence.

      They might start thinking ‘hey, what do I *need* the government for? National defense?’

    5. There’s so many violations of international law and sovereignty in that idea, it’s not even funny. Well, it is funny in the sense that a libertarian could conceive of that idea as “non-interventionist”, when it is essentially giving private mercenaries free reign to operate in foreign countries and to organize, fundraise, train, etc within our borders. Nope, I’m sure that private mercenaries who speak English operating at will in the Middle East won’t be associated with the US, and that whatever acts they commit won’t reflect poorly on the US or even potentially cause blowback. Nor is there a whiff of potential imperialism in having our citizens form armies for regional governments and companies seeking oil and mineral rights.

      Other than that, sounds like a plan.

      1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the US Navy in the revolutionary war privateers? George Washington told them it was okay to capture private merchant ships, kill the crew and plunder the cargo – as long as the new government got its share and the empty boat. None dare call it piracy – they had an officially stamped piece of paper!

        Pay no attention to that “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not murder” crap in the Bible – after all those British Redcoats were not real Christians!

        1. *Pay no attention to that “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not murder” crap in the Bible – after all those British Redcoats were not real Christians!*

          We were at war with the largest naval power in the world, simp, and had no boats.

          1. Ends justify the means, boob?

      2. …private mercenaries who speak English operating at will in the Middle East…

        Yeah, what an unprecedented, outlandish notion.

        Fun Fact: The US is not a signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention banning the use of mercs.

        Hey, remember when Ron Paul suggested that the US shouldn’t invade Afghanistan but should instead hire mercenaries to do the job instead? Remember how people freaked out and rolled their eyes? Ironic, no?

        1. Yeah, he IS senile. Point?

  16. I’m guessing the penaltax on ISIS doesn’t start until after Obama leaves office.

    1. You want to inflict Obamacare on our enemies? YOU MONSTER!

  17. Three years, huh? Only took us about 3.5 to beat the fucking Nazis and Japan.

    1. Japan was fighting conventionally for 8 years (Chinese and Western powers combined) and we still had to nuke them to end it without the horrific bloodbath that would have been the invasion of the home islands.

      1. I was talking about the time the U.S. officially spent at war.

      2. *Japan was fighting conventionally for 8 years *

        14 years. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.

      3. ” we still had to nuke them to end it without the horrific bloodbath that would have been the invasion of the home islands.”

        Japan was beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped. The idea that America avoided a blood bath by dropping the bomb is silly.

    2. Just imagine the environmental impact statement we had to fill out! Spent lead bullets in the environment kills bald eagles!

  18. The more I look at the admin response to ISIS, the more impressed I am at how deranged it is.

    OK, we have Alawites running Syria, who are allied with Iranian shiites and Russia. They brutally suppress a Sunni revolt, and this pisses off the Wahhabist gulf arabs, who want the U.S. to bomb them.

    The U.S. fails to provide air support for the rebels, because many of the rebels are fighting under a banner of a coalition of groups that the U.S. is at war with.

    The Gulf arabs give support to the rebels, who abandon their allegiance to Al Queda (because Al Queda wants to overthrow those gulf states providing support to the Sunni rebels). The rebels immediately start fighting on *three* fronts, defeating the Syrians, the non-ISIS rebels (including the splinter of rebels known as the ‘moderate opposition) and in Riaq to the west, defeating the Shiite Iraqi army and slowly pushing back the Kurdish peshmerga. They seize oilfields and billions of dollars in cash, and have the operating funds to stay in the field for years.

    The Iraqi army, in the meantime, is crumbling; the Iraqi government would love to ally with Iran, but that would make the U.S. mad ensure the loss of the western provinces. They gulf arabs hate them because the country is majority Shiite.

    And the U.S. is run by morons who have no strategic vision other than not wanting to read articles the expose them as morons.

    1. So the plan is to bomb ISIS, get their allies the gulf arabs to supply ground troops to fight them (I know let’s get the Austrians to provide the ground troops as we attack Germany! We shall defeat the Serbians by getting the Russian army to attack them!), so that the ‘moderate opposition’ can take over Syria and take it away from the dirty Allawites, somehow preventing the Russians from supplying the Syrian regime (no doubt made easier by Obama’s complete victory over Putin in the Ukraine which should cow the Russians into submission!), and buttress the Iraqi state so that it doesn’t ally with Iran, while preventing the old regime from taking power!

      The only way to defeat ISIS is if the U.S. puts a couple of divisions on the ground and repeats Sherman’s march to the sea, and walks out leaving chaos and destruction in its wake without any care as to what fills the void of carnage it leaves behind.

      There can be no constructive military occupation because the only thing the warring parties agree on is that America is the great Satan. The U.S. can’t conquer the place, and it literally has no prospective allies other than the Kurds.. oh wait! that’ll make the Turks mad!

      It’s like watching a handful of teenagers playing Axis and Allies where they fuck up everything – except the armies destroyed and the corpses will be real.

      1. What we should do is build an industrial complex in Kurdistan and build lots of tanks.

        1. We should also invest in technological advances and make sure we have dice that roll well.

        2. Tanks are for suckers. Infantry/Fighter mix ftw.

          1. Oh, yeah? Where are you landing those fighters, buddy? Tanks.

            1. You’re welcome!

        3. What we should do is just send in Liam Neeson.

      2. Excellent summary.

        However, you completely left the end part out where the CORPORATIONS step in and pave Iraq with WalMartdonalds or something

        1. It about sums it up. Almost like a plot of a crummy sci-fi series.

  19. So, it’s another iteration of the “The dog ate my homework” school of foreign policy. What a surprise. Tell me again why this loon is better than Bush?

    I begin to long for the Harry Truman solution; drop an atom bomb or two on the problem, and then say “Surrender, or there’s more where that came from.”

    Pity he didn’t do it in Korea.

    1. “Tell me again why this loon is better than Bush?”

      [splutter] TRILLIONS!! OCCUPATIONS!!!! UH, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!! TRILLIONS!!

      My favorite is not the “make Obama look good by contrast so much as the pretense that Obama’s foreign policy is a ‘stunning success’ by contrast. because. something.

      1. They are doing a lot of spluttering these days.

        Nitwits. Obama had no more qualifications to be President than I have to be Pope.

    2. Because it’s not terrorism when you kill 100,000?

  20. Oh, be serious. ISIS/ISIL is a huge and credible threat to panties and bedsheets throughout the Eastern Establishmentarian Corridor.

  21. And the U.S. is run by morons who have no strategic vision other than not wanting to read articles the expose them as morons.

    Most excellent.

  22. Speaking of this ‘no boots on the ground’ nonsense, and the Adminstrations desire to Fund their way to World Peace

    what happens when the next head being chopped off on the Telly is one of “our guys” (say, a Pesh soldier) doing it to some ISIS volunteer from Michigan?

    Won’t that be the ‘moral high-ground’?

    Just saying, this “No boots on the ground”/war-by-proxy thing? has a pretty universal history of resulting in a variety of atrocities which we bear some vague complicity in. And i’m not even saying that’s a horrible thing, but rather just part of the costs not being tallied in the Liberal notion of ‘war from afar’ being ‘morally superior’.

  23. So when is he gonna go to Congress requesting authorization for this?

    1. Does Congress have anything to do with killing people and blowing shit up? First I’ve heard about it.

    2. The AUMF apparently invalidated the War Powers Act.

      1. The AUMF is still in force. It’s obvious that the 20-year-olds in ISIS had a hand in 9/11.

        1. They might have time travel technology, you know.

          1. Then we will never get out of this closed time-like loop.

            Time is a flat disc.

              1. Yup. And you live through the same thing over and over again until you scratch it bad enough.

                1. Can you skip ahead to the good parts?

                  1. There are no good parts.

            1. Time is a CUBE!!!1!!!!

    3. Congress? What about United Nations approval!

  24. This is obamacare applied to warfare.

    Establish a plan that builds a bureaucracy, spends lots of cash, and then (and only then) does the real work years out in the plan long after the plan was “sold” to the public.

  25. Worth a read

    The 1960s Cold War called, and they want their Advisors back

    ” This devastating reality further shows that training, equipping, and building relationships with sympathetic non-state actors in critical areas could prove useful in achieving U.S. security objectives.”

    Really, lady? Because I have some news for you as to how ISIS got their fancy kit.

    This “Unconventional Warfare for Children” lesson is a little unsettling, given the person ‘explaining’ it to readers seems to be born after the end of the Vietnam war. We know, we know. The caveats at the end of her article are actually where the story should *start*. jesus, does she not know that the Kurdish independence thing is exactly WHY we haven’t armed them?

  26. Oh, yeah? Where are you landing those fighters, buddy? Tanks.

    The Soviets had a helicopter called the Hind which I saw described as a “flying tank”. There’s your solution. The autobahn won’t be worth shit for your tanks if it’s blocked by civilian refugees’ automobiles.

    1. Axis & Allies doesn’t have choppers, silly.

      1. That’s Fortress America, sheesh.

        In the with-Trolls household we actually prefer the ultimate libertarian wargame.

        1. Look, it’s the WWII edition or nothing. Let’s not be children.

    2. WOLVERINES!

  27. The AUMF is still in force. It’s obvious that the 20-year-olds in ISIS had a hand in 9/11.

    SINS OF THE FATHER, FTW!

  28. “they take anniversaries very seriously in terms of choosing when to attack in the United States.”

    Yup – all those attacks we’ve suffered on the anniversary of 9/11 bear this out.

    1. Actually 9/11 was an anniversary attack itself.

      September the 11th 1683 the Muslim army suffered a devastating defeat at th4e Battle of Viena that set their goal of a world caliphate back several centuries.

      That’s why Osama chose 9/11.

      1. Was that ever confirmed?

  29. The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation ? destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria ? might not be completed until the next administration. Indeed, some Pentagon planners envision a military campaign lasting at least 36 months.

    Yeah, military planners expected a quick in and done for our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with an easy (and short) occupation to ‘nation build’.

    How’d that work out for us?

    And do none of the people who ‘run’ this country not understand that this hornet’s nest breeds new hornets faster than we can swat ’em down?

    This will continue as long as people in the government *personally* profit from killing motherfuckers half-way around the world. A perfect example of ‘public choice’ theory.

    1. And do none of the people who ‘run’ this country not understand that this hornet’s nest breeds new hornets faster than we can swat ’em down?

      Oh, they understand that very well. But what better way to stay in power and distract from their crony capitalist wrecking of the economy than by starting a few wars? Obama is even better at this than Bush.

  30. Look, you can’t get a Central Bank into Syria until until boots are stuck in somebody’s ass there. This is the best excuse in a long while to storm into Syria and get shit done.

    1. I vote for making Krugman the new central banker for Syria. Let’s ship him over tomorrow.

  31. What a horrible world where we have to choose between a terrorist organiz’n’s sharing their name with a goddess and with the Int’l Soc. for Individual Liberty.

  32. We should wait for ISIS to beheaded at least a dozen Americans, blow up a busload or planeload of Americans, overrun a US Embassy or kill a few dozen to a couple of thousand Americans on US soil before we label them a threat and undertake to destroy them. Who cares if ISIS has stated its intention to attack the US? It’s not like religious extremists really mean such threats or actually act on them! Even if ISIS does manage to kill a bunch more Americans overseas, we should probably just withdraw to the homeland and depend on our famously impenetrable borders to keep us safe. And in the oh-so-unlikely event they penetrate our borders, everyone knows it will be just a super-secret MIC plot to con the American people into another imperialistic war!

    1. I can’t believe no one has called you a slaver yet.

    2. You can “label” all you want. It’s the part where we start killing innocent civilians by the thousands that usually ends up making the problem worse rather than better. There is no better terrorist recruiting tool than a US campaign attempting to destroy the terrorists.

      In different words, none of our anti-terrorist efforts abroad seem to have ever worked.

    3. By your policy, then, we should invade every country where at least 1,000 people say nasty things about us. Because intentions matter more than capabilities, apparently.

      1. now you’re thinking like a good little statist.

  33. I think it’s about time the Nobel Committee votes itself out of existence and donate the remaining funds to fight Ebola.

  34. Well, surely when a progressive Nobel peace prize winner and Harvard graduate rains death and destruction on the people of the Middle East, they will see reason and stop being angry with the US!

  35. new balance 574new balance outlet There are many styles derived, which are: the classic models, the youth will never fade RGB models, the Olympic rings models and so on. Each pair of shoes the color is determined by the integrity, and for

  36. a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.
    new balance 998
    The most casual fashion new balance 574
    matching methods do in fact find new balance sales area, guaranteed to make you easy to find here a real fit with their own methods. The shoes to match up with their whole dress with each other, to be able to highlight its features shoes. The shoe itself is a casual fashion, so with clothes, casual fashion with out the effect is certainly no better choice.

  37. Chanel (Chanel)
    This season was to explore the theme of fashion and art, Karl Lagerfeld give full play to his unique color technology, to show a different style, this Plaid graffiti bag, stylish yet luxurious, full of personality. Metal and stitching lines, mix color matching, showing not the same style, bags do the old design, reflecting the retro Style.
    Cheap Chanel Handbags
    best chanel gifts


  38. Chanel sunglasses, Chanel Black sunglasses, Chanel Designer sunglasses, Chanel Eyewear, Chanel womens sunglasses, Chanel ladies sunglassesChanel (Chanel)
    The new season’s Chanel bag filled with street atmosphere, a new concept of graffiti fashion, showing young rebellious personality, so increasingly popular new fashion, fashion is not necessarily the traditional model. The new graffiti designs, expressed through color rebellious style, different color, with a rope design reflects the combination of personality Feel, chains and fabrics, soft but just.where to buy chanel

  39. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike sneakers
    running shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand’s new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

  40. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike Air Jordan Retro Shoes Online Store
    Nike Shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand’s new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

  41. Kennedy . although Denise `s st0rry is cool, on wednesday I got Renault 5 after having made $6744 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten k this past month . with-out any question its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and practically straight away earned minimum $79, per hour .
    visit this page === http://www.jobsfish.com

  42. No state has ever benefitted from a protracted war.
    -Sun Tzu

    Furthermore, only taking three years to train the Iraqi army is wishful thinking. Western advisors have been attempting to train a decent Arab army for 60+ years and have not succeeded. This is because Arab Armies are more concerned with protecting the regime than actually fighting other people. A good example of this is the former Iraqi army under Sadam, the regular army recieved essentially no training to prevent a coup. The “elite” republican guard was not in fact elite at all, they just recieved some training becuase they swore loyalty to Sadam personally instead of the State. The only reason that the republican guard was considered elite was basically a case of “in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”. When they went up against a real army like America’s their “elite” training proved to be inferior to that of a pv2 fresh out of basic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.