These critics are always long on kvetching but short on alternatives. There has been an awful lot of crowing since Paris last week.
It's as if these critics are almost pleased by the awful attacks just to be able to claim vindication. Yet, Obama hit the nail on the head last week. Other than a Lindsay Graham-and now a Jeb Bush-calling for ground troops in Syria, the critics come up with little Obama should be doing that he isn't already in fact doing.
Part of the problem is the demand that we now must do something different in light of the Paris attacks. While certainly intelligence learns from such attacks and makes adjustments, there frankly isn't a need for a major strategic policy shift. For the most part, Obama's 'strategic patience' is the right way to go.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-fox-news-is-isis-favorite-news_22.html
But that doesn't accord with the politics of fear and panic that the GOP wants to push. After all, stay the course has no political upside for them.
Politico put together a collage of military experts to explain how Obama should be fighting ISIS. But for the most part none of these experts seem to offer up a strategy that's really a sea change from O's current ISIS strategy.
At his news conference on Monday, President Barack Obama laid down a gauntlet. Just two days after the Islamic State took credit for the recent deadly attacks in Paris, he challenged his critics to come up with alternatives to what he’s already doing to fight the Islamic State.
"The president defended his current policy of airstrikes, training and supplying allies, diplomacy and limited ground troops. And he insisted that his critics, except for those who advocate large-scale troop deployment, tend to “describe things that we’re already doing. … I haven’t seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.”
It's as if these critics are almost pleased by the awful attacks just to be able to claim vindication. Yet, Obama hit the nail on the head last week. Other than a Lindsay Graham-and now a Jeb Bush-calling for ground troops in Syria, the critics come up with little Obama should be doing that he isn't already in fact doing.
Part of the problem is the demand that we now must do something different in light of the Paris attacks. While certainly intelligence learns from such attacks and makes adjustments, there frankly isn't a need for a major strategic policy shift. For the most part, Obama's 'strategic patience' is the right way to go.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-fox-news-is-isis-favorite-news_22.html
But that doesn't accord with the politics of fear and panic that the GOP wants to push. After all, stay the course has no political upside for them.
Politico put together a collage of military experts to explain how Obama should be fighting ISIS. But for the most part none of these experts seem to offer up a strategy that's really a sea change from O's current ISIS strategy.
At his news conference on Monday, President Barack Obama laid down a gauntlet. Just two days after the Islamic State took credit for the recent deadly attacks in Paris, he challenged his critics to come up with alternatives to what he’s already doing to fight the Islamic State.
"The president defended his current policy of airstrikes, training and supplying allies, diplomacy and limited ground troops. And he insisted that his critics, except for those who advocate large-scale troop deployment, tend to “describe things that we’re already doing. … I haven’t seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.”
"Since then, a handful of 2016 candidates have presented their own ISIL plans, insisting of course that their strategies would indeed make a real difference. But pressed for specifics, many candidates admit that they’d have to consult the military experts once in office."
"And so POLITICO decided to consult these military experts too, asking them to take Obama up on his challenge: Barring sending in 50,000 troops, what specifically should the administration be doing differently in terms of the tactical and strategic response to ISIL, and how would it make a difference? Here’s what they had to say."
http://www.politico.eu/article/obama-islamic-state-news-syria/
Speaking of candidates that talk a big game but have little to really say, check out Rubio's ISIS plan.
1. No more Syrian refugees.
2. Whatever it takes.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/marco_rubio_wants_to_defeat_isis_by_arming_isis_and_fighting_its_enemies.html
Just a few weeks ago, Rubio himself said we could vet the refugees and let them into America. Number 2 clearly differentiates from Obama who's conscious strategy is to do less than it takes. .
It isn't clear how these candidates who have no expertise or knowledge can confidently tell us that Obama's strategy is not working.
It does sort of underscore the fact that the only candidate in either party that can talk intelligently about ISIS is-Hillary Clinton.
Ok, so what do Politico's military experts say?
"Recent critiques of Obama administration policy in Syria are remarkable in their lack of imagination. They are almost exclusively calls for more military action, and, to use an expression that the American military considers derogatory, for more “boots on the ground.” (The men and women I served with and my active duty family members should not be referred to as “boots on the ground.”)"
"Syria is NOT a vital national interest for the United States. This drives a resource-constrained approach to combat in and around Syria and accepts a patient, rational military response to dealing with the Syrian civil war."
"In fact, the Obama administration’s current policy at the tactical military level is reasonable. U.S. capacity to provide key combat multipliers (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) as well as logistics and air power is superb and needed. And our current policy of enlisting ground forces from our regional allies like Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and available Syrian forces is consistent with our level of national interest."
"Our tactical (military) game is on track, if slowly, to contain ISIL geographically and to reduce its footprint. Contain. Reduce."
What our current Syria policy lacks is an effective operational and strategiccampaign plan that addresses the economic, political and communications lines of operation"
Ok, but even if this is so, it hardly leads us to the conclusion that Obama's ISIS strategy is 'failed' as the GOP wants to claim.
Another staetgist-this one from Center for American Progress-says that Assad doesn't have to go.
"Obama needs to acknowledge that Bashar Assad does not have to go in order for the international coalition to undermine ISIL. ISIL is the main problem for the United States, not Assad. We need to get a political solution to the Syrian civil war as soon as possible, so that the world can focus on ISIL rather than on competing regional strategic aims. If Obama straightens out his rhetoric, he will demonstrate to his supporters, and his critics, that his strategy is in fact making a difference."
"But this suggests that Obama's main problem is messaging-not his actual policy. As to Assad, the military experts themselves don't all agree on this. Some argue that as long as Assad continues to oppress Sunni Muslims ISIS can't be defeated. This goes back to the point that ultimately defeating ISIS is political not military "
Remember that Assad's brutal crackdown on Sunni protesters was what brought ISIS to Syria in the first place.
Here is a an interesting suggestion by another expert:
Ditch Saudi Arabia. Choose the Kurds"
Yes, but the Kurds while up for the fight, are an ethnic minority and can't run Syria or any Arab country.
As for Saudi Arabia, this would truly be a radical move but there would be a lot of contingencies to work through. The Saudis are also important for us for oil and as a buffer against Iran, etc.
In any case, while some of these ideas are interesting, they don't paint the picture that Obama's ISIS policy is the disaster that the Right says it is.
There might well be some changes and improvements and the Administration is surely asking themselves that very question.
One thing it seems plausible the President got wrong was calling ISIS the JV team. This came from not understanding how they're different from al Qaeda.
Overall, though, it doesn't point to a disastrous ISIS policy though one that certainly that can be improved and built on in some ways.
"And so POLITICO decided to consult these military experts too, asking them to take Obama up on his challenge: Barring sending in 50,000 troops, what specifically should the administration be doing differently in terms of the tactical and strategic response to ISIL, and how would it make a difference? Here’s what they had to say."
http://www.politico.eu/article/obama-islamic-state-news-syria/
Speaking of candidates that talk a big game but have little to really say, check out Rubio's ISIS plan.
1. No more Syrian refugees.
2. Whatever it takes.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/marco_rubio_wants_to_defeat_isis_by_arming_isis_and_fighting_its_enemies.html
Just a few weeks ago, Rubio himself said we could vet the refugees and let them into America. Number 2 clearly differentiates from Obama who's conscious strategy is to do less than it takes. .
It isn't clear how these candidates who have no expertise or knowledge can confidently tell us that Obama's strategy is not working.
It does sort of underscore the fact that the only candidate in either party that can talk intelligently about ISIS is-Hillary Clinton.
Ok, so what do Politico's military experts say?
"Recent critiques of Obama administration policy in Syria are remarkable in their lack of imagination. They are almost exclusively calls for more military action, and, to use an expression that the American military considers derogatory, for more “boots on the ground.” (The men and women I served with and my active duty family members should not be referred to as “boots on the ground.”)"
"Syria is NOT a vital national interest for the United States. This drives a resource-constrained approach to combat in and around Syria and accepts a patient, rational military response to dealing with the Syrian civil war."
"In fact, the Obama administration’s current policy at the tactical military level is reasonable. U.S. capacity to provide key combat multipliers (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) as well as logistics and air power is superb and needed. And our current policy of enlisting ground forces from our regional allies like Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and available Syrian forces is consistent with our level of national interest."
"Our tactical (military) game is on track, if slowly, to contain ISIL geographically and to reduce its footprint. Contain. Reduce."
What our current Syria policy lacks is an effective operational and strategiccampaign plan that addresses the economic, political and communications lines of operation"
Ok, but even if this is so, it hardly leads us to the conclusion that Obama's ISIS strategy is 'failed' as the GOP wants to claim.
Another staetgist-this one from Center for American Progress-says that Assad doesn't have to go.
"Obama needs to acknowledge that Bashar Assad does not have to go in order for the international coalition to undermine ISIL. ISIL is the main problem for the United States, not Assad. We need to get a political solution to the Syrian civil war as soon as possible, so that the world can focus on ISIL rather than on competing regional strategic aims. If Obama straightens out his rhetoric, he will demonstrate to his supporters, and his critics, that his strategy is in fact making a difference."
"But this suggests that Obama's main problem is messaging-not his actual policy. As to Assad, the military experts themselves don't all agree on this. Some argue that as long as Assad continues to oppress Sunni Muslims ISIS can't be defeated. This goes back to the point that ultimately defeating ISIS is political not military "
Remember that Assad's brutal crackdown on Sunni protesters was what brought ISIS to Syria in the first place.
Here is a an interesting suggestion by another expert:
Ditch Saudi Arabia. Choose the Kurds"
Yes, but the Kurds while up for the fight, are an ethnic minority and can't run Syria or any Arab country.
As for Saudi Arabia, this would truly be a radical move but there would be a lot of contingencies to work through. The Saudis are also important for us for oil and as a buffer against Iran, etc.
In any case, while some of these ideas are interesting, they don't paint the picture that Obama's ISIS policy is the disaster that the Right says it is.
There might well be some changes and improvements and the Administration is surely asking themselves that very question.
One thing it seems plausible the President got wrong was calling ISIS the JV team. This came from not understanding how they're different from al Qaeda.
Overall, though, it doesn't point to a disastrous ISIS policy though one that certainly that can be improved and built on in some ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment