Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 6:43:00 PM (view original):

I'm sure you recall Al Haig's "I'm in charge now" statement.    Put that in play with a dozen ISIS leaders who aren't 100% positive who's right.

I think this is actually making my point for me.  The point here isn't how well-developed the chain of command is, it's the size of the leadership structure.  If there are upwards of a dozen guys with a legitimate claim - one which at least some adherents believe - to be the leader of the movement, that means you have to kill a dozen guys to leave them without a leader.  May not speak all that well to their organization, but that again furthers my point.  Clearly no one individual or influential group is centrally planning all of their activities.  That means that killing a small group of leaders isn't going to stop all of said activities.

The elephant in the room that you haven't even tried to address is the presence of essentially a military at this point.  They have at least 50,000 armed militants within the central territory, and possible 4-5 times that number.  Do you think all of those guys are just going to fade away quietly if we kill a handful of leaders they may or may not even recognize as such?

Or, if you have 12 guys thinking they're in charge, infighting develops.  

As for the "essential military", no, they follow their "leader".    They were not signed up at a recruiting station.   They did not register for a draft.   They were brought in/forced in and they will go with the person(s) they believe in.   Or no one at all.

I'll be honest, because I'm not entirely clear on this, but Iraq held an election.   There was no clear winner.    I think the US supported the Shi'ite guy who had won the last election.   As I understand it, the govt under this Shi'ite wasn't much different than Saddam with their tactics.    This created distrust with the Sunnis/Kurds.  They sought new leadership.   ISIS provided it for some.   That's who they trust.

They filled the void left behind by the departure of US troops.

If you think ISIS will destroy itself with infighting, that would speak to actually doing nothing.

Posted by moy23 on 2/1/2016 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!

It's amazing how many staunch Republican supporters, or just angry anti-Obama conservatives, totally ignore the fact that Obama withdrew the troops in accordance with the strategic withdrawal plan drawn up by the Bush administration...

George Bush, July 2007


"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”



Obama negotiated that bush agreement about as good as he negotiated with republicans throughout his terms. Let's not pretend Obama didn't campaign on withdrawing the troops from Iraq and this was his political 'out' from holding himself accountable to that pledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Educate yourself.  Signed in 2008, so it would presumably supercede anything Bush said in 2007.

As long as there is clear, defined leadership, there is no reason for infighting.    I thought I was being pretty clear about what I think would be the best way to START about handling ISIS.   Truth is, I have no idea if it would work.    I'm viewing them more as united tribes than one huge organization with a clear, defined heirarchy.

I agree.  That's part of why taking out a few leaders would seem to me unlikely to prove effective.

As I mentioned last week, I think the best way to go is to fund ISIS enemies under the table.  Obviously you have to be careful with that sort of tactic, as it was how we initially funded the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan.  But I think funding Russia to fight ISIS is manageable.  They're already doing it anyway.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 2/1/2016 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 2/1/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Only reason why they had a weakness in Iraq was because dumba$$ Obama withdrew troops too soon. The war in Iraq DIDN'T CREATE ISIS OR ALLOW THEM TO GET A FOOTHOLD THERE. THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS TOO SOON WAS THE CAUSE.

Blame who's really responsible for the JV TEAM. OBAMA!!!!

It's amazing how many staunch Republican supporters, or just angry anti-Obama conservatives, totally ignore the fact that Obama withdrew the troops in accordance with the strategic withdrawal plan drawn up by the Bush administration...

George Bush, July 2007


"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”



Obama negotiated that bush agreement about as good as he negotiated with republicans throughout his terms. Let's not pretend Obama didn't campaign on withdrawing the troops from Iraq and this was his political 'out' from holding himself accountable to that pledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Educate yourself.  Signed in 2008, so it would presumably supercede anything Bush said in 2007.

I have a masters degree thank you.

And thanks for the link.... "Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010." .... Seems like the negotiator in chief did a masterful job and came up empty, again.... Like he has with republicans time and time again.





You seem to intent on absolving Obama for his part in the Middle East.... What was that word he used... Oh, yeah... Quagmire.

Remember this Obama victory speech (December 2011)....

"Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over” he remarked. And “Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.”

You really have to question Obama's judgement considering Bush could predict what would happen next but Obama couldn't 4 years later, no?

If Bush had predicted, as of one year later, that Iraq couldn't self-govern by 2011, he wouldn't have signed the treaty.

If Obama had broken or renegotiated the treaty and anything had gone wrong, you would have been all over him for that.  The guy is never going to win with you, he'd lost before he ever took office.  This is why I generally ignore 99% of what you post.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 7:42:00 PM (view original):
If Bush had predicted, as of one year later, that Iraq couldn't self-govern by 2011, he wouldn't have signed the treaty.

If Obama had broken or renegotiated the treaty and anything had gone wrong, you would have been all over him for that.  The guy is never going to win with you, he'd lost before he ever took office.  This is why I generally ignore 99% of what you post.

I actually can praise Obama for learning from HIS mistake in Iraq (the troop withdrawal). He just recently slowed down the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan telling America this will be a longer war than anticipated.

Also, it's OK if you call me a hateful ***** and then delete it. I'm not offended by others 'opinions'


'sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. Too bad more Americans weren't taught that lesson.

Posted by moy23 on 2/1/2016 7:47:00 PM (view original):
Also, it's OK if you call me a hateful ***** and then delete it. I'm not offended by others 'opinions'


'sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. Too bad more Americans weren't taught that lesson.

It just felt too much like an oxymoron.  Calling somebody a hateful ***** on the internet is fairly hateful.  And prickish.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 7:22:00 PM (view original):
I agree.  That's part of why taking out a few leaders would seem to me unlikely to prove effective.

As I mentioned last week, I think the best way to go is to fund ISIS enemies under the table.  Obviously you have to be careful with that sort of tactic, as it was how we initially funded the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan.  But I think funding Russia to fight ISIS is manageable.  They're already doing it anyway.

I guess we're sort of on the same page.    I just think we expect different results.    And I don't know why we'd have to stop at a "few".    If taking out a few proved to be even vaguely effective, you take out more.

Here's what I envision(in made up scenarios):    ISIS is attempting to take three cities/areas.   They are doing so under the direction of one individual.  He's taken out.  That doesn't necessarily stop anything but now those three groups are fighting independently.    Perhaps you take out one/two of the leaders of those groups.   Less organization.   How long do they keep fighting?  Do they hesitate because no one is painting the "big picture"?

And I'm not sure why it has to be this or that.    Funding ISIS enemies seems like a good idea.  But you can't count on the job getting done that way.  Sometimes you gotta do things yourself.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 2/1/2016 7:47:00 PM (view original):
Also, it's OK if you call me a hateful ***** and then delete it. I'm not offended by others 'opinions'


'sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. Too bad more Americans weren't taught that lesson.

It just felt too much like an oxymoron.  Calling somebody a hateful ***** on the internet is fairly hateful.  And prickish.

Quite true.

I don't hate you, BL, or Obama. I haven't really formed an opinion of you, I think BL is retarded (can I say that?) because he thinks cheeseburgers are the solution to income inequality, and I think Obama is just really really really bad at his job.