Obama on ISIL Syria: “We don’t have a strategy yet

[Teddy B 17,252]

No.

The likelihood is that he is inviting hostile action to be carried out against the USA. That is simply reckless.

If you have no strategy, stay silent and let your opponent worry about what you're up to.

It reminds me of the Administration making public that there was an unsuccessful rescue mission mounted for James Foley. You just don't do that, unless it goes so horribly wrong that you can't hide it, like the Iran mission in 1979. If it doesn't pan out, say nothing. That way, you don't broadcast your intelligence failures, you don't advertise Executive hesitation and you don't deal a blow to the morale of your Special Forces personnel.

Over-sharing on the world stage is always a bad idea.

Or you could lie and say you have no strategy in an effort to get your enemy to let their guard down and make a move. That would be my guess. Think about it for a second. What person with half a brain would say "Yes we have a strategy, and it is this."? Isn't lying about having no strategy just as good, if not better than staying silent?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Teddy B

[JohnR! 5,495]

And that gives the US the advantage on a asymmetric war, and in my opinion the main reason he made the statement.

I agree that not having a strategy would be unwise at best, but everyone knows it is really not the POTUS who defines how engagements will be handled during a military operation - he relies on the COS for those details. I somehow don't believe they reached their individual ranks by acts of mind-numbing stupidity as you should wish to presume.

As President of the United States, not having a strategy for a situation that may directly affect your country is bad enough, but understandable given the complexities of the situation(s).

Telling the world you don't have a strategy is mind-numbingly stupid.

You would be wrong. Chances are none of the COS and the entire Pentagon, for that matter, have no idea what to do.

Or you could lie and say you have no strategy in an effort to get your enemy to let their guard down and make a move. That would be my guess. Think about it for a second. What person with half a brain would say "Yes we have a strategy, and it is this."? Isn't lying about having no strategy just as good, if not better than staying silent?

[Pooky 3,844]

Or you could lie and say you have no strategy in an effort to get your enemy to let their guard down and make a move. That would be my guess. Think about it for a second. What person with half a brain would say "Yes we have a strategy, and it is this."? Isn't lying about having no strategy just as good, if not better than staying silent?

I firmly believe deterrence is the preferable way to go. The risk with inviting your opponent to make a move is that you are relying on your intelligence being spot on. If it isn't and you miss the real threat, then any attack that causes loss of life will be attributed to your "lack of a strategy". It could be argued that the death of Steven Sotloff is the first result of this.

If such an attack occurs and causes major loss of life, then this Administration could find itself backed into a position where it finds it needs to commit to boots on the ground, just to restore credibility and not to achieve a legitimate strategic goal. That's not a situation anyone wants. The Administration needs to retain the ability to commit to the use of force and level of force on its own terms.

And I never mentioned anything about advertising a strategy if there is one. That never entered the conversation, as it's not what the President said. However, if we did have a strategy, that's about all I would say. Why give away the farm, when you can leave your opponent second-guessing themselves, worrying about what you really know?

As I said, over-sharing on the world stage is never a good idea

[GBCW 397]

is over sharing anywhere a good idea ? i would suggest not even over sharing with your therapist. they are snakes, after all. worse than islamic jihadical terroirists.

[Boiler 46,300]

He has a cunning plan.

[Pooky 3,844]

And that gives the US the advantage on a asymmetric war, and in my opinion the main reason he made the statement.

I disagree. It runs the risk of catastrophic failure, if the intelligence misses something. Reports are that ISIS are difficult to infiltrate, so the risk is there. Saying nothing gives you the same advantage, without giving the opposition encouragement. It only takes one intelligence failure and all your misinformation comes back to bite you, courtesy of yor domestic opposition.

I agree that not having a strategy would be unwise at best, but everyone knows it is really not the POTUS who defines how engagements will be handled during a military operation - he relies on the COS for those details. I somehow don't believe they reached their individual ranks by acts of mind-numbing stupidity as you should wish to presume.

You should pay more attention to history. Rules of Engagement (ROEs) are often dictated by politicians and can, in some cases, severely constrain how our armed forces are able to fight. And military commanders aren't above having bad days at the office.

Besides if you actually read my post, instead of forming your own unfounded presumption of what you wanted me to have written, you would have understood that I have no issue with the parties responsible still being in the formulating strategy phase. The situation is complex and requires a great deal of care to ensure that we don't end up in an unfavourable position, whatever course of action might be decided upon. The only part I described as mind-numbingly stupid was broadcasting to the world that we have no strategy.

You would be wrong. Chances are none of the COS and the entire Pentagon, for that matter, have no idea what to do.

I hope I am. But if I'm not, why give the rest of the world the impression that the President of the United States, his Administration and Chiefs of Staff are a pack of clueless idiots?

Because, if it all goes wrong, that is the impression that will stick in people's' minds.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Pooky

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Or you could lie and say you have no strategy in an effort to get your enemy to let their guard down and make a move. That would be my guess. Think about it for a second. What person with half a brain would say "Yes we have a strategy, and it is this."? Isn't lying about having no strategy just as good, if not better than staying silent?

I agree. Obama lies

[Boiler 46,300]

I agree. Obama lies

But probably not on this.

[UncleBeer 244]

I agree. Obama lies

He only lies when it can hurt the US, so he's not lying when he says he doesn't have a strategy.

Or you could lie and say you have no strategy in an effort to get your enemy to let their guard down and make a move.

Puh-leeze. This is the preznit that learned about each and every scandal by reading about it in the newspaper? The smartest preznit . . . evah?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

He only lies when it can hurt the US, so he's not lying when he says he doesn't have a strategy.

Puh-leeze. This is the preznit that learned about each and every scandal by reading about it in the newspaper? The smartest preznit . . . evah?

The Preznit speaking on the national debt today, We do not have a plan yet ?

[UncleBeer 244]

The Preznit speaking on the national debt today, We do not have a plan yet ?

Not for the national debt (...what debt?) or ISIL, but apparently he's concocted another plan to sidestep Congress to sign the US on to a binding climate treaty at the UN. Where'd he get the time to cook this up in between rounds of golf?

[JohnR! 5,495]

In times of war, you keep your cards closest to your chest.

Lose lips sink ships.

is over sharing anywhere a good idea ? i would suggest not even over sharing with your therapist. they are snakes, after all. worse than islamic jihadical terroirists.

[UncleBeer 244]

For those who wish to believe the preznit hasn't bothered himself with an ISIL strategy because it recently "snuck up" on him:

Obama given detailed intelligence for a year about rise of ISIS

President Obama was given detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of the Islamic State as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized large swaths of territory over the summer, a former Pentagon official told Fox News.

The official — who asked not to be identified because the President’s Daily Brief is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product analyzing sensitive international events for the president — said the data was strong and “granular” in detail.

The source said a policymaker “could not come away with any other impression: This is getting bad.”

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whatever happened to all the post-Iraq/Afghanistan isolationism? Did people here realise it was a bad idea?

[JohnR! 5,495]

That was then. This is now. Sending troops everywhere is the new isolationism. You gotta give it to the motley crew - unpredictable they are not.

Whatever happened to all the post-Iraq/Afghanistan isolationism? Did people here realise it was a bad idea?

Edited September 3, 2014 by JohnR!