Rift widens between Obama, U.S. military over strategy to fight Islamic State.

[GBCW 397]

By Craig Whitlock

September 18 at 8:47 PM

Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”

Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered.

Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances.

...

The White House and Pentagon agree on the basic outlines of a strategy to attack the Islamic State — one that centers on arming and training proxy forces, including Syrian rebels, Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi army, backed by U.S. and allied air power.

But the Pentagon is eager to retain the option of deploying small numbers of Special Operations forces to the front lines to help the proxy troops or to call in airstrikes from close range.

...

Military leaders have increasingly suggested that Obama’s political promises are restricting their ability to fight. On Wednesday, former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, still an influential figure at the Pentagon, bluntly criticized his former boss.

“There will be boots on the ground if there’s to be any hope of success in the strategy,” Gates said in an interview with CBS News, adding that “the president in effect traps himself” by repeating his mantra that he won’t send U.S. troops into combat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rift-widens-between-obama-us-military-over-strategy-to-fight-islamic-state/2014/09/18/ebdb422e-3f5c-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Military leaders have increasingly suggested that Obama’s political promises are restricting their ability to fight. On Wednesday, former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, still an influential figure at the Pentagon, bluntly criticized his former boss.

“There will be boots on the ground if there’s to be any hope of success in the strategy,” Gates said in an interview with CBS News, adding that “the president in effect traps himself” by repeating his mantra that he won’t send U.S. troops into combat.

0bama routinely rejects the advice of our military leaders, and as a result puts our country at risk, and also makes for a cold reception whenever he appears or does anything related to our military.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Who was the last president to micro manage a war....?? The great society was a great idea with him also...

President Lyndon Johnson picked bombing targets in Hanoi. Bush gave Schwarzkopf goals, objectives, and policy guidance and let him do his thing.. A community organizer making military battlefield decisions....what could go wrong...

Where are the war protesters that bush faced ? Wrong party I guess.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Who was the last president to micro manage a war....?? The great society was a great idea with him also...

President Lyndon Johnson picked bombing targets in Hanoi. Bush gave Schwarzkopf goals, objectives, and policy guidance and let him do his thing.. A community organizer making military battlefield decisions....what could go wrong...

Where are the war protesters that bush faced ? Wrong party I guess.

And how did that work out?

[GBCW 397]

And how did that work out?

Operation Desert Storm? Worked out pretty well.

[JohnR! 5,495]

The interesting thing here is that the disagreement is over boots on the ground. Of course, until this copy was published Obama would have been heavily criticized for even suggesting to send boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS.

_________________________________________________________________

From the copy:

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”

Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered.

Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Who was the last president to micro manage a war....?? The great society was a great idea with him also...

President Lyndon Johnson picked bombing targets in Hanoi. Bush gave Schwarzkopf goals, objectives, and policy guidance and let him do his thing.. A community organizer making military battlefield decisions....what could go wrong...

Where are the war protesters that bush faced ? Wrong party I guess.

[Karee 4,190]

I'm getting the feeling this all being setup as an attempt to show that the U.S. is actually doing something, while in reality it does nothing. Maybe drop a few bombs here and there.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I'm getting the feeling this all being setup as an attempt to show that the U.S. is actually doing something, while in reality it does nothing. Maybe drop a few bombs here and there.

As to the current plan coming from 0bama, agreed. The US military is a fighting and killing machine, in which the progs have tried to shape-shift into sweet ambassadors.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Operation Desert Storm? Worked out pretty well.

I stand corrected. Wrong war.

[decocker 7,198]

I'm getting the feeling this all being setup as an attempt to show that the U.S. is actually doing something, while in reality it does nothing. Maybe drop a few bombs here and there.

there's nothing to be done. bombing breeds more isis. boots on the ground breeds more isis. if not isis, then whatever group forms out of this particular 'attempt'.

[Darnell 8,478]

Who was the last president to micro manage a war....?? The great society was a great idea with him also...

President Lyndon Johnson picked bombing targets in Hanoi. Bush gave Schwarzkopf goals, objectives, and policy guidance and let him do his thing.. A community organizer making military battlefield decisions....what could go wrong...

Where are the war protesters that bush faced ? Wrong party I guess.

I have this great sense that the current fella in office wouldn't even be successful as a pug trainer.

Oh well.

[JohnR! 5,495]

You must have been thinking of King George...

I stand corrected. Wrong war.

[GBCW 397]

there's nothing to be done. bombing breeds more isis. boots on the ground breeds more isis. if not isis, then whatever group forms out of this particular 'attempt'.

I am of the unpopular opinion that ISIS should not be bombed.

1. A caliphate would be a good thing, if history is any indicator. It would be a plus for stability in that region (after Israel is gone, that would be the necessary sacrifice here) and would turn the attentions of their disaffected away from the West (who they currently blame for all their misfortune) to the caliphate capital (presumably somewhere in modern day Syria or Iraq).

2. The big geopolitical story of the next century is the rise in China. Smaller middle eastern powers will cozy up to the Chinese; one large Islamic State won't. They will compete with China, which is a good thing in so many ways.

[GBCW 397]

Edit: ... rise *of China ...