U.S. will be ramping up airstrikes soon - in Iraq

There were thousand of sorties with U.S. air power over the region even before Obama did his double talks. Obama's plan to attack ISIS = 3rd. war in Iraq, and his Arabs coalition seems like another blunder of his failed policy. Why don't those Arab nations look themselves in the mirror to see any ISIS images in the reflection? They have military might and money to eliminate ISIS , don't they? or maybe they are incapable of dealing with their own monsters! And that is a shame.

This is nothing but a feelgod-campaign that wastes money and ressources. It won´t change anything on the ground.

Looks I'm going to have to make room now for another campaign medal/ribbon...

WilliB - so wars started by your Hero george bush that waste money and resources are cool, but conflicts entered inti by Obama that waste money and resources are not cool?

Reading you loud and clear, lol! :-)

"so wars started by your Hero george bush that waste money and resources are cool, but conflicts entered inti by Obama that waste money and resources are not cool?"

Actually, SushiSake3(?), that war was started by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, and then, incredibly, was left in power by George Bush Sr.

SushiSake3:

" so wars started by your Hero george bush that waste money and resources are cool, "

Where do you get the idea from that George Bush is my "hero"? If you think everyone who criticized Obamas misguided policy automatically admires Bush, your world is a bit too simplistic.

In the event, the current disaster with ISIS is clearly a result of Obamas support for Sunni Jihadis across the region, so these attempts to bring in GWB are really getting tiring.

Guaranteed Iraq War III will only what is terrible in the Middle East worse.

In the event, the current disaster with ISIS is clearly a result of Obamas support for Sunni Jihadis across the region...

No, that would be McCain, who never fears to rush in where the wise are wary to tread. Moderate Sunni support is an absolute requirement. The plan is that these moderates can be peeled away from the extremists, rather iffy, but the reality is that it is this or more boots on the ground.

There are bad and worse choices here, the key difference being avoiding siding with either side effecting against long-term stability. That of course includes extremist groups such as the ISIS, but also non-Sunni entities such as the Assad regime - unless the US wants to alienate the Sunni for another generation.

Arranging these factors will take much time - and this is precisely why Obama specifically stated that the intervention will be lengthy - and there will be great backslides along with incremental progress - but if any other bleacher-watcher has a better plan, well, get in line for the Noble Peace Prize.

Laguna:

" No, that would be McCain, who never fears to rush in where the wise are wary to tread. "

McCain would like to solve every problem in the world by bombing it. But McCain did not make the decisions that led to this, Obama did. I don´t know how some people to manage to praise Obama but at the same time claim he is not responsible for the things he does.

" Moderate Sunni support is an absolute requirement. "

That would indeed be great, but it only exists in the phantasy word of wishful thinking. In the real world, the armed opposition to Assad (and previously to Gaddafi) is consists of radicals of the ilk of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS:

" Arranging these factors will take much time - and this is precisely why Obama specifically stated that the intervention will be lengthy "

Since he is support the same jihadis that he is bombing next door, it will not only be lenghty, but endless. Hasn`t he learned anything from his misguided support for "democracy" in Libya, Tunesia, Egypt, and Syria? Err... no need to answer really.

Call in the drones. Kill all the jihadis, regardless of their sectarian affiliation.

"This is nothing but a feelgod-campaign"

Better that than a "feel-horrible campaign" like the gruesome 2004 battles for Fallujah under George Junior's stewardship.

That would indeed be great, but it only exists in the phantasy word of wishful thinking. In the real world, the armed opposition to Assad (and previously to Gaddafi) is consists of radicals of the ilk of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS

That may be true, and unfolding events will eventually prove it. However, there is one unshakable fact: the US "owns" Iraq (thanks to Bush & Co.) in a way it does not Syria (or Egypt, Libya or Tunesia). In other words, if things go downhill in Syria but the Sunnis in Iraq see their future with a moderate, modern Baghdad-based Iraq, Syria would not be too difficult to isolate, and the US could let their revolution take its course.

My point is that the latter, fallback strategy would become impossible the moment the US supported Assad.

@sushi

so wars started by your Hero george bush that waste money and resources are cool, but conflicts entered inti by Obama that waste money and resources are not cool?

Reading you loud and clear, lol! :-)

Do you know why? If Obummer wouldn't have started to begin cutting our military and allocating the money to his Ueber entitlement programs maybe we could amass something. Out of the 40 army brigades we have, only 4 are combat ready. None of the Arab countries want to get involved and yet, they are all worried about ISIS especially the Egyptians (problems with the Muslim Brotherhood), the Saudis (Don't trust Obama, can't blame them on that one, but might, might let us use their airbase ), Jordan( They have their own problems with refugees) and Turkey(Flat out, NO) Europe, HELL NO! So much for Obama's coalition and even that he can't get right. After his so called RED LINE stance and scolding Iran about NOT allowing them to make a bomb and telling Assad he has to go and then in the end, not following up on any of his rhetoric, who in their right mind can trust someone like that? And then add, we just don't have the money for that is right, Obama doesn't want to cut any of his outrageous programs, he doesn't want to declare war, but the bombing will increase so we ARE technically at war, but he doesn't want to say and admit that, because what he is doing is in reality, the Bush doctrine of "preemptive" that means, he is adapting a Bush strategy. I know he went into this kicking and screaming and with an election coming up real fast....

But if you really want to go back within recent memory and really want to blame someone. Blame the French and the British for creating the lines and borders of the Sykes Picot agreement, then Saddam, Iran, Bush and then Obama, so give credit where credit is due.

...the Bush doctrine of "preemptive" that means, he is adapting a Bush strategy.

Preemptive. Try explaining that to the Yazidis or the Kurds.

Laguna:

" That may be true, and unfolding events will eventually prove it. However, there is one unshakable fact: the US "owns" Iraq (thanks to Bush & Co.) in a way it does not Syria "

No, the US (aka Obama) does own Syria, because he has been supporting the Sunni uprising against Assad. You can bet your democratic voter book that under Assad, there would not be ISIS in Syria.

So, predictably, large parts of Syria were taken over by radical Sunnis, and also predictably, they started to merge with the Sunnis in neighbouring Iraq.

You seem to forget that fundamentally, ISIS is a result of the Obama-produced breakdown of Syria. Without open borders to Syria, there would be no ISIS caliphate in Iraq.

That Obama now wants to double down on this failure and support the same Sunni jihadis that created this mess, is simply mind-boggling.

Oh yes, I forgot.... he only wants to support the "moderate Sunni rebels". Except that they only exist in his imagination.

No, the US (aka Obama) does own Syria, because he has been supporting the Sunni uprising against Assad.

Ah - So McCain's greatest broadside against Obama's Syrian policy - that he did not, in fact, support moderate forces against Assad - is false? And the complaint of moderate anti-Assad forces - that they were starved of funds, while the ISIS were flush with funds from Gulf Sunni countries _ is also false? And similar Kurdish complaints are also false?

Okay, I'm with you! Obama lost Syria by funding Assad's enemies while simultaneously short-changing them! Good GOP line: can't lose either way as long as people don't think, which is always a foolproof way to rile the GOP base.

Be that as it may, there is the future to consider, and your post offers no considerations in that respect.

Obama's new war of bombing small jihadi trucks will only serve as a recruiting tool for ISIS. The latest reports show that ISIS's army has swelled to over 31,000 troops since Obama started his new Iraq War - supposedly with no boots on the ground (don't tell anyone but there are now over 1,800 pairs of American boots on the ground in Iraq).

Arranging these factors will take much time - and this is precisely why Obama specifically stated that the intervention will be lengthy - and there will be great backslides along with incremental progress - but if any other bleacher-watcher has a better plan, well, get in line for the Noble Peace Prize.

So before Obama was president he beat his domestic political opponents over the head demanding a timeline to end the wars. Now that he is president he doesn't want any timelines? Meanwhile his timeline for ending the war in Afghanistan remains. Obama can't seem to reconcile a thought on one side of his brain with one on the other.

Oh speaking of bleacher watchers, isn't it ironic that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for shouting from the sidelines to end war at a time when he had no responsibility for anything other than his own political ambition? I guess Obama is earning his Peace Prize now after invading Libya, re-invading Iraq after having withdrawn all combat troops, and now in the process of invading Syria. The irony is quite amazing.

Laguna:

" Ah - So McCain's greatest broadside against Obama's Syrian policy - that he did not, in fact, support moderate forces against Assad - is false? "

Yes, it is false. How does that matter? Obama is president, not McCain. Why do you keep bringing up that guy?

" And the complaint of moderate anti-Assad forces - that they were starved of funds, while the ISIS were flush with funds from Gulf Sunni countries _ is also false? " You are repeating yourself. Yes, the fairy tale about "moderate Anti-Assad forces" is false, and has always been. Remember, it was the "moderate anti-Gaddafi forces" which murdered your embassador in Bengazi, too.

" And similar Kurdish complaints are also false? "

The Kurds are not Arabs and have managed to build a stable and moderate country in the areas they control. Christian and Yazidi refugees are safe from genocide and gang-rape in Kurdistan. The Kurds are one group that deserves support.... but Obama has been tepid about Kurdish independence.

Oh speaking of bleacher watchers, isn't it ironic that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for shouting from the sidelines to end war at a time when he had no responsibility for anything other than his own political ambition? I guess Obama is earning his Peace Prize now after invading Libya, re-invading Iraq after having withdrawn all combat troops, and now in the process of invading Syria. The irony is quite amazing.

Not one item in the above is true. Obama, as a member of the state senate in Illinois, expressed opposition to the Iraq invasion, calling it a foolish decision by President Bush; and when he joined the U.S. senate in 2004, he voted against the surge and against additional funding for expanding the war. Obama never "invaded" Libya. Obama is not "re-invading Iraq" unless you consider the American presence in Okinawa a "re-invasion" of Japan: This time, America is invited. Also, no, America under Obama will never, ever invade Syria (while America under a hypothetical McCain administration would probably be already knee-deep in).

Finally, Obama did not award himself the Peace Prize; I at the time considered the award inappropriate and still do, but perhaps he's earning it.

Laguna:

" And the complaint of moderate anti-Assad forces - that they were starved of funds, while the ISIS were flush with funds from Gulf Sunni countries _ is also false? "

You are repeating yourself. Yes, the fairy tale about "moderate Anti-Assad forces" is false, and has always been. Remember, it was the "moderate anti-Gaddafi forces" which murdered your embassador in Bengazi, too.

You seem to assume that just becauce McCain is clueless, every other GOP member is too. That is not true. Fore example, Rand Paul nails it in this article:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958

Successive U.S presidents from Bush I to Obama have screwed the proverbial pooch in the Middle East. Simply, the U.S. has lost focus and no longer focuses on pure balance of power politics that will bolster American power and secure it's interests. Instead, the U.S. formulates its foreign policy on moralism and a do-gooder ideology, which only serves to feed the beast. What the U.S. should be doing is allow the conflict in the Middle East to run its course by letting the Saudi's and Iranians have it out. This will allow the U.S. to focus on the true threat to American interests, China. All the focus on the Middle East drains American power and credibility while China sits on the sidelines licking its chops waiting for the day it can push the U.S. out of the Asia.

Morality has no places in international politics, and until the U.S. realize this it doesn't matter who is President, U.S. foreign policy will continue to be marked by failure.

Ha ha! Paul hits if on TWO heads, as usual. Let's look:

In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government.

Right. Obama was so "eager" for intervention that he immediately backed down once the source of his "red line" - chemical weapons - was eliminated (for the most part completely and successfully) despite no doubt knowing the beating he would take from the tasks.

To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way....

Here, Paul is admitting that Obama did not in fact arm Syrian rebels. On the other hand:

This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad.

Okay: America shouldn't side with Syrian rebels, nor should it side with Assad. What's left?

A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.

Now, in the abstract, that is a very rational statement! Can we apply this concretely to our current dilemma? Nope! But we can make an abstract statement that, ironically, encapsulates what Obama is trying to do:

The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.

And by "recent" here, we mean the invasion of Iraq.

Laguna:

" Here, Paul is admitting that Obama did not in fact arm Syrian rebels. "

No, he is not. He is pointing out that Obamas policy was and is to degrade Assad. That others like McCain and Hillary are even worse does not change that.

" America shouldn't side with Syrian rebels, nor should it side with Assad. What's left? "

Did you read the article, or just scan it for rethorical points? RP points out that the West does not have to "side with" Assad, but we can leave him alone to deal with the Jihadis in his country.

" And by "recent" here, we mean the invasion of Iraq. "

No, what is "recent" is the disastrous US bombing of Libya which handed Libya to Al Quaeda, and the equally disastrous policy of helping the Sunni Jihadis against Assad, which means that now ISIS has their capitol city in Raqqa, Syria.

What is up with that gigantic black hole in your memory, which covers all events since GWB invaded Iraq? That was then, and to his credit, GWB at least baby-sat the disaster instead of simply handing power to Al Quaeda/ISIS.

He is pointing out that Obamas policy was and is to degrade Assad.

And that makes his policy different from which modern president? You're evading the key point: for the greater part, Obama has stuck to the very strategy you espouse in your following statement:

RP points out that the West does not have to "side with" Assad, but we can leave him alone to deal with the Jihadis in his country.

That has been the essence of Obama's strategy, and will likely continue to be so if so-called "reliable" Syrian rebels do not fall in line with the moderate Sunnis he hopes to draw out in Iraq - precisely by not siding with any faction, Shia or Sunni.

WilliB: You seem to assume that just becauce McCain is clueless, every other GOP member is too. That is not true. Fore example, Rand Paul nails it in this article:

Paul is the exception in the Republican party and I give him kudos for sticking to his guns. But if you want to see history as it unfolded, not the "WilliB" version, just look at the articles from 2 years ago:

GOP Debate Brings Out Tough Talk on Syria (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ryan-mauro/candidates-join-al-qaeda-in-supporting-syria-coup/)

Three of the four Republican presidential candidates endorsed regime change in Syria during last night’s debate, with Ron Paul being the lone exception. Rick Santorum described Syria as a “puppet state of Iran” and said “we could do no worse” than the Assad regime. Newt Gingrich was more specific and said the U.S. should covertly arm the Syrian rebels so they can topple the regime. Mitt Romney said that Syria is “Iran’s route to the sea” and that the revolution is something that the U.S. must “grab hold of.”

You'll find hundreds and hundreds of articles where Republicans supported the US supporting the rebels. Which brings me to the next point: the articles consistently show Obama as reluctant in giving much of any support to the rebels. Which was, of course, the Republican's reason for criticizing him.

May 2012: "The White House has rejected arming rebel groups, saying it does not know enough about them and does not want to “further militarize the situation.”

You can do the search yourself to find hundreds of articles saying the same thing. Obama eventually supported smaller groups of rebels with things like radios and medical kits, but obviously went nowhere near the level of support Republicans wanted him to give. I believe the criticism of Obama at the time was that he wasn't showing "leadership" because he was sitting on the sidelines.

Fast forward to 2014, and WilliB would have us believe that the rebels took these radios and medical kits and took over Syria and now Iraq. All because of Obama's steadfast and reckless support of ISIS....heh.

I suppose I could have written this a long time ago but it's hard to muster the energy required to prove someone wrong when they've obviously going out of their way to distort reality, and obviously you'll just continue to do the same anyway. But after seeing dozens if not hundreds of posts of your trying to make your version of reality stick, I figured it was time to step in and give other readers a history lesson. You should reset your counter to zero now.

WIlliB: the West does not have to "side with" Assad, but we can leave him alone to deal with the Jihadis in his country.

Just what Obama really did.

Obama never "invaded" Libya.

So military action led by the US that resulted in the overthrow of Gaddafi wasn't in your opinion even a military operation? Now Libya is a terrorist state. Obama broke Libya - isn't he now responsible for fixing it? Of course no one cares about the Libyan people now - there is no political gain in that.

Obama is not "re-invading Iraq" unless you consider the American presence in Okinawa a "re-invasion" of Japan: This time, America is invited.

America never left Okinawa since the end of WWII. Obama left Iraq in 2011 claiming a great success. Now, Obama has demanded the ouster of the democratically elected Maliki government and installed his own Iraqi leader. This Obama approved leader then approved America's re-entry into the country in a combat role. A role that Congress has not approved. He needs to get the support of the nation to engage in warfare - he insisted on it only last year. Now he is avoiding a vote in Congress. It makes no sense.

Also, no, America under Obama will never, ever invade Syria (while America under a hypothetical McCain administration would probably be already knee-deep in).

The day the first bombs fall and the first special ops teams arrive in Syria you will be proven incorrect. McCain has been proven correct by the events that have taken place since Obama declared victory and brought the troops home. Now Obama is sending them back because of his failed Iraqi/Syria policy. Does Iraq look like a reliable and stable nation today? Not with ISIS in control of vast territory and running local governments and collecting taxes. Obama should have listened to Hillary and his entire national security team a few years ago before the situation got out of hand.

Finally, Obama did not award himself the Peace Prize; I at the time considered the award inappropriate and still do, but perhaps he's earning s it.

Never said he awarded it to himself. But he won it because he promised not to do all of the military actions that he is now undertaking in the Middle East. Is his starting wars in Libya and Syria, and re-starting a war in Iraq your idea of earning the Nobel Peace Prize? I hardly think the Nobel committee would award this years prize for his multiple bombing campaigns and for destabilizing the Middle East. But who knows, they were dumb enough to give it to him for not achieving anything, maybe they will give it to him again for bombing half the Middle East back to the stone age.

So military action led by the US that resulted in the overthrow of Gaddafi wasn't in your opinion even a military operation? Now Libya is a terrorist state. Obama broke Libya - isn't he now responsible for fixing it? Of course no one cares about the Libyan people now - there is no political gain in that.

I don't think the U.S. is solely to blame for the Libya debacle. I would place the blame on the UN and its intention to make the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) and international norm by which to conduct humanitarian interventions. In the Libya case, R2P was invoked, given legal sanction by the UNSC, and the mission conducted by NATO, all of which ended up making a bad situation much worse. The whole concept of R2P is a joke in my book as we'll never get states to set aside their national interests and engage in interventions on pure humanitarian and human security grounds. Libya proved this.

True the US played a leading role, but it isn't solely to blame. Besides, it was the French that were the most insistent the R2P be invoked and implemented in Libya because French national interests in Northern Africa were at stake. The intense focus on the US is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

America Gov is going around this in the wrong way "maybe". They are only training them, and will slowly arm the rebels in Syria. That will take time, and time mean's they adapt to it/ the strategy's and the fighting. What are they going to do when they hit the city's and there fighters are in every house? America can't kill 100k civilians and blow up all houses, so Air support is only to stop an advance. After that, its cleaver strategy/tactics, to draw them "out".

Personally American troops need to go in hard and fast, surround there main city strong hold, and kill them off. This plan now........ Is the wrong way around. It's going in hard "as" your arming the rebels, then take out the trash. Once the trash is taken out, then rebels move in, to stop the trash from building back up.

For a start American troops need to kill as many as they can, so on an assault on the city needs to be clever to draw them out. I would look for a route that gives the IS some hiding areas "but" nothing we can't just drop some bomb on to kill them.... Trees rocks and so on. Ether way I would just draw them out into a trap. I would make the guided bombs miss all their targets and have the troops pull back "slowly" as if the IS is beating them back "there for" they will send large numbers forward "thinking" there repelling an attack, but in fact..........It's a trap. So now we will see all guided bombs, stopping them from going back into the city area "houses" for cover, and will see a swarm of troops dropped from the choppers and so on, surround them and breaking them up, into small groups "out" in the open. This way choppers can swarm in also.

Now we can move into the city. Mass fighters have been killed in a trap on different sides "not just 1 side" and they have significant casualty/losses. Now the troops need troop need to use the same smoke a guy told Israel to use, years ago. It burns hot and stops all inferred from working :). You can move tanks in and troops "without" inferred weapons working. It was very successful, "but" if it gets on civilians, it can badly burn them. Troops will pre plan the attack "Knowing" what areas to use it, and what areas not to. You can even use that Burning smoke to cover your sides. If its to the sides you can focus on a forward attack, and know attack can come "directly" from the sides. It's like being able to stop being "flanked" from the side/sides.

For a pre plan invasion, it will be looking at all the roads and what roads the civilians drive on. There can't be IED pressure plat bombs on the roads, as they use them. Jamming devices for the rest, then enter "only" at night time, to see any enemies hiding with wired IED bombs. Things like stun grenade's as you clear out the houses, even sound weapons and heat weapons to help.

I could be here for hours but f that. something like that would help. I don't get paid so they can think it up lol.