He either had bad advisers & or Generals, or he chose to ignore them. My bet is on ignore. I'm sure he had some yes men saying what he wanted to hear, but he should have been able to analyze the situation much better than he did. From the start I balked at his comment, knowing what I knew about the men who were in charge of ISIS. They were comprised largely of men who were part of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Islamic Terrorist or just unstable?
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
The men in ISIS(from Saddam's regime) were less ruthless and kept in check by Saddam Hussein because of the public sentiment about his regime, and also kept in check due to Iran's efforts. Iran's efforts were more diffuse than when Saddam Hussein was in power.(focused more on keeping Bashar Al Assad in power, just as we were too focused on toppling him) Obama left them to their own designs until way too late in the game. Bashar Al Assad unwittingly played decoy in allowing ISIS to be unchecked. And golly gee, they were worse than they had ever been in Saddam Hussein's regime. For that we have Obama to blame. Oh and by the way, we never did get Bashar Al Assad out of power. Every bad decison Obama has made in the Middle East has been related to Iran in some form or fashion, including the horrible lifting of sanctions on Iran. Iraq was GW Bush's albatross, Iran is Obama's. It was bad during Bush's presidency, now it's worse in Obama's. Iran is a much worse enemy to make mistakes with than Iraq ever was.
Last edited:
I would only add that our decisions and actions/inactions in Syria in attempting to destabilize that country while allowing ISIS to capture their oil fields and refineries and transport and sell that crude to Turkey probably played as key of a role as any in the ability of ISIS to project their terrorism across the globe. Hard to explain why we would sit back and not only allow ISIS to operate those refineries but watch those convoys carry crude to sell knowing all that money was going into funding that terrorist group...especially considering we were bombing Assad forces nearby.
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why we allowed those ISIS convoys to transport that crude month after month. For that matter, why we allowed ISIS to operate those refineries knowing they were funding their operations from the sale of that oil. Makes zero sense especially considering we were bombing Assad forces next door.
Thanks. This could be why critics latch on to a few words such as radical Islamic terrorists or junior league, because it is short, specific, and no one likes that ISIS or ISIL is still a threat.
Is it fair to say that Obama's critics presume that a competent president would have eliminated threats from the middle east by now?
At the risk of boring people by repeating, I think this video provides a much needed perspective. http://www.refinery29.com/2016/06/113764/amaryllis-fox-cia-agent-video?
Last edited:
Could you provide a brief synopsis of the video and how it's applicable to our decision to allow ISIS to grow into the force we see today? Can't watch at work. I read the narrative and couldn't following your reasoning.
I believe that this is the second time you have posted that video, WATU.
You really don't need to destroy the refinery. If the crude comes in on pipeline the pumping stations will do. If it is trucked in then the above mentioned trucks are fine targets.
If the good guys [assuming there are some] win we can leave them a few things to make money from for a real country. If not we can still take out the refinery then.
ISIS is our enemy not everyone in Syria.
You really don't need to destroy the refinery. If the crude comes in on pipeline the pumping stations will do. If it is trucked in then the above mentioned trucks are fine targets.
If the good guys [assuming there are some] win we can leave them a few things to make money from for a real country. If not we can still take out the refinery then.
ISIS is our enemy not everyone in Syria.
Agreed. Go back 14 years or so ago on this board and I made the same argument as one of the reasons not to invade Iraq which started us down this path...and was and is used as evidence that the US is at war with Islam in recruiting by radical groups.
You may disagree with Obama's policy vis a vis Assad and in other areas, but as you point out, we know so little about what goes into those decisions that it is speculation. I'm not arguing that mistakes haven't been made; given the complexity there undoubtedly were and are. But at this point, we may not have a clear idea what was a mistake and what wasn't.
They say generals err by using what worked in the last war to fight the current one. Maybe President's do too. Dubya yearned to finish the job that this father didn't by taking out Saddam, and perhaps Obama is playing small ball because of the damage the Iraq/Afghan invasions caused to our finances, values, military, and national appetite for large scale ground wars.
I would understand the small ball argument except for the fact that he was already killing Assad forces in Syria while allowing Isis to flourish in the very same country. We didn't need a large scale ground war. We simply needed to cut off Isis ability to sell oil to Turkey. A much simpler and less involved from a military purpose that what we were doing with our war against Assad during the same time frame.
Yes, remember Paul Bremer?
"Bremer's role as the head of the CPA is notable for being the subject of much criticism. Large sums of money have been reported to have gone missing under Bremer's leadership.[17] Bremer's attempts at privatizing much of Iraq's infrastructure and mineral wealth were also highly criticized[18] and the decision, apparently formulated in the office of the Secretary of Defense, to disband the Iraqi Army is widely credited for fueling the Iraqi insurgency against the American occupation."
You guys clearly know more about the details of Obama's handling of the middle east than I do, especially all the mistakes he made and continues to make. But my perspective continues to be that the middle east he was handed is hugely complex and over all he handled it as well as anyone could be expected to. Maybe he has been too careful or cautious, but I'd prefer that to the approach of the preceding administration.
