2 ms·

Ironically, ISIS had the same problem that the U.S. did in Iraq: An inability to politically and militarily secure the territory it captured. If you can't hold

Ironically, ISIS had the same problem that the U.S. did in Iraq: An inability to politically and militarily secure the territory it captured. If you can't hold the territory for the long-term, militarily and politically, you are wasting lives and money in capturing it. Regarding the U.S.: If we talk about what 'could be' or 'maybe' or what we 'imagine', as the parent comment does, we can make any claim. Based on what the military and experts have consistently said and on the facts on the ground: It's the same plan, working as designed; ISIS' loss of territory did not coincide with Trump taking office, it began in 2016. > ISIS also grew on his [Obama's] watch That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. > we knew about it [ISIS] and maybe even allowed it grow, in order to destabilize Syria. Starting form the fundamentals of international relations (as I understand them), as the global, status quo superpower the U.S. wants stability globally, which protects the U.S.-led international order; ISIS is a threat to global stability. The U.S. has particularly supported stability in that region, to secure the global oil supply (essential to global stability and the U.S. economy) and also to protect the region's status quo U.S.-supported power structure, based in recent decades on the Saudis, Israel and Egypt. The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: The Americans even have allied in places with enemies including the Iranians (including in Iraq), Russians, Assad, and even other small fundamentalist groups against ISIS. That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, however. ISIS began in Syria, outside of the U.S.'s sphere at the time, and then spread to Iraq. The U.S.'s options in Iraq at the time were limited. The Iraqi government refused to allow U.S. forces in the country (that was the deal agreed to by Bush and executed by Obama, withdrawing U.S. forces). Also, the Iraqi army may have been expected to put up a fight instead of simply fleeing when faced with what were (IIRC) inferior forces.

rdtsc 9y ago
> That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. Of course it does. If Obama was supporting and involved in propping up Syrian "rebels" in the area, with groups of people and equipment switching sides, he was not effectively 100% committed to wiping it out. So the strategy was the same, but pumping resources fighting Assad in the region on another hand was undermining that strategy. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels/exclusive-cia-backed-aid-for-syrian-rebels-frozen-after-islamist-attack-sources-idUSKBN1601BD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebe... http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/i... > The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: Right but it only took until Trump was elected to stop feeding "rebels" fighting Assad. Well at least that's what the press releases say. So U.S. actions were a schizophrenic and certainly don't say anything "clearly". > That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, Obama says it did http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/i... . He blames CIA backhandedly: "The ability of ISIL to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," [Obama told Zakaria]
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Trump has been doing more to support the rebels (I'm not sure why the parent put that word in quotes) than Obama. Until very recently, at least, the U.S. under Trump has been using rebel groups as ground forces in the fight against ISIS. Obama declined to arm the rebels in any significant way, in part because weapons tend to end up in the wrong hands, and he great restricted air support to protect civilians. People on the right criticized him heavily for both and Trump loosened restrictions on both. I saw reports that the rebels welcomed Trump's election in order to be rid of Obama's restrictions. I've never seen anyone with expertise say that arms sent to the rebels significantly helped ISIS, or that supporting the rebels undermined the fight against ISIS. I did see plenty that indicated that the support of the rebels was ineffective and/or insufficient. >> That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, > Obama says it did You said in the GGP, "I don't believe that something like ISIS took us completely by surprise", and I was allowing that you might be right.

rdtsc 9y ago

> That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. Of course it does. If Obama was supporting and involved in propping up Syrian "rebels" in the area, with groups of people and equipment switching sides, he was not effectively 100% committed to wiping it out. So the strategy was the same, but pumping resources fighting Assad in the region on another hand was undermining that strategy. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels/exclusive-cia-backed-aid-for-syrian-rebels-frozen-after-islamist-attack-sources-idUSKBN1601BD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebe... http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/i... > The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: Right but it only took until Trump was elected to stop feeding "rebels" fighting Assad. Well at least that's what the press releases say. So U.S. actions were a schizophrenic and certainly don't say anything "clearly". > That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, Obama says it did http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/i... . He blames CIA backhandedly: "The ability of ISIL to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," [Obama told Zakaria]

forapurpose 9y ago
Trump has been doing more to support the rebels (I'm not sure why the parent put that word in quotes) than Obama. Until very recently, at least, the U.S. under Trump has been using rebel groups as ground forces in the fight against ISIS. Obama declined to arm the rebels in any significant way, in part because weapons tend to end up in the wrong hands, and he great restricted air support to protect civilians. People on the right criticized him heavily for both and Trump loosened restrictions on both. I saw reports that the rebels welcomed Trump's election in order to be rid of Obama's restrictions. I've never seen anyone with expertise say that arms sent to the rebels significantly helped ISIS, or that supporting the rebels undermined the fight against ISIS. I did see plenty that indicated that the support of the rebels was ineffective and/or insufficient. >> That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, > Obama says it did You said in the GGP, "I don't believe that something like ISIS took us completely by surprise", and I was allowing that you might be right.