Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Obama criticized for "not having a strategy."
WTF? How about that wonderful Bush strategy? How has that worked out?
I'd much rather have a President who thinks, consults with others and weighs all options before waging war.
And I appreciate his candor and honesty. It is STILL very refreshing after that damn Bush-Cheney regime.
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'm not kidding and I don't mean to dismiss or conflate the term with the gender based meme.
I believe that scholarly evidence is available to support the fear by white men that black men might ravage their white women.
As if women were property, another problem that hasn't gone away.
Anyway, I just now realized that the likes of Mitch McConnell are afraid of Barack's enormous tool.
Metaphor? I don't know.
I am, personally, in awe of it.
Intelligence, diplomacy and cool under pressure are a turn-on for me. 
"Impotent" is the PERFECT word for them!
Thanks, Cha! 
Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS
Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS
- instead focusing on a "Who lost Syria?" or "who lost Iraq?" story when in fact we never "had" either of them.
Think back to the speech Obama gave to the country when he spoke of the seriousness of the situation. At that point, ISIS was taking city after city and was threatening Baghdad itself. In addition, the Iraqis had failed to even start the process of selecting a government based on the then recent elections. Additionally, the existing government had essentially given no power at all to either the Sunnis or Kurds - something that had made ISIS progress easier.
I have to admit that, at that point, though I agreed that there could be no US military strategy that would "fix" this, I really did not think diplomacy could work either - though I have immense respect for both Obama and John Kerry, who Obama sent to try to work with the Iraqis to get them to form an inclusive government without supporting ANY potential Prime Minister.
Since then:
- US air strikes provided cover to break the seize of those stranded on the mountain by letting them safely escape with help of Kurds and the Iraqi forces. The US also dropped humanitarian goods from the US and allies that were desperately needed.
- Again, with US air cover, the Iraqis and Kurds prevented ISIS from controlling the area including the Mosul Dam.
- The Iraqi President named a man to be Prime Minister and asked him to start to form a government. Al Maliki, who most thought would not voluntarily step down, did just that.
These three achievements were significant and, given where we were when Obama spoke, were better than I would have expected. (Yes, the government is not formed and when it is even under the best intentions, it will take time to show real reforms. Yes, ISIS still commands a huge area and they are a threat.) Yet, the media was more concerned that the President, who did lead this, was on Martha's Vineyard for two weeks.
Then the story became James Foley. I have wondered why I have not seen anyone speculate whether it was ISIS's real defeats, the first after an amazing string of successes for them, that might have led them to brutally execute a man they had held for over a year. I wonder if it was done to 1) change the story - which it instantly did and 2) to make the Sunnis tribes who allied with them reconsider any possible turning against them if it looked like the tide was turning and that there could be a more inclusive Iraqi government. (both because of potential brutal consequences and stemming any story that the US was meeting with any success.)
Yesterday, the same combination of US air cover and the Kurds and Iraqis succeeded in saving another small town. Again US and allied countries' humanitarian goods were dropped. Yet, the coverage on the Sunday shows was all about Obama not doing enough. Feinstein, though a Democrat, was really NOT a balance on this. (Former Governor Richardson was - I think - the only one speaking in defense of Obama and in some coverage of his comments they mostly spoke of him as having supported Obama in 2008 as if this was politics!) In the print media, things were better. The NYT had both a McCain/Graham oped (predictably still arguing for aiding the moderate rebels in Syria and being more aggressive.) and an oped by Kerry explaining conceptually the administration's goals. (On the NYT site, the comments on McCain were devastatingly negative, where Kerry's were mostly cautiously positive or politely disagreeing.)
This morning, Alarabiya, a Saudi Arabian paper, had an interesting article that speaks of both the impact the US has had AND the problems likely to be faced. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/08/31/As-ISIS-fighters-begin-to-blend-in-defeating-them-no-easy-matter.html One point made was that, due to US airstrikes, ISIS was abandoning the Humvees they got when they looted military bases they overran. If this is true, while it could, as the article points out, make them harder to find, but common sense also says that not using them will make it harder for them to expand their area. ( Please consider the source, but the content is pretty interesting.)
Obama is taking a very rational, thoughtful approach here - and one that does not play well in the instant gratification world we live in. If you look at the three victories on the ground, they all completely follow what Obama spoke of as what we were willing to do. I hope that Obama and his administration have the courage and vision to act, when they see they could help, ignoring America's clear desire to withdraw internationally and, on the other side, the courage to ignore the McCains, Grahams and apparently, the Feinsteins, call for more aggressive military action. It is a brave path, which lacks the passionate followers on either extreme on this issue.
to karynnj:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025473880
Well done analysis by a thinking DUer. The link gives a '404' page. Never mind, because the OP is fine without it.
Is anyone else angry that the media is ignoring the real progress made against ISIS
- instead focusing on a "Who lost Syria?" or "who lost Iraq?" story when in fact we never "had" either of them.
Think back to the speech Obama gave to the country when he spoke of the seriousness of the situation. At that point, ISIS was taking city after city and was threatening Baghdad itself. In addition, the Iraqis had failed to even start the process of selecting a government based on the then recent elections. Additionally, the existing government had essentially given no power at all to either the Sunnis or Kurds - something that had made ISIS progress easier.
I have to admit that, at that point, though I agreed that there could be no US military strategy that would "fix" this, I really did not think diplomacy could work either - though I have immense respect for both Obama and John Kerry, who Obama sent to try to work with the Iraqis to get them to form an inclusive government without supporting ANY potential Prime Minister.
Since then:
- US air strikes provided cover to break the seize of those stranded on the mountain by letting them safely escape with help of Kurds and the Iraqi forces. The US also dropped humanitarian goods from the US and allies that were desperately needed.
- Again, with US air cover, the Iraqis and Kurds prevented ISIS from controlling the area including the Mosul Dam.
- The Iraqi President named a man to be Prime Minister and asked him to start to form a government. Al Maliki, who most thought would not voluntarily step down, did just that.
These three achievements were significant and, given where we were when Obama spoke, were better than I would have expected. (Yes, the government is not formed and when it is even under the best intentions, it will take time to show real reforms. Yes, ISIS still commands a huge area and they are a threat.) Yet, the media was more concerned that the President, who did lead this, was on Martha's Vineyard for two weeks.
Then the story became James Foley. I have wondered why I have not seen anyone speculate whether it was ISIS's real defeats, the first after an amazing string of successes for them, that might have led them to brutally execute a man they had held for over a year. I wonder if it was done to 1) change the story - which it instantly did and 2) to make the Sunnis tribes who allied with them reconsider any possible turning against them if it looked like the tide was turning and that there could be a more inclusive Iraqi government. (both because of potential brutal consequences and stemming any story that the US was meeting with any success.)
Yesterday, the same combination of US air cover and the Kurds and Iraqis succeeded in saving another small town. Again US and allied countries' humanitarian goods were dropped. Yet, the coverage on the Sunday shows was all about Obama not doing enough. Feinstein, though a Democrat, was really NOT a balance on this. (Former Governor Richardson was - I think - the only one speaking in defense of Obama and in some coverage of his comments they mostly spoke of him as having supported Obama in 2008 as if this was politics!) In the print media, things were better. The NYT had both a McCain/Graham oped (predictably still arguing for aiding the moderate rebels in Syria and being more aggressive.) and an oped by Kerry explaining conceptually the administration's goals. (On the NYT site, the comments on McCain were devastatingly negative, where Kerry's were mostly cautiously positive or politely disagreeing.)
This morning, Alarabiya, a Saudi Arabian paper, had an interesting article that speaks of both the impact the US has had AND the problems likely to be faced. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/08/31/As-ISIS-fighters-begin-to-blend-in-defeating-them-no-easy-matter.html One point made was that, due to US airstrikes, ISIS was abandoning the Humvees they got when they looted military bases they overran. If this is true, while it could, as the article points out, make them harder to find, but common sense also says that not using them will make it harder for them to expand their area. ( Please consider the source, but the content is pretty interesting.)
Obama is taking a very rational, thoughtful approach here - and one that does not play well in the instant gratification world we live in. If you look at the three victories on the ground, they all completely follow what Obama spoke of as what we were willing to do. I hope that Obama and his administration have the courage and vision to act, when they see they could help, ignoring America's clear desire to withdraw internationally and, on the other side, the courage to ignore the McCains, Grahams and apparently, the Feinsteins, call for more aggressive military action. It is a brave path, which lacks the passionate followers on either extreme on this issue.
to karynnj:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025473880
Well done analysis by a thinking DUer. The link gives a '404' page. Never mind, because the OP is fine without it.