Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama’s Plan for ISIS: Leave It for the Next President

Obama’s Plan for ISIS: Leave It for the Next President

Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all

As a direct result of Obama’s amateurish, quasi-idealistic, and completely ideological failings in Iraq, we will almost certainly end up sending ground troops back in order to undo the damage wrought by the failed Obama doctrine.

Obama knows this, of course, and his plan is to run out the clock rather than make the decision that needs to be—and will be—made by the next president.  The National Journal reports:

On using U.S. combat troops? In a detailed interview with The Atlantic, Obama made his view clear. “If they are not willing to fight for the security of their country, we cannot do that for them,” he said, but added that he’s committed to training Iraqis over a “multi-year” period.

How many, exactly, is “multi?” State Department official and ISIS expert Brett McGurk laid that out on NPR: “It’s a three-year campaign to degrade the organization.”

Three years marked from mid-2014, of course, falls after Jan. 20, 2017, the date Obama leaves office.

Translation: The strategy is to avoid sending ground troops for the remainder of his term. So stop asking.

…”In 2017, there will be a new commander in chief and someone else who will have a responsibility to evaluate the situation on the ground and determine what steps are necessary to continue to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, using the administration’s acronym for the Islamic State. “That’s something that we’ll leave to the next president.”

Considering what ISIS has accomplished in only one year, this gives ISIS an incredible amount of time to gather their strength in numbers, resources, experience, and conquered cities and lands.  ISIS has, relative to their gains in the past year, a great deal of time remaining to achieve their stated goals of obtaining nuclear weapons, invading Europe, and even making inroads here in the U. S.  Until January 2017, ISIS can continue—largely unchecked, courtesy of Obama—perpetrating their evil genocide against Jews, Christians, and anyone else who doesn’t embrace their caliphate.

But none of that matters to our current Commander in Chief.  He wanted troops out of Iraq no matter the cost, and he got it.  What happens in the wake of that disastrous mistake simply doesn’t matter to him.  He’s indifferent to the atrocities that ISIS perpetrates (as witnessed by his chastising Christians about getting on their “high horse” and by his nonchalant response to the beheading of Americans).

He’s created the mess in the Middle East by both action and inaction, yet he takes no responsibility at all for it, nor does he seem aware of the threat that ISIS poses not only to (relative) peace in the Middle East but to our European and Israeli allies.  And to us.

Generals Pataki and Dempsey, as well as President Bush, have clearly stated that the only way to combat ISIS effectively is on the ground.  The Hill reports:

Bush said he faced the “very difficult decision” as president to double-down and send additional U.S. troops to Iraq amid mounting casualties and eroding public support for the war.

“I think history will show that al-Qaida in Iraq was defeated,” said Bush, who in the interview described al Qaeda as “ISIS as far as I am concerned.”

“I chose the path of boots on the ground. We will see whether or not our government adjusts to the realities on the ground.”

The only way to defeat ISIS is to meet them on the battlefield . . . unfettered by restrictive and counterintuitive ROE’s that endanger our military.

According to the Washington Times, the spike in troop deaths can be directly attributed to stricter rules of engagement:

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Combat pilots currently fighting ISIS are experiencing intense frustration over their hands being tied by Obama administration red tape:

On second thought, maybe it’s a good thing that he’s running out the clock.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


LukeHandCool | June 13, 2015 at 6:37 pm

Whoever becomes the next president, I’m sure Obama will cry foul and say it’s not kosher for that person to moan about the problems they inherited from him.

Just like Bill Clinton left al Quaita for George W. Bush.

If the next president has any brains, he or she will be relentless in pointing out the blame on Obama for the problems he or she will be solving at the time.

If this new president is anyone other than Cruz/Walker/Paul/Fiorina, don’t count on it – but do count on a democrat president in 2020. The ignorance of half the US populace – and the corrupt media that has dumbed them down — them can be overcome. It just takes guts, something no one in the upper echelons of the GOP has any of.

but do count on a democrat president in 2020.

I doubt that the DemocRATs will have enough bench power to even field a decent candidate then. 2010 and 2014 wiped out all of those too

    Radegunda in reply to Stan25. | June 14, 2015 at 1:38 am

    Why would they need a decent candidate when the mass media will pull out all the stops to convince people that the Democrat is a saintly genius while the Republican is a scrooge and a moron?

Obama views kicking problems down the road as optimal. Note he seems almost proud that while he is ensuring Iran can go nuke at will, it is very doubtful they could or will do it in the next 586 days, after which he will be blaming his successor for everything.

The Chinese are moving on the key disputed islands in the middle of the key shipping lanes in the South China Sea, even though they are closer to both Vietnam and the Phillipines, at least, for the very same reason. They know Obama will not move to stop them if they act incrementally, and they are not yet prepared to retake Taiwan by force. Putin did the same with Crimea and is letting the heat die down in Europe – whose countries bear the brunt of sanctions – before making a late grab next year.

1. Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey* draws from the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism). * Dr. Lacey was a researcher and author for the Iraqi Perspectives Project (link).
2. Explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3. UN Recognizes ‘Major Changes’ In Iraq (link) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council.
4. Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit (link) by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan.
5. How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq (link) by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | June 15, 2015 at 3:01 pm

I’ve got a better plan.

Just just stuff ISIS down Obama’s throat…..

Midwest Rhino | June 15, 2015 at 6:04 pm

The Obama Legacy

letting ISIS rampage through the Middle East and Northern Africa,
putting Iran on the path to nukes,
open borders and illegal amnesty,
The Bear and Tiger turned loose

Dishonorable mentions for ten other destructive accomplishments.