White House reportedly planning years-long campaign to destroy ISIS

[orenbus]

The Obama administration is reportedly preparing a campaign to destroy the Islamic State militant group that could outlast the president's remaining time in office, according to a published report.

The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials believe will require at least three years of sustained effort.

The first phase, airstrikes against Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is already under way in Iraq, where U.S. aircraft have launched 143 attacks since August 8. The second phase involves an intensified effort to train, advise, and equip the Iraqi Army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and any Sunni tribesmen willing to fight their ISIS co-religionists. The Times reports that this second phase will begin sometime after Iraq forms a new government, which could happen this week.

The third, and most politically fraught phase of the campaign, according to The Times, would require airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria. Last month, the government of Bashar Assad in Damascus warned the Obama administration not to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without its permission.

Obama was scheduled to outline his plan in a meeting Tuesday with House and Senate leaders before addressing the nation in a speech Wednesday, the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. A senior Obama administration official told Fox News imminent, new military action in either Iraq or Syria was not expected to be announced in Wednesday's speech. A senior White House official told Fox News that Obama's primary aim will be to update the American public on what the strategy is to deal with the militant group, saying the administration wants "people to understand how he's approaching this."

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," Obama vowed that the United States would go "on the offensive" against the militants, who have seized broad swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq over the summer.

The interview was conducted over the weekend after the president returned from a two-day NATO summit in Wales, where the U.S. and nine of its European allies agreed to take on the militants due to the terror threat they pose. Secretary of State John Kerry is due to travel to the Middle East this month in an effort to secure the backing of Arab states for an anti-ISIS campaign, while Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was due to arrive in Turkey on Monday to press that country's leadership for support. Among the issues discussed will be the possibility of closing the country's border with Syria, which has been a popular route for Western-born fighters looking to join ISIS.

On Sunday, the head of the 22-member Arab League urged the group's members to make a "clear and firm decision for a comprehensive confrontation" with "cancerous and terrorist" groups. Nabil Elaraby called ISIS a threat to the existence of Iraq and its neighbors and "one of the examples of the challenges that are violently shaking the Arab world, and one the Arab League, regrettably, has not been able to confront."

It wasn't immediately clear what steps the Arab League would take in supporting the West's campaign against ISIS, and reaching a consensus on how to move could be complicated by Arab world rivalries and member countries' different spheres of influence. A draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press offered only routine condemnation of terrorist groups operating in the region. It also called on its member states, which include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to improve information-sharing and legal expertise in combating terrorism, and to prevent the paying of ransom to militants.

The Times reported that White House officials acknowledge that even if European and Arab countries offer their support for operations in Iraq, getting them to agree to possible operations in Syria would be much more difficult. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that the Obama administration is weighing all options for pursuing ISIS in that country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-destroy-isis/

[69360]

Of all the stupid $#@!.

We already trained and equipped the Iraqi army. They ran away like little girls and IS has all their weapons now.

Obama would need permission from Assad as well as Putin and Iran to bomb inside Syria without starting WW3.

[enhanced_deficit]

White House SWC puppet mastered by Zionist lobbies will be in no rush take out ISIS Jihadis as long as they are attacking enemies of Israel.

ISIS and Israel to attack Hezbullah in Lebanon

First release of ISIS execution video came from an ex Israeli soldier Rita Katz

Israel's plan was to bomb Western targets, make it seem as though Egypt was behind the attacks
Nov. 11, 2009
The agents were told "to undermine the West's trust in the [Egyptian] government by causing public insecurity" while concealing Israel's role in the sabotage.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...s-later-1.4385

Poll: A question for those who think Obama team helped create ISIS Jihadi group

[kcchiefs6465]

Of all the stupid $#@!.

We already trained and equipped the Iraqi army. They ran away like little girls and IS has all their weapons now.

Obama would need permission from Assad as well as Putin and Iran to bomb inside Syria without starting WW3.

I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-destroy-isis/

Here, I corrected(In RED) the article to reflect true accuracy...

The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials Military-Security Industrial Complex Executives believe will require at least three years of sustained US Taxpayer FUNDING effort.

[orenbus]

[orenbus]

[Kotin]

if the pentagon says three years, that probably means about 4x that at least...

[kcchiefs6465]

if the pentagon says three years, that probably means about 4x that at least...

That embassy will remain until the dollar collapses.

[twomp]

I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

LOL!! The part time interventionists are going to have a hard time defending this.

[Rond]

What a great government program! Train and fund an army, and then fight them for years. Rinse and repeat.

[Danke]

That's a man.

[TaftFan]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

[twomp]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

[orenbus]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

Riigghhttttt....

[kcchiefs6465]

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

Shock and Awe?

[Dr.3D]

Seems like all that would happen would be they go back into hiding until the U.S. leaves and then they come back out again.

[TaftFan]

It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

I didn't say the Sunnis and Shias could get along in three weeks. I said ISIS could be destroyed in 3 weeks. Toppling the Ba'ath regime was accomplished in less than a month, and their infrastructure was far stronger than that of ISIS.

[alucard13mm]

This is what I think...

10 year war with rules of engagement to protect citizens = 10,000 deaths a year. (100,000 years total)

1 year war going all out and not caring about citizens = 100,000 deaths.

If you were a citizen in the country getting attacked... would you prefer the 1 year conflict or 10 year conflict? I think a one year, quick and all out battle would be better. Imagine living for 10 years, not knowing when you will get droned because you are at the wrong time or wrong place.

[thoughtomator]

They make plans for the purpose of enriching defense contractors, apparently. ISIS came from nowhere in months, it could go away in months too with the right plan. If the only way to deal with it is a years-long campaign, let the locals handle it.

[dannno]

Taft must be thinking of the glass parking lot strategy.

[69360]

I thought you wanted the airstrikes?

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

I'm undecided, but lean yes. Only because Obama got us involved in this $#@!storm and made an enemy of IS. I was opposed to the original airstrikes. But I think it might be necessary to finish the job now to avoid consequences to the US.

I don't want to give a cent to the Iraqi army or government, nor train them. They have shown they don't deserve it.

I don't want airstrikes in Syria without the approval of Assad, Iran and most importantly Putin. This is not worth starting WW3 over.

It could be done in 3 weeks if they really wanted to.

It could.

It took us 7+ years, 100k troops, thousands dead to get Iraq to its current situation. But our resident foreign policy expert here can do it in 3 weeks! After we bomb for peace, the Sunni's and the Shia's will magically get along and peace will return. ALL IN 3 WEEKS!

Nope sunni and shia will continue to kill each other for all eternity. But you could knock down IS in 3 weeks and pull out.

This is what I think...

10 year war with rules of engagement to protect citizens = 10,000 deaths a year. (100,000 years total)

1 year war going all out and not caring about citizens = 100,000 deaths.

If you were a citizen in the country getting attacked... would you prefer the 1 year conflict or 10 year conflict? I think a one year, quick and all out battle would be better. Imagine living for 10 years, not knowing when you will get droned because you are at the wrong time or wrong place.

That's hard for a lot here to swallow, but it's the truth.

[TaftFan]

Taft must be thinking of the glass parking lot strategy.

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.

[kcchiefs6465]

Nope sunni and shia will continue to kill each other for all eternity. But you could knock down IS in 3 weeks and pull out.

Like they knocked down Al Qaeda in three weeks? Or AQAP? Or Al Shabbab? Or the Taliban?

I mean, it's not like it took them years to even put a dent in the infrastructure of these groups with new leaders springing up instantaneously.... or anything.

It's not like Al Shabbab went from a relatively unknown group to what it is today... or AQAP is thriving in Yemen..... or anything.

It's not like bombing urban areas makes people resent us and join the opposition.

Hell, it's not even like it is going to cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Were you in favor of bombing Syria originally or did your position change after 12 months of propaganda?

[kcchiefs6465]

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.

When do you ship out?

[devil21]

It's at least 3 years because that's how long it'll take (probably more if history means anything) to overthrow Assad and cripple Hezbollah in Lebanon, all in the name of defeating 'ISIS'.

[orenbus]

No. ISIS is already fighting battles internally.

If they had to deal with coalition forces surrounding them, they would be broken down.

I wouldn't rely too much on the Iraq Army, from my understanding most of them only signed up for a paycheck they don't actually believe in a cause worth dieing over, as was apparent when they had time enough to switch to civilian clothes and run away as ISIS was taking over large portions of the country. It may or may not surprise you but ISIS was actually outnumbered by a better armed Iraq Army by a HUGE margin and it still didn't make a difference. The Iraq Army had everything going for it, it had weapons, manpower, fortified positions, etc. and still they abandoned ship soon as they heard ISIS was on their way.

Also wouldn't expect too much from the Kurds or expect seeing them move beyond their intended areas of country they want to control, because they have specific goals in mind when it comes to parts of Iraq they define as theirs and rather would see as a part of their own splintered off country as opposed to a country called Iraq. The Kurds are one of the largest ethnic groups in the world that does not have their own country, so they are going to be more driven to hold the land they have now vs. helping the U.S. or the current Iraq Government expel ISIS from areas they could care less about. ISIS might have more pressure in Syria, but that place has so many different forces at work with many of them as radical as the next there is no guarantees coordination with groups such as the Free Syrian Army or others would work their either, especially since ISIS has essentially taken over large cities in the north with support from the people.

[69360]

Like they knocked down Al Qaeda in three weeks? Or AQAP? Or Al Shabbab? Or the Taliban?

I mean, it's not like it took them years to even put a dent in the infrastructure of these groups with new leaders springing up instantaneously.... or anything.

It's not like Al Shabbab went from a relatively unknown group to what it is today... or AQAP is thriving in Yemen..... or anything.

It's not like bombing urban areas makes people resent us and join the opposition.

Hell, it's not even like it is going to cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Were you in favor of bombing Syria originally or did your position change after 12 months of propaganda?

Except that they did knock down the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan in a month. The Taliban fled Kabul in the first month of the war. AQ was cornered in Tora Bora.

The US could have killed Bin Laden and pulled out after a month, but blew it. Then came the decade of insurgency and nation building that made no sense.

No I have never been in favor of airstrikes in Syria. Not worth WW3. Assad is an ally of Iran and Russia.

[kcchiefs6465]

Except that they did knock down the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan in a month. The Taliban fled Kabul in the first month of the war. AQ was cornered in Tora Bora.

The US could have killed Bin Laden and pulled out after a month, but blew it. Then came the decade of insurgency and nation building that made no sense.

No I have never been in favor of airstrikes in Syria. Not worth WW3. Assad is an ally of Iran and Russia.

And what of the Taliban now? What will happen when we withdraw from Afghanistan? What is occurring with alarming regularity over there?

It's almost as if they had nation building and regime change on their minds when they sold the public the tale of Shock and Awe. So they sold people on this quick strike, we will be seen as liberators tale, and the people ate it up. Eleven years later we have the same people saying the same thing.... and the people are eating it up.

"Three weeks to destroy ISIS....." It's been three weeks! 150 airstrikes later and what are the results? Has ISIS fled yet?

How do you propose ISIS be "knocked down" without bombing Syria, by the way? Wait in perpetuity until they cross the border?

You know that's what this is about, right? They don't give a damn about the Kurds.

[twomp]

I didn't say the Sunnis and Shias could get along in three weeks. I said ISIS could be destroyed in 3 weeks. Toppling the Ba'ath regime was accomplished in less than a month, and their infrastructure was far stronger than that of ISIS.

WoW you sounded like such a foreign policy expert when you threw out that 3 week strategy that I thought you knew more. I guess I was incorrect. ISIS was BORN out of SUNNI resentment of the SHIA government in Baghdad. Get that? Once our stooges in Baghdad saw this, they turned it into terrorists vs. good guys. But the battle in Iraq was always SUNNI vs. SHIA. You want to remove ISIS in 3 weeks? No problem you say? What happens when the next group of SUNNI rises from the ashes because this whole SUNNI vs. SHIA thing will still not be resolved.

The media will turn the next group of SUNNIS who were formerly Al'Qaeda who are now currently ISIS who will be the future AMERICA's BIGGEST THREAT into a reason to yet again come back to Iraq. Notice how ISIS can only take over the SUNNI north? They are not met with much resistance there because guess what, THEY ARE SUNNIS! Shocking I know. How bad do you think the Shia government were treating them for them to accept ISIS over the Iraqi government? Maybe your plan in 3 weeks means just nuking the entire northern Sunni population?