President Obama: We're not losing against ISIS, after ISIS captures Ramadi


B00Mer
#1
President Obama: We're not losing against ISIS, after ISIS captures Ramadi



Washington (CNN)Assessing his war on ISIS after the group overtook the key Iraqi city of Ramadi, President Barack Obama said in an interview this week his strategy against the terrorists isn't failing.

"I don't think we're losing," Obama said in the Tuesday interview with The Atlantic magazine, which posted online Thursday.

Calling the fall of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, a "tactical setback," Obama pinned the blame on poorly trained and organized Iraqi Defense Forces.

"The training of Iraqi security forces, the fortifications, the command-and-control systems are not happening fast enough in Anbar, in the Sunni parts of the country," he told interviewer Jeffrey Goldberg.

As ISIS takes ground in Sunni-dominated Anbar, the administration has worked to bolster Iraqi security forces, including backing multi-sectarian forces termed "Popular Mobilization Units" that include Shia fighters. Administration officials insist those forces must remain under the control of the central Iraqi government, a proposition that in the past has proven difficult.

Obama said in his interview it was a "source of concern" that Sunni fighters haven't become more engaged in fighting ISIS.

"We're going to have to ramp up not just training, but also commitment, and we better get Sunni tribes more activated than they currently have been," he said.

The White House has previously been wary of empowering Shia militias in Iraq because of their backing by Iran. Regional allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are deeply concerned about what such a move -- combined with Obama's desire to strike a nuclear deal with Iran -- would mean for Tehran's sway in the region.

In the interview, Obama cast his push for a nuclear deal in personal terms, saying his own reputation was on the line.

"Look, 20 years from now, I'm still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it's my name on this," he said.​

source: President Obama: We're not losing against ISIS - CNNPolitics.com
 
BaalsTears
+1
#2
Are any of the forum members interested in defending Obama's conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa? This is your opportunity.

Obama's war against ISIS isn't going very well. America has lost the initiative. That's a precursor to defeat.
 
Kreskin
+1
#3
I get a chuckle out of claims that an entire city is captured. But because they take over the local government office building they are 'holding the city'.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#4
Is it too late to restore Sadam Husanne as dictator?
 
Walter
+1
#5
Bho bho bho bho
 
Ludlow
+1 / -1
#6
rash limbo for prez. just have to take a wild guess who the first lady might be/lol
 
Galol
+2
#7  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTears View Post

Are any of the forum members interested in defending Obama's conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa? This is your opportunity.

Obama's war against ISIS isn't going very well. America has lost the initiative. That's a precursor to defeat.

That's because Obama is following the same failed policy of his predecessors.

He should never have supported the crazed Jihadis in Syria back in 2011 when he called for the overthrow of secular Assad. The Jihadis were even putting out videos of them eating the hearts of Syrian soldiers they captured. What would lead any right thinking person to think that supporting these bloodthirsty maniacs would lead to peace and democracy in Syria?

Then you have original sin - the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussien by Bush. If Saddam was still in charge, they would almost certainly be no Jihadis running around the region as we have today. Plus, the minor fact a million more Iraqis would be alive today.

Ditto in Libya - why overthrow a secular dictator by supporting a collection of a ragtag militias teeming with avowed Jihadis?

And lest we forget, Obama expanded the abhorrent and unproductive drone program that decimated whole communities tilting them in favour of the Jihadis; Yemen being case in point.

But GOP prescriptions would make things infinitely worse. One GOP candidate, I think it was Walker dude, vowed to use "preemptive strike" to solve America's problems oversees. But isn't that what Bush proclaimed and did when he illegally invaded the sovereign and independent nation of Iraq? How did that workout for America?
 
BaalsTears
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Galol View Post

That's because Obama is following the same failed policy of his predecessors.

He should never have supported the crazed Jihadis in Syria back in 2011 when he called for the overthrow of secular Assad. The Jihadis were even putting out videos of them eating the hearts of Syrian soldiers they captured. What would lead any right thinking person to think that supporting these bloodthirsty maniacs would lead to peace and democracy in Syria?

Then you have original sin - the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussien by Bush. If Saddam was still in charge, they would almost certainly be no Jihadis running around the region as we have today. Plus, the minor fact a million more Iraqis would be alive today.

Ditto in Libya - why overthrow a secular dictator by supporting a collection of a ragtag militias teeming with avowed Jihadis?

And lest we forget, Obama expanded the abhorrent and unproductive drone program that decimated whole communities tilting them in favour of the Jihadis; Yemen being case in point.

But GOP prescriptions would make things infinitely worse. One GOP candidate, I think it was Walker dude, vowed to use "preemptive strike" to solve America's problems oversees. But isn't that what Bush proclaimed and did when he illegally invaded the sovereign and independent nation of Iraq? How did that workout for America?

It's hard to disagree with you. One point about the GOP. I draw a distinction between the Big Business/Country Club/Corporate Establishment that controls the GOP, and the overwhelming majority of the GOP base who are increasingly isolationist. The former are quasi-Democrats and the latter lack power.
 
gopher
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I get a chuckle out of claims that an entire city is captured. But because they take over the local government office building they are 'holding the city'.



What is interesting is how Iraqis are dropping their weapons, leaving them for their so called ''enemies'', and fleeing just like the South Vietnamese did during the war in Vietnam.* Nixon got blamed then and Obama gets the blame today. Like it or not, both wars proved that a conflict cannot be won unless you get majority support from the populace. The USA has spent over a trillion in Iraq, trained their soldiers with the best technology available, and still they run away from battle. As always, any true conservative who says pouring money into a problem won't solve it should be saying the same thing here. The war is a waste of taxpayer dollars and American personnel.






* The Iraqi Army Left Weapons Like These in the Hands of Terrorists Today - ABC News
 

Similar Threads

196
ISIS is losing
by mentalfloss | Mar 15th, 2015
45
ISIS is losing momentum
by mentalfloss | Feb 20th, 2015