Obama Official On ISIS Strategy: “Stay Tuned”

The Obama administration has often been compared to celebrity status. Now it goes one step further in looking like a television show. Oh, and highlighting that they do not actually have a strategy

(The Hill) A senior State Department official urged critics of President Obama to “stay tuned” for the administration’s plans against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“We are putting the features in place, developing a broader regional coalition, a broad international coalition, working to get a new Iraqi government stood up, working to get our plans in place,” Brett McGurk, the deputy assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran, told CNN. “So stay tuned.”

During a press conference last week, Obama conceded that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to counter Islamist militants operating in Syria.

In other words, Team Obama had nothing, despite Mr. Obama having been briefed on the danger of ISIS for over a year. And it sounds eerily like yet another “leading from behind” strategy. Too bad Obama has spent very little time engaging world leaders and developing alliances. Taking selfies at funerals does not count.

McGurk said that the U.S. military could not “just go in militarily and start dropping bombs and hope that it’s going to work out” and called such a go-it-alone mission “counterproductive.”

“You have to have a very sophisticated approach to this,” McGurk said.

It sounds more like they are putting together a romantic sitcom rather than a plan to decimate ISIS.

On the positive side, there have been over 100 airstrikes. On the minus side, this is the same administration that couldn’t put together a website. Also, they do not seem to realize that they should talk to the Pentagon, which certainly has a plan. of course, that plan probably doesn’t include “leading from behind”.

Meanwhile, Dems are putting together an authorization

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said Tuesday he is filing legislation that would give President Obama clear authority to order airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The move came after ISIS released a new video showing the purported beheading of a second American journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, on Tuesday.

“This will ensure there’s no question that the president has the legal authority he needs to use airstrikes in Syria,” Nelson, a senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Tuesday.

Good for him. Of course, nothing can be done till Congress returns next week. Too bad Congress hasn’t joined the 21st Century and go use something like Go To Meeting to take a vote.

Also, just to be clear, Obama talked tough last night after arrival in Estonia. Will he match the talk with action? Stay tuned.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Obama Official On ISIS Strategy: “Stay Tuned””

  1. Jeffery says:

    It took us 18 months to invade Iraq after 9/11. And we still got it wrong strategically and tactically. (No WMDs, destabilized region, not enough troops, etc). bin laden goaded the US into invading and we fell for it. al Qaeda proved they were a threat to the US by murdering 3000 innocent Americans. ISIL/ISIS is a minor threat to the US, if at all, and they are goading us into another disastrous misadventure, and once again Islamist radicals are making fools out of American conservatives who still support the “Bomb something, even if it’s wrong!” strategy.

    You’re afraid of ISIS. (Conservatives live in fear). When the media (wrongly) tell you ISIS is the “greatest threat to the US since 9/11” it feeds your innate fears. Republican leaders want you to be afraid to change the tenor of the 2014 elections. ISIS is the best thing for Republicans since superPACs.

    Once we eliminate ISIS (which resulted from the installation of the hated al-Maliki)

  2. […] Obama administration is still struggling to come up with a strategy to deal with the Islamic State. According to The Hill, when asked about a strategy a State […]

  3. gitarcarver says:

    (No WMDs, destabilized region, not enough troops, etc).

    Hey Jeffery….. the Daily Kos called and wants their false talking points back.

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I have a question. Exactly what makes you think that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? After all, they had been using them for 20 years prior to our war. In addition, there were 100,000 syringes of atropine found at the front line. Saddam was asked if he had weapons and would not reply in a negative manner or allow inspections. You do realize that we allow inspections of our weapons? But, Saddam could not acknowledge the lack of such weapons at that would embolden his enemies, so he was in a tough spot (no sympathy, but I do wish we had him back).

    Now to get your language right. We succeeded tactically, that is the immediate movement of forces. The way we moved them was fairly stupid and shows that incompetence of our military leaders. We were just lucky that we were not fighting a major power. But we did fail strategically. In that, we have the Democrats to blame as they did they same turn and run policy as in Vietnam. Also, we were to squeamish to enact those policies necessary to counter insurgency. Now, was Bush’s call the right one? That depends on what they were trying to do and we don’t have that information, even now. I would have seized the oil production, built up a permanent presence in the region and encouraged as much instability as possible in the region so they could kill each other. That is what we have done in the past. But then people like you, with your high IQ can’t understand these things. Instead, Obama allowed the CIA to destabilize the whole region of North Africa and Mid East (Arab Spring) without a clear strategy. Further showing he is a fool.

  5. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    No one denies that Saddam had and used poison gas in the past.

    No significant WMDs were found after our invasion.

    Do you have a reliable reference for the “100,000 syringes of atropine” which I assume were found after 2003.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Jefferey went from this:

    (No WMDs, destabilized region, not enough troops, etc)

    To this:

    No significant WMDs were found after our invasion.

    Jeffery has to move his own goalposts of “no weapons” to “no significant amount.”

    I wonder why?

    Could it be this:

    “Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.”

    or this:

    The Obama administration claims that the weapons in that facility, which include sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agent VX, manufactured to prosecute the war against Iran in the 1980s, do not pose a threat because they are old, contaminated and hard to move. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to safely move the materials,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

    Or even this using the UNSCOM final report on WMD’s in Iraq as a source:

    Because of the hazardous conditions in Bunker 13, UNSCOM inspectors were unable to make an accurate inventory of its contents before sealing the entrances in 1994. As a result, no record exists of the exact number or status of the sarin-filled rockets remaining in the bunker. According to the UNMOVIC final report in 2007, the rockets “may be both filled and unfilled, armed or unarmed, in good condition or deteriorated.”[10] In the worst-case scenario, the munitions could contain as much as 15,000 liters of sarin. Although it is likely that the nerve agent has degraded substantially after nearly two decades of storage under suboptimal conditions, UNMOVIC cautioned that “the levels of degradation of the sarin fill in the rockets cannot be determined without exploring the bunker and taking samples from intact warheads.”[11] If the sarin remains highly toxic and many of the rockets are still intact, they could pose a proliferation risk.

    Even if the sarin inside the rockets in Bunker 13 has degraded to the point that it has no military value and is little more than hazardous waste, the CWC still requires that all such materials be destroyed. Following Iraq’s submission of its initial CW declaration in March 2009, the OPCW Technical Secretariat processed and analyzed the data. In April, Iraq submitted a general plan for destroying the CW materials stored in the two declared bunkers at Muthanna, as well as dismantling its former chemical weapons production facilities.[12]

    No “significant amount” indeed.

  7. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    I didn’t say “no significant amount”. You lied about that. Why?

    There were no significant WMDs found. Chemical contaminants are not the same as weapons.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Chemical contaminants are not the same as weapons.

    BZZZT! Worng, but thank you for playing.

    The UN classifies the militarization of chemicals such as mustard gas, sarin, etc as WMD’s independent of delivery systems.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Why did you lie about what I said? Reading comprehension problems?

    You win. Mr. Bush invaded for all the right reasons. To destroy the remnants of 15 yr old chemical munitions.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Why did you lie about what I said?

    I didn’t.

    The very things you say aren’t WMDs are in fact classified as WMD’s.

    Why did you lie about chemical weapons not being WMD’s?

    Reading comprehension problems?

    Yes, I would say that you have those problems.

    Facts never seem to dissuade you of your follies.

    You win. Mr. Bush invaded for all the right reasons. To destroy the remnants of 15 yr old chemical munitions.

    Reading comprehension problems again? Memory going? Forget the facts? Forget the history?

    AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

    Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
    illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
    of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
    national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
    Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

    Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
    United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
    unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
    biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
    and develop them, and to end its support for international
    terrorism;

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
    intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
    Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
    biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
    weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
    nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
    attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
    and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
    development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
    of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
    Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
    vital United States interests and international peace and security,
    declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its
    international obligations” and urged the President “to take
    appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
    laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
    international obligations”;

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
    the United States and international peace and security in the
    Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
    of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
    to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
    capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
    supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
    Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
    civilian population thereby threatening international peace
    and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
    account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
    including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
    wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
    willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
    and its own people;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
    hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
    including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
    and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
    Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
    United Nations Security Council;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
    attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
    the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
    Iraq;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
    organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
    safety of United States citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
    underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
    weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
    organizations;

    Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
    mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
    employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
    States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
    terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
    would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
    attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
    itself;

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
    the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
    and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
    international peace and security, including the development of
    weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
    Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
    in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
    (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
    in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
    949 (1994);

    Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
    Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
    “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
    Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
    implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
    665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
    “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
    with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

    Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its
    civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
    Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
    security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that
    Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
    goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
    the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
    States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
    regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
    replace that regime;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
    States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
    our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary
    resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council
    resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
    security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
    terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
    groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
    in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
    other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
    is in the national security interests of the United States and in
    furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
    Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
    of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
    terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
    by the President to take the necessary actions against international
    terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
    organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
    aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
    harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
    all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
    persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
    attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
    persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
    action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
    against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
    resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
    107-40); and

    Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
    restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
    Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
    States of America in Congress <> assembled,

    There was more to the Iraq War than WMD’s and an honest person knows that.

    If you doubt the existence of the WMD’s in Iraq, take the time to look at the last UNSCOM report before the effort started. I doubt that you ever read it because like the above resolution, you would have to deal with facts rather than your delusions.

    However, while you still want to blame Bush for everything, that still doesn’t change the fact that after a year Obama doesn’t have a strategy for dealing with ISIL (and in fact today gave two goals that are not the same).

    The man can’t lead and the only people who can’t see that are people like yourself.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Whereas, a group of deranged Saudis flew airplanes into the WTC, killing 3000 Americans, the United States of America, will wait almost 2 years before invading Iraq, based on false claims of WMDs, false claims of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 and imminent “mushroom clouds”.

    The clear vision of hindsight confirms that our invasion and occupation of Iraq was a catastrophe. The simple and emotional conservatives want to repeat this debacle.

    Conservatives are simple folk. Of late, they’ve lionized Vladimir Putin’s leadership aura for invading a neighboring sovereign nation, Ukraine. Let that sink in.

    Conservatives are simple folk. They favor and respond more to swagger than deliberation, especially swagger that supports their xenophobia. Conservatives exist in a state of chronic fear and anxiety and require a strong daddy figure to protect them, so it’s perfectly natural and predictable that they would despise President Obama and worship the KGB thug, Putin.

    Conservatives are simple folk. To them, thoughtful deliberation represents weakness. Rather than putting together a coalition of stakeholders (UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, NATO… ) to combat the virulent murderers in Iraq and Syria, conservatives have been goaded into a knee-jerk rage by the depravity of ISIL, which is exactly what ISIL wants. You’re being outwitted by a bunch of bronze-age radicals. ISIL understands your motivations more than you understand yourselves.

    Just as Osama bin laden outwitted the Bush administration by goading them into a regional war, ISIL is goading you now.

    And you claim Obama isn’t a leader because he isn’t doing what ISIL wants. Classic conservativism.

  12. Jeffery says:

    And…

    Here’s what I typed: “No significant WMDs were found after our invasion.”

    Here’s what you claimed I typed: “Jeffery has to move his own goalposts of “no weapons” to “no significant amount.”

    See the difference? I wasn’t talking about the amount, but rather the quality.

    Either you made a mistake and misunderstood what I was saying or you deliberately wished to change my intent. In any event, it’s there in black and white.

    You are either sloppy or a liar. Since you tend to be a careful typist, we’re forced to conclude that you are a liar, once again.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    See the difference? I wasn’t talking about the amount, but rather the quality.

    But that is a lie, Jeffery.

    So instead of addressing your own lie, you decided to make an issue where there is none.

    You either are person who won’t take responsibility for your own words, or one that is dishonest.

    Or both.

  14. Jeffery says:

    You are such a twit.

    You lied about what I said. It’s in black and white.

    We can chat again when you have something to add.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    You lied about what I said.

    I repeat that I did not lie.

    You keep trying to push that because you know the facts contradict what you have said and what you continue to say.

    We can chat again when you have something to add.

    Okey dokey.

    That’s fine.

    Like a little child who won’t admit to their mistakes and wants people to look at what others did, you won’t act like and adult.

    Like a little child, you want to blame others for your failings.

    Like a typical liberal, you blame Bush for Obama not being a leader.

    Keep trying to stay on those talking points. Jeffery.

    It shows how totally clueless you really are.

Pirate's Cove