In a stunning admission, and some say, ill-advised one; President Obama announced to the world, that the United States of America has not developed a strategy to address the group of terrorist labeled ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria].
ISIS is responsible for the brutal murders of thousands of people in Syria and Iraq. Most recently, ISIS mercilessly executed American photo-journalist James Foley and posted the video all over social media: CNN reports American James Foley murdered by ISIS
In a press conference, President Obama says; we have no strategy
This announcement is burning throughout the world media outlets, especially Al-Jazeera, and European News because it forced the British Prime Minister to announce the increased chatter has caused his country’s coded alert level to be elevated to what is equal to expecting an impending attack.
President Obama’s announcement created so much chatter between terrorists groups monitored by intelligence agencies, that terrorist planners interpret it as an invitation for attack. It can be properly construed that the United States is unprepared to cope with ISIS or their affiliates, because they got it from a reliable source; President Obama.
What President Obama said in simple terminology is not only does his Administration admit to not having developed a strategy, they never had one in the first place. That is how ISIS was able to make the gains that they did up to now.
It would be as equally calamitous if we were to compare it in historical terms. Headlines on December 8th, 1941 would read: “FDR says we will bring every single one of the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor to justice.” Obama statement after James Foley execution
United Kingdom’s British Prime Minister David Cameron announced today, they will elevate their threat level to the second highest in that country, in response to not only the murder of James Foley by ISIS, but because of the increased ‘chatter’, monitored on the heels of President Obama’s limp wristed admission of a lack of strategy or actionable policy: UK Prime Minister raises threat level naming Islamist threat
The U.S. has a trillion-dollar defense budget, so it is incredulous to believe highly trained military strategist have not crafted a method to destroy ISIS. Unless, they have, but the President of the United States is just too indecisive or unwilling to take action about it, so instead, he uses the terms, intelligence failures and the Pentagon is procrastinating in delivering a strategy for him.
President Kennedy marshaled the best engineers and inspired the nation with a challenge to bring an American safely to the Moon and back. President Obama says; he can’t get the intelligence services to give him what he needs to rescue a hostage from a beheading or the Pentagon to deliver an anti-terrorist strategy in between rounds of golf and perpetual fund-raisers.
Just because President Obama has demonstrated that his Administration is no longer interested in terrorist groups spreading throughout Europe, the U.K. kidnapping Americans and then executing them, does not mean that ISIS and other terrorist groups have lost interest in attacking the U.S.
So, until there is some kind of strategy to address it, President Obama has decided to visit New York for a fund-raiser. Perhaps the President will find this elusive strategy at the fund-raiser, much in the same way he pondered the murder of James Foley on the golf course, since it is widely reported, that after his somber announcement he headed straight for another game of golf.
The most obvious strategy that has not been discussed does not involve the use of American military forces at all. The most effective means to most anti-terrorist analyst is to aid these host countries, infested with terrorists groups like ISIS, by hiring professional anti-terrorist security forces, who are trained at eradicating these kinds of vermin, much like any pest-control extermination professional.
What helped drive us to this point is the Obama Administration foreign policy has gotten it wrong since his Cairo University Speech that analyst have called;
Obama got it wrong in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and most assuredly in Syria and Iraq.
Syria and Iraq are over-run with foreign invaders with a penchant for Jihad. The Obama Administration dubbed them “rebels”, funded and armed them in an attempt to take down President Assad in Syria.
Instead, those so-called rebels from other countries, distilled down from other groups which rejected them. They then coalesced and morphed into an organization for the criminally insane. Their own atrocities from cannibalism to rapes, got them ejected from even the most brutal of those extremist “Salafi” muslim groups that eventually announced their goal of establishing the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
Unrest in the U.K. and France, where wide range support for ISIS is rampant, are supplying the pool of recruits being drawn into Iraq and Syria to join them.
So, what strategy will the President of the United States find on the golf course that is not painfully obvious to the rest of the civilized world?
President Obama admitted it already; he doesn’t know what to do, can’t decide from the list of options presented to him, so he must be refusing the advice from those trained to know what to do in this situation.
Of a certainty, if President Obama continues this track, the fight will be brought onto U.S. soil on his watch. Another Afghanistan style 10 year war will eventually suck our economy dry. Presently, there is no need to engage into another expensive war against a non-state actor, when they can be crushed by private security forces now.
ISIS is composed of a concentrated force of up to a maximum of 15 thousands in northern Iraq and southern Syria. Putting it into context, the battle of Gettysburg killed 50,000 Americans in 72 hours using 19th century single fire rifles and cannon. A well led, equipped, and sufficient professional private security force can crush them there in 20 weeks, using modern weapons, intelligence, and infantry tactics.
President Obama is wrong. There is a strategy. He simply refuses to employ one.