Obama’s Contemptibly Casual War on ISIS

It was the gaffe so good, he made it twice. Apparently, the president does not see his shamelessly lackadaisical approach to conducting the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a failure of which his administration should be ashamed. After conceding that he didn’t have a comprehensive ISIS strategy, much less one that would result in unambiguous victory, last August, President Barack Obama reiterated that admission on Monday.

The president’s admission in August, exactly 20 days after the start of renewed airstrikes in Iraq targeting ISIS, that “we don’t have a strategy yet” was met with shocked gasps and myriad disapproving opinion pieces. Many saw the fact that the commander-in-chief did not have a clear and executable strategy for victory even after sending American forces into combat as the height of irresponsibility. Today, exactly 10 months after the beginning of new coalition combat operations over Iraq, the president said that he still has no clear vision for victory in the war against ISIS.

  • Martin B

    Who says Obama even wants victory over ISIS or Islam?

  • Norman_In_New_York

    How can he have a vision of victory when he doesn’t even know what the word means?

    • just a thought

      Give the guy a break. Remember, he’s the “smartest guy in the room,” after all.

    • Alain

      Oh, I suspect he understands very well; he is pushing for victory for the wrong side.

      • dance…dancetotheradio

        I am, too.
        But for a different reason.
        I want IS to grow large enough to attack Italy.
        Then the EU will have to scramble up the will and the weapons to actually defend themselves.
        I don’t want Canadians or Americans going over there this time.

  • Paulla

    Obama said he doesn’t like the word victory. When he sees the photos of the unconditional Japanese surrender to the U.S. after WW2, it makes him sad. He feels sorry for the Japs.

    • Alain

      Never mind the traitor, the Japanese have done and are doing just fine.

      • mobuyus

        You grind the enemy under your boot heel without mercy and in a few years you have a modern Japan and a modern Germany. There is absolutely no room for a “humanitarian component” on any battlefield. When the war is over then people can pick up the pieces. Those that advocate for rigid ROE’s and a” humanitarian component” should be shot post haste. When the left starts demanding humanitarian corridors in wars it’s only so their heroes can escape to fight another day.

  • Billy Bob Thornton

    Obama and co. have caused much of the problems. But both sides are guilty for their intention to fragment the ME nations. The Obama administration pretends to care about Muslims, but they believe in chaos, as do the Republicans. If they truly wanted peace and not a piece, they would actually end the wars, bring the troops home, find out what their options are and finally seriously see how to fix the ME. This is about catering to special interest groups and the arms dealers. The point of war is not stability, but for the most part is wanting your results in the end, which I believe is a weakened ME. Don’t forget that these two parties only listen to lobby groups and their only answer in the end is war. So the US brought this upon themselves by launching Iraq in 2003. Point the blame at militarism. People are also war-weary!

  • This is because he doesn’t want ISIS defeated.

    Why are the Americans keeping him around?

  • db

    The POS doesn’t have a strategy because he doesn’t want a strategy. He feels nothing for the troops he puts arbitrarily in harms way. He’s like a child playing with tin soldiers. Sociopathic to the core.