The "ISIS War" Is NOT Meant To Be A Winner. Unless We Go To War 100%, We Should Not Go To War!

Petraeus Says Ground Forces Necessary to Defeat ISIS

General David Petraeus. (Jim Ruymen/UPI/Landov)

Friday, 26 Sep 2014 10:43 AM

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• 0
  inShare

The U.S.-led fight against Islamic State will take years and will need ground forces to succeed, retired General David Petraeus said.
“We’re talking about years, many years in the case of Syria,” Petraeus said today in a presentation to business executives at a Tokyo hotel. “What we’re doing right now is disrupting. We are gradually chipping away at the strength” of Islamic State, he said, adding that gains could not be sustained without ground forces.
“I do believe the Iraqis can be the ground forces that can deal with this over time, but again it will be months and years, not days or weeks,” he added.

Petraeus’s comments came a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi urged U.S. President Barack Obama to make the airstrikes “quick and decisive” to deny Islamic State the time to lure more fighters to the region.
A U.S.-led coalition extended a campaign of airstrikes against Islamic State from Iraq to Syria this week after the group seized control of parts of both countries and killed two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker. Obama told the UN General Assembly in a speech this week that extremists targeted by the strikes understand only “the language of force.”

Petraeus, 61, who also served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2011 to 2012 and is now chairman of KKR Global Institute, an investment management firm, compared the situation to attempts to gain control over al-Qaeda forces in western Pakistan. He said it was necessary to avoid any let-up in airstrikes.
“We have seen this elsewhere,” he said. “You have to keep on disrupting. If you let up the pressure, then al-Qaeda senior leadership will come back.”
Petraeus defended Iraq’s ability to tackle the crisis, given enough time. Obama has ruled out sending ground forces to the area.
“I believe you should not underestimate the residual capacity of the Iraqi security forces and we should not overestimate the capabilities of ISIL,” Petraeus said, referring to the group as Islamic State in Levant.

© Copyright 2014 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Military Advice Unwelcome In Obama's ISIS War--He Knows Better

Cheney: Obama Won't 'Accept Good Military Advice'

Thursday, 25 Sep 2014 07:58 AM

By Melanie Batley

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• inShare

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that President Barack Obama "has consistently demonstrated…a refusal to accept good military advice" while developing his strategy to combat the Islamic State (ISIS).

"The longer [American military action against ISIS] takes, the costlier it will be in terms of lives and treasure. When we did Desert Storm, we gave them the whole load the first night of the war. We pulled out all the stops in terms of using all of our capability," Cheney said on Fox News' "Hannity" Wednesday.

Cheney said that while he supports elements of Obama's plan to target ISIS, he is skeptical about the effectiveness of a strategy based primarily on airstrikes. Specifically, he said, airstrikes in Syria were the right way forward but were "not going to get the job done" by themselves."

"When you have pinprick attacks as they were doing initially with respect to the air campaign, that's what you get. You give the enemy time to adjust to go underground, to take care of protecting themselves from those attacks and they're less effective when you telegraph what you're going to do, and Barack Obama has consistently demonstrated, I think, a refusal to accept good military advice in terms of how he actually uses the force."

Cheney added that Obama lacked experience and respect for senior commanders.

"These are tremendously capable people…he certainly should listen to the senior military commanders who are responsible on the ground for executing on policy and take their advice occasionally. But almost always when the subject comes up, he nearly always rejects what they recommend."

Cheney also reflected on the strength of the coalition with Arab countries. He said that while having their support was "a good addition, it doesn't get you over the goal line."

"[The U.S. is] a long way from solving the problem," of ISIS, Cheney said.

Cheney blamed Obama's worldview for increasing the threat of global terrorism and the resurgence of America's adversaries such as Russia.

"I think he has a world view and what he's found increasingly is not consistent with reality," Cheney said. "He has a worldview that is inaccurate and doesn't match the reality out there and when he comes up against that inconsistency…he doesn't know what to do."

Meanwhile, Cheney said he was "stunned" that Obama in his speech to the United Nations compared the violence and extremism in the Middle East to the racial tensions and protests last month in Ferguson, Mo. following the shooting death of Michael Brown.

"To compare the two as though there is moral equivalence is outrageous," Cheney said, citing the beheadings and violent killings ISIS has carried out in recent weeks.



Related stories: 

• Cheney's Re-Emergence a Nightmare for Obama

• Dick Cheney: Deal With ISIS or Face Attack Far Worse Than 9/11

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Will World React To Civilian Deaths In The ISIS War The Same Way They Did With Israel? Or Will There Be A Different Standard?

United States Attack in Syria Parallels Israel's in Gaza

by Alan M. Dershowitz
September 23, 2014 at 5:00 pm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4726/united-states-attack-in-syria-parallels-israel-in

210

Comment

The air attack by American and Arab forces against ISIS and other terrorist targets parallels Israel's air attacks against Hamas terrorist targets in Gaza. According to retired General Wesley Clark, the United States air attacks are designed to degrade and destroy the infrastructure of the terrorist groups, including the electricity grid, the sources of their finance and other mixed military-civilian targets.

A U.S. Department of Defense spokesman reports on the results of airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria, September 23, 2014.

When Israel attacked Hamas military targets, including some that had mixed uses, it was condemned by the same Arab nations that participated in the joint United States-Arab attack in Syria. The difference of course is that the threat posed by ISIS is not nearly as imminent as the threats posed by Hamas. This is certainly true in relation to the United States and may also be true in relation to its Arab partners.
Among the most hypocritical nations participating in the US attack is, of course, Qatar, which not only condemned Israel for defending its civilians against Hamas rockets and tunnels, but actually funded the Hamas attacks and provided asylum for the Hamas terrorist leaders who ordered them. Hypocrisy is nothing new when it comes to the double standard applied by the international community against Israel. The United States and its Arab partners have the right to take preemptive action against terrorist groups without fear of UN condemnation, a Goldstone report, or threats to bring its leaders before the International Criminal Court. Yet everything Israel does, regardless of how careful it is to minimize civilian casualties, becomes the basis for international condemnation.
If the US attacks in Syria continue, there are likely to be civilian casualties, because ISIS will embed its fighters among civilians and the many hostages it has taken. When that happens, American and Arab bombs will kill some civilians. It will be interesting to compare the world's reaction to those civilian deaths with its reaction to deaths caused by Israeli rockets hitting human shields deliberately employed by Hamas. If the past is any predictor of the future, the ratio of civilian to terrorist deaths may be considerably higher in the American-led air attacks than it was in the Israeli air attacks. In past wars, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the former Yugoslavia, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths was far higher than the ratio brought about by Israeli firing into Gaza, where human shields are Hamas's tactic of choice.
It will also be interesting to see the reaction of the international community and various NGOs to US-led attacks on mixed military-civilian targets, such as electricity grid and sources of financing. The international law on these subjects is vague and open-ended, and thus subject to selective application. Doubts are always resolved against Israel and in favor of other nations engaging in similar military actions.
The joint attack by the United States and the handful of Arab countries may finally persuade the world that the laws of warfare must be adapted to the new realities of terrorism. If one were to literally apply the words of Section 51 of the UN Charter, no country could defend itself against imminent attacks, either by terrorists or conventional armies. That section requires an armed attack by an enemy state to have occurred before the right of self-defense kicks in. That provision was unrealistic when drafted and it is far more unrealistic now in the face of terroristic threats. The laws of war also require proportionality, which is defined as demanding that the anticipated deaths of civilians be evaluated against the military value of the target. But it does not take into account situations where the enemy hides its valuable military targets behind human shields.
It has been easy for the international community to apply these rules rigidly and unrealistically when the only country to which it applies them is the nation-state of the Jewish people. But now it will have to apply them across the board, and that will require defining them in a sensible and realistic way that does not give undue advantage to terrorists who refuse to comply with the rule of law.