Custom Search
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
OBAMA REFUSES TO DESTROY ISIL, WHY?
When discussing the Radical ISLAMIST Terrorist group ISIL Pres OBAMA will only focus on "Containing ISIL", not Destroying ISIL.
Why?
Pres Assad is not a Threat to the Middle East, nor the United States so why does Pres OBAMA want to remove Assad from SYRIA?
Is it true ISIL was created and is being funded by the United States?
Why?
Why does the OBAMA Admin want to keep ISIL active?
~ Obama: Forget About ‘Destroying’ ISIS, We Just Need to ‘Contain’ Them
The president used to talk tough about wiping out the terror army. Not any more.
A year ago, President Barack Obama talked a big talk when it came to the so-called Islamic State, declaring that the United States and its allies would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group that had seized large territories in Iraq and Syria.
But this week, even with the victory in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar and the news that ISIS’s most famous executioner Mohammed Emwazi—best known as “Jihadi John”—was likely killed in a U.S. drone strike, Obama struck a very different tone.
Gone were the buzzwords “defeat” and “destroy.” Instead, Obama said the U.S. strategy had always been to “contain” the group, a subtle shift in language, and another indication that progress against the group has been far more difficult to achieve than originally envisioned.
“From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” Obama told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos in a Thursday afternoon interview that took place before the strike against Emwazi.
But when Obama first told the American public a year ago about his strategy, he said it was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS.
In that speech, Obama acknowledged that it would take time to defeat ISIS, but the conditions he described on Thursday conveyed a fight that could take more than a generation to resolve.
“Until we get the Syrian political situation resolved and until Assad is no longer a lightning rod for Sunnis in Syria, and that entire region is no longer a proxy war for Shia-Sunni conflict, we are going to continue to have problems,” Obama said.
In the meantime, the ISIS threat will have to be contained, he said.
“We have indeed gone from ‘degrade and destroy’ to what is effectively a containment strategy,” said Faysal Itani of the Atlantic Council. “I believe this reflects the president’s assessment that destroying ISIS outright is either impossible at present, or would carry unacceptable political and military costs and risks.”
Itani said it’s difficult to gauge whether Obama “has always believed this and is now merely bringing his rhetoric in line with his belief, or whether he genuinely expected the anti-ISIS effort to go better than it has and was forced to abandon the ‘degrade and destroy’ mission.”
Compared to the momentum ISIS had in June 2014, when it rolled into Mosul, easily capturing Iraq’s second-largest city, and threatening to do the same in Baghdad and Erbil, the group can be seen as largely “contained,” at least in Iraq.
But Obama’s assertion Thursday that ISIS has not gained ground in Iraq overlooks the important capture of Ramadi, which ISIS took in May.
And while it’s no longer marching on Baghdad, ISIS has managed to hang on to most of its key territory in Iraq, and the U.S. and Iraqi forces have had to indefinitely delay the crucial battle to retake Mosul, an offensive originally forecasted to take place last spring.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the group has faced setbacks—most famously being driven out of the border town of Kobani—but it has also managed to expand its control, taking new towns in central Syria.
But, Obama does not think the group is gaining strength.
Sources: Daily Beast, YouTube
Labels:
al qaeda,
Assad,
Congress,
Containment,
Foreign Policy,
Ground Troops,
ISIL,
middle east,
Obama,
Radical Islam,
Strategy,
Syria,
Terrorists,
U.S. Military
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment