Home > Foreign Policy > Analysis: Obama’s Non-War Strategy to Defeat ISIS

Analysis: Obama’s Non-War Strategy to Defeat ISIS

September 22nd, 2014 Leave a comment Go to comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
CORRECTS DATE - President Barack Obama, left, bumps fists with Cyrus Walker, right, cousin of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, as Glenn Hutchins, center, looks on while golfing at Vineyard Golf Club, in Edgartown, Mass., on the island of Martha's Vineyard, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014. Obama is taking a two-week summer vacation on the island. Golf caddie at right is unidentified. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

CORRECTS DATE – President Barack Obama, left, bumps fists with Cyrus Walker, right, cousin of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, as Glenn Hutchins, center, looks on while golfing at Vineyard Golf Club, in Edgartown, Mass., on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014. Obama is taking a two-week summer vacation on the island. Golf caddie at right is unidentified. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Analysis: Obama’s Non-War Strategy to Defeat ISIS

original article written by Net Advisor

WASHINGTON DC. President Obama has been consistent one thing: Reminding our terrorists’ enemy’s that “there will be no boots (U.S. Soldiers) on the ground (in Iraq or Syria).” Instead President Obama has thus far committed some 1,600 U.S. troops as “advisors” and as part of diplomatic security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

As of June 2014, over 500,000 Iraq citizens have fled the country in fear of ISIS’ Sunni Orthodox rule: Join us, pay a fine, or die. There is no guarantee that after paying a fine (money extorted by an organized gang) that new fines and demands may be placed on Iraqi citizens wishing to stay in their own country. ISIS demands that all must follow Sharia Law as they see it.

ISIS has threatened to kill Americans which they have executed two thus far – both American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Jay Vee Terrorists?

In January 2014, President Obama called ISIS a “JayVee” team and then later blamed ‘Bad Intelligence’ for underestimating ISIS. As it turns out, President Obama was briefed over a year ago about ISIS.

All sitting U.S. Presidents receive daily, how often? DAILY intelligence reports. If they are not read, then it’s difficult to take action.

A report by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) from Jan. 2009 to May 2012 found that President Obama attended only 43 percent of his Daily Presidential Briefs, thus 57 percent of the briefs had no meetings with his high-level national security advisers.

ISIS has also threatened to ‘Raise Flag of Allah in White House.’ After American Journalist James Foley’s execution, President Obama chastised ISIS, then minutes later returned to his golf game with billionaire Glenn Hutchins and Cyrus Walker (photo page top). Cyrus Walker is a cousin of President Obama’s Iranian born senior adviser Valerie Jarrett (controversy).

After American journalists Steven Sotloff’s execution, Obama’s State Dept said they we not going to put any labels on what ISIS did. ISIS taunted Obama after Sotloff’s execution by saying, “I’m back, Obama.”

National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Obama’s actions against ISIS are “very different” from America at war. Therefore, U.S. fighter jets and bombers inside a foreign country striking targets against an enemy bent on killing Americans is not “war?”

Fighting Terrorism without Troops? Obama’s “Non-War Plan”

President Obama has decided a plan that is not to be considered a ‘war’ to fight ISIS.

Here is Obama’s ground-war plan to fight ISIS:

1. The U.S. is going to go into Syria somehow which is currently in a bloody civil war.

2. The U.S. is going to airlift 5,000 of the “Free Syria Army” (FSA) out of Syria and take them to Saudi Arabia.

3. The U.S. will then arm and train 5,000 of the FSA in Saudi Arabia. This could take 8-12 months or more.

4. After militarized training, the U.S. will then airlift 5,000 of the FSA back to Iraq. Obama hopes the FSA will work with the Iraqi army and fight ISIS in Iraq.

This is probably the worst military strategy I have ever heard of and here are the issues.

ISIS Terror org takes group photo.  [Image: AFP/ Getty Images]

ISIS Terror org takes group photo. [Image: AFP/ Getty Images]

1. Entering an Existing War Zone. Aside from the logistics of the U.S. going into an active war zones in Syria is very risky. Based on Obama’s statements about not having the U.S. engage in any ground combat role, there is a reasonable probability that U.S. aircraft will be shot at and or targeted with surface-to-air missiles. So Obama wants to send U.S. aircraft in a war zone, but does not was U.S. troops to engage in combat even if being shot at? Suggest: Fight in the dark.

2. Will There Be Air Support? To even attempt this first part of going into a war zone (Syria), the U.S. will need heavy air support willing to engage any threatening targets while transporting 5,000 people out of there. This brings us to our third point.

3. Vetting FSA. Somehow, President Obama is assuming that whoever says they are part of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) then they get to be airlifted by the U.S. This assumes that 5,000 of these Syrian-based troops are 100% U.S. friendly and Obama has magically vetted all of them to know that none of them are part of any anti-U.S. (terrorist) movement. Well, we know that members of the FSA contains Al-Qaeda terrorist organization [Report, Point 7].

ISIS and Al-Qaeda support the FSA, and all are fighting President Assad in Syria. So how do we know we are not airlifting Al-Qaeda and ISIS too?

So we have FSA, Al-Qaeda and ISIS on the same side who all hate the Syrian government run by President Assad.

Syria’s President Assad is backed by Iran, Russia and the terrorist organization Hezbollah [Report, Point 7]. Iran does not like ISIS, but, Iran likes Assad. Russia picks anyone who is not liked by the Obama Administration.

There is no evidence to suggest that the CIA or anyone else has vetted 5,000 people in Syria who will say, ‘ya, we love the USA. We’ll fight for you?’

What is likely to happen is the exact same thing that is and has been happening in Afghanistan. U.S. trains “friendly rebels” whom many turn on the U.S. with weapons we gave them.

The Libyan rebel leader, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in 2011 that some of his rebels (Obama armed) have ties to AL-Qaeda. In August 2014, U.S. Army General Harold Greene and others were killed by “insider attacks” – Afgans the U.S. armed and trained.

4. Airlift to Fantasyland. Presupposing the Obama Administration can do what they could not do in Iraq (2009 to date) or in Afghanistan; and that is to train only the U.S. “friendly” FSA.

After 8-12 months or longer, the next goal is to airlift all 5,000 FSA troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Now ISIS has its head training and command centers in Syria, so Obama is sending FSA troops to Iraq?

5. Out Numbered. The CIA estimated that ISIS has around 20,000 to 31,500 troops in Iraq and Syria including 2,000 Westerners. President Obama seems to be under the false impression that 5,000 FSA will be able to take on up to or more than 31,000+ ISIS terrorists? Obama’s plan to defeat or contain ISIS puts ISIS somewhere between a 4:1 to 6:1 army advantage.

President Obama said that ISIS could be a “manageable problem” as if ISIS was a bunch of school yard bullies that just needed a teacher to yell at them for misbehaving.

The above strategy is just not going to work. ISIS will have eight free months or more time to plan their own attacks, including against America and Western Targets. The FSA will have 5,000 less troops to fight against Assad, giving Assad a military advantage for up to a year.

President Obama’s plan assumes that everything will go without incident. The Obama Administration will have provided new weapons and training to FSA and to who else got associated to being part of FSA, but may actually be AL-Qaeda or ISIS?

In January 2014, President Obama sent arms to Iraq and now many U.S. military vehicles, U.S. Army uniform(s), and weapons are in the hands of terrorists such as ISIS.

Map of Kurdish Populated Areas Cover parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. (Map uncredited: please advise for credit).

Map of Kurdish Populated Areas Cover parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. (Map uncredited: please advise for credit).

The Kurds

North East Iraq is pretty much been held under control of the Kurds, who have always wanted their own independence, are not killing Iraqi citizens, are not committing known acts of terrorism, are already in Iraq and also hate and have been fighting ISIS.

In August 2014, the U.S. reportedly planned to arm the Kurds to fight ISIS. Prior to this, Iraq has also been arming the Kurds. In case you are wondering, Iran is also arming the Kurds. Recently, some 60,000 Kurds fled on foot from Syria to Turkey fearing attack by ISIS on these civilians.

Obama’s Whack-a-mole Fight with ISIS

President Obama said in June 2014 that the U.S. can’t play whack-a-mole with militant groups (terrorists).

“…what we can’t do is think that we’re just going to play whack-a-mole and send U.S. troops occupying various countries wherever these organizations pop up.”

— President Barack Obama said. Source: CBS News, June 22, 2014

Since the U.S. campaign against ISIS began on Aug 8, 2014, there have been 176 ISIS targets in Iraq. Through September 18, 2014, this works out to be 4.63 attacks per day against ISIS [MATH: 176 targets divided by 38 day air campaign = 4.63 average strikes per day]. This is not how you win a war. It’s kind of like dating without commitment. You rather get involved a little bit to show interest but there really is no commitment to take it to the next level.

Obama: We Have No Strategy

In 2013, President Obama rejected “repeated requests” for drone strikes against ISIS. This sounds a lot like the same pattern of behavior when Ambassador Stevens made multiple requests for increased security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya [Report, Point 8]. Those requests were ignored, the Consulate was overrun and four Americans were killed including the Ambassador. The Obama Administration began to cover up what happened in Benghazi ever since.

By 2014, President Obama admitted that his Administration has no strategy to deal with ISIS (Video). We heard President Obama previously say that the U.S. can’t play “Whack-a-mole” with extremists. Well that is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing with his few airstrikes each day.

Next, Obama’s military “Advisors” in Iraq will not be in a “combat role,” but they will be working alongside with the Iraqi and later FSA, advising them. Iraqi and FSA armies will fight ISIS, not the U.S. military advisors. Will the American military advisors be armed? They sure better be, and have plenty of air support. So far, we don’t know the answers to these questions.

So here you are in Iraq (for the third time – 1990, 2002, 2014). Despite BO’s pledge of “no boots on the ground,” the U.S. military advisors are likely going be wearing boots, so you have “boots on the ground.”

Assuming that Iraqi or FSA troops don’t turn on American advisors like many did in Afghanistan; you now have ISIS shooting at American “advisors” too. Obama analogy: Don’t shot at us, we are ‘not at war with ISIS.’ Yes, we, the U.S. armed and trained the FSA in Iraq. Yes, we are shooting missiles and dropping bonds on ISIS, but our “advisors” aren’t at war with you, so no need to shoot at us?


How to Really Fight Terrorists

If the Obama Administration was really committed to defeating ISIS which they won’t do with their current strategy, they will have to up the ante. In other words, the U.S. needs a massive 24-7 air campaign showing unlimited force to not only defeat ISIS but to psychologically impact them by war fatigue.

Dropping a few bombs or missiles here and there isn’t fighting a war. If you observe police tactics, they go into a raid with overwhelming force and are well protected.

What you don’t do is broadcast (then repeatedly broadcast) to your enemy what you are going or not going to do.

What you do instead is have a solid plan with attainable goals that is not dependent on other people (ie: We need the Iraqi gov to come together and hold hands with (ISIS) so they (ISIS) can have their say in a free Iraqi government, blah blah blah). ISIS is not interested in political debate. They are motivated by radical religious views that are integrated into their belief systems for over 1,000 years [Report, Points 5-7].

Before firing one shot, or moving one piece of hardware, make sure your generals and other top commanders are on board with the plan, not because Obama fired many of them, but because they know how to fight.

Once an area is secured, one will need ground troops to prevent losing the grounds that was gained. The U.S. still has troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries and we have not seen any war out of those countries.

Cut off Terror Funding Sources.

Next, the U.S. must seek to cut off the money supply that finances terrorism. ISIS is reportedly racking in millions of dollars a day just on oil sales from Iraq. This on top of the reported $2 Billion stolen from Iraqi banks. Terrorist orgs receive donations from sympathetic individuals and groups, and possibly states who all must be axed.

U.S. Intel needs to follow money transfers and target the individuals involved on both sides of the transaction. There should be no difference between those who commit acts of terrorism from those who finance the cause.

If the NSA has virtual unlimited (albeit) unlawful access to U.S. citizens’ banking and credit card transactions, emails, phone records, your cell phone location, collecting text messages, and control our garage door openers, then it should be no problem for NSA or other intel agencies to go after real enemy’s of the state.

If the U.S. can’t take back the oil fields from ISIS, then taking out ISIS controlled oil trucks is a good start. If unsuccessful at taking out ISIS controlled oil trucks seeking to export on the black market, then destroying the ISIS controlled oil fields is the next alternative.

Isolate Sympathetic States.

The U.S. needs to implement total isolation sanctions in any country that ISIS is conducting business. This means immediately cutting off any foreign aid, money, weapons, etc. The countries can maybe get it back once the behavior has clearly ceased, and assess penalties of 10x of the laundered monies for legit institutions for engaging in illegal money laundering with terrorists organization(s).

This also means stopping all Visa, MasterCard and American Express cards from being processed in terror sponsored, supported, sympathizer countries. Yes, some will probably whine about this one and the foreign economy will immediately begin to suffer after cutting their credit. But then tell those countries: This is what happens when doing business with terrorists. After a week and fines, the co-conspirator country may be extended its credit back. Repeated violations, permanently cut them off. This will get foreign sympathizers in-line if the U.S. is consistent with this policy and doesn’t bow to political whining.

The current U.S. Administration doesn’t have the gulls to do anything that might make someone upset, including the terrorists. Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to Iraqi’s civilians including children under attack by ISIS is, ‘urge Iraqis to remain calm.’ How do you remain calm when terror groups are systematically wiping out towns, beheading and mass-murdering innocent civilians who don’t want to follow ISIS’ rule?

The Obama Administration is going to have to take the political handcuffs off the U.S. military and let them do the job they know how to do.


original content copyright © 2014 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

Additional information about the author:
Author has long followed global events, and developed military strategy games. While attending a major private University, author initiated a senior project where in 1993, wrote a research report titled: “International Terrorism: Challenge to U.S. Intelligence.” Net Advisor’s bio.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

Related posts:

Categories: Foreign Policy
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.