via Breitbart.
Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward said people in the military are complaining to him that the Obama administration has no strategy to defeat ISIS other then having people like Susan Rice “micromanage” military responses.It would be natural to complain about White House meddling and sympathize with the Generals.
Woodward said, “If you talk to people in the White House and the military, I think there’s agreement and John McCain is right and General Flynn is right, there is no strategy. They have not sat down and said this is where we want to go and this is how we want to do it. And the measure of that, when you head into the weeds here, people from the White House are micromanaging the tactical situation on a daily and weekly basis. That’s not their job. They have to kind of do strategic planning and say what do we want to accomplish in the next year.”
When host Chris Wallace asked, “Wait a minute, are you saying that — forgive me, Susan Rice, is telling the generals what to do?” Woodard confirmed it by saying, “And they have got all these people in the White House. You talk to people in the military who are there and they say ‘we are being micromanaged and we’re not given a real plan to say what are we going to do here.’ And it’s not the way to run a war or try to win a war.”
I can't.
We haven't seen one General resign and go on a talking tour to express issues with the fight against ISIS. We haven't seen leaks (well except for this one that won't be seen by the majority of Americans) to trusted press sources (and every General has at least one) that have railed against White House interference in this fight.
So no. I can't sympathize with the Generals. I can only state that we're seeing the worst military leadership in our nations history...and its extended through two administrations...16 freaking years of leadership failure.
Sol, they are voting with their feet and retiring or getting out. A few friends , who are either enlisted, former subordinates (company grades) or associates (Field Grade) are emailing or calling me and asking what it is like to be retired. They are tired of the mickey mouse or political BS that the garrison army has become.
ReplyDeletewell that makes sense. there are already rumblings of retention and recruiting problems and your statement just confirms what i've suspected. still i did think that we'd see a star or more express displeasure with the fight against ISIS. but then again, considering how this White House treats its domestic enemies perhaps i shouldn't be surprised.
DeleteBut Sol, doesn't this make any sense yet to anyone? Generals should be complaining that there is no strategy because there really ain't even a political strategy in place. The current political strategy sounds like something like from a Mel Brookes movie.
DeleteSo you've got military people and planners with one hand tied behind their back and both feets shackled. You are really left with little or no options. I mean the objective is very clear: Contain ISIS/ISIL and destroy ISIS/ISIL. This should be what the White House clear-cut policy to be handed to the military. Instead, the simple policy goes on: No boots on the ground. Ok, you can have a little bit of SoF/SF. Ok, not over 300. Ok, you can only target ISIS/ISIL when you see they are flying the flag, etc.
It's like the people who wrote the policy want to play "generals".
the policy is popularity not explaining why this group needs to be eradicated. this whole thing is a moral conundrum. if you speak out then you will ruin your career. if you speak out you ruin your career with almost a guarantee that your name will be smeared and the policy will not change.
Deletedo you ruin your life that you've worked so hard to build to take a stand that will not change a thing?
And that's the point, Sol. No one wants to ruin their own careers. Not even the White House policy is flawed and can be exploited by the enemy.
DeleteSame policy mistakes in Afghanistan. Same policy mistakes in Iraq. The US still does not (want to ) learn from mistakes. No boots on the ground, they say. But you've got SF/SoF roaming the ground. You've got CSAR. What are they wearing? Tennis sneakers?
Clear-cut policy. That's what this conflict requires. Not a set of rules designed by lawyers and only understood by lawyers and can be exploited and nit-picked by your enemies. Clear and precise policy.
Oh, and the intricacies with your allies. That'll go in swell.
I don't know with you, but I feel that western players (US, UK, Australia, etc.) contributing air assets are just "showing up" for the sake of showing up. I don't see any concrete commitment.
All I can say is this: Because of "don't know who you can trust", a lot of journalists and TV crews are staying as far away from the region. This serves the west very, very well. No idiot trying to "make a name for him/herself" and try to sensationalize something trivial.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer lies in the amount of 'influence' Iran is being given here and, of course, how much we say about Saudi's role. It was 19 Saudis who tried to land an airliner in a skyscraper. We did nothing. It was a majority Saudi effort to sponsor the Shahiden that stood against the move to 'democratic rule' by a Shiia majority of Iraq. And we did not close their borders. It was Saudi who sponsored and trained Syrian guerillas (including Al Qaeda) to destabilize that Iran-friendly nation. And during that fight, it was Saudi Prince Bandar of the GIP (General Intelligence Presidency) who issued the gas by which Al Qaeda faked an 'accident' as a Syrian WMD attack on their own people. Something which Vladimir Putin threatened to blow the lid off of as both an embarrassment of allies with Obama's hand in the EML cookie jar. And a means to keep the U.S. firmly rooted in the M.E. rather than taking Russia to the mat over this Ukrainian deal.
DeleteWe don't dare publically break with Saudi but we have chosen a radical alternate route of non-publically allowing Iranian Quds Brigade to stiffen the spines of the Kurdish Peshmerga dog and pony show, spanking Saudi as hard as they can so that we can 'stay on schedule' towards whatever world government breakout position is coming-real-soon.
Via what is likely to play out in the Ukraine as the death of a Super Power.
Whether some or all of the U.S. military is in on these shenanigans or they just need to be kept busy in a way that doesn't allow for a home-guard response to what will essential be betrayal of our country's sovereignty, I don't know.
But I would bet real money that the reason we are not diving into Iraq/Syria has as much to do with biding time for a different fight as it does 'waiting for crisis' and then charging in to save the day on the basis of 'certain guarantees' from Iraq...
Sadly, the only thing that matters at this point is the Russian response (they want to keep the pot as thoroughly stirred as possible to at least delay any confrontation in the Ukraine) and RT is frankly closer to the truth than our own Media Circus propaganda engines.
You take out Russia by seizing, not her breadbasket but her oil and gas. That is what the Crimea/LPR/DPR counter occupation is about. Blocking force positions astride the routes to the Eastern Black Sea and Caspian. I have no idea how we plan to neutralize the Russian nuclear force, because I don't believe SM-3IIa/b have enough energy to effect BPI/API intercepts of Russian Topols coming up from east of the Urals.
Maybe those secret missions by the X-37 have been to insert Project Thor type RFGs on an ultra-short window basis of reaction. We tore up ABM, why not Space too?
@ M&S.
DeleteBush went on the same "bowing" tour that Obama has been on. You make many valid points but tend to state them in ways that are....unfortunate.
The Generals have nobody but themselves to blame. They take their orders, as misguided those orders might be, say, "Can do, sir", duck down, punch their ticket and hope they get promoted.
ReplyDeleteWe lose wars and instead of generals being handed their hat and shown the door, they get promoted or some comfy exec position with a defense contractor.
The system is broken.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/27/former-top-officers-absence-of-white-house-strategy-makes-isis-iraq-syria-afghanistan-wars-unwinnable
ReplyDeleteAn absence of clear policies from the White House makes it impossible for the U.S. to achieve any sort of victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to three former top military officers who oversaw recent wars there.
“[We need to] come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values,” retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis said to Congress Tuesday morning.
“America needs a refreshed national security strategy,” he added, saying that it must look beyond the string of crisis “currently consuming the executive branch.”
The notoriously blunt combat commander and former head of U.S. Central Command was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside retired Navy Adm. William Fallon, also a former CentCom chief, and former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane.
Much like Gen Mike "Red" Edson did after he retired and saved the Marine Corps during the post WWII dark days, these retired Gens/Admirals are doing what they can...and it made the prime time news.
On a side note: If the 9/11 report concernign the Saudi gov't involement in the attacks is release in a semi-non redacted form...what will the back lash be?
Jeb would be utterly crushed in his white house bid....people would call for the bombing of Riyadh and someone would probably make a try to go after Bush Jr while calling for hundreds of govt officials to go to jail....it would be a constitutional crisis that would probably come close to tearing up the nation.
Deletewhich is why the powers that be will never let it see the light of day. Clinton, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Obama and probably any of the contenders for the White HOuse are bought and paid for with Saudi money. i know it sounds conspiratorial but i'm convinced of it.
ReplyDeleteIsis in Iraq: Britain Has No Plan for Tackling the Militants, and No Idea Who's in Charge
http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/isis-in-iraq-britain-has-no-plan-for-tackling-the-militants-and-no-idea-whos-in-charge/
The primary strategic objective at the moment is the destruction of the Syrian State via proxy. IMHO
ReplyDeleteThis is why no real action has been taken to go after ISIS. And incompetence does not explain the fact that Turkey (NATO) is being used to support ISIS elements (as opposed to simply Saudi Arabia) and the fact that Obama has stated he wants to give arms to 'moderate' rebels that inevitably get taken over or shared with AL Nusra and ISIS. When you know that equipment you give the 'moderates' ends up with the extremists - on almost every occasion - then why repeat the measure?
Here is a German news report on the open Turkish border and supply trucks moving into ISIS controlled territory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPE_7y4zw64
Here is journalist Robert Fisk talking on Australian television saying he believes the FSA is a myth in terms of being an effective combatant in the conflict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPneBrXo9yc
I would guess that these two straightforward points, outlined in the video clips, would be apparent to anyone working in an intelligence gathering capacity - unless our agencies have only hired the deaf and dumb.
Furthermore, if the 'moderate' rebels unseat Assad (an unrealistic scenario) then what happens to the Syrian State vis-a-vis ISIS ? Does anyone think that ISIS, the more dominant force, will be cut out of the post-Assad State? The end result will be a country in the grip of the extremists. It will be hell for non-Sunni's in the rest of Syria with a program of ethnic cleansing likely on the cards.
I personally don't believe, at face value, anything coming from Obama Administration spokespeople. Recently intelligence assessments on the situation in Libya were released which showed there was no indication of an unfolding genocide, and yet this propaganda was used by the politicians for intervention. Were they not professionally advised to the contrary? Those occupying the White House have faux humanitarian concerns (ie the staged gas attacks) which are used as cover for very real geopolitical maneuvers IMO.
The big question to be asked of our high level politicians is who funds them, what lobby groups influence them, who else do they associate with, what think tanks do they work for, who are the other members of these think tanks, what are the objectives of these groups, what have the politicians actually done in terms of policy as opposed to their public fairy floss 'statements'?
These people do not work for our best interests, only special interests. The 'best' people for the job, those without excessive baggage or without underhanded connections, do not make it to the top.