Trump's secret plan to defeat Daech : keep up with Obama's plan because it's working

[Johan]

'The strategy hasn't changed at all' — Trump's plan to defeat ISIS is the same as Obama's


President Donald Trump's plan to defeat ISIS is essentially the same as his predecessor, President Barack Obama, despite Trump's frequent criticism of the former president's efforts against the terror group.

"The strategy of by, with, through, and alongside our Iraqi partners has not changed," New Zealand Army Brigadier Hugh McAslan, the deputy commanding general for land forces in Operation Inherent Resolve, told Business Insider from Baghdad in a Skype interview.
Though Trump has made small tactical changes to the anti-ISIS campaign, such as giving the military greater authority to call the shots on the ground, the overall strategy established in 2014 remains pretty much the same, according to The Daily Beast.

The president has so far missed two deadlines he set himself for detailing a new ISIS strategy, according to CNN. That delay, according to the Daily Beast, is because the Trump White House has been asking defense officials to pitch new ideas that could differentiate the current strategy from Obama's.

The strategy put in place by the Obama administration, however, seems to be working quite well, McAslan said. Though the overall strategy hasn't changed, McAslan said, what has "changed is the fact that in 2014, ISIS was at the gates of Baghdad, and now they are a desperate enemy about to be defeated in Iraq’s second largest city."
"The strategy hasn’t changed at all throughout," he added, mentioning coalition efforts to train indigenous forces, advise them, and offer precision air strikes, intelligence, and surveillance.

Iraqi security forces have only about 3% left to go before Mosul is fully liberated from ISIS forces. Once Iraq's second-largest city is recaptured, they will move on to other small pockets of terrain still held by ISIS in Iraq, which include cities such as Hawija, Tal Afar, and Al Qaim.

Meanwhile, coalition-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have continued to push further into Raqqa, Syria, the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State. The coalition estimates there are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 fighters left to defend that city.

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/trump-strategy-defeat-isis-obama-2017-7/

So, two things here :

1) The reason why Trump refused to tell people about his plan to defeat Daech is because he has no plan, it was all bogus. Or maybe dfoing things just like Obama did was his plan all along but he couldn't say so on TV...
2) As sad as it is that a presidential nominee lied about such an important issue, it's not very important for the people who are actually involved in that war : Since lat 2016 Obama's long temr plan is getting results, ISIS is losing, they are having defeat after defeats, their strongholdsare reclaimed by the coalition one after the other. It started before Trump was in office (even before he was elected), and, than GOD, Trump did not changed a strategy that was getting results. He's just waiting for Obama's strategy to fully destroy Daech, then he'll claim the victory for himself...

 

[Jack Davenport]

Sam Fisher was banned because he started thread after thread trashing Democrats and Obama.

I see you're following his example.


It's ISIS, not ISIL or Daesh.

Daesh especially, is a politically correct term to disassociate them with Islam.

I'm pretty sure Trump never would have considered them the "JV Team".

 

[Johan]

Wether you call them ISIS, ISIL or Daech is not important. I choosed Daech because
1) The acronym comes from the arabic name, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām
2) Daech is quite close from Daas which, in Arabic, means "he who crushes others", which emphasize the lack of dignity from jihadis.

Now if you chooses to show them respect and call them by the name they chosed for themselves, fine but I choosed to call them with a name that humiliates them

 

[Jack Davenport]

Wether you call them ISIS, ISIL or Daech is not important. I choosed Daech because
1) The acronym comes from the arabic name, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām
2) Daech is quite close from Daas which, in Arabic, means "he who crushes others", which emphasize the lack of dignity from jihadis.

Now if you chooses to show them respect and call them by the name they chosed for themselves, fine but I choosed to call them with a name that humiliates them

I call them by who they say they are.

John Kerry calls them Daesh.

He is not trying to humiliate them by any stretch of the imagination. Humiliating them only helps to recruit more terrorists. Right?

 

[meesterperfect]

Just make it easy and call them Bearded Mercernaries.
Bearded Mercenaries who use US weapons and equipment.
That doesn't mean the US is giving them the weapons.
Let's see, who does the US give tons of weapons to?
Oh yeah Israel and Saudi.

But if people want to continue the Cha-Rade I cant stop them.

 

[sean miguel]

Didn't candidate Trump also say he knew more than the generals and the thought was he'd be stubborn and not defer to their judgement? The opposite has been true. President Trump has delegated battlefield decisions to the war fighters down to the commander level instead of administration lawyers and bureaucrats. Obama was notorious for micromanaging battlefield decisions.

President Trump has taken the shackles off the military even if the overall strategy has not changed.

 

[Johan]

I call them by who they say they are.

How respectful of you. I wish you could you show as much respect to liberals as you you to Daech

John Kerry calls them Daesh.

He is not trying to humiliate them by any stretch of the imagination. Humiliating them only helps to recruit more terrorists. Right?

Nope.
Humiliate muslims helps jihadis to recruit. calling jihadis "bullies" ('cause that what "Daas" means, basically) doesn't Because muslim knows that the #1 victims of Daech are muslims.
But coming from someone who thinks every muslim is a potential jihadi or a jihadi sympathiser, I can understand this to be quite complicated to grasp : when you see the world in black & white, blue + red = purple is difficult to understand...

Obama was notorious for micromanaging battlefield decisions.

And still conservatives refuse to give him credit for taking down Bin Laden.
Obama' micro managing is to blame when things fail but when they succeed there's no way his micro-managing had any influence. How convenient...

President Trump has taken the shackles off the military even if the overall strategy has not changed.

Evern with Obama's shackled, Daech was being defeated. Now that Trump has unshackled the generals, nothing has changed. I guess these shackles weren't that tight. Or Obama was good with micro-managing the military, just as good as the generals are.

 

[sean miguel]

And still conservatives refuse to give him credit for taking down Bin Laden.
Obama' micro managing is to blame when things fail but when they succeed there's no way his micro-managing had any influence. How convenient...

I don't know what alternate history you're referring to, but I don't remember any conservative not giving Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden, including myself. There were those who correctly pointed out that it was Bush's enhanced interrogation program which Obama criticized and ran against that led to Osama's location being pinpointed.

And even when Bin Laden's position was located, it took months for Obama to give the go ahead for the mission. He hemmed and hawed and we're lucky that Osama had stayed in his compound for that long.

The same goes for ISIS' leader Al Baghdadi. His position was located but by the time the request went up the chain of command and approved by the Obama administration, Baghdadi was long gone.

 

[meesterperfect]

Didn't candidate Trump also say he knew more than the generals and the thought was he'd be stubborn and not defer to their judgement? The opposite has been true. President Trump has delegated battlefield decisions to the war fighters down to the commander level instead of administration lawyers and bureaucrats. Obama was notorious for micromanaging battlefield decisions.

President Trump has taken the shackles off the military even if the overall strategy has not changed.

Are you really that naive?
Trump has taken shackles off of nobody.
He is the one shackled.
Shit they got him locked inside a freaking refridgerator.

I guess you forgot how many times he said he would stop the uneccesary wars and foriegn intervention while he was running.

Its pretty clear by now he can't.
For somebody to say HE has unshackled the military, as if this is a good thing or even remotely connected to reality tells me just how far removed from reality they are.

ass far as anybody actually believing there is a plan to stop Daech or any other Mercenary , not Jihadist Johan, MERCENARY ARMY you also must be completley brainwashed or just afraid to see reality.
They are attacking the people fighting Daech right in front of your faces, jesus christ wake the fuck up.

 

[sean miguel]

Are you really that naive?
Trump has taken shackles off of nobody.
He is the one shackled.
Shit they got him locked inside a freaking refridgerator.

I guess you forgot how many times he said he would stop the uneccesary wars and foriegn intervention while he was running.

Its pretty clear by now he can't.
For somebody to say HE has unshackled the military, as if this is a good thing or even remotely connected to reality tells me just how far removed from reality they are.

ass far as anybody actually believing there is a plan to stop Daech or any other Mercenary , not Jihadist Johan, MERCENARY ARMY you also must be completley brainwashed or just afraid to see reality.
They are attacking the people fighting Daech right in front of your faces, jesus christ wake the fuck up.

The military themselves are saying they've been given more autonomy under this president. But what do they know? I should defer to some lunatic's ravings on youtube to get the real story.

Why do I bother?

 

[meesterperfect]

What do they know?
Well for starters they know how to lie to start wars and invade places that are no threat to anybody.

Sure they have more autonomy now, if thats what they want to call it.
They can do what they want it seems.
They can give 300+ BILLION in weapons to the Saudis. Wonder where those weapons will wind up.
Threaten war with Iran, Russia and North Korea every damn day.
Invade Syria who is fighting our supposed enemy.

Go back 50 years to vietnam and tell me one good thing that has come from all the US invasions.
How many millions dead. How many places destroyed. How many trillions borrowed and spent?
Also the plain fact thatthese wars have bankrupted our country, ruined it. Look around man.
And people like you say Hooray for our team and you want more.

The military has more freedom to do what it wants and this is a good thing to you?
Spend trillions of dollars of our money and kill children?
Because thats what they do.
I won't even get into the why aspect or the for whom they do this.

See Edgy, some of us have evolved since 9/11.
We grew up. We realized what and why they did it.
We don't wave the flag and call our selves patriots while our country creates havoc all over the globe.
We call it unconstitutional and look at it as the downfall of our country.

And you know maybe some of those ravings on yootoob are correct.
At least they arent the paid liars from the msm that despite years of nonstop propaganda some people still believe.
But we really dont need either to see it for ourselves. Its right in our faces. Time to stop pretending we are right....cause we ain't.

We are not on a good course. Nothing has changed, in fact its getting worse. Trump is not what he said he was.
As far as the US war machine military. Sure most joined with good intentions and took an oath to uphold the US Constitution.
But they are mostly order followers. They are there to be used and discarded like trash. The ones who make the decisions are the dangerous ones. Just look at their track record.

PS what video game is that? looks pretty good.

 

[xfire]

There's a dual timeline of the United States, always has been. There's the flag-waving patriotic timeline, the one the majority of citizens rightly identify with, then there's the sinister timeline, one controlled by World money. It's only been within the last couple of decades that the sinister timeline has gotten any serious consideration outside of academic and conspiratorial circles. Both timelines and histories are true, and that's what makes it so hard to reconcile, harder still for wholesale condemnation. IS the United States bad? No. And yes. Until we kick the money out, which ain't gonna happen, individually you have to reconcile in your own mind that while the United States has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world, that we still do some pretty bad stuff that only benefits the already wealthy. It's like Christianity, our defacto National Religion, got a lot of innocent blood on it's hands, does plenty of fucked up shit in it's own right, but it's overall mission statement ain't so bad, and besides, what are the alternatives? I'll keep my Flag, Guns, and God, do the best I can, and the rest of the world can fucking burn.

 

[bobjustbob]

... I'll keep my Flag, Guns, and God, do the best I can, and the rest of the world can fucking burn.

Become an isolationist? That sure as hell gets euro-panties in a bunch. I'm with you on this except I don't want a gun. But you can have yours.

 

[xfire]

Become an isolationist? That sure as hell gets euro-panties in a bunch. I'm with you on this except I don't want a gun. But you can have yours.

Then, when New Bearded Hilter emerges, they will cry for us to come save them some more.

 

[bobjustbob]

I now have a name for my garage band.

 

[Johan]

Then, when New Bearded Hilter emerges, they will cry for us to come save them some more.

Please, stop.

The US did not came to Europe in 1944 to save us.
Officialy they came because, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war to the US and because, in 1942, they had signed a deal with Russia, promising Stalin to open a new front to release some of the german pressure on the Eastern front and ease the soviet progress towards Berlin.
But the real reason is that, back in the mid-1942 (when the treaty between the allies and Stalin was signed) the allies knew it was only a matter of time before the soviets would crush Germany and Roosevelt and Churchill certainly didn't wanted Stalin to get his hand on all Europe. To avoid that the US had to join the fight in Europe.

People often think that it was the US who saved Europe from Hitler which is, at least, partially wrong : In the fight afgainst nazi germany, the soviets payd the hardest price, the soviets killed the most nazi soldiers.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, if he had respected his deal with Stalin he could have gathered all his force on the western front and the allies woud have been crushed, Operation Overlord would have been such disaster it would have made Omaha beach look like a walk in the park compared to what would have happened...

 

[xfire]

Please, stop.

No. Without The USA you would be speaking German.

 

[Johan]

Nope we would still be speaking french. Just like Poland still speaks Polish, despite their communist past.

Also, without France, you would be a loyal subject to Her Majesty The Queen Elisabeth II

 

[sean miguel]

Nope we would still be speaking french. Just like Poland still speaks Polish, despite their communist past.

Also, without France, you would be a loyal subject to Her Majesty The Queen Elisabeth II

but we'd still be speaking english.

 

[xfire]

Nope we would still be speaking french. Just like Poland still speaks Polish, despite their communist past.

Also, without France, you would be a loyal subject to Her Majesty The Queen Elisabeth II

I wouldn't, I live in Texas, at worst be a part of Mexico, which suits me just bueno.