Debate Magazine

Obama’s ISIL Strategy Reexamined: Air Strikes Ineffective; Weak Coalition

By Eowyn @DrEowyn

Obama’s ISIL strategy reexamined:  air strikes ineffective; weak coalitionDr. Eowyn:

Obama is the opposite of King Midas.

He is King Merde because everything he touches turns into crap. steaming-turd-smiley-emoticon

His much-vaunted “counterterrorism” strategy against the Islamic State jihadists — a strategy that led the butt-kisser David Brooks to compare Obama with Moses — is no exception. It is a signal failure.

Obama’s ISIL strategy reexamined:  air strikes ineffective; weak coalitionOriginally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

One month 4 days after President Obama’s grand announcement of a U.S.-led coalition to combat ISIL/ISIS or Islamic State (IS) “terrorists” (Obama says they’re neither Islamic nor jihadist!), as predicted by analysts, including members of this Consortium (their comments below are colored green), the “counterterrorism” strategy is failing.

Air Strikes

“Every analyst recognizes that attacks from the air may degrade (to a certain extent) the enemy, but not destroy him.” -A. James Gregor

“Well, airstrikes usually don’t amount to much. In the classic reason: You fly in and drop bombs, your aircraft run low on fuel and leave, and the locals declare victory and display pieces of a plane they shot down there because they’re still alive and in charge. Unless some key thing of the enemy’s got specifically attacked and destroyed in the raid, it doesn’t accomplish much….  Unless we concentrate force from the air upon…

View original 1,742 more words


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog