Islamic State Loses Ground In 2015
America is at war, but it is sometimes hard to tell. Granted, we're in a very limited sort of engagement, but even so the media has largely fallen down on the job of keeping Americans up to date with the war's progress. It's a very slow war, and the media much prefers "shock and awe" style war, to be sure. Even so, the fall of Ramadi should be a lot bigger news than it currently seems to be.
I was cleaning out my browser's bookmarks (in preparation for the end-of-the-year link dump articles, which will be forthcoming sooner or later, never fear), and found one from February which plainly shows just how much progress has been made in the battle with the Islamic State. The Washington Post article features a war map showing the extent of the Islamic State's reach, ten months ago. Take a look at the map, and then compare it to a current Iraq/Syria war map to see the gains which have been made. You may want to keep these maps open while reading the rest of this article, to see the areas discussed.
In Syria, the Islamic State used to control a very long stretch of the Turkish border, from Kobani eastward. This has almost all been retaken by the Kurdish forces in Syria (Kurds are marked in yellow on the recent map). Kobani has been retaken as well -- one of the first big victories against the Islamic State. The Kurds have taken back much of northern Syria, in fact. The Kurds have really been the most successful fighting force in the entire region this year.
Westward, north of Aleppo, the Islamic State made some gains against the rebels there, but this is really the only ground the Islamic State has taken all year long, and it's not all that big geographically. However, it has meant that the Islamic State still controls part of the Turkish border, which has been crucial for them for getting foreign fighters who support them into their territory. But the stretch of border they still control is much smaller than it used to be.
The Islamic State has been losing even more ground in Iraq, as both the Kurds in the north and the government forces (and allied Shiite militias) around Baghdad have made a lot of progress. The Kurds have successfully denied a major Islamic State supply route between Raqqa (in Syria) and Mosul. The map from February shows the first of these gains, but the bigger news was the fall of Sinjar and the border crossing to the west with Syria. The next strategic gain for the Kurds will likely be the town of Tal Afar, which would give them complete control of the highway from Syria right up to the suburbs of Mosul.
Almost all the ground to the south of Kirkuk has been cleared of the Islamic State, the result of both the Kurds and the government forces (marked in red on the recent map). Baqubah was the largest town taken back in this swath of territory. The Iraqi forces have also pushed north along a major route from Baghdad to Mosul, retaking Tikrit and Baiji. The next battle on this front will likely be to retake Hawija, the last town near Kirkuk still under Islamic State control. This will set the stage for the biggest fight in Iraq, retaking Mosul itself. Mosul is a city which used to have a million people in it, so this will be one of the biggest battles of the whole war (and will likely not happen for a while, at least until the city has been completely circled and all Islamic State supply lines completely cut off).
Back in February, the Islamic State was menacing Baghdad itself. It had taken over much of the surrounding areas to the north and west, but it has now been ousted from almost all these towns it once controlled, as well as the surrounding region. Iraqi forces are making intermittent progress retaking all the towns on the western road from Baghdad to Syria. From Baghdad heading west, the Islamic State still controls Fallujah, but Ramadi is currently falling to the Iraqi forces. The Islamic State still controls Hit, but Haditha is in Iraqi hands. Obviously, the next big target for the forces fighting in this region will be Fallujah. Hit will also have to be cleared, and then the Iraqis can push their way to the border crossing with Syria.
This progress has been slow, but it has also not involved the loss of thousands of American troops' lives -- that's the real tradeoff, politically. But while slow, real progress has indeed been made over the past year. The Islamic State has not taken much new territory at all, and their lighting expansion (or, if you prefer German, blitzkrieg) has been stopped in its tracks. The Islamic State has lost a big chunk of the territory it used to hold, as steady pressure is brought to bear from virtually every side.
Of course, the forces fighting the Islamic State still have a long way to go, and a lot more territory to retake. The battle is by no means won, and the outcome is far from certain. The most symbolic fight will be to recapture Raqqa in Syria, where the Islamic State set up its capital. It is impossible to predict how long all of this will take, at this point.
Still, by looking at those two maps, you can plainly see that progress is indeed being made, in multiple areas. It's a lot easier for American politicians and the media to ignore these successes, because they contradict the "Syria and Iraq are hopelessly in the grips of ISIS" storyline. In February, the Islamic State was threatening Baghdad and had control of all the territory between Baghdad and the Turkish border far to the north. That is no longer true. The Syrian/Turkish border has been mostly retaken by Kurds, the Islamic State has been pushed back from the Baghdad area, reduced to holding only Fallujah and Hit. Ramadi is falling, even as I write this. Mosul is slowly being circled in preparation for the biggest battle to come in Iraq.
Even if it has happened a lot slower than many Americans would have preferred, there is a lot of good news in the war against the Islamic State. Hopefully 2016 will see as much progress as has been made in 2015. The media can ignore the story if they wish, but the Islamic State is quite obviously losing the war. There's a lot of fighting still left to do, but so far the forces arrayed against the Islamic State have been making a lot of gradual progress this year.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
isis may call themselves islamic, but most muslims don't share their beliefs. according to pew research, those who live in the palestinian authority territory (definitely a population who have no problem with terrorism if it serves their goals) view isis 84% unfavorably, 6% favorably, and 10% don't know. that's not exactly popular.
http://tinyurl.com/nj2oql6
^see above^
JL
But wait, I thought the Kenyan Muslim-in-chief was busy selling the whole Middle East to the Ayatollah and secretly destroying Israel with Huma Abedin. You mean to say that a military strategy of the Obama White House has been...effective? Why, that's...sacrilegious! You'll be read right out of the liberal 'sphere for this, Chris.
This progress has been slow, but it has also not involved the loss of thousands of American troops' lives --
Of course, hundreds of thousands of NON AMERICAN lives have been lost in the region..
Used to be that liberals cared about stuff like that.. That ALL lives matter...
Now, apparently it's just AMERICAN lives that matter..
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
651
Matt,
You mean to say that a military strategy of the Obama White House has been...effective?
Yea... If you call hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead and tens of millions more displaced...
Yea.... It's "effective"...
It's funny how, when it was a GOP POTUS who was waging such an "effective" campaign, the Left Wingery went hysterically batshit crazy..
What a different that '-D' makes, eh?? :D
Michale
654
JL,
isis may call themselves islamic, but most muslims don't share their beliefs. according to pew research, those who live in the palestinian authority territory (definitely a population who have no problem with terrorism if it serves their goals) view isis 84% unfavorably, 6% favorably, and 10% don't know. that's not exactly popular.
And yet, according to that exact same poll you quote, upwards of 287 million muslims support Daesch or don't know if they support Daesch...
Yes, if you pick a tiny sliver (Palestinian territories) you can show that there is little muslim support for Daesch...
But if you look at ANOTHER country... A nuclear armed country like Pakistan, less than 30% don't support Daesch..
Daesch is more supported by more muslims than the Left Wingery would have us believe...
Worldwide, between 63 and 287 million muslims support Daesch...
Michale
655
Speaking of that magically little '-D'....
Heavily Armed Anti-Terror Police to Guard Times Square on New Year's
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/heavily-armed-anti-terror-police-guard-times-square-new-year-n487426
Can you imagine the hysteria from the Left Wingery if such heavy security presence had been imposed under an Administration with a '-R' after it??
Mind boggling....
"Excuse me sir. What is your boggle?"
"My boggle?? Waitaminute. How much do you weigh?"
-DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Michale
656
Take a look at the map, and then compare it to a current Iraq/Syria war map to see the gains which have been made. You may want to keep these maps open while reading the rest of this article, to see the areas discussed.
We can also take a look at the map of Afghanistan and it is the diametric opposite to the Iraq/Syria map...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/09/29/taliban-afghanistan-updates/bf344fceedd6154a0043a455c21e69637b2ec4ab/taliban-map-1015-720.png
Huge gains by the Taliban and there is even a resurgence Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan...
Didn't Obama accuse Bush of taking the eye off the ball???
Seems like the pot is calling the kettle pewter, eh?? :D
But it's OK.. Obama is god and can do no wrong.. It's all the GOP's fault... :D
Michale
657
Huge gains by the Taliban and there is even a resurgence Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan...
But wait!!!???
How can there be AQ in Afghanistan!!??
Obama said he eradicated Al Qaeda!!!???
I am cornfused...
Oh wait.. I get it..
It's just a video in Afghanistan..
AQ has nothing to do with it..
Now I understand... :^/
Michale
658
Used to be that liberals cared about stuff like that.. That ALL lives matter...
Now, apparently it's just AMERICAN lives that matter..
Or, more accurately, it's just the Left Wingery agenda that matters...
Michale
659
And first and foremost, numero uno, the TOP item on the Left Wingery agenda???
SURVEY SAYS!!!???
Protect The Messiah, President Barack Hussein Obama....
Michale
660
Protect The Messiah, President Barack Hussein Obama....
I include Obama's middle name because I know how much it pisses off the Hysterical Left :D
Michale
661
The Institute for The Study of War has the best maps of who controls what. You can find the latest (December) here:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/isis-sanctuary-december-21-2015
You can understand this map better if you focus on three factors: water, roads and ethnicity.
Ethnicity maps are harder to come by: Too focused by nation, too simplified.
For Iraq:
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iraq_Ethnic_sm.png
An ethnic map for Syria:
http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Syria-Ethnicity-Summary-Map.png
Thanks so much for posting those links, TS ... it has led me to a wealth of new information and a lot of reading to be done ... in my spare time ... ha!
Great maps! Thanks again!
The take home from 13 and 14 is that "The Islamic State" with Syria and Iraq is a Sunni insurgency, not an invasion. None of the major players have been able to penetrate much beyond their home turf.
A look at Syria and Iraq using Google Earth is informative. Most of Syria and Iraq are sparsely populated. The population centers are in the green parts. which are determined by watersheds, notably the Tigris and Euphrates. Road networks link the towns like beads on a string. In this arid environment, a low tech, largely irregular army isn't going to go far without traveling the roads.
The cities and towns are bottlenecks to low ytech warfare, great for defense and hard to maneuver around unless you have air transport or sophisticated mechanized ground forces. That's why little ground has exchanged hands once the insurrection popped up. As easily as it popped up, the insurrection can go back underground. The foreign fighters are an exception, locals could spot them in an instant. Dialect, a few religious questions, what's on their phone and person. The West should be exploiting that....on the ground and on social media.
Worldwide, between 63 and 287 million muslims support Daesch...
even if that were true, the numbers you're citing are pretty small relative to the number of muslims worldwide (1.6 billion). presuming your numbers to be correct:
support isis - 4%
don't know - 14%
oppose isis - 82%
these are the same numbers you cited, presented as percentages. is there a threat? yes, absolutely! but a higher ratio of muslims OPPOSE that threat than dentists who recommend sugarless gum!
JL
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US and it allies should announce that any motorized vehicle in ISIS controlled territory that is bigger than a motorbike is fair game to air attack without warning. You want 12th century buddy - you got it.
The most realistic goal for the US and allies is to turn The Islamic State into The Failed Islamic State, and quarantine it. A little "North Korea" in the former Syria and Iraq. A big nuisance is better than an endless occupation.
All my comments are basically in line with CW's assessment:
"This progress has been slow, but it has also not involved the loss of thousands of American troops' lives -- that's the real tradeoff, politically. But while slow, real progress has indeed been made over the past year. The Islamic State has not taken much new territory at all, and their lighting expansion (or, if you prefer German, blitzkrieg) has been stopped in its tracks."
Except for the "blitzkrieg" bit. There was no blitzkrieg, it was more like a "coming out party."
Interesting fun fact. The term blitzkrieg was popularized by the Western Press and was never a codified doctrine of the German Military.
these are the same numbers you cited, presented as percentages. is there a threat? yes, absolutely! but a higher ratio of muslims OPPOSE that threat than dentists who recommend sugarless gum!
JL
Yes... IF you cite the numbers as a percentage the Pro Obama spin is better..
But the reality, as you yourself state, is that there is STILL a threat..
Michale
662
All my comments are basically in line with CW's assessment:
AND ignores the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed and the tens of millions of innocents displaced..
But hay.. Far be it from me to intrude on ya'all's victory lap and back slapping party...
Don't strain anything patting Obama's back... Or kissing Obama's ass.... Whichever is more to ya'all's liking :D
Michale
663
Well, at least ya'all are consistent..
When Bush had such an "effective" campaign in Iraq, ya'all gave him credit as well..
Oh wait.....
Michale
665
"It is here [the Syrian city of Dabiq], the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo" (source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)
ISIS is an apocalyptic cult where the apocalypse will be triggered by a ground battle between ISIS and the forces of Rome - when the verses that ISIS alludes to were written, nobody knew about America, and Rome was the current version of the Great Satan.
Thus, while I expect 2016 to see a continued squeeze in Syria and Iraq, I don't think we can rule out escalating provocations to get the U.S. and its allies to put feet on the ground - a precondition.
This is Hilary's biggest challenge for November 2016. Whichever Republican is nominated, you can be sure that they will be full on for a ground war if ISIS can engineer some attacks in the U.S. Public opinion will demand revenge (look at the reaction from France after the Paris attacks), and the sensible policy of not giving ISIS what they want will be swept away.
ISIS + right wing stupidity = disaster
Yes... IF you cite the numbers as a percentage the Pro Obama spin is better..
But the reality, as you yourself state, is that there is STILL a threat..
whether the numbers support or oppose obama is irrelevant - in truth, obama is partly culpable for allowing state discrimination against the four fifths of muslims who are firmly against isis/isil/daesh. when we stop families who are citizens of allied countries from going to disneyland - with no explanation, no justification and no refund, based on nothing but their religion - that crosses the line between caution and xenophobia.
http://tinyurl.com/zov8f5x
JL
Neil,
This is Hilary's biggest challenge for November 2016. Whichever Republican is nominated, you can be sure that they will be full on for a ground war if ISIS can engineer some attacks in the U.S. Public opinion will demand revenge (look at the reaction from France after the Paris attacks), and the sensible policy of not giving ISIS what they want will be swept away.
This, of course, pre-supposes that the Obama/Hillary doctrine of Leading From Behind, AKA The Coward Of The Country is "sensible"...
Ask anyone truly versed in military matters and they will show you that this is not..
And the facts I have laid out that have been resoundingly ignored PROVE that the Obama/Hillary cowardice is anything BUT sensible..
But, yes.. I can see where Lefty Wingery fanatics and Obamabots might construe the alleged "strategy" as "sensible"...
Obama is god and can do no wrong..
I get it..
Michale
666 Woooooooooooooooooooo :D
I do believe that this is the FIRST time in almost a decade that I have been able to write that.. :D
M-21
"AND ignores the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed and the tens of millions of innocents displaced.."
By ISIS and helpers
Last time the US went in to Iraq, WE set in motion the deaths of hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced. Why are you ignoring that? Why are you ignoring the 4000+ US service men killed and 30,000+ wounded?
Do you want to put similar US casualty rates on top of the existing civilian dead? I've never heard of a military campaign resurrecting the dead.
whether the numbers support or oppose obama is irrelevant - in truth, obama is partly culpable for allowing state discrimination against the four fifths of muslims who are firmly against isis/isil/daesh. when we stop families who are citizens of allied countries from going to disneyland - with no explanation, no justification and no refund, based on nothing but their religion - that crosses the line between caution and xenophobia.
You don't know that..
There might be perfectly valid reasons why the Obama Administration forbade that family entry into the United States..
Considering Obama's contortions for kissing the asses of muslims worldwide, those reasons would have to be pretty compelling...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....
Michale
667
Last time the US went in to Iraq, WE set in motion the deaths of hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced.
Thank you for proving my point...
WE set in motion hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced...
And you Left Wingers went hysterical apeshit CRAZY and called the POTUS with the -R after his name "war criminal" and "hitler" etc etc...
So, now WE stand back and let hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced......
But because the POTUS has a -D after his name, ALL OF THE SUDDEN it's the "sensible" thing to do....
Ya'all could negate my entire argument in this issue by simply conceding that Obama gets a pass because of that -D after his name..
I mean, it's not as if you are fooling anyone but yerselves... :D
Michale
668
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....
but absence of evidence for placing limits on a person's freedom IS grounds for suspecting unfair discrimination.
the sixth amendment may not technically apply on foreign soil, but it's still being violated in spirit.
JL
Ya'all could negate my entire argument in this issue by simply conceding that Obama gets a pass because of that -D after his name..
Please just wait til after Friday to do that.. :D
Michale
669
but absence of evidence for placing limits on a person's freedom IS grounds for suspecting unfair discrimination.
Do you agree that there might be a multitude of LEGITIMATE reasons to deny these muslims entry??
the sixth amendment may not technically apply on foreign soil, but it's still being violated in spirit.
I have to disagree with Captain Kirk in this instance..
The US Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals...
Michale
670
Do you agree that there might be a multitude of LEGITIMATE reasons to deny these muslims entry??
it's a possibility, but if so then the US government has the responsibility to its ally (the UK) to provide ample evidence to support its actions. at the very least DHS must publicly claim that such evidence exists. if it does exist, then it must be shared with UK authorities. if it doesn't, then an apology and reparations must be made.
JL
I do believe that this is the FIRST time in almost a decade that I have been able to write that.. :D
"I believe this is my first felony.. I know I have committed a lot of misdemeanors in my time, but I do believe this is my first felony."
-Oliver Platt, BEETHOVEN
:D
Michale
671
it's a possibility,
OK So, it's a possibility...
Doesn't your guy deserve the benefit of the doubt??
I mean, yea.. If it was Bush, I can see why you would want to hang him high!! :D
But it's OBAMA fer chreest's sake...
but if so then the US government has the responsibility to its ally (the UK) to provide ample evidence to support its actions
And we don't know that the US government has not..
Oh sure, the UK may say that they haven't, but it's face saving time...
My point is that, when one hears hoofbeats, once shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it might be giraffes...
It might JUST be horses....
Michale
672
Michale,
Ya'all could negate my entire argument in this issue by simply conceding that Obama gets a pass because of that -D after his name..
What you seem unable to acknowledge is that the Bush/CHENEY administration is the entity solely responsible for putting into motion the multi-faceted disaster that is occurring in Iraq and Syria today and also for enabling the emergence of the Islamic State, not to mention for empowering Iran and for fueling the Sunni-Shi'a conflict throughout the Middle East.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, has been working for seven years now to try to put US foreign policy back on a strategically sound track, especially with respect to US policy in the Middle East.
And, something else you apparently cannot fathom, much less acknowledge ... and that is the utter insignificance that should be attached to political party or persuasion. If Obama had been president in 2003 and had ordered an invasion of Iraq, then I would suggest that the outcome of such a bad decision would have been the very same as we have witnessed under the Bush administration and anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have held Obama accountable and responsible for it.
The false equivalence game is for people with agendas that have nothing to do with what is right or good for the country.
What you seem unable to acknowledge is that the Bush/CHENEY administration is the entity solely responsible for putting into motion the multi-faceted disaster that is occurring in Iraq and Syria today and also for enabling the emergence of the Islamic State, not to mention for empowering Iran and for fueling the Sunni-Shi'a conflict throughout the Middle East.
Yea, Yea, I get that..
It's ALL Bush's fault.. Clinton before him and Reagan before him and Carter before him have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever...
The Obama administration, on the other hand, has been working for seven years now to try to put US foreign policy back on a strategically sound track, especially with respect to US policy in the Middle East.
And what's the reputation of the US in the Middle East under Obama??
It's somewhere between contempt and ridicule...
The false equivalence game is for people with agendas that have nothing to do with what is right or good for the country.
Aint it funny how it's that way when it's a DEMOCRAT who is at fault??
When it's a Republican, blame is the name of the game..
Your own comment at the beginning proves that...
Michale
673
Has Obama made ANY mistakes during his Presidency???
Any at all???
Michale
674
Doesn't your guy deserve the benefit of the doubt??
I mean, yea.. If it was Bush, I can see why you would want to hang him high!! :D
But it's OBAMA fer chreest's sake...
now i KNOW you're kidding.
JL
now i KNOW you're kidding.
Not as much as you might think... :D
"They're all around us..."
"Cab drivers.."
"Not as many as you might think."
-MEN IN BLACK
:D
Michale
675
Oh sure, the UK may say that they haven't, but it's face saving time...
i would think that if there were actual evidence to present then the best way for both governments to save face would be to announce that there was a valid concern regarding one or more of the family members flying. if the precise reason couldn't be shared for security concerns then that's another matter, but the failure of either government to provide even a general ballpark reason makes the authorities seem much more suspicious than the travelers.
JL
i would think that if there were actual evidence to present then the best way for both governments to save face would be to announce that there was a valid concern regarding one or more of the family members flying.
Perhaps the Obama Administration didn't feel comfortable with sharing it's intelligence assets with the Brits....
I grant you... Having the Obama Administration say "Trust Us" is a joke fest worthy of a late night extravaganza...
But, as I said.... If it's OBAMA who is saying, "Sorry, we have security concerns" then you HAVE to think that the concerns are compelling...
, but the failure of either government to provide even a general ballpark reason makes the authorities seem much more suspicious than the travelers.
Only to those who are disinclined to believe authorities as a general principle....
Present company excepted, of course.. :D
Michale
676
Only to those who are disinclined to believe authorities as a general principle....
...perhaps also those who are inclined to believe authorities who do state their reasons and/or provide evidence more than authorities who don't?
JL
...perhaps also those who are inclined to believe authorities who do state their reasons and/or provide evidence more than authorities who don't?
Are you advocating 100% transparency in all instances, no exceptions??
Michale
677
I am defending the Obama Administration...
Ya'all just GOTS to love the irony... :D
Michale
678
I'm not sure I understand why Obama's decision not to put significant feet on the ground in Syria/Iraq can be called 'cowardice'. Firstly, I didn't think Bush was 'brave' for starting the 2003 Iraq war, because he was not going to the front line (and in fact, made sure he got a place securing Texas from 'Charlie' during the Vietnam war - hardly putting his own ass on the front line).
In fact, I'm frankly disgusted with the chicken-hawks who are itching to send other people's kids to war without a good understanding of how to win.
I personally think that if Obama had committed troops the Rs would have been going bananas.
As for mistakes during Obama's presidency:
1. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
2. Not acting on immigration reform in 2009-2010 - something he admits.
3. Stepping up the deportations, particularly in light of (2).
4. Not making sure some top bankers went to prison after 2008.
5. Allowing the NSA to remain out of control.
6. Our ballooning drone war all around the world.
My problem with the Republicans is that they are not interested in correcting these mistakes, and in fact would double down on many of them (as will Hillary).
Basically, Michale, your premise is that everybody sees things in black and white, but many of us see shades of gray ;)
Michale -
See, I wrote this article specifically not even mentioning Obama or the American contribution to the fight or American strategy, knowing somehow that you'd find a way to obsess over Obama. But hey, 666 comments fills our coffers, so how can I really argue?
[Note: We're still a ways from our fundraising goal this year, even with Michale's comments, so let's see if we can make it across the finish line, folks!]
This article presents just the facts (call it a Joe Friday article). Two maps, before and after. As a military guy, you have to admit, no matter how begrudgingly, that "after" looks better than "before."
Sure, you can argue American strategy and tactics, and you can argue there are ways it could have happened faster, but the basic fact on those maps stays the same: ISIS is losing ground. Lots of ground, in fact. They've lost every big battle of the past 10 months, in fact.
That's all I was really saying here, which is why I didn't drag American policy or Obama into it.
-CW
Michale,
Of course Obama has made mistakes.
Unfortunately, and as much as I would like to have that discussion with you, your comments have been far too obsessed with false equivalence and party affiliation to have a civil discussion and/or debate about how the critical and global issues of the day are being dealt with by the US government.
It's really too bad because we have had discussions that have been enlightening - for me, at least - when you haven't resorted to the totally tiresome "arguments" based solely on false equivalence and whether or not somebody has a D or an R after their name. That sort of thing bores me to death! Which is why I don't partake in any of it - even if it means I don't help you in your endeavor to hit the 800 comment mark ... and, good luck with that, by the way!
"Are you advocating 100% transparency in all instances, no exceptions??"
of course not. i'm open to being proven wrong if it turns out later that facts were withheld expressly for the protection of the general public from terrorism. however, i can only evaluate the facts i do have, and at the moment the facts seem more likely to indicate ethnic discrimination than public protection.
JL
Sure, you can argue American strategy and tactics, and you can argue there are ways it could have happened faster, but the basic fact on those maps stays the same: ISIS is losing ground. Lots of ground, in fact. They've lost every big battle of the past 10 months, in fact.
This would be an infinitely more fun place if Michale would resolve to do that ... in fact, I would wager that CW.com would be the premier space on the internets for discussion and debate if that were to happen, even HALF the time!
PS Chris, are you including in your fundraising total my stated pledge which will be sent in early in the New Year? Just wondering ...
I'm not sure I understand why Obama's decision not to put significant feet on the ground in Syria/Iraq can be called 'cowardice'.
Obama's overall strategy of "Leading From Behind" (his own term, not mine) is cowardice...
As for mistakes during Obama's presidency:
1. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
That wasn't a "mistake"... That was a blatant lie..
Now, if you want to say that Obama blatantly and unashamedly LYING was a mistake, then say it...
2. Not acting on immigration reform in 2009-2010 - something he admits.
3. Stepping up the deportations, particularly in light of (2).
4. Not making sure some top bankers went to prison after 2008.
5. Allowing the NSA to remain out of control.
6. Our ballooning drone war all around the world.
And do you hold Obama accountable for those mistakes in the EXACT same manner you would hold Republicans accountable??
No you do not..
And WHY don't you??
Because of the '-D' after Obama's name..
Come'on... Just admit it.. It's not as if you can reasonably deny it... :D
Basically, Michale, your premise is that everybody sees things in black and white, but many of us see shades of gray ;)
But ONLY when it's a Democrat who'se frakin' up...
When a Republican is fraking up, it's black and white thru and thru...... :D
Michale
679
Michale,
It's ALL Bush's fault.. Clinton before him and Reagan before him and Carter before him have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever...
Actually, I wouldn't be so hard on President GW Bush are you always are. Yes, he was president and he took the ridiculous path of the non sequitur and made the decision to invade Iraq.
But, he was served very poorly by his advisors and especially so by Rumsfeld and Cheney and their own private cabals.
The British PM, Tony Blair has a lion's share of the responsibility for the sorry state of the Middle East today, as well. At least he admits to some of it, though not enough of it.
By the way ... Clinton, Reagan and Carter had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, it should go without saying.
See, I wrote this article specifically not even mentioning Obama or the American contribution to the fight or American strategy, knowing somehow that you'd find a way to obsess over Obama.
It's not obsessing over Obama as much as it is pointing out the facts of the RESULTS of Obama's alleged "effectiveness"...
Due to Obama's inaction, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed and tens of millions have been displaced..
Matt brought it up.. Blame him! :D
[Note: We're still a ways from our fundraising goal this year, even with Michale's comments, so let's see if we can make it across the finish line, folks!]
I'm werkin' it!!! :D
This article presents just the facts (call it a Joe Friday article). Two maps, before and after. As a military guy, you have to admit, no matter how begrudgingly, that "after" looks better than "before."
Of course it does..
But it's better IN SPITE of Obama's inaction..
Not BECAUSE of it...
Sure, you can argue American strategy and tactics, and you can argue there are ways it could have happened faster, but the basic fact on those maps stays the same: ISIS is losing ground. Lots of ground, in fact. They've lost every big battle of the past 10 months, in fact.
That's all I was really saying here, which is why I didn't drag American policy or Obama into it.
But it's a lack of coherent policy that makes these gains paltry to what they COULD have been...
EVERY defense person that has dealt with Obama on this issue has said the SAME THING..
NO COHERENT Strategy...
NO PLAN....
The good things that are happening are doing so IN SPITE of Obama's inaction..
Not BECAUSE of it...
Michale
680
Liz,
Of course Obama has made mistakes.
OK.. Now we're getting some where..
What mistakes has Obama made...
More accurately, what mistakes has Obama made that ya'all have held him ACCOUNTABLE for in the same manner ya'all hold the GOP accountable for THEIR mistakes..
You see my point??
It's easy to list a bunch of mistakes that Obama has made..
But does anyone here really hold Obama accountable??
Hell no...
Michale
681
however, i can only evaluate the facts i do have, and at the moment the facts seem more likely to indicate ethnic discrimination than public protection.
So, let's put the cards on the table..
Are you accusing Obama of ethnic discrimination against muslims??
It's a simple question...
Michale
682
And what's the reputation of the US in the Middle East under Obama?? It's somewhere between contempt and ridicule...
That is certainly true in some quarters - perhaps especially so in Israel and Riyadh. It can happen when someone challenges the status quo and works to make progressive change ...
Progress is a good word. But, change is its motivator. And, change has its enemies."
... one of my favourite quotes by one of my favourite and honourable American political leaders!
OK.. Now we're getting some where..
Nowhere we haven't been before, countless times ...
Unfortunately, and as much as I would like to have that discussion with you, your comments have been far too obsessed with false equivalence and party affiliation to have a civil discussion and/or debate about how the critical and global issues of the day are being dealt with by the US government.
The problem is what you call a "false equivalency" is nothing more than a logical and rational assessment of the political facts..
You term it "false" because that is easier than trying to explain the logical and rational assessment based on the FACTS of the particular issue..
Hay, I get it..
Obama hasn't left ya much ta work with...
Which is why things are so dreary around here of late..
Obama and the Democrats haven't given ya much reason for joy and laughter and back slapping.. :D
I think the last time ya'all really enjoyed slamming me down was when Harry Reid used his nukes...
Since then, there hasn't been much for ya'all to hang yer hats on...
I get it..
Don't worry.. I'll be around if Democrats ever actually get their shit together and give ya'all a reason to start crowing again.. :D
Maybe if Hillary wins the POTUS-ency :D
Michale
683
Are you accusing Obama of ethnic discrimination against muslims??
at the moment it's too soon to say. however, if that is what's going on (and it seems likely), then the obama administration is responsible for trying to fix it. if the rejection of british visas is unjustified and obama doesn't try to fix it, then yes, he's on the hook for it.
JL
Michale: The world doesn't work in absolutes; black and white; -R & -D; us and them. The vitriol from extremists on both sides is childish and pointless since nobody learns anything from he-said-she-said.
Ho hum.
Indeed.
stated differently, i'm quite certain the president himself did not call up DHS and order the ethnic profiling of british muslims. however, if it turns out that's what's happening on the ground, then obama and kerry become fully responsible for cleaning up (or failing to clean up) the resulting mess.
JL
Obama et al. sure do spend a lot of their time cleaning up messes left by others, don't they?
Are there enough hours in the day, days in the week, weeks ... ... ...
@liz,
i guess the trick is getting ahead of the mess before someone makes it, while still cleaning up the last mess. nobody said being the president would be easy.
"Everybody knows it's hard work"
~dubya
Shocking. Positively shocking.
at the moment it's too soon to say.
Would it be "too soon to say" if the President had a '-R- after his name?? :D
however, if that is what's going on (and it seems likely),
Based on what??
if the rejection of british visas is unjustified and obama doesn't try to fix it, then yes, he's on the hook for it.
And will he be held accountable in the same manner that the Left Wingery would hold a GOP POTUS accountable??
You and I both know he won't be... He'll be given a pass...
All because of that '-D' after his name..
Michale
684
Michale: The world doesn't work in absolutes; black and white; -R & -D; us and them. The vitriol from extremists on both sides is childish and pointless since nobody learns anything from he-said-she-said.
Ho hum.
As I said, it does when it's the GOP who is at fault..
See Abu Ghraib, all of other Bush Bashing that has occurred since 2000...
Michale
685
stated differently, i'm quite certain the president himself did not call up DHS and order the ethnic profiling of british muslims. however, if it turns out that's what's happening on the ground, then obama and kerry become fully responsible for cleaning up (or failing to clean up) the resulting mess.
But WILL they be held accountable as a GOP POTUS would be held accountable??
That's the question that no one wants to answer...
Michale
686
Obama et al. sure do spend a lot of their time cleaning up messes left by others, don't they?
And they are NEVER responsibile for ANY of it...
Positively SHOCKING... :D
Michale
687
The vitriol from extremists on both sides is childish and pointless
And yet, ya'all ONLY point that out when the vitriol is from, what ya'all assume to be, the Right..
Why is that??
Why don't ya'all every comment or castigate the vitriol from the Left??
I'll tell ya why...
PARTY UBER ALLES
:D
Michale
688
And they are NEVER responsibile for ANY of it...
Positively SHOCKING... :D
And what's even MORE "shocking" is that, while Obama is responsible for NOTHING, Bush was responsible for EVERYTHING...
Funny how that is, eh? :D
Michale
693
That's just YOUR opinion.
"But WILL they be held accountable as a GOP POTUS would be held accountable??"
what does being "held accountable" look like to you? clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life. the only consequence endured by bush was the loss of face when his policies failed spectacularly across the board and his vp's assistant was convicted.
in this case, discrimination seems likely because no explanation has been offered to the Brits whose visas were denied (an uncommon practice between close allies), even when requested by their MP's. if someone higher up doesn't figure out what's going on and fix it, obama's administration will absolutely be held responsible, and not just domestically.
JL
That's just YOUR opinion.
yes it is... Indubitably... :D
Michale
710
what does being "held accountable" look like to you?
See Left Wingery and Bush Years...
clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life.
No.. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury...
Something that is a VERY VERY serious crime... When a Republican does it...
if someone higher up doesn't figure out what's going on and fix it, obama's administration will absolutely be held responsible, and not just domestically.
And what will the consequences be??
How exactly will the Left Wingery hold Obama "accountable"...
Will they protest everywhere Obama goes??
Will they issue proclamations and threaten to place Obama under Citizen's Arrest???
You and I both know they won't..
NOTHING will happen..
Michale
711
clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life.
No.. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury...
... about his sex life, in a civil case, for which no criminal charges were filed. tomayto, tomahto.
See Left Wingery and Bush Years...
what did the left really do to bush? other than whine a lot, that is...
How exactly will the Left Wingery hold Obama "accountable"...
in that hypothetical scenario, it would depend on how badly he handled the situation. in all likelihood, nothing will happen for two reasons: first, the transgression is far enough down the chain of command that only the most dyed in the wool righty would attribute it directly to the president.
secondly, it's extremely unlikely that obama or kerry would bungle the situation so badly that anyone died (as for example they did due to iraq, afghanistan, katrina, 9/11 and lack of health insurance).
JL
what did the left really do to bush? other than whine a lot, that is...
What has the right really done to Obama?? Other than whine a lot, that is??
condly, it's extremely unlikely that obama or kerry would bungle the situation so badly that anyone died (as for example they did due to iraq, afghanistan, katrina, 9/11 and lack of health insurance).
Benhazi??
As far as health care deaths, there are hundreds attributed to people losing their health care that Obama promised they could keep..
There is no difference, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise..
Michale
715
I am also constrained to point out that the report you cite came from the UN...
The UN that routinely accuses Israel of war crimes, genocide and having overdue library books... The UN that institutionalized child rape... The UN that sent "peacekeepers" down to Africa but ended up supplying BOTH sides with arms..
The UN??? Really????
You would have had better luck with me by citing a HuffPoop report... :D
Michale
716