Telegraph: You can not defeat Daash without ground troops ... and Obama's plan does not rise to the

Telegraph: You can not defeat Daash without ground troops ... and Obama's plan does not rise to the level of an effective strategy 



Treasures Media / follow-up - The Obama strategy in the bombing of the jihadists in Syria and Iraq will encourage them rather than destroy them. If Obama thought he had reached a strategy to defeat the militants Daash in Syria and Iraq, he should rethink that. Away from a plan to crush the dangerous fanatics, all he has done is to provide what might be called a prescription for disaster.

Maybe the American president wants to end a long war, but he can not do so unless it is America's enemies were tired quite to the degree that they will not pose a threat to America and its allies.

In relation to a range Daash, do not seem to be tired as evidenced by the killing of two American journalists, and the possibility of its further acts of murder of concern. Eight succession devised for itself in the areas of northern Iraq and Syria, are also considered fertile ground for recruiting jihadists from around the world, and that they return to their home countries to apply the skills they learned terrorist raises concerns.

On every president must realize that even though it opposed the war, such as President Obama. As commander in chief of the armed forces, it is a binding obligation to destroy any organization poses a direct threat to the Americans and their interests.

The only problem is that the procedures referred to by Obama, in his speech on American television on Wednesday evening, does not rise to the level of an effective strategy. It is fundamental difficulties he faces in trying to "weaken and destroy" the extremists, is the rejection of the use of ground forces - which are considered the best means of de-regulation, such as Daash.

This is partly due to the president's determination to avoid the mistakes of previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States found itself engaged in military campaigns lengthy and costly and lost popular support.

It also seems that he derives from Democratic President Clinton, who would have preferred the face of America's enemies through remote control by launching cruise missiles at targets in the non-specific areas such as Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. This was to give the impression that the White House is taking strict measures, while more targeted - from bin Laden to Saddam - fled without being infected by any scratch.

It is true that techniques bombardment of modern accurate and deadly more than it was in the Clinton era - as we have seen during the air campaign in 2011 against Colonel Gaddafi - but we have to look at the mess is holy, which caused the United States out there since the end of the campaign, to see the limitations of relying on air power alone.

May succeed extremists bombed Daash from a height of 20 thousand feet in weakening the military strength to defeat them but it will not achieve the full, and in order to achieve this there is a need for the presence of ground troops on the ground. But instead of using American troops to flush out militants from Aqtaithm, the Obama intends to rely on a network of disparate militias to do so on his behalf.

Through the provision of military support - such as training, information and basic weapons - the idea is that groups such as the Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite militias and the moderate elements in the Syrian resistance will be able to address this threat.

This policy is well received in London as well, where Defence Minister Michele Fallon earlier this week that Britain will supply the Peshmerga with automatic rifles and ammunition worth 1.6 million pounds. Compared with the hundreds of billions of pounds wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, it seems that for these fittings value more than money. And not worthy also that the agents to fight on our behalf. At the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003, the Americans relied too much on fighters of the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from Kabul, despite the presence of huge numbers of special forces and American infantry units to root out al-Qaeda terrorism.

The problem this time is that if the two governments remained committed to the American and British with its signature in the "not to involve ground troops," the ability to influence the outcome of the conflict become very limited as we have seen in the Libyan conflict.

Peshmerga fighters may be good, but they care about risking their lives to defend the interests of the Kurdish more interesting than the Americans and the British. Moreover, the retaliatory beheadings carried out by a brigade of Imam Ali - a Shiite militia fighters in Iraq, backed by Iran - shows that some of these groups implement radical own agendas, in this case to terrorize minorities in Iraq in order to undergo her.

Therein lies the contradiction in the assumption of the President; Daash In order to defeat, the Washington rely on the tacit support of countries such as Iran, which in other circumstances be hostile to Western interests. In Syria, the situation is more complicated, because in order to defeat the Daash on the United States to support rebel groups who have their main goal is to topple the Assad regime's close regional ally of Iran.

The Obama plan to defeat Daash is not a strategy; she is closer to the practice of incomplete Wishes, where the White House hopes that simply by speaking strongly and threw some bombs, this pernicious threat to the security of the United States will vanish.

Given the determination Daash shown through the establishment of succession, this will not happen, but on the contrary, the President's inability to develop an effective strategy to confront this danger will emphasize the point of view of the Islamists in the West's unwillingness to fight.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wow...

question; why does the "west" need to fight daash, isil or any other extremist groups in iraq? they have their own military, their own fighter jets, their own money. so the absolute answer to our problems here is to go there, spend a few more billion, waste a few thousand more american lives, for what? i read that isil had 35,000 armed fighters and are not well organized.it's not like iraq is being invaded by a formidable fighting force of say 100,000 well organized, well trained troops. so what is our interest there? oil? re-value? to stop another so called radical islamist group? fact is we have 7 to 9 million muslims here, and god knows how many illegals here, so why is the fight not here? when does the united states stop playing this big brother game and mind it's own business? do we really need to rush to everybody else's side, when they are not going to lift a finger for us? just asking, thoughts anybody?

"question; why does the "west" need to fight daash"


Because they are already here.

then fight them here!