October 17, 2021

Will the Strategy of the Reluctant Warrior Obama be Successful in Defeating ISIL?

The brutal Islamic Caliphate headed by the self-appointed Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi has called his terror group three names. First, it was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Second, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which is the term Obama likes to use. President Obama has not bothered to explain the nation the reason for this change. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi wants to expand the territory that he controls beyond parts of Iraq and Syria. The Levant is a far larger area than what ISIS has already conquered – it is basically the entire eastern coast of the Mediterranean, stretching from Turkey all the way down to Egypt. Below is a map of the Levant.


Map of the Levant includes the territory of our allies Israel, Jordan, and a part of Egypt

Third, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi changed the name of his diabolical terror nation to the Islamic State since he wants to expand into all of the Middle East, parts of Europe and Asia, and North and Central Africa.

Obama’s speech and his lack of credibility

In his speech to the nation the day before the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama promised to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Islamic State Caliphate, with more airstrikes and by sending 475 additional troops to Iraq. Inexplicably, Obama said that the Islamic State terrorists “are not Islamic.” Obama speaking from the White House stated the following:

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaida’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

Obama was completely wrong in these three statements. First, ISIL terrorists are believers of a distorted, brutal, perverse, and diabolical Sunni Islamic religion. Second, ISIL is a state since it controls a territory as large as Belgium which includes about 8 million of people. Lastly, ISIL definitely has a clear vision to expand Islamic Caliphate not only through the Levant but also parts of Europe and Asia, North and Central Africa, and the entire Middle East. It also has the clear vision and objective to assassinate Christians, captured prisoners of war, and Shiites. The self proclaimed Caliph wants the more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world to obey him.

The president said in his speech that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama is also wrong in making this statement since in the Quran it is explained that the infidels must be converted to Islam and if they refuse they can be enslaved or killed. Fortunately, the vast majority of the followers of Islam do not pay attention to this medieval provision found in the Quran. Unfortunately, it is estimated that between 10% to 15% of Muslims want to establish a worldwide caliphate and treat the infidels as stated in the Quran. This, of course, is a major problem since they are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

Obama also said his strategy in fighting ISIL would be similar to the “successful strategy” he has pursued in fighting al-Qaida-affiliated groups in Yemen and Somalia. He bragged about Yemen and Somalia as examples of highly successful drone-strike terrorist containment. Does Obama live in a fantasy world? Who on Earth think of Yemen and Somalia as examples of political stable nations? Both of these nations are considered to be failed states such as Libya. Al-Qaida-linked terror groups have not been defeated in these two nations and they are growing in strength. Thus “we’re going to turn northern Iraq into Somalia!” is not a winning strategy or battle cry and one that will attract allies!

Obama has not requested authorization from Congress to use military force against ISIL. Obama wanted to obtain the support for his strategy and he met with the top four congressional leaders at the White House: House Speaker John Boehner, Republican from Ohio; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky; and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California. President Obama told the members of Congress he did not need their authorization for his military campaign. In fact, the Obama administration has already launched more than 150 airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq without official consent from Congress.

The president is once again ignoring unconstitutionally the Congress on his need to seek approval from Congress for a prolonged military action in Iraq and Syria. However, President Obama can’t have it both ways – he wants congressional approval for funds to arm and train the so-called moderate rebels (there are no moderate rebels in Syria) but will not seek congressional approval to strike ISIL in Syria.

Obama said the Islamic State, presents a threat to Iraq, Syria and the rest of Middle East as well as to the United States. The President stated the following:

“If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve.”

The president explained in strategy to defeat ISIL by stating the following:

“First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists, working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. …Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work – and Iraq has formed a government – we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission. We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We will also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.”

The United States currently has a CIA program in place to train Syrian rebels, but Obama indicated that he wants a more overt show of military force. Obama stated the following: “In Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.”

A major problem in this strategy is the fact that the Free Syrian Army, supposedly moderate Muslims that we are supporting, are weak and unreliable. If we train them and give them additional weapons, they may use those skills and weapons to fight the Assad regime and not necessarily ISIL. And worst of all, if ISIL destroys them, then these jihadist monsters would acquire those weapons, as they did when the American-equipped cowardly Iraqi Army ran away and abandon the billions dollars of U.S. weapons when they were attacked by ISIL terrorists.

The president had previously described the Free Syrian Army as one made up of doctors, pharmacists, and nurses and arming them and expecting them to win was a “fantasy.” As is typically from Obama, he constantly contradicts himself making one statement on foreign-policy, then denying that he made it and finally lying about it. The whole world remembers that Obama stated that it was red line for him if the Assad regime would use chemical weapons. When it was proven that the dictator of Syria used chemical weapons against his opponents, Obama did nothing. He stated that he had not threatened Syria with drawing a red line. Obama then lied and said that it had been the international community who drew the red line!

There was, unsurprisingly, no admission of any past errors in foreign policy in Obama’s speech. One major error responsible for the rise of ISIL was that Obama rejected the advice he received from all his generals to leave behind a residual Army in Iraq to continue gathering intelligence on the Middle East and training the Iraqi Army. Obama admits no mistakes, therefore he learns nothing. A lifetime of such arrogance made Barack Obama the incompetent Commander-In-Chief that he is today, and the nation has suffered immensely for his failed policies both in our domestic economy and our standing abroad.

It is no wonder that the United States has a great difficulty in finding reliable allies since no one trusts his leadership. The entire world sees Obama as an unreliable, weak and indecisive president. United States allies know they cannot rely on President Obama and worst of all our enemies do not fear him. The United States is seen as a superpower in complete retreat and President Obama declarations or threats to other countries are ignored by our enemies. They see the United States with a president such as Barack Obama as a “paper tiger”.

If President Obama had intervened at the beginning of the Syrian civil war, as many Republicans in Congress requested, the Free Syrian Army would have had a chance to defeat the dictator of Syria. Since the president did not, jihadists from al- Qaeda moved into Syria changing the nature of the conflict.

Accuracy in Media (AIM) Editor Roger Aronoff appeared on the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Conservative Commando radio show last week to talk about his article “President Obama’s Credibility is in Short Supply,” published by the website Accuracy in Media.org on September 9, 2014.

Aronoff said that “The president has been making contradictory statements regarding America’s strategy to combat the militant Sunni group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and his vacillation on the issue has been so obvious that many in the media have taken notice. Time magazine decried the President’s muddled vision and Business Insider noted how the president completely changed his tune on ISIS, adopting a hard-line approach to the terrorist group after initially calling for containment measures. But President Obama’s politically motivated public dodges don’t stop there: they extend to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, ObamaCare, and even the immigration debate.”

Aronoff lamented the lack of leadership demonstrated by the president and stated the following: “The one big debate is whether it’s naiveté… or it’s really sort of carrying out his goals and ambitions. Either way, it’s “horrifying… You’re watching the world without a leader right now, without a superpower that gives the rest of the world confidence.” Aronoff, pointed out to “how China has become geopolitically aggressive in the Asia Pacific, pushing for more territory, and how Russia has made forays into Ukraine.”

Aronoff said the following: “If Benghazi serves as a Rosetta stone for administration mismanagement and dereliction of duty, the president’s approach toward ISIS demonstrates that President Obama has an ongoing blind spot toward Islamic terrorism. Containment and destruction are mutually exclusive actions. Which has the President chosen?”

Aronoff said that since his interview confusion has grown in the Obama administration. Secretary of State John Kerry said “war” is the wrong word, yet White House spokesman Josh Earnest, along with the Departments of State and Defense, said we are at war with ISIS. Kerry reluctantly acknowledged as much on CBS’s Sunday “Face the Nation” on September 14, 2014. Aronoff concluded by stating “As usual, the administration is trying to have it both ways, and is sending out confusing signals to both our allies and enemies.”

Additionally, as I have explained in earlier articles and has been documented by Roger Aronoff and the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, in its report “The United States Switched Sides in the War on Terror” in April 2014, Obama secretly and illegally sent tons of weapons from Libya to Turkey to Syria. Most of those weapons were captured mainly by ISIL and the al Nusra Front and other al-Qaeda-affiliated terror organizations. Obama is the person responsible for the rise of ISIL in Syria. Obama committed treason since he violated the Patriot Act and many federal laws that state one cannot support terrorist organizations. Obama also violated the Security Council of the United Nations resolution forbidding any individual assisting terrorist organizations.

The pro-Obama established media has not reported this impeachable offense committed by Barack Obama as the London newspapers have done. It is my hope that when U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican from North Carolina, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi and his committee complete its investigation, Congress will issue a full report to the nation explained the many crimes committed by President Barack Obama and the need for his impeachment.

Once again, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to send mixed messages. Both of them do not use the word “war” and called what they’re doing a counter-terrorism campaign. The President stated, “This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.”

President Obama had said two weeks ago that he had no strategy in dealing with ISIL. A few weeks earlier Obama had called these brutal jihadists a junior varsity team. For the past year President Obama did not pay attention to the daily intelligence reports that he was receiving explaining the growing danger of ISIL. Is it because he has supported them with weapons and even training these jihadists at a secret base in Jordan as explained in and WND article? Is it because he is a hidden radical Muslim?

In evaluating the president’s speech Fernando J Milanes wrote an article stating the following: “Let’s be clear. Regardless of semantics when planes are bombing, thousands of armed soldiers are in the area and exposed, even if not directly involved in the conflict, we are at war. The President spoke in a forceful and clear manner, vowing to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, even though his ambivalence showed at times. His effort… to evade calling this conflict one against Islamic terrorists, not only ISIS, as part of a lengthy endeavor were more political than what the speech called for…We can’t forget that he has in the past promised Assad’s regime demise, drew red lines, described ISIS as a J.V. team before denying he said it (4 Pinocchio’s), and called the idea of arming the same people he wants to now as a fantasy!”

Sean Hannity wrote an article entitled “Another ISIS Beheading” which was published on September 15, 2014.He explained that over the weekend ISIS beheaded another person, British aid worker David Haines. What did President Obama decide to do? Play golf. Hannity wrote the following: “You would think the president or his handlers would have learned by now that golfing at this time of heightened crisis isn’t exactly sending the right messages. Obama recently admitted that he regretted the “optics” of his decision to go golfing with former NBA star Alonzo Mourning just minutes after addressing the beheading of American journalist James Foley.”

Hannity pointed out that a new polling from NBC/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg indicated that Obama’s approval rating on foreign policy is a just 34%, while 62% of Americans support Obama’s decision to take action against ISIS. However, many voters do not think Obama will succeed in his plan to defeat ISIS: Voters indicated that 68% have ‘very little’ or ‘just some’ confidence in Obama’s stated goal of “degrading” and “destroying” the Islamic State.” Hannity felt that “It’s clear, Obama isn’t up to the task.”

Hannity explained that It was clear that the threat of ISIS continues to grow and our strategy to defeat ISIS continues to be questioned. He indicated the following: “The Islamic Caliphate is the richest terrorist network in the world. It takes in an average of $3 million a day through a combination of selling oil on the black market, stealing money or precious goods and even selling women and children as sex slaves.”

Hannity pointed out that former CIA Director General Michael Hayden predicts that there will be more than 5,000 soldiers on the ground to fight ISIS by the end of the year. If it is true Obama lied to the nation one more time when he promised no boots on the ground.

Hannity wrote that General Hayden also compared our current strategy of air strikes to “casual sex.” Hayden said the following: “The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone.”

Hannity concluded his article by stating the following: “Every military commander has suggested we’ll need “boots on the ground” but nobody seems willing to act. Every day we go without a clear strategy is a day the enemy grows stronger.”

U.S. Ground forces will be needed to destroy ISIL

It is obvious to former CIA Director General Michael Hayden and all generals in the Pentagon that ISIL cannot be defeated unless Obama sends boots on the ground. Charles Hoshinson wrote an article entitled “Joint Chiefs chairman won’t rule out U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic State” which was published on The Washington Examiner on September 16, 2014. The reporter explained that General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on September 16, 2014 that he would recommend President Barack Obama to deploy troops in Iraq, if the president strategy involving Arab nations fails to achieve victory over ISIL.


Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

President Obama had stated over and over and during his September 10 speech to the nation that “we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” But General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that possibility remains open.
General Dempsey stated the following: “My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true. But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. ground forces.”

Hoshinson explained that 1,600 U.S. troops are either in Iraq or on the way to advise the Iraqi armed forces, provide security and coordinate U.S. airstrikes, which now are being used to help Iraqi forces attack Islamic State targets. The Obama’s strategy is based on the commitment of Arab and Muslim nations to use their ground forces to combat the Islamist Caliphate. Though some countries — including Turkey — have been reluctant to specify what they would do. General Dempsey stated that Iraqi forces that were left in disarray by the Islamic State’s sudden assault over the past few months had begun to regroup and go on the offensive.

Hoshinson wrote that Congress is expected this week to give the Obama administration the authority to train and equip Syrian rebels in Saudi Arabia. The bill being considered in the House of Representatives does not include funding. Defense Secretary Chuck Hegel told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saudi Arabia “has offered financial and other support as well.” Secretary Hagel said more than 40 countries have made specific commitments to fighting the Islamic State and 30 others “have indicated their readiness to offer military support.” However, many experts have expressed skepticism about the ability of the coalition to hang together because of divergent interests among its members.

Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona expressed his doubts, that the so-called moderate Syrian opposition would fight Islamic State rather than the regime of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. “You think that these people you’re training will only go back to fight against the Islamic State? Do you really believe that general?” McCain asked Dempsey. General Dempsey said that challenge can be deferred to the future. “We do not have to deal with it now,” he told Senator McCain. “That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and the motivation of the Free Syrian Army,” Senator McCain replied.

Hoshinson wrote that “If the coalition does fail, the threat from the Islamic State is likely to engulf U.S. allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and spark a war with Iran that could drag the entire world into conflict, Hagel and Dempsey told lawmakers. Secretary Hegel said “everywhere you look in the Middle East, there is trouble.”

Obama stated one more time that he will not send troops to fight ISIL

While visiting MacDill Air Force Base, U.S. Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, President Obama said on September 17, 2014 that he would not commit U.S. troops to fighting another ground war in Iraq. Obama stated the following to troops gathered to hear him speak: “U.S. forces do not and will not have a combat mission After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries’ futures. And that’s the only solution that will succeed over the long term.”

The statement didn’t win any applause from the soldiers and officers who are fully aware that ISIL cannot be defeated unless there are troops in the ground. They clapped only once during the speech, when Obama said that the Islamic State would learn what al-Qaeda leaders have learned, that they will have “no safe haven — we will find you eventually.”

Reactions to President Obama’s speech to nation by members of Congress

U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from South Florida stated the following:“This group will be degraded and defeated, but it’s going to be a long-term deal. It’s going to be probably years. The United States is putting together the coalition that will go after them. The U.S. will probably put boots on the ground, but it will be more commando raids and forward air observers with others to do the actual strikes on the ground. But we have no choice. This is a vicious, diabolical group that must be stopped.”

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat from Florida, siad the following: “I believe the President is in a much better place than where he was a few weeks ago, when he was downplaying ISIL’s capabilities to threaten America’s security and the moderate Syrian rebels’ ability to fight the radical Islamists. However, I am concerned by the President’s view that we should try to replicate what we’ve done in Yemen and Somalia, which remain dangerous places because of the terrorist threat. And I remain concerned by his unwillingness to prepare the American people for what will likely be a long, difficult struggle. As this debate moves forward, I hope the President will step up and make his case to the American people that we will do whatever it takes, however long it takes, to defeat ISIL and protect the American people.”

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, stated the following: “There is no doubt that ISIS poses a direct threat to American interests and stability across the Middle East. However, no single action is enough to contain and degrade ISIS. It will take a collaborative effort led by the Iraqi government with support from the United States, regional partners, and the broader international community.

House Speaker John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that “Working with a broad coalition of partners and without using U.S. combat forces on the ground, we will lead a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy to dismantle the threat ISIS poses to the region and the United States.”
U.S. Representative Adam Smith, Democrat from Washington state and a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed the following: “I support the president taking military action in Iraq and Syria to combat this organization. I also support his request for additional authority to support the moderate, vetted Syrian opposition. But more must be done.”

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “As we pursue action, we must make sure we thoroughly vet our Syrian allies and ensure our intelligence and information sharing efforts with our international coalition partners are robust and reciprocated.”

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, Republican from Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said “The American people must be assured that we are not pursuing another open-ended conflict in the Middle East, and I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq.”

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat from Colorado and a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, stated “It is my view that the president possesses existing authorities to strike ISIL in the short term, but that a prolonged military campaign will require a congressionally approved Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out the following: “No boots on the ground’ sounds odd when 1,100 U.S. troops have been sent back to Iraq. And more will be necessary. Specifically, additional U.S. special forces and advisers are needed to direct precision air strikes, advise foreign partners on the ground and possibly conduct targeted operations against ISIS leadership.”

The dismal polls on how Americans see Obama’s foreign policy

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from September 3 to September 7, 2014 revealed only 32% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy – an all-time low. Sixty-one percent of voters supported military action against ISIL. However, 40% of those polled said action should be limited to air strikes only, while 34% believed it should include air strikes and combat troops. Fifteen percent said no military action should be taken, and 11% of respondents were unsure. A recent Rasmussen poll indicated that only 26% of likely voters believe that the nation is headed in the right direction, while 65% of voters stated that the nation is headed down the wrong tract.

A Fox News poll had even worse news for Obama. The poll released on September 10, 2014 indicated an avalanche of horrible news for the White House. It indicated the lack of confidence on Obama’s foreign policy. The results were as follows:

57% think Obama is weak and indecisive.
59% believe that the U.S. is less respected since Obama became president.
76% want the U.S. to do more to stop ISIL.
54% think that Obama is not willing to do what it takes to defeat ISIL.
77% are concerned that ISIL will try to attack the U.S. soon.
55% feel embarrassed by Obama’s lack an strategy to defeat ISIL.
46% think that Obama will manage rather than destroy ISIL, while 39% disagree.
38% approve of Obama’s job as president and 56% of voters disapprove, which is an all-time low.

Critics of Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIL

A Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan wrote an article regarding the strategy of Obama to “degrading” and “destroying” the Islamic State using Miller as a pen name to avoid being fired. He is aware that more than 40 generals and admirals and other high-ranking officers were fired for objecting to the terrible defense and national security policies of the president.

Miller said that the problem is that the strategy — to provide logistical support for Iraqi forces, limited air strikes, and a strong Free Syrian Army — is a foolish strategy that is unlikely to succeed. The president’s strategy is to employ air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria in support of Iraqi army forces and the Free Syrian Army rebels who are fighting the Islamic State on the ground. Obama said that he will not order U.S. ground forces into either Iraq or Syria.

Miller pointed out that Obama instead of ground forces, the United States will increase training and logistical support for those armies on the ground. Miller wrote the following: “But here lies a critical flaw: The Iraqis have not proven to be a reliable partner in the war on terrorism. And this, despite ten years of U.S. military training and equipment provided by the United States. In Iraq, the Islamic State has swept Iraqi forces in a number of recent engagements, with many Iraqi units simply abandoning their posts and refusing to fight. This problem is not one that can be solved through additional training. Even with the added power and confidence-boost of air strikes, a root issue is sectarianism. On a number of occasions, the Iraqi army failed to fight the Islamic State not simply because of bad officers and cowardice: Sunni units simply did not want to fight fellow Sunnis, even if they were extremists.”

Miller said that in Syria the Free Syrian Army is fighting not only the Islamic State, but the Syrian army of Bashar al-Assad. It is strictly against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s interest to allow the Free Syrian Army to become strong enough even to challenge the Islamic State, because that would also increase the risk to his regime. More than likely the Assad regime will continue to order military attacks against the Free Syrian Army rebels at the same time that the United States is trying to build up the capacity of the Free Syrian Army. Miller believes that under those conditions, it will be very difficult for the Free Syrian Army to succeed.

This problem could require the United States to further expand its mission to include attacking the Syrian army in order to allow the Free Syrian Army to combat the Islamic State. Obama, as we know, has decided not to attack the Syrian regime.

Miller concluded by stating the following: “In both Iraq and Syria, the United States lacks a reliable, legitimate ground force that it can support with air strikes in order to defeat the Islamic State. Building the capacity of the ground forces through an advise, assist, and training mission will take a significant amount of time. During this period, the Islamic State will continue to plot and train for terrorist attacks, and Syria will continue down the path of becoming a failed state where Islamic terrorists rule.”

The Obama administration is having a hard time enlisting support from allies

Anne Barnard and David D. Kirkpatrick wrote an article entitled “Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS” in The New York Times on September 11, 2014.





Secretary of State John Kerry in Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to officials from across the region

The reporters explained that many Arab governments complained quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, that Obama is asking for support he is getting a less than enthusiastic welcome. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all avoided specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.

The reporters pointed out the following: “The tepid support could further complicate the already complex task Mr. Obama has laid out for himself in fighting the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: He must try to confront the group without aiding Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, or appearing to side with Mr. Assad’s Shiite allies, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, against discontented Sunnis across the Arab world. While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on September 11, 2014 to do their share to fight ISIS and issued a joint communique supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance.”

The reporters explained that Turkey is concerned about potential attacks across its long border with ISIS-controlled Syria, and also about the fate of 49 Turkish government employees captured in Mosul by the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq. The government of Turkey has stated that for that reason the United States should not to expect support for the American effort to build up a coalition of nations.

At a meeting in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State John Kerry work to build a coalition for the American mission. At least 10 Arab states signed a communique pledging to join “in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign,” but with the qualification “as appropriate” and without any specifics. Turkey attended the meeting but declined to sign.

The reporters wrote that “Even in Baghdad and across Syria, where the threat from ISIS is immediate, reactions were mixed. Members of Iraq’s Shiite majority cheered the prospect of American help. But many Sunni Muslims were cynical about battling an organization that evolved from jihadist groups fighting American occupation.”

The army of the Islamic Caliphate is rapidly growing
Somini Sengupta wrote an article entitled “Nations Trying to Stop Their Citizens From Going to Middle East to Fight for ISIS” which was published in The New York Times on September 12. 2014.


ISIS6 Caliphate army soldiers.

The reporter explained that the rapid increased army of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and its ability to draw fighters from across the globe, have set off alarm bells worldwide. Jihadist recruits from 74 countries are among the estimated 12,000 foreign militants in Syria and Iraq, many of them fighting with ISIS, according to Peter Neumann, a professor at King’s College London. The largest blocs of these fighters come from nearby Muslim countries, like Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, but smaller contingents come from countries as far away as Belgium, China, Russia, Canada and the United States. More than 1,000 young disaffected jihadists have come from Turkey and many from the low-income neighborhoods of Ankara, the capital of that nation.

CIA estimates that the Islamic Caliphate army has grown up to the 31,500 soldiers. American intelligence officials disclosed this week that there were 15,000, as opposed to the 12,000 foreign jihadists estimated by Peter Neumann, fighting with ISIL. Other Foreign jihadists are also fighting with other al-Qaeda- affiliated terror organizations.

Sengupta explained that Turkey says that it is now trying to stop the flow of jihadists to join ISIL across its 530-mile frontier with Syria. The government of Turkey stated Saying it has closed most of its official border crossing points. In 2013, Turkey denied entry to 4,000 people who had been on a no-entry list and detained more than 92,000 people on its border.

Sengupta said that the United Nations Security Council already prohibits aiding organizations that are on its own list of banned groups, including al-Qaeda and its Syrian affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, though not other groups like Hezbollah, which the United States considers to be a terrorist group. In Tunisia, the Parliament is debating a new antiterrorism law, and the government estimates that 2,400 Tunisians went to fight in Syria, mainly with ISIS and the Nusra Front. A Tunisian diplomat said his country had prevented an additional 8,000 from traveling to Syria.


The American people, as indicated by recent polls, have lost confidence and trust on President Barack Obama. They see the president as a vacillating, indecisive, and weak leader who contradicts himself constantly, sends mixed messages, and also lies repeatedly. This incredible behavior spreads confusion not only in the United States would across the world. An astounding 58% of voters disapprove his performance as president and 57% of American voters believe that the United States is less respected since Barack Obama became president.

As I have pointed out in my recent book, America in Decline (2014), a world superpower needs to be respected by its allies and feared by its enemies. Sadly, the United States is neither!

During his speech to the nation Obama bragged and pointed out to Yemen and Somalia as examples of highly successful drone-strike terrorist containment. But who in the world believes that Yemen and Somalia are examples of political stable nations? Obama has not requested authorization from Congress to use military force against ISIL and said that he doesn’t need to do it. Obama under the War Powers Act must request permission from Congress to pursue military action beyond 60 days. Failure to do so is a gross violation of the law and of the Constitution of the United States. In an editorial published by The New York Times on September 17, 2014, this pro-Obama newspaper stated that Obama needs to go to Congress and asked permission to wage war.

Reluctant and indecisive warriors who are presidents, such as Obama, and who lack a firm war strategy do not attract allies and do not defeat their enemies.. Moreover, President Obama by stating repeatedly that there would never be boots on the ground, even though all his generals know that that is necessary in order to defeat the enemy, is sending a signal to the jihadists of the Islamic Caliphate that he is not serious in trying to defeat them.
It is a very poor idea to believe that the Free Syrian Army, who is no longer a moderate fighting force, when it is trained and supplied by millions of dollars of weapons will achieve victory against the Islamic Caliphate. The number estimated to be trained in Saudi Arabia is 5,000, that small number would not make any difference at all. If and when the soldiers of the Free Syrian Army returned to fight in Syria, they may decide to attack the Syrian dictator and not the Islamic Caliphate. So more than likely training the Free Syrian Army and supplying them with expensive American weapons is not going to work.

Another great difficulty to defeat ISIL is the issue of sectarianism. Sunnis do not like to fight Sunnis, even if they are brutal jihadists. Qatar has been given an enormous financial support to Hamas and ISIL. Who can believe that this enemy of the United States will now become one of our allies? Our other ally, Saudi Arabia, has a diabolical Sunni Wahhabist religion which spread hatred against infidels worldwide. Saudi Arabia has been responsible for the rise of Sunni jihadists throughout the world. Moreover, some government officials from Saudi Arabia assisted the 9/11 terrorists and Obama has suppressed this information as did President George W. Bush. Thus Saudi Arabia cannot be consider a reliable ally of the United States in the War against Terror.

President Obama has not paid sufficient attention to the one group that is truly our faithful ally. Our best hope for defeating the Islamic Caliphate are the Kurdish people and their highly trained and motivated Army, the peshmerga. Both in Syria and Iraq Kurdish men and women fight against the Islamic Caliphate with great courage. Obama needs to provide these Kurdish warriors with modern weapons and financial assistance. Moreover, Obama needs to help the Kurds establish an independent nation which will become a democracy in the middle of the Middle East. Presently, European Kurds are returning to their home to join the peshmerga Army and fight Islamic Caliphate.

Unless President Barack Obama begins to hear and accept all recommendations made by the Pentagon, his strategy to defeat ISIL will fail. Our national security will continue to be an even greater risk under this president. After all Obama is the one responsible for the rise of the brutal and bloody Islamic Caliphate as explained in this article.