CIA Official: Obama Does Not Know How To Fight ISIS - Assessment Fair or Unfair?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:48:15 -0400

A CIA veteran alleges that the Obama Administration simply does not understand how to combat ISIS. Is this assertion fair or unfair? What say you?

CIA veteran: The Obama administration does not understand how to fight ISIS

Obama's approach to ISIS comes up short, the official says.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:49 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:49:57 -0400

I think it is a fair assessment. Those that had the right ideas (McChrystal, Patraeus, etc) have been removed (some by their own actions, others not). It almost comes across as throwing darts at a board & trying that method this month.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jun 2 at 2015 1:57 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:57:17 -0400

Had he studied war or conflict or strategy or history, he might have had a chance, just listening to his own counsel. He did not. He studied Law. Were he modest or humble, he may be able to recognize the value of those who have studied war and conflict and history and strategy, and he would surround himself with those experts and listen to them. He is not, does not, and will not. It is just not in this headstrong young man who thinks too highly of himself to listen to others.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:04 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:04:30 -0400

This assumes our leaders goal is to defeat ISIS.

Response by MAJ Anne McGee made Jun 2 at 2015 2:06 PM

MAJ Anne McGee — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:06:36 -0400

In any engagement you must first have the will to fight to win. I haven't seen anything from this Administration that demonstrates that.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:06 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:06:54 -0400

Obama and his Administration, from the start, have been clueless where it regards national security strategy. He was on the right track during the 2008 campaign where he outlined an AFG surge, but backed off and took months to make a decision in the months following his election. In the end, it took 10+ months after his election for him to finally send the surge to AFG. Even then what he sent was no where near what had been recommended by his generals.

Obama has frequently sacrificed national security and strategy for political gain. We are reaping those "rewards" now with the rise of ISIS.

Edit: Grammar and spelling errors

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:48 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:48:16 -0400

Obama has proven his complete lack of understanding about and appreciation for the office he holds, and the 24/7 demands made upon it. The man has redefined the phrase "out of his league."

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 2 at 2015 2:56 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:56:58 -0400

Not an Obama fan at all, but I don't think anybody has a clue how to combat religious fanaticals that have no borders. If you got a plan that will work you should run for president.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 2 at 2015 3:39 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:39:33 -0400

The Truth is neither fair or unfair, it is only the truth.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 2 at 2015 3:39 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:39:49 -0400

He really handicapped our efforts by not using US ground troops. The alternatives are coalition forces and the Iraqi Army.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:07:03 -0400

Hard to explain, but I voted other. I feel that this assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. Yes, there has been a series of failures. Yes, Obama has ignored the advice of his military advisors on multiple occasions. But, the current situation with ISIS is a new threat. No one knows how to combat against an enemy who can be anyone, at anytime. They do not identify themselves with specific uniforms, nor do they adhere to the rules of any nation. Even these military advisors for the president cannot say with any form of certainty that their plans of action would suffice for the current situation.

Response by PO2 Christopher Taggart made Jun 2 at 2015 4:15 PM

PO2 Christopher Taggart — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:15:37 -0400

This is the kind of soldiers needed to fight this bloodthirsty group 3000 against 100,000.....!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:29:45 -0400

I think we are giving him too much credit. While he is the President and CinC, let's face it, he's not making these decisions based on his own understanding. Any decision he makes is "sold" to him by the JCS and IC. He does a good job of acting like he makes the decision, but he is likely presented with two or three options to choose from, hard sold on the option his advisers want, then told to chose one.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 2 at 2015 4:38 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:38:59 -0400

OMG! Everything is Politics these day, What CIA Analyst would give out this information if it was based on current true assessment and no matter whether true or not it would be an instant trip to Leavenworth for releasing something based on Classified Information. No this "CIA Analyst" is just another Reich, I mean Right Wing Tool and Piss Poor Hatchet Man.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 5:21 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:21:06 -0400

It's pretty simple! This is a hybrid threat that combines coventional warfare tactics with asymmetric warfare doctrine. They utilize a decentralized command and control structure, with a pretty sophisticated logistical apparatus!

In order to defeat this threat you must cut their supply lines to the major areas currently under their control, hit them hard where it hurts the most (POL) storage, weapons and, ammunition, food and, medical supplies.

Once they are forced to revert to a defensive position in their primary AO's and, run out of supples, we can encircle their positions, bring in the TACP's and, CCT's and, unleash a precision air offensive to target key elements of strength within their AO, in order to soften up their defensive positions.

Once they have been weakened significantly by air strikes, the IA can launch a three pronged attack from three set directions, pushing them into a static line of defense on the remaining side, effectively trapping their escape and, whipping them out completely.

This of course has to happen simultaneously against both Mosul and, Ramadi and, concrete actionable intelligence derived from SIGINT and, HUMINT assets to ensure our air offensive meets a minimum efficiency rate of at least 80% or higher against ISIS strongholds prior to the launch of the ground offensive, while decreasing the potential for collateral damage.

This sounds easier said than done, however with diligent planning and, cohesive relationships between IA and coition support, it is entirely possible!

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jun 2 at 2015 6:32 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:32:29 -0400

Isn't the President's problem. It is his intelligence advisors who own this tar baby. They didn't see this coming and they didn't plan. This is unintended outcome. ISIS is composed of some former Saddam era Lt. Cols who went private after CPA Order #2 disbanded the Iraqi Army in early 2003. They were then called the "insurgents". They had plenty of dinars since we didn't issue mil scrip like we did in Vietnam and other places. Over the next decade they rounded up a professional cadre and developed a small but effective army which they then cloaked in mindless religiosity to validate it. They terrorized recruits and implemented a rule like every other ruler in Iraq has done since 632 AD. Everybody in the Middle East understands this and many predicted it years earlier. No Shi'ia has ever ruled Iraq. Once the Shi'ia are crushed the "religious" Sunni aspect of ISIS will loosen up and a new Dictator will be in charge. King/Dictator/Caliphate same boss. The Iraqis like a firm hand. Leave them be.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jun 2 at 2015 6:58 PM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:58:09 -0400

While I think it is a fair assessment I also believe that there probably are very few people who know how to combat this threat and it is doubtful anyone would listen to them anyway. Most people who claim the president is screwing the pooch on this thing basically want to see Gulf War pt. III instead of learning from our past conflicts and finding a better solution.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 7:07 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:07:16 -0400

This is why political candidates should have military experience. Rather than just have book smarts!

Response by SPC Ei McS made Jun 2 at 2015 9:21 PM

SPC Ei McS — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:21:01 -0400

VERY interesting that a supposed CIA official all of a sudden seems to have some kind of an extra-special insight concerning ISIS and that he seems to liberally blurt that knowledge out into the whole world! Why is this supposed CIA official in the CIA?!

Besides, this supposed CIA official is not the President of the USA! He's not even part of the Pentagon! Give me a break!

Me, as part of the "public" should not and do not know all about ISIS and the fight against them! The Presidebt and his inner circle plus advisers have knowledge that I don't need to know! Mostly for safety's sake!

Furthermore, as if this whole thing concerning ISIS is just so simple! Some people come up with such simple solutions to the ISIS problem. This simply shows to me then that there is a lack of understanding about the complexity of this problem!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:24:49 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, when we went to war with the British, we developed the guerrilla tactics used against them to defeat them. When we went to Korea, we had to adapt to their way of fighting. This was very difficult because we had not fought a war before with the North Korean way. We had fought conventional war our way in WWI and WWII. In Koreaand Vietnam, it was wars unlike any we had fought. Now, we're up against a different type of warfare. The POTUS Administration doesn't have a clue how, not only to fight this war, but how to win it. We need commitment and experienced leaders if we are going to continue to stay in the Middle East. Our men and women cannot continue to deploy over and over, playing Russian roulette with their lives, while there is no honest attempt to fully commit to winning. It's not a game. It's not make believe. It's our troops asses on the line with no support from the POTUS. IMHO

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:35:53 -0400

We are just addicted to war instead of making peace and making our great country great again

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 9:59 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:59:18 -0400

I'm really surprised to see the Rally Point community vote at 40% unfair stating that this is a highly complex and unprecedented and there are no good options. First, all war is complex and the people in charge are elected, lets not forget they volunteered to make difficult decisions, and get paid good money to make them when there are no good options. After all, if there were good options someone without stars on their color, or someone not living in Washington D.C. would make the decision. Therefore, claiming that this cannot be solved because it is complex seems ludicrous. Difficulty is no excuse for paralysis.

Now, how can we say that this is unprecedented? (JP 3-24) An insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region. ISIS is nothing more than an insurgency. Albeit an insurgency with a strong religious component, but the world has seen plethora of insurgencies throughout history. Lets go back to good ole doctrine -- Irregular warfare is a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s) (JP 1).Irregular warfare favors indirect approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will.(FM 3-24)

Ok this looks like irregular warfare we have state actors, non state actors, please go on doctrine -- Counterinsurgency is comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes (JP 3-24)...interesting...1-4 : Counterinsurgency is not a substitute for strategy...now isn't that a nugget...wow there's a lot of good advice in our military books on this subject!

Ideally, the host nation is the primary actor in defeating an insurgency. Even in an insurgency that occurs in a country with a nonfunctioning central government or after a major conflict, the host nation must eventually provide a solution that is culturally acceptable to its society and meets U.S. policy goals. Look at that, another amazing nugget...we should have paid a little more attention to that excerpt...and we're still in the first chapter!

ISIS is a formidable enemy but they are not a force unlike the world has ever seen and military strategist have been writing about insurgencies for centuries.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 11:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:07:38 -0400

I am on the fence with this one. I think the bigger question is why isn't the whole world that sees this not fighting together. We obviously need to lead but ever since Iraq all super powers have no spine in confronting the issue. And this includes the Muslim nations.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 3 at 2015 2:57 AM

SPC David S. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:57:09 -0400

I think many saw the real Obama when the 'red line' was crossed in Syria with the chemical attacks and no reprisal. The Middle East foreign policy train has been off the tracks for many years. However base on his comments of ISIS being JV and attempting to marginalize their will hints to a skewed worldview.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Jun 3 at 2015 8:26 AM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:26:13 -0400

Former SecDef Gates complained in very plain language the WH had been attempting to micromanage OIF/New Dawn and OEF strategy. Par for the course IMHO. But on the flip-side, and I qualify this as an OEF not OIF vet that the standards the WH and Pentagon have for the Iraqis, if at all like Afghanistan are IMHO over-the-top, unrealistic, and unsustainable. I say this someone whose worked extensively in IO, CA, on phased development and stability strategy in both FYROM, ISAF and EUCOM... To wind down - I don't recall if it were GEN McCrystal or GEN Petreaus who said something about being "good enough." It seems that the Iraqi Army hasn't mastered the fundamentals of COIN after all our efforts and that the ex-Baathist Iraq Army wasn't as incapable as everyone might have guessed. Just my ramblings before coffee.

Response by SSG Sean Thoman made Jun 3 at 2015 8:37 AM

SSG Sean Thoman — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:37:52 -0400

I believe Carl Spackler has a better idea on how to deal with ISIS. The thing with this President and his political party, they want to fight the "politically correct" way, deny the threat exist and regulate the threat in the media it is only a "JV Team", one bullet in the pocket and permission from Valerie Jarrett to engage.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 8:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:54:34 -0400

Somewhat unfair. *NO* nation has an easy time with insurgencies, especially with these types of nihilistic movements that really just want to fight and kill for a bit before dying gloriously. The Soviets had a hard time in the area, the Israelis, the French and British in previous centuries... insurgencies are always the worst kinds of wars and especially ones in the Middle East.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 3 at 2015 9:21 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:21:43 -0400

Apparently neither did Bush or Cheney.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 3 at 2015 10:36 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 10:36:24 -0400

The POTUS is right in limiting our involvement to SOF and airstrikes. Go in any deeper and it'll further inflame a tragic situation AND put Americans in between warring factions. We've seen that movie before.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 3 at 2015 2:05 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:05:32 -0400

Hey, We need to give his current plan of dropping food, water, and weapons on them a chance. (BAZINGA! I'm joking...kind of)

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Jun 3 at 2015 2:09 PM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:09:47 -0400

Fair and accurate. Isis could have been stopped dead in their tracks when they were staging for their initial push south in Iraq. The problem occurred because the State Department did not achieve a SOFA agreement that would have left a pre-staged force in place. With the nogatiating leverage that the US had in the form of hundreds of millions of US tax payer dollars and equipment there absolutely no excuse for the United States not to achieve a satisfactory SOFA agreement with the government of Iraq.

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made Jun 3 at 2015 7:18 PM

MSG Greg Kelly — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:18:47 -0400

POTUS has no foreign policies for any Arab state other than do as little as possible.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 8:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:14:15 -0400

The best option is to support allies in the region and avoid direct involvement in the conflict.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 4 at 2015 8:58 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:58:47 -0400

FDR told the Japan, Germany, and America what we were going to do, and we did it. We have an ominous silence now.

Response by SP5 Joel O'Brien made Jun 4 at 2015 10:48 PM

SP5 Joel O'Brien — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:48:15 -0400

Somebody/Anybody: Tell us who DOES know how to deal with this evil?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 20 at 2015 11:44 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:31 -0400

Throw in the generals.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Nov 22 at 2015 7:24 AM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:24:53 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member His foreign policy is a failure and this is certainly not an exception. I heard a comment by a former Ambassador to Iraq wherein he stated the President's policy on ISIS/ISIL, Iraq, and Syria were in a "GD Free fall." Seems about right to me.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Nov 22 at 2015 2:31 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:31:42 -0500

I believe bringing the world powers together,and working with friendly groups battling assad,and daesh to bring a transitional government together through diplomacy and fair election process which should include Refugees abroad,could allow for an exit for assad.The President has been brilliant in this process.

Response by MSgt Neil Greenfield made Aug 24 at 2018 11:19 AM

MSgt Neil Greenfield — Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:19:38 -0400

Why did this article show up now? And what does it have to do with present day circumstances?