Posted on Nov 18, 2015
On ISIS, Syria, Refugees: Are Political leaders really trying to find a solution?
2.3K
14
6
8
8
0
I know this is a touchy subject but....
Before I get the left and the right in here trying to infer I'm taking a position in defense of POTUS or against him. I'm not doing either I'm considering the obvious.
At the G20 Summit our leader spoke from a position of arrogance and defense. Is this the right position to speak to the rest of the world from? Wouldn't we be in a better position if we were asking for other opinions, ideas, evidence, facts?
Believing one's position is the only correct position without listening to other's opinions is to our detriment.
"Did we underestimate ISIS?" It's not a question to argue about nor are we in a position to argue from, in light of current events.
Obama is accused in some articles of not being a good orator, but is this really what the issue is? Isn't the issue that he isn't a negotiator?
Of course Obama, lacks skills as a negotiator, he's a law professor (speaks from subject knowledge unchallenged), giving summaries, ...
Where are our great military leaders to assist?
Since when do political figures become military strategist? I don't expect my doctor to know how to fix my car. In some fields those practicing have a very narrow field of focus. How can we expect Political figures to know how to fix military problems, international problems without having an open mind to listen to the advice of others?
Where are our great military leaders, why aren't they speaking up? It's possible that the military establishment has become so politicized that leaders are afraid to speak up because it will be career ending or "other than worldly" events will happen to them/their families.
Douglas McArthur had a plan of action and this is what we lack in our "War on Terror".
"My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater, which I outlined after the Papuan Campaign and have since consistently advocated, contemplates massive strokes against only main strategic objectives, utilizing surprise and air-ground striking power supported and assisted by the fleet. This is the very opposite of what is termed "island hopping" which is the gradual pushing back of the enemy by direct frontal pressure with the consequent heavy casualties which will certainly be involved. Key points must of course be taken but a wise choice of such will obviate the need for storming the mass of islands now in enemy possession. "Island hopping" with extravagant losses and slow progress...is not my idea of how to end the war as soon and as cheaply as possible. New conditions require for solution and new weapons require for maximum application new and imaginative methods."
We are and have been "Island hopping" and it isn't working.
"Why isn't there a discussion about the Christian refugees?" Is bringing up the issue of the Christian Syrian population faux pau? Even within this population there could be ISIS sympathizers. Why are we not talking about it? Maybe it's because the idea of it hasn't been thought of yet or because it's not politically correct to consider such an element. There's not a simple solution to deciding who to take and who not to take.
There is already a population of both Christian and Islamic Syrian Nationals living in the U.S.. What is prohibiting them from using the normal immigration route to apply for their relatives and others to come to the U.S.. Actually I'm sure some already have. This would be the best route as the incoming refugee would already have a family support network and it allows for vetting...
Where are the Arab Islamic Committee, the National Council on U.S. Arab relations, the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab lobby, Arab American members of Congress, the Arab American Institute, and the Arab American Leadership Council. Why is the news not carrying positions from these groups/people? What are their positions on this issue and on the issue of allowing Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S. unvetted? I think there is valuable insight into the subject matter that could be gained from these groups.
Before I get the left and the right in here trying to infer I'm taking a position in defense of POTUS or against him. I'm not doing either I'm considering the obvious.
At the G20 Summit our leader spoke from a position of arrogance and defense. Is this the right position to speak to the rest of the world from? Wouldn't we be in a better position if we were asking for other opinions, ideas, evidence, facts?
Believing one's position is the only correct position without listening to other's opinions is to our detriment.
"Did we underestimate ISIS?" It's not a question to argue about nor are we in a position to argue from, in light of current events.
Obama is accused in some articles of not being a good orator, but is this really what the issue is? Isn't the issue that he isn't a negotiator?
Of course Obama, lacks skills as a negotiator, he's a law professor (speaks from subject knowledge unchallenged), giving summaries, ...
Where are our great military leaders to assist?
Since when do political figures become military strategist? I don't expect my doctor to know how to fix my car. In some fields those practicing have a very narrow field of focus. How can we expect Political figures to know how to fix military problems, international problems without having an open mind to listen to the advice of others?
Where are our great military leaders, why aren't they speaking up? It's possible that the military establishment has become so politicized that leaders are afraid to speak up because it will be career ending or "other than worldly" events will happen to them/their families.
Douglas McArthur had a plan of action and this is what we lack in our "War on Terror".
"My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater, which I outlined after the Papuan Campaign and have since consistently advocated, contemplates massive strokes against only main strategic objectives, utilizing surprise and air-ground striking power supported and assisted by the fleet. This is the very opposite of what is termed "island hopping" which is the gradual pushing back of the enemy by direct frontal pressure with the consequent heavy casualties which will certainly be involved. Key points must of course be taken but a wise choice of such will obviate the need for storming the mass of islands now in enemy possession. "Island hopping" with extravagant losses and slow progress...is not my idea of how to end the war as soon and as cheaply as possible. New conditions require for solution and new weapons require for maximum application new and imaginative methods."
We are and have been "Island hopping" and it isn't working.
"Why isn't there a discussion about the Christian refugees?" Is bringing up the issue of the Christian Syrian population faux pau? Even within this population there could be ISIS sympathizers. Why are we not talking about it? Maybe it's because the idea of it hasn't been thought of yet or because it's not politically correct to consider such an element. There's not a simple solution to deciding who to take and who not to take.
There is already a population of both Christian and Islamic Syrian Nationals living in the U.S.. What is prohibiting them from using the normal immigration route to apply for their relatives and others to come to the U.S.. Actually I'm sure some already have. This would be the best route as the incoming refugee would already have a family support network and it allows for vetting...
Where are the Arab Islamic Committee, the National Council on U.S. Arab relations, the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab lobby, Arab American members of Congress, the Arab American Institute, and the Arab American Leadership Council. Why is the news not carrying positions from these groups/people? What are their positions on this issue and on the issue of allowing Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S. unvetted? I think there is valuable insight into the subject matter that could be gained from these groups.
Strategy
Politics
Warfare
Religion
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
All excellent questions. If we had the answers to only some of them we would solve the thousand year old problem there. As for our politicians and a solution, those who are running for office on both sides can be as tough as they want, it is only noise as they have no ability to take action. As for our POTUS, I think he is hoping that it will all go away on its own.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Solution? To what problem? I spent the better part of my life as a problem solver. The last ten years of my consulting career were especially lucrative as I was solving problems for rather large multi-national corporations. In that time I discovered the key. Whenever I met an executive or a committee wrangling over a perplexing problem I would simply ask, "What are you trying to do?" Invariably one would scoff in response, "It's obvious" and I would respond, "So tell me." That person's explanation would just as invariable trigger a different argument and the committee would fall to the task of defining the problem in a manner on which they could all agree. Once they achieved that, the solution was obvious. Therein lies the issue with ISIS. I don't see that these "leaders" are in agreement as to what they are attempting to do. Contain. Eliminate. Support. Stand on the sidelines and cheer them on (if they are focusing their attack on someone you don't have the guts to attack yourself). There appear to be many opinions and all result in mutually exclusive "solutions".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google