Posted on Jun 17, 2016
Who had the better strategy in the War on Terror: Bush or Obama?
6.59K
98
69
8
8
0
CIA Director warns of growing ISIS threat
CIA Director John Brennan testified to Congress that ISIS can draw on a "large cadre of Western fighters" that could attack in the West. CNN's Barbara Starr ...
Some argue that there wouldn't even have been a war on terror if President Bush hadn't started it. Others argue that President Obama won't fight it. Sadly, none of that matters now, does it? Let's talk about strategy because, ultimately, that's where the military comes in. President Bush's "Fly Paper" strategy had us fighting terrors in their home. President Obama's has us fighting here. It seems both have their fans, but nothing we're doing, at least not now, is doing any good according to the Director of the CIA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztCRkVHAMWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztCRkVHAMWw
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
War on Terror
Office of the President (POTUS) War on Terror
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
6
6
0
The Al Qada organization Bombed the World Trade Center the first time, blew up Kobar Towers, attack the USS Cole, and blew up two Embassies in Africa. All on Bill Clinton's watch. Nothing was done, then 9-11 occured . The conclusion of the 9-11 committee , they were at war with us. Bush called it a war on Terror but it had been going on for a long time!
(6)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
All true. When President Obama refuses to even mention War on Terror or Islamic Terrorism, I am reminded of the decades when we refused to acknowledge that the Cold War was still a war. We tried "Containment" and "Detente". (It seems that Bush's "Fly Paper" strategy was a form of containment and the Obama's appeasement is a form of detente. We didn't "win" the Cold War until Reagan said we're at war and should act like it. Then, lo and behold, we won it.
(1)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
They continue to conduct a war against us, and now we ignore it, say they are mental, shouldn't have had a gun. In 8 years it has spread back to our shores so our non combatants or families are at risk. We must fight in their homes, destroy the radicals and support the moderates. The affected countries must be willing to help. Or trump can build a wall around them and we keep them in.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Bush because Obama doesn't have a clear strategy on the War on Terror. Obama's war on terror includes the following:
1. Downplay the threat i.e., ISIS is contained, gains are being made on the battlefield and financial controls on their funding are in place.
2. Deflect the threat i.e., global warming and guns are a more serious threat to our National Security
3. Blame the prior administration for the War on Terror
1. Downplay the threat i.e., ISIS is contained, gains are being made on the battlefield and financial controls on their funding are in place.
2. Deflect the threat i.e., global warming and guns are a more serious threat to our National Security
3. Blame the prior administration for the War on Terror
(5)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CPO Greg Frazho
Obama doesn't have a clear strategy, period. In fact, ambiguity and uncertainty are going to be the hallmarks, if you want to call them that, of his administration.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
CPT Jack Durish IMO, the problem is the ROE. The US is trying to fight this as though it were a conventional force. We are fighting an ideal, not a country. We do not understand our adversary, their tactics and motivations are foreign to US policy makers. Take the shooting in Orlando as an example. To the western mind, this had to be the act of a deranged person. To the mind of a jihadist, he is giving his life to kill his enemy.
We need a more aggressive IO campaign do denounce the BS that these idealist have been using to "radicalize" people.
We need a more aggressive IO campaign do denounce the BS that these idealist have been using to "radicalize" people.
(4)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Rules of Engagement. I really hate that term. The rules should simply state kill the enemy, but that's kind of hard to do when the enemy hides among noncombatants and our sensibilities won't permit us to harm them. Interestingly, the Soviets had no such sensibilities. They killed and destroyed indiscriminately, and still lost.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - Not PC, but lets take a look at Japan. If the overall pain is sufficient, the enemy will succumb.
From what I have read, with a few exceptions, the Soviets engagement in Afghanistan was still a force on force focus. I wont go into some of the outside influences that helped defeat them and founded AQL. If you want to defeat the ideology, you have got to change tactics.
From what I have read, with a few exceptions, the Soviets engagement in Afghanistan was still a force on force focus. I wont go into some of the outside influences that helped defeat them and founded AQL. If you want to defeat the ideology, you have got to change tactics.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - I try not to draw parallels between a war on terrorists and a war on a nation state. The big difference is that that nation state has territory to defend. They have families and homes as well as culture, tradition and institutions to defend. The terrorists has none of these. Kill his wife and children and he'll get others (probably already has others). Destroy his home, he'll just take someone else's (in fact the one you just destroyed probably was someone else's). Culture, tradition and institutions. He carries those in his pocket.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - Expand your target range. He has parents, siblings, aunts and uncles... grand parents. Make it hurt.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google