Obama Will Disclose ISIS Strategy on Wednesday

President Obama will outline the U.S. response to ISIS in a speech on Wednesday. Today on Meet the Press:

“What I want people to understand is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum” of the militants, he said. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We’re going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately, we’re going to defeat them.”

Although Obama said there would be a “military element” to the strategy, he added that “this is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops."

He also said he regrets golfing after the James Foley beheading as it had the "wrong optics." You can watch his interview on the Meet the Press website.

< Stand Up To Cancer on All Major Networks | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ISIL has fighter jets (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    Saxby Chambliss is concerned :)

    Perhaps.....perhaps if he had shown up for Vietnam instead of receiving five deferments he could comprehend that flying a fighter jet and eating an ice cream cone with no drips requires different skill sets :)

    MT (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    don't you know his knee was hurting him!

    I told my husband about Saxby's concern (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    My husband said that if ISIL did manage to get even one off the ground the Air Force would be secretly tickled.  They have nobody to dog fight any more.

    Not that it would be a dog fight.  The Air Force would have to hold back a little just to get a little practice in before they knocked some ISIL rookie right out of his socks.


    I watched the interview this morning (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    Partly curious about the new MTP.  honestly it was not as bad as I expected.   Maybe has to do with how much I dislike the former host.
    It was an interesting interview.  Lots of extreme close ups.  Hard to imagine what's going on in his head with all that's going on in the world.  I would not want his job.

    Some details and points (none / 0) (#2)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    1. Will Obama authorize airstrikes in Syria? I think he will.

    2. "After months of intelligence gathering, and weeks of securing US personnel in diplomatic missions, "the next phase is now to start going on some offence". the president said. The US will soon have more than 1,200 ground troops in Iraq assigned to Baghdad and Irbil." Guardian.

    3. "Obama also said that he has not seen any immediate intelligence of threats to the U.S. homeland." Fox.

    4. US airstrikes are now outside of northern Iraq for first time and in western Iraq/Anbar province. Protecting the Haditha dam area. There had been 133 airstrikes in Iraq prior this expansion to Anbar.

    5.  Sen. Feinstein: "I think that this is a major change in how ISIS is approached," "It is overdue,"  "but the president is now there, and I think it's the right thing for America." From the original linked article in the lead-in.

    Sen. Feinstein... (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    Sen. Feinstein: "I think that this is a major change in how ISIS is approached," "It is overdue,"  "but the president is now there, and I think it's the right thing for America.".

    Who needs rabid war mongering republicans when we already have Feinstein?

    She's getting O. on track. He sees the light.

    Thanks Diane.


    Didn't see this interview but (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    how is it a major change ? The president said we had been assessing intelligence and putting people in place for months. I guess he was not doing it bellicosely enough for her and others. Someone on Face the Nation said something like we need to hear Obama sound tougher.

    Yes,that is what matters.


    Don't think Obama's interview (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    announced any major change or even change, but I assume his Wed. speech, and Tues. meeting with Congressional leaders, will disclose the expansion of the effort against ISIS. I'm assuming he will announce expansion of airstrikes into Syria, or at least will announce a strategy will result in airstrikes in Syria sooner than later.

    Some are saying today that the recent expansion of airstrikes into western Iraq, i.e. the Anbar province, is a change. All prior 133 airstrikes had been in northern Iraq.


    The Gang of Seven has always known (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    #2.  If anyone else wanted to know, all you had to do was read page 6 of the New York  Times instead of the headlines at NY Daily.  The typical "anonymous" Pentagon sources have been busy doing what they do, with the blessing of the Pentagon and the President.

    It's not rocket science.  It's only about wanting to know vs. wanting to not know :)


    I would love it if the (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    President was able to say what he think of her and her war mongering and undermining.

    Open mic. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    the patronizing tone...

    Senator Warren: (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 07:18:46 PM EST
    Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority


    "The terrorists have moved, and we have to move in response," she said, adding part of that "means we're going to have to change in fundamental ways how we monitor our citizens when they go abroad."


    Wow! (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    As a fan of Ms. Warren, I'm somewhat taken aback.

    Thanks for posting.

    By the way, there is a problem with the link.
    There is an http where it shouldn't be.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 06:53:49 AM EST
    Trying to do links on an ipad isn't as easy as a PC.

    The Terrorists Have Won (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    So much for the overlap of consumer protections and civil liberties.

    I guess she is either moving back to her conservative views or she is considering a run for POTUS.


    I was going to respond to lentinel's (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    surprise or being "taken aback" by Senator Warren's expressed opinion.  Instead, I'll respond here with key questions for you.

    First, tho, let me state my position about military responses in general.  I believe that--during my lifetime--we have been too quick (and sometimes, very sadly, almost too eager) to rush to extensive military engagements.  We all know the carnage of Vietnam and Iraq and even Afghanistan ... carnage from the bombs and firepower and all the indiscriminate killing that defines war eventually AND carnage of our own spirit as a nation and as individuals.  I do not speak from a "high horse" or other presumed moral view either when I say that I actively opposed our entry in and escalation of military operations in Vietnam and Iraq (and, I also opposed entering Afghanistan on the very practical ground of studying about other western countries caught earlier caught in the mire that war there typically became.)

    But, as for ISIS/ISIL ... this strikes me as something different.  Apart from the media's typical drum-beat and in addition to the demonstrated ISIS exhilaration in brutality of another age, the threat of and apparent speed of expansion is more than troublesome.  At this point, I think that "tough talk" is not out of line ...certainly, if some urged tougher talk by the President vis-à-vis Repubs such as the cunning nebbish Speaker Boehner, we can stomach "tough talk" when whole ethnicities and non-conforming religious practices are exterminated through video-taped death marches.  The ISIS reality--its potential scope and hypnotic draw for young warriors--is something different.  (I'll surely draw back and take a breath, etc. ... but, it will be well worth listening to the planned speech from President Obama on Wednesday.)

    So ... my question(s): Even considering the military misadventures of the past 50-or-so years, does it mean that any international crisis that arises must be false?  If we "cried wolf" or said "the sky is falling" too many times before, does that mean that the wolf will never show or that a tornado will never come?  How do we know the difference?  How do we know when strategic military response is the correct choice ... and is that all related to whether we can accept the possibility of providing safety or other aid for  any group beyond our borders?  Are we all jerking our own knees?


    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    I have no problem with tough talk, and think that getting as many countries involved is a good thing. I would love to see Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, et al. get involved big time as they have the most to lose, imo.

    For predominantly muslim countries to get on board publicly to wipe out extremism would be great.

    This, from Warren, is not great, imo:

    Asked about the dozens of Americans who have reportedly joined ISIS, Warren noted that the U.S. should be "stepping up our efforts to track where people go when they leave the United States."

    "The terrorists have moved, and we have to move in response," she said, adding part of that "means we're going to have to change in fundamental ways how we monitor our citizens when they go abroad."


    Passing this kind of legislation or policy is dangerous to Americans because once out of the box, we are stuck with it. The police state is bad enough as it is, we do not need any more invasive policies tracking our movements.


    Agree, squeaky (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    I concur fully in your concern about any new rules or regulations, etc., for monitoring people leaving the US. From what I understand, the monitoring policies in place and the existing legislation should be sufficiently comprehensive.  We do not need to go further down that rabbit hole.

    Do you define war mongering (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    as any statement by anyone that suggests or supports more action against ISIS, whether it is a good strategy supported much or the world or a bad idea?

    I will (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 03:50:56 AM EST
    respond as if you were asking a serious question.


    It is she to whom I am responding - and her statement to which I am responding. Not "any statement by anyone". Sheeesh!

    It is her tone of condescension - like she, unlike Obama, knows what we must do - coupled with her feverish tone eager for more US military involvement.

    Involvement in which she will not be participating personally.


    Thanks, Lentinel. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:22:02 AM EST
    Nevertheless I don't understand why people and politicians who are trying to address what they view as a serious and legitimate threat to the Middle East and to their own countries are supposedly engaging in war mongering. While I know everyone won't agree with them, and everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, I don't see why these views should be called war mongering. Why would Feinstein or Warren engage in war mongering, as opposed to believing the US needs to address ISIS more forcefully at this time? What is their incentive for that? Maybe your definition and mine are not the same. I view it as a pejorative term, as opposed to anyone who suggests that airstrikes/combat or a war is or may be necessary.

    I was (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    responding to Feinstein.

    I have not examined Warren's reasons for saying what she is quoted as saying. I only read an excerpt of what she is supposed to have said. I have respect for her, so I withhold comment until I have read the complete text of her statement.

    My general sense is that we have been looking for an enemy we can engage in battle. Syria didn't work out. Forget Russia. Forget Iran. Forget North Korea. Countries with nukes, don't think so.

    ISIS did not threaten us, although since Obama has entered the fray, they may well now. It is a frightening prospect since I think it is obvious that one nutty individual who is a fanatic can create quite a bit of death and damage.

    As horrible as they may be, I do feel that it is up to the indigenous population as well as governments in the region to confront ISIS.

    In addition, what we are hearing about now is "protecting our interests". And what, specifically, are those interests? I don't believe for a minute that they are humanitarian. So what are they? The gigantic Embassy and its bloated personnel? Oil?

    I do call some people, like Feinstein and McCain, war mongers because of their tone. They seem to light up at the prospect of war - and have no clue about what to do to help the people of this country get out of poverty, get guns out of our face, give us clean renewable energy, give us reliable and clean public transportation - and universal healthcare without strings.

    None of the above is within their competence or, it seems to me, their interest or passion.

    But war! That they can feel.
    Especially since they personally are not paying for it in blood or treasure. We are.


    Warren Interview (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:50:41 AM EST
    Foreign Policy discussion begins at 14:40

    Warren and Couric


    Thanks, again. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    Interesting to see your reasons expressed. I don't agree that Feinsten/McCain are looking for war. In fact, I think they are not looking for war. However, when they believe US interests are impacted, they are not afraid of war and will reluctantly support it. Some think Obama is afraid of war and is timid and slow to react. Of course, especially with the lessons of the Iraq invasion, our country is now wanting to be more careful about entering war and sees the need to try to look further down the road at what will happen after the early portions of the war or invasion and to have a plan for that portion of the war too. With those lessons and that said, note that Obama views his failure to look down the road in LIbya as one of his significant failures.

    A question... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    ...when they believe US interests are impacted, they are not afraid of war and will reluctantly support it.

    What are the US interests?

    I would like them to spell that out - item by item.

    If we are going to war, people are going to die, Americans and Iraqis and others from the region.

    I would like to know exactly why - in detail.


    Not Really! (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 09:26:05 PM EST

    New ISIS strategy make take 3 years. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 10:43:56 PM EST
    NY Times article tonight.

    "The Obama administration is preparing to carry out a campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that may take three years to complete, requiring a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office, according to senior administration officials."

    "The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation -- destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria -- might not be completed until the next administration. Indeed, some Pentagon planners envision a military campaign lasting at least 36 months."

    "Mr. Obama's planned speech suggests he may be moving closer to a decision on many remaining questions, including whether and at what point the White House might widen the air campaign to include targets across the border in Syria, possibly to include ISIS leadership and its equipment, supply depots and command centers."

    "But it is not clear if that declaration would preclude the eventual deployment of small numbers of American Special Operations forces or C.I.A. operatives to call in airstrikes on behalf of Kurdish fighters, Iraqi forces or Sunni tribes, a procedure that makes it much easier to distinguish between ISIS militants, civilians and counter ISIS fighters."

    Truly (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 03:56:13 AM EST

    One year.
    Two years.
    Three years...

    They have no idea what they are getting us into.
    They can't know.
    Things change so quickly.

    Does anyone anywhere think that anyone can estimate in advance the duration of a war?

    They are leading us down the same well-worn path to war as their predecessors. And there is no opposition.

    The dems fall in behind the White House plans.
    The rabid republicans get their war agenda enacted.
    Everybody's happy.

    And we get to pay for it.


    This 3 yr plan was announced (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    August 24th

    Good link for Senator Warren's wanting to make (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 07:02:26 AM EST
    ISIS number one Priority.

    The link (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    is rather brief. Perhaps there is more to her reasoning that is not expressed in that excerpt.

    What is quoted is her saying:

    "We can't get pulled into another war in the Middle East," she said. "We need to be working with others to close ISIS down."

    That I can feel.
    Not getting pulling into another war in the Middle East.
    And unfortunately, that is exactly where I think where we are headed.

    And I can agree with "working with others to close ISIS down".

    But that doesn't equate with an endorsement of bombing in Syria and the other things being floated.

    What it looks like to me is that a "coalition" is being formed which will equate, once again, to a US dominated enterprise.
    Dominated in terms of personnel, materiel, and money.

    I really like Warren. I think she is brilliant and has great integrity -  so I want to fully examine what she said.

    But I will tell you frankly, that if I find that she is gung ho for our military engagement and is repeating what I have read from Feinstein,  I will have to assume that she is contemplating running for office after all, and is trying to out-Hillary Hillary.


    Same Position as Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 08:55:24 AM EST
    Although I have not heard Obama talk about tracking US citizens and monitoring us when we go abroad.

    The problem of drawing conclusions (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    based upon "tone."  In other areas, the word "tone" could mean that if you like someone or are favorably disposed toward someone, you give that person a pass of sorts as compared to someone whom you disfavor who may be saying substantially the same thing.  More bluntly: Feinstein and Warren.

    Tone is a very subjective thing ... in the "ears" of the beholder.


    Former NSA deputy chief (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    says ISIS is using Snowden leaks to evade US intelligence. Daily Mail article.

    "Islamic State extremists have studied and exploited the leaks made by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to operate under the radar of U.S. intelligence, a former agency chief has claimed."

    "Chris Inglis said militants in Iraq and Syria are 'clearly' harder to track down since the rogue agent made freely available a wealth of top-secret information about how the U.S. government hunts its enemies online."

    "Matthew G. Olsen, who directs the National Counterterrorism Center, agreed, adding: 'Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance.

    'They are moving to more secure communications platforms, using encryption and avoiding electronic communications altogether.'

    'This is a problem for us in many areas where we have limited human collection and depend on intercepted communications to identify and disrupt plots.'"

    I wonder if this impacted the ability of the US to anticipate what ISIS was planning to do from Syria, as it prepared to enter Iraq. I don't believe the US has much for on the ground assets in Syria.

    New Poll Numbers - Airstrikes, ISIS, Syria (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 11:52:15 PM EST
    "Today, 71 percent of all Americans say they support airstrikes in Iraq -- up from 54 percent three weeks ago and from 45 percent in June."

    "Nearly as many Americans -- 65 percent -- say they support the potentially more controversial action of launching airstrikes in Syria,"

    "Nine in 10 Americans now see the militants as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests,"


    Propaganda works (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 08:32:33 AM EST
    We knew that.   33% of people still think Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

    Keep At Your Warmongering (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    It looks like it is working.

    Always interesting to see how Americans see war as a video game, easily played while sipping cocktails on their couch..



    Keep at your isolationist policies (1.50 / 2) (#39)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    and let the Middle East fall apart and ISIS develop into a force and have for terrorists. Ha.

    Isolationist Policies? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    Sorry pal, you must be mistaking me for someone else.

    But your glib talk of killing people, while sitting in the comfort of your home sipping refreshing beverages is sickening.


    I have never said anything such things. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    Talk about mistaking someone. Let's see what you are referring to. Squeaky, put up, or shut up and apologize.

    ok end the insults (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    and personal attacks. They don't belong here.

    The U.S would fall apart (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    if it tried to do everything U.S hawks claim they want it to do. Seemingly everywhere in every corner of the globe..

    It's nothing but a continuation of the unhinged Cold War jihadist mentality of the fifties and sixties that had us overthrowing governments and bogged down in Vietnam.


    Or, the US would have won the wars (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    instead of slinking off and not winning them, or losing them.

    Who slunk off (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    Your military was stop lossed.  You had broken your volunteer forces.

    My comment was more of a joke thrown (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 09, 2014 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    back at what I considered a joke comment.

    I know what the press was saying, and what some generals were quoted as saying, but I don't believe, for a second, that the US military was broken at that time. Perhaps being pushed hard and stretched a bit, but not broken at all. I talked to my Ranger son and his buddies at the time and after the time, and they said there was no way that the US military couldn't have kept up the pace.

    I have been involved with sports, law and business my whole life. When being pushed and pressed, and faced with adversity, everyone I know and every organization I have ever been associated with, just sucks it up, steps up, and finds a way to get the job done. No one ever gives up. I truly can't believe the US military would have ever given up and said they couldn't perform the mission.


    I have put the studies up before (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    You just ignore them and that's your prerogative but believe me, when those serving are in a war zone with very low morale it matters to them when the volunteer forces system is broken.  And we lived through that, some people didn't, and others after 5 or 7 deployments are dead men walking and it us only a matter of time.

    Must be nice though to live in your own little chickenhawk world.


    Link (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:25:49 AM EST
    It is astonishing to (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    me the number of rightwing hawks who find their way to a leftwing website.

    If you think that being aware of the load of bs having been laid upon us by successive administrations to make us think that a war is necessary - if you think that is isolationist - I think that is absolutely nuts.

    I think it is about time that the American people became openly aware of the way we are being manipulated by clueless and mindless and soulless administrations - along with their bloated colleagues in the congress and the media.

    You want to go to war?


    Well, Par for The Course (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    It is astonishing to me the number of rightwing hawks who find their way to a leftwing website.

    Yes and also astonishing how many so called liberals come to TL arguing for the prosecutors as if the accused is guilty (no trial needed), stiffer criminal penalties, and yearning for police protection, even if it means giving up constitutional rights.

    Go figure..


    "More (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:28:11 AM EST
    people are smoking CAMELS than ever before".

    What a load.

    My comment about these polls - meant to tell us that we want what we don't want is HERE.