Coordinated attacks ongoing in France

Munge Climber
Nov 20, 2015 - 10:39am PT
Everyone avoids the question of getting good intel to make targeted strikes.

Let me start with the campaign to defeat ISIS across the region. The United States and our international coalition has been conducting this fight for more than a year. It’s time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria.

That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allies’ planes, more strikes, and a broader target set. A key obstacle standing in the way is a shortage of good intelligence about ISIS and its operations. So we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, Arabic speakers with deep expertise in the Middle East, an even closer partnership with regional intelligence services.

The 13th is an elite unit, but send in the whole battalion and it's not covert, it's conventional (and I call it a battalion because, designations aside, that's what it amounts to).

Which one is it, The Chief, small scale, asassination-like ops (which I think is great idea - one remarkably similar to what President Obama's been doing with drones), or put in the real, large, conventional units that you specifically named?

You comment and post like you and you alone know the solutions to these real world problems. You act like the solutions are obvious and easy. But when pressed you can't come up with a solution that works;

And, BTW, in case it isn't clear, I think President Obama is doing a great job. He's keeping us out of a total f#$%ng quagmire.

I say keep our troops out of quagmires unless we're willing to change the rules of engagment so that they can be effective (and the whole western world has to agree that the rules of engagement are different).

Maybe we don't go back to leveling whole cites like we did in WWII (and clearly the bad guys - the Japanese and the Germans - fully set that train in motion then). But I never, ever want US troops in harm's way when, as I said up-post, they have to act as detective, investigator, district attorney and judge all before they can switch their guns off from "safety."

I say allow the "units" that were designed and originally implemented to go do their jobs WITHOUT any restrictions that civilian "security" experts pos'd some six thousand miles away in some cozzy air cond room full of statistical modeling computers telling them what could or could not happen, impose on them.

Let's see how you feel in the near future when that "quagmire" comes here to the US. Because it will.

"jerk"... I thought I was a "rabid dog"? WTF!

.... putting US soldiers in harms way and limiting their actions to the point of inanity did not work. We "solved" nothing.

And you don't listen/read well either.

Then, the finger pointing will begin and of course it will all be GW's fault.

I know all about being "limited" first hand. Trust me. I deal with it daily! 3-4 Oct 2003.

Obviously YOU have NOT read my last four posts. "WE". No, the civilians that limited those warrior professionals actions. Had they been allowed to do what they know best, "we" most certainly would not be in the "quagmire" we are in now.

Fact.

"civilians don't know sh#t and the military should be cut loose/freed to "solve" problems as it sees fit."