John Kerry's Call for Strategy on ISIS Excludes Ground Troops

[karynnj]

Source: ABC

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry today issued a clarion call for an international strategy to confront ISIS, even as he drew a different kind of “red line,” saying the United States and other Western powers would not commit to ground troops.

“So we’re convinced that in the days ahead we have the ability to destroy ISIL,” Kerry said. “It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years. But we’re determined it has to happen.”

<snip>
He added, however, that the president has a strategy and is totally committed to defeating ISIS, without ground troops.

"Contrary to what you sort of heard in the politics of our country, the president is totally committed; there is a strategy that is clear, becoming more clear by the day,” he added. "And it really relies on a holistic approach to ISIL.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-kerrys-call-strategy-isis-excludes-ground-troops/story?id=25262135

---

The article mostly tries to argue that Obama's words are not completely the same - ignoring that Kerry is speaking of Obama's policy. He also is describing something pretty similar to what they are already doing.

[morningfog]

1. 3 years!

They are really full of it. Their strategy does not align with their stated objectives.

[AuntPatsy]

2. I thought stating 3 years was a bit of an aha moment as well

[karynnj]

3. I think you may be misinterpreting

He is clearly speaking of an international effort -- and he what he seems to be doing is refusing to commit that ISIS will be completely gone in a year. This is an effort that they are just starting - and the goals expressed by both the President and the Secretary of State are not things that happen over night.

[AuntPatsy]

4. More like misunderstanding based on trust issues more than likely, it's hard for me to listen

To explanations about current actions from any and all politicians and not find myself questioning the truthfulness of it all....

[karynnj]

6. Here, the fact that Kerry is suggesting that it could take time -- as much as three years -- is

admitting that it could well be difficult. If he was lying, he could say that the coalition will have destroyed every vestige of ISIS in 6 months -- and everyone in the middle east will be peaceful.

Add to that that Kerry himself has a reputation for not lying - even when it could help him.

[SkyDaddy7]

11. I agree!!

It seems some around here want to be lied? Not sure, but it is obvious to me Obama is trying to honest about this problem & how complicated it is to solve & the time it will take so their will be no false ideas.

Not sure what some around here would want Obama & Kerry to say??

[karynnj]

12. It is most frustrating as Obama/Kerry are carving a path that

is far from what the RW/McCain and the more conservative Democrats - and their allies in the media are demanding. While the media says it is not bold enough - the truth is it takes more real guts, courage and integrity to hold to what you think is a reasonable prudent course, knowing that BOTH extremes will attack you unmercifully.

Yet some here, including a few who are willing to hunt for doubt so they can give Putin the benefit of that doubt - ignoring that he has lied repeatedly even when the facts on the ground are really not in question.

Outside DU, there are those in the media who never questioned Bush, who would question Obama if he said the sun rises in the east.

[YvonneCa]

14. Great post! And so...

...true.

[SkyDaddy7]

15. WELL SAID!!

I could not agree more with everything you said all the way down to Putin & his LIES to the media ignoring Obama & his accomplishments & his pragmatic approach to very complex problems.

It really makes me think race is at play here...Why is the media so hostile toward Obama? Look what NBC did altering the transcripts of the interview with Chuck Todd to make it look like Obama never mentioned Syria when he had 4 times before Chuck said what he did. Seriously, WTF?

Forbes, hardly a "Liberal rag", just did a long article on how Obama's economy is better than Reagan's, long held as the best recovery in modern history, regardless of what economic indicators you use & Obama was handed an economy in free fall with a entire Republican Party working to sabotage him & the economy for political gain...Yet you don't hear anyone speak a word of this on the Sunday talk shows, NOTHING!!! I know the American economy still has its problems but if everyone had been worshiping Reagan why the dead silence when Obama has surpassed his performance?

RACE...They simply do not respect him, WHY?

[madokie]

13. That is the fact

Some just can't accept the truth though. Nothing happens overnight when it comes to stopping these kinds of threats, nothing.
I don't like being lied to so I appreciate the way the President and SS is wording what they're doing

[Cha]

5. It's from Jonathan Karl.. he's the one who altered emails on Benghazi.. he tries to make the news

not report it.

"ABC’s Jonathan Karl regrets that he was caught lying about Benghazi"

http://americablog.com/2013/05/abc-jonathan-karl-benghazi-email.html

And, for those who are freaking out about "3 years".. Sorry, they can't commit to being faster for you.

Thanks karyn

[karynnj]

7. Thanks Cha -- I knew I had heard that name and that he was biased, but couldn't remember

[Cha]

8. I see he hasn't changed his stripes.. maybe trying to be more subtle since Google is

full of his Benghazi Lies.

[DhhD]

9. Easy: take ISIS out just after they come across the border to become IS-In Iraq, by air strikes.

[karynnj]

10. Easy - except they are not vacating land in Syria

They are currently in both countries and are at the borders of others.

I think that what Obama and the Kurds and Iraqis now is, to some degree, what he and Kerry are speaking of. Many people have spoken about how - even in Iraq - it will get harder. What we have seen is mostly Iraqi Shiites and Kurds who are fighting for land that had belonged to their peoples. Soon, we will be up to land that was populated by Sunnis.

Part of the reason that ISIS spread through that area so quickly is that the local tribes people joined then rather than fought them. When Obama spoke months ago - before sending Kerry to speak to the Iraqi factions and to others in the region - he spoke of the need for an inclusive government. He spoke of how the Sunnis were disaffected because they were marginalized by Maliki.

My own reading between the lines - is that there is a pretty tricky strategy to simultaneously push for an inclusive Iraqi government that the Sunnis would be more comfortable joining; to break the advances of ISIS with the air strikes and support for those Kurds and Iraqis fighting; and do anything they can do to facilitate a second Sunni awakening. I remember in 2006 or 2007, when Kerry spoke of the first one, he spoke of it happening because the Sunnis did not want their future to be what is was going to be if AQ remained a big force in their areas.

However, probably even more than then, Sunnis will fear the brutality that they and their families will personally face if they moved against ISIS.

As to the slant of the article, it seems to be trying to reinforce two RW memes -
1) Obama is weak and 2) There is no policy or strategy. There may even be a third - that Obama's administration is not organized and Kerry and Hagel are free lancing. (Did the media EVER question any joint statement by Rumsfeld and Powell - or even just one of them - as not Bush's policy?) Another meme likely to surface could be seen from the State Department briefing, where Marie Harf was asked a series of obnoxiously phrased questions asking the size of the NOT YET FORMED coalition arguing that it was smaller than Bush's 2003 coalition. She was asked everything from why were the countries there all European (it was at the NATO sidelines), why no middle eastern countries (they have been called and it was already announced by Obama that Kerry would be going there.) Clearly an attack over Democratic (esp the secretary as the 2004 nominee) claims that Bush's coalition was less than Bush implied. In fact, it is completely obvious that Obama wants the countries in the region front and center in this coalition. ISIS affects them most and it has to them.