Trump defeats ISIS on the battlefield in one year

The constitutional separation of power between the prez and the Dept. of Justice isn't an opinion and neither are the other fact based items listed in the article.

 

I suppose it's just that I prefer observed fact.

 

"Trump deserves credit for fully implementing the plan and some limited improvements, but it is nonsense for him to take credit for a program his predecessor had largely put in place," he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...p/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/

 

Not relevant to this thread but just for fun I'll wack the low hanging fruit.

"He claimed, in deriding the effectiveness of West Virginia's Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, that "I'm the one that saved coal." He has not. For economic and environmental reasons, coal remains a declining industry."

Coal industry says Trump's repeal of Obama-era rule saves jobs

This administration continues to live up to the promises it made to the people in our coalfields,” said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney. “We have been saying for years that the Clean Power Plan was a totally unworkable concept that would cause nothing but devastation for West Virginia’s economy while it forcibly reshaped the country’s electrical grid.”

The American Coal Council called the Clean Power Plan “unprecedented in scope and reach,” adding that the rule would have sparked a double-digit increase in electricity costs for families.

The EPA’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan comes six months after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to roll back Obama-era regulations Opens a New Window.. President Trump also announced during the summer that the U.S. would remove itself from the Paris climate pact Opens a New Window..

U.S. coal production last year reached its lowest level since 1978, but miners have bounced back in 2017. The nation’s output of coal fell about 10% in 2015 and 17% in 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration. Production in the first eight months of 2017 was sharply higher, rising 14% to 528 million short tons. The EIA projects an 8% increase for the full year.

The EIA also estimates that coal will match natural gas for an equal share of utilities’ electricity generation this year.

The National Mining Association believes the Trump administration’s decision will save 240 million tons of annual coal production and protect more than 27,000 mining jobs, in addition to almost 100,000 indirect jobs that rely on coal.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...-trumps-repeal-obama-era-rule-saves-jobs.html

 

Ahh back to the subject of the OP.

Trump’s Defense Secretary James Mattis said during the operation that the military had changed its strategy and was beginning to use “annihilation tactics,” instead of attrition, to defeat the group."

"Under the Trump administ ration, U.S. military commanders have been handed a greater remit to decide strike locations and the frequency of those strikes. Already, 2017 is the year with the largest number of bombs dropped by the coalition, with only three-quarters of the year passed".

 

The White House Exaggerated the Growth of Coal Jobs by About 5,000 Percent

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/pruitt-epa-coal-jobs-exaggerate/529311/

 

What would you expect a member of Don's admin to say?

 

First off you said Trump didn't save coal. Obama threw it under the wheels of the AGW bus and Trump pulled it out of the path just in time. He saved coal. As for numbers of jobs saved.

The National Mining Association believes the Trump administration’s decision will save 240 million tons of annual coal production and protect more than 27,000 mining jobs, in addition to almost 100,000 indirect jobs that rely on coal.

 

"Trump’s hands-off approach — allowing battlefield commanders to take daily decisions affecting US foreign policy and national security — is a major shift in the American way of war. The Pentagon now does not require the president’s sign-off when military commanders believe an action is necessary. That's good news for generals who felt hamstrung by the Obama administration"

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/25/15632614/trump-military-generals-syria-yemen-afghanistan

 

Trump is a commander in chief who doesn't command

An aptly named article. I think everyone will concede the military enjoys indiscriminately blowing things up and would rather have the unencumbered freedom to do so. But that's why the exec branch is given authority over the military. Except when that authority is abrogated in order to escape responsibility for mistakes or failure........while there is no hesitation to take credit whether it is merited or not.

 

I don’t think a more misinformed post could be made.

 

That's how wars are won. Johnson micromanaged Vietnam and Obama was doing the same in Iraq with similar results.

 

. . . and when Trump "commands" you people will yell he's a dictator. How many of those so called "journalists" you like to quote made donations to democrat party? About 90-percent of them. You're full of crap if you think the military enjoys killing people.

Steve

 

The war against ISIS was already being won by a coalition of forces before Dangerous Don came on the scene.

 

I think I'd yell in horror because while the guy knows nothing about being President, he knows even less about commanding the military. I sincerely doubt he'd be able to point out Syria on a map.

I don't think the military enjoys killing people. But they do like the fact that they can strike anywhere they want without being accountable to anybody. .

 

Yes Obama dropped bombs on driverless trucks while Trump let the military pick targets and kill ISIS fighters in mass. Quality targeting by on scene commanders

 

Bush is responsible for ISIS, not Obama. Prior to Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda was not allowed to operate in Iraq because Saddam regarded AQ as a threat to his regime. After American forces destroyed the Iraqi government and disbanded the Iraqi army, AQ was free to move into Iraq. AQ soon became Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI. AQI later became ISIS.

That is a popular myth among Trump supporters. It makes them feel good to say that. Of course, much of what they say about Obama and ISIS is untrue, and that is the case here.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, but his generals convinced him to leave a force of about 20,000 combat troops. That required negotiations with the Iraqis, because Bush had signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in late 2008 that required all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

The Obama administration tried to renegotiate the SOFA with the Iraqis, but the Iraqi government insisted that any American forces in Iraq after 2011 would be subject to Iraqi law. That was a deal breaker.

Obama was forced to comply with the SOFA agreed upon by the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

A few years later, as a result of the threat posed by ISIS, the Iraqis asked the Obama administration for military assistance. Obama gave it in the form of trainers and advisors. Obama insisted that the Iraqi army do the fighting. Tell me something. Do you have a problem with that?

It is quite remarkable that there are some Americans, like you, who blame an American President for the malignant growth of an Islamic terrorist group in the Middle East. Is Obama also to blame for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda?

For confirmation please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#August_2010_partial_withdrawal

 

I understood the OP perfectly. You seem to be unaware of what exactly a terrorist organization is. It's fighters are guerilla fighters. Allow me to repeat that. In any terrorist organization its fighters are guerilla fighters. As such, they avoid contact with opposing forces. It is why they choose soft targets. I will tell you right now, the people in Times Square on New Year's Eve have nothing to worry about. There will be more cops than revelers.

Got that? Now review this. Trump sycophants point out the loss of land, primarily Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. ISIS is a guerilla force. A guerilla force does not require the occupation of land. The occupation of Raqqa and Mosul was a luxury handed to them because of the weaknesses of Syrian and Iraqi forces, not a necessity. The occupation of Raqqa and Mosul was a weakness from the point of view of ISIS because they were forced to defend the cities. Guerilla forces strive to avoid direct military contact with an opposing army.

Concentrate on the last two sentences.

"ISIS has been defeated on the battlefield and is now just a terrorist organization instead of an army that occupied territory and was creating a caliphate." It always was a terrorist organization! Its roots are in Al Qaeda. Do you believe everything you hear from a terrorist organization? It had no chance at a caliphate. The cities and oil fields were literally handed to them by the weaknesses of the Syrian and Iraqi armies. Defending the cities became a liability when those armies along with the peshmerga (Kurdish force) grew in strength.

ISIS no longer has that liability. They lost a lot of land, but not a lot of fighters. The fighters simply moved. Now ISIS is really dangerous.

Concerning that dangerous part, I noticed you didn't challenge me when I described their activities and where they are strong. You simply ignored that part, and talked about the loss of land again.

A guerilla force does not require the occupation of land.

"This is the beginning of the end for ISIS." Oh, yeah, so tell me how this will end for ISIS. Defeated by Western military forces? In the hundred years of terrorist history, that has never happened. Is Trump going to end their terror with trainers, advisors, and air support? Not likely. Will the terrorist cells in Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Europe, and the U.S. simply disappear because the end is coming? Not likely.

Tell me, how will the end come about?

When Muslim nations become determined to root out and destroy Islamic terrorist organizations?

Now that, my friend, is the only way the end will come about.

 

Yeah...."quality" targeting....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ian-allies-killing-18/?utm_term=.21a12952308c

 

You see, that is where you are making a mistake. You are going by what people say. That can be extremely dangerous with Trump because he is proud of his ability to lie. He calls it "truthful hyperbole." The term is used in his biography and he likes it.

Then, of course, we come to the generals around Trump. They are going to back the C-in-C everyday if they want to keep their jobs. If Trump says he is turning military decisions over to the generals, then military decisions are up to generals. Everybody is happy.

The intelligent observer goes by what the leadership does, not what they say. In this case, the leadership has decided on trainers, advisors, and air support. Others are doing the combat.

That observer will also go by history, not by what Trump has said. What did Obama do? How did Trump change the strategy. Well, he didn't. History tells us Trump carried on with Obama's strategy. Oh, yeah, there is Trump's B.S. of giving local commanders control, but that is just B.S. All it means is, because of his total ignorance of the military, he turned civilian control of the military over to Mattis, his SecDef.

Finally, that observer will consult our Constitution. Our Constitution requires civilian control of the military. I doubt, regardless of what Trump says, that he is challenging our Constitution. Wouldn't you agree?

So, there we are. Quit listening to what people say. Pay attention to what they are doing.

 

So, let me get this right. You write: "You see, that is where you are making a mistake. You are going by what people say."

So therefore, I should go by what you say? And you think that argument makes you an intelligent observer?

Do you know how insane your argument is?

I hope that crash and burn didn't hurt too much.

 

10,000 ISIS fighters have moved into eastern Afghanistan. Are you sill crowing about Trump?

 

So only you knows this? Hahaha!

 

It was all over the news last week.

ISIS has over 10,000 fighters in Afghanistan, more arriving from Syria ...

https://www.rt.com/news/414048-afghanistan-isis-numbers-rise/
Dec 23, 2017 - Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) was pushed out of their home base in Syria and Iraq this year by separate military operations of a US-led coalition, and the Syrian Army backed by Russia. Many of the IS fighters who fled those countries ended up in Afghanistan, where the terrorist group has as many as ...