Who had the better strategy in the War on Terror: Bush or Obama?

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:50:44 -0400

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

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 ...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 11:55 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:55:57 -0400

That argument discounts the fact that we were attacked by terrorists in the 1980's.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 12:04 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:04:51 -0400

What more can be done? we have been in those areas for about 15 years straight. fire missions, bombings, tactical strikes, toppled leadership you name it we have done it. suppression seems to be the only feasible outcome short of nuclear devastation of the region. even so, we have seen born and bred Americans taking up the cause. It's an unwinnable situation. don't give up, but unless youre willing to cross that threshold I don't see what more could be done.

Response by CPL Patrick Brewbaker made Jun 17 at 2016 12:05 PM

CPL Patrick Brewbaker — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:05:23 -0400

Nice mobius strip. Like the I ramble when I change my arthritis fentanyl patch. Ha.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 17 at 2016 12:15 PM

SGT William Howell — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:15:47 -0400

Neither.

Bush and America had no clue how the war should go. I remember being in Iraq at the beginning of March of 2004 rolling around in unarmored M-1025s thinking "Well I missed this war." By the end of March I was thinking, "Somebody better get us some up armored Humvees soon or these bastards are going to kill all of us!" We had no clue that it was going to go the way it did. That we were destabilizing this entire side of the world.

Obama only wanted to end it so he could say, "I got us out of this war!" He had no exit plan. So the only stability that was only holding on, by the grace of the US military, was lost. The government of both Iraq and Afghanistan imploded in a money and power grab. It is not fair to put all the blame on Obama. Both countries wanted us gone so they could rape and plunder without any recourse and they did just that...till ISIS came rolling in. Now the corrupt governments are going to lose everything they stole and are inviting us back in a limited role so they can keep power without any checks or balances.

We still have no plan and not sure there is even one to be had. Terrorism changes on a daily basis and by the time we come up with a plan it is no longer valid.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jun 17 at 2016 12:22 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:22:24 -0400

One was a "proactive" strategy and the other a "reactive" strategy. The proactive strategy took the fight the enemy on their turf, but created more problems in the vacuum. That was replaced by a reactive strategy that tended to ignore those problems and only deal with the affects when they happen. Proactive goes after the cause, while reactive only deals with affect. Wars never truly end until the enemy's cause is defeated.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 17 at 2016 12:36 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:36:18 -0400

Brennan, the Obama appointed CIA Director, has stated that we are not winning. That would indicate the surround and destroy policy is defunct. ISIS didn't exist until we beat feet out of Iraq due to the current Secd. of State screwed up and couldn't get a new SOFA, although he did get a deal with Iran. Do it right and declare war of ISIS, if that is possible and eradicate them anywhere our allies will let us operate. ISIS funding is coming primarily by way of black market sold oil. Shut down the pumping operation, however necessary, they can be rebuilt with the same oil revenues. Any truck moving ISIS oil is a target, no matter who is driving. Just some thoughts from an old sailor.

Response by CPT Jason Mitchell, MBA made Jun 17 at 2016 12:47 PM

CPT Jason Mitchell, MBA — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:47:04 -0400

The problem with the way America fights wars is due to both politics and moral positioning; both of which have no place in deciding how conflicts are conducted. The answers are to allow the military leaders autonomy to conduct their professional craft instead of letting politicians decide the ROE, and to either go into conflict 100% (all hands on deck) or simply stay out of it. This "mission creep" mentality by the last 5 decades' administrations (since Vietnam) have turned warfare into a national building, highly politicized, process in which only a small volunteer element of the country participates. This mission creep drags out the conflict with no clear indication of an objective nor a clear purpose for the warfighters. It's as if our country's leadership has forgotten how to win a war. Wars are won through extreme violence and taking ground without giving up any of the objective at all costs. The last time we can absolutely claim a victory is in World War Two. The Gulf War was a victory, but not absolute because we left Saddam in power due to political reasons. Anyone remember the strategy of WWII? Fighting all out with every resource at hand for as long as it takes to DEFEAT the enemy; no holds barred. You should never be the instigator, but you damn well better be the victor. Then you can implement a nation building plan once peace is established and the victors are clearly evident. The moral high ground is taken along the path of helping the defeated enemy's nation become a positive contributor to the World (i.e.: Japan and Germany), not during the highest point of conflict. I believe that returning to this approach would better position American leadership to avoid war unless absolutely necessary, but also require the majority of Americans to participate should the majority agree to the war. If citizens or group members within our enemy's boundaries knew our "boots on the ground" meant absolute destruction and possible loss of their autonomy for a certain time period, then a deterrent factor would also help prevent belligerence among most nations. I'm sure there are some underlying issues with this principle, but it would be much better to return to a previously sound doctrinal approach, in my opinion, instead of simply "winging it" because politicians are afraid to commit fully.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Jun 17 at 2016 1:06 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:06:43 -0400

Bush didn't start it. Depending on your perspective, It was started when ISLAM was founded 1500 years ago and began to spread. Perhaps it was the crusades. Perhaps when the Ottomans tried to spread into Southern Europe. Maybe it was started when the European powers carved up the Middle East after WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. (They followed geographical lines not tribal.) It could have been after the Europeans Empires collapsed after WWII. It could have been the way the Arab leaders ruled afterwards and didn't the share the revenue from the seized oil wells. It could have been the West's reliance on oil and our refusal to lose control of it. It could have been the resurgence of hardline Muslim leaders.

But by current trends, terrorism really came onto the scene in late 60's/70's in its modern sense. It has risen and fallen like the tides. The Democrats tend to be softer on terrorism than Republicans. This is a facts, how did Carter handle the Iran hostages? How did Reagan handle Libya? How did Clinton respond to Bin Laden's multiple attacks? How did Bush? How has Obama?

They understand and respect strength and feed on weakness. American has been very weak the last 7 years. Bush and our involvement in Iraq did not create ISIS or any other global terrorist organizations. Pulling out of Iraq, sponsoring the failed Arab Spring (which resulted in the toppling of Libya, Egypt, the Syrian civil, the refugee crisis, and ISIS).

Finding and neutralizing the enemy (by all means financial, equipment, personnel, etc..) is a far better strategy than appeasement and giving them more power, the Iran deal, for example. Obama has no strategy. Terrorism has gotten worse. There have been more attacks.

Bush may have mismanaged Iraq, but Obama gave the terrorist a home.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 17 at 2016 1:11 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:11:46 -0400

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

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 17 at 2016 1:12 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:12:15 -0400

Short of violating every convention on war we have, I don't think that who the POTUS is matters all that much. We won't cross the lines that need crossing in order to win. So the point is more or less moot.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Jun 17 at 2016 1:22 PM

CPO Greg Frazho — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:22:13 -0400

I found the DCI's description of the threat known as Daesh (I won't use the other acronyms) in direct contrast to his boss, who said 'we're winning', or words to that effect earlier this week. At best, the president's position is debatable. At worst, it shows how unaligned the messaging coming from the administration is nowadays. It's almost farcical, as if somebody isn't living in reality. More and more, I think that's the White House, largely in a lame duck status since about 2013. As regards 'Bush starting the War on Terrorism'....

It should be called The War on Terrorists, because that's who it's against, not some abstract ideology. Secondly, it probably should also be called what GWB himself called it many years ago: The Long War. I'd hazard to say Al Qaeda and company started this war; they attacked us, not the other way around. We retaliated with extreme prejudice, that's true. Laying it on W. entirely is oversimplification. Going into Iraq, if for nothing else to settle a personal grudge betwen GWB the elder and Saddam Hussein, is another matter entirely. There is no direct linkage between OEF and OIF, although we thought there was at one point.

Whose strategy is better? I'd argue neither has been particularly effective. We pulled out of Iraq and now we've had to go back, which we wouldn't have had to contend with if we'd never gone in in the first place. This is true, but academic now. We're supposedly seeing an end to hostilities in Afghan, yet hostilities still persist and the country is nowhere near getting back on its feet, not least because several entities have a vested interest in seeing it weak and divided, if for nothing else to exploit its plentiful natural resources. But blaming one's predecessor habitually isn't winning anybody any friends and certainly not in keeping with the dignity of the Oval Office.

Obama's foreign policy, whatever it is, has been perceived as a weak, apologetic and frankly pathetic attempt to restore world relations by 'playing nice'. It's all of those things and in fact all it's yielded us and the rest of the world is more uncertainty, a lurch toward a new (or renewed) Cold War and an isolationism that isn't healthy or realistic. Co-opting Vietnam as a possible bulwark against China is an interesting concept, but I don't know how that will play out if we go to war against PRC which is looking more and more likely with every passing day.

On the home front, the nation is slipping a little closer to anarchy every day, fueled by propoganda, false narratives, self-appointed experts in the guise of pundits, all driven by a mass media that seems more intent on sensationalizing and politicizing every thing that occurs than they are about being objective, truthful and thorough. Mass shootings, so-called random acts of violence and the inability or unwillingness to call terrorism based on a radical interpretation of Islam what it is has left the country deeply divided and befuddled.

What is past is prologue; this is clearly on Obama's shoulders because this is happening and has been happening on his watch for several years. Things aren't better since he took office, they're demonstrably worse, and not just in the security arena. Part of the reason anarchists, terrorists and other ne'er-do-wells stage these incidents, besides the attention they so desperately want, is because they perceive, correctly, that the administration is too weak-kneed or politically predisposed to do much of anything about it. God help us.

Response by LTC David Brown made Jun 17 at 2016 2:48 PM

LTC David Brown — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:48:15 -0400

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!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 2:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:58:11 -0400

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.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 3:15 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:15:03 -0400

We have been battling the war on terror since The First Barbary War (1801–1805). The first of two Barbary Wars between the United States and the four North African states known collectively as the "Barbary States". Some folks need to remember some history. If they would teach history in school like they should our young generation would be informed.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 17 at 2016 4:18 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:18:55 -0400

I don't see enough of a difference in results/outcome for it to matter. Are we to argue percentages of blame like it's a court proceeding? What does matter is that the last four Presidents (Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama) have completely failed in their understanding of and their policies toward the Middle East and the Muslim World.

Colin Powell had the right idea when he said, "If you break it you own it", in reference to the consequences of an American invasion of Iraq. I fear that now that these four "Politicians" have "broken" every country in the middle east and parts of Africa, the only policy that has the slightest chance of success is an intense and long term occupation and pacification of the entire region (ala Western Europe and the Pacific after WW2 and through to today). However, something tells me that Russia and China would have a lot to say about that.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 9:46 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:46:14 -0400

Our strategy has always been the problem. Anyone only looking at the last two presidents is missing the big picture. Going in and removing the government does not work. Training a government that is supposed to be pro American also does not work. These people are all small terrorist groups with the same intent which is jihad. We kill or dismantle one group and two more takes it's place. We are wasting our time and resources. The only way to stop them is to terrorise them and stay on the offensive. Removing their financial resources does not work either because these groups are not centrally financed. We need to start putting large bounties on their heads, we need to start killing large groups of them and posting leaflets of their dead bodies. We are allowing them to fight us with much less resources than we possess. We need to stop being the nice guy and unleash the power and destruction we are capable of inflicting.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2016 12:00 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 00:00:07 -0400

Isn't it obvious?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 18 at 2016 2:45 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:45:45 -0400

Bush.

Response by SGT James Hammons made Jun 21 at 2016 8:41 AM

SGT James Hammons — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:41:49 -0400

In Neverland maybe Obama could have won that choice, but as we know the world is not a dreamland and there are people out there that wish us harm. Attacks on American soil and the administration leftist ideas are creating an atmosphere of distrust. Obama has emboldened our enemy and failed to recognize his failure in this matter. Bush on the other hand used the old tried and true method of you hit me I hit you back method which made some in the country dislike him. There is never an easy choice when it comes to conflict.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 11:45 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:45:08 -0400

Step 1: Clearly identify the threat and actually declare War... with Congress. That puts the DoD in charge instead of the DoS. The GWOT gave broad authorities that the OCO took away. The give CLEAR guidance of what the end-state looks like (ie. complete destruction of ISIL or AQ and all subsidiaries, all leadership killed or captured then executed for war-crimes, all territiory returned to control of the local gov't).
Step 2: In countries we operate, inform neighboring nations that there will be no "Safe Haven" for the enemy, and if found within their borders, will be actioned.
Step 3: Take the press and the politicians off of the battlefield and let us do what we are designed to do... close with and destroy the enemy.
Step 4: Collateral Damage is to be expected. Have an IO plan in place for when it happens for EACH CONOP. Do not apologize for it, but make every attempt to minimize it.
Step 5: Accept risk. This is a war. Let us outside of the wire to F3 (the EAD comes later).
Step 6: Understand that we need to kill enough of them, that they either disappear or surrender. In an ideological war, there is no middle ground or compromise. IO needs to support this.
Step 7: AFTER territory has been taken from the enemy, utilize the other pillars of gov't, under the command of the DoD, to create white-space for 1-5 years. Provide security with locals.
Step 8: Leave.
Step 9: Reassess all treaties of mutual protection. Stop trying to be friends with everyone and reaffirm loyalty to our true allies.
Step 10: Define State Sponsorship of Terror and give warning to nations on the list. Cut all trade with these countries and cut trade with any other country that trade with them.

Response by SSG Mark Jordan made Jun 21 at 2016 4:46 PM

SSG Mark Jordan — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:46:46 -0400

Bush had clear goals. I was there in 03-04. Obama made a power vac pulling all the troops out aat one time.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 5:06 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:06:36 -0400

We have a strategy? President Obama said that we are going to contain and degrade ISIS...those are military tasks, not a strategy.

Response by SFC James Lahtonen made Jun 22 at 2016 6:13 AM

SFC James Lahtonen — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:13:59 -0400

That is a tough question. The simple answer in my opinion is Bush. Only for the fact that with Bush we were attempting to fight in the terrorists back yard. The Islamic Radicals have been going since long before either Bush or Obama, and we (The United States) do not have a plan to deal with an Ideology! I don't believe that ISIS represents all Muslims, however the ones that are against them had better come up on the net and start to denounce ISIS. If you walk past a deficiency and do nothing you accept that as your personal standard, and unfortunately that is what is happening here. Personally I believe we need to adjust the ROE and start killing these guys who are committing the acts and the ones who are radicalizing others.

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made Jun 22 at 2016 11:26 AM

SSG Byron Hewett — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:26:55 -0400

Cowboy diplomacy with extreme

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Jun 22 at 2016 8:50 PM

SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:50:47 -0400

I believe that President George W. Bush's policy of rooting them out where they are and working with foreign governments was better than President Barack Obama's plan of wait for something to happen and then react.

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Jun 22 at 2016 11:01 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:01:03 -0400

neither one I think that my opinion