Hillary Clinton Announces Her Plan on Defeating the Islamic State

[Frodo]

Clinton offers her plan for defeating Islamic State

By Annie Karni
11/19/15 10:09 AM EST
Updated 11/19/15 03:25 PM EST

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-isil-strategy-216055#ixzz3s0BHHVdu

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Foreign policy is the one area I'm actually happy about for Hillary to be directing. Though I respect Obama's cautious nature, Syria is the one place that he's been too cautious on.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it wouldn’t just be a no-fly zone, but a safe zone?  What would that entail, exactly?  Neither Clinton nor any of the Republicans proposing some version of this ever elaborate.  So, OK, hostile aircraft can’t fly in this safe zone (meaning Assad’s planes, since IS doesn’t have its own air force).  What about ground forces?  If IS moves ground forces into this zone, they get bombed?  What about Assad’s ground forces?  What about Al Nusra?  How do you decide which factions are allowed to operate in this territory and which aren’t?

[Ljube]

She is delusional if she thinks "local people" will fight against ISIS. More evidence she is past her prime in terms of her mental abilities, to put it mildly.

[SillyAmerican]

Hillary Clinton's "expansive foreign-policy response" sounds a bit like something Bill O'Rielly has been saying for months now. So perhaps the subject of this thread should be changed to Hillary Clinton Finally Agrees With Bill O'Rielly...

Don't get me wrong, the response seems reasonable: by creating a "safe zone", in addition to beginning to push ISIS out of the area, perhaps we can alleviate the need to handle all these displaced refugees. It's time for our politicians to start listening to the military people whose job it is to implement solutions to problems like ISIS.

And yes, unfortunately unlike Mrs. Clinton, I believe a coalition of forces will be needed to begin to push ISIS back, and that coalition will have to include American military people on the ground.

[Angel of Death]

I don't see how this "plan" is any different from what's currently going on.

[Mehmentum]

Clinton's reputation as a foreign policy hawk has finally become useful to her. 

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it wouldn’t just be a no-fly zone, but a safe zone?  What would that entail, exactly?  Neither Clinton nor any of the Republicans proposing some version of this ever elaborate.  So, OK, hostile aircraft can’t fly in this safe zone (meaning Assad’s planes, since IS doesn’t have its own air force).  What about ground forces?  If IS moves ground forces into this zone, they get bombed?  What about Assad’s ground forces?  What about Al Nusra?  How do you decide which factions are allowed to operate in this territory and which aren’t?

All pertinent and important questions of course. The idea is to have the States in the area contribute most of the boots on the ground, supported by Nato firepower, and logistical support. Whether that is really workable or not, is an open question. The idea of the Saudis, Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt et al. working effectively together does seem highly problematical. And the US public really does not want US troops in large numbers getting in the way of the internecine fighting over there once again, unless things get really dire.

[Simfan34]

Hillary>Obama

[Comrade Funk]

She's saying no American troops because that will hurt her election campaign. If she wins, I think she will form a coalition that includes western ground troops.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Clinton offers her plan for defeating Islamic State

By Annie Karni
11/19/15 10:09 AM EST
Updated 11/19/15 03:25 PM EST

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-isil-strategy-216055#ixzz3s0BHHVdu

wow, I agree with every piece of this.

[Crumpets]

She is delusional if she thinks "local people" will fight against ISIS. More evidence she is past her prime in terms of her mental abilities, to put it mildly.

What are all the non-black areas of this map, if not "local people" fighting?

[bertramhall]

http://butthis.com/news/hillary-clinton-presents-her-plan-to-battle-isis
I hope there will be no need in her plan or that of any other candidate as long as countries such as France and Russia have already succeded in coordination of their actions. The US should join them too.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it wouldn’t just be a no-fly zone, but a safe zone?  What would that entail, exactly?  Neither Clinton nor any of the Republicans proposing some version of this ever elaborate.  So, OK, hostile aircraft can’t fly in this safe zone (meaning Assad’s planes, since IS doesn’t have its own air force).  What about ground forces?  If IS moves ground forces into this zone, they get bombed?  What about Assad’s ground forces?  What about Al Nusra?  How do you decide which factions are allowed to operate in this territory and which aren’t?

All pertinent and important questions of course. The idea is to have the States in the area contribute most of the boots on the ground, supported by Nato firepower, and logistical support. Whether that is really workable or not, is an open question. The idea of the Saudis, Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt et al. working effectively together does seem highly problematical. And the US public really does not want US troops in large numbers getting in the way of the internecine fighting over there once again, unless things get really dire.

Well look, the fundamental question is whether destroying IS is now sufficiently important to the US that it's going to attempt to do so without regard to the fact that it helps Assad win the war (or at least gain back more territory).  Is the US currently doing so?  It's not clear to me that it is.  It's bombing IS in Iraq, and it's bombing IS in Syria, but the latter more in regions where it helps the Kurds and other "friendly" rebels, but not where it would help Assad's forces, at least as I'm understanding it.

Does Paris now shift the calculus, so that defeating IS is the priority, no matter if it helps Assad?  Maybe it does for France, but does it for the US?  I'm not sure.  Obviously, if it does, then the Sunni allies aren't going to help, since they hate Assad more than they hate IS.

It's not clear to me that Obama has decided one way or the other whether destroying IS is worth helping Assad.  But I can't blame him too much, because it doesn't seem clear to me from the public statements of Clinton or any of the other candidates from both parties whether they've decided on that either!  We seem to be in a moment of strategic ambiguity about what our priorities are.

[SillyAmerican]

It's not clear to me that Obama has decided one way or the other whether destroying IS is worth helping Assad.  But I can't blame him too much, because it doesn't seem clear to me from the public statements of Clinton or any of the other candidates from both parties whether they've decided on that either!  We seem to be in a moment of strategic ambiguity about what our priorities are.

Agreed. It's unfortunate, but Assad is currently the key to the whole mess...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it wouldn’t just be a no-fly zone, but a safe zone?  What would that entail, exactly?  Neither Clinton nor any of the Republicans proposing some version of this ever elaborate.  So, OK, hostile aircraft can’t fly in this safe zone (meaning Assad’s planes, since IS doesn’t have its own air force).  What about ground forces?  If IS moves ground forces into this zone, they get bombed?  What about Assad’s ground forces?  What about Al Nusra?  How do you decide which factions are allowed to operate in this territory and which aren’t?

All pertinent and important questions of course. The idea is to have the States in the area contribute most of the boots on the ground, supported by Nato firepower, and logistical support. Whether that is really workable or not, is an open question. The idea of the Saudis, Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt et al. working effectively together does seem highly problematical. And the US public really does not want US troops in large numbers getting in the way of the internecine fighting over there once again, unless things get really dire.

They can use Yemen as a model! I hear that Al Qaeda and ISIS feel very safe in the area the Saudis and their allies have cleared of rebels.

[bertramhall]

I have read her quote and i can't say i have read something new or inspiring. Hillary loves to rend the air using truism and empty promises. Where had she been before terrorist acts in France? The war against ISIS is endless cause everybody just talks to prolong the war and laundry money. We have heard speeches about countering ISIL and “radical jihadism” across the glob dozens of times.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Wouldn't it be terribly awkward if ISIS collapses before the election anyway?