Yeah, that’s pretty much what happened.
It says “Post Trump, ergo propter Trump” and little else.
But it does say this:
But doesn’t actually say this observation is invalid or why. It repeats the Trump supporter’s claim concerning Trump’s military genius, but it doesn’t actually support it.
Speaking of support, I looked up the battles mentioned in that fluff piece and it turns out the US was merely providing air support for Iraqi and Syrian forces, not going in there and cleaning up as is suggested by the Trump supporter. Nor does anything suggest the victories were due to any particular Grand Strategy of Trump’s.
Post Trump, ergo propter Trump. That’s all the op-ed says. I don’t find the Trump supporters who wrote it any more convincing than any other Trump supporter.
There’s no Trump genius. He just let the military do what they needed to do to win. Democrats have had a tendency, even after the Vietnam lesson, to fail to give our troops an actual mission, and even when they do, deciding how that mission will be carried out and handwaving away objections that the mission cannot be fulfilled with the tactics mandated.
Republicans, at least before GWB and Rummy decided to test their theories on invading large countries with a small force, have historically defined the mission and let the military decide best how to succeed. Since Trump has mostly Republican military advisors, he just went along with normal Republican practice. And after the GWB experience, it’s good to see a Republican reestablising that doctrine.
Sure, Obama degraded ISIS and made it easier to beat them. but it doesn’t seem likely that his tactics were ever going to actually take away all of their territory.
Well, I usually don’t look to investors daily for military analysis, but everyone’s opinion has some worth.
I can’t think of any changes Trump implemented in Obama’s strategy. Obama, after realizing that the Iraqi army was a failure, re-introduced training and support troops into Iraq (after Iraq reversed course and signed a Status of Forces agreement…), greatly increased air power in the area and sent SOC troops into Syria. What did Trump do? Besides continue Obama’s policy?
He discontinued the policy of telling the military how to do their jobs.
Cite where Obama told the military how to do their job.
This was a change:
Here’s one:
Sure. After the military Obama took the occupied area down to under 40%, if you continue that for a while, you get to the point you can switch to annihilation tactics.
Just like the economy. If you run the last leg of a relay race, you don’t get to claim you ran the whole thing by yourself.
Some reason you don’t want anyone to know the source of that quote?
I think it’s pretty rich to assign credit to the United States for switching to “annihilation tactics” as the reason for the (assumed) victory when it was overwhelmingly Iraqis, Kurds, and a smaller number of Syrians spilling blood. I say the credit goes to those groups for basically routing ISIS.
It was the IBD article I linked to earlier in the thread, although I suppose the actual source is “A former senior military commander in the region”.
Do you think they would have done it without American support?
ETA: assuming your answer is some form of “no”, I don’t know how precisely you’d like that reality acknowledged: yes, Kurds and other middle easterners did most of the on-the-ground fighting and dying. They would not have won without US support.
Wow, an anonymous source. I thought you guys hated those.
And like I said, Trump is trying to take full credit for running the entire race rather than just the final leg.\
To use a baseball analogy, it’s like saying the most valuable player is the guy who pitched the last two outs of a 10-0 game. There’s no question that the US’ role generally was crucial, but to say that Trump had some sort of strategy twist that did the trick is a stretch. Neither Obama nor Trump personally really get credit for the dirty work of the military and its support from Kurds. They both get credit for allowing the military to employ a strategy that allowed us to supply American power while minimizing American casualties. Obama gets credit for working with the military to respond to a crisis that evolved on his watch and Trump gets credit for, at least this time, not trying to destroy something just because it had Obama’s name on it.
I’m not the least-bit surprised by that. That’s what politicians do: try to take credit when good things happen. What’s the old saying? “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan”?
I think it’s a little bit more than that, I think Trump made some strategic changes that accelerated ISIS’ demise, but I’d say you and are 90% on the same page here.