Q: How is Obama's ISIS Strategy Going? A: Disastrously

But the State Dept. and White House used sad faces and hashtags! What could've gone wrong?!

Which is exactly how I and about 90% of those not smitten with Obama expected.

And tell me, where are the hashtags? I mean, how can these people understand how disapproving the Obama State Department is without some lame hashtag and sad faces?

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Not too much attention has been paid to our efforts to “degrade and destroy ISIS” in the past few days. Perhaps the White House can find something in this election cycle for which to be grateful, because this Washington Post report on our efforts to use proxies for that mission would otherwise dominate the news cycle. Not only has the US focused entirely on preparing our “moderate” allies in Syria for defense rather than attacking ISIS, they turned out to be incompetent even at that effort:

The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.

It’s not just that they got defeated — some of them switched sides:

Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts.
Other moderate fighters were on the run, headed for the Turkish border as the extremists closed in, heralding a significant defeat for the rebel forces Washington had been counting on as a bulwark against the Islamic State.

Michael Totten says that Syria is gone, and so is any hope of containing ISIS without boots on the ground:

They were bad proxies anyway. The Syrian Revolutionary Front was an Islamist organization. Less deranged than Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, sure, but it was still an Islamist organization. Harakat Hazm is more secular, but it consists of a measly 5,000 fighters while the Islamic State has as many as 100,000.
Syria is gone. The only portions of that former country that may still be salvageable are the Kurdish scraps in the north. The Kurds are good fighters and they may be able to hold on with our help, but there is no chance they will ever destroy the Assad regime or the Islamic State. They don’t have the strength or the numbers.
So unless the United States decides to invade outright with ground forces—and fat chance of that happening any time soon—we’re going to have to accept that the geographic abstraction once known as Syria will be a terrorist factory for the foreseeable future.  

[...]  

In other words, good luck trying to “degrade and destroy” ISIS through the weak proxies on either side of the former Iraqi-Syrian border. As Totten writes, until we decide that this mission is worth doing ourselves, it won’t get done at all — or will it? The AP reported today that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait are considering the formation of a ground force to intervene in the conflict, which might help in Syria — but might touch off a bigger war, since those nations want to push Bashar al-Assad out of power, too, and counter the influence of Iran

So, we could very well see a major war triggered by Obama's stupid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. And all of this to score some political points with Obama's Leftist base. Nice job.

It's odd that this Administration's two-pronged diplomatic strategy of putting pressure to the point of betrayal on Israel, while saying dumb and disingenuous crap to make Arabs feel better about themselves hasn't magically solved all the Middle East's problems. Weird.

Of course, the Left's interests do not lie in what's best for the US and its allies the Middle East. It's mostly about what will make the American Left feel better about themselves. Undoing Bush's work in Iraq, pulling out of Afghanistan, and releasing terrorists from Guantanamo has never been about "doing good," but is instead about righting the imperialism and arrogance Americans have shown under Bush. If this results in a major war, or mass killing, or terrorist attacks, or beheadings then so be it. In fact, it then gives them a chance to show how impotently compassionate they are with their #BringBackOurGirls and #UnitedForUkraine campaigns.

"JV" ISIS Advances into Both Iraq and Syria

I hope our State Department is ready to hashtag out #FreeIraq or something...

Who could've predicted this? Certainly not Obama, who is intentionally being kept in the dark by the racist Secret Service.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

The United States appears to be losing its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, experts say, as the jihadist group adapts to U.S. airstrikes and advances toward Baghdad and a strategic town on the Syrian-Turkish border. 

McClatchy reported on Friday that ISIL had established an operational presence in Abu Ghraib, a town within miles of the capital Baghdad that could enable the militants to shell the Baghdad International Airport with artillery. The airport serves as a key transit point for Western embassies and houses a joint operations center with U.S. military advisers. 

A Defense Department spokeswoman said there were no indications yet that ISIL had taken over Abu Ghraib. 

ISIL has also made significant gains in recent days in Iraq’s western Anbar province, where it has seized the town of Hit and launched assaults on other military bases in the region. Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers have been captured, and U.S. and allied airstrikes appear to have failed to push back ISIL from its strongholds in Anbar. 

In Syria, ISIL engaged in intense fighting on Monday with Kurdish forces in Kobani—a key town near the Turkish border that could grant Islamic militants new smuggling lines for fighters and supplies if they control it. U.S. airstrikes have also failed to relieve ISIL’s siege of Kobani. 

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that ISIL fighters have adopted new tactics to evade airstrikes and retain control of territory, including avoiding the use of cell phones and radios, removing their leaders and weapons from bases in Syria, and blending in with the civilian population.

For a group of jayvees pretending to be The Lakers, ISIS isn't doing too badly. And since Obama has promised not too put American boots on the ground-- probably one of the only Obama promises I actually believe-- all ISIS has to do is keep its head down for a while as they continue to murder stacks of people, and cut the heads of selected Westerners.

Obama has no plan, no stomach, and is afraid to deal with actual enemies of the US and its allies. Expect nothing but more ISIS killings, and Obama's attempts to blame others and downplay the violence. Oh, and expect the media to continue to roll over on Obama's command.

Obama's ISIS Speech-- A Waste of Air

Hey, don't worry about those ISIS fellows. The self-canonized St. Obama will save us all. It's just like how he was going to make us all rich.

Obama took a brief respite from his grueling golf schedule today to gift us with a speech on the guys who are butchering people across Syria and Iraq. Arab Spring anyone?

 Obama had nothing to say except things are getting better domestically (uh-huh, that's why we have the greatest number of long-term unemployed in American history, just basking in the economic glory), and everything else isn't my fault but it'll be fine. What leadership...

Tom Rogan at the NRO succinctly sums up the weaknesses in Obama's speech.

From his NRO article:

It [Obama's speech] had four key substantive failures. 

First, adopting U.S. strategy in Somalia and Yemen as a guide for action against ISIS doesn’t make sense. The situations in Yemen and Somalia are hardly inspiring. From Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula constitutes a major threat to the West. Similarly, in Somalia, while al-Shabaab has suffered some notable losses, the group retains a significant regional capability (as illustrated by the Westgate Mall attack). Because of its military assets, internationally destabilizing influence, and expansionist ideology, ISIS must be confronted with a strategy that is more encompassing than that in Somalia and Yemen. 

Second, the president’s speech provides further evidence of his administration’s confusion over the connected power and potential of U.S. leadership. Referencing Arab support, Mr. Obama erred when he noted the limits of U.S. power to effect regional political stability. While this statement is true, to the Sunni Arab monarchies who regard Obama’s foreign policy with thinly veiled disdain, it will suggest another marker of hesitation. That’s a major issue — because unless the United States can persuade these states to coalesce around American strategy, they will continue to support Sunni extremists in Syria. After all, these leaders regard their primary threat as Iran, not ISIS. 

Third, the president failed to provide specifics on what contributions his coalition partners will provide to the counter-ISIS effort. As I noted on Monday, coalitions are complicated. By exaggerating tangible international support — the president’s hopeful mention of U.N. engagement was especially absurd — Mr. Obama has invited expectations he cannot meet. He’s weakened his credibility with the American people. 

But the most problematic element of Mr. Obama’s speech was, fourth, his statement that “American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” While there is little public or congressional support for a major ground operation against ISIS, the president, by explicitly ruling out any ground troops, has eliminated his critical Special Operations portfolio. This is cause for deep concern. Without limited Special Forces deployments on the ground — especially in eastern Syria’s Deir ez-Zor and Raqqah governorates, and north/central Iraq — it will be extremely difficult to restrict ISIS supply routes along the Euphrates corridor. Denying ISIS its maneuver-support structure will hasten ISIS’s defeat. The president’s only alternative is to order a massive deployment of CIA personnel instead. This is a damaging limitation of strategy at the altar of presumed public opinion. It plainly isn’t leadership.

This speech shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, what on earth did we expect? Obama has no plan. He's proven repeatedly that he never does. I doubt that Obama is even fully aware of what is going on in the world. I think he avoids it because it hurts his frail ego.

Obama's pattern is clear. He simply makes a placating speech, then hopes that things don't get worse on his watch. If things do get worse-- as they have with ObamaCare, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, etc.-- he goes into damage control mode and spins blame on the handiest target. which could be Bush, Cheney, the GOP, the Tea Party, ATMs, greed, etc.

Hey America, you voted for a guy who's whole accomplishments are based only in race and PR. Did you expect anything more but PR from him?

Tikrit Falls to Islamic Terrorists

Above is the current image of Obama being used to dishearten Islamic terrorists.

But, you know, Obama totally has this under control.

From The Daily Mail:

Iraq was under siege yesterday after Al Qaeda-inspired jihadists seized control of Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit and closed in on the country’s biggest oil refinery. 

Coming less than 24 hours after the country’s second city Mosul was overrun by the militants, there were fears that the loss of Tikrit could open the way for an assault on Baghdad just 80 miles to the south. 

British security firms working in the capital are said to have been put on high alert amid fears that insurgents will target the ‘Green Zone’ where most of the foreign embassies are based. 

As well as Mosul and Tikrit, several other northern towns were reported to have fallen to the spectacular offensive by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  

[...]  

While the West has so far refused to assist with military support, the US has said it will come to the aid of the 500,000 people who have fled fierce fighting in Iraq.  

[...]  

Denouncing ISIS as ‘one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world, Stuart Jones, the nominee to be the next US envoy to Baghdad, told US politicians the United States ‘will continue to monitor the situation closely, and will work with our international partners to try to meet the needs of those who have been displaced’.

Forgive me if I don't take the words of the architect of this collapse to seriously. Perhaps Obama will send the displaced across America's southern border. Dreamers all...

Al Qaeda Seizes Control of Iraq's Second-Largest City

Don't worry. Plastic Obamas in intimidating poses, hollow reassurances, and State Department selfies will keep America and her allies safe.

But I thought Obama said that al Qaeda was on the run and all that? Oh well, I'm sure the Obama Administration is trying to find out what obscure YouTube video caused this to happen...

From The Wall Street Journal (via Drudge):

Al Qaeda-inspired militants seized control of Iraq's second-largest city on Tuesday in a brazen military operation that underscored the weakness of the Baghdad government across vast swaths of the country.  

Hours after government forces fled Mosul in disarray following four days of fighting, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared a nationwide "state of maximum preparedness" but didn't indicate whether government forces were mobilizing to retake the Iraqi city, 220 miles north of the capital Baghdad.  

The capture of Mosul by rebels linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, is the latest evidence of the weakness and disorganization that have beset Iraq's security forces since the U.S. forces withdrew from the country in December 2011. 

It also underlines the group's determination to establish an Islamic emirate encompassing the Iraqi-Syrian frontier, weaken the already fragile Iraqi state and expand the theater of the three-year-old civil war in neighboring Syria.  

[...]  

The U.S.-trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, which have floundered since the U.S. pullout, haven't succeeded in thwarting ISIS's emergence as a formidable paramilitary force. Its fighters regularly launch daytime attacks against government forces and have held the city of Fallujah, 36 miles east of the capital, since early January. 

Mosul, the capital of Nineveh province, has been a longtime staging ground for al Qaeda-linked forces. Residents of the province have complained recently about stepped-up ISIS activities, including cash-for-protection demands to local businessmen and political officials—a major source of funding for the group's operations.

Obama: making the world safer for radical Islamists (and other thuggish political entities) since 2009.

Iranian Aircraft Attack Iraqi Villages

Iran is apparently flexing its military muscle. Story here (h/t Instapundit). Haven't heard a peep about this in the MSM yet, and Obama is remaining silent on the subject. My bet is that he's thinking that if he closes his eyes, wishes everyone a "happy nowruz" again, then it will all just go away.