White House reportedly planning years-long campaign to destroy ISIS

by FOXNews.com
September 8, 2014

The Obama administration is reportedly preparing a campaign to destroy the Islamic State militant group that could outlast the president’s remaining time in office, according to a published report.

The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials believe will require at least three years of sustained effort.

The first phase, airstrikes against Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is already underway in Iraq, where U.S. aircraft have launched 143 attacks since August 8. The second phase involves an intensified effort to train, advise, and equip the Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and any Sunni tribesmen willing to fight their ISIS co-religionists. The Times reports that this second phase will begin sometime after Iraq forms a new government, which could happen sometime this week.

The third, and most politically fraught phase of the campaign, according to The Times, would require airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria. Last month, the government of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus warned the Obama administration not to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without its permission.

35 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • SAMKD1 says:

    Anyone that remotely thinks Obama is on the side of America is living in a dream world. After all let us not forget that those in ISIS are from Obama’s clan…

  • Jimmpeeh says:

    I will believe this crap after it happens. Meanwhile it is just more hot air from the fundraiser/golfer in charge.

  • mort_f says:

    Phase one needs to be an immediate divorce from any Islamic oil, an immediate approval of Keystone, drilling in Alaska, a termination of his ‘War on Coal’. Yes, thet will take a few years to takefull effect.

    Along with phase one, NEVER even intimate that Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’, NEVER using the term ‘ally’ with any Islamic country, beit Saudi Arabia, Qataar, Bahrain, etc., they are at present just ‘partnerships’ of convenience.

    Any tactical approach needs to be designed to put Islam back to where it started, the stone age. Despite what their spokesman in the White House says, there is nada, nothing, rien, nichevah .. that Islam has contributed to civilization in over 1400 years.

  • SAMKD1 says:

    How stupid is this to let the enemy know what the president plans to do?????
    Oh well, what can you expect out of Obama????

    1. Timothy Hall says:


  • ijohnc1 says:

    Just another day at the pinko office of the white house, create another diversion, never let a good crisis go to waste.
    The communist folks in the regime have not a clue as to handle, what was it the Fuhrer said ” The “ISIS is junior varsity”
    Shortly there after the ISIS said….. game on!

  • defiant1 says:

    This “lengthy” plan gets Obama off the hook in 2 yrs; wonder if this maneuver protects his Muslim roots and his inability to conquer ISIS, Hamas, Hezboullah, et al. It smells………..

    1. ijohnc1 says:

      “Something smells fish”…..Old Jewish saying

    2. Timothy Hall says:


  • John Henry says:

    ISIS has not conquered a continent, we don’t need to build up troops and materials, there is not much doubt it could be accomplished in weeks instead of years.

    But Barry does not want to use our troops, instead he wants to give even more arms to Iraqis, shoot they left the other arms we gave them behind because it slowed them down while they ran. And they did not even share the arms we left and earmarked for the Kurds with the only people who would stand a chance against ISIS.

    IF we have to depend on the Saudi’s, UAE, Iraq, and others to fight this fight it will never be won.

    1. ijohnc1 says:

      Better off if we gave the Iraqi’s some reeboks and sprinting lessons, we already gave them enough arms to supply the ISIS, but then again, maybe that’s the plan? and we left out the surface to air missiles to shoot down our own aircraft….just saying.

    2. I Seigel says:

      I don’t think Barry is a military expert. He’s getting his info from the Joint Chiefs, Military Intelligence, the NSA and the CIA. I think it’s the collective wisdom that is telling him it could be a few years.
      It’s just like when Bush got “bad intelligence” for the WMD fiasco.

  • savage24 says:

    Didn’t one of these White House officials make the statement that ISIS is the next administrations problem. This is their plan to push it off on somebody else. National security takes a back seat to politics in this government today, whether it be the White House, the House, the Senate, and the judicial system.

  • buffalo lips says:

    “White House reportedly planning years-long campaign to destroy ISIS”

    At what cost in blood to American young men and women? Oh, that’s right. They’re expendable. Just ask any Democrat. But try telling that to families. Republicans are little better. And at what cost to future generations of taxpayers. Obama can’t fight this war or any other war without borrowing the money. Neither could GW Bush. And what is going to be the cost to all of our civil liberties (aka the Bill of Rights) in the face of the burgeoning police state? A better fight at far less cost would be to close our borders and try to save this once sovereign nation.

  • francesca9 says:

    it could be done in a month…blow them to smithereens.

    1. Timothy Hall says:


    2. I Seigel says:

      Francesca9 – do you think ISIS is just sitting around in a hut somewhere, where they can be “blown to smithereens”? There are branches of them in Pakistan, in India, probably in Malaysia, and certainly throughout the Middle East. Explain how you wipe out an ideology with weapons? The Greeks and Romans tried it with early Christians. Countries have been trying to wipe out the Jews for millennia. How would YOU blow ISIS to smithereens??

  • elton123 says:

    O is not serious about wiping ISIS out

  • disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

    Why wait for 3 years? President Obama is so expert on politics but it is not for the good of our country. Extending 3 years to destroy ISIS will go beyond his term that whoever will take over the WH will also take the blames for the America’s failures of destroying ISIS. Unless he imposes Martial Law to continue his power, the 3 year period will linger forever, under his regime. ISIS will remain like Hamas to continue its destructions and expansions of power!

    1. I Seigel says:

      Just like Bush 1 did, handing off the Somalia problem to Clinton. Just like Bush 2 did, handing off the Iraq and Afghanistan problem to Obama. And Johnson handing off the Vietnam war to Nixon. Wars don’t begin or end on the timely basis of an American election.

      1. disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

        US won the war in Iraq. President Bush provided US security advisors in Iraq to secure its new government, and to insure that they could handle it successfully.

        Since WW2, after wining the war, US left security forces in Germany, France, Japan, and all allied forces affected. US also left security forces in South Korea. All of them were successful. If given time, Iraq could have been also successful if the US security forces were left there for awhile.

        But in 2011, president Obama removed all the US security advisors from Iraq. After US withdrawal, Iraq’s new elected president did not follow the protocol of his leadership, isolating the Sunnis from his government. The Sunnis were dissatisfied of AL Malaki’s government and therefore joined Al Qaeda, now ISIS in Syria to fight with the government of Iraq. ISIS has grown so powerful taking Iraq’s banking system, and its oil fields.

        Now, here we are back again in Iraq, fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda!

        1. I Seigel says:

          The US military is capable of winning ANY war. What the US has not done successfully is what Bush called “Nation Building”. Bush, Cheney & Company were horrible at it. Corruption, wasted billions, and a total misunderstanding of the history, culture and politics of the region. Yes, the military under Bush got rid of Saddam and temporarily beat the Sunni insurgents. But Bush couldn’t secure a long-term deal with al-Maliki to allow US troops to stay, he couldn’t get al-Maliki to share power, and he couldn’t get al-Maliki to form an inclusive government. The American people were sick and tired of the mounting casualties, the wasted billions. They voted for a change.

          Or have you conveniently forgotten or this recent history??

          1. disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

            You would have allowed Sadam to build-up those weapons of mass destructions, allowed him to kill millions of Iraqi people, along with the UN corrupt officials, Sadam had looted the UN funds supposed to go to the suffering Iraqi people. Sadam built several mansions with his two sons raping and killing of Iraqi women. Sadam could have been as dangerous as Iran now. He supported training of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

            War in Iraq was not nation building. It was a clear and present danger to the US, and the world due to his mass destructive weapons, which was eventually moved to Syria, or buried in Iraq as discovered later.

            Your theory therefore supports the removal of troops by president Obama from Iraq, which eventually solely empowered Al Malaki’s misguided leadership that isolated the Sunnis. Hence the Sunnis joined ISIS and Al Qaeda that we are facing now!

            I prefer not to discuss so much such unproven history of yours, but made up of theories to justify
            the liberal stance similar to Ward Churchill’s, the disgruntled terminated professor of the Native Indian studies of Colorado U. Goodnight!!

          2. I Seigel says:

            What I would have done is not the subject of this topic. And you’re conveniently changing the subject.

            I did not dispute Saddam’s evilness. That is not the point. However, you need to look further into your claim that Saddam was training al Qaeda. With all the investigations and commissions after Saddam was ousted and the fighting was over, there was no proof and no connection found that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

            Bush & Company did not go into Iraq to “nation build”. I agree. The goal was to get rid of Saddam. But remember Colin Powell’s warning – “if you break Iraq, you have to fix it”. Bush then realized there was no power structure, no group able to pull all the various factions together to lead, so they did what they could to provide security and infrastructure to their chosen Iraqis – first by Ahmed Chalabi and then by al-Maliki. Neither was or has been able to provide effective leadership, and much of the infrastructure that was built with US dollars with either substandard or never finished, the tribes didn’t settle their historic differences going back 1200 years or so, and we basically wasted a lot of time, money and lives. The Soviets found that to be true in Afghanistan, and I fear we’re going to learn the same hard and expensive lesson there, as well.

            And don’t forget it was Bush who failed at finding an agreement with al-Maliki to retain troops in Iraq. The deal – or lack thereof – had already been done by the time Obama took office. Bush left it up to Obama to complete the deal and remove the remaining troops. Just as Obama MIGHT leave the US troops in Afghanistan to be removed by HIS successor.

            As I said previously, timetables and policies that we put in place or would like to see happen don’t necessarily coincide with the 4 or 8 year terms of an American president.

          3. disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

            If the US security forces were not removed in Iraq by the president, there has been no chaos and upheaval as it is right now. I was not convinced by Colin Powell. Now you belong to Powell who was nurtured to the top by president HW Bush. Along with you, he supported president Obama for 2 terms.

            I prefer not to spend more time to relentlessly argue with liberal minds because the results are liberal stance of insanity. So are you so happy where the direction of our country is leading now? I don’t want to be a part of your liberal mantra!

            I love my country, and I am a conservative and a Christian. My Lord said” Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who does not keep the counsel of the wicked; nor stand on the path of sinner; nor sit on the seats of scoffers.”


          4. I Seigel says:

            To answer your question: NO, I am not happy with the direction of our country.

            However, when that question is asked in polls and a majority of Americans also say “no”, the poll does not also ask who you blame for the direction of the country. It’s just automatically assumed that the person who is answering blames the current administration (as they did during the Bush years).

            I am NOT happy with the direction of the country, but like most THINKING Americans, I blame the direction on a variety of factors, first and foremost the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court. The country is slowly being destroyed by MONEY, not any particular person in office. Especially not a person in an office with TERM LIMITS, such as a president.

            Think about it.

          5. disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

            I think when you mention about “term limits”, I agree, and I think that must be done, then Congress must revise a provision in the constitution to make it effective.

  • James Maxwell says:

    Planning a year long campaign against ISIS? Did o’socialsit resign or did I
    miss something. He has never planned any thing that far in advance and
    especially against any muzzie organization. He is to busy playing golf,
    spending TAX payer money on vacations and preparing to bless all the
    criminal illegal aliens who are invading our nation. his lack of performance
    in the basic duties of a president, unless you call insulting our allies, playing
    golf, going on vacation, sleeping on the job, refusing to secure our borders
    and violating the United States Constitution on a daily basis a job
    description. I could list much more but as the Socialist Democrats are
    fond of saying “What difference does it make”?

    1. I Seigel says:

      Are you describing Bush or Obama? It’s not clear from your criticizing.

      1. James Maxwell says:

        As if you would know the difference in any thing. YOU
        are just an obobobot with nothing to contributed.

        1. I Seigel says:

          Is that all you got? Just some stale and unoriginal name-calling?? How lame and pathetic is that!

          1. defiant1 says:

            How lame and pathetic is your comeback!

          2. dantalbot says:

            The difference between liberal insults and conservative ones is that conservative ones are usually true

    2. Timothy Hall says:


  • CTH says:

    Neither obutthead nor any of his commie appointees have the vaguest idea about tending to the latest muslim uprising, nor do they have the desire to contain it. It fits nicely in their plan to destroy our country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.