Is Trump making the same mistake as past presidents have by declaring victory too early over ISIS?

@soar2newhighs

[quote]Obama said the war on terrorism was over[/quote]

I am not aware that he said that. His comments were on Dec 5th, 2015:

[quote]As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris, and I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.[/quote]

In response to that WH address, Trump said

[quote] “there was something going on” with Obama because he refused to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,”[/quote]

Trump's "win" against ISIS, is nothing more than propaganda. ISIS lost influence, due to its own repressive practices, and it was allowed to melt back into "less radical" groups, like Nusra, and other Islamic Syrian opposition groups.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over@Northwest

@soar2newhighs hmm, thanks for the link. This was in 2013, and it certainly does not say that "the war on terrorism is over", far from it. From the article:

[quote]"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.

Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."[/quote]

Turns out he's right. We cannot "invade" ISIS or Al Qaeda. They are not countries, or large armies. It's about the individuals and what motivates them to commit terror.

@SheikYerbouti looks like it. The White House account tweets have better Grammer and less misspellings, and usually seem to be professionally drafted and thought through in terms of factual accuracy.

@MistyCee Because when Obama was president, there was a notice that said something like 'Tweets by the President personally will end with BO'.

@Northwest Thanks North. Someone already had provided that helpful information.

I learned later that he intends to pull our troops out of Syria. I think that's a mistake. Same mistake Obama made when he pulled us out of Iraq. We apparently have decimated ISIS in Syria, but the ISIS snake is alive and well elsewhere. When we leave, it will leave a vacuum that ISIS or some jack-wad terror group like it will fill.

@Ynotisay 🙌

@cherokeepatti He participated - but no, that was Reagan's baby.

@cherokeepatti I'll watch absolutely nothing happen lmao. Again.

@QuixoticSoul Reagan was told to choose him as running mate,he wouldn’t have been elected had he not. Same with Kennedy and Johnson.

@PikachuTrainer Dude, we positively set the Middle East on fire - no, it wouldn’t be bloodier without our intervention. It would be static, with far less death.

Remember, Iraq alone clocked in at almost a million dead civvies.

@QuixoticSoul you better brush up on your history mate, the middle east has always been a quagmire of death due to the warring Islamic factions and there would be far more death without our interventions.

@PikachuTrainer In this century - absolutely not, that’s pretty much impossible to argue. Hundreds of thousands less lives would have been lost if we simply stayed out.

It’s pretty tough to argue for the 20th too.

Nukes, you say? My money is on Kim to let the first one fly, and if not the N. Koreans, then the Iranians. They're both feverishly working on becoming a major world power with nuclear arsenals to back them up, and we can only hope their bluster is nothing more than that, because when one is launched, retaliatory strikes are a given. @RodionRomanovitch

@soar2newhighs The Iranians haven’t resumed their nuclear program despite our withdrawal from the deal. I think “feverishly” is the wrong way to put it.

Besides, I don’t see a first strike in the cards for either of those nations. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.

I agree-and not necessarily touting the man, but I tend to believe that both NK and Iran's military leaders have some serious reservations about their actions while Trump is President. Though I will concede the fact that despite the "summit", Kim played Trump like Yo-Yo Ma plays his cello....flawlessly.@QuixoticSoul

@SimplyTracie ISIS in Syria is doomed. The SAA will finish the job.

...and things with Turkey, the U.S. troops and the Kurdish is a bit volatile, and could be major cause for future problems in the middle east, and as far as relations with a NATO ally (Turkey)@bijouxbroussard