New York Times & The L.A. Times: President Obama's Startegy To Combat The Islamic State Is Based On Dubious Assumptions

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a live televised address to the nation on his plans for military action against the Islamic State, from the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington September 10, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Saul Loeb/Pool

Analysis: Obama Strategy In Iraq, Syria Hinges On Long Shots -- L.A. Times

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama's strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed "moderate" rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Read more ....

Update: US Pins Hope on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map -- New York Times

My Comment: I am usually in disagreement with the New York Times and The L.A. Times when it comes to their analysis of U.S. foreign policy. But with these two reports .... I am 100% in agreement. They are brutal in their analysis on why President Obama's strategy in combating the Islamic State will fail.