Trump Rejected Military’s ISIS Strategy Because It Was Too Similar to Obama’s | THE POLITICUS

Trump Rejected Military’s ISIS Strategy Because It Was Too Similar to Obama’s

In one of his opening acts as commander-in-chief, Donald Trump requested his top military advisers to carry a 30-day review of America’s approach to destroying ISIS.

Given that specific timeline — and Trump’s past commitments that he had a secret strategy for defeating the rebel group ready to go — one might have assumed the White House to unveil its vision for fighting ISIS in late February or early March.

Five months passed since the president even indicated that a new strategy was coming: On May 21, Trump stated that he would reveal his administration’s plan for destroying ISIS “in about two weeks.”

Two weeks later, the president announced that his long-awaited proposal was finally, actually almost ready — and he would outline it at a news convention in “two weeks.”

A month later, we are still awaiting that news conference.

One can envision an entire host of purposes behind Trump’s dawdling. Maybe, the organization has been diverted by the disturbing improvements in North Korea. Or, then again perhaps gaming out an arrangement for overcoming a particular foe as the Islamic State essentially takes a great deal of time. Or, then again, maybe, the president simply has little enthusiasm for telling people in general what his military plans are and says “that is coming in two weeks” to any approach he’s ever asked about.

Under Obama, the U.S. military was effectively wiping out ISIS’s leadership.

To summarize, the Trump administration’s vision for fighting ISIS differs from Obama in two key ways:

1) This White House believes in giving greater autonomy to its military commanders, thereby empowering them to make the best tactical decisions, unencumbered by petty political concerns.

2) It also believes in asking its generals to alter their strategic plans, not because the administration questions their military efficacy, but solely because it finds them difficult to “brand.”

Issue: