Wait, THAT is Trump’s Brilliant Plan to Defeat ISIS?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed over the last few months that he has a top secret plan to destroy ISIS, even expressing shock that the Pentagon hasn’t taken his empty boasts seriously and called him to find out what it is. Now we know what that secret plan was: Bomb the Iraqi oil fields. Seriously.

Donald Trump wants to “bomb the hell” out of Iraq’s oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

“If I win, I would attack those oil sites that are controlled and owned — they are controlled by ISIS,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need ’em by the time I’m done.”

But that strategy might do more harm than good, according to two former U.S. military officers and CNN military analysts who looked at Trump’s suggestion. That’s because bombing Iraq’s oil fields would be a serious blow to Iraq and efforts to recover once ISIS is expelled from the country.

“You’re destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, you’re not really doing much to hurt ISIS,” retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona said. “At some future point those oil fields will have to help regenerate Iraq.”…

Both Francona and Hertling said there are many better ways to hurt ISIS than striking oil fields in Iraq — few of which ISIS actually controls.

A large part of ISIS’s revenue has come from oil sales, but the terrorist group is mostly pumping oil out of refineries in Syria, not Iraq…

While the Iraqi government is seriously reliant on the United States and other countries in its fight against ISIS and as it strives to keep its country together, Iraq’s top leaders would do more than just object to U.S. bombing of oil fields in its country — a central part of the country’s economy and infrastructure.

But remember, no one is “bigger or better at the military” than Trump. This is his genius plan? Destroy Iraq’s primary source of economic growth and revenue, which ISIS doesn’t even control? Jesus, he’s a moron.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Jesus, he’s a moron.

    Like you needed more proof?

  • raven

    We’ve seen this movie before. On TV when I was a high school kid.

    We had to destroy this village to save it

    It didn’t work in Vietnam either. One million dead Vietnamese, large areas defoliated with Agent Orange, 56,000 dead Americans, lots of money down the drain, and we ended up with nothing accomplished.

    Hmmm, well Vietnam does make some of our athletic shoes. IIRC, Nike has a factory there.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Hey, it worked for Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I.

  • busterggi

    I’m amazed Trump came up with something so sophisticated – I thought he’d just fire all ISIS members.

  • eric

    @2: at least the Vietnam hawks were sincere. I get a distinct, Halliburtonesque, “use ISIS as an excuse to make money off the oil market” vibe from Trump.

  • cptdoom

    “Moron” seems so limiting. How about, Donald Trump is a “bloviating ignoramus,” which are the words George Will used back in 2012. Trump also proves that the concept of “white trash” knows no bank account limitations.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    I’m guessing this will only help his poll numbers.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    You all seem to be forgetting that ISIS built their headquarters on top of one of the oil derricks in Iraq. All their leaders meet there! We are not sure which one, so we gotta bomb em all!

  • tbp1

    At least he has a plan, even if it’s catastrophically stupid.

    I’ve noticed lots of tough talk about ISIS (and Iran) from the right, but very few specifics about what they would actually, you know, do, if given the chance.

  • raven

    I’ve noticed lots of tough talk about ISIS (and Iran) from the right, but very few specifics about what they would actually, you know, do, if given the chance.

    Based on their past history and lack of reasoning ability, it will cost huge amounts of money, kill lots and lots of people. and make things worse.

    The war in Iraq was sold to the American public with lies about weapons of mass destruction and claims that it would be over quickly, unleaded gas would be cheaper, and we would be greeted as liberators.

    Which the American people dutifully bought like a carp eating a doughball bait.

    Right now it would be a harder sell. We are suffering from post-Vietnam war syndrome. It takes about a generation to wear off.

  • laurentweppe

    Frankly, given his past rants, I’m half surprised he didn’t go all the way down the rabbit hole and advocate nuking/genociding the region.

  • colnago80

    Re weppe @ #11

    Sounds like a good idea to me.

  • Al Dente

    Our friendly, neighborhood, nuke the entire Middle East except israel, genocide-happy sociopath is playing true to form. Kill the untermenschen, eh colnago?

  • Larry

    Did you get off setting kittens and puppies on fire when you were growing up, colnago80? How about the babies of your neighbors? I bet you still have the pictures.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80 “Re weppe @ #11 Sounds like a good idea to me.”

    Yes, but only because you’re a fucking idiot.

  • freehand

    raven says: Based on their past history and lack of reasoning ability, it will cost huge amounts of money, kill lots and lots of people. and make things worse.

    .

    How will costing huge amounts of money make things worse? I thought that giving tax dollars to the already-rich was the GOP platform!

  • John Pieret

    “I thought that giving tax dollars to the already-rich was the GOP platform!”

    Think how much Haliburton can make putting out the fires and fixing the damage to the wells!

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #15

    Yawn.

  • https://plus.google.com/107095827599382907783 NS Alito

    “Sounds like a good idea to me.”

    Once again, I can use Blog Comment Killfile to improve my life!

  • Al Dente

    Prithee tell, how does one get Blog Comment Killfile? I use Firefox and have Greasemonkey.

  • Synfandel

    Hey, colnago80,

    Hitler.

    Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

    Pthhhhh!

  • jblackfyre

    colnago80

    Yawn.

    When even Modus breaks character to tell you something, you know shit got serious.

    Maybe changing your ideas about genocide would be a good start? Just maybe?

    And yeah, Hitler.

  • Anri

    colnago80 @ 12:

    Sounds like a good idea to me.

    Hey there!

    A previous time you were advocating nuking folks, and weren’t concerned about “breaking some eggs” for your omelet, I had asked you for your general plan, assuming it was more sophisticated than “eh, just bomb ’em!” In other words, I was hoping you’d put more thought into it than Trump.

    I’m asking again for a brief synopsis of your “half a dozen” strategy – just a rough outline, y’know, locations, approximate casualties, international reaction, that kinda thing.

    This, again, assumes you’re a better planner than Presidential Hairpiece.

    …you are, yes?

  • Anri

    Oh, and speaking of people who can’t answer questions well, did Dukedog and johnathangray (sp?) go bye-bye? I haven’t seen them around for a bit, even though we’ve had threads about racism and SSM and states rights and suchlike.

    Did they finally get tired of being shown up as idiots and liars, or was there official action taken?

    Or are they just unusually quiet of late?

  • colnago80

    Re Anri @ #23

    1. Locations: every known significant nuclear facility. I doubt there are more then 6.

    2. Casualties: Who gives a fuck. We sure didn’t give a fuck in WW2 as to how many Germans and Japanese were eliminated in our strategic bombing campaigns.

    3. International reaction: Russia will throw a tantrum. Everybody else of consequence will be damn glad that a very dangerous threat to world peace was neutralized.

  • colnago80

    Re Anri @ #34

    Brayton hasn’t made any announcements but I strongly suspect that Egnorance has been given the heave ho. I don’t know about Grey.

  • colnago80

    Re Al Dente @ #20

    Go to Tools and then Add-ons and do a search for Blog Comment Killfile.

  • colnago80

    Re #27

    That should be Get Add-ons.

  • freehand

    4. The grateful natives will scatter rose petals in the streets before our advancing troops!

    .

    5. Profit.

  • Anri

    colnago80 @ 25:

    1. Locations: every known significant nuclear facility. I doubt there are more then 6.

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘significant’. The folks in charge of the nukes seemed to think that any place extruding high-test aluminum piping was worthy of being called a nuclear threat, so…

    but ok, I’ll take your word for this.

    2. Casualties: Who gives a fuck. We sure didn’t give a fuck in WW2 as to how many Germans and Japanese were eliminated in our strategic bombing campaigns.

    How much would you like to wager there was substantial consideration given to civilian casualties when selecting targets in WWII?

    But, you’re right, they’re only rag-heads, not real people like you and (possibly?) me. Their lives really don’t matter.

    3. International reaction: Russia will throw a tantrum. Everybody else of consequence will be damn glad that a very dangerous threat to world peace was neutralized.

    So… your opinion is that (to take an obvious example) Japan would be just cool with another country getting nuked?

    But again, you’re right, they’d be cool with it, because we’re a force for good, never stooping to (to take an obvious example) dropping nukes on a country without regards for civilian casualties.

    That’s how you tell good guys apart from bad guys, isn’t it?

    Out of curiosity, if a European power decided to destroy our nuclear development facilities, regardless of civilian casualties, to avoid our deployment of nukes, what argument would you use to dissuade them, other than “We’re bigger and you’ll get your ass kicked”?

    One that doesn’t contradict your Middle Eastern plans, I mean.

  • colnago80

    Re Anri @ #30

    How much would you like to wager there was substantial consideration given to civilian casualties when selecting targets in WWII?

    There may have been some consideration in target selection by US authorities early on but there sure was no consideration from British authorities. The British had no compunction about killing civilians as their idea was that civilians were working in German armaments industries and killing as many of them as possible was a good way to hamper production. However, the US was eventually no slouch at that game either: see the firebombing of Hamburg which killed an estimate 38,000 people. Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or Dresden which had very few military targets.

  • colnago80

    Out of curiosity, if a European power decided to destroy our nuclear development facilities, regardless of civilian casualties, to avoid our deployment of nukes, what argument would you use to dissuade them, other than “We’re bigger and you’ll get your ass kicked”?

    Fortunately, the only European power with the capability is Russia and they’re not about to trade Moscow for any Iranian city that happens to be close enough to a nuclear facility to suffer collateral damage.

  • Anri

    colnago80 @ 31:

    There may have been some consideration in target selection by US authorities early on but there sure was no consideration from British authorities. The British had no compunction about killing civilians as their idea was that civilians were working in German armaments industries and killing as many of them as possible was a good way to hamper production. However, the US was eventually no slouch at that game either: see the firebombing of Hamburg which killed an estimate 38,000 people. Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or Dresden which had very few military targets.

    And – just to clarify your position – that’s your preferred method of fighting, yes?

    Lack of regard for civilians?

    In war, you’d suggest, for example, hitting a civilian financial institution to deny the enemy the trade it would produce? You’d argue that, in war, that would be a perfectly acceptable target?

    and @ 32:

    Fortunately, the only European power with the capability is Russia and they’re not about to trade Moscow for any Iranian city that happens to be close enough to a nuclear facility to suffer collateral damage.

    So, you offer no argument, then.

    If a country with superior force disliked our bombing of civilians, you’d just shrug and say “Welp, they’ve got more bombs, I guess they’re the good guys now.”

    You’d see it as unfortunate, tactically speaking, but not immoral.