By Sal Bommarito

The political and military actions of ISIS warrant the strongest response from Arab nations and their allies. Unfortunately, the response from the Arab world towards the insurgents has been restrained. These nations are concerned about being ISIS’ next target and/or suffering reprisals from citizens and provocateurs sympathetic to the ISIS caliphate.

 

Rightly so, the U.S. has joined the fray. However, the response by American military forces has been greatly hampered by the horrible experiences of the last 13 years in the region. And so, the U.S. has decided to only drop bombs on ISIS, less than half of which actually hit targets. America is understandably anathema to putting foot soldiers in harm’s way.

 

I believe that the humanitarian consequences of the ISIS conflict are reason to escalate the retort by all civilized nations. It is time for the coalition opposing ISIS to step up the fight and save millions of people from this growing calamity.

 

The New York Times reported that a 14 year old Syrian boy, named Usaid Barho, was forcefully recruited by ISIS to be a suicide bomber. A few days ago, he walked into a Shiite mosque in Baghdad, unzipped his jacket to reveal a vest of explosives, and surrendered himself to the guards.

 

Usaid’s decision to volunteer as a suicide bomber, rather than a foot soldier, was based upon his belief that he could escape before detonating a weapon. He is now in the custody of local Iraqi authorities.

 

This episode personifies the deteriorating humanitarian situation resulting from ISIS’ cruelty and aspirations to establish a caliphate at any cost. There have been regular reports of ISIS insurgents wantonly murdering Shiites, moderate Sunnis, Christians and other religious group members. Additionally, thousands of women and children have been kidnapped. The women are raped, sold as slaves and/or gifted to ISIS fighters. The young males are forced to become Sunni and used for the purposes mentioned above.

 

Millions of Syrians and Iraqis have lost their homes and a huge number have become refugees seeking protection in neighboring countries. The political, social and financial impact on Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and others has been devastating. Many refugees will suffer difficult living conditions and a harsh winter in the coming months.

 

The question America faces is should its response to ISIS be more aggressive? As mentioned, our leaders, for some reason, seem content with the direction of the war. I disagree, and I’d bet the U.S. military disagrees, but this is a separate debate. Perhaps our leaders are running scared from the political ramifications of supporting the deployment of ground troops.

 

I think the death and displacement of millions of Arabs should trump political considerations. Do any of our leaders have the courage to do the right thing?

 

America has a moral obligation, as it does in all cases of genocide, disease and famine. In most of these situations, crimes against humanity are internal affairs, or conditions that result from natural disasters.

 

In Iraq and Syria, an invasion is underway. Iraq is an ally, so our military has responded. But, it is insufficient considering the implications of the ISIS war beyond political boundaries and government control.

 

The U.S. government should not stand by and allow hundreds of thousands to die and millions to suffer. The ISIS hostilities can be resolved in a relatively short period of time with a greater commitment by the U.S. Rebuilding is another story; the U.S. should avoid getting swallowed up in another country-building adventure.

 

Many lives are at stake and ISIS is growing stronger. The U.S. should act now.

 

 

 

By Sal Bommarito

Yesterday, I posted an essay that addressed the downing of a Jordanian jet by ISIS fighters. There is no doubt that the jihadists have captured the pilot, Lt. Moaz al-Kassasbeh, but the U.S. military Central Command is refuting the claim that the jet was shot down by ISIS with a missile. Rather, the Command is suggesting the jet had mechanical problems. The story is being widely reported, but I have used the Wall Street Journal as the source of this essay.

The pilot was flying a mission over Syria attempting to attack ISIS terrorists. Jordan is part of the coalition fighting against the marauders and providing intelligence and logistical support. Since August, the coalition has conducted more than 830 airstrikes

As with most Arab coalition members, Jordan has not overly publicized its alliance with the U.S. fearing reprisals from terrorists and from citizens who are sympathetic to ISIS. It is taking a strong stance in its efforts to recover the pilot, and playing upon the pilot’s Muslim background along with the captive’s family. Yet, a Jordanian minister stated, “We have made sacrifices in that past, and will continue to do so for the sake of our country.” This implies that Jordan will be aggressive if necessary.

Americans hope that the Jordanian tactics are effective, but U.S. officials are “extremely worried about the pilot’s fate.” A U.S. defense official said, “All of us are very familiar with ISIL’s barbarity.”

The bigger issue is how the Arab world is going to react to the capture of Arab fighters working side by side with the U.S., especially if ISIS reacts to this publicity in a repugnant manner towards their current captive. It is absurd to assume that there will be no casualties in a conflict of this magnitude, even if most of the hostilities are conducted from 20,000 feet.

It’s painful to speculate about the fate of Lt. Kassasbeh, given the treatment of former prisoners of the terrorists. If ISIS reacts similarly, the outrage could materially affect the participation of Arab coalition partners. Frankly, up to this point, the slaughter of innocent Arabs by ISIS and the number of refugees and homelessness resulting from its invasion of Iraq and Syria has not been enough impetus to influence Arab nations to materially increase their support of the effort against ISIS.

 

By Sal Bommarito

ISIS militants shot down a Jordanian F-16 fighter jet over Syria and captured the pilot of the plane. The story is reported in the New York Times.

The event is noteworthy for a number of reasons. The jet was the first coalition plane to be shot down in the ISIS conflict. And, the Jordanian pilot is the first military person to be captured by the jihadists. Also important is that ISIS reported the capture of the pilot on social media, which will bolster its propaganda campaign and recruitment. And, ISIS stated that it used an antiaircraft missile to down the plane, another first. The U.S. military command has refuted the missile attack.

The command indicated that “most of the [airstrikes] have been carried out by the United States, with its partners often playing a supporting role.” Coalition partners include Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. None speak openly about their roles fearing retribution from ISIS and/or “domestic opposition from citizens who sympathize with the extremists.”

The Times article indicated, “It remained unclear whether the capture [of the pilot] would affect the participation of Jordan and other Arab countries in the fight against ISIS.”

The event is a developing tragedy even though it involves a single Arab pilot and one aircraft. The symbolism of a terrorist organization shooting down a jet plane will weigh heavily in every Arab country participating in the coalition. Social media will enable ISIS to milk the event and create more anxiety in the region.

The irony is that the U.S. is doing most of the dirty work and the participation of Arab countries on the ground and in the air is negligible. And, they are the states most likely to be attacked if ISIS grows and becomes more powerful.

From my perspective, there continues to be many negative signs relating to the ISIS war. The militants have commandeered a huge swath of land, and local Sunni tribes have not been willing or able to repel the fighters. ISIS is clearly digging in and avoiding serious damage from U.S. airstrikes. This conflict is not heading in a direction that will bring peace in the foreseeable future. Exacerbating the situation was a comment by a senior U.S. commander this week indicating that the war could last another three years. The U.S. really needs to reconsider the present battle strategy.

By Sal Bommarito

The liberal press is attempting to come to the rescue of President Obama. I was shocked to read one op-ed piece in a progressive newspaper that lauded the president’s new attitude and determination to get things done. The big question is, where was he during the past six years?

 

Obama has been strangely detached from a number of major events domestically and around the world. He has little time or inclination to get his hands dirty on mundane issues like unemployment, human rights violations and terrorism.

 

Obama has always been fixated on his legacy and personal ideology. His initial focus was 30 million Americans who did not have medical insurance. Obama ignored the cries of millions of workers who were losing their jobs and unable to make mortgage payments. He wanted Americans to look at him as the next coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

The problem with the plan to help the uninsured was that the U.S. could not afford a new multi-trillion dollar entitlement. The national deficit was soaring and the financial markets were cranky. Astute Republicans kept saying over and over that limited resources should be used to elevate the economy. But, Obama was more interested in medical insurance.

 

The president did not even attempt to work with the minority party to enact bipartisan solutions to contemporary problems. In fact, he treated those on the other side of the aisle as his inferiors and made many enemies. Obama was in office only a few months and infuriated about 240 members of the Senate and House of Representatives. He didn’t even give the opposition a chance to offer any alternatives. With a filibuster-proof Senate and a majority in the House, the Affordable Care Act was rammed down the throats of the American people.

 

A short time later, the president lost his advantage in the Senate when Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts for Teddy Kennedy’s seat. Ever since then, it’s been downhill for the president politically. The Senate minority was able to filibuster every significant proposal by the president and Democratic senators. Then, Republicans won back the House, and now Republicans have a majority in the Senate beginning in the New Year. Think of it, Obama started with every branch of government under his control, and in six years he lost two thirds of it.

 

Something must have been wrong with Obama’s performance to piss off the electorate to such an extent. How can so much political carnage occur in such a short period of time? To begin with, Obama has not kept promises he made to American voters before and after he became president. Obamacare has been much less than advertised. In fact, some of the 30 million uninsured didn’t even want to sign up for Obamacare. But, they were forced to participate by law. And, the entitlement cost far more than originally estimated.

 

There are some peculiar issues relating to Obamacare that never seem to get resolved. True, many more people have medical insurance than did not before the law. But, how many are now covered because of an expansion of Medicaid versus new participants in Obamacare? Was it necessary to create a monstrous entitlement when Obama could have helped poor people obtain insurance just by expanding Medicaid? Other unanswered questions relate to the real costs of Obamacare that include cancellations of existing policies that were deemed inadequate, unavailability of preferred doctors under the new program and the institution of harsh terms in Obamacare insurance policies.

 

In the meantime, Obama has been ambivalent about world events. He brought our soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but now he’s redeploying troops back to the region. He realized that George W. Bush’s paranoia about terrorism wasn’t so crazy. Gitmo is still in operation and Obama has become the drone master of the Middle East. His policies have encouraged the proliferation of terror and hatred directed at the U.S.

 

Finally, Obama’s new strategy is to avoid Congress by using presidential resolutions to do important things, really important things. Kings and monarchs, and now Obama, enact laws by edict rather than engaging Congress, which has the constitutional duty to create laws. Who thinks this is a good idea? Do Americans want to diminish the power of Congress and increase the power of the executive branch? Putin is a case in point.

 

Obama’s decision to create immigration laws that will affect five or even ten million undocumented people without concurrence of Congress is outrageous. Conducting military operations throughout the Middle East without congressional endorsement is what dictators do.

 

Obama has hurt America in many ways. Most expected a new age of racial harmony and social change. What we have gotten is greater division between blacks and whites and even greater distance between the affluent and the needy.

By Sal Bommarito

Many concerned Americans believe it is time for President Obama to give us a full accounting of the ISIS situation. Hostilities have dragged on too long without any substantive input from the administration or the Department of Defense.

Here is a list of questions that should be answered by the president and/or his advisers.

 

-What is the present condition of ISIS forces? Are they increasing in size? What types of weapons are they employing?

-Is any outside entity supporting ISIS with weapons, money or personnel?

-What financial resources does ISIS have available? Is it still supporting its operations by commandeering oil and antiquities and selling on the black market?

-Who is leading ISIS? Where are the leaders posted? Is the U.S. attempting to kill commanders?

-How many ISIS fighters have been killed? What equipment has been destroyed? What supply lines have been closed down?

-Where are ISIS fighters located? Are they hiding in populated areas? Can they be killed without massive collateral damage?

-What exactly are our allies contributing to the war? How much money, soldiers, equipment and resources have they provided?

-When will Iran and Turkey fully engage ISIS? Are these countries at risk of an ISIS attack? Do they have the military wherewithal to repel an ISIS invasion?

-How much has the U.S. spent on the ISIS war? How much will be needed to fund the war to its conclusion?

-What is the current mission of U.S. forces? (Note: The original mission to destroy and degrade ISIS does not appear to be attainable based upon current information available.)

-What will happen geopolitically if ISIS is not defeated? Will it form a new nation on Iraq and Syria soil?

-What is the readiness level of the Iraqi military? Will it ever be able to secure the country without U.S. assistance? Will it ever be able to provide ground support needed to root out ISIS?

-Why isn’t the U.S. using ground forces? How is ISIS different from Al Qaeda, against whom the U.S. employed both air power and ground troops?

-How is the war going to end? Who will speak for ISIS?

-Is there any indication of how many Americans and westerners have enlisted with ISIS? Can these people travel freely back to their homelands and other countries? What is the U.S. doing to prevent acts of terror by these individuals?

-Will Congress authorize the war? When will Congress deliberate on the actions taken in Iraq and Syria? Does the president have the power to continue fighting in perpetuity without congressional approval?

-What are the risks of terror operations in America?

It is inexcusable for the president to leave Americans in the dark about such an important moment in history. It is equally outrageous that the press has not pushed harder to obtain more information about the status of the war. The Middle East is about to be redrawn under duress. Yet, the media has not demanded answers to basic questions.

 

 

 

 

By Sal Bommarito

President Obama has a lot on his mind these days. Clearly, his comfort zone is domestic affairs and not international turmoil based upon his speeches, actions and inaction. The ISIS crisis is not improving; one can be fairly certain of this because the administration would be broadcasting any gains in the conflict.

It is time to review the current situation in Iraq and Syria given that several months have past since the hostilities began. Congress will likely do the same in the new year. There are many things for all peace-loving people to be concerned about.

The U.S. is not degrading ISIS based upon anything reported in the press. There appears to be a stalemate as the insurgents have become more cautious about exposing themselves to air and drone attacks.

Yet, the cruelty and strident attitude of the ISIS murderers continues. From time to time, the media documents atrocities against innocents including women and children.

Millions have become refugees and lost their homes in both Iraq and Syria. The winter months will not be kind to these unfortunate people.

The political, financial and social implications of  the  refugee exodus are placing great strains on Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. As anticipated, the citizens of these states are becoming more critical of the inflow of aliens. The cost of caring for refugees is creating great financial instability.

The impact of air strikes is predictably minor. The marauders are hiding in populated areas, so the risk of collateral damage is great. The radicals are fortifying their positions, so it has been difficult to target them. Exacerbating the situation is the inexperience of Iraqi soldiers acting as air strike controllers. It has been reported that ¾ of the bombing sorties return to base with their ordinance. Either the pilots cannot find acceptable targets or cannot obtain permission to strike. Employing U.S. air strike controllers on the ground would surely rectify this issue.

The Arab countries in the region are being distracted from the ISIS threat by other concerns. This could be a dangerous in the long run because ISIS is positioned to move against Iraq and Syria’s neighbors. Iran and Turkey are the most vulnerable.

Specifically, Iran is principally interested in completing a nuclear deal with the U.S. and others. Turkey wants Bashar al-Assad ousted and is paranoid about Kurdish aspirations for independence. Saudi Arabia is knee deep in the oil price drop together with the sustainability of the country’s regime. And finally, Sunnis and Shiites continue to hate and kill each other.

The U.S. is always looking for an opportunity to ship arms to groups that are friendly towards American interests. Unfortunately, the shipment of weapons to militias throughout the Middle East who are fighting ISIS could backfire, literally. These weapons could very well be sold to terrorists or used to fight American forces.

The issue of ground troops continues to hang over our leaders like a black cloud. No American wants to see our brave soldiers in harm’s way; they have suffered enough over the past decade. No American wants the U.S. to be nation building in Iraq or Syria for an extended period. But, if ISIS is dangerous and poses a national security threat, the U.S. must ensure the group is destroyed using the appropriate amount of force.

How will a ceasefire be negotiated with ISIS? Who is leading the group? When you think about it, the hurdles to peace, just relating to ISIS, are seemingly insurmountable.

There is a growing concern about exportation of terrorism by ISIS to America and other western nations. The threats are growing every day. When Al Qaeda became a huge security risk, the U.S. went to war with aircraft and soldiers. Why is ISIS any different?

 

 

 

By Sal Bommarito

President Obama defended the tactics he is employing against ISIS in a New York Times article. His speech to personnel at a New Jersey military base was chock full of upbeat assessments and zero facts.

“The United States and its partners [have] undercut the momentum of Islamic extremists.” “Americans will not back down and in the end, ‘we will get you.’” “We have blunted the momentum . . . and put them on the defensive.” I certainly didn’t learn very much about the progress of the war from our leader’s comments.

Americans want to know how many ISIS murderers have been killed and how many are still fighting and slaughtering innocent bystanders. The president said, “This campaign in Iraq will take time.” How much time and how much money? What are U.S. forces doing that will eventually bring ISIS to its knees?

In previous Middle East wars, the Department of Defense gave frequent briefings showing fighter jets and bombers destroying enemy encampments and armed vehicles. The president seems to believe that Americans will accept his vacuous remarks and not ask for more details.

Another story in the same newspaper describes life on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. It unleashes jet fighters to ISIS territory several hundred miles away daily. Two comments in the piece were particularly curious. One was that “Iraqi troops talk by radio to American controllers at Iraqi command centers, who in turn talk to Navy pilots to help pinpoint what to hit.” How productive can the pilots be with such an ineffective procedure?

The answer to this question came a few paragraphs later. “Three out of every four [bombing] missions still return with their bombs for lack of approved targets.” U.S. planes are not dropping 75% of their ordinance because they are unable to find targets. It’s no wonder that the ISIS war is going no place fast.

Later a pilot was quoted, “It wasn’t going so well there for a while, but the momentum seems to have reversed.” What a confidence builder.

I think it’s time the U.S. decided whether it is going to try to win this war, or not. If America does not deploy ground forces and controllers to guide air strikes, we are not going to do very much damage to ISIS and it will persevere.

The ISIS story is getting lost among other things that are happening domestically and globally. America cannot afford to participate in this conflict if it does not do everything possible to kill the enemy, end hostilities and protect our country.

 

Sal Bommarito

Congress is revving up discussions pertaining to “American involvement in the military campaign against [ISIS]” so says the New York Times. Frankly, the debate will likely become more contentious as Congress and the president jockey for control of the deployment of more soldiers to the region.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), is intent on establishing appropriate roles for the Executive and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government in wartime situations. Mr. Menendez stated, “Congress rather than the executive has the responsibility and the authority to authorize military action and to declare war. [Congress is] the check and balance on executive power, . . .”

The president has indicated that he has the “legal authority” to fight against the Islamic State, this being an obvious difference from Menendez’ position. Yet, Secretary of State, John Kerry, is asking Congress to officially grant the president flexibility in his deliberations in the ISIS conflict. The most important issue relates to the use of ground troops.

The president has categorically said the U.S. will not deploy ground forces other than military advisors. However, Kerry said circumstances might arise in which the use of ground forces would be necessary, such as “the seizure of a hidden cache of chemical weapons by the Islamic State or the seizure of hostages.”

Congress, reflecting the mood of the American public, does not want to give free rein to Obama fearing that he will engage the U.S. in another long-term security and nation-building project. But, a strong case can be made that the president is the commander-in-chief, and he should have great latitude to lead the military in times of crisis.

When one boils down all the rhetoric, the president is creating another confrontation with Congress to add to the health care and immigration battles. Also, as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) indicated, the president should be proposing a battle plan and required authorities, not responding to congressional limitations. He needs to lead the effort, not react to strategies formulated by Congress.

By Sal Bommarito

The humanitarian issues surrounding the ISIS crisis are becoming more problematic every day. Millions of people are being forced to leave their homes and their country as the jihadists continue their crusade to kill all non-Arabs and Muslims who do not accept their version of Islam.

Interestingly, several countries have been more than generous by accepting refugees whose lives are endangered; Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon have welcomed many refugees over the past several months. These acts of kindness are not without serious repercussions. The cost of housing, feeding and assimilating refugees has seriously impacted the financial, political and social equilibrium in these countries, so much so that most are becoming resistant to further migration.

Turkey presents the most complex set of circumstances as the care of refugees has become intertwined with the political and security aspirations of the Turkish government.

Negotiation between Turkey and the U.S. pertaining to border security are very important in the fight with ISIS and for refugees. Most thought that Turkey would be an excellent coalition partner and anxious to defeat the interlopers at any cost. But, as delineated in a previous essay on this blog, the relationship between the Turkey and the U.S. is strained because the former has other motivations that do not necessarily emphasize the defeat of ISIS and the safety of refugees amassing at its border. An article in the New York Times on Tuesday provides a good explanation of the current state of affairs.

First and foremost, Turkey wants the U.S. to establish a no-fly zone along its border with Syria. The U.S. continues to consider the request but is still dealing with differences between the nations along with a “specific course of implementation.”

No doubt the no-fly zone would “give Syrian rebels and innocent civilians [including refugees] protection from the Islamic State and the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.” The proposed buffer zone is where “tens of thousands of Syrians have sought protection.” Turkey has already accepted “more than 1.3 million refugees.”

Simultaneously, the U.S. is negotiating with Turkey to use its Incirilik air base so that American planes would not have to fly from the Persian Gulf to deliver bombs. The decision to give landing rights to American military aircraft, according to the Turks, is dependent upon the no-fly zone implementation. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also wants to the U.S. to assist in deposing Assad in trade for providing additional assistance in fighting ISIS. In the meanwhile, thousands of Syrians are being slaughtered or forced to live in squalor.

Criticism of Turkish demands and benign participation in the conflict has been significant. In fact, Turkey’s NATO allies have been saying that “[Turkey] is failing to do enough to fight the Sunni militant group.”

What was unsaid in the article is that Turkey continues to restrict Kurdish support of Syrian Kurds even as ISIS and the Syrian government attack the Syrians on the other side of the border. Turkey has ignored the humanitarian aspects of this decision and continues to be more concerned with not providing any assistance that could bolster efforts to establish a Kurdish state.

Turkey is one of many coalition allies that have motivations beyond the defeat of ISIS and the well being of refugees. Consider Iran and its efforts to link its nuclear program to its participation in the war with ISIS. This strategy is shortsighted given that the extremists are currently on the Turkish and Iranian borders. All Arab leaders would be wise to deal with this most deadly threat and defer other goals to a later day. A more accommodative role in the war will certainly benefit the millions of refugees.

By Sal Bommarito

Since the ISIS war began, many people have been asking why Iraqi soldiers are incapable of defending their own country, “despite [receiving] roughly $25 billion worth of American training and equipment over the past 10 years and from far more from the Iraqi treasury.” Has this money been squandered? Iraqi forces dropped their weapons the first time they encountered ISIS and many soldiers deserted. It’s hard to believe our military officials when they say the Iraqi Army was in battle ready condition after the U.S. withdrew troops.

A New York Times front-page article presents the reasons for the pathetic state of the Iraqi military. For starters, the Times told of three generals that are indicative of the current state of military readiness. One general is known as “chicken guy” because he sells his troops’ poultry provisions. Another general is “arak guy” because he drinks anise-flavored liquor while leading his men. And then there is “General Defta,” who sells army commissions for personal profit.

“Now the pattern of corruption and patronage in the Iraqi [military] threatens to undermine a new American-led effort to drive out the extremists.” U.S. military leaders know the Iraqi Army is an ineffective force, not likely to ever be able to provide necessary ground force support. Are our generals frightened to tell the president that his dependency on Iraq soldiers is a mistake? Are the generals concerned about being drummed out of the military if they speak the truth? In the meantime, bombing sorties are happening every day to little avail, and ISIS fighters are busy usurping more territory and beheading all those who resist.

The president wants the Iraqi Army to fend for itself and be the conduit for all weapons provided by the U.S for a “counteroffensive.” This includes $1.3 billion for armaments and $24.1 million for tribal members assistance. One might ask, what happened to the aforementioned $25 billion? The Times article implies that much of it is lining the pockets of corrupt generals and politicians as they sell U.S. equipment and supplies on the black market. Occasionally, U.S. weapons end up in the hands of ISIS fighters.

The article goes into detail about the amount of corruption in Iraq. All sorts of reasons for it are delineated. The incompetence the former Iraqi leader is mentioned along with the impact of continuing sectarian fighting. Nevertheless, few charges have been filed against the criminals. Only recently has the new Iraqi leader replaced 36 high-ranking soldiers with his cronies.

Are U.S. advisors supposed to deal with Iraqi military corruption or focus on the enemy? Can 3,000 American soldiers overlay a new ethos onto the Iraqi military complex? And if that’s ever accomplished will the soldiers be ready to go toe to toe with the ISIS animals?

At first, I was hesitant to push for U.S. ground forces. I still am apprehensive that putting our soldiers in harm’s way will enable the U.S. to bring peace to the region even if ISIS is destroyed. But, if the U.S. continues to bomb, fritter away money sent to Iraq and hope an efficient Iraqi ground force somehow evolves, ISIS will remain a huge threat to the region.

Congress must drill deep into this situation and demand an accurate accounting from U.S. generals. I believe the American people are being buffaloed about the progress of the war.