U.S. Weakness: by Design

[Reality Check]

Russia's military under Putin appears to be very, very strong compared to the United States.

A ragtag group of Muslim Fundamentalists, the Islamic State, ( lacking support from any minor country, let alone support form a great power ) have not only survived a year long combat air war against the world's only super power, but they, the Islamic State, have grown every month in terms of the size and experience of their military force, but also in terms of the territories they control, in both Iraqi and Syrian population centers.

This is all happening at a time when the President of the United States, the leader of the only Super Power on Earth, is promising to degrade and destroy the Islamic State.

The United States announces how many air sorties have been flown against ISIS each week, and yet ISIS is growing stronger and more experienced by virtually all measurements.

Russia, by contrast, flew a handful of fighter planes into Syria less than a month ago, and already the New York times reports that:

Russia is conducting as many air strikes in Syria every day, as the United States and it's coalition has conducted during an entire month, in any of the entire last 9 months against ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world ... otice.html

Russia’s fighter jets are, for now at least, conducting nearly as many strikes in a typical day against rebel troops opposing the government of President Bashar al-Assad as the American-led coalition targeting the Islamic State has been carrying out each month this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world ... otice.html

How is it possible that Putin and Russia appear so strong, and the Obama and the United States appear so weak ?

Is Putin really that much smarter, and is Putin really that much more capable than Obama ?

It is impossible to know why Obama ( or Putin ) did what they did, and also impossible to know what exactly their motivations were, but it is very possible to identify what they did and why Putin's set of strategies and tactics is working so well to achieve stated objectives, and the Obama's set of the tactics and strategies are failing, to achieve Obama's stated goals.

[Reality Check]

Russia's stated goals in Syria are to help the Syrian government win the civil war, and Russia is using a fraction of the resources Obama is using. This represented a formidable goal given the non-Syrian government forces in Syria were supported by regional countries ( including Turkey, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, and the Wealthy Gulf States ) and also the only world super power ( the United States ) is actively supporting the removal of the long time Syrian government from power, in addition the Super Power and the regional powers supporting the Syrian rebels enjoyed uncontested air superiority over Syria for more than a year, before Russian fighter aircraft entered Syria less than one month ago.

Obama's stated goals were much simpler and easier to achieve. Degrade and destroy a non-state player without any allied, countries supporting the non-state player, and the United States enjoyed uncontested air superiority over the non-state player and the United States was allied with all the countries around Syria and the government of Syria was not opposing the United States destroying the non-State player operating in an area of Syria that the government did not control.

Yet the United States, after a year of fighting ISIS ( the non-state player ) was at best NOT making any progress toward degrading and destroying ISIS, and at worst ISIS was growing and winning the battle against the United States and it's coalition by many measurements.

Russia, by contrast, entering the war more than a year after the United States started it's air war against ISIS to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, and after just a month of Russia's air war, Russia is well on it's way to achieving the first phase of it's war in support of the Syrian Government, after just one month.

What is different in the way Russia approached achieving it's goal and the way the United States approached it's goal ???

What makes Russia appear so strong and the United States appear so weak, in achieving their different goals ???

[Reality Check]

The U.S. had the option of placing it's attack aircraft at a secure location that was single digit minutes away from ISIS.

In a territory that the civilian population was 100% pro-American and had a proven ground force that would fight to the death against ISIS and in defense of their ally the United States. The air resupply mission to this airbase was across the territory of the United States' two most reliable allies in the Middle East ( Israel and Jordan ) and across either portions of Syria, and/or, portions of Iraq, not controlled by the Iraqi government, nor controlled by the Syrian government. This is the location that would have been as effective as the area the Russians elected to place their air craft in.

The Russian's by comparison chose to place it's much smaller number of attack aircraft right next to the areas it was planning on attacking, protected by Syrian government forces and it's own limited Russian ground forces. The Russian's took a risk and flew it's attack aircraft, it's fighter aircraft, and it's resupply aircraft, in through air space the U.S. led Anti-ISIS Coalition had air superiority in, counting on the U.S. having weak leadership. The Russians won that bet.

The U.S. Air Force could have placed it's attack aircraft at the large international airport in the Kurdish region of Iraq, protected by the Kurdish militias, which have been the most effective ground force against ISIS. This location would have placed the U.S.right next to the ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria ( placing U.S. ground attack aircraft within single digit minutes of ISIS combat forces ). The U.S. could have resupplied this area by air by flying over Israel and Jordan and over portions of Iraq controlled by non Iraqi government forces, and/or portions of Syria controlled by non-government forces. The transport aircraft could have been defended by U.S. fighter air craft flying out of Jordanian and/or Kurdish air fields. The U.S. could have also resupplied overland through Turkey, the United States NATO Ally, more cheaply.

Instead the U.S. elected to fly attack mission against ISIS hundreds of miles, from air craft carriers operating on Seas far, far from ISIS.

The U.S. attack air craft spend many, many hours in the air flying to and from ISIS targets versus the single digit minutes the Russians fly.

Add to this the fact that most U.S. Aircraft do not actually drop any bombs ( because all targets must be approved in real time by the White House ),during their missions, and most U.S. ground attack air craft return to their ships with the bombs still attached, or ditch the bombs doing no damage to the Islamic States. It is easy to understand how the Russians carry out more airstrikes each day with a much smaller number of airplanes, than the U.S. does in an entire month, during any of the previous 9 calendar months.