PolitiFact: Comparing the GOP candidates' ISIS strategies with Obama's
Some Republican presidential candidates have been quick to criticize President Barack Obama's ISIS strategy, but how different are the alternatives they offer? And how detailed?
Linda Qiu of PolitiFact takes a look:
How did Republicans describe President Barack Obama's ISIS strategy at the most recent presidential primary debate in Las Vegas? "Wrong," "reckless," "left us unsafe," "leads from behind" and "feckless weakling."
Behind that rhetoric, however, the proposals offered by the GOP field contain little detail or largely follow the White House's plan.
The biggest issue is how few specifics the Republican candidates offer on how they would fight ISIS, the terrorist group that currently occupies territory in Syria and Iraq.
"When no one defines their terms, deals with key issues like where and when, or changes in land forces, then no one knows how much they agree or differ," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Christopher Preble, a defense and foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, noted that while it's easy to disparage Obama's policies, the critics aren't offering anything different.
"You'd expect them to stake out positions that are obviously hawkish - large number of troops, more involvement, limited amount of negotiations - but I haven't seen that to be very honest," Preble said.