Posted on 09/13/2014 9:09:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama came into office in 2009 telling the American people he would end the wars against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Six years later, facing a broader and more lethal terrorist threat, he is now telling us why we need to go to war again.
To say Obama can't seem to make up his mind in the war on terror (a designation his administration stopped using the day he entered the Oval Office) is putting it mildly.
If anything, his naive plan of withdrawal and retreat, and the way it was carried out in the face of a growing terrorist menace, was the height of irresponsibility. Obama created a geopolitical vacuum into which a new and more deadly form of terrorism has spread like a cancer throughout the region and into North Africa and beyond.
A few weeks ago, he flatly told the American people he had no strategy to deal with the rise of the Islamic State's armies that have rampaged, unimpeded, across Syria and Iraq, and were believed to be plotting to attack the U.S. homeland and our allies.
This week, he went on nationwide television to tell us he now has a strategy to degrade and destroy the terrorist killers known as ISIS in both Iraq and in Syria, where only a few days before he was unwilling to go.
He said this new offensive would be entirely done with airstrikes and there would be no "boots on the ground." But 1,043 military personnel remain in Iraq, and Obama said he will be sending 475 more Americans. Presumably, all of them will be ground forces.
He had prematurely and thoughtlessly declared an end to the Iraq war three years ago, as he was withdrawing the last of our combat forces there. Obviously, the war was not over, or at least the terrorists didn't think so.
If you have doubts that a well-thought-out strategy can be developed in so short a time, you're in good company. It smacked of a slapdash, hastily put together response in the midst of his precipitous decline in the polls -- especially about the job he was doing as commander in chief.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 47 percent of Americans now feel the country is less safe than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. Just 32 percent of Americans said they approved of Obama's handling of foreign policy, his lowest rating since his presidency began in 2009.
If that's not bad enough for the politically besieged White House, the Gallup Poll delivered worse news this week. A new poll showed that the Republicans are now seen as the "better party" to handle the war against terrorism.
So Obama made a sudden, frantic, about-face decision to step up the war on terrorism, knowing both he and his party had lost the confidence of the American people, who now doubt he is capable of keeping us safe.
Indeed, it should be clear by now that Obama had sold them a bill of goods.
Throughout the course of his 2012 re-election campaign, he repeatedly told us the terrorist threat had ended under his leadership, that al-Qaida's high command had been decimated and that their forces were "on the run."
Now we know such claims were utterly false, and U.S. intelligence knew they were false. Al-Qaida, in fact, was producing spin-off cells that had metastasized into a much larger, deadlier, well-funded and better-trained terrorist threat.
But Obama and his campaign were selling a different reality to his political base and his apologists in the news media. And they bought it hook, line and sinker.
Here's a sampling of what he was peddling on May 1, 2012, in an address from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan:
"My fellow Americans, we've traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq war is over. ... We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al-Qaida."
But that's not anywhere near the perilous situation we face today -- not even close. The Islamic State's armies have seized significant territory in Iraq, taken control of key oil facilities and pushed closer to Baghdad.
They occupy vast stretches of Syria, free at this point from any fear of attacks from U.S. fighter planes or drones. The Taliban remains a force to be reckoned with as it continues its assault on government forces in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida operatives are there, too, playing a waiting game since most U.S. forces will leave in 2015.
Terrorist forces are at work elsewhere across the Middle East, with Lebanon and Jordan among their next targets, and have spread elsewhere in Yemen, Somalia and Libya.
But can a U.S. air war alone effectively degrade and, in the final analysis, defeat the terrorists in Iraq and Syria?
U.S. commanders say that will prove to be a huge, and in many ways, almost impossible challenge. Especially without a major ground-level operation to locate enemy encampments and guide airstrikes to their targets.
It will be hardest in Syria, where we face this conundrum: Killing Islamic State terrorists and al-Qaida will strengthen Bashar Assad's war on moderate insurgents seeking to overthrow his brutal dictatorship.
"This is the most complex problem we've faced since 9/11. We don't have a precedent for this," a U.S. general told The Washington Post.
Yet another disturbing question hangs over Obama's long-delayed decision to aggressively deal with the Islamic State's nearly yearlong, multiple-state offensive.
These terrorists are dug in among civilian populations, which raises serious collateral damage problems for U.S. airstrikes, in which large numbers of innocent civilians could be killed and wounded.
Obama may find that making speeches is the easy part of being commander in chief. Plotting an effective and successful military strategy is another matter entirely. Especially a politically driven strategy as hastily taped together as this one appears to be.
I really like how when you copied and pasted the article, you left off the ‘P’ from President, describing Obama as ‘resident Obama’. That really accurately describes him. He does not Preside over the nation, he ‘resides’ in the White House. From now on, he’s (lower case) ‘resident Obama’. It suits him perfectly.
Everything is designed to give Obama the appearance of leadership so that the MSM can gush over him and try to save the Democrats in the November election.
Obama never dreamed his policies of apologies and submission to violent forces wouldn’t work. Perceiving the world through the liberal prism of fantasy has been totally discredited, but will any lessons be learned?
Hey! Where’s his Panther Whiz? He needs to be down with the homies! LOL.
I know there are ignorant voters out there. We've seen that in the last couple of elections, but there are also smart voters. The bad ones are the ones who either don't care and just sit at home instead of voting. Or those who think the party must be punished and vote third party which is a waste of time
Just a few words....Obama and his Obamabot ilk are not the sharpest knives in the drawer....far from it!!! November, 2014 is coming....Folks turn out and vote to destroy every Democrat running for office across the country. destroy the Democrat Party and you destroy Obama...the destroyer of the American nation!!!
Well, except for the eye strain caused by all those teleprompters...
These terrorists are dug in among civilian populations, which raises serious collateral damage problems for U.S. airstrikes, in which large numbers of innocent civilians could be killed and wounded....They are Muslims, correct? What IS the downside of this? I don’t think the muzzies said “Sorry ‘Bout that” for the 3000 civilians killed on 911/01. Kill them all. Let God sort out the ‘radical Muzzies’ from the muzzies who just haven’t come up to bat yet.
Every military decision he has made has been half-assed and politically motivated.
Definition of is is ping.
Susan Rice on ISIS: There’s a difference between a war and a counterterrorism operation, you know
hotair.com | 9/12/2014 | Allahpundit
Posted on 9/13/2014 12:05:29 PM by rktman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3203666/posts
Everything is politically motivated by that arrogant pos
So many times in the past 6+ years, I have been reminded of a song by the Doobie Brothers, with the line “a fool sees what he believes”. So painfully true since this administration, it’s supporters and media shills have taken over.
Good article but the second sentence about not making up his mind is dead wrong. The real problem is his mind was made up before he had any information at all. Its not a matter of indecisive, although he is, its more that he simply thought he was intelligent because he won an election. He was 100% incorrect.
“I don’t think the muzzies said ‘Sorry ‘Bout that’ for the 3000 civilians killed on 911/01. Kill them all.”
You probably know we had killed civilians in the Mid-East and elsewhere before 9/11, and had supported Israel and other states that had killed partly on our behalf. So the terrorists of 9/11 could’ve used your same logic, i.e. there weren’t any innocents, really. Our government perpetrates evil in our name, and if every Muslim, all one billion-plus if them, is guilty for the actions of evert other Muslim, be they next door or across the world, we aren’t you guilty of killing the uncounted masses of civilians killed in Iraq, Part II?
Either deliberately targeting civilians is terrorism or it isn’t. If it isn’t when we do it because we’re bigger, then we have no moral advantage. Either people who have nothing to do with murder but are somehow tied to the murderers—being fellow citizens, co-religionists, or whatever—are guilty or they aren’t. If we condemn Muslims in Indonesia, for instance, for the actions of some lawless militia somewhere in Syria and Iraq, or wherever, but excuse ourselves from complicity in the crimes of our own government, then we are hypocrites.
Muzzies have declared war on every civilized peoples for over 1400 years. I do not believe in giving quarter to any brigand, pirate or thief no matter who they say they are doing it for. If they don’t want to become (or act) civilized, the onus must be placed them. What is an innocent Muzzie by the way? I’ll tell: A terrorist that hasn’t come to bat, yet.
Some “Muzzies” have declared war on some parts of civilization. Even among the worst outlaws, a lot if them have no interest in Tu Manchu-type plots to conquer the world, but are interested in the same thing Western governments are interested in, only they actually live in the places we pretend dominion over. Europeans and Americans have mismanaged their affairs since WWI (and before, though not as decisively). At least some of them are fighting back against outside corruption of their civilization, as opposed to fighting against all civilization.
Do you have any idea how many Muslims there are in the world, and how many have nothing whatsoever to do with “terrorism” (however we define that)? You might as well be an Englishman counseling the slaughter of Catholic Irishmen over here to deal with “the Troubles” back home, only killing “muzzies” is far worse, as there were merely millions of American Irish compared to the more than a billion Muslims.
Besides, this certainty of yours that they, whoever they happen to be and whatever they’re doing, represent an evil so pure that you need not bother with which if them are actually guilty of anything, is dangerous. Churchill and FDR had an unreasonable certainty that Hitler represented pure evil, so much so that collaboration with an equally or more evil Russia seemed justified. The result was 50 or so years of cold war and a good portion of the world in chains. Things are not simple just because you don’t feel like making moral distinctions. God can sort it out in the other world, but meantime in ours you may have contributed to the rise of new, unexpected evils.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.