Posted on 09/14/2014 10:41:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Barack Obama said Wednesday night the United States is going to war "to degrade and ultimately destroy" the group known as the Islamic State.
So right off you know one thing we will not do: destroy it. The only thing more reliable than the habit of American presidents of starting wars is the inability of wartime presidents to achieve their goals.
President George W. Bush went into Afghanistan pledging to wipe out al-Qaida and the Taliban. He invaded Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, while promising that the creation of "free Iraq" would be "a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
Nice try. The Taliban is alive and well in Afghanistan, and there is no end in sight in our fight against al-Qaida groups in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Hussein had no WMDs for us to find. Iraq is embroiled in a sectarian conflict that has done nothing to spread democracy -- but did cause the turmoil that gave rise to the Islamic State.
Obama launched an air war in Libya because, he said, allowing Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power would foster "chaos and lawlessness" and create "a new safe haven for extremists." Today, the Associated Press reports, Libya is "further crumbling into a failed state," and Obama's State Department lists the country as -- yep -- "a terrorist safe haven."
The trusted formula for business success is "underpromise, overdeliver." American presidents make a practice of raising expectations they can't meet.
This is another unnecessary war against an overblown foe. "ISIS has no ability to attack inside the United States, American and allied security officials say, and it is not clear to intelligence officials that the group even wants to," The New York Times reported after the president's speech.
Obama seems to think we can decimate the Islamic State and empower the people of Iraq and Syria through missiles and bombs. But where does he get this unshakable faith in air power?
We have been vaporizing al-Qaida fighters in Pakistan for years, and the organization still has a solid presence there. We're not exactly winning hearts and minds, either: A 2012 Pew Research Center poll found that three out of four Pakistanis regard the United States as their enemy.
Obama claims to be relying on a tried-and-true approach. "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years," he said.
Pursued? Yes. Successfully? Not so much. Reports The Washington Post, "None of those groups has been eradicated, or even degraded to a degree that would allow U.S. counterterrorism operations to end."
In June, a damning report came from a panel of experts commissioned by the Stimson Center in Washington and chaired by retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
"The Obama administration's heavy reliance on targeted killings as a pillar of U.S. counterterrorism strategy rests on questionable assumptions, and risks increasing instability and escalating conflicts," it concluded. Meanwhile, "Islamic extremist groups have grown in scope, lethality and influence in the broader area of operations in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia."
How can all our efforts yield such dismal results? It's called "blowback." The task force noted that even small numbers of civilian fatalities "can anger whole communities, increase anti-U.S. sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations."
The United States is not incapable of fighting reasonably successful wars. It did so in the 1991 Iraq war, the 1999 Kosovo war and the 1989 invasion of Panama. In each case, we had a well-defined adversary in the form of a government, a limited goal and a clear path to the exit.
We generally fail, though, when we undertake open-ended efforts to stamp out radical insurgents in societies alien to ours. We lack the knowledge, the resources, the compelling interest and the staying power to vanquish those groups.
The Islamic State is vulnerable to its local enemies -- which include nearly every country in the region. But that doesn't mean it can be destroyed by us. In fact, it stands to benefit from one thing at which both Obama and Bush have proved adept: creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
We don't know how to conduct a successful war against the Islamic State. So chances are we'll have to settle for the other kind.
President Barack Obama said Wednesday night the United States is going to war “to degrade and ultimately destroy” the group known as the Islamic State.
Obama is only going to deplete our military resources and accomplish nothing of consequence in the destruction of ISIS.
This will be a disaster. If we have another president, he will have a hell of a time.
Regardless...................
THEY are at war with the rest of the human race.
FYI—that means US too!
Oil smuggling, theft, extortion: How ISIS earns $3M a day
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3203962/posts
Obama never Gave War a Chance in Iraq and even though many military leaders advised him against abandoning the people of Iraq, Obama continued with the Status of Forces Agreement that he and other liberals demanded be signed in 2008.
Iraq will be the only war where we had a clear a decisive victory under one Commander in Chief, but imedadiatly squandered that victory under the next president.
It would be the equivalent of World War II with FDR dying just as we were on the verge of victory and Truman the handing victory to Japan and Germany.
Obama did just that in Iraq, as the people of Iraq were happy to be liberated by President Bush, but Obama turned a land of peace, into even more war.
If you’re going to defeat the enemy you need naval, air and Marine forces to transport, degrade and establish bridgeheads. However you need your Army to take and hold ground. These truisms have held from WWII to the present. Air alone just trashes things up and, ultimately, makes the civilians angry.
The boy-king will have to turn in his precious Nobel prize, won’t he?
0bama has to do something that he is repulsed by, being in charge of the greatest bunch of guys and gals in the world.
0bama must try to be something that he is not, a man.
ISIS has no ability to attack America? Unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS is an oil state with billions in revenue. This leftist is on crack.
A small battlefield nuke strategically placed would end this thing for a long time.
Although both Republicans and Democrats have made many mistakes with foreign policy, after reading his columns and “wisdom” over the years, Chapman might be the near the bottom of the list of pundits whose advice I would take...on anything. He gets everything wrong.
Eliminating 10% of ISIS is insufficient. We have to aim for closer to 100%.
I was referring to and quoting Obama... and I agree with you about Chapman.
...going to war “to degrade and ultimately destroy”...reluctantly.
Brave Congress.
NEVER!
I’ll have to put him on my Seth Borenstein list after reading this. He doesn’t have the guts to mention the “K” word— “Kurds.” Without what they have done over the past month, we’d be in total collapse. In spite of himself, Obama gave them just enough help.
Agreed. The Kurds require help.
They were rock solid allies and friends during the Iraq war. No matter what this leftist, mush headed writer thinks, you do not leave your friends swinging in the breeze.
Nice people. A little bit close until they get to know you, but they’ll give you the shirt off their back.
People conveniently forget that Bush stated several goals, WMD being only one. Shooting at our planes was enough reason to take Saddam down. The UN had 17 resolutions against Saddam and voted strongly in favor of Bush taking action.
In addition, if Saddam had remained he would have covertly re constituted his WMD program. But fools think otherwise.
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.