What’s he gonna do to decide yes, or no; flip his Nobel Peace Prize medal?
His Magic 8 ball has all the answers..................
Posted on 09/18/2014 9:22:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A man who’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political directors, and who knows more about policy than his policy advisors must surely also be a better general than his generals, no?
The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes in Syrian territory, officials said.
The requirements for strikes in Syria against the extremist group Islamic State will be far more stringent than those targeting it in Iraq, at least at first. U.S. officials say it is an attempt to limit the threat the U.S. could be dragged more deeply into the Syrian civil war…
Throughout President Obama’s time in office, the White House has kept close control of counterterrorism targeting, reserving the right to sign off on strikes against al Qaeda and other militant targets in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Defense officials said that the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counterterrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief.
So we’re back to the ol’ war/counterterrorism distinction. In “war,” the military has great discretion in deciding whom to target; in counterterrorism, the president has a “kill list” and personally gives thumbs up or thumbs down. Maybe this is how O reassures himself that we’re not joining the war in Syria: If we’re following counterterrorism protocols, then this must be a counterterror operation, right? Or maybe, given the kaleidoscope of groups on the ground right now in Syria — ISIS, the Al Qaeda-allied Nusra Front, various other Sunni Islamists, Assad’s troops, the IRGC, Hezbollah, and of course the “moderates” — Obama wants to take extra precautions to make sure we don’t end up bombing someone who’s supposed to be nominally on our side. Pretty much no one on the Hill, Democrats included, thinks we’re going to find and vet 5,000 reliable Sunni partners in the midst of all this. If we can’t tell who the good guys and bad guys are from the ground, imagine how hard it is from the air.
There’s a third possibility: Maybe Obama just doesn’t trust his generals to fight the war by half-measures, as he himself prefers for political reasons. Martin Dempsey blew America’s mind a few days ago by suggesting that some number of U.S. ground troops may need to enter the fray sooner or later; Iraq skeptic Anthony Zinni has been calling for ground troops for the past several weeks. A poll of “security insiders” by National Journal reveals 63 percent think Obama’s ISIS strategy will fail, with many saying that it simply doesn’t go far enough to counter the threat. And a national poll of the public by Pew found that as many Americans fear that O’s strategy will do too little to stop ISIS than that it’ll too much to drag the U.S. into another long conflict. All of which is to say that a lot of people, experts and non-experts alike, worry that Obama’s planning to half-ass operations in Iraq and Syria to spare Democrats from accusations that they’re getting sucked into another “quagmire.” Could be that O fears that if he gives his generals a wide berth, they’ll seize the opportunity to hit Syria more broadly than he’d like and suddenly he’ll be getting pummeled with the quagmire narrative anyway. Hard to see how that would happen with an air campaign, but any sort of mission creep (e.g., if the Pentagon starts targeting non-ISIS jihadis or even some Assad anti-aircraft units) might invite it.
Or, I suppose, there’s a fourth possibility — that’s there’s so much western covert action happening inside Syria right now by U.S. and UK forces that O wants to take special care that the Pentagon’s air ops don’t end up inadvertently hitting any of them. A man can dream, can’t he?
RE: Micro management cost us Vietnam,
Yep. And this is micromanagement from a community organizer with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE, who probably doesn’t even know how to shoot a gun.
What could go wrong??
LBJ and MacNamara used this technique in Vietnam with predictable results. What a narcissistic doofus!
Yup
B4L8R
I just cannot see O micro-managing. That would mean he has to be close to the Situation Room. That would mean his golfing would be severely curtailed.
I can see him delegating this to someone else. If things go good, O will take the credit. If things go bad, someone else will take the blame. O is not going to put himself in a position where HE is perceived as the responsible party, especially if things go bad.
When will he move on to requiring personal loyalty oaths and stuff like that?
LBJ all over again.
Ha, Hitler wouldn’t listen to his Military leaders when they attacked Russia. So he removed them and took over.
The rest is History...
Johnson did the same thing in Vietnam, wanting to show off his ‘tactical military planning’ skills. It blew up in his face. Now Obozo wants to show the world he’s a ‘great military leader’, not unlike Kim Jong Un.........................
Not long ago I posted a comment about ‘advisers’ sucking us into a major conflict again — shades of Vietnam — when O was thinking about sending military-but-not-boots-on-the-ground back to Iraq.
I got skewered by a few FReepers.
This is looking too much like history repeating itself.
What’s he gonna do to decide yes, or no; flip his Nobel Peace Prize medal?
His Magic 8 ball has all the answers..................
And also believe that electronic gadgets are better with intel than feet on the street.
Oh, no he didn't! The WH said that's not true!!!
[/sarc] with an eyeroll thrown in for good measure...
Sounds like LBJ Syndrome...........
Maybe O thinks he has another RESET Button. In case things go bad, he can push it and get a do-over.
==
Folks, the Republican Party, the conservatives alone, or SOMEBODY has got to produce a 2016 Presidential candidate who is charismatic, tough, has a military & executive background, & HONEST.
I know that’s asking for a lot, but if that is not our next President, the world will suffer greatly.
I do not see that person in the current potential candidates.
Come on all you big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again...
I keep being stunned by the complicity of our military leadership. Have they swung as far left as the administration? Seems so.
Then I recall all the officers who have been discharged in the last few years because they fail some trumped up loyalty oath created by this tyrant. Job security, I guess.
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.