Posted on 08/25/2014 6:01:20 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
The recent military successes of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, and the ongoing disintegration of Iraqs central government have created a strategic crisis for the United States. Barack Obamas belated, narrow authorization to use military force against the Islamic State does not constitute a coherent response, let alone a comprehensive one. The president seems curiously inactive, even as American influence in the region collapses and, not coincidentally, his political-approval ratings suffer. From the outset of the Islamic States campaign, his policies have been haphazard and confused, especially the halting, timid decision to intervene militarily. And, based on his record as president, there is no reason to believe a strategic vision of the Middle Easts future will ultimately emerge from his administration.
Approving U.S. military force against the Islamic State on August 7, Obama stressed two limited goals: protecting U.S. civilian and military personnel in Irbil, the Kurdish capital, which the Islamic State was rapidly nearing; and aiding refugees who had fled as the group advanced into Iraq from Syria.(snip)
Americas basic objective is clear: We must seek to destroy the Islamic State. It is simply not enough to block the groups threat to the Kurds or other vulnerable minorities in the region. The risks of even a relatively small state (or caliphate, as they proclaim it) are chilling. Leaving the Islamic State in place and in control only of its current turf in Iraq and Syria (including northern-Iraqi hydrocarbon deposits and associated infrastructure) would make it viable economically and a fearsome refuge for terrorists of all sorts. Just as Afghanistans Taliban gave al-Qaeda a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11, a similar result could follow if the Islamic State successfully erased and then redrew existing boundaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
...and what’s Clown Prince nobama’s tee time today? Are the golf carts well-charged? The menu for this evening’s meal...is the food fresh?
‘The risks of even a relatively small state (or caliphate, as they proclaim it) are chilling. Leaving the Islamic State in place and in control...’
All well and good but what is he really proposing? To me it sounds a lot like he wants a fight w/ Iran. After all its Iran thats 1) The Islamic state (courtesy of the US BTW), 2) keeps the entire region in constant turmoil and 3) is the major sponsor of all the little Islamic uprisings around the world.
Imagine a president who actually likes America!
Unfortunately, our restrained military responses to radical Islam are akin to discovering termites in your home and trying to kill them one by one as you see them instead of tenting and fumigating the entire house.
“there is no reason to believe a strategic vision of the Middle Easts future will ultimately emerge from his administration.”
A US President’s “strategic vision” of the Middle East’s future (even a vision of complete disengagement) normally implies pursuit of US interests, somehow defined. But Obama interprets such influence and pursuits as colonialism, and sees US strategic visions as inherently malign. As a result he does not lead, but reacts to events when forced to by politics, in an uncoordinated, limited, decidedly un-strategic way. This train wreck is no accident. His vision is a void.
How can you destroy something when, for whatever reason, you can’t even name it.
I wish that people who call for battle had time served on active duty for 3 or more years if they were physically able to do so.
The problem will be trying to convince a president to destroy his own creation.
Amb. Bolton gets it. For more than a decade, he gets it about the Middle East & the world.
He would make a superb Secretary of State under President Cruz or President Perry.
Bolton is right that the new Islamic fascist state MUST be destroyed before it destroys western civilization. However he misses the point that it is Islam itself that is the root cause of this threat. In WW-II we not only fought to destroy the German fascist state, but also Nazism, the ideology that created it. I see this situation as being no different.
Shut up, Bolton. You and your friends did everything you could to launch this blood-soaked disaster. You have no credibility, and evidently no shame. Just shut up.
Americans don’t want more “war”. Rand Paul is counting on this sentiment to win the White House. He is even calling Hillary a warmonger today.
John Bolton, the best foreign policy expert we have. He should have been Secretary of State.
How so?
I wish that some former service members understood they have no more claim on policy decisions than any other patriotic American.
In fact, anyone concerned with supporting policies that run a very real chance of conflicting with ones personal convictions should AVOID standard military service. Which STILL does not void their freedom to promote or condemn any particular policy.
The "Chickenhawk" smear is an old and thoroughly discredited canard to anyone who has been paying attention.
Shall we review the case? We now have no bases in Iraq capable of supporting offensive combat operations, no political will in the new Iraqi administration to establish them, we have few field troops in theater anywhere, our potential ally Assad (and yes, I'm aware of what he is) has experienced systematic efforts to destabilize and evict from office courtesy of the same administration that now will need his help, and so just might be a bit less than enthusiastic about the whole thing, Turkey is in the hands of an Islamist administration that has taken the power from its army, Iran is stuck trying to decide whether it hates the U.S. more than ISIS and would be perfectly happy to help both sides lose, the Saudis are duplicitous as ever, and the fellow who is the principal leader of ISIS is a former prisoner that 0bama freed in 2009.
That's an awful long litany of foreign policy fecklessness and incompetence, and I haven't even brought up Libya and Egypt. And so with this track record we're supposed to gallop over the burning sands like some Hollywood production, evicting the usurpers to the universal cheers of the locals all around? That just isn't going to happen. ISIS wouldn't be where it is if it didn't enjoy at least some tribal support. There just aren't that many of them.
We play their game if we try to chase ghosts in the desert from bases we've only tentatively borrowed. The Caliphate is not yet a state. When and if it becomes one its proprietors will have assets to attack, ground to hold, if they are to be considered a state at all. That game we happen to be very good at, as Saddam Hussein might testify.
And so while I agree with Bolton's sentiments and his dark view of the likely nature of the Caliphate I'm not sure the time or our allies or potential allies are right. And I know our leadership isn't right.
What planet are u from, what a load of crap
Apparently the same planet as the good people at Hotair, The Federalist, and Breitbart. What planet are you from, Mr. Dan Rather?
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.