Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good! (Arrrgh)

Last week President Obama admitted that his administration has not worked out a strategy on how to deal with the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a dominant force in the Middle East. However, as ISIS continues its march through Syria and Iraq, many in the US administration believe it is, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a threat "beyond anything we have ever seen."

Predictably, the neocons attacked the president's speech. They believe the solution to any problem is more bombs and troops on the ground, so they cannot understand the president's hesitation.

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon made it clear that fighting ISIS is going to cost a lot more money and will bring US forces back to Iraq for the third time. The post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan peace dividend disintegrates.

"ISIS is an urgent threat and a minimalist approach, that depends solely on FY15 funding or pinprick strikes that leave fragile forces in Iraq and Syria to do the hard fighting, is insufficient to protect our interests and guarantee our safety in time," Mr. McKeon said last week.

What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will "print" more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.

A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!

McKeon and the other hawks act as if they had only recently become aware of the ISIS. Or if they noticed it, they pretend US policy had nothing to do with its rise.

McKeon also said last week, "ISIS threat was allowed to build and fester over a period of time."

In fact, US regime change policy in Syria was directly responsible for the rise of ISIS over these past three years. As journalist Eric Margolis observed recently, the emergence of ISIS is the "mother of all blowback." The neocons who want us to get tougher on ISIS, including a US attack on Syria, are the same ones who not long ago demanded that we support groups like ISIS to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. US-trained and funded "moderates" from the Free Syrian Army joined the Islamist militias including ISIS, taking US weapons and training with them.

Three years of supporting any force that might overthrow the secular government of President Assad has produced a new monster in the Middle East that neocons insist the US must slay.

Why can't they just admit they were wrong? Why can't the interventionists just admit that their support for regime change in Syria was a terrible and tragic mistake?

If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim, why can't they simply ask Assad to help out? Assad has never threatened the United States; ISIS has. Assad has been fighting ISIS and similar Islamist extremist groups for three years.

Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?

A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the president will finally stop listening to the neocons and interventionists whose recommendations have gotten us into this mess in the first place! Here's a strategy: just come home.

It would mean more than that. It would mean no trade whatsoever because as soon as you have trade with other countries you consequently create a national interest which you want to protect.

And even if you manage to isolate yourself from the rest of the world the rest of the world may not want you isolated - sort of what we did to Japan when they wanted to be left alone.

Oh, dear. When people start to throw "neocons" around it's usually because they can't spell "boogieman". Apparently Paul considers strategy only to consist of military invasion, which it clearly does not. My complaint with 0bama is that apparently he hasn't considered any strategic alternatives, which is, after all, his job. It's been six months since the thing really got active. That's an awful lot of golfing when he could and should have been coalition-building, an activity that neither he nor his Secretary of State appear to have engaged in if we are to believe the latter's recent public statements. We really, really need to do better than that.

Oh, I think I understand bammy's hesitation alright. He's lost. He and his cohorts in crime literally have no clue as to what they should do. I'll give them one small kudo for recognizing they are in over their heads and not rushing off and doing something stupid.

I need to make a correction to this assumption. I don't think he is lost at all. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's inflicting minimal damage via airstrikes to appease any generals who are still not loyal to him.. At the same time he pretends to dither which gives ISIS more time to grow. And the minimal airstrikes allow ISIS more recruitment propaganda. They are saying "See what America is doing...they are bombing us..we must fight brothers". But they're not really being affected at all.

Oh, dear. When people start to throw "neocons" around it's usually because they can't spell "boogieman".

Yeah, and to me, it invalidates their arguments.

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.

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.