Mr. Obama’s half-hearted fight against the Islamic State

The Washington Post ^ | 10-25-14 | Editorial

[afraidfortherepublic]

AN UNLIKELY consensus is emerging across the ideological spectrum about the war against the Islamic State: President Obama’s strategy to “degrade and eventually destroy” the terrorist entity is unworkable. It’s not just that, as some administration officials say, more time is needed to accomplish complex tasks such as training Iraqi and Syrian forces. It’s that the military means the president has authorized cannot accomplish his announced aims.

As Islamic State forces continue to advance in Iraq’s Anbar province while besieging the Syrian Kurdish city of Kobani, major weaknesses in the U.S.-led campaign have become apparent. One is a relatively modest tempo of airstrikes that in several cases has not been able to turn back advances by enemy forces. Another is the absence of ground trainers, advisers and special forces who could accompany Iraqi and Syrian forces, call in airstrikes and medical assistance, and help formulate tactics. A third is a de facto stance of neutrality toward the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, a stance that has allowed the regime to launch new offensives against the same rebel forces the United States is counting on to fight the Islamic State.

The limitations to the U.S. effort, which were mostly imposed by Mr. Obama, are prompting blunt assessments from senior Pentagon officials. “We need a credible, moderate Syrian force, but we have not been willing to commit what it takes to build that force,” one told The Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Said another officer: “You cannot field an effective force if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them.”

U.S. allies are also reacting to the holes in the strategy. Turkey has withheld military cooperation because of the absence of a strategy to counter the Assad regime.

[Vaquero]

No half hearted attempt, WaPo. Are you blind to the fact that he is on the OTHER SIDE??

[Vaquero]

Stop denigrating(racist word?) his intelligence.

He knows what evil he is doing and it is by design.

[Ben Ficklin]

"For Obama, it's especially not good now to have the Washington Post pointing out that he has no effective strategy yet"

The WaPo editorial board is controlled by the NeoCons, and they are always critical of Obama's foreign policy. In this particular case, it is well established that the NeoCons want to re-invade Iraq and have a second chance at "establishing a democracy at the point of a gun"

The editorial uses these phrases "unlikely consensus" and "some on both the left and right" to imply the Liberal Interventionist democrats have now swung to supporting the NeoCons desire to re-invade. The editorial also uses anonymous sources to imply that the US military wants to re-invade.

You say that he(Obama) has no strategy but the editorial criticizes Obama's two-fold strategy first in Iraq and second in Syria.

The editorial is critical of the new Iraqi Interior minister, Ghabbon, because he was/is head of a shia group that has ties to the Iran govt.

The Iraq govt that Bush/NeoCons set up and fought for has failed and the NeoCons want to re-invade and have a do-over.

[Baynative]

"half-hearted fight" = passive support

[SkyPilot]

While the Islamic State murderers themselves were calling their terrorist group "ISIS", it was Obama who repeatedly called them "ISIL" in every news conference and public appearance.

Why?

The Coded Message Obama Delivers When He Says ISIL Instead Of ISIS

He did it as a slap in the fact to Israel, a signal to the Islamic murderers to invade Israel, and to demonstrate his support of the Caliphate (that he funded and launched with his infamous Cairo speech in 2010).

Genesis 12:3 still applies. God never goes back on His Word.

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

If we all see American fall soon: financially, socially, economically - it will be because God's wrath and judgement are upon us. Our electorate has ASKED for this.

[SkyPilot]

He knows what evil he is doing and it is by design.

Exactly.

[onedoug]

Let’s hear it for the COWARDS in the House!

[Travis McGee]

[libstripper]

Shortly after the 2008 election I went to a local Chinese restaurant I often frequent. It was a beautiful, crisp, clear Indian Summer day. As I went in I thought that day was a perfect metaphor for what was happening to the United States because those last few weeks of the Bush administration, bad as it was in many ways, were an Indian Summer before the dark night of Islamocommunist totalitarianism that was to descend on us. Sadly, I was proven even more right than I thought I would be.

[libstripper]

I don’t think Obola “doesn’t have the balls to confront an enemy of the US if the enemy is Islamic. “ A coward is someone who knows the right thing to do but is afraid to do it. Obola,OTOH, is a virulently anti-American Islamocommunist who bitterly hates Americans and America who wants our communist and Islamist enemies to win. Thus, he’s playing a double game to hide his treason.

[Republican1795.]

Presuming the elections were even honest.

[Vaquero]

Obola,OTOH, is a virulently anti-American Islamocommunist who bitterly hates Americans and America who wants our communist and Islamist enemies to win. Thus, he’s playing a double game to hide his treason.

precisely....there is no stupidity, nor is there mishandling on the regimes part....everything this POSOTUS does is planned and for the purpose of the destruction of the U.S. of A...

the GOP led House is Blind and the Senate is on the side of the treason. I am waiting for someone of substance to take a stand and I will back them 100%. but the cowards and morons of the opposition (our guys, supposedly), currently are blindered, earpluged and self muzzled cowards, who do not want to be called racist.

[elhombrelibre]

Are you serious? The Washington Post is a neo-con pub? Do the Joooos own it?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Let’s hear it for the COWARDS in the House!Which "cowards" do you mean? Are you talking about those stalwart legislators who have voted to defund and to revoke Obamacare numerous times in numerous ways? Each time, "Hairy" Reid refuses to bring it to the floor in the Senate, as well as any other provision that would improve life in the USA.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Lord, have mercy!

[Ben Ficklin]

Fred Hiatt

[okie01]

those last few weeks of the Bush administration, bad as it was in many ways, were an Indian Summer before the dark night of Islamocommunist totalitarianism that was to descend on us. Sadly, I was proven even more right than I thought I would be.

It was so clear to us.

Yet, most of the nation was oblivious.

The difference being: we had access to the truth about Obama...the oblivious relied on the MSM (or quasi-news sources, like Jon Stewart...or People).

I don't know who to blame. The media. Or the voters. Probably both, in equal portion.

It's not that I was looking forward to a McCain administration, either...

[elhombrelibre]

“placed Hiatt fifth in his list of “The Left’s Top 25 Journalists” for the Daily Beast[20] and third in the similar list he coauthored for Forbes Magazine.”

[Ben Ficklin]

I was directing your attention to the paragraph above the one from which you quoted.

You can also go back thru time and look at other WaPo house editorials on foreign policy and they consistently take the NeoCon position and criticize Obama

Then there are numerous NeoCon columnists who are published at WaPo such as Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Jennifer Rubin, George Will, Marc Theissen, Michael Gerson, etc.

You can also do google search of "Washington Post NeoCon".

The point being, this Wapo editorial criticizing Obama is not out of place at Wapo or significant.

[elhombrelibre]

And, as you probably know, there are also Liberals on the Washington Post editorial staff.

George Will, by the way, was never a liberal or a leftist. Usually, it's that transition that is a huge part of the distinction. In saying this, Ronald Reagan would fit the description of a neo-con, but I don't know anyone who thinks of him as such. Many isolationist like to think that any conservative who favors a forward defense of the USA as a neo-con, but this is a spin, it seems to me, that's only accepted by those isolationist trying to imply less than stellar conservative credentials onto the supposed "neo-con."