Here are a few more questions that ought to be the subject of discussion at the White House. I say "ought to be" because I it does not appear as if anyone there has been giving these questions much thought.
1. Will it harm America's national interests to have a Sunni terrorist state created in the middle of Syria and Iraq? (This really should be a given, not a question, but the Obamacrats seem unable to get their arms around this one.)
2. After years when most folks in the administration clung to the belief that the principal cause of unrest in the Middle East was the Arab-Israeli conflict, is the administration now ready to admit that this belief is wrong? (Will they now realize that the Sunni-Shiite sectarian fight is much more important than anything that happens with Israel?)
3. Is it in the long term strategic interests of the USA to allow Iran to gain control of roughly 10% of the world's oil output? (That's the result if Iraq becomes a full vassal state to Iran.)
4. Is it in the long term interests of the USA to allow Europe to be dependent for its energy on Russia? (We all saw what happened with Ukraine.)
These are not surprise questions. They are, instead, questions which should have been answered long ago at the White House. Our policies around the world should be influenced and directed by the obvious answers to these questions. Indeed, by answering these basic questions, much of the debate about how to react to recent events would have been made unnecessary.
The problem is that president Obama does not like to decide questions of this sort. Actually, he does not like to decide much of anything. If you don't see that, I suggest that you think about it for a moment. When Obama took office, he asked Congress for a massive stimulus package. Do you remember that Obama did not propose that package to Congress; he just asked Congress for such a measure and it was put together by Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats in Congress. Obama never decided what had to be in it. When Obamacare was being completed, there never was a draft of the bill circulated by the administration. Obamacare was composed by a group of Democrats in Congress as well as representatives of the administration. No one, however, seemed to be in charge. That left a whole bunch of contradictions in the bill as completed, but Obama never had to decide which way to go. When he campaigned for the presidency in 2008, Obama told America that Afghanistan was the "good war". He promised to win in Afghanistan. After taking office, however, Obama was faced with the issue of how to proceed in Afghanistan. Instead of moving forward, Obama spent just under a year trying to decide what to do. Finally, he came to a truly split decision: America would up its forces in Afghanistan (hey the surge worked in Iraq), but it would also announce an end date for its participation in that country. This schizophrenic result has led to a much worse situation in Afghanistan than was the case prior to Obama's action. Then there is Syria. Do I need to relate the vacillation by Obama there? Or how about Iraq? America has had intelligence that the ISIS attack on Iraq was coming for at least six months. Any prudent leader would have put in place a strategy for dealing with that attack when it came (or better still for preventing the attack in the first place.) Obama's response to an attack for which he had six months warning was to announce that he would study it and get back to us with his position. He just does not want to decide what to do. Sadly, despite what Obama may think, the world does not wait on him to make his mind up.
1. Will it harm America's national interests to have a Sunni terrorist state created in the middle of Syria and Iraq? (This really should be a given, not a question, but the Obamacrats seem unable to get their arms around this one.)
2. After years when most folks in the administration clung to the belief that the principal cause of unrest in the Middle East was the Arab-Israeli conflict, is the administration now ready to admit that this belief is wrong? (Will they now realize that the Sunni-Shiite sectarian fight is much more important than anything that happens with Israel?)
3. Is it in the long term strategic interests of the USA to allow Iran to gain control of roughly 10% of the world's oil output? (That's the result if Iraq becomes a full vassal state to Iran.)
4. Is it in the long term interests of the USA to allow Europe to be dependent for its energy on Russia? (We all saw what happened with Ukraine.)
These are not surprise questions. They are, instead, questions which should have been answered long ago at the White House. Our policies around the world should be influenced and directed by the obvious answers to these questions. Indeed, by answering these basic questions, much of the debate about how to react to recent events would have been made unnecessary.
The problem is that president Obama does not like to decide questions of this sort. Actually, he does not like to decide much of anything. If you don't see that, I suggest that you think about it for a moment. When Obama took office, he asked Congress for a massive stimulus package. Do you remember that Obama did not propose that package to Congress; he just asked Congress for such a measure and it was put together by Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats in Congress. Obama never decided what had to be in it. When Obamacare was being completed, there never was a draft of the bill circulated by the administration. Obamacare was composed by a group of Democrats in Congress as well as representatives of the administration. No one, however, seemed to be in charge. That left a whole bunch of contradictions in the bill as completed, but Obama never had to decide which way to go. When he campaigned for the presidency in 2008, Obama told America that Afghanistan was the "good war". He promised to win in Afghanistan. After taking office, however, Obama was faced with the issue of how to proceed in Afghanistan. Instead of moving forward, Obama spent just under a year trying to decide what to do. Finally, he came to a truly split decision: America would up its forces in Afghanistan (hey the surge worked in Iraq), but it would also announce an end date for its participation in that country. This schizophrenic result has led to a much worse situation in Afghanistan than was the case prior to Obama's action. Then there is Syria. Do I need to relate the vacillation by Obama there? Or how about Iraq? America has had intelligence that the ISIS attack on Iraq was coming for at least six months. Any prudent leader would have put in place a strategy for dealing with that attack when it came (or better still for preventing the attack in the first place.) Obama's response to an attack for which he had six months warning was to announce that he would study it and get back to us with his position. He just does not want to decide what to do. Sadly, despite what Obama may think, the world does not wait on him to make his mind up.
No comments:
Post a Comment