Today brought us a "statement" by president Obama on Iraq. Obama also answered question from the media on the same topic. There was just one problem: anyone hoping for a coherent strategy or even a clear statement of position from Obama was sorely disappointed.
Let's examine what Obama had to say.
First of all, America was told that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. This was followed by Obama telling us that he is sending troops back to Iraq. It is only about 300 soldiers who are going to act as advisors and instructors, among other roles. Am I the only one who thinks these statements may be a manifestation of schizophrenia? I mean, in what world does announcing that there is no military solution go with a decision to send in the military?
Second, Obama made clear that prime minister Maliki of Iraq has to go. Then Obama tells us that America will not choose sides between the competing sects in Iraq and that the Iraqis have to resolve this mess themselves. Okay, so what will the 300 troops be doing? Is this some sort of referee unit that is going to act as "officials" for the civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites? And if we are not choosing sides, why are we telling one side who it ought to have as its leaders?
Wouldn't it have been refreshing if Obama had told us his opinion of where America's national interests are in Iraq? He could have followed this up by an explanation of just why our national interest is at stake in Iraq and some sort of explanation about his opinion how to protect that national interest in Iraq. Such a discussion would have been both coherent and intelligent. No wonder Obama did not even come close to it.
Let's examine what Obama had to say.
First of all, America was told that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. This was followed by Obama telling us that he is sending troops back to Iraq. It is only about 300 soldiers who are going to act as advisors and instructors, among other roles. Am I the only one who thinks these statements may be a manifestation of schizophrenia? I mean, in what world does announcing that there is no military solution go with a decision to send in the military?
Second, Obama made clear that prime minister Maliki of Iraq has to go. Then Obama tells us that America will not choose sides between the competing sects in Iraq and that the Iraqis have to resolve this mess themselves. Okay, so what will the 300 troops be doing? Is this some sort of referee unit that is going to act as "officials" for the civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites? And if we are not choosing sides, why are we telling one side who it ought to have as its leaders?
Wouldn't it have been refreshing if Obama had told us his opinion of where America's national interests are in Iraq? He could have followed this up by an explanation of just why our national interest is at stake in Iraq and some sort of explanation about his opinion how to protect that national interest in Iraq. Such a discussion would have been both coherent and intelligent. No wonder Obama did not even come close to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment