It's time to take Hillary Clinton's famous line about the Benghazi terror attack and apply it to the current back and forth in Washington over who is at fault for the mess in Iraq: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!"
The truth right now is that the country of Iraq no longer exists. There is a Kurdish state in the northeastern part of what used to be Iraq. There is the state that ISIS is creating across most of the rest of the northern half of the former Iraq. There is the Shiite state run from Baghdad by the remnants of the Maliki government propped up by Iran and its armed forces. But there is no Iraq as it used to be.
We could all debate for the next two months who was responsible for this mess. Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIS months ago; why was there no American response to that disaster? We all knew that further attacks were coming; why were not actions taken to lessen the likelihood of a collapse? Even if the decision was that the USA ought not to do anything at that point, why was that not at least discussed by our government? I could go on, but WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?
The question that has to be answered now is now how we got to this point. It is, rather, where do we go from here? How do we respond to a terrorist state spread across the territory of Syria and Iraq (and maybe soon Jordan)? Should American military force be engaged? If so, what should the mission be? Is there something other than the knee jerk response of "aid" that needs to be put in place?
The sad thing is that we have heard no coherent statement from the president explaining the national interest of the USA in this region and the goals of American policy regarding Iraq. We have heard no coherent statement of the strategy that the USA will follow to achieve its policy goals. All we have been told is that some advisors are being sent to Baghdad, but we have not been told why that is happening. One day there are to be no boots on the ground and the next day three hundred pairs of boots arrive with soldiers wearing them.
Let's be clear. The situation in Iraq is dire. If the USA is going to take any action, that action has to come NOW! It may be that the decision is that no action will be forthcoming. If that is president Obama's decision, then he needs to tell us why.
For five years, Obama has spent most of his time (when he is not at a fund raiser or on the golf course) making speeches. Well, it's time for the king of oratory to open his mouth and tell America what the plan is for Iraq. We need to know. We deserve to be told. The problem right now is that platitudes won't cut it. Straw men won't be enough. Obama has to come forward with a rational explanation of America's interests in the region and a description of how he plans to go about achieving those interests. In short, it's time for Obama to actually try to be president.
Paralysis is just not going to work.
The truth right now is that the country of Iraq no longer exists. There is a Kurdish state in the northeastern part of what used to be Iraq. There is the state that ISIS is creating across most of the rest of the northern half of the former Iraq. There is the Shiite state run from Baghdad by the remnants of the Maliki government propped up by Iran and its armed forces. But there is no Iraq as it used to be.
We could all debate for the next two months who was responsible for this mess. Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIS months ago; why was there no American response to that disaster? We all knew that further attacks were coming; why were not actions taken to lessen the likelihood of a collapse? Even if the decision was that the USA ought not to do anything at that point, why was that not at least discussed by our government? I could go on, but WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?
The question that has to be answered now is now how we got to this point. It is, rather, where do we go from here? How do we respond to a terrorist state spread across the territory of Syria and Iraq (and maybe soon Jordan)? Should American military force be engaged? If so, what should the mission be? Is there something other than the knee jerk response of "aid" that needs to be put in place?
The sad thing is that we have heard no coherent statement from the president explaining the national interest of the USA in this region and the goals of American policy regarding Iraq. We have heard no coherent statement of the strategy that the USA will follow to achieve its policy goals. All we have been told is that some advisors are being sent to Baghdad, but we have not been told why that is happening. One day there are to be no boots on the ground and the next day three hundred pairs of boots arrive with soldiers wearing them.
Let's be clear. The situation in Iraq is dire. If the USA is going to take any action, that action has to come NOW! It may be that the decision is that no action will be forthcoming. If that is president Obama's decision, then he needs to tell us why.
For five years, Obama has spent most of his time (when he is not at a fund raiser or on the golf course) making speeches. Well, it's time for the king of oratory to open his mouth and tell America what the plan is for Iraq. We need to know. We deserve to be told. The problem right now is that platitudes won't cut it. Straw men won't be enough. Obama has to come forward with a rational explanation of America's interests in the region and a description of how he plans to go about achieving those interests. In short, it's time for Obama to actually try to be president.
Paralysis is just not going to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment