Peter Beinart can best be described as one of the very liberal members of the media for whom the main job is protecting president Obama. Today, he is at it again in the Atlantic. Beinart's subject is Obama's strategy in the Middle East.
Here is how Beinart starts his article:
President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS.
To understand just how dishonest Beinart's arguments are, you have to remember that he wrote this one day after Obama, speaking about ISIS, told the nation this:
"I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet."
So Obama says there is no strategy and the next day Beinart tells us that "critics" claim there is no strategy. It wasn't critics who said that; it was Obama himself. Then Beinart tells us that there really is a strategy and Obama is implementing it. Apparently, Obama himself does not know this.
But it gets better. Beinart says that Obama's strategy is minimalist. He will only attack people who are likely to kill Americans. Here are a few gems from the article:
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he’s basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don’t focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don’t really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air.
Huh? Does Beinart really believe he can say this with impunity? Obama is the president who went from a minimalist force in Afghanistan to a major involvement in that nation. In Obama's first year in office, troop levels in Afghanistan roughly tripled. Almost 80% of all American casualties in Aghanistan happened during Obama's presidency even though troops were in that country for seven years during the Bush presidency and only six, so far, of the Obama presidency. In other words, Obama focused exactly on fighting the Taliban on the ground. (And another thing, does Beinart really believe that anyone would be impressed that Obama was following a policy championed by Biden?)
Beinart also says this: "Obama’s strategy—whether you like it or not—is more clearly defined. Hundreds of thousands can die in Syria; the Taliban can menace and destabilize Afghanistan; Iran can move closer to getting a bomb. No matter. With rare exceptions, Obama only unsheathes his sword against people he thinks might kill American civilians."
Okay, we know that the part about Afghanistan is just wrong. But Beinart is arguing that Obama's strategy regarding Iran is to let it get nuclear weapons. Think about that. We have all seen the carnage in the Middle East as one form of Islamic extremist crazy or another uses horrific weapons and tactics against those it dislikes. Just think what happens in the world after the mullahs of Iran get nuclear weapons. Allowing that is not a minimalist strategy; it is a delusional strategy.
The truth is that Obama is correct: he has no strategy. No attempt by a liberal apologist like Beinart is going to change that fact.
And America, as a result, is in peril.
Here is how Beinart starts his article:
President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS.
To understand just how dishonest Beinart's arguments are, you have to remember that he wrote this one day after Obama, speaking about ISIS, told the nation this:
"I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet."
So Obama says there is no strategy and the next day Beinart tells us that "critics" claim there is no strategy. It wasn't critics who said that; it was Obama himself. Then Beinart tells us that there really is a strategy and Obama is implementing it. Apparently, Obama himself does not know this.
But it gets better. Beinart says that Obama's strategy is minimalist. He will only attack people who are likely to kill Americans. Here are a few gems from the article:
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he’s basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don’t focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don’t really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air.
Huh? Does Beinart really believe he can say this with impunity? Obama is the president who went from a minimalist force in Afghanistan to a major involvement in that nation. In Obama's first year in office, troop levels in Afghanistan roughly tripled. Almost 80% of all American casualties in Aghanistan happened during Obama's presidency even though troops were in that country for seven years during the Bush presidency and only six, so far, of the Obama presidency. In other words, Obama focused exactly on fighting the Taliban on the ground. (And another thing, does Beinart really believe that anyone would be impressed that Obama was following a policy championed by Biden?)
Beinart also says this: "Obama’s strategy—whether you like it or not—is more clearly defined. Hundreds of thousands can die in Syria; the Taliban can menace and destabilize Afghanistan; Iran can move closer to getting a bomb. No matter. With rare exceptions, Obama only unsheathes his sword against people he thinks might kill American civilians."
Okay, we know that the part about Afghanistan is just wrong. But Beinart is arguing that Obama's strategy regarding Iran is to let it get nuclear weapons. Think about that. We have all seen the carnage in the Middle East as one form of Islamic extremist crazy or another uses horrific weapons and tactics against those it dislikes. Just think what happens in the world after the mullahs of Iran get nuclear weapons. Allowing that is not a minimalist strategy; it is a delusional strategy.
The truth is that Obama is correct: he has no strategy. No attempt by a liberal apologist like Beinart is going to change that fact.
And America, as a result, is in peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment