Chris Murphy is the junior senator from Connecticut. His thinking is the living embodiment of the aptly named Murphy's Law, namely: anything that can go wrong, will.
I came to this conclusion after senator Murphy spoke to NBC News this morning on Meet the Press about the strategy to employ in dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It was actually humorous to watch senator Murphy look serious while saying things that were hilariously idiotic. I get thinking it was actually a skit on Saturday Night Live.
Murphy began with the idea that he "supports" the strategy of president Obama except not for the training and arming of any of the Syrian rebels. Forget for the moment that it was cute that Murphy thought Obama actually had a strategy, and let's focus on what Murphy said. Obama's ostensible strategy is to use American air power and local forces on the ground to degrade and destroy ISIS. Every military expert agrees that the destruction of ISIS cannot be accomplished just from the air, so there has to be a ground force involved. In Syria, that ground force was supposed to be the "vetted" moderate Syrian rebels. When Murphy says he does not support training or arming the Syrian rebels, he is actually saying that he does not support Obama's strategy nor even his goal to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Next Murphy said that the point of the military operation is to "shape" the situation for a decisive "political" operation and not vice versa. That sounds like the kind of nonsense that spews from a liberal think tank. What is a decisive political operation? Fortunately for senator Murphy, no one made him explain that in coherent fashion. What is supposed to happen in Syria? Will there be a settlement between Assad and ISIS? If so, would that be good for anyone other than Assad and ISIS? Are the unarmed and untrained other Syrian rebels going to somehow defeat ISIS? Will these other rebels reach a political agreement with ISIS on any basis other than a complete victory for the ISIS forces? Just who does Murphy think is going to be part of that political operation in Syria? The whole idea is a joke.
So we have a liberal Democrat senator from my own state on national TV spouting total nonsense about American policy in Syria and Iraq with regard to ISIS. Everyone in the discussion looks grave and pretends to understand what is being said. The truth, however, is something quite different.
Look, it may be that the best policy in Syria is for America not to get involved. I would disagree with that conclusion, but I can, at least, understand why a rational person would take that position. I just find it appalling that my own senator gets a national platform from which to talk nonsense. Senator Murphy is an embarrassment for the people of Connecticut.
I came to this conclusion after senator Murphy spoke to NBC News this morning on Meet the Press about the strategy to employ in dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It was actually humorous to watch senator Murphy look serious while saying things that were hilariously idiotic. I get thinking it was actually a skit on Saturday Night Live.
Murphy began with the idea that he "supports" the strategy of president Obama except not for the training and arming of any of the Syrian rebels. Forget for the moment that it was cute that Murphy thought Obama actually had a strategy, and let's focus on what Murphy said. Obama's ostensible strategy is to use American air power and local forces on the ground to degrade and destroy ISIS. Every military expert agrees that the destruction of ISIS cannot be accomplished just from the air, so there has to be a ground force involved. In Syria, that ground force was supposed to be the "vetted" moderate Syrian rebels. When Murphy says he does not support training or arming the Syrian rebels, he is actually saying that he does not support Obama's strategy nor even his goal to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Next Murphy said that the point of the military operation is to "shape" the situation for a decisive "political" operation and not vice versa. That sounds like the kind of nonsense that spews from a liberal think tank. What is a decisive political operation? Fortunately for senator Murphy, no one made him explain that in coherent fashion. What is supposed to happen in Syria? Will there be a settlement between Assad and ISIS? If so, would that be good for anyone other than Assad and ISIS? Are the unarmed and untrained other Syrian rebels going to somehow defeat ISIS? Will these other rebels reach a political agreement with ISIS on any basis other than a complete victory for the ISIS forces? Just who does Murphy think is going to be part of that political operation in Syria? The whole idea is a joke.
So we have a liberal Democrat senator from my own state on national TV spouting total nonsense about American policy in Syria and Iraq with regard to ISIS. Everyone in the discussion looks grave and pretends to understand what is being said. The truth, however, is something quite different.
Look, it may be that the best policy in Syria is for America not to get involved. I would disagree with that conclusion, but I can, at least, understand why a rational person would take that position. I just find it appalling that my own senator gets a national platform from which to talk nonsense. Senator Murphy is an embarrassment for the people of Connecticut.
No comments:
Post a Comment