Like millions of other Americans, I watched president Obama give his speech outlining his "strategy" for dealing with ISIS. On the whole, the speech was well delivered, but the strategy and the substance of the message were flawed. Here are some quick comments:
1. Obama left out the Kurds; this is a big mistake. Obama told us that he wants local forces to supply the combat troops that will attack ISIS with the support of American air power. To that end the president said that the USA would supply and help train two different forces: (1) the Iraqi army, and (2) the Syrian rebel forces (other than ISIS itself). To a great extent this is a delusional position. The Iraqi army was already trained and armed by the US forces before Obama pulled all of them out of Iraq. When ISIS attacked, however, the Iraqi army melted away like snow in July. In fact, most of the weapons that ISIS forces now have are American weapons that ISIS captured from the Iraqi forces that fled. The Syrian rebels right now have next to nothing in the way of heavy weapons. They have been getting blasted by the Assad forces and by ISIS as well for months and years. There were many previous calls for the USA to arm these men, but president Obama opposed and scuttled that effort for the last two years. Now, Obama wants to take this group and arm and train them into combat troops in short order. The process, however, will take months or even years. The first problem is finding a place where the training can take place. Surely, the USA is not sending troops into Syria to train the rebels, so where will the training be? The only organized, courageous and disciplined fighting force in the field against ISIS is the peshmerga, the Kurdish armed forces. The Kurds are short of weapons and ammunition, but they are trained and could easily assimilate new weapons if Obama were to send them. In other words, the best force, by far, to use against ISIS is the Kurdish peshmerga.
How can it be that Obama would arm everyone but not the Kurds? The answer lies in the rivalries within Iraq. The Baghdad government wants all arms to go to the Iraqi army so that Baghdad maintains control. The problem, however, is that giving arms to the Iraqi army is most likely a waste of time. Obama should have opted for the strategy that would be likely to succeed rather than the one that kept the Baghdad government happy. The truth is that Baghdad would be happy to get any help from Washington. We need to consider the success of the mission more.
2. Obama was confusing in talking about the use of air power. Are the planes going to be based on land in Iraq or are all strikes going to continue to come from carriers in the Persian Gulf. Using just carrier based planes reduces the efficiency of the strikes by 50% or more. An air base near Baghdad would be 100 or 200 miles from targets while the carriers are 500 to 750 miles from the targets. It also takes longer to turn around planes on a carrier than at a land base. The number of missions would be much smaller from a carrier. But Obama said that there can be no American combat troops on the ground in Iraq. There is no way that the USA would create an air base in Iraq without having American troops in place to guard the base. So does that make bases in Iraq an impossibility? I wonder.
3. Obama could not help himself with his comments on how ISIS is not Islamic. He's wrong. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State and it imposes strict Moslem sharia law on the areas it controls. ISIS fighters force non-Moslems to convert or die. ISIS is spreading the religion of the prophet in much the same way that the Middle East was converted to Islam in the seventh century. Without a doubt, ISIS is clearly a version of Islam in the same way that the crusaders of the 11th century were Christians. In the politically correct world of Obama and the liberals, however, the president cannot denounce ISIS as cut throat murderers without first, in essence, apologizing to the Moslem world. If Obama cannot bring himself to recognize just who the enemy really is, it will be extremely hard for America ever to win a battle against this enemy. Remember in the Cold War that after decades of trying for peaceful coexistence with the USSR, America was finally able to bring down the Soviets after we got a leader who recognized them for the evil empire they truly were.
4. It was unbelievable to hear Obama take credit for the success of stopping the Russians in Ukraine. Right now, Russia has annexed Crimea which until six months ago was a large province in Ukraine. On top of that, the current cease fire leaves big swaths of eastern Ukraine in the hands of the so called Russian separatists who want to join the area to Russia. Under the current agreement, Ukraine is being dismembered. To call that a success is like the old joke: a man jumps of the Empire State Building. As he falls past the fortieth floor someone calls out the window, "How are you doing?" The man shouts back as he falls, "So far, so good!"
1. Obama left out the Kurds; this is a big mistake. Obama told us that he wants local forces to supply the combat troops that will attack ISIS with the support of American air power. To that end the president said that the USA would supply and help train two different forces: (1) the Iraqi army, and (2) the Syrian rebel forces (other than ISIS itself). To a great extent this is a delusional position. The Iraqi army was already trained and armed by the US forces before Obama pulled all of them out of Iraq. When ISIS attacked, however, the Iraqi army melted away like snow in July. In fact, most of the weapons that ISIS forces now have are American weapons that ISIS captured from the Iraqi forces that fled. The Syrian rebels right now have next to nothing in the way of heavy weapons. They have been getting blasted by the Assad forces and by ISIS as well for months and years. There were many previous calls for the USA to arm these men, but president Obama opposed and scuttled that effort for the last two years. Now, Obama wants to take this group and arm and train them into combat troops in short order. The process, however, will take months or even years. The first problem is finding a place where the training can take place. Surely, the USA is not sending troops into Syria to train the rebels, so where will the training be? The only organized, courageous and disciplined fighting force in the field against ISIS is the peshmerga, the Kurdish armed forces. The Kurds are short of weapons and ammunition, but they are trained and could easily assimilate new weapons if Obama were to send them. In other words, the best force, by far, to use against ISIS is the Kurdish peshmerga.
How can it be that Obama would arm everyone but not the Kurds? The answer lies in the rivalries within Iraq. The Baghdad government wants all arms to go to the Iraqi army so that Baghdad maintains control. The problem, however, is that giving arms to the Iraqi army is most likely a waste of time. Obama should have opted for the strategy that would be likely to succeed rather than the one that kept the Baghdad government happy. The truth is that Baghdad would be happy to get any help from Washington. We need to consider the success of the mission more.
2. Obama was confusing in talking about the use of air power. Are the planes going to be based on land in Iraq or are all strikes going to continue to come from carriers in the Persian Gulf. Using just carrier based planes reduces the efficiency of the strikes by 50% or more. An air base near Baghdad would be 100 or 200 miles from targets while the carriers are 500 to 750 miles from the targets. It also takes longer to turn around planes on a carrier than at a land base. The number of missions would be much smaller from a carrier. But Obama said that there can be no American combat troops on the ground in Iraq. There is no way that the USA would create an air base in Iraq without having American troops in place to guard the base. So does that make bases in Iraq an impossibility? I wonder.
3. Obama could not help himself with his comments on how ISIS is not Islamic. He's wrong. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State and it imposes strict Moslem sharia law on the areas it controls. ISIS fighters force non-Moslems to convert or die. ISIS is spreading the religion of the prophet in much the same way that the Middle East was converted to Islam in the seventh century. Without a doubt, ISIS is clearly a version of Islam in the same way that the crusaders of the 11th century were Christians. In the politically correct world of Obama and the liberals, however, the president cannot denounce ISIS as cut throat murderers without first, in essence, apologizing to the Moslem world. If Obama cannot bring himself to recognize just who the enemy really is, it will be extremely hard for America ever to win a battle against this enemy. Remember in the Cold War that after decades of trying for peaceful coexistence with the USSR, America was finally able to bring down the Soviets after we got a leader who recognized them for the evil empire they truly were.
4. It was unbelievable to hear Obama take credit for the success of stopping the Russians in Ukraine. Right now, Russia has annexed Crimea which until six months ago was a large province in Ukraine. On top of that, the current cease fire leaves big swaths of eastern Ukraine in the hands of the so called Russian separatists who want to join the area to Russia. Under the current agreement, Ukraine is being dismembered. To call that a success is like the old joke: a man jumps of the Empire State Building. As he falls past the fortieth floor someone calls out the window, "How are you doing?" The man shouts back as he falls, "So far, so good!"
No comments:
Post a Comment