It really did not take long for the articles to start appearing reporting that president Obama was told by US military commanders that in their opinions, victory over ISIS requires the use of American ground troops. Obama, of course, refuses to consider American boots on the ground. It seems that "there will be no American boots on the ground" is something that he has said more often than anything other than "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Obama has already nibbled away at his promise. Originally, there were to be no American troops in Iraq, PERIOD! Now, that has been limited to no American "combat" troops. Advisers to the Iraqi army are fine. In fact, the latest is that Obama has approved having American advisers accompany the Iraqi troops into the field to confront ISIS. The advisers are not supposed to engage in firefights, however. On top of this, Obama has also approved Americans engaging in combat over Iraq. The US Air Force will send large numbers of planes to attack ISIS in the coming weeks. Despite these modifications to the original promise, Obama is still sticking to the "no combat boots on the ground" storyline.
The problem, of course, arises when one considers the goal being pursued. According to Obama the goal is to degrade and then destroy ISIS. If the military commanders tell us that this mission cannot be accomplished absent the use of American troops, then why is Obama moving forward with such a plan? I assume that Obama is not trying to fail.
So what is going on here? The truth, sadly, is that this is all politics. Were Obama to send ground troops back into Iraq, large portions of the left wing of the Democrats would have nervous breakdowns. It would be the victory of reality over liberal/progressive ideology, and we can't have that, can we? America will put hundreds of airmen and others at risk, spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and risk the prestige of the USA and the reputation of our military on a mission which well may fail just so Obama can please his political base. It's insane.
Obama has already nibbled away at his promise. Originally, there were to be no American troops in Iraq, PERIOD! Now, that has been limited to no American "combat" troops. Advisers to the Iraqi army are fine. In fact, the latest is that Obama has approved having American advisers accompany the Iraqi troops into the field to confront ISIS. The advisers are not supposed to engage in firefights, however. On top of this, Obama has also approved Americans engaging in combat over Iraq. The US Air Force will send large numbers of planes to attack ISIS in the coming weeks. Despite these modifications to the original promise, Obama is still sticking to the "no combat boots on the ground" storyline.
The problem, of course, arises when one considers the goal being pursued. According to Obama the goal is to degrade and then destroy ISIS. If the military commanders tell us that this mission cannot be accomplished absent the use of American troops, then why is Obama moving forward with such a plan? I assume that Obama is not trying to fail.
So what is going on here? The truth, sadly, is that this is all politics. Were Obama to send ground troops back into Iraq, large portions of the left wing of the Democrats would have nervous breakdowns. It would be the victory of reality over liberal/progressive ideology, and we can't have that, can we? America will put hundreds of airmen and others at risk, spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and risk the prestige of the USA and the reputation of our military on a mission which well may fail just so Obama can please his political base. It's insane.
No comments:
Post a Comment