More Public Relations Work to Make Up For a Lack Of Strategy in Iraq

The New York Times has a front page story today about a potential new plan to fight ISIS in Iraq.  The story is so exasperating that rather than summarize it, I will just quote the first tow paragraphs:

President Obama is open to expanding the American military footprint in Iraq with a network of bases and possibly hundreds of additional troops to support Iraqi security forces in their fight against the Islamic State, White House officials said on Thursday.

As Iraqi forces struggle on the battlefield, aides said Mr. Obama would consider establishing a series of outposts where American advisers would work with Iraqi troops and local tribesmen. The bases would be run by Iraqis, and Americans would still not engage in ground combat, but they would play a more active role closer to the front lines.

 

Think about this.  Obama has already admitted that he has no strategy for dealing with ISIS.  Okay, he said no "complete" strategy, but that's pretty much the same thing.  The result was a torrent of criticism about his lack of leadership  And Obama's response to the criticism has been to break out his usual photo-op foreign policy moves.  You know, he does things that let the mainstream media give him favorable coverage so that he looks like he's doing something when he really is not.

 

Here are just a few key points regarding this new "plan". 

 

1.  Notice that the story planted in the Times by "White House officials" makes clear that this new plan is not Obama's idea.  He is not proposing it or exploring it; he "is open to" it.  Translate that into Obama-speak and it means that Obama is not planning on sending more troops to Iraq, a false reassurance to the far left base of the Democrat party.  It also means that once this plan doesn't work, Obama will tell the nation that it someone else's idea.  Even though he's commander in chief, we're supposed to blame someone else, most likely George W. Bush.

 

2.  We've already seen that the Iraqi army forces will not stand and fight ISIS.  The new plan calls for changing things so that instead of an Iraqi battalion confronting ISIS, it will be the same Iraqi battalion plus two or three Americans.  Who thinks this is a good idea.  Remember, the article says that the Americans would not "engage in ground combat" but instead "would play a more active role closer to the front lines."  What in the world does that mean?  If the Americans are in a small base in the middle of Anbar and 1000 ISIS fighters come over the hill to attack, what do they do if they can't engage in ground combat?  If the Iraqi forces at the base go out to attack a nearby concentration of ISIS troops, do the Americans stay behind?  The simple truth is that the rules for such a deployment are likely to make certain that it cannot work.

 

3.  Why would Obama tell ISIS what new strategy he is considering?  Shouldn't that be something done in secret?  It's bizarre.  In Obama's world, a trade pact with friends and allies is so secret that even members of Congress can't see the whole thing.  On the other hand, the strategy for fighting a war with a dangerous enemy is put in the newspaper so the enemy can have time to react to it.

 

Obama has to be the most incompetent president since the days after Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated in the White House after suffering a stroke.  In fact, the bed-ridden, comatose Wilson would probably give Obama a run for his money in a battle of competent leadership.