In short order today, America was treated to a bizarre series of moves and statements by president Obama and the Obamacrats. Likely Obamacrat nominee Hillary Clinton gets special mention for her part in the confusion as well. Here's what happened:
1. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told Congress that the USA would be sending additional special operations troops to Iraq to help the ground forces fighting ISIS. Also this morning, Hillary Clinton told Charley Rose on CBS that she agreed with Obama that there should be no US ground forces in Iraq or Syria and she could foresee no circumstances that would change that view. Let's stop there. The Obama administration announces that more combat troops will go to Iraq to join the thousands of other American troops there already, but Hillary says she AGREES with Obama that no such troops should be there. If I didn't know better, I would guess that either Hillary or Carter was high at the time of making the statement.
2. In France, Obama stated that he did not expect Russia to change its strategy in Syria any time soon, but added that sooner or later Putin would realize that he was stuck in a quagmire and would reverse course. Obama did not complain that Russia has been busy bombing America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria; indeed, Obama did not even mention this. Obama also said nothing about the dispatch of additional US troops to Iraq. He had so little emotional involvement in the subject that he could have been an announcer at a golf match.
3. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress this morning that ISIS has not been contained. Two weeks ago, Obama said exactly the opposite. Which is it?
In all this mess, not once has anyone explained why America keeps sending more troops but announcing that we have no combat troops (even though we have troops engaged in combat in Syria and Iraq). Nor does anyone explain why the escalation by the USA keeps being done in small numbers. Supposedly, American military doctrine after Vietnam calls for the quick use of massive force to win clear victories. Obama, however, is engaged in a stagnant course of escalation that will allow ISIS the time to adapt and respond to the additional troops.
I would say that Obama does not want to win the fight against ISIS, but that is too simplistic. No, the reality is that Obama does not want to engage in the fight against ISIS, but he is being forced to do so by public pressure.
I keep waiting for Obama or another member of his party to come forward with a coherent explanation of America's policy in dealing with ISIS. I don't expect to agree with all of such a policy. Nevertheless, it is not too much for the American people to expect some sort of a rational policy from our president and his party. All we are getting, however, is total incoherence.
1. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told Congress that the USA would be sending additional special operations troops to Iraq to help the ground forces fighting ISIS. Also this morning, Hillary Clinton told Charley Rose on CBS that she agreed with Obama that there should be no US ground forces in Iraq or Syria and she could foresee no circumstances that would change that view. Let's stop there. The Obama administration announces that more combat troops will go to Iraq to join the thousands of other American troops there already, but Hillary says she AGREES with Obama that no such troops should be there. If I didn't know better, I would guess that either Hillary or Carter was high at the time of making the statement.
2. In France, Obama stated that he did not expect Russia to change its strategy in Syria any time soon, but added that sooner or later Putin would realize that he was stuck in a quagmire and would reverse course. Obama did not complain that Russia has been busy bombing America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria; indeed, Obama did not even mention this. Obama also said nothing about the dispatch of additional US troops to Iraq. He had so little emotional involvement in the subject that he could have been an announcer at a golf match.
3. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress this morning that ISIS has not been contained. Two weeks ago, Obama said exactly the opposite. Which is it?
In all this mess, not once has anyone explained why America keeps sending more troops but announcing that we have no combat troops (even though we have troops engaged in combat in Syria and Iraq). Nor does anyone explain why the escalation by the USA keeps being done in small numbers. Supposedly, American military doctrine after Vietnam calls for the quick use of massive force to win clear victories. Obama, however, is engaged in a stagnant course of escalation that will allow ISIS the time to adapt and respond to the additional troops.
I would say that Obama does not want to win the fight against ISIS, but that is too simplistic. No, the reality is that Obama does not want to engage in the fight against ISIS, but he is being forced to do so by public pressure.
I keep waiting for Obama or another member of his party to come forward with a coherent explanation of America's policy in dealing with ISIS. I don't expect to agree with all of such a policy. Nevertheless, it is not too much for the American people to expect some sort of a rational policy from our president and his party. All we are getting, however, is total incoherence.
No comments:
Post a Comment