by Jeff Davis
An article from Antiwar.com pontificates: “Nothing is more unwise for politicians than honesty, and President Obama was caught in a pretty significant moment of candor with his admission that ‘we don’t have a strategy yet’ for the ISIS war. The comment sparked immediate condemnation from hawks pushing him to escalate the ISIS war even more precipitously, with claims that he isn’t taking the situation seriously enough.”
“Yet the lack of a strategy isn’t some oversight, like the Pentagon simply forgot to come up with a plan for victory in this huge new war. Rather, it reflects the reality of the situation, that no such strategy for victory even exists.”
“President Obama’s reticence to escalate the war to the outrageous extent that some want shows at least a modicum of prudence on his part. It would’ve been nice, however, if he’d given such careful thought before launching an unwinnable war in the first place. Obama’s admission suggests the administration has finally figured out how problematic the war against ISIS is, and is treading water instead of making matters worse.”
Don’t forget that Obama was supporting revolutionaries in various Arab countries leading to the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, which led to the murder of the US Libyan ambassador and three other Americans by radical Muslims, who were running loose in Libya thanks to Obama’s regime change there.
Obama also supported anti-Syrian rebels who turned out to be these ISIS monsters, who tend to chop off heads and by all realistic assessments are far worse than the Assad regime, currently in power in Syria. This leads to the current situation in which Obama needs to do a 180 and perhaps even start supplying Assad with military aid to solve a problem that Obama had a big hand in creating in the first place. No wonder Obama doesn’t have a plan to deal with ISIS since he helped create that problem!!!
The Antiwar.com article continues “Unfortunately, if there’s one thing a politician is even less apt to do than tell the truth, it’s to own up to a mistake publicly, and that means the logical next step of extricating himself from the ISIS war is probably not being considered as an option. Instead, President Obama is likely to continue to fight the war, escalating here and there for political effect, and hoping that somewhere along the line some sort of strategy will fall into his lap.”
“Even more problematic is President Obama’s promise to try to assemble a coalition for the ISIS war, which seems to be doubling down on starting a bad war by dragging a bunch of other nations into it. Again, this seems to be a sign of desperation related to the lack of any strategy for victory, with the administration hoping, unreasonably, that some other ally brought into the conflict might find the magic formula to transform this from another losing war into a victory.”
Let’s look at Barry’s options here. He can:
1). Do nothing and let the Sunnis and Shi’ites and Kurds just slug it out. That would probably be the best solution, except for the fact that there is an awful lot of oil in that region and our sputtering American economy needs it. Needs it quite badly, actually.
2). Opt for the standard American reaction and bomb the crap out of everything in sight. Trouble is, the past three wars have pretty much proven that as horrific as American air power is, it cannot win wars or change much on the ground. It can only inflict hideous destruction and fuel hatred for America that will span generations.
3). Or Obama can invade Syria, either leaving Bashar Assad in place or kicking him out as he pleases, which will make a lot of buzz-cut neo-conservative, Israel-worshipping knuckle-draggers happy, but will also saddle America with another ten years or so of guerrilla warfare which we cannot afford and which will result in our third military failure in the Middle East.
So what will it be, Barry? Door number one, door number two or door number three?
I bet Obama really regrets letting the CIA stir things up there, now that’s it’s all gone to hell.