I simply could not bring myself to watch our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’ last night as he went about the laying out of his supposed strategy for dealing with the latest terrorist threat, a strategy, which just a mere two weeks ago we’re were told didn’t even exist. I have since sought out those who did watch and have been able to piece together what seems to be a rather limp-wristed strategy for dealing with what is the genocidal Islamic horde known as ISIS.
First of all I have to very much disagree with Barry’s rather idiotic claim that ISIS is not Islamic. I think that might come as being a bit of a surprise to the members of this murderous little cult. I couldn’t believe it when I read that Barry had actually said, and quite emphatically, "Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic." And then he added, "No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim."
And, I’m afraid, to be perfectly blunt, from all that I’ve managed to gather thus far from those who were able to get through this speech without losing their dinner, and who are much more knowledgeable than I, this was a rather pathetic attempt by Barry to present the nation with a rather weak outlining of the threat ISIS poses to the United States and to the rest of the civilized world, and with his inadequate strategy to deal with this cult of terrorist scumbags.
So according to those whom I have sought out for an opinion, it would seem that Barry’s "counter terrorism" strategy to deal with ISIS is to simply do more of the same, but with more international partners ‘perhaps’ chipping in. Barry stated that the month long limited air strike campaign in northern Iraq will continue but with one difference, those air strikes will now assist Iraq military forces as they attempt to reclaim their country from ISIS.
Barry also, apparently, stated that he will authorize the US Air Force to begin launching air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria. And while Barry claimed he has the authority, as commander-in-chief, to move forward with the action that he proceeded to outline, I just don’t see it being as clearcut as he made it sound, declaring that he has such authority to go after ISIS, on his own and in the manner that has apparently now become his latest strategy.
But what is clear here, is the fact that Barry fully intends on going ahead with it regardless. In his speech to the nation, Barry repeated, yet again, that ‘his’ strategy regarding how it is that these Islamic militants operating in Iraq and Syria will be dealt with, calls for no U.S. troops to enter into the fight. Now while I’m certainly no military expert, somehow I just don’t think that it can be said to be that simple. I mean I certainly could be wrong, I guess.
But let’s take a look at some of his claims and how they compare with those pesky little things called facts:
BARRY: "I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL."
VS.
THE FACTS: Barry didn't elaborate on his claim of authority to conduct a potentially years-long campaign against the Islamic State group, or ISIL, without new congressional approval. But administration officials briefing reporters before the speech said it is grounded in two authorizations passed by Congress, in 2001 and 2002. Now please excuse my confusion but it was Barry himself who criticized the 2001 authorization in the past and his administration called the 2002 resolution outdated. But it’s both that are now being cited to support his action in Iraq and Syria???
Just as a little refresher, it was the 2001 authorization that supported President George W. Bush's war against al-Qaida and the then-Taliban government of Afghanistan. In a May 2013 speech, Barry said he wanted to "refine and ultimately repeal" it because "we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight." The Islamic State group was once tied to al-Qaida but has broken those links and now considers it a rival.
And it was the 2002 authorization that supported the invasion of Iraq. Last year, Barry's national security adviser, the brain dead Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to repeal it, calling it "outdated."
In short, it's very much in dispute whether Barry has the authority that he claims to have. The ability of presidents to launch sustained military action on their own is questioned whenever it happens, but it tends not to stay their hand. The administration does acknowledge it needs approval from Congress to conduct one part of its strategy — training and equipping Syrian opposition forces.
BARRY: "We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. ... It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."
VS.
THE FACTS: That's splitting hairs. It's true that the troops he is sending, in addition to the approximately 1,000 already there, are not intended to get into a shooting war. But some will be advising Iraqi army commanders in the field so they can advance more decisively against Islamic State forces under the cover of U.S. bombs. And under standard military rules of engagement, they will be allowed to defend themselves if shot at.
And apparently Barry said, because again I didn’t watch the speech, that he wants the American people to understand that this will be "different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," where hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops fought extended battles. To make his point he termed his Iraq-Syria action a "counterterrorism campaign" to "take out" Islamic State forces using American air power and "support" for "partner forces" on the ground.
Even so, this very easily could evolve into a shooting war and no one, not even Barry, can say with any certainty that U.S. troops will not engage in combat and possibly get killed. Barry acknowledged that any military action involves risk to those who carry them out. And who should know that better than him? It was on his watch as commander-in-chief, that more of our soldiers lost their lives, and in a shorter period of time, than lost their life under his predecessor.
Once again we see how it is that Barry has the peculiar tendency of choosing to ‘lead’ from behind. This latest strategy of his, that consists of nothing but air strikes and a reliance on the building up of the Syrian rebels, who, I would argue, are no better than ISIS, is woe-fully inadequate and is at best roughly six months too late. I think we can all agree that Barry is far more interested in making sure not to offend Muslims than his is in doing whatever is necessary to keep America safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment