Obama’s latest jive is to sweep the dust of the Iraqi defeats from his pseudo-presidential shoulder boards — Can’t you hear him, “That’s just the ‘JV team’ playing ‘JV ball’ - What’s that got to do with me, I don't play in a 'JV league' ! ! ! ”
Obama says he’s going to think about it — What is it that he’s got to think about ? — It’s either leading, following or just getting-out-of-the-way
Is this the real reason Obama might be refusing to lead ? By now it might be he knows that too many real Americans will not follow him
In January this year — New Yorker editor David Remnick pointed out to President Barack Obama that the Al Qaeda flag had been seen flying over Falluja in Iraq and the same flag was flying in certain locations in Syria; and thus, it might be fair to say that the terrorist group had not been “decimated” as Obama had repeatedly told the nation during his 2012 reelection campaign. In response, Obama compared the Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior varsity basketball players, and he downplayed their threat as akin to little-league. At the time. The president Obama told David Remnick a feature reporter for New Yorker Magazine that, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.... I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” The New Yorker’s David Remnick described Obama’s jayvee (JV) analogy as “uncharacteristically flip” (See “Annals of the Presidency - Going the Distance - On and off the road with Barack Obama” by David Remnick, 1/27/14, New Yorker Magazine [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all]; for a critical view of the same material see “Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence: They’re JV” by Sharona Schwartz, 1/20/14, The Blaze [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/obama-dismisses-al-qaeda-resurgence-theyre-jv/]).
Fast forward to the present — To judge from President Obma’s remarks on Friday the descent of Iraq into a virtual open civil war during the past week has not fundamentally changed Obama’s view that this is a conflict of JV teams, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, “a terrorist organization that operates in both Iraq and in Syria” and the government of Iraq (See “Obama to Iraq: Your Problem Now” by Amy Davidson, 6/13/14, New Yorker Magazine [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/06/obama-to-iraq-your-problem-now.html]).
According to the more recent New Yorker article, while speaking on the South Lawn of the White House, Obama argued that this was not just a matter of what the American people would accept, or the limits of our capacity to make sacrifices for humanitarian goals. It’s more that he doesn’t see the point. As he sees it, after all our investment of lives and money, “extraordinary sacrifices,” the Iraqis have not been willing to treat each other decently, and until they do our air strikes won’t help. “This is not solely, or even primarily, a military challenge....” Obama did concede, however, that it was alarming that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham [the Islamist Caliphate of Syria], had made what he called “significant gains” in Iraq (The fact that several cities in Iraq up to the suburbs of Bagdad have already fallen to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria would cause the president’s remark to rate as a monumental understatement.) He said that he wasn’t entirely surprised, because things in Iraq had not been looking good for a while. The President then added this ominous note: “Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.... Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq.” However, the President wound it all up by saying, “We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq.”
From Obama’s perspective, the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki has all-too-many problems that are not Obama’s. The only hesitation that he has is in the realization that some of Iraqi President al-Maliki’s problems are ours, as well. After all the United States did invade the country, setting off years of warfare in which, there were thousands of American losses, and tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed.
Some very big questions have arisen, but have yet to be spoken. They are simply put like this: First, if President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama might choose to lead us back into war in Iraq, are there any who will follow — Second, perhaps a more important question is this: Are there loyal and patriotic Americans, especially in the armed forces, that will see it as their duty to resist Obama's orders and seek follow the more reliable lead of another or others ?
13 comments:
Our occupation of Iraq failed. Its over and we lost. Everyone that died or was injured was a waste.
Got it folks?
Your comment was perhaps a bit simplistic, wouldn't you agree.
Like an onion, the Iraq failures (there are really quite a few big ones) can and should be peeled or teased apart and analyzed carefully before making any final pronouncements. However, after the onion is old and rotten it all merges into a pulpy, stinky mess that no longer can be peeled, teased apart or readily analyzed.
Suffice it to say, I think there were and continue to be multiple layers of incompetence and betrayal to be found in all of it. Somebody better dig into it quickly to name names and take numbers before the onion liquefies completely.
To: Anonymous 6/14/14 @ 10:12PM
After the "Surge" - Barack Obama was handed a tactical victory and a strategic stalemate - and he held a likely winning hand in Iraq if he played his cards right - instead, President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took that advantageous position in Iraq and played it into a strategic and tactical disaster. Obama and Clinton lost Iraq, just like the Democrats in charge after Nixon lost in Viet Nam - and if in charge in the 80's, the Democrats would have lost the Cold War.
You morons will never get it. Invading Iraq was bad for America. It was lost because there was nothing to win. Yeah, keep saying Sadam was a bad guy. American soldiers have killed over 250,000 Iraq people so that must make us the good guys.
Oh, we also spent a trillion dollars to do this.
Sounds like a Christian Conservative move to me.
All empires collapse from within because a leader convinces ignorany followers to blindly follow them in the cause of patriotism.
If you still think the American invasion of Iraq was a good move you are either stupid, or, you put party politics first, and American interests last.
The second invasion of Iraq was years overdue, Bill Clinton should have done it after the conspiracy to assassinate retired President Bush in Kuwait in April 1993 had been uncovered - a few cruise missiles into Bagdad that largely killed civilians and a very stern scolding by Madeline Albright just didn't cut it.
Dubyu's mistake was listening to Colin Powell's "If you break it, it's yours..." what BS! - if when you're finished with a place like Iraq it's broken, Iraq is still theirs, just broken - hopefully beyond any speedy repair. btw another mistake was killing about 150,000 to 250,000 people in Iraq - the minimum number should have been about a million. Iraq was a blood and guts sink where the bad guys were losing at a rate of about 20-1. If the rules of engagement included properly selected "free fire" zones, that number could have been upwards of 100-1.
But why argue tactics (I won't even get into the geopolitical reason why Iraq was the right war at the right time - we should have made a left turn into Syria and only stopped at the Med.) the smaller Bush-bungled war was eventually won with too many American losses of personnel, materiel and money. But look what happened - the Democrats gave us this Trojan Horse President and now the Obama-Clinton "team" have lost everything over there, which has been the Yalta-crat world strategy everywhere against everybody else since about 1944-45.
btw, this is an example of a Democrat dilemma - When Obama throws down against anybody on the world stage, who do the hardcore Democrats really root for - their own American President or the other guys' leaders?
The US is now evacuating its embassy in Iraq.
Go tell a Vet sitting in a wheelchair it was all worth it.
We spent two billion dollars to build an Embassy that is now going to be operated by terrorist.
Maybe John McCain will go ver there and make 41 propaganda videos for Al Queda like he did for the North Vietnamese
THE "PLAY ALL ENDS AGAINST THE MIDDLE" EDITION
Some good points were made by all sides in the comments above....
BUT OBAMA HAS BEEN IN THERE FOR SIX YEARS AND THIS IS ALL OVER HIM AND HILLARY. HE HAD NO END GAME -- JUST GET OUT OF BUSH'S WAR ASAP AND AFTER THAT "WHAT ME WORRY"
GEORGE W. BUSH GOT HIS SHARE OF BLAME FOR THIS AND NOW IT'S BARACK OBAMA'S TURN IN THE BARREL. TOO BAD HILLARY ISN'T THERE AT THE END TO GET ALL THE CREDIT SHE DESERVES. AFTER ALL, SHE WAS THERE AT THE BEGINNING AND ALL FOR IT.
Agreed Gale.
You are the voice of reason.
I don't see how Hillary escapes this, except if everyone keeps chirping about Benghazzi.
I'm sorry 4 Americans dies, but 100's of thousands died in Iraq.
Thats our fault.
And yes a lot of blame to go around. Hillary & Schumer voted for it.
Everybody stop. Take a few deep breaths. Baghdad hasn't fallen to ISIS yet and Damascus not fallen to ISIS either. Bad guys are fighting bad guys in both Syria and Iraq, and there are only a few good guys mixed up in the two fights.
Everybody in the United States should be terrified at this thought, "Obama is reviewing his military options." It doesn't matter whether the call comes in at three in the morning or three in the afternoon, Obama is in no way equipped to make a good decision. His first impulse is to dither and his next is probably to make the wrong move. A coin flip would probably work better.
Nobody should want a President Obama leading this country into any kind of war, police action or other kind of military engagement. If Lindsey Graham and John McCain or any other nervous hawks want to lead a group of volunteers into a "Charge of the Light Brigade" let them gather the volunteers like a bunch of "Rough Riders" and let them go. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
UPDATE: THE "COMPLETELY LOST IN THE WILDERNESS" EDITION
OBAMA'S SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY SEES A "WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY" FOR DIPLOMACY IN IRAQ
Obama administration looks like it's ready to try to negotiate with whatever terrorist group is willing to work with us.
FLASHBACK: THE “WHAT HAPPENED” EDITION
President Barack Obama in December 2011 announced that – as he had planned – the U.S. was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government.” — WHAT HAPPENED ?
REMEMBER THIS:
“BAGHDAD — President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis. *** And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations....” ( See “Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay” by Tim Arango & Michael S. Schmidt, 10/21/11, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0]). That NY Times article contained this important qualifier and caveat: “At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.” Unfortunately that’s not what happened.
[This Comment is continued below]
[Comment “FLASHBACK: THE “WHAT HAPPENED” EDITION” is continued from above]
REMEMBER WHEN OBAMA SAID THIS:
“...It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq – all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering – all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home....” [Then Obama listed all the things that America had achieved in Iraq] “...Because of you -- because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right. There can be no fuller expression of America’s support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are. *** Because of you, in Afghanistan we’ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we’ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.... Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you. *** That success was never guaranteed. And let us never forget the source of American leadership: our commitment to the values that are written into our founding documents, and a unique willingness among nations to pay a great price for the progress of human freedom and dignity. This is who we are. That’s what we do as Americans, together. *** The war in Iraq will soon belong to history. Your service belongs to the ages. Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries –- from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you –- men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11....” ( “Remarks by the President and First Lady on the End of the War in Iraq – Fort Bragg, North Carolina” by President Barack Hussein Obama, 12/14/11, White House Press Release/ ...Presidential Address to Troops [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/14/remarks-president-and-first-lady-end-war-iraq]).
PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS COMPLETELY BROKEN THIS PROMISE TO THESE TROOPS WHO WERE VICTORIOUS IN IRAQ AND TO THE UNITED STATES IN SO MANY WAYS
Post a Comment