Friday, September 12, 2014

How can anybody support any aspect of Obama’s plan to expand his failed Iraq policy into Syria — Especially, truly patriotic conservative Republicans

“Obama’s [complete lack of] strategy on Islamic State revives tensions over Syria"  —  Washington Post

The Neo-con “Bush Doctrine” has been replaced by a half-hearted, half-assed Neo-con “Obama Doctrine”

For now, the only responsible position for any solid Republican or any other patriotic American is to shout “Hell No !  We Won’t Go !”  —   to Iraq or Syria  —  Now is the time to build up the arsenals and walls of “Fortress America” against any and all threats just like was done in the late 1930s



A key piece of the new oppositionist thinking appeared in the Washington Post today; it pointed out the main flaw in the Obama “strategy” vis a vis ISIS and/or ISIL, as Obama likes to call it ( See “Obama’s strategy on Islamic State revives tensions over Syria” by Liz Sly, 9/11/14, Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obamas-strategy-on-islamic-state-revives-tensions-over-syria/2014/09/11/6a118349-4aee-4377-bd55-b1b672954b4f_story.html#] [Liz Sly is the Post’s Beirut bureau chief. She has spent more than 15 years covering the Middle East, including the Iraq war. Other postings include Africa, China and Afghanistan]).

Here’s what Liz Sly had to say in her WP article, “The prospect of deeper American involvement in Syria is reopening the stark global divide that fueled the escalation of the conflict three years ago, underscoring the challenges confronting President Obama in his first real foray into the morass of Syria’s war. ***  The moderate Syrian opposition welcomed Obama’s pledges of accelerated support as well as possible airstrikes against Islamic State militants, which could potentially reverse more than a year of defeats on the battlefield inflicted both by the militants and by the government of President Bashar al-Assad....”

RISKING DIRECT CONFLICT WITH SYRIA, RUSSIA AND IRAN AND/OR INDEFINITE QUAGMIRE WORSE THAT BUSH’S INVASION OF IRAQ  OR JOHNSON’S WAR IN VIET NAM

Here’s the rub: “Syria’s main allies, Russia and Iran, expressed dismay that the United States apparently plans to intervene without their approval in the conflict that Assad had until recently appeared to be winning....”  An America led by Barack Obama simply cannot stand up to either Russia or Iran.

“In media interviews, Syrian officials made it clear they are unhappy that Assad’s regime has been excluded from Obama’s calculations. ***  ‘If any strike is carried out without our coordination, we will consider it an aggression,’ Bouthaina Shaaban, a close adviser to Assad, told CNN. ‘President Obama would be very much ill-advised to carry on with what he said’....”

More important than that according to the Sly piece in the WaPost, “As Secretary of State John F. Kerry wooed America’s traditional Sunni allies in Saudi Arabia on Thursday, Iran questioned his motives. ***  ‘Some of the countries in the coalition are among the financial and military supporters of terrorists [including ISIS]  in Iraq and Syria,’ [Iranian] Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham told reporters in Tehran on Thursday.

When one gets a more accurate and fundamentally more truthful assessment from an Iranian minister than you do from the President of the United States or any member of his administration, as an American you have a major problem.

How many times are the same mistakes going to be repeated. —   “Iraqi Freedom” — Viet Nam —  these were major blunders by Presidents George W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson

Hence, the only sensible response to what Obama’s now proposing is for good Republicans and true patriots to shout as loud as they can, “HELL NO, WE WON’T GO ! ! !”

Instead of appropriating any funds for any aspect of Obama's Iraq--Syria non-strategy,  American needs to rebuild its greatly eroded and rapidly hollowing military machine;  putting intelligence and other special operations operatives on the front line for truly secret missions, including completely decapitating all actually threatening organizations. In addition, our borders and international ports of entry need to be made virtually impregnable by full manning with technically superior and properly trained and led border agents.

6 comments:

  1. Dear Mr. Massey,

    I am rather certain our President called it ISIL the other evening during his address to the Nation. Therefore, it is ISIL.
    September 12, 2014 at 7:10 AM
    [Republished from another thread]

    ReplyDelete
  2. STYLE POINT: THE "WHAT'S IN A NAME..." EDITION

    Our otherwise weak and irresolute President and Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama has been unusually firm in referring to certain terrorists in Iraq and Syria as ISIL (Islamic State in the Levant) rather than ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The terrorists prefer ISIL. Most professionals, experts, and the media have continued to refer to the terrorists fighting under the black banners of "The Islamic State" as --- " ISIS ".

    By using the acronym and appellation "ISIL," Obama gives this band of bad guys a major rhetorical victory from the get-go. "ISIL" refers to a nationalized Islamic re-conquest of the entire Levant; and it denies the national legitimacy of Syria, Iraq (mostly outside of the Levant), Jordan, Lebanon and most important of all Israel. Of course that might well be his intent.

    If and when "ISIL" becomes generally adopted by American media, I might use it as well -- or if ISIL should become victorious, which is not at all unlikely, given Barack Hussein Obama's "leadership" in the international opposition to its advance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since you're talking shibbeloths Mr. Massey would you tell me too? Is it Derry? or Londonderry? Or Derry City? Or Free Derry?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can say with certainty that the place you call "Derry" and from which the famous song takes its name as "Londonderry" is not located within any boundary or description of "The Levant."

    BTW, did you leave out "Derry District" for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DISAGREEMENT: THE "I ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY DISAGREE" EDITION

    I don't know where the commenter above gets his or her information, especially with respect to any history of western religions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obamas failed policy is the exact same failed policy Bush had.

    Dosent consistency count for something?

    ReplyDelete