Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Obama's Strategy Vacillation

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth



It is beginning to look like the President is not at all sure exactly what the objective is or should be with regard to the threat ISIS presents for the USA and the rest of the western world.

All italicized remarks following are taken from ABC News.

At first, the president offered what seemed to be an unambiguous goal. “The bottom line is this: Our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat,” he said

Here the President is clear, forceful even with resolve in his words. His words indicate a policy shift from the prior less strident policy that was in essence a defensive and protective one with no consideration of destroying ISIS.

When Ann Compton asked the President to clarify his statement asking him if the USA is now in favor of destroying ISIS Obama back tracked sending mixed messages.

“Our objective is to make sure they aren’t an ongoing threat to the region,” he said.

“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

So, here we are, once again wondering what the leader of these United States of America, indeed the leader of the free world, has in his mind. Winging it and sending mixed messages is never a good strategy. If for no other reason than it is hard to follow someone that gives the appearance they don't now where they are going.

See the video BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

14 comments:

  1. I do not necessarily interpret these separate statements as mutually contradictory. If there is an appearance of "mixed messaging," perhaps it mirrors the ambivalence of a war-weary America:

    "No boots on the ground ..."
    "Go into Syria and bomb ISIS to hell ..."

    Inasmuch as there are no easy solutions, perhaps the better part of valor is to enlist allies in the region - yes, there are moderate governments in the Middle East that perceive ISIS as an "existential threat" as much as we do. Wouldn't it be better to go in as a coalition as opposed to "going it alone" and taking this burden exclusively upon ourselves? Ah, but we have become an impatient and impetuous people unwilling to delay immediate gratification. We want our revenge NOW and are not willing to wait.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IMO it is a case of mixed messages. Whether intentional or not it is not IMO advisable. Having the conversation on policy should occur in private with advisors and allies before making public statements for the world to hear and question.

    As to moderate M.E. governments, I agree. Jordan and Egypt come to mind, there are others and yes including them in a unified coalition makes a hell of a lot of sense.

    Revenge? Speaking for myself the thirst for revenge dims reason and clouds judgment. Yes O want the scum dick weeds who beheaded our American citizens brought to justice, whatever it takes. I also want the threat of ISIS neutralized and then destroyed. So we are safer as well as the people of the region an the world at large.

    I have said it before, extremeIslamists and jihadists are the problem of Islam and the Muslim world. But it affects the ENTIRE world

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are getting ahead of yourself and getting all flustered. Hair mussed, you're leaving itchy, scaly dandruff all over the place.

      BTW, read my reply to your last comment at the Zone (and a get a grip before you gripe).

      Delete
  3. and if the region fails to address it, neutralize it. and ultimately destroy it the rest of the world must.

    The leader of the free world is but one man. A man the rest of the free world looks to. Having your ducks in a row, support from Congress and our allies makes a boatload of sense. I shall PATIENTLY await the final outcome in hopes that the President acts as decisively as FDR and Truman did when called upon to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a grip. Whose griping? Or is anyone with a viewpoint differing from the progressive view considered griping?

    I am not getting ahead of myself but I won't be badgered into keeping my views to myself and shutting up.

    Perhaps you should read my post, both sections again. If you still find it not to your liking... oh well. It is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "extremeIslamists and jihadists are the problem of Islam and the Muslim world"

    Yes, I got that, nor do I disagree. There are even Muslims who are now saying the same thing.

    "Perhaps you should read my post ..."

    It is not your post that I disagree with; it was your comment at the Swash Zone.

    "I won't be badgered into keeping my views to myself and shutting up."

    I never even suggested that. Your silence does no service to either one of us. All I ask is that you accord me the same consideration, i.e. your over-reaction in mistaking literary license as an anti-American screed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I neither called you un American or your comment an un American screed.

    I have memory of the left wing radicals I knew back in the late 60's and early 70's who spelled America as you did that had great disdain for and almost hatred for the country that gave them their birthright.

    Gues you'll ave to forgive me. Or not. The choice is yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have memory of the left wing radicals … in the late 60's and early 70's …

      I have memory of them too, a most despicable rabble who scorned the returning vets of my generation – traumatized by war, often homeless and living on the streets. It’s one thing to criticize a misguided government policy; it’s a travesty to vilify vets - many were mere conscripts.

      Thankfully, we no longer blame our vets for the faults of our policy establishment; my daughter serves with honor – even when the policy makers have been dishonorable.

      Of course, I forgive you. Don’t I always …

      Funny thing happened in my local supermarket the other day. In the produce section, I overheard two strawberries having a heated argument. One strawberry to the other: “If you weren’t so red-faced and thin-skinned, we wouldn’t be in this jam.” How silly of them.

      Delete
  7. Oh.

    Strawberries are one of my favorite fruits. The redder, juicier,and thin skinned the better.

    Jam I mostly always avoid, jelly too. I like pomegranates as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Les, this post isn't too different from what I was trying to say earlier, but I think you disagreed.

    I'd prefer that the President (or Preznit as WD likes to call him) at least sounds like he knows what he is doing,.

    And I don't buy the line from the hyperpartisan, Kool-aid drinking, Obamanazis that the "winging it and sending mixed messages" is part of some super genius master plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "winging it and sending mixed messages"

      Let us recall the first Gulf War of 1991. Although 13 years ago, I have a fairly good recollection because it was my daughter's first deployment. She was at Fort Hood at the time. As any father would, I flew to Texas in late August to spend time with her. She did not actually deploy to Saudi Arabia until December of that year.

      My point is that it took as many months for then President Bush, Number 41, to assemble a coalition. The USA deployed the largest contingent - somewhere in excess of 500,000 troops; the British and French were participatory. Arab coalition partners - Egypt, Syria (yes, you read that right), Jordan, and the Gulf states contributed manpower but their main purpose was in providing diplomatic cover.

      Despite the hype and perceptions of ISIS as an "existential threat," there is ambivalence today amongst the American public - war-weary and skeptical. If the Presznit were to assemble a new coalition, as Bush #41 did years ago, it will require even more time because the balance of forces must be less "Americanized" than before.

      My point: Don't confuse "winging it and mixed messages" with complexity. I am quite sure all branches of government are studying this problem assiduously. With respect to the politics of a new M.E. crisis, now is not the time to devolve into tribal partisanship. If ISIS proves to be the "existential threat" it appears to be, my hope is that Congress, all political parties, and the American people will support the president. Anything less would be an exercise in self-sabotage.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.