There it is. I just heard it again. The 0bama administration keeps claiming that their strategy in Iraq and Syria is being successful while its military advisers, both active and retired, are saying that it is not and can not be, reporters are pointing out that the statements are in direct conflict with reported events and even progressive pundits are beginning to question. People are beginning to question the credibility of the Press Secretary, of the State Department, the Centers for Disease Control and the federal government in general. They are wrong to question the administration. The administrations goals ARE being achieved; it’s only that people weren’t paying attention when those goals were laid out.
The president was goaded into drawing his now famous “Red Line” in Syria daring the Assad regime to use chemical weapons. It is most likely that he never expected those weapons to be unpacked. When they were he had the political, moral, and legal authority to act on his own, but he chose instead to approach the Congress for support which was predictably refused. Oh well, he tried. The administration was asked to arm Syrian rebels to try and ease the slaughter of many tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Syria but declined. They watched and did nothing as the intelligence reports poured in about the build up of the Islamic State. It’s almost a distant memory now how the administration stood by while Vladimir Putin’s Russia destabilized and then annexed The Crimean peninsula, and how they turned their back on Ukraine even in the face of the shooting down of a commercial airliner with Russian equipment and very probably Russian operators, offering to send medical supplies and rations but no weapons.
But the real strategy underlying the administrations foreign policy still remains to be openly and clearly expressed. Quite simply put, it is the withdrawal of United States military combat forces from around the world, the downsizing of the force, and the weakening of the force so that the United States will no longer be seen as a threat to global peace. The officer corps is being pared (often times with officers receiving notice of their pending separation while under enemy fire). Experienced enlisted personnel are being separated and illegal immigrants given the opportunity to take their places. The president has spoken of modern conflict that involves “no victors and no vanquished” and that people must learn to “get along”.
There are several schools of thought as to what needs to be done in Iraq and Syria. One is that we must set a military goal and then apply an overwhelming force to achieve that goal. This goal must include post operative support in order to allow for the stabilization of what comes after. There is strong historical precedent for this course of action as it was successfully implemented in Europe and Japan after World War II and in Korea.
Another line of thinking holds that the United States should not expend even one more life or dollar in trying to promote Western ideology in these countries. This idea is based on the history of the region and how it was divided up by the allies following World War I to benefit those victors. The division ignored ethnic and religious separations that had been in effect for millennia and presumed that everyone would simply “learn to get along”. Also at issue is the fact that the current U.S. leadership has given away the gains that were made by the deposition of a brutal dictator who was acting to destabilize the region from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, invading his neighbors, using poison gas and inflicting genocide on his own citizens, training airline hijackers (which now sounds quaint) and providing large sums of money to the families of those who would kill Israelis while killing themselves, and made the sacrifice of over four thousand American lives and over a Trillion dollars worthless. People who recognize this hold that it would be fool hardy to follow a leader like this to the grocery store, let alone into a hard battle, one that he might soon lose interest in or cease to perceive it to be of political gain.
The strategy that the president has publicly stated is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS/ISIL, but make no mistake, by telegraphing the plans, and by stating clearly and reiterating that no combat forces would be involved in the operation the president signaled to our allies and enemies alike that the United States is not serious about degradation or destruction. The sole aim of the airstrikes in the first place was to not be perceived as doing nothing as forty thousand Yazidis were slaughtered on a mountainside in Iraq, and it continues only as window dressing to shore up the democrat defense posture heading into the fall election. Kobani will fall; Mosul Dam; Anbar, and Bagdhad itself will come under attack ultimately resulting in the evacuation and abandonment of the U.S. Embassy there.
But the strategy that the president has chosen is not one that he developed during consultation with his advisers or international policy experts, not one that he formulated during years of study and introspection while on the university faculty, but one that he developed with the only advisors he has ever felt were his equals: The Choom Gang. There on the island of Oahu under the tutelage of his communist grandparents, the mentors they chose for him, and some righteous bud, the young Barack 0bama came to understand that if only the United States would lay down its arms and hold out its hand, the world would be a better place. This childish hallucinogenic fantasy is now the official policy of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with history, or experience, the national interests of the country, or the safety of its citizens. It has everything to do with THC and teenage naïveté. So when you hear of reductions in military preparedness and the opening of the borders, don’t be surprised.
But that’s just what an average guy thinks.