Viewing and listening to the explanations offered for the employment of military airpower over portions of Iraq initially left me perplexed and concerned. Listening further to the examples touted by the White House and DoD increased those initial reactions. Two aircraft dropping a total of two bombs on one piece of artillery. Not exactly shock and awe. I shook my head in disgust. How incredibly ineffectual.
Then an epiphany!
This latest military action, which POTUS calls a "project," is exactly what he wants. All one need do is think about the previous public pronouncements regarding the use of military force in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry stated, "We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."
So we see in Iraq an "unbelievably small" military action, an act of war, not a "project." Any individual with any knowledge of military matters will be highly critical of such an approach. This approach demonstrates to the world, again, Obama's failure to understand national security, foreign policy, and international security. Stated differently, his knowledge is unbelievably small. His leadership is unbelievably deficient.
His approach to international matters is unbelievably inconsistent. Why decide to employ military force in Iraq, but not Syria? Reading excerpts of his statement leaves me shaking my head.
"Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we're taking and why."
"When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide."
How is using military force to "help save thousands of Iraqi civilians" more justifiable than doing so to save Syrians? Why does "innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help...when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye" apply in Iraq, but not in Syria?
Then an epiphany!
This latest military action, which POTUS calls a "project," is exactly what he wants. All one need do is think about the previous public pronouncements regarding the use of military force in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry stated, "We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."
So we see in Iraq an "unbelievably small" military action, an act of war, not a "project." Any individual with any knowledge of military matters will be highly critical of such an approach. This approach demonstrates to the world, again, Obama's failure to understand national security, foreign policy, and international security. Stated differently, his knowledge is unbelievably small. His leadership is unbelievably deficient.
His approach to international matters is unbelievably inconsistent. Why decide to employ military force in Iraq, but not Syria? Reading excerpts of his statement leaves me shaking my head.
"Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we're taking and why."
"When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide."
How is using military force to "help save thousands of Iraqi civilians" more justifiable than doing so to save Syrians? Why does "innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help...when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye" apply in Iraq, but not in Syria?
Unbelievably small military action will not materially change matters in Iraq.
Unbelievably inconsistent foreign policy will not make the world a safer place.
It appears POTUS actually believes what he is trying to sell the American people and international community.
It appears POTUS actually believes what he is trying to sell the American people and international community.
Unbelievable!
No comments:
Post a Comment