| |
President Obama has revived the naïve and failed policy of
appeasement and negotiation with the Islamic/Arab world instead of continuing the war against
Islamic terrorism which was being won! In hindsight, it is now clear that that his policy
of full troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 created a security vacuum that has resulted in the
emergence of ISIS in that country and Syria. It is now also clear that the U.S. should have
armed the Syrian rebels earlier which would have impeded ISIS from gaining traction in that
war-torn nation.
Over the past 5 decades, the history of America’s presidents trying
to manage conflicts from the oval office has largely been one of abject failure, from Viet Nam,
to Jimmy Carter’s disaster with Iran. Now we have President Obama’s “we’re leaving”, “we’re
staying”, “we’re coming back”, “we won’t put American boots on the ground”, “we’ll put some
non-combat boots on the ground”, to “we’ll put some combat boots on the ground”, exemplifying
an incoherent strategy, a lack of understanding of a determined and unyielding enemy that is
bent upon world conquest and the destruction of the last two millennia of human progress.
In 2013, President Obama showed his naiveté and total lack of
understanding of the war being waged against America and the rest of civilization by radical
Islamic extremists. At that time, “Barack Obama declared that al-Qaeda was ‘on the path to
defeat’. Its surviving members, he said, were more concerned for their own safety than with
plotting attacks on the West. Terrorist attacks of the future, he claimed, would resemble those
of the 1990s—local rather than transnational and focused on ‘soft targets’. His overall message
was that it was time to start winding down George Bush’s war against global terrorism.
“Mr. Obama might argue that the assault on the Westgate shopping mall
in Nairobi by al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate, the Shabab, was just the kind of thing he was talking
about: lethal, shocking, but a long way from the United States. Yet the inconvenient truth is
that, in the past 18 months, despite the relentless pummeling it has received and the defeats
it has suffered, al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies have staged an extraordinary comeback. The
terrorist network now holds sway over more territory and is recruiting more fighters than at
any time in its 25-year history. Mr. Obama must reconsider.
- - -
“. . . the poisoning of the Arab spring has given al-Qaeda and its
allies an unprecedented opening. The coup against a supposedly moderate Islamist elected
government in Egypt has helped restore al-Qaeda’s ideological power. Weapons have flooded
out of Libya and across the region, and the civil war in Syria has revived one of the network’s
most violent and unruly offshoots, al-Qaeda in Iraq, now grandly renamed the Islamic State of
Iraq and al-Sham {ISIS}.
- - -
“How much should Western complacency be blamed for this stunning revival?
Quite a bit. Mr Obama was too eager to cut and run from Iraq. He is at risk of repeating
the mistake in Afghanistan. America has been over-reliant on drone strikes to “decapitate” al-Qaeda
groups [Emphasis mine] . . . The general perception of America’s waning appetite for
engagement in the Middle East, underlined by Mr. Obama’s reluctance to support the moderate Syrian
opposition in any useful way has been damaging as well. (Ref.
1)
Contrast Obama’s indecisiveness and attempts to micromanage a growing war
from his desk in the White House to that of President George H. Bush and General Norman Shwartzkopf
in fighting the First Gulf War. President Bush ordered the American military to defeat Sadam Hussein
after his invasion of Kuwait and he gave General Schwartzkopf the authority and the resources to
carry out that mission. General Schwartkopf assembled the resources needed and in one swift and
overwhelming campaign largely destroyed the Iraqi army and drove them out of Kuwait. There was no
meddling or micromanaging from Washington. The orders given were clear and direct – defeat
the enemy.
“President Barack Obama has quietly approved guidelines in recent weeks
to allow the Pentagon to target Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, broadening previous plans that
had limited the military to counterterrorism missions against al-Qaeda after this year . . .
“The president's decisions also allow the military to conduct air support
for Afghan operations when needed. Obama issued the guidelines in recent weeks, as the American
combat mission in Afghanistan draws to a close, thousands of troops return home, and the military
prepares for narrower counterterrorism and training mission for the next two years.
"Obama's moves expand on what had been previously planned for next year.
One U.S. official said the military could only go after the Taliban if it posed a threat to
American forces or provided direct support to al-Qaeda, while the latter could be targeted more
indiscriminately.
" ‘To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States
and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al-Qaeda, however, we will take
appropriate measures to keep Americans safe,’ . . .
The Taliban's presence in Afghanistan far exceeds that of al-Qaeda,
adding significance to Obama's authorization. The president's decision came in response to
requests from military commanders who wanted troops to be allowed to continue to battle the
Taliban, . . .
- - -
“The decision to expand the military's authority does not impact the
overall number of U.S. troops that will remain in Afghanistan. Earlier this year. Obama ordered
the American force presence to be cut to 9,800 by the end of this year, a figure expected to be
cut in half by the end of 2015.
“The president wants all U.S. troops to be out of Afghanistan
a year later, as his presidency draws to a close. [Emphasis mine] (Ref.
2)
Unfortunately, President Obama is more interested in keeping a promise made
during his presidential campaign some 6-plus years ago than defeating a vicious
enemy and freeing a nation from the clutches of a barabaric and intolerant regime. What ever
happened to the “We will not forget!” promise of 2001?
The Afghan military has stated that “many military officers who are
involved in direct fighting with the Taliban and other insurgents {have reported} that still
there is a need for more cooperation, there is need for an ongoing U.S. combat mission and there
is need for U.S. air support for the Afghan security forces to help them in their fight against
the insurgents.” (Ref. 2)
There continues to be a pressing need for American and NATO forces to
continue their battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As 2014 was drawing to a close, “The Taliban are flexing their muscle
with a series of high-profile attacks . . . showing they are far from defeated as the
U.S. prepares to withdraw most of its forces from Afghanistan at year’s end.
“The Taliban have staged at least 12 attacks targeting foreigners in the past
three weeks, many of them inside Kabul.
“. . . critics who have watched the Islamic State sweep over Iraq after
the U.S. withdrawal are looking on nervously.
“The Afghanistan attacks come as the U.S. prepares to pull out
all but nearly 10,000 troops. [Emphasis mine]
“{A retired U.S. general} said the current problem in Kabul was avoidable.
“ ‘We predicted that we were going to have major problems around Kabul
and to the east of Kabul to the Pakistan border with the Haqqani network, {he} said, referencing
the powerful Pakistan-based Taliban affiliate. ‘The president did not give us the full
number of surge forces, and then over General Petraeus' objections, he pulled them out early.’
[Emphasis mine]
- - -
“So far this year, 36 aid workers have been killed and 95 wounded.
“South of Kabul in the Helmand Province, it took the Afghan security
forces three days to expel Taliban fighters who last Thursday overran Camp Bastion, the former
British and American Marine base handed over to Afghan security forces four weeks ago.”
(Ref. 3)
President Obama has been badly micromanaging the war against Islamic
terrorism ever since he took office. He has telegraphed our moves to the enemy; he has grossly
misjudged the opponent; he has displayed a total lack of any understanding of the basic concepts
of warfare; it also appears that he has placed himself above our military leaders in the
decision-making process; he has consistently demonstrated a failure to define any practical
strategy that could result in the defeat of the Islamic jihadist enemy. His actions in
Afghanistan clearly illustrate all of the above.
After announcing to the Taliban enemy there America’s intention to
withdraw, President Obama had to reverse himself and announce that some 10,000 troops would
remain, BUT, being the polite armchair general that he is, President Obama
told the Taliban not to worry, these troops would only train the Afghan military and would
not engage in combat with these jihadists. Then in early December 2014, President Obama had
to make another change in his position, when outgoing “U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
said . . . the United States will keep as many as 1,000 more troops in Afghanistan than
planned for the first part of 2015. . . . Hagel said the original plan to cut U.S. troop
levels to 9,800 by the end of this year had been abandoned, but not because of a recent
surge in Taliban attacks.” (Ref. 4)
You’ve got to be kidding! Why else are we sending more
soldiers to Afghanistan except to combat the increasing number of Taliban attacks that
resulted from our premature removal of American fighting forces? After all,
Afghanistan is not a place where we send our troops for R&R!
“Hagel said the U.S. will keep up to 10,800 troops for the first
few months of next year and then restart the drawdown, which is scheduled to reach 5,500 troops
by the end of 2015.” (Ref. 4)
JUST GREAT! So, once again, we telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Hey,
you Taliban! Plan your big offenses for 2016, after we Americans leave Afghanistan.
This would have been equivalent to our telling Adolph Hitler in early 1944 that we we
planning to land in Normandy in June of that year.
According to Hagel, “President Barack Obama ‘has provided U.S. military
commanders the flexibility to manage any temporary force shortfall that we might experience for a
few months as we allow for coalition troops to arrive in theater,’ . . . ‘But the
president's authorization will not change our troops' missions, or the long-term timeline for
our drawdown,’ [Emphasis mine] he added.” (Ref.
4)
The Taliban had brutally ruled Afghanistan since 1996 and had provided
a training ground for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were driven from power in late 2001, just weeks
after a U.S.-led invasion, prompted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was instituted by then President
George W. Bush. But, by 2008, following the election of Barack Obama, the U.S. was conceding that
the war in Afghanistan was stalemated.
The war in Afghanistan has lasted far longer than originally anticipated
and the final result remains in doubt as Obama officially ends the U.S. combat mission there at
the end of 2014. The decision by President Obama to end our combat role in Afghanistan was made
because of a campaign promise. The deteriorating situation on the ground there has not deterred
him in adhering to his pledge in spite of the possibility (probability?) of Afghanistan once
again reverting to a haven for al-Qaeda. President Obama appears to have forgotten or never
bought into our primary objective in Afghanistan - to once-and-for-all eliminate the threat
posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
“At the peak in 2010-2011 the U.S. had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.
The Americans have fought alongside troops from a coalition of countries, including Britain,
Canada, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Turkey and Poland.” (Ref.
4)
The shift to micromanaging the war against Islamic jihadist was evident
to the troops leading the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Special Operations units, the
Navy Seals, the Army Rangers and others. Following the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., these units
were tasked with seeking out and eliminating these terrorists. They were told to do the job
and then left to carry out this simple directive. But with a new administration in Washington,
things changed. By 2011, as reported by one veteran Navy Seal, “everything in Afghanistan
was getting harder. It seemed with every rotation we had new requirements or restrictions.
It took pages of PowerPoint slides to get a mission approved. Lawyers and staff officers
pored over the details on each page, making sure our plan was acceptable to the Afghan government.
- - -
“Policy makers were asking us to ignore all of the lessons
we had learned, especially the lessons learned in blood, for political solutions.
[Emphasis mine] For years, we had been sneaking into compounds, catching {jihadist}
fighters by surprise.
“Not anymore.
- - -
“It felt like we were fighting the war with one hand and filling
out paperwork with the other. When we brought back detainees, there were an additional two
or three hours of paperwork. The first question to the detainee at the base was always
‘Were you abused?’ An affirmative answer meant an investigation and more paperwork.
“And the enemy had figured out the rules.
“Their tactics evolved as fast as ours. On my earlier deployments,
they stood and fought. On more recent deployments, they started hiding their weapons, knowing
we couldn’t shoot them if they weren’t armed. The {jihadist} fighters knew the rules of
engagement and figured they’d just work their way through the system and be back to their
village in a few days.
“It was frustrating. We knew what we were sacrificing at home;
we were willing to give that up to do the job on our terms. As more rules were applied,
it became harder to justify taking the risks to our lives. The job was becoming
more about an exit strategy than doing the right job tactically. [Emphasis mine]”
(Ref. 5; Pages 140-142)
Unfortunately, the Obama administration was more concerned with
protecting the administration’s perceived version of the civil rights of radical Islamic
terrorists than it was with allowing the military to do their job and eliminate this
inhumane enemy. The administration’s actions were endangering the lives of our soldiers
and the lives of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, ultimately, has led to the
loss of thousands of lives - of Americans, westerners and other mid-east civilians who have
been viciously murdered, raped, enslaved and beheaded by these Islamic jihadists and their
cohorts. Our leaders are guilty of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
When President Obama finally realized the disaster that was
occurring in Iraq and Syria with the emergence of ISIS as a rapidly growing threat to the
region and to the U.S., and after his announced lack of strategy to counter the threat, he
reluctantly moved to combat the threat by allowing the military to conduct limited air strikes
against the forces of ISIS.
“The president hasn’t yet given the green light for an attack on Islamic
State militants in Syria, but the U.S. military campaign against the group there is being
designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control – going so
far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes.
[Emphasis mine] . . . Mr. Obama insisted anew that U.S. ground forces won’t engage in combat
in Iraq or Syria, despite suggestions by top military commanders that conditions could one
day require that U.S. advisers and other military units play a limited front-line role. . . .
"While President Obama reversed himself – somewhat – in the light of
the mushrooming threat from ISIS in Iraq and Syria, he also tied the hands of the
warfighters by: 1) announcing that the U.S. would not ‘put boots on the ground’ and then
trying to direct the apparently ineffective air campaign from the White House. As a consequence,
‘Top military leaders in the Pentagon and in the field are growing increasingly frustrated by
the tight constraints the White House has placed on the plans to fight ISIS and train a new
Syrian rebel army.’
“ . . . the generals and Pentagon officials leading the air campaign
and preparing to train Syrian rebels are working under strict White House orders to keep the
war contained within policy limits. The National Security Council has given precise instructions
on which rebels can be engaged, who can be trained, and what exactly those fighters will do
when they return to Syria. Most of the rebels to be trained by the U.S. will never be sent to
fight against ISIS.
“Making matters worse . . . is the ISIS war’s decision-making process,
run by National Security Advisor Susan Rice. It’s been manic and obsessed with the tiniest of
details. Officials talk of sudden and frequent meetings of the National Security Council and
the so-called ‘Principals Committee’ of top defense, intelligence, and foreign policy officials
. . . ; a barrage of questions from the NSC to the agencies that create mountains of paperwork
for overworked staffers; and NSC insistence on deciding minor issues even at the operational level.
“ ‘We are getting a lot of micromanagement from the White House. Basic
decisions that should take hours are taking days sometimes,’ {said} one senior defense official . . .
- - -
“Regardless of who’s in charge, the policy is failing. . . . the
airstrikes are not only having little impact on ISIS militarily, they’re not slowing down
{ISIS} recruitment either.
“More than 1,000 foreign fighters are streaming into Syria each month,
a rate that has so far been unchanged by airstrikes against the Islamic State and efforts by
other countries to stem the flow of departures, according to U.S. intelligence and
counterterrorism officials.
- - -
“The entire strategy against ISIS should be revisited, as well
as the leadership structure that is tasked with implementing it. We have political operatives in
charge of a military/diplomatic operation while the top officials in both arenas are apparently
being frozen out. That’s a recipe for disaster, and it’s no surprise at all that disaster is
all that the Obama administration has managed to produce in the region.” [Emphasis mine]
(Ref. 6)
“In August 1961, while the Soviets erected the Berlin Wall to plunge
the Cold War into the deep freeze, President John F. Kennedy ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to devise a nuclear-first strike plan. The Strategic Air Command responded with a plan involving
55 B-52’s hitting 80 Soviet bomber and missile bases and eliminating an estimated 90 percent of
the Soviet’s nuclear capability. Since Russian bomber and rocket bases were located in isolated
areas, civilian and military casualties, assessed at around one million, were thought low enough
when compared to the more than 20 million deaths Russia suffered in World War II. Kennedy
considered, but rejected the option. Nevertheless, the episode reflected bold thinking at
both the grand and operational levels of strategy.
“Simply put, strategy is a plan to achieve an objective. Speaking at
the White House recently, President Obama stated that his administration had no plan to
deal with the jihadist threat in Syria. [Emphasis mine] U.S. force against ISIS in Iraq
has, so far, involved disparate precision air strikes meant to curb the ISIS jihadists advancing
on Iraqi and Kurdish forces. This is clearly combat at the tactical rather than the strategic
level of war.
“There are two separate, but related, levels of strategy. The highest,
grand strategy lies within the president’s purview. The White House defines national policy,
prompting a grand strategy that the military fulfills with an operational strategy devised to
correspond to national strategic objectives. In short, President Obama must clearly state the
policy objective so the Pentagon can respond with an effective strategy to employ its forces
at the operational level of war.
“Grand strategy reflects national policy objectives and must correctly
identify the nature of the threat. . . . A viable grand strategy clearly identifies the enemy
and specifies a definitive end state. . . .
- - -
“National will is essential. After 13 years of war do the American people
have the will to properly take on ISIS? President Obama {should have gone} beyond the far left
political base’s disdain for using military force and made the case to the American people that
it is in the national security interest of the United States to move decisively against this
threat. . . .
“Operational strategy is the purview of military leaders who know what
their forces can do. It is the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s job to inform the president concerning
what resources are available and how a major recommitment to the Middle East will affect
readiness in the larger scheme of international security. . . .” (Ref.
7)
The president’s limiting the military to the bombing of ISIS trucks,
tanks and artillery pieces is both an exercise in futility and a clear demonstration of a lack
of understanding of the crisis posed by the growing power of Islamic jihadists. It is also
another unfortunate example of an amateur armchair general in the White House trying to
micromanage a war instead of turning over that responsibility to the professional generals
who are the ones qualified to perform that task.
President Obama must stop telegraphing to our enemies what we will or
will not do. As commander-in-chief, he should have defined the mission, given it to the military,
and then let them do their jobs without becoming an armchair general and micromanaging the
operation.
As Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said, “ ‘I’m worried {President Obama}
is going to nickel and dime the military…be an armchair general like LBJ in Vietnam’ . . .
“ He {also} said he hoped that Obama won’t ‘pull punches.’
“ ‘Give the military the mission, stand out of the way, and let them do
their jobs,’ ” (Ref. 8)
President Obama’s “two previous secretaries of Defense have raked him
over the coals for his indecisiveness in dealing with critical foreign policies and prosecuting
the war against terrorism.
“Former secretary Robert Gates, in his stinging memoir, ‘Duty’, confessed
he had deep misgivings about Obama's failed leadership in the war in Afghanistan. Obama, Gates wrote,
‘doesn't believe his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him it's all about
getting out.’
“Even as Obama was sending in additional forces in 2010, Gates said the
president made it clear that he was ‘skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.’
“Former Defense secretary Leon Panetta delivers an even more devastating
critique of the president in his new book, ‘Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and
Peace’. . . .
“In an interview . . ., Panetta said Obama's failure to retain a
military presence in Iraq ‘created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better
protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS [terrorists] began to breed.’
“Even his former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has made it clear
that she and Panetta strongly disagreed with Obama's stubborn opposition to arming the Syrian
rebels in their fight to topple a brutal dictator.” (Ref.
9)
President Obama said that he intended to shrink the al-Qaeda-spawned
Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) into a “manageable problem.” Strange words from our Commander-In-Chief
to describe the all-out brutal war being fought against these radical Islamic jihadists!
At the same time that the war on Islamic terror was escalating, “Mr.
Obama’s administration quietly approved the transfer of 55 jihadist prisoners out of the Guantanamo
Bay detention center {in spite of the fact that} most of the detainees had previously been
categorized as ‘high risk’ because they were deemed ‘likely to pose a threat to the US, its
interests, and allies’ if released. . . .” (Ref.
9)
Does this action seem reasonable in light of the growing terror threat
from ISIS, al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadist organizations? Remember that the release of these
"high risk" prisoners occurred just two short years after al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists attacked
the American government compound in Libya, killing our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
Members of the U.S. security team in Benghazi said they were prevented from trying to save Ambassador
Stevens and President Obama declined to take any meaningful responsive action. Involved in this
attack were operatives of Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Ansar al-Sharia is led
by Sufian Ben Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who, not surprisingly, went right back to the
jihad. So, in the spirit of peace, love, and understanding, we continue to release more
potential murderers of Americans and other innocent people.
“News of Obama’s approval of the mass transfer of Gitmo detainees came
less than two weeks after the Benghazi massacre. Let that sink in: The Obama administration knew
that a former Gitmo detainee was complicit in the most humiliating defeat suffered by the United
States since the 9/11 attacks that took the nation to war; yet, the president approved the transfer
of dozens more Gitmo terrorists. Just as, only a few months ago, he approved the transfer of five
top Taliban commanders even as the Taliban was (and is) continuing to conduct terrorist operations
against American troops in Afghanistan.
“Shocking, yes, but how surprising from Barack Obama? Mind you, this is
the president who, though AWOL . . . while terrorists were killing and wounding American personnel
in Benghazi . . . the very next day . . . declare{d} victory: ‘A day after 9/11, we are reminded
that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin
Laden is dead.’
- - -
“. . . Benghazi massacre would never have happened had Obama not
switched sides in Libya . . . and partner{ed} with Eastern Libyan jihadists. The president’s
strategy ensured that enemies of the United States would acquire much of Qaddafi’s arsenal,
empowering jihadist cells throughout North Africa and the Middle East, growing al-Qaeda and
what would become the Islamic State. And as we have seen in just the last few weeks, Obama’s
“lead the jihad from behind” strategy has resulted in the near complete disintegration of Libya,
with Ansar al-Sharia and its allies now controlling much of Tripoli.” (Ref.
10)
Under President Obama and after 13 costly years of war, terrorism is spreading
worldwide; our enemies have sustained our blows and still adapted, and grown. The armchair
general in the White House has failed to meet the growing threat.
Recent studies support the conclusion that global terror trends are heading
in an ever more dangerous direction. “In early June, the Rand Corporation released a study that
detailed the growing threat. It reports that in 2007, there were 28 Salafi-jihadist groups like
al Qaeda. As of last year, there were 49. In 2007, these groups conducted 100 attacks. Last year,
they conducted 950. The study estimates that there were between 18,000 and 42,000 such terrorists
active seven years ago. The low-end estimate for last year, at 44,000, is higher than the top
estimate for 2007, and the new high-end estimate is 105,000. . . . ‘Since 2010, there has been a
58 percent increase in the number of jihadist groups, a doubling of jihadist fighters and a
tripling of attacks by Al Qaeda affiliates. The most significant threat to the United States,
the report concludes, comes from terrorist groups operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.’
“. . . The war in Iraq was not over or won when {our president} said it
was. Nor is the war on terror won or the threat it poses resolved simply by no longer using the term
or suggesting our goal was merely to inflict damage on the tiny fraction of terrorists who were
associated with the 9/11 attacks. The reality is that we are still fighting the last war
on terror even as a new set of risks loom and are made worse by our minimizing their implications
for political purposes.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref.
11) Unfortunately our Comander-in-Chief, President Barack Obama,
has “led from behind” during his two terms in office.
“The scariest of anxieties for any country involves an incompetent
military commander in crisis. That’s what we’ve come to in America.” (Ref.
11) Our Washington armchair general, Barack Obama, the commander in
chief of the most powerful army on Earth, has had no military training. Yet he apparently refuses
the advice of his more competent field commanders and advisors.
Make no mistake - we are at war. This is a war for survival. Our enemy,
is a worldwide menace intent on killing all “infidels.”
“After telling the world, ‘I don’t have a strategy’ against the
enemy, this president later broadcasted to those enemies what his war plans will be. Stupidly,
he told Islamic State terrorists that they will not face American ‘boots on the ground’ — so
now they can plan accordingly. No competent commander blabs to his enemy what he will not do.
Obama has even stated publicly the timelines he plans to follow.” (Ref.
12) He has done this before – in Afghanistan, in Syria, and in Libya.
The results to date have been disastrous.
Confronting Islamic State effectively requires a well thought out and
consistent strategy that keeps the enemy in the dark. What America, and the world, has got is a
master of hesitancy and ambivalence — major reasons for jihadist and fanatic Islamic successes.
Obama “dithered in the early days of the revolution in Syria, allowing the jihadists to gain
the initiative. Obama’s inaction allowed the jihadists to capture major regions of Syria and
Iraq. His ‘red line’ in the sand comment about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime
is the stuff of parody.” (Ref. 12)
Our commander-in-chief is a quitter. He quit Libya, ordered a full
withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, and is leaving Afghanistan now. ISIS and the other jihadi fanatics
know he is a quitter and count on it. In many cases, the jihadist battle plan is simply to wait
him out.
Only an incompetent armchair general does these things – one who lacks experience,
exercises poor judgment, won’t listen to more qualified experts and appears not to comprehend the nature and
extent of the threat facing him, this nation and the non-jihadist people of the world.
A real general – not an armchair general – must have a strategy, must be
prepared for the unexpected, and, most importantly, must lead. Overseeing a retreat from global
responsibilities as the Obama administration has tried to do, i.e., leading from behind,
has ignored the unfortunate consequences of this ill-conceived policy. What is now resulting is
more mayhem, more destruction, and more killing. Weakness and retreat are not a viable strategy
at a period of time like this that marks the rise of radical Islamic jihad.
Paraphrasing a famous rejoinder to a one-time vice-presidential candidate,
”Mr. President, you’re no Dwight Eisenhower!”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
- Al-Qaeda returns:The new face of terror, Earl H. Tilford, The Economist,
28 September 2013.
- AP sources: Obama broadens mission in Afghanistan, Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul,
Afghanistan, contributed to this report, AOL, 22 November 2014.
- Taliban flexing muscle with high-profile attacks ahead of US drawdown, Justin Fishel,
Jennifer Griffin, FoxNews/.com/politics, 02 December 2014.
- More US troops than planned to stay Afghanistan, Robert Burns (AP), AOL,
6 December 2014.
- No Easy Day, Mark Owen, New American Library Trade Paperback ISBN 978-0-451-46874-1,
May 2014.
- Pentagon lashes out at ISIS war “micromanagement” at WH, Ed Morrissey,
hotair.com, 31 October 2014.
- Strategy 101: A primer for President Obama, Earl H. Tilford,
www.visionandvalues.org, 4 September 2014.
- Paul Ryan to President Obama: Get out of the way and let the military do it’s job,
Douglas Barclay, Rare,
1 October 2014.
- Obama Administration is a Swamp of Ineptitude, Mismanagement and Sordid Scandals,
Donald Lambro, townhall.com, 10 October 2014.
- A Mismanage-able Problem, Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review Online,
10 September 2014.
- We are Losing the War on Terror, David Rothkopf, Carnegie Endowment For
International Peace, 10 June 2014.
- Commander in chief Obama has no war-fighting creds, won’t listen to those who do,
John R. Smith, bizpacreview.com, 22 September 2014.
|
|
