18 thoughts on “The World, At War”

  1. Obama is asking Congress for a blank check to arm “moderate” Syrian rebels. (CNN link)

    Twitchy is pretty brutal about the stupidity of that idea.

    That plan was sooo two years ago.

    ISIS has recently been bragging about the large numbers of Western trained fighters that are joining them. We also know that the “moderates” frequently join forces with ISIS and al Nusra to attack Syrian positions, so arming the moderates is just beefing up ISIS’s allies, freeing up ISIS forces for action on other fronts. And the chief way to make this total disaster worse by helping defeat the Syrian army, allowing all the jihadists to overrun the rest of Syria and devastate Lebanon, killing all the Christians, Shi’ites, Druze, and everyone else who isn’t a radical Sunni jihadist. It won’t matter if some of the victorious jihadist groups are “moderate”, because those will celebrate and go home while the ISIS decapitation squads finish clearing out the region block by block,

    1. “We also know that the “moderates” frequently join forces with ISIS and al Nusra to attack Syrian positions, so arming the moderates is just beefing up ISIS’s allies, freeing up ISIS forces for action on other fronts.”

      They also banded together to take over UN border checkpoints on the Golan Heights. 40 Fijian peacekeepers are being held captive. The same thing almost happened to a Filipino checkpoint but they disobeyed orders from the UN and fought their way out in a daring escape.

      Maybe we could trade Iran their nuclear weapons program and Syria transitioning to a secular democratic republic with a figurehead monarchy for getting rid of ISIS.

  3. I’m still annoyed that Obama’s war in Yemen gets very nearly zero press coverage. Obama’s foreign policy has been disaster following on disaster. The world has gotten less stable and less secure under his watch and even now he’s not doing much to make things better.

    1. If you were the president, what would you do differently in Yemen? Or, if you prefer, could you elaborate on what you think Obama is doing wrong with Yemen? Thanks.

      1. Bob, before you try to steer the conversation tangentally, what is your own position on Obama’s foreign policy in Yemen, particularly given the consensus of the NDC? His policies have dramatically increased civilian casualties and an objective observer could make a compelling case against the United States for significant human rights violations.

        1. Asking Robin to elaborate is not steering. If you think Robin’s comment is tangential, tell Robin, but don’t complain because I found Robin’s comment interesting.

          2. LOL Bob, your entire MO is to go off on tangents. And I noticed you chose not to answer the question I asked you. I am interested in your own thinking with regards to Obama’s foreign policy as implemented in Yemen.

      2. Do I really need to explain how bombing a country with a questionable degree of discrimination, so much so that it has engendered massive anti-americanism locally, is maybe not the best way to prosecute any war? Using drones as a tool of assassination is really only useful when the number of assassinations is very, very low (e.g. 1 per year or so). Using drone strikes as just another means of aerial bombardment leads to a lot of “collateral damage”, which works about as well as it always has.

        As far as Yemen, doing nothing at all there would actually be better than what we’re doing right now, so at a bare minimum I’d say that would be a strong alternative.

      3. Hey Bob – to help you with your Tangent Tourettes – Robin was complaining about the lack of MSM coverage of Obama’s war in Yemen.

      4. The problem with the shadow drone wars in Yemen, Somalia, and other places is that they are not intended to solve the AQ problem by eliminating them but rather to harass. Because they are not intended to eliminate AQ and its affiliates, their duration is indefinite or perpetual. Obama isn’t being honest about that.

        We can’t have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else because Obama doesn’t want perpetual war, even if those troops are just sitting in a base to give us diplomatic leverage. But Obama does want perpetual drone war. He needs to be honest with Americans about that and he isn’t.

        I tend to like taking the fight to our enemy AQ and their affiliates but drone war is a stop gap short term strategy. It may prevent them from having the freedom to attack us but it doesn’t help AQ’s other victims. There needs to be other military and diplomatic efforts to combat AQ and the President is not engaged in planning or implementing them, they are not taking place.

        In Yemen, we partnered with a dictator on par with Assad. He used our aide to go after non-Islamic rebels just as much as going after AQ. Are we using diplomacy in Yemen so that cultural changes are made so that the ideology motivating AQ is not accepted in their society? Nope. We are not even doing that in America.

        Military action is important but it isn’t the only tool and cant be the only tool used but it is hard for diplomacy to work when the administration and its allies in the media can not even correctly identify the problem that our diplomacy needs to address. Obama cant even be honest about what is motivating ISIS. You can’t solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it even exists.

    2. The President speechified that he’s using Yemen and Somalia as the model for how to handle ISIS. He also insisted that we’ll train and supply forces trying to topple Assad, so he still hasn’t figured out that making ISIS fight a two-front war is better than teaming with them on one front while opposing them on another.

      Anyone opposing a massive Sunni-Islamist jihadist movement has by now started supporting Assad’s regime, since his forces are the only roadblock that’s stopping such a disastrous outcome. Anyone trying to topple Assad is helping to bring about that end, because if Assad’s regime falls then the Sunni jihadists will take over. There’s no way any force we supply will have the draw (manpower) and the legitimacy in the Islamic world that ISIS does, because obviously the forces we supply will be seen as acting as a Western puppet and when the dust settles they won’t be able to stand up to the hard line Islamists. The policy of backing a secular opposition might have worked – two years ago, but that ship has sailed.

      Perhaps the motivation for Obama’s absurd plan is to adopt a doomed policy that was pushed by Hillary Clinton so that it’s abject failure will become obvious just in time for the 2016 Democratic primaries.

  4. This clown in the WH is doing all he can to make the world unsafe. We have to survive his term in office and get someone that knows what they’re doing to replace him. I fear the odds of that happening are very low. The future is going to get much worse than today folks.

    Putin is the bigger threat at the moment because we can’t avoid getting in the way of his ambitions. Both are dangerous in different ways and we can’t deal with one and not the other (the dreaded two front war.)

    BO’s foreign policy is we lose, they win. I like we win, they lose, better. Didn’t we once have a president with that policy?

    Sometimes, because of timing, you end up in a situation with no good choices. BO is setting us up for that situation.

  6. So Obama has announced what some are calling “Operation Rolling Blunder”. As with everything, watch what he does, not what he says. Yet another Obama speech doesn’t solve anything.

    1. Along with Rolling Blunder, suggestions have included Operation Righteous Hashtag, Operation Cautious Fury, and Wheel of Strategy. I’ll toss in Operation Feckless Failure.

Comments are closed.