I’m actually down with a cold of some kind, and I don’t have the energy to properly go off on that speech, but: when it comes to our apparent policy for fighting in Iraq Barack Obama seems to have found his inner Palmerston or Disraeli. Basically, what’s going to happen is that we’re about to start arming a subject ally tribe – the Kurds – and let them kill ISIS. And, not incidentally, acquire territory (whether what we’re still gamely calling ‘Iraq’ objects or not). This is not necessarily a bad call, theoretically – but I am uncertain that the President realizes that he’s adopting a strategy that British imperialists would have recognized on sight.
To say nothing of Barack Obama’s father, who by all accounts hated those same British imperialists with great vim and vigor. Whether this is irony, or a bizarre attempt at therapy, is beyond the scope of this post – suffice it to say, I really wish that Barack Obama had taken more history classes in college. Proper ones.
Any theories on how they’ll screw it up? Presidential veto over where the Kurds can target? No heavy weapons?
How odd: Obama made a decision I don’t hate.
Remember, dear Kurds, you keep what you kill.
Great movie reference and a good philosophy for them to adopt.
It’s early yet Erin, the fact that he cited Yemen and Somalia as successes doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence. If they’re successes I’d hate to see what abject failure would look like.
Ummm… Myanmar?
.
And yes, it is early for this decision, but .. if this goes anywhere other than Beirut circa 1983, it will have the anti-war left making embarrassing demands of the Dem 2016 hopefuls.
.
The media will try to suppress those demands, of course, but .. they ain’t what they used to be.
.
Mew
Here is the “feature, not a bug” that will help the Jihadi’s.
He said:
“support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground.”
and
“In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost,” he said. “Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”
So he is going to send military aid to the Free Syrian Army [FSA] which is at best an ally of, and more likely a component of ISIL. We are going to be arming the enemy. Combine that with Buraq Hussein chairing a Security Council meeting [an endless source of uselessness, squared]; and I expect to see ISIL sitting with the US delegation.
I say this without heat: please use the man’s real name on this site.
“To say nothing of Barack Obama’s father, who by all accounts hated those same British imperialists with great vim and vigor.”
Wouldn’t it be awesome, though, if he was fully aware of that, but had no choice but to pursue this course of action anyway?
Seems to me the horse has already left the gate. ISIS moved with ease into Iraq; Syria will remain in flux, but the base of operations is in Iraq with all the territory and money they’ve captured. Arming the Syrian rebels, which I’m against because I believe they will use the arms to take down Assad, and at this point Assad will seek all the aid and allies he can – including from Iran, perhaps Russia. The Syrian rebels yielded ISIS, that’s not going to stop.
Mr. Obama lost Iraq, and that’s the real tragedy. The genocide which has already gone on cannot be undone, and unless ISIS is destroyed the Middle-East, Europe and America remain in grave danger. The weak president of the United States is nothing more than an appeaser whose heart lies elsewhere…though only the Good Lord knows where.
And 24 hours later Chaos and Confusion reign. It’s not a war and we’re not sure what Isis Destruction would mean without a dictionary. Britain and Germany won’t bomb Isis in Syria and Turkey won’t let us use bases in their country. However we apparently have changed the map so that Syria shares an extended border with Saudi Arabia. So I guess there’s that.