How will Obama deal with the threat from ISIL?

Aaron Gardner:


...
Conservatives and libertarians who are war weary have good reason to be skeptical of any plans to go after ISIS while President Obama “leads” the nation. Even the Daily Beast, who you might have noticed called the ISIS war in Iraq “his [Obama's] war”, asks whether President Obama will actually follow through.

One huge unanswered question is whether the president will order the attacks, or whether he will ultimately balk, as he did this time last year after preparing for limited strikes against the Bashar al-Assad regime. One administration official working on Syria policy said the purpose of the meetings Tuesday was “to convince one man, Barack Obama,” to follow through on the rhetoric and widen the aims of the war to include destroying ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. While Obama and his top officials have said they will need to address the threat of ISIS on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border, Obama has not said specifically what that means.

It amazes me that after executions of Christians, other infidels, and an American Journalist, not to mention the disintegration of the Iraq/Syria border and mass unrest in the middle east, that this President actually still needs to be convinced that action is needed. Considering the President’s own rhetoric between tee times, it is no wonder that the American people are confused, uneasy, and unwilling to commit to any military action at this time.

President Obama needs to come out not only with moral clarity but also clarity as it applies to the ideological struggle we are in, the strategic vision he and his administration have to address the threat of ISIS, and the long term nature of this fight.

But he won’t. Instead President Obama will continue to give stirring speeches filled with soaring and patriotic rhetoric that do nothing to address the security concerns of the nation.
...
Obama lacks strategic vision.  He seems to resist a strategy that would destroy the enemy, and he is allowing only a few strikes to thwart current operations of ISIL in Iraq in certain situations, but so afr he is not allowing the kind of persistent attacks needed to destroy ISIL operations.   A massive and persistent air campaign is needed to prevent ISIL movement to contact and to destroy their mechanized assets.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike

Liberal fascists strike against Trump supporters in Berkeley

OPEC reduces production again in price maintenance program