Posted by Jack with closing comments by Jack
This is from Obama’s blog to our blog regarding his 4 part strategy to defeat ISIL (ISIS)…
1. A systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL
Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
2. Increased support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground
In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi security forces. Now that those teams have completed their work — and Iraq has formed a government — we will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We’ll also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control.
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people — a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. 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.
3. Drawing on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks
Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.
4. Providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced by ISIL
This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.
“This is our strategy,” the President said, adding that the United States has a “broad coalition of partners” joining us in this effort:
Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity. And in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria, to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: We stand with people who fight for their own freedom, and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.
President Obama also noted the bipartisan support for this strategy here in the United States, and welcomed congressional support for the strategy “in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.”
There is no true bi-partisan effort here because the republican leadership doesn’t believe in Obama’s strategy of being hawkish about bombing and dovish about committing ground troops to hold territory. Our best military leaders, all outside of Obama’s circle, which is almost all of them, say we need to commit ground troops in Iraq to destroy ISIS. They warn, the delays are being paid for in blood by tens of thousands of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Time is of the essence and trying to slowly wear ISIS down is not a viable strategy to end their rule of terror.
There is no true allied coalition, this is another fiction created by delusion in the White House. The United States is not stepping up to lead. Without us leading there is nobody else, period! It’s true that we have an array of like-minded nations that would support us against ISIS and Al Qaeda and they would do it on the ground. But, it’s going to take more than a commitment for air strikes to gain their full cooperation.
Many military experts in counterterrorism claim that President Obama has not learned from history and this includes our recent past failures in Iraq. This ignorance has compromised any hope for a lasting positive impact either in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The war in Syria is another problem that has lingered on far longer than necessary. It’s eventual outcome is impossible to predict now because there’s no leadership coming from the White House. Obama drew a red line, then failed to act. He is now trying to seek a compromise that has no firm commitment for ground forces and that is the only way to hold territory.
Also missing from Obama’s strategy is the underlying problem. This is the big elephant in the room and it’s not ISIS (ISIL). They’re a destabilizing force in the Arab world and a threat to US citizens abroad, but the real threat to our national security is Islamic radicalism.
Radicalism in Islam is something Obama doesn’t even want to acknowledge. Yet it is radical Islam that is still recruiting terrorists, still raising money for ISIS and other Islamic terrorists, they’re undermining these weak and/or abusive Arab governments, thus fomenting chaos leading to uncertainty about stability in the near future.
There is simply no long range plan that the US can implement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Nigeria, Somalia, Niger, Botswana, Algeria, Djibouti and a dozen more [at-risk] Muslim dominated nations because we’re failing to deal with the root cause, i.e, violence because of radical Islam. It’s incredibly disconcerting that the White House doesn’t want to mention these 3 words together Muslim, radical and terrorism as if they were completely separate entities! They are not! This is “head in the sand’ denial at its worst. And it doesn’t belong in our foreign policy, it’s dangerous and stupid.
Obama’s foreign policy barely encourages reform from within these dictatorial Islamic governments. And it completely ignores radicalization and its violence. ISIL/ISIS is not the problem, they’re the symptom, and we are currently treating only the symptom. That’s a plan for failure. History has taught us that you can’t contain the disease by treating only the symptom.
Denial is NOT an effective strategy.
It is no coincidence that 8 of the 10 most dangerous countries in the world are under Islamic rule. However, as bad as they may be, you’ve never once heard the White House address this truth or even talk about ways these problem countries could reform in order to enter the 21st century as civilized partners.
We have witnessed too many times when firmness and resolution was called for we got appeasement and pointless dialog. This weakness led to risky situations for the US becoming worse, i.e., the Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iraq to name but a few.
Without any question in my mind, no leader in the Western World has been any softer on Islamic corruption, violence, human-rights abuses and other forms of Muslim extremism than President Barrack Hussein Obama. This tepidity has eroded our credibility and weakened our national security. Because of Obama’s consistent blunders, it will make correcting these problems more difficult, more costly and more lethal. This is Obama’s legacy and we have paid dearly for it and we will continue to pay long after he is gone.
Let me conclude with this: Robert Egnell, wrote in “War on The Rocks”, “A clear indicator is the fact that several of the “allies” currently participating in the air campaign are in the problem column rather than the solutions one. If the military and political activities planned to defeat ISIL would also be the solutions to the underlying issues and the host of other current and future “symptoms” in the region, the Obama strategy would indeed make sense. However, invading and democratizing Iraq as a solution to the problem of the Middle East did not work particularly well the last time, nor did the attempt to deal with terrorism by invading and transforming Afghanistan.
If ISIL is a symptom – albeit a serious one – the current plan to defeat it can really only be tactical or operational in its effects.”
Funny how he wants Clowngress to pony up more $$ so he can “fight” ISIS. Like the redefinition of terrorist to “workplace violence,” the reclassification of the Taliban to “armed insurgenc,” now “fight” will be re-defined as more vacations and golf games. First, da prez has to actually admit the existence of islamic jihadists and that’s not gonna happen.
We’ve heard this rhetoric from Obumble before and when it comes to action, da Prez ALWAYS is out to lunch.
There aren’t too many efforts or campaigns that “work” when there is no follow through.
Given the immediate sentiment in the country following 911 Bush had good reason to presume the nation was committed to fight what he dubbed a “War on Terror.” He didn’t hold back on the difficult job that lay ahead. He said the effort could last through several presidencies and take twenty years to achieve. By the time he finished his eight year term the Middle East, never perfect, was at least stable. The potential to eliminate the radical threat had been established. All that was needed was strong leadership and smart diplomacy.
On the fifth anniversary of 911 the President was still acknowledging the way ordinary Americans had stepped up to fight this evil force in the world and not hesitating in defining and naming the threat. It might be well worth the time to read the entire speech. The following excerpt is indicative of committed, focused leadership:
Unfortunately the American people were hoodwinked by party radicals and extremists that worked throughout Bush’s terms to undermine his clarity of purpose and commitment to defeat the enemy. They used every Saul Alinsky trick in the book to personally smear the Bush administration as a means to regaining political power in Washington.
The candidate they chose had no intention of following through to defeat our enemies. He had a radical agenda of his own and the tools to implement that agenda of “fundamental transformation.”
We are now witnessing the living he77 that his arrogance, worldview, and sloppy leadership has wrought.
I can’t explain the short attention span and flighty focus that seems indicative of the average American citizen today. Perhaps living free makes people complacent to the degree that they are incapable of seeing real threats in their world. Perhaps we have become so used to living the good life that we fail to fathom the seriousness of the enemy or the threat we face. We have become a frivolous people seeking self gratification on an hourly basis.
I feel the most discouraged for the wonderful young men and women who did bravely step forward. Their courage and dedication marks the only sense of a possible better tomorrow in terms of understanding the value of freedom and human rights. The nations response to the movie, “American Sniper” also gives me hope. But one thing is crystal clear. We cannot afford another weak leader at our helm whether or not we are “dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”
To be clear, the above quote represents a most despicable statement about the former administration. That it has been uttered several times by the man currently at the helm, a man that by his actions and words doesn’t deserve to serve in the same capacity, is deplorable.
All that was needed was commitment and follow through. The last six years represent failure, retreat, lack of vision and unity of purpose. Going forward we will either get serious or see a world in chaos for decades and decades to come. That’s not a legacy I care to hand off to our children since its the world they will have to inhabit.
I certainly can’t see any chance of clarity of purpose or commitment in the Democrat Party candidates thus far. New revelations about Hillary’s hand in Libya put her candidacy in serious question.
All this war because of religion makes me think that we are seeing the beginning of Armageddon.
Dan you are not the first to think that. If you believe in Bible prophecy then you have to believe the seeds of that ultimate showdown has to start somewhere. This kinda looks like it to me, but who knows when it will happen? Could be hundreds of years in the future.
Could be hundreds of years in the future, on the other hand, never before have we had all of the elements of the prophecy present and possible. It’s a bit unsettling at times. Be prepared, as they say.
Tina: “never before have we had all of the elements of the prophecy present and possible.”
You realize that this exact statement has been made by doomsday prophets for centuries, right?
Dr. K. nails it.
Krauthammer Blows the Cover Off the President’s ‘Pretend Strategy’ to Get ISIS:
“On Monday, President Obama told NBC News that ‘anything we could be doing, we are doing’ to battle ISIS, but that isn’t passing the Charles Krauthammer smell test.
The columnist and Fox News contributor laid out on Special Report last night what he calls President Obama’s ‘pretend’ media message and what’s actually happening on the ground. In short, “It is containment in Syria, roll back in Iraq.”
Krauthammer said the President is still stinging from his previous ‘we have no strategy‘ on ISIS comment, so his explicit ‘pretend’ message is now he’s out to stop ISIS while his ‘unspoken’ strategy amounts to rolling back the Islamist terrorists only in Iraq –while leaving the Syrian debacle to the next president. Krauthammer told host Bret Baier:
(Y)ou can interpret the movements that we are doing on the ground in this way we’re going to try to say, for example, recapture Mosul, that will be the objective over the following year to roll them back in Iraq but leave them, essentially, unmolested in Syria because, if you want to actually accomplish that, then you have to have a major ground war. You leave Syria, I assume, for the next presidency.
He calls it a tragedy the President has “liquidated all the positions of strength we had in 2011″ and now the U.S. is “starting from scratch” in efforts to roll back ISIS in Iraq.”
Chris: “You realize that this exact statement has been made by doomsday prophets for centuries, right?”
Yes, Mr. Smarta$$, but never before in our history has there been the means (Internet) for an emerging religious/political tyrant to take control over who can buy and sell, for example.
Before posting an ignorant arrogant jab maybe you should know what you’re talking about, right?
Tina, by “know what you’re talking about,” do you mean that one must believe in the evangelical Christian concept of the end of days?
You sure are contentious, Chris. I said nothing that suggested as much.
I mean you should be aware of interpretations of prophecy, whether you believe or not, if your going to arrogantly challenge the current situation in light of end times prophecy. You gave no indication that you are.
It really is irrelevant that people have believed we were in the end times before. We were discussing what’s going on today…do you have anything at all to add to that discussion or are you simply here to be a smart a$$?
Yeah, I am a smartass to people who say the end times are coming because of “Biblical prophecy” while at the same time disparaging the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change. The former is simply arrogant and blasphemous, as it presupposes knowledge that no human could possibly have. But combine the former with the latter and now we can add hypocritical to the mix as well.
“Yeah, I am a smartass to people who say the end times are coming because of “Biblical prophecy” while at the same time disparaging the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.”
A. I didn’t make a case that the end times are coming, just an observation. It is neither blasphemous nor arrogant to wonder and notice.
B. The climate has always “changed.” The notion that humans can affect that change to any great degree, or “fix it,” is absurd and built on politics not sound science.
There is no hypocrisy on my part but you are still nothing but a smart a$$.
Tina: “B. The climate has always “changed.” The notion that humans can affect that change to any great degree, or “fix it,” is absurd and built on politics not sound science.”
97% of scientists accept that climate is changing at an undesirable rate due to the impact of humans.
50% of our politicians accept the same thing.
Yeah, that totally proves that it’s the scientists who are politically motivated. *sigh*
Jordan gets it.
That 97% of scientists percentage is a carefully crafted deception!
And 50% of politicians will do anything and say anything to get elected.
RHT447 YES! Finally a leader steps forward to stand up to these monsters!
Tina: “That 97% of scientists percentage is a carefully crafted deception!”
No, it’s not, and linking to Anthony Watts to prove anything is absurd.
Multiple studies have verified that number.
Oh but it is a deception, Chris. And Anthony Watts has the number one science blog so you can stuff that ridiculous lefty lie as well.
Multiple studies to verify the number done by people pushing the green agenda isn’t any more reliable than the 97% figure.
The link to WUWT above includes the finding of research into origin of the claim and some damning quotes by participants in the survey. Ransom excerpts:
Another damning bit of evidence is that although the figure is said to represent “97% of scientists’ most of the scientists that participated were from America with an unusually high number from California. Hardly a world wide consensus of opinion and representing a decidedly deceitful claim.
Tina: “And Anthony Watts has the number one science blog so you can stuff that ridiculous lefty lie as well.”
Yeah, and Two and a Half Men is the number one comedy in the country.
Ratings =/= quality.
A Democrat I agree with. He “unloads” on both parties and DC. Long but worth watching.
Democrat Strategist UNLOADS: My Party Is The ‘Dictator To The Common Man’:
“One of the two Republican leaders confidently told a dinner companion last year that he can ignore the tea party agenda, as it is “only 8% of his base.” Caddell has news for the mistaken leader and others showing ignorance of those who put them in office. Caddell confirms, “It ain’t 8%. It’s about 40% of his voters.” He is stunned at the disconnect that seems to be growing in the Republican Party. He even relayed a warning that “1/4 to 1/3 of Republicans appear ready to bolt their party.”
Caddell discusses a “donor, lobbyist, establishment class” of Republicans who “have lost election after election” while lining their own pockets, abusing donors and destroying candidates. “They have no message,” he declares. “The problem with Republicans is that as long as they can keep their hands on their goodies in this town, a lot of these lawyers, lobbyists and others, they don’t care whether the Republican Party wins or what happens to the country.”
Chris those who watch “Two and a Half Men” are in sink with the subject matter.
Those who follow Anthony’s blog are diverse and include highly educated and informed people regarding the subject matter.
Apples to oranges…no pass.
Meanwhile, evidence of a giant warming scam continues to emerge.
Tina, I read that article the other day about the temps being adjusted to come up with bogus higher temps. Just another scandal for people to deal with or will people actually wake up to the fact they are being scammed.
Those poor people on the east coast are getting buried in record snows. Hopefully, the few remaining power plants will keep the people warm and safe. Wonder how many of them will believe in global warming after the next storm due in dumps anther two feet of snow on top of the five feet they already have. Looks very bad.
Does Christopher Booker exist? Or is he simply a device invented to waste as much of other people’s time as possible? Might he in fact be a computer programme randomly generating nonsense in order to keep scientists, environmentalists and public health campaigners so busy refuting it that they can’t get on with what they ought to be doing? I ask because it seems almost impossible that one man could make so many superhuman cock-ups.
Some people claim to have met him, and my friends at Private Eye swear that a man of that name has been working alongside them for 50 years. Veteran journalists assert that there was once a real Christopher Booker, who was capable of intelligent and even penetrating journalism, and that the man who wears his clothes today bears no relationship to the one they once knew. Has he been replaced by a replicant, remotely controlled by an evil genius in a concrete fortress, surrounded by a piranha-stocked moat? Or has he simply been playing to the gallery for so long that he can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction?
In either case, scarcely a week goes by in which he fails to publish at least one excruciating howler. It doesn’t matter what the subject is: whether it is asbestos or the European Union, speeding or the family courts, he makes such a remarkable concatenation of mistakes that, if he didn’t take himself so seriously, you could almost swear he was doing it deliberately.
This time-wasting exercise would be best ignored if it were not for two things: that the Sunday Telegraph continues to give him a platform for this rubbish, and that his cock-ups have consequences.
Much of his journalism consists of the reckless endangerment of the public. In a long series of articles he has falsely claimed that the danger from white asbestos is insignificant. To support his contention that innocent parents are being harassed by over-zealous officials, he relayed a partisan account which served to minimise and dismiss the serious injuries inflicted on a small baby [see paragraph 185 onwards]. The judge pointed out Booker’s “significant factual errors and omissions”. And he went on to say: “All of this underlines the dangers inherent in journalists relying on partisan and invariably tendentious reporting by family members and their supporters rather than being present in court to hear the evidence which the court itself hears.”
He has published scores of articles insisting that global warming isn’t caused by humans, and suggesting that we can carry on burning fossil fuels without regard for the climate. Even when the people he cites as his sources (the health and safety executive in the case of asbestos) try to correct him, he keeps repeating the myth.
How many builders have failed to protect themselves from white asbestos during demolitions, as a result of his claims? How many people have burned or vandalised speed cameras after reading his articles? How many people have campaigned against efforts to curtail man-made climate change because of the misinformation he has published?
The mistakes he made in his last column almost compare to his all-time cock-up of cock-ups, in which he pointed out, in February 2008, that “Arctic ice isn’t vanishing after all.” The “warmists”, he said, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now the ice cover had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter.
The latest example of gibberish very nearly reaches these giddy heights. Though he has been writing about energy policy for longer than I can remember, Booker now demonstrates that the most basic energy concepts elude him.
Here is what he wrote on Sunday:
“Like many other households who, during all that global warming last winter, watched the cost of their oil-fired central heating soaring through the roof, we are now switching to gas. Thus did I learn that the absurdly over-large boiler we are getting rid of generates 100 kilowatts.
“Hang on, I exclaimed: that wind turbine up the hill from where we live in Somerset generated only just over 500kW last year. So a giant wind turbine that cost £2m to build, and that costs us £200,000 a year in subsidies, on top of the £200,000 we pay for its electricity, produces only five times as much energy as the oil-fired boiler I use to warm my house.”
The average 12-year-old should be able to spot at least one of the mistakes here, but let me spell them out. I’ll begin with the word “produces”, as in “produces only five times as much energy as the oil-fired boiler I use to warm my house.”.
I’ll give Booker the benefit of the doubt and assume he is aware that energy is neither created nor destroyed. If so, this must mean he is talking about useful energy, and that “produces” means converting energy we cannot use into energy we can use. A wind turbine turns the energy in wind into electricity. But a boiler does not produce energy, even in the sense that Booker appears to mean. It uses energy. The energy is contained in the oil it burns, which it converts into heat. Booker, it seems, cannot tell the difference between production and consumption.
Nor does he seem able to distinguish between heat and electricity. He seems to have mistaken his boiler for a generator. Boilers (furnaces in the US) produce heat, not power. You cannot make a meaningful comparison between the production capacity of heat and the production capacity of electricity.
Perhaps worst of all, he doesn’t know the difference between capacity and output. “That wind turbine generated only just over 500kW last year” is as meaningful as “my car travelled 200 horsepower last year”.
500kW is the capacity (or rating) of the wind turbine. The output is measured in kilowatt hours. It beggars belief that, after writing on this subject for so many years, he appears to be unaware of the difference.
Summer and winter, production and consumption, heat and power, capacity and output: are there any distinctions Christopher Booker recognises? Isn’t it time that the Sunday Telegraph not only protected its readers from this nonsense but also protected him from himself, by either retiring him or, at the very least, checking his facts?