ISIS Is Barack Obama's Mess, But He Wants Canadian Boots On The Ground To Fix It?

'I want to be clear.  The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists...we can join with allies and partners to destroy ISIL without American troops fighting another ground war in the Middle East...I will not put American boots on the ground.'

- President Barack Obama, 17 September 2014

By Marc Patrone, The Calgary Sun

ISIS is Barack Obama’s mess. 

He made it and now he wants our help to clean it up. What do Canadians owe him? 

He’s turned his back on allies such as Israel, having proven himself a bigger friend to the likes of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood than to the Jewish state.  

He’s no friend of Canada’s. 

Instead of working with his friends, he’s tried in vain to appease such longtime enemies as Iran. 

 

His rush to pull out of Iraq without leaving a reserve force behind has led to the disaster we see unfolding there now.

Now Obama needs allies to battle ISIS and help him save face. So who is stepping up to the plate? The Iranians? The Saudis? Hardly.Yes, when things get really bad, he calls on the same allies he’s spent his entire presidency snubbing.

The Canadians, the Brits, the Australians, etc.

Forgive me if I don’t exactly jump for joy at the prospect of helping this disastrous president ahead of midterm elections when his party is facing a well deserved drubbing.He’s the one who insisted on leaving Iraq unprotected against the advice of those who said the U.S. should leave a reserve military force behind to support that country.

Did he listen to advisers?

Of course not!

Obama is much too smart to take the advice of anybody but himself and a few of his cronies. So he pulled out completely for political reasons, not because he failed to cut a deal with the Iraqi government, which wanted a U.S. force to stay.

Now, at last word, ISIS fighters were bearing down on Baghdad and Obama’s poll numbers are in freefall ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, even women are abandoning this president in droves over his handling of foreign affairs. Only 37% approved of his actions on the file in that poll.

And so there is little doubt, this president is responding, not out of any sense of what’s right, but of pure politics.

 

'We need to see this president for the political opportunist he is.'

Regardless, Canada appears ready to play some kind of role in a coalition of the barely willing. According to some analysts, it’s a mission that could require two or three years in order to push the jihadis from the region. 

Obama screwed up big time. The world is paying the price because he preferred to play golf rather than to be a leader. 

He has shown precious little regard for Canadians, demonstrating nothing but disdain on the Keystone XL project.

Remind me again what Canadians owe this president?

Obama needs a coalition to help him sell the idea of military intervention to the same far left crackpot wing of the Democratic party that he attempted to please by pulling out of Iraq in the first place.

But fine. We’re Canadians. We’re loyal friends even to people who take us for granted and treat us so shabbily. 

But our loyalty should be to the American people, not to its government and especially not to the president. We also have a duty to the world community to do our part to destroy ISIS; to kill every last one of the vile, scum-of-the-earth, murderers who have caused so much misery in the world.

The fact Obama may gain politically is an unfortunate byproduct but it doesn’t make the mission wrong.

Perhaps there is a silver lining in seeing this debacle unfold south of the border.

 

Canadians will hopefully learn from the colossal mistake Americans made electing Obama.

We might avoid making a similar blunder elevating Justin Trudeau to the highest office in the land. 

'When unqualified, inexperienced, style-over-substance people such as Obama and Trudeau are elected to run a country, don’t be surprised when they deliver misery and failure.'

SoRo:

Much has been made of the so-called Obama Doctrine.  What is it?  What does it say?  Does it reflect American values and principles?  Does it even exist?

Thanks to this editorial in The Calgary Sun, my version of The Obama Doctrine crystallised.  Here it is:

The Obama Doctrine:

On foreign policy, punish America's friends and reward her enemies.

On domestic policy, reward our Progressive friends and punish our enemies.

For more SNAFU b/c O.B.A.M.A, enjoy:

Jay Carney says 'obviously' there will be American 'boots on the ground' a day after Obama completely ruled out ground troops in battle against ISIS

Former White House press secretary Jay Carney joined a chorus of Obama naysayers on Wednesday, saying there's no question of whether the U.S. will put 'boots on the ground' in Iraq – only a question of how many.

'"No boots on the ground" is semantically problematic,' Carney told CNN anchor Jake Tapper, 'because obviously there will be American military personnel with their boots on the ground.

'There are already,' Tapper replied.

President Obama insisted Wednesday during a speech at a Florida air base that he will not send ground troops into Iraqi combat zones to fight the ISIS terrorist army, despite his top general's statement a day earlier that Obama had asked him for recommendations 'on a case-by-case basis.' 

'I want to be clear,' Obama insisted. 'The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists.'

 

'There is the distinction that is being drawn ... between what we did in Iraq – a war that lasted for a very long time, cost us an enormous amount of money and cost a lot of people their lives and resulted in sustained and terrible injuries for many, many more – and what we are doing now,' Carney said.

Conservative publisher Bill Kristol suggested that the White House shouldn't rule out a scenario where military commanders declare,"You know what? This thing is on the cusp. We need to send in 3,000 or 5,000 U.S. combat ground troops to win this thing".'

 

'That would be saying specifically only 5,000,' Carney replied, 'not 5,005.' 

'No,' said Kristol: 'You would be leaving the option open, which is what a serious commander-in-chief does.' 

On Tuesday, Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that circumstances on the ground could drive him to push for American combat troops to be embedded with Iraqi army units.

'If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets,' Dempsey said, using an alternative name for the terror group, 'I will recommend that to the president.'

Asked by New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte whether the president had ruled out the use of American ground forces in a combat role, Dempsey responded, 'Yes. But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.'

He said that if needed, he 'would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces.' 

 

 'The frustration level in the Pentagon among the military and in the Central Command headquarters, which is overseeing the war, with the President and the White House, is as high as it has ever been, but this President has overruled our commanders time and time again from 2009 to the present.  And, it’s been very frustrating for them.'

- General Jack Keane (Ret), Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and former Army Vice-Chief-of-Staff, 18 September 2014

And, from The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Obama doubles down on his pledge not to put 'boots on the ground' in Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS

By Jeff Darcy, Obama's ‘No Boots On The Ground’ Pledge Should Get The Boot

...Praising the quick vote before Congress left for their mid-term election break, Obama declared  that "we can join with allies and partners to destroy ISIL without American troops fighting another ground war in the Middle East."

Sure, and Islamic extremists prefer the clean shaven look.

Obama's doubling down on his no "boots on the pledge" came in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey seeming to suggest the need for ground troops.

Testifying before Congress Dempsey  said, "If we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific targets, I will recommend that to the President".

Gates was responding to a hypothetical situation in which ISIL retakes the Mosul Dam. It would be recommended  that 1,700 American Forces now in Iraq be moved to the front lines to advise Iraqi forces while in combat.

General Dempsey's comments join the chorus of former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and numerous military officers and experts who have argued that ISIS cannot be destroyed with  just air strikes and that U.S. boots on the ground would ultimately be required, beyond the Iraqi and rebel forces.

While U.S. military advisors can improve the Iraqi and Peshmerga forces in the Iraq, the real problem comes on the Syrian side, where the U.S. just has the remnants of the Free Syrian Army to work with and not much else.  Knowing that U.S. air strikes will be targeting ISIS and the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, it's believed Assad will feel free to  double-down  attacks on the very moderate Syrian rebels the U.S plans to train arm and fund.

Former deputy director, and twice acting of the CIA, Michael Morrell said in an interview with Charlie Rose, that Obama's ISIS strategy should include removing Assad, even with a special forces mission as was done with Osama Bin Laden.  Morrell argues that the problems with ISIS and the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria exists now primarily as a result of the instability in Syria that Assad created.  Morrell believes that as long as Assad is in power he will work in concert with Iran to sabotage any U.S. ISIS strategy.  He recommends removing Assad and replacing him with a Sunni leader which will weaken the hand of Iran and their terror group surrogate  Hezbollah.

The American public seems as at odds with itself over the ISIS strategy as the Obama administration does.   According to a recent CBS poll 57% of the public don't believe Obama's being tough enough with ISIS.   But that same poll shows a majority don't want combat forces on the ground in Iraq.

By repeatedly pledging that there will be no U.S. boots on the ground to fight ISIS Obama is boxing himself in and making the same mistake he made when he made his red line declaration against Assad, which Obama walked away from when Assad crossed it repeatedly.

When Obama declares "no boots on the ground" he's saying it for an American audience, but ISIS and al-Qaida are hearing that message also and planning accordingly.

Obama's pledge makes about as much strategic sense as Browns coach Mike Pettine telling the Baltimore Ravens what the Browns offense won't be doing against them this Sunday.

http://tinyurl.com/n3fmkmh