It’s bad enough to contemplate going into a war with a half-baked strategy built on the desire to sway opinion polls.
It’s suicidal to go into a war following “leaders” who can’t even agree on whether it’s a war, or on the nature of the enemy.
Before we’ve even begun, the War on ISIS is a confused mess at the top. Based on history, that means a lot of people at the bottom of the ranks may end up being hurt for nothing.
On Thursday, Secretary of Defense John Kerry said the War on ISIS was not a war but a “long-term counterterrorism operation.” He got the term from his boss, President Obama. Kerry, who by the way served in the Vietnam Police Action, said it was important not to encourage “war fever.”
On Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the U.S. is indeed at war. “In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL (ISIS),” Earnest said.
Pentagon spokesman Adm. John Kirby said, “This is not the Iraq War … but make no mistake — we know we are at war with ISIL (ISIS) in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.”
Notice this would be the same al-Qaida and affiliates we were at war with in Iraq until President Obama pulled out our troops and declared that al-Qaida was “on the run” and the Iraq War was over.
So, as of today at least, it is a war … but against whom?
In his list of requests for congressional rubber-stamping, just a formality before he does what he want, Obama has asked for approval to fund, arm and train the “rebels” in Syria to help fight ISIS. Problem: The entire world except the American mainstream media knows that the Syrian rebel and ISIS memberships overlap to the point that ISIS practically is the Syrian rebellion and vice versa. So our commander-in-chief wants to arm our enemy to fight our enemy.
During his speech on the eve of the anniversary of 9-11, Obama made a particularly droning point of saying that ISIS, the Islamic State, is neither Islamic nor a State. “ISIL (ISIS) is not Islamic,” Obama said, drawing on his vast theological experience. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”
That’s a bit like saying President Obama is neither a president nor an Obama. You could pick apart the birth certificate, parentage theories, voter fraud allegations and his alleged adoption by a man named Soetoro, but. …
In the same way, Islam may not be ISIS, but ISIS is definitely Islamic.
Personally, I’m more than a little tired of this nonsense of trying to separate Islam from Islamic terror, particularly when liberals start talking about some fictional “Christian extremists,” as this Administration has done repeatedly in Department of Homeland Security reports and elsewhere.
Even atheist Bill Maher knows what Islam is about, and he called talk show host Charlie Rose on it when Rose tried to draw a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
“Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it,” Maher said on Rose’s show recently. “Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it. … So, to claim that this religion (Islam) is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong. It is not like other religions.”
That sort of clarity seems to be utterly lacking in this Administration, and the Pentagon leadership doesn’t seem capable of swaying our wayward commander in chief or his Rasputin, Valerie Jarrett, nor any of the demagogues in the Cabinet who might have some influence on “long-term counterterrorism operation” plans.
So far, world leaders are balking at being drawn in to Obama’s “coalition,” and it’s no wonder.
How does anyone expect Obama to be capable of leading a military charge when he’s sitting backwards on his rocking horse, holding a banana instead of a sword?