Obama Gets a Little Bit Pregnant in Syria
The military idiocy of Obama is getting just to much to bear. The small numbers is being touted as a virtue, when in fact they illustrate the military futility of this effort. Not enough to accomplish anything, but more than enough to get killed and maimed.
Why the continued use of special operations troops, who have been through the grinder for 14 years straight, in militarily futile operations?
And why in such small numbers? Because it would be bad optics that US soldiers would outnumber those we are “training and assisting?” (This is the case in Iraq, by the way.)
Obama is neuralgic to the idea of intervening in numbers sufficient to be decisive, and I actually agree with this. But he doesn’t want to be seen as doing nothing, so we get these half-assed penny packet interventions that risk our best soldiers and sailors for no purpose.
Special operations are complementary to main force operations. They are a force multiplier. If there is no main force to multiply (and no, some dodgy local insurgents don’t count as a real main force), the entire exercise is pointless.
I also suspect that this is actually announcing as a future plan something that is going on at present. I further suspect that the death of Sergeant Wheeler in Iraq, and the skepticism with which the official story of his death was met, has forced the administration to make this announcement.
I was going to write a longer post on this issue, but I looked back at what I wrote in May, and everything I said then applies now, particularly the closing paragraph:
Obama is categorically opposed to using conventional forces in Iraq and Syria, but feels that he has to do something, and drones and special forces raids are something, even if they accomplish little or nothing of strategic importance. It is pointless to rely on these instruments of national power, which are only truly useful if joined up with other elements of that power, as the backbone of a campaign against Isis. If there is a more telling testament to the strategic vacuity of Obama’s “slow burn” campaign than the daring raid in Syria, I would be hard pressed to name it. So much professional expertise and courage put at grave risk to achieve a glittering tactical victory that will have no effect on the ultimate outcome in Syria and Iraq. One cannot win wars by special operations alone, and it borders on the criminal even to try.
Actually, I would change one thing. It doesn’t border on the criminal. It crosses the line.
Amen brother, amen.
Comment by Woody — October 30, 2015 @ 12:02 pm
Typical Obama behavior. But why aren’t any active, senior military commanders standing up against this
farce? Does their “career” following an endless stream of failed policies obscure their judgement? Or
are they all “pet rocks” like the pitiful Ash Carter?
Comment by eric — October 31, 2015 @ 12:32 am
@eric-Those who are promoted to senior positions do not reach those positions by accident, and without considerable political vetting. Careerists who will keep silent, or those who agree with the policy, or those who are too timorous to challenge their superiors are far more likely to be promoted.
This is why there is typically a huge shakeout in high command (and even going down to the level of colonel/captain) at the onset of wars. The skills that get you promoted in peacetime (esp. with a relentlessly political admin like Obama’s) are not the ones that produce success on the battlefield.
Those who are promoted to senior positions do not reach those positions by accident, and without considerable political vetting. Careerists who will keep silent, or those who agree with the policy, or those who are too timorous to challenge their superiors are far more likely to be promoted.
Which is exactly the issue which plagues modern corporations, too.
This is why there is typically a huge shakeout in high command (and even going down to the level of colonel/captain) at the onset of wars. The skills that get you promoted in peacetime (esp. with a relentlessly political admin like Obama’s) are not the ones that produce success on the battlefield.
Indeed. Apologies if I have posted this link before, but this is precisely what I think is going to happen in the oil industry as the price per barrel stubbornly refuses to rise.
Comment by Jake Barnes — November 1, 2015 @ 12:02 pm
What was the name of that doctrine, a huge lesson from Vietnam, where the US was supposed to clearly define its national interests before taking military action, etc., etc., etc., and the politicians, including those in the White House, were not supposed to micro-manage military operations?
The first steps in Vietnam, under Eisenhower, as I recall, and then magnified by Kennedy, was to send “advisors.”
Obamatollah – an educated idiot. Or just idiot will suffice.
After all, he defines leadership in terms of the “climate change” religion.
Comment by elmer — November 1, 2015 @ 7:13 pm
@elmer-It was the Weinberger Doctrine, named after Reagan SecDef Casper Weinberger.
Obama is not an educated idiot. He is an indoctrinated one. Indoctrinated at elite schools, but indoctrinated nonetheless.