Stop the Non-War-Without-A-Name “Led” by the Community Organizer in Chief
In my earlier posts on the non-war-without-a-name in Iraq and Syria, I said the following:
As I wrote the other day, I do not support a vigorous military operation in Syria. But if we are going to get involved, it must be done the right way, in a militarily sensible way. What Obama is hell-bent on doing is the exact wrong thing. He is repeating the LBJ mistakes, and adding some of his very own making. This is why, even overlooking the meager security stakes and the daunting obstacles involved in Syria and the Middle East generally, I blanch at the idea of a military campaign conducted by Obama, especially when he stubbornly insists on maintaining tight control over it.
And:
But more sober reflection (figuratively and literally!) leads me to conclude that a full-blooded response to ISIS is unwise, especially in Syria. For many reasons, the commitment that would be required to fully extirpate the organization is not worth the cost, and it’s better not to fight at all than to fight a half-assed or quarter-assed battle.
. . . .
I also shudder at the prospect of the Anti-Jackson commander in chief leading a campaign. An extended military action of the type the Pentagon would consider necessary is antithetical to every fiber in his being. It is obvious that he has no appetite for the fight, and has a predilection for limited measures (drone strikes aimed at killing terrorist leaders, the odd special forces raid) that have no strategic purpose or effect. War under such unwilling and uncertain leadership would be a pointless expenditure of American lives and treasure.
These warnings have been borne out fully by the actual execution of the campaign, such as it is.
The utter futility and failure and frankly the immorality of this pitiful effort is epitomized by events in Kobani (or Kobane) a Kurdish town on the Syrian-Turkish border. Lightly armed YPG Kurds have been fighting desperately to hold off an armored attack by ISIS. But they are being overwhelmed, and reports today indicate that at least parts of the town have fallen.
If you look at pictures of the area, you will note that it is perfect for the deployment of US airpower against vehicles and artillery. No cover whatsoever. Wide open desert. PGMs or a few passes by A-10s (which have been deployed to the region) would devastate any ISIS mechanized forces and artillery. But such robust force has not been deployed. ISIS is so confident that they are planting their flags in broad daylight on high points, a la Suribachi. You don’t do that unless you have no fear that death will come from the skies.
The writing was on the wall a few days ago, when Pentagon spokesman Admiral Kirby uttered this:
Kirby said the U.S. operation in Syria targets areas Islamic State can use as a “sanctuary and a safe haven,” compared with strikes in Iraq that are being conducted to back local forces. That doesn’t mean “we are going to turn a blind eye to what’s going on at Kobani or anywhere else,” Kirby said
Er, what is the point of going after “safe havens” and “sanctuaries” if not to prevent them from being used as launching pads for offensive operations? So then why not go after the offensive operations themselves? Aren’t we making Kobane a safe haven? Does this make any sense? Any?
We obviously washed our hands of Kobane and the Kurds last week. And Kirby is right. We haven’t turned a blind eye. We stood by and watched it happen, eyes wide open (and probably beamed back to DC from a Predator via video uplink).
I can usually reverse engineer the military logic behind decisions. Here I am at a total loss. The only think I can think of is that the Turks have waved us off, hating the Kurds as they do. As if we should be deferring to them, for all they’ve done for us in recent years. Or, as @libertylynx suggests, because we didn’t get permission from Assad, and from the Russians and Iranians.
It gets worse, actually. There are now leaks that the US will bomb the environs of Kobane. A day late and a bomb short. Reinforcing failure. Adding insult to injury.
Again: this is Obama’s choice. Remember that he has taken personal control of the selection of bombing targets. I say again: “I blanch at the idea of a military campaign conducted by Obama, especially when he stubbornly insists on maintaining tight control over it. ”
So much for Responsibility to Protect, eh? That’s so like 2011, dude.
We either need to stop bombing, or do it seriously: to paraphrase Napoleon, if you are going to bomb ISIS, bomb ISIS! This half-assed approach is a disaster: it’s more like 10th-assed. It is the worst of all worlds. It has no military effect. This in turn makes ISIS look like they are beating the US which makes them stronger by making them seem to be the “strong horse” that is defying the Crusaders. It also is turning locals against us, in part because of civilian casualties but more because it shows we are not really serious and we are not going after their real enemy.
I doubt Obama could do any worse if he were trying to screw things up. (Don’t go there.)
But never fear! The USG is on the case. The State Department has created a Global Coalition to Counter ISIL (sic) website!
This is clearly an escalation. First hashtags. Now a website. I am sure ISIS is shuddering at the thought of what horrors are to come.
Look at the list of countries:
Albania
Arab League
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
European UnionFinland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iraq
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kosovo
Kuwait
LatviaLebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Morocco
NATO
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Poland
Portugal
QatarRepublic of Korea
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Taiwan
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Every one doing nothing, in equal measure.
I remember that Napoleon once rejoiced when he learned another country had joined a coalition against him. He would have been positively giddy to have been “confronted” by this one.
The US military is allegedly calling this “campaign” Operation Shock and Yawn. It should actually be Operation Avert the Eyes. It is the most incoherent and strategically barren military operation in US history. Please make it stop.
I’m sure Ukraine is helping a lot as part of this great coalition, now that it got Donbas and Crimea back… oh, wait…
Comment by Ivan — October 7, 2014 @ 12:01 pm
It’s almost been funny to watch how ineffective we’ve been willing to be in this. Almost.
Comment by Blackshoe — October 7, 2014 @ 12:58 pm
@Blackshoe-I hear you. I imagine people in the Pentagon and in the field are beside themselves knowing that Obama is going about things in the worst way possible. I was telling a friend today that the only hope that the Kurds and others have is a revolt of the generals, a la the Revolt of the Admirals in 1949. They tell Obama to fight right or get out or they will resign en masse.
But it will never happen. Not in the American military tradition. And probably a good thing. It ensures that civilian control of the military is not challenged. But it’s tragic when the civilians in control are utterly incompetent and utterly deluded.
What a total mess.
SWP:
To quote your Dear Leader: “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”
There you have it. And the American people re-elected him — because of it, or in spite of it? Does it matter?
He still has 37% support among Likely Voters. That should scare you, and anyone else with a brain.
VP VP
Comment by Vlad — October 14, 2014 @ 9:16 pm