Get PJ Media on your Apple

3 Obama Contradictions Revealed by the Debacle in Iraq

This is what a postmodern president's foreign policy looks like in action.

by
Robert Spencer

Bio

June 15, 2014 - 12:19 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page
YouTube Preview Image

Now that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has taken Mosul and Tikrit and has set its sights on Baghdad, Barack Obama has responded with a strong statement – and in doing so, revealed the deep contradictions in and incoherence of his entire foreign policy.

3. U.S. troops in Iraq vs. no U.S. troops in Iraq

Obama declared Thursday: “Iraq’s gonna need more help. It’s gonna need more help from us, and it’s gonna need more help from the international community. So my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don’t rule out anything, because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter.”

Immediately after saying that he was not ruling out anything, however, Obama seemed to rule out U.S. military intervention in Iraq: “We’re not gonna be able to be everywhere all the time. But what we can do is to make sure that we are consistently helping to finance, train, advise military forces with partner countries, including Iraq, that have the capacity to maintain their own security.”

The great man then reminded us that this would not be an instant fix: “And that is a long and laborious process, but it’s one that we need to get started. That’s part of what the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund that I’m going to be calling for Congress to help finance is all about: giving us the capacity to extend our reach without sending U.S. troops to play whack-a-mole wherever there ends up being a problem in a particular country. That’s gonna be more effective, it’s gonna be more legitimate in the eyes of people in the region as well as the international community, but it’s going to take time to build it. In the short term, we have to deal with what clearly is an emergency situation in Iraq.”

So apparently the solution to the problem in Iraq would be the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, but that would take a long time to develop, and in the meantime, we would have to deal with the emergency there, and he wasn’t ruling anything out to deal with that – except the use of U.S. troops, who can’t be everywhere. He thus deftly managed a complete non-elucidation of the question of whether he was actually ruling out direct military intervention in Iraq.

Top Rated Comments   
You think Teleprompter Jesus's™ ahem, 'M E foreign policy' is confusing - try reading Obama's:

Academic Transcripts
Medical Records
Health Reform 'Negotiations'
Senate Papers
Book Proposals
FOIA Requests
F&F Documents
Listening to the Khalidi Tape
WH Guest List..

That's right. The aforementioned is still 'under wraps'.

The idiotic, counter to lucid thought, reason and infinite-like 'respect' STILL bestowed upon our phony, Moron-in-Chief is baffling..

His 'Uhhhs' are infuriating.. barely post-pubescent aged Public Speaking class taught us to gather one's thought(s) before speaking..
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
We can't be everywhere at once, on the golf course, at a celebrity dinner and in a briefing room for instance.

And Hagel makes the decisions about playing whack a mole...he's Chucky Cheese.

The only moles we whack are whistleblowers in the VA or generals who oppose sedition.

We train, advise and abandon. Because we won't rule out running away.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (25)
All Comments   (25)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You think Teleprompter Jesus's™ ahem, 'M E foreign policy' is confusing - try reading Obama's:

Academic Transcripts
Medical Records
Health Reform 'Negotiations'
Senate Papers
Book Proposals
FOIA Requests
F&F Documents
Listening to the Khalidi Tape
WH Guest List..

That's right. The aforementioned is still 'under wraps'.

The idiotic, counter to lucid thought, reason and infinite-like 'respect' STILL bestowed upon our phony, Moron-in-Chief is baffling..

His 'Uhhhs' are infuriating.. barely post-pubescent aged Public Speaking class taught us to gather one's thought(s) before speaking..
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wouldn't it be cheaper, in the long run, if we just hired a "Soldier of Fortune" Army to do our bidding over there. I have ZERO military background, but other than this, I see only 3 options: 1) If we send in ground forces, we are sucked in to ANOTHER never ending war. 2) If we just do drone strikes, we kill a lot of the women & children the terrorists like to hide behind. 3) We let the jihadists have it & "cross our fingers" it doesn't matter. Is there another, better option? I am all ears!!
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
After five years, anyone who expects honesty or consistency or coherent answers out of this President hasn't been paying attention.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "solution to Iraq" is already a fact on the ground ... and it ain't good.

Iraq, the state, is now history. The Kurds are in possession of the north, ISIS is in possession in the middle, and the Iranian QUDs troops are already moving into the southern portion and lining up Maliki as their puppet in Bagdad.

There is nothing for Obama to do about the former Iraq but flap his jaws, which is all that he ever does about anything. This outcome was inevitable once GWB invaded Iraq and killed the Baathist regime.

There are, however, many things we can and must be doing to defeat Iran, which is our principal security threat in the Middle East. Double down on economic sanctions, no more deals on their nuke program - issue an ultimatum to stop their program or we and the Israelis will bomb it to dust.

Really - that's what it will take.

But of course, Obama will never do it.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Looks like Biden got his solution from 2007. I will never support any foreign engagement of US troops -- any good they will do will be undermined by leftists eventually. Sorry that all I knew, and more importantly, all GWB knew about our involvement in Vietnam, should have been heeded.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually Barry is very happy about the turn of events in Iraq. He WANTS al Qaida to win.

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - Barack Obama in Audacity of Hope
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama's actions make perfect sense if you accept that he is Muslim.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
WHAT IS THE GREATEST OBAMA SCANDAL OF THEM ALL?

The loss of Iraq to al Qaida by Obama joining Iran in backing Shiite extremist Maliki in killing political reform.

Click www.apollospeaks.com for the article.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, Exactly what ISN'T Barack Obama's team working AROUND THE CLOCK to find a solution for?
Just curious.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Barack Obama’s foreign policy is utterly incoherent, and
the world is on the brink of catastrophe because of it.

True, true, false; Neither Obama nor his masters have brought about
or can control the sad progress of the world toward economic collapse;
They are merely surfing the wave of the future toward their chosen
(illusory) safe harbor.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nice job Mr. Spencer. Perhaps Mustafa Akyol is beginning to read your work: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-wakes-up-to-jihadist-terror.aspx?pageID=449&nID=67771&NewsCatID=411#comment

Could the FBI be doing Turkish PM Erdogan's dirty work here in the U.S. courtesy of his buddy Obama? Someone should investigate this: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/fbi-raids-19-schools-associated-with-gulen.aspx?PageID=238&NID=67788&NewsCatID=358
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I heard the Iranians had kicked ISIS out of 85% of Tikrit.

Still the Iranians are thinking of shifting troops from Syria to Iraq, so they are stretched and might not be able to reverse many of ISIS gains.

Leaving Iraq is an Obama debacle.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Iranians will not be able to control the Sunni portions of the former state of Iraq. Any more than they will be able to control the Kurdish region of the north. They will attempt to coopt the ISIS fighters and turn them to fight the Israelies, Jordanians, Saudis, etc. The Iranians will effectively control the Shia south including Bagdhad, which puts the IRG that much closer to Israel.

I don't think that Israel can allow that outcome. The likelihood of an Israel strike on the Iranian nuclear sites is now both more difficult, and more necessary. The question is, how quickly can QUDS set up anti-aircraft defenses in Iraq. That may dictate the Israeli timetable on airstrikes in Iran.

It's likely to get much uglier than it is now.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with a lot of that.

Setting up air defenses in Iraq could make it easier for the Israelis to penetrate Iranian airspace. the greater depth may give a false sense of security. If air defenses are moved and not just added on to, it might be easier for Israel to take care of them closer to Israel.

I think Iran could take over Kurdistan. I really do. It would be a life and death struggle. It depends on how many casualties the Iranians are willing to take. In the end any Iranians victory would be hollow. I think it would stress the regime too much. It would fall as a result. It make take 1 or 2 years after military victory, but it would happen.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All