Category Archives: defense policy

“We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet”

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama reiterated, in his speech Thursday, his reluctance to strike Syria, whether to support good-guy rebels or to attack ISIS forces there.

He also reiterated his reluctance to go beyond “humanitarian” air strike potshots in northern Iraq, whether to support the Kurds or to attack ISIS forces there.

He also ruled out any sort of military help for Ukraine by the US in the face of the now open Russian invasion of that country.

He also reiterated his reluctance to provide arms and ammunition to the Ukrainian forces so they could defend themselves, even if by themselves.

He didn’t address Iran’s nuclear weapons program at all.

He didn’t address the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly aggressive sea grabs in the East and South China Seas and its increasing harassment of American surveillance flights—in international airspace, albeit above those claimed waters.

This is after two years of butchery in Syria; after four years of watching, according to a West Point report, the growing strength and organization of ISIS; six years after Russia’s invasion and partition of Georgia and six months after Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea oblast; over a year after the PRC began its aggression in those Seas.

We don’t have a strategy, yet.

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

This is what happens when you have a motor boat skipper for a Secretary of State. John Kerry, speaking through his spokeswoman, Marie Harf, had this to say about whether ISIS is at war with the United States:

(Unnamed) Reporter: I mean, even they are announcing, ISIL people in their message, whatever, the recorded message, other messages, that now we are in a war with America.
Kerry/Harf: This is not about ISIL versus the United States. They are killing anyone who gets in their way….
(Unnamed) Reporter: But they are announcing that it’s a war against America. Right or wrong, that’s what they are saying.
Kerry/Harf: Well, they can say whatever they’d like, but what I am making clear is that’s not what ISIL represents. And they don’t represent any religion. They are at war with everybody they come into contact with.

If our professional and chief diplomat can’t even understand when an enemy declares its war against us, how are we supposed to be able to fight back, much less crush that enemy?

The Administration’s Considerations Regarding Resurgent Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

Here we are, with the terrorist gang, ISIS, butchering American journalists, doing their best to exterminate Yezidis, Christians, fellow Muslims who don’t think like these thugs do, et al. Here we are with ISIS continuing to make significant military gains after their blitz through Iraq to the outskirts of Baghdad. Here we are with ISIS having successfully seized a military airfield in Syria.

And here we are with President Barack Obama still…dithering…about what to do about these terrorists. After all, despite these terrorists having announced that they intend to fly their flag over the White House—our White House—despite these terrorists continuing their butchery of the innocents of other nations, the innocents of nations who would be our allies were we to allow them, the innocents of nations who would be our friends were we to allow them, American innocents, he’s still…not doing anything. And his military chief is assuring him—and us—that these terrorists, who’re sworn to do us harm, are not a direct threat to our nation.

With this background, Colleen McCain Nelson and Adam Entous in The Wall Street Journal, argued in all seriousness that

President Barack Obama faces pressure at home and in the Middle East to quickly step up strikes at Islamic State militants….

They also trotted out a roster of politicians applying that purported pressure: Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC), Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA), even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel all saying that the US needs to do “something more” about ISIS.

But Obama feels none of this pressure. This is amply demonstrated by his behavior surrounding his (actually quite stirring) speech condemning the butchery of James Foley, that journalist mentioned above. He reluctantly interrupted his Martha’s Vineyard vacation to make the speech, and within the hour following that speech, he was back on the golf course, yokking it up with his capitalist and lobbyist cronies.

This unpressured president also is unlikely to allow any meaningful action because, after all, the war in Iraq is ended, al-Qaeda is on the run, and Osama bin Laden is dead. And ISIS is just junior varsity, anyway.

And all of it is of a piece with this guy, who occasionally sits in the President’s chair, putting the Palestinian Authority terrorists on the same moral plain as Israel.

No, this administration is unlikely to do anything beyond idle chit-chat about terrorism.

In Which Governor Jindal Has the Right of It

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Bobby Jindal (R, LA) has some thoughts on the proper way to deal with ISIS and its ilk in a recent op-ed for Fox News.

I listened to the president last week as he appropriately conveyed Americans’ revulsion at this savage act and our grief at the Foley family’s loss. As usual, the president’s words were very eloquent. To his credit, the president was unequivocal regarding the evil of this terrorist group, and he took the time to list some of their crimes against humanity.

But.

The president said that when people harm Americans, “we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done and we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.” What? Here’s an idea—how about we offer these people death instead of justice?

Because President Barack Obama’s view of “justice” is a court room and a forum for terrorists who are making war against us and against humanity in general.

Here’s another way the president could phrase it, “we will hunt them down and kill them.…”

The president also said the people of Iraq, “must continue coming together to expel these terrorists from their community.” Um, no. They do not need to be expelled. They need to be eliminated.

And

[T]hese people [ISIS] will only fail if we cause them to fail. It is not inevitable. Causing them to fail requires that they be defeated, destroyed, and yes, killed.

RTWT. What he said.

The Terrorist Threat

Posted on by
Reply

UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron had some thoughts.

Stability. Security. The peace of mind that comes from being able to get a decent job and provide for your family, in a country that you feel has a good future ahead of it and that treats people fairly. In a nutshell, that is what people in Britain want

And

I agree that we should avoid sending armies to fight or occupy. But we need to recognise that the brighter future we long for requires a long-term plan for our security as well as for our economy. True security will only be achieved if we use all our resources—aid, diplomacy, our military prowess—to help bring about a more stable world.

And

The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We already know that it has the murderous intent. Indeed, the first ISIL-inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

And

[W]e need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism, or uncompromising action against terrorists at home. On Friday we agreed with our European partners that we will provide equipment directly to the Kurdish forces; we are now identifying what we might supply, from body armour to specialist counter-explosive equipment.

And

We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime. We face in ISIL a new threat that is single-minded, determined, and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. … It makes no secret of its expansionist aims.

And concluding [emphasis added]:

This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge. But it is not an invincible one, as long as we are now ready and able to summon up the political will to defend our own values and way of life with the same determination, courage, and tenacity as we have faced danger before in our history. That is how much is at stake here: we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.

I disagree with Cameron’s statement only to this extent: the terrorists have created a “caliphate” only to the extent we recognize it; otherwise, it’s only a figment of the fevered imagination of a mob of terrorists.

Beyond that, what he said. He also has some concrete ideas on how to deal with domestic and domestic-grown terrorists. RTWT.

If only our President had some thoughts….