During the Bush years of the Iraqi war, Harry Reid said “The war is lost”. At the time, he said the surge was not accomplishing anything. In fact, it was working, Iraqi’s were grateful, and it showed when they had elections how proud they were to have ink on their thumbs (for voting). Women were crying with joy as they entered to vote.
Enter President Obama: Against his military advisors, Obama did not leave a contingency force which left a vacuum to be filled. Yes, that is my opinion that I am sure Liberals would argue. It may also be argued if we are still at war in Iraq. While no ground troops to speak of, we are using air strikes (about 14 a day) to bomb ISIS. We are training the Iraqi troops, which appears not to be working so well.
In general, be it in Iraq, or elsewhere, we are at war with ISIS. We are also aiding Muslim’s in their fight against Assad. To which our weapons really are going into the hands of ISIS to be used against the Iraqi troops. We are also supporting aid to those fighting in Yemen. Yet, none of this is going well.
The President uses the logic which he calls strategy not to defeat enemies, but contain them. Hence, nothing ends but could drag on for years as the President has said. This, the true quagmire that Senator Ted Kennedy once referred to in the Bush years.
Now we have learned that we know, and have known where ISIS’s headquarters are. However, we dare not destroy it for fear of killing innocent people. OK, follow this if you will. There are no innocent people living near anything to do with ISIS. If anything they are supporters even if not fighters. Having said that, ISIS kills children, burns Christians, beheads journalists, and “innocent” people. All on purpose of course, not by “accident”.
A true strategy would be to bomb the ISIS headquarters. As horrific as it may sound, as an example, let us say 25 innocent people perished during that said attack. By destroying ISIS’s headquarters, and in turn not just trying to contain them anywhere else, how many innocent Muslim’s and Christians are we saving from the hands of ISIS if they are not there to kill them? Much more than, as in my example, of 25, As thousands have already died at their hands, no doubt thousands would be saved.
The old cliché “War is Hell” exists because it is true. Fighting a civilized war on only one side and you have failure. The world will only be safe from ISIS if they are destroyed, not contained. Yes, Mr Harry Reid, your words that “The war is lost” has more meaning today than it did then.
While Liberals and Democrats will say “America should not be the world’s police” (and I agree), what about helping people? Do we not all want to help starving children in Africa? (and elsewhere). Yet, it is taboo to want to help people that are being beheaded, crucified (true), burned in cages. All just so John Kerry can say Wrongly so, “The world is a safe as it has ever been”.
ISIS is growing. We kill less ISIS members than they recruit. Yet Nancy Pelosi says “We are winning via social media”. Huh? Using that logic: Maybe Climate Change will defeat ISIS.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, are trying to fight ISIS, as well as ironically Iran. That is a good thing, is it not? but we need to do more than just 14 semi-meaningless air strikes a day. The good Muslims, and the Christians in the middle east need more than to have ISIS just contained.
A city falls? The administration calls it a set back. ISIS spreads to many countries and this can not be called containment. Obama’s failure of commitment to a safer world will come back to haunt us in our own country. The longer we wait to deal with barbarians the harder it will be to save the good people that need saving, this including America.
God bless our troops, Muslims fighting ISIS, and God bless America. (Even the Democrat and liberal version of America to which many voted to take “God” out of the Democratic platform.