Gerald F. Seib, Wall Street Journal: Syria War Tests Obama’s Security Doctrine
The lack of good options tails the president as he meets world leaders this week at the United Nations.
Every president, it seems, gets one foreign-policy problem from hell, one that defies resolution, that refuses to be ignored, that tests the White House’s strategic theories—and that hangs over the presidential legacy.
Jimmy Carter had Iran, Ronald Reagan had Lebanon, Bill Clinton had the Balkans and George W. Bush had Iraq.
For President Barack Obama, it’s increasingly clear that his problem is Syria. The mess there tails him as he moves around the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. It will produce some tense moments when he meets Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is taking advantage of the chaos in Syria to establish a bigger foothold for himself in the Middle East.
WNU editor: President Obama's security doctrine is not working .... especially when I read stories like this one .... Syrian rebel commander who turned over equipment to militants says he was threatened (Washington Post). But while the focus is on Syria, today's disaster in Afghanistan may end up eclipsing all the other disasters combined .... Afghan Taliban seize Kunduz city center in landmark gain (Reuters).
5 comments:
Of all the wars the US has tried out, starting with Vietnam, finally there is valid reason to mount a serious offensive, boots on the ground and all and it is too bad there is a negotiator in the White House at this time.
There are two reasons to get that deeply involved ASAP.
One, the US set the ball rolling with its second invasion of Iraq and the mess left behind so there is a responsibility to fix the problem.
Two, if they wait until there is a more aggressive President in office the problem may be beyond fixing as by then there may be serious attacks from within the US to deal with.
In the interim the Muslim folk are expanding their penetration into the western countries and while the majority may be peaceful, which is saying a lot actually, there will be some infiltrators among them, especially given the refugee issue.
Obama is a negotiator?
He does not negotiate win-win. He negotiates win-loss, where his side gets cut down to size.
Speaking of foreign policy failures....
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/canada-election-2015-munk-debates-foreign-policy-syria-refugees-1.3247665
Big day at the UN. Same old bs baffling brains in Canada. You'd never think a sea change is afoot on the world scene if all you did was watch the CBC or our "leadership debates". It's so embarrassing that it almost makes me happy that the world is ignoring us. It gives me more time to pull out all the staples so I can pull the carpet over my head when one of these "leaders" makes a foreign policy statement.
I have five dollaras that this Kunduz Taliban takeover is bogus. They got some buildings and then got some idiot to report it to the world that they "took" over a city. Five dollars says, a couple of dozen gunman took oover a few buildings in the center of the town and within 2 days will be gone, vanished like a fart in the wind. Afganisistan is in a whack a mole situation at the moment in regards to the Taliban and the Taliban who want to call themselves ISIS. Its a raid, the Afgan government will have the roaches cleared in a few days, which will not be reported in what is loosely called our journalistic institutions, TV News nor newspapers but can be found in the new media.
I mean for crying out loud they reported that 300 Taliban attacked some police posts..lol..in another province and appartantly only killed 2 with the loss of 60. I take what the media says over there with a grain of salt, its politically and idealogically driven. You can take what is told and cut it about 90% to get the truth. A few dozen stayed in a building oe two in Kunduz for a few hours and about a dozen attacked a police post and were beat back. That's probably the real story, not the propaganda the Taliban staged these events for.
Post a Comment