"Obama is the new W" Daily Beast piece...accurate??? Interesting though I think their greatest similarity is their inability to manage their office and poor choice of subordinates. Neither understand their limitations though it seems the current president is much more full of himself than the former. He seems convinced he is the smartest man in the world and has little patience with others. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/obama-is-the-new-dubya.html
That article is a stretch. All Presidents will have some similarities and the items they chose are items that just about any President would select because the American people support them. Until Obama manufactures evidence as an excuse to invade Iraq, then his policies are like night and day compared to Bush policies.
Understand that not every extremist in the middle east is Al Qaeda. Not even the so-called Al Qaeda Affiliates. With the exception of the core AL Qaeda group of bin Ladin which has now been badly bashed, these groups have local agendas. They aren't attacking the US itself. We get into scraps with them because our interests overlap in the middle east, but groups like ISIS have an agenda of taking territory or killing doctrinal enemies in their own backyards. They would really rather not see us back and attacking America directly would surely bring us back. We can ignore a lot of these Gomers, contain a few others, and still punish what remains of the group that attacked us on 9/11. Going off tilting at every Islamic windmill does not help us eliminate Al Qaeda. We will stay after Ayman al-Zawahiri and his few remaining cohorts, but we don't need to spend another $2 Trillion defending people who hate us. It is a useless effort and a waste of lives and treasure if they don't care enough to fight for it. We left Iraq with a stable government and an fully equipped and somewhat trained Army. They outnumber ISIS and are better armed but they aren't fighting, at least some aren't. There are still some Iraqi divisions standing ground. ISIS doesn't have the logistics or manpower to take over Iraq if the Iraqi Army would fight. The Iraqi people seem like they would just rather let ISIS win and be done with it. They aren't comfortable with democracy. It hasn't worked for them. A new strongman will take control like Saddam and restore order, which they crave. There is a civil war going on in a far land that is not vital to us and fought by people who hate us on both sides. We win this by doing nothing, amigo. He must defend our embassy and other American people in Iraq, but Malaki and his administration have not proven worthy of more American lives. Anything other than military advice, intel, and logistical aid I would not support.
Another more disturbing look at ISIS. http://www.businessinsider.com/isis...um=email&utm_source=alerts&nr_email_referer=1
It is important to distinguish between inflammatory rhetoric and actions. ISIS already had their hands full in Syria and now they have a full-blown war with Iraq to deal with. Their resources are strained. Conflict with the US is not in their interests. ISIS is getting their logistical support from Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States because they are also trying to topple Assad in Syria. We have a lot of influence over the Saudis and the Gulf States and can hamper this support. Part of what is happening here is continuing fallout from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago. The British carved up the territory into independent states with little regard to tribal areas. Iraq is a patchwork of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish tribal areas and, in the long run, everyone may be better off if they end up with independent states. The Kurds are well on their way. The Shiites are by far the majority in Iraq and ISIS will not likely be able to take and control the Shiite areas. Already the Shiite militias are getting active again after the shameful conduct of the Iraqi army. Don't expect a military alliance. There will not be something like Iranian troops on the ground and US airpower getting into the fight. The Iranian army is not very good for one thing. But there is precedence for cooperating with Iran to defeat a mutual enemy. As early as 2001, we got approval from Iran to overfly parts of their country to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Iran hates Al Qaeda and the other Sunni extremists and we have used this to quietly share some intel. Now, we have a mutual interest in supporting the Malaki government of Iraq and the cooperation is likely to be more intel sharing, hindering of ISIS supply routes, and simply not opposing each others efforts to contain ISIS. Syria is an Iranian ally and they have a major interest in hampering ISIS operations in Syria, as do we. Fear of arms falling into ISIS hands is the major reason that our support of "moderate" Syria rebels has been so limited. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an ancient Arab sentiment in this part of the world, where alliances change frequently as circumstances change. It works for us as well, as long as we have interests there. In 1977, Iran was our biggest ally in the Middle East. In 1987, we were supporting Saddams effort to fight Iran. Who knows what 2017 will bring. Since Ahmanutjob lost power in Iran, there has been a noticeable shift away from confrontation and towards cooperation with the West. We will take advantage of this when it is in our interests to do so.
It is important not to fall into the "domino theory" mentality with regards to ISIS. Nobody heard of them a few years ago and now people like this author are already predicting the sequential toppling of nearly every Arab state if they go "unchecked". Domino fears was what got us into the quagmire of Vietnam. The situation is complex and ISIS does not have the power to do what is being feared. There are many competing interests and countries like Egypt and Jordan have powerful allies and professional militaries that are unlikely to fold under attack by a few thousand guerrillas with Toyota pickup trucks.
Whether the ISIS ability equals their grasp is a valid question however they have made the threat and it should be weighed seriously and they should be followed. Also just because we think it is outside of their capability and they would be "crazy" to try....they may not understand that logic and try. As I have said often the whole ME is a cauldron that goes back further than WWI and the peace treaty. The Ottoman Empire spent hundreds of years suppressing the area so when the lid is finally blowing off it will be a cluster F*** for years. It is sectarian but the dynamic is very unpredictable so it will remain very dangerous and what alliances are made today may not last long. Any concept that the president has things under control is laughable. It is probably out of the grasp of ANY president at this time. I have been critical of the last 2 presidents' conduct in the ME and both W and O have been way out of their league and we have suffered and are suffering (as is the world) as a result.
This is exactly why we win by doing nothing militarily that is not directly in the best interests of the United States of America. We don't owe Iraq shit. We owe Syria less than nothing. Obama is in complete control of how and when we take action. Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Machiavelli all agree . . . when your enemies are making mistakes, don't interrupt them. Rashly rushing into every war that erupts is contrary to our national interests. ISIS is taking casualties on two fronts now, their resources are strained, and they are overreaching. I am delighted with this.
Middle Eastern experts disagree. ISIS has not only troops but upwards of $400M in private funding. They are desperate, as are most extremist factions in the ME and parts of Africa, to establish another caliphate. While the US has no ability and no responsibility to really do anything about it, there will come a time when it matters. While I detest the cowardice of Iraqi soldiers, I am horrified by the thousands of people being killed as ISIS moves to take over Baghdad.
