A
“senior administration official,” in a briefing posted on the official White House website, “explained” why Saudi
Arabia would be a logical ally in fighting ISIS/ISIL by stating that “Saudi
Arabia has an extensive border with
Syria.”
By closer inspection/more research/looking at
a globe this official would discover
that, in fact, they share no border whatsoever and indeed are separated by Iraq
and Jordan.
This
doesn’t instill great confidence in those currently manning the helm at the
outset of hostilities with this/these new Islamic terror groups. Add to that the fact that the mission is uncertain, with ill-defined
objectives on a fungible timetable with ambiguous, nebulous methods and
unreliable, allies; all of this “supported” by unclear,
vacillating rhetoric.
And
yet…we still need to do this.
I read
an article by a New York Times columnist recently in which he stated that while
he agreed in principle with airstrikes in Syria “if done cautiously and in conjunction with air forces of Sunni allies…we
can’t want to defeat the Islamic State more than the countries in its path,
and right now we do.”
Wow.
So, on December 8th, 1941 would he have said something similar? That
“I agree in principle to striking back against the Empire of Japan, if done cautiously and in conjunction with
other Pacific Rim allies, but we can’t want to defeat Japan more than the
countries in its path.”
That’s just blatant
nonsense. Should we have consulted with the Philippines and tried to gauge how
much they wanted to defeat Japan? China? If they didn’t “want to” as much as we
did, should we have just dropped the whole thing? They were incapable of facing Japan alone, at any rate. And remember we, today, have already been attacked-repeatedly-
by various Islamist extremist groups.
Calling a Ronald Reagan or a George H.W. Bush.
Anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment