Follow by Email

Friday, May 22, 2015

Charles Krauthammer, "You want hypotheticals? Here’s one.": Obama's Iraqi Balderdash

In an editorial entitled "The Escalation of Unauthorized Wars," The New York Times appears worried by the advances of the Islamic State in Iraq and the renewed escalation of American involvement in that country's war, or wars, depending upon on how one sees it. The Times would have us know:

"'As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq,' President Obama said at the time [August 7, 2014]. Those words were suspect then. They seem preposterous now.

Over the past nine months, the United States and a small network of allies have carried out more than 4,050 strikes in Iraq and Syria in an attempt to weaken the Islamic State, a stunningly resilient terrorist group that poses an enormous menace to the region and the West. As of April 9, the war had cost American taxpayers more than $2.1 billion, or roughly $8.6 million per day, according to the latest data released by the Pentagon.

. . . .

As the war intensifies, it is more urgent than ever for Congress to approve a new Authorization for Use of Military Force that would provide adequate oversight and clearly articulate the long-term strategy for the fight against the Islamic State. The new mandate should replace the ones the administration is currently relying on and set clear limits that would preclude future administrations from using military force around the globe, anytime, anywhere, without consulting Congress."

Actually, Obama has said a lot of things about Iraq. As noted by Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "You want hypotheticals? Here’s one.":

"Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, 'We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.' This was, said the president, a 'moment of success.'"

And today, Krauthammer would ask Hillary:

"Mme. Secretary: When you arrived at State, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias. Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad. On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence over a 'sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq' — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?"

Answers from Hillary, preoccupied with her silent presidential campaign, or Obama, preoccupied with appeasing Iran, whose forces are all that stand between ISIS and Baghdad? Forget it!

1 comment:

  1. Guess it is too late for the NYT editors to read the U.S. Constitution, which deliberately did NOT "...set clear limits that would preclude future administrations from using military force around the globe, anytime, anywhere, without consulting Congress."...

    That is the same mindset that has police departments being forcibly re-trained by the DoJustice to be better social workers.

    In other news, perhaps Hillary has her spin room working on how long before Baghdad falls and why that will be good for stopping climate change...