Did Obama Carpet-Bomb Ramadi?

Tweet

In his 2016 State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we’re taking out [ISIL's] leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. We’re training, arming and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.

. . . .

The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet-bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage."

First, a word about those "forces" being supported by the Obama administration. Claims have been made that the Sunni Iraqi city of Ramadi was "retaken" from ISIS by the Iraqi army. As stated in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Victory Marks Turnaround for Iraq Army" by Ben Kesling and Matt Bradley:

"The recapture of Ramadi marks a major turnaround for Iraq’s U.S.-trained military, representing its first success against Islamic State as a mostly independent force.

. . . .

Sabah al-Numan, a spokesman for Iraq’s counterterrorism forces, said precise planning and constant coordination with the U.S.-led international coalition and local Sunni tribes tipped the balance on the battlefield.

Past defeats of Islamic State relied on either Iran-backed Shiite militias or Iraqi Kurdish forces known as the Peshmerga. Iraqi army spokesman Yahya Rasool acknowledged that the military had to depend on the powerful Shiite militias for a time, but he said that time has now passed.

. . . .

In Ramadi, U.S. and Iraqi officers excluded Kurdish and Shiite militias to avoid aggravating sectarian and ethnic tensions."

However, as was reported by Jeff Stein in a December 19, 2015 Newsweek article entitled "Ramadi's Dirty Little Secret in the War Against ISIS"

"American commanders have been hailing the advance of the retrained Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) on Ramadi, the key city where they were easily routed some 18 months ago by marauding fighters of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).

But what they aren’t saying—and are loath to concede, according to well-informed military sources in Washington—is that the security forces of the Iran-backed regime in Baghdad largely consist of Shiite fighters in league with murderous militias that have slaughtered innocent Sunnis after ousting ISIS militants from Tikrit and other battlegrounds in the past year. Ramadi is the capital of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, and the Shiites are ready to pounce."

But more to the point, some 80 percent of Ramadi was destroyed in the fighting, leaving the city largely uninhabitable. We are told by The New Arab (my emphasis in red):

"'This is what Daesh (IS) left behind in Ramadi,' said Ahmad al-Assafi, one of the Sunni tribal leaders who are fighting the extremist group.

'The attacking forces preferred to destroy everything over suffering casualities [sic] and Daesh booby-trapped everything, the houses, buildings, shops, even electricity poles and sewerage manholes.'

It would cost less to build a city from scratch somewhere else than to rebuild Ramadi, Assafi told The New Arab."

Moreover, as reported by AP in an article entitled "Gains in Iraqi city vindicate US-led strategy, at high cost" by Sinan Salaheddin and Susannah George (my emphasis in red):

"Over the past six months, the coalition has launched more than 600 airstrikes, hitting about 2,500 different targets, U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren, the Baghdad-based spokesman for the coalition, told reporters on Tuesday. He said at its peak there were up to 1,000 IS fighters in Ramadi, and that only 150-250 remain.

But while the airstrikes eventually helped flush out the militants, they smashed large parts of the city into rubble."

And as noted by Evelyn Gordon in a must-read Commentary article entitled "Ramadi, Gaza, and Western Hypocrisy":

"During the Hamas-Israel war of 2014, both Obama Administration officials and their European counterparts repeatedly accused Israel of excessive force over the 'massive' destruction of civilian property in Gaza. But if those officials retain even a shred of intellectual integrity, the recent devastation of Ramadi during a joint Western/Iraqi effort to retake the city leaves them only two options: either hand themselves over to the International Criminal Court as suspected war criminals, or publicly apologize to Israel for all the slurs they hurled at it over far less extensive damage."

Bottom line: Notwithstanding Obama's thinly veiled SOTU criticism of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump's calls to bomb ISIS out of existence, Ramadi was effectively "carpet-bombed" by US-led coalition forces with the assistance of Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Thomas Friedman, "The Age of Protest": Obama's Despicable State of the Union Address

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Protest," Thomas Friedman writes:

"I asked Dov Seidman, the author of the book 'How' and C.E.O. of LRN, which advises companies all over the world on leadership and how to build ethical cultures, for his take on this age of protest.

. . . .

With all of this moral arousal, it’s as if 'we’re living in a never-ending storm,' he said. Alas, though, resolving moral disputes 'requires perspective, fuller context and the ability to make meaningful distinctions.'

That requires leaders with the courage and empathy 'to inspire people to pause to reflect, so that instead of reacting by yelling in 140 characters they can channel all this moral outrage into deep and honest conversations.' If we can do that — a big if — Seidman concluded, 'we can be truly great again because we’ll be back on our journey towards a more perfect union.'"

Ah yes, a "more perfect union" anchored upon "deep and honest conversations," which brings me to yesterday's State of the Union address in which President Obama declared:

"We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. Even if it's done with the best of intentions. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam. It's the lesson of Iraq, and we should have learned it by now.

Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies, but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.

That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.

That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war."

"America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people"? I suppose that is why Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is still confined to a cell in Iran's notorious Evin Prison.

Obama is "partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace"? Oh really? As Michael Gerson observed yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "On foreign policy, Obama was ‘behind the curve’":

"Historians will also record the collapse of sovereignty at the heart of the Middle East, creating a vacuum that has attracted, inspired and empowered some of the worst people in the world. These events have produced more than 250,000 Syrian dead, including more than 10,000 children; driven one of every five Syrians from their country; resulted in a refugee crisis that now reaches to Europe and beyond; revealed the United States as an unreliable strategic partner; and allowed Iran and Russia to make a play for greater regional influence."

"[A]s we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war"? Fascinating. No mention of Iran's recent ballistic missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. No mention that two weeks ago, Iran fired a rocket 1,500 yards away from the USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz. No mention that Iran seized two US Navy vessels on Tuesday, and at the time of the SOTU address, it was holding their crews captive. What will happen to the 10 American sailors? As was reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Senior Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) officials in Tehran said Washington's claims about the immediate release of the 10 US marines detained in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday are no more than guesses, cautioning that Iran's national interests are no joke.

. . . .

Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are in contact with their Iranian counterparts to release the US marines, but according to Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has told Kerry that the US should extend a formal apology first."

And although Obama decided yesterday not to address the capture of the naval boats and their crews in his SOTU address (claiming that an apology was received, Iran has released the crews), White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest stated yesterday in response to Jake Tapper's question why, in light of recent Iranian provocations, the US is preparing to grant Tehran sanctions relief:

"Because these were sanctions that were imposed on Iran over their nuclear program, and as soon as Iran takes the steps that they’ve committed to take and those steps can be verified by international nuclear experts, then we’ll know that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

. . . .

We continue to be concerned about this situation. That precisely is why the president made preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon a top national security priority, and we’re making progress in actually accomplishing that goal."

Or stated otherwise, Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran is sacrosanct, no matter what additional travesties are perpetrated by Khamenei and friends against America.

My characterization of Earnest's remarks in this "Age of Protest": Dishonest, craven and morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, in this instance, with Obama's unsigned legacy-building nuclear deal with Iran hanging by a thread, there is no room for "deep and honest conversations."

Syria: More Evidence of Obama's Lies During His State of the Union Address

You will recall that we were proudly told by Obama during his SOTU last week:

"American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear."

However, Obama was hiding the truth. As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "U.S. accuses Syria of stalling on chemical arms handover" by Lesley Wroughton and Matt Spetalnick(http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130):

"The United States on Thursday accused Syria of dragging its feet on giving up its chemical arms, putting at risk a deal to remove such weapons of mass destruction from the country as it splits apart in a chaotic civil war.

President Barack Obama this week touted the chemical weapons agreement as one of the few U.S. diplomatic achievements on Syria, but the State Department said just 4 percent of Syria's deadliest chemical agents has been shipped out of the country for destruction at sea.

The United States has few good choices to force President Bashar al-Assad to comply."

Now we are learning that Syrian mass murderer Assad (John Kerry's "dear friend") is moving his chemical weapons stockpiles to "Alawite enclaves on the western coast of Syria." As reported in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Assad 'armed to the teeth,' stockpiling weapons of mass destruction" (http://www.jpost.com/Home/Assad-armed-to-the-teeth-stockpiling-weapons-of-mass-destruction-340081):

"The Sunday Times quoted both Israeli and Russian sources as claiming that Syrian President Bashar Assad is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in Alawite enclaves on the western coast of Syria.

According to the Times, these sources report that the work has been ongoing despite the first round of peace talks between Assad's regime and the rebels, held last week in Geneva. The talks are largely seen as having been inconclusive.

One source stated that Assad has turned over only four percent of the regime's chemical weapons and that the regime will miss this week's deadline to send all toxic agents for destruction abroad.

Israel believes that the collected arsenal is mainly consistent of chemical warheads for missiles and warheads, and that it is concealed within the Alawite enclave on Syria's western coast. One IDF source said about Assad's defense of the Alawite region between Latakia and Turkey that, 'This region is now totally fortified and isolated from the rest of Syria.'"

Will Obama learn from this mistake, i.e. placing his trust his Assad and Putin, in his "negotiations" with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei? Not a chance.

David Brooks, "The Opportunity Coalition": Like the Whigs, Obama Coasts Into Oblivion

Did you listen to Obama's 2014 State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has been declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends. Meanwhile, Turkey's economy is showing signs of another imminent crisis, which could have signficant economic repercussions for the rest of the world (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/paul-krugman-talking-troubled-turkey.html).

During his State of the Union address, Obama did, however, relate to Syria. Surely you remember how Obama ignored his own "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons by Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad against his own countrymen. And you recall how in the face of incontrovertible evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons, Obama punted the matter over to Congress, and then cut a deal with his trustworthy buddy, Vladimir Putin, for Assad to destroy his chemical stockpile. And so we were proudly told by Obama during his SOTU earlier this week:

"American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear."

However, it just so happens that there's a fly in the ointment, and Obama was "obfuscating the truth," i.e. lying to the American people. As reported yesterday by Reuters in an article entitled "U.S. accuses Syria of stalling on chemical arms handover" by Lesley Wroughton and Matt Spetalnick(http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130):

"The United States on Thursday accused Syria of dragging its feet on giving up its chemical arms, putting at risk a deal to remove such weapons of mass destruction from the country as it splits apart in a chaotic civil war.

President Barack Obama this week touted the chemical weapons agreement as one of the few U.S. diplomatic achievements on Syria, but the State Department said just 4 percent of Syria's deadliest chemical agents has been shipped out of the country for destruction at sea.

The United States has few good choices to force President Bashar al-Assad to comply."

Obama also related in his SOTU to the deal he struck with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, whose text America's president refuses to reveal, for the "dismantling" of Iran's nuclear weapons program:

"And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program – and rolled parts of that program back – for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium."

However, this is another disingenuous declaration by Obama. Again, as reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA0J00420140120) (my italics):

"Under the interim deal, Iran agreed to suspend enrichment of uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent, a short technical step away from the level needed for nuclear weapons."

In addition, Iran is expected to convert half of its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to uranium oxide and dilute the remaining half to 5 percent enriched uranium, but these processes are reversible. None of this amounts to "eliminating" stockpiles.

And so, notwithstanding these international crises and a festering US economy, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opportunity Coalition" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/brooks-the-opportunity-coalition.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), makes the case that Obama is now at a "moment of liberation" and should look to the "Whig tradition" for guidance. Brooks writes:

"President Obama can spend the remainder of his term planting a few more high-tech hubs, working on reforming the patent law and doing the other modest things he mentioned in his State of the Union address. And if he did that, he might do some marginal good, and he would manage the stately decline of his presidency during its final few years.

Or, alternately, he can realize that he is now at a moment of liberation. For the past five years he has been inhibited by the need to please donors, to cater to various Congressional constituencies and to play by Washington rules.

But the legislating phase of his presidency is now pretty much over. Over the next few years he will be free to think beyond legislation, beyond fund-raising, beyond the necessities of the day-to-day partisanship. He will have the platform and power of the presidency, but, especially after the midterms, fewer short-term political obligations.

. . . .


But there is a third ancient tradition that weaves through American history, geared directly at enhancing opportunity and social mobility. This is the Whig tradition, which begins with people like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. This tradition believes in using the power of government to give marginalized Americans the tools to compete in a capitalist economy."

Yup, giving all that is troubling the world today, Obama should look to the Whigs for guidance as he fades into a golden sunset. Give "marginalized Americans the tools to compete in a capitalist economy"? Does that mean higher speed Internet to watch porn? In this increasingly complex, hi-tech world, to which "tools" is Brooks referring?

Time to get real, David. The world is on fire, and the Whigs, who long ago faded into oblivion, didn't and don't have the answers.

Obama is a "relay swimmer" preparing to "pass things along to the next swimmer"? Good luck to the next swimmer as Obama flails about aimlessly in the rapids, leaving America hopelessly out of the race.

Obama Touts Sanctions Against Iran: Yeah, Right!

Yesterday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama touted the efficacy of the sanctions being imposed against Iran to curb its nuclear weapons ambitions:

"Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher sanctions and tighter sanctions than ever before".

Although sanctions are having an effect on the Iranian economy and have caused Iran to reduce aid to Hezbollah by 40% (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/01/lebanon-un-hariri-tribunal-and-crisis.html), sanctions are having no effect on Iran's efforts to manufacture an atomic weapon, as evidenced by the swift failure of the P5+1 talks in Istanbul, brokered by her Hideousness Catherine Ashton, this past weekend. Also note what Israel's new head of Military Intelligence, Maj-Gen. Aviv Kohavi, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday:

"The sanctions have had an impact on the Iranian economy, but they have had no impact on Iran’s nuclear program."

See: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=205165

Let's be honest: Obama has done almost nothing to stop the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, and his wavering, perceived as impotence throughout the Middle East, is destabilizing Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Yesterday's rioting in Egypt, which led to three deaths, has Israel worried that the Muslim Brotherhood might ultimately succeed in deposing Mubarak.

Might Iran gain control of the Suez Canal? Chicken Little telling you that the sky is falling, or is this no longer such an outlandish scenario?