Nicholas Kristof, "Obama, McCain and Maliki": Obama to Blame for the Crisis in Iraq?

Surely you remember how Obama once declared that the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians was a "red line" for him. And when that "red line" was crossed by Bashar al-Assad, Obama entered into an agreement, brokered by Putin, for the destruction of Assad's entire stock of chemical weapons. Needless to say, when Assad subsequently used chlorine gas against Syrian civilians, Obama did nothing. Moreover, today, some eight percent of Assad's declared chemical weapons stockpiles remain to be turned over for destruction; however, almost no one now believes that Assad will abide by the June 30 deadline.

This past Thursday, with ISIL (alternative acronym: ISIS) terrorists running rampant over Iraq, Obama issued yet another warning:

"It's fair to say that in our consultations with the Iraqis there will be some short-term immediate things that need to be done militarily, and our national security team is looking at all the options."

"All options are on the table"? Obama used that same line in March 2013 when discussing Iran's nuclear weapons development program, but do you think the mullahs paid him any heed? Not a chance. A neo-isolationist Obama long ago lost any vestige of credibility in the Middle East and across the globe.

And by Friday, Obama had already rendered Thursday's warning nugatory with his avowal:

"The US is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama, McCain and Maliki" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-blame-for-iraq-is-shared.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Nicholas Kristof reluctantly blames Obama in small part for the crisis in Iraq:

"Where Obama does bear some responsibility is in Syria, the staging area for the current mayhem in Iraq. In retrospect, Obama erred when he vetoed the proposal by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to arm moderates in Syria.

No one can know if that would have succeeded. But it is clear that Obama’s policy, to the extent there was one, failed. Activists say that 160,000 have died in Syria, and President Bashar al-Assad has recovered momentum. In the absence of foreign support, some frustrated Syrian rebels quit units led by moderate commanders and joined the extremists, simply because then they would be better paid and better armed.

The upshot was that extremist forces, particularly ISIS, for the Islamic State for Iraq and Syria, gained strength and established safe havens in northern Syria. ISIS used these bases to assault northern Iraq in the last few days."

Kristof's solution for this mess:

"The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to try to achieve, is for [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis while accepting decentralization of government.

If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we’ve already squandered far, far too much."

Ah yes, Obama's condition that Iraqis first provide "some assurance that they're prepared to work together." Sorry, Nicholas, but as is well known to the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office, this isn't going to happen.

On the other hand, we can be certain that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei will provide assistance to his Shiite brothers in Iraq should ISIL march on Baghdad. Indeed, as reported by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470), this is already happening.

The real problem is that Obama has yet to learn that the vacuums he creates around the world are filled by the likes of ISIL, Iran, Russia and China, and ultimately there will be a price to pay when radical Islamic terror again comes knocking on America's door.