Didn't Barack Obama say that our allies were going to do the fighting on the ground against ISIS, and that all the U.S. would have to do would be to provide air support? Didn't John Kerry say we were already establishing a fantastic coalition?
Oh, and isn't this the same John Kerry who ran down George W. Bush because his initial Iraq invasion coalition included "only" Great Britain and Australia? (Kerry forgot Poland, of course, and he also forgot that more than 30 nations had joined the battle in the meantime.)
Seems to me that having Britain - with or without the Scots - would be a lot better than wandering around on the ground in Iraq trying to see if we can recruit Sunnis to sign up and fight, which apparently is what we're doing right now:
Unwilling to send U.S. troops back to Iraq, Washington is trying to persuade armed Sunni factions and tribal figures to fight Islamic State militants in an echo of the "Awakening" movement that drove al Qaeda from the country six years ago.
"There is a lot of traffic right now,” James Jeffrey, a veteran diplomat who was U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2010-2012 and maintains close ties to the government in Baghdad.
"There were meetings in Arbil. There were meetings in Amman," he said, referring to talks between tribal groups and U.S. officials in the capitals of the relatively neutral Iraqi province of Kurdistan and neighboring Jordan.
The plan is far from easy, since many Sunnis regard the Awakening as a failure and a betrayal and see the Sunni Islamic State's sweep into predominantly Sunni northern and western Iraq as the lesser of two evils, despite its mass killings.
U.S. and Iraqi officials say it is not a rehash of the Awakening but will incorporate Sunnis into a "National Guard", a security force intended to decentralize power from Baghdad, addressing Sunni demands to stop oppression from the majority Shi'ite security forces.
Obama goes on national television and tells the nation we're going to war, er, sorry, "counterterrorism" against ISIS
So let me see if I have this straight: Obama goes on national television and tells the nation we're going to war, er, sorry, "counterterrorism" against ISIS, and we're going to provide air support and others will do the fighting on the ground. But it turns out he doesn't have the commitments he needs from those he thinks will do the fighting on the ground, and even as we supposedly prepare for this battle, U.S. officials are approaching wary Sunnis on the ground in Iraq trying to cut deals that will get them on board.
And we already know our Middle Eastern "allies" are balking at Obama's requests because they don't trust him.
This is classic Obama. You declare that something is going to happen, not because you've made sure it will, but because you think it should. Then, when it turns out it's not so simple and you have a lot of hard work to do in order to make that thing happen - and you just might not pull it off, because you're not that good, champ - you ready the excuses and the scapegoats.
And all this because Obama made a political calculation that he had to rule out the use of U.S. ground combat troops in order to a) get the American public on board; and b) not contradict his own decade's worth of condemnation of everything George W. Bush ever did. If the U.S. was really committed to victory over ISIS, we would commit every resource we have at our disposal to the fight. ISIS is no match for the United States Armed Forces, but that means nothing if we have a commander in chief who lacks the nerve for the fight.
So while we watch and wait for the next beheading, our people troll around on the ground in Iraq trying to see which tribe will take up arms.
Here's one way you might describe it: The varsity team has been relegated to the bench, and Obama is trying to assemble a JV team to take on the enemy. Not that I would describe it that way. But some dude might.
