It’s actually rather surprising that more nations do not want to join in the fight against ISIS, especially those in Europe, who are much closer to the danger than the United States. Of course, Obama has been terrible on the international stage when it comes to creating links to foreign leaders, but that doesn’t stop the liberal media from crowing. The NY Times is super thrilled that “several” Arab nations are offering to engage in air strikes, for one. The Obama admin is continuing to flog the notion of an international coalition to wage war, kinetic operations, or whatever it is today, against ISIS. And there is this Obama lapdog
https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/511128546220077056
(Breitbart) For all the ridicule heaped upon George W. Bush’s so-called “Coalition of the Willing†by President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, among others, the US-led 2003 operation to liberate Iraq and overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein was assisted by 49 nations that provided material military support including troops, intelligence cooperation, material, logistics, ground facilities, and financial assistance.
Only nine nations are part of what President Obama grandiosely titles his “broad coalition†to assist the US effort to “degrade†and “eventually destroy†the Sunni terrorist ISIS army in what is now officially being called “a very significant counter terrorist operation.†What actual support those states have in fact offered remains unclear.
Normally, international military coalitions are forged prior to their being formally announced. In the case of the anti-ISIS coalition, President Obama proclaimed the establishment of a US-led “broad coalition†of nations committed to the military defeat of the terrorist ISIS army before any specific agreements were reached with any partners. More significant perhaps than the list of states that have signed on is the list of those who have not. The most important and reliable US allied nations have almost all begged off; as have critical regional allies.
The US’s greatest ally, Britain, has said “no thanks”. Germany (not part of Iraq coalition, either, particularly since they were selling banned goods to Saddam’s Iraq) says they won’t participate, and, even better, that they haven’t even been asked. Neither Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry have done the job required to build an actual coalition, sadly. Sadly because it is best to go after ISIS now, as they are growing by leaps and bounds, and may not be a direct nor imminent threat at the moment, but eventually will be. Sadly, because this is the time to lead from in front, and Obama can’t.
(Daily Caller) Asked about his (Nigel Farage, leader of UK Independence Party) view of America’s stature in the world with President Obama, Farage said, “I’m a guest here and, don’t want to be rude, but it looks a little rudderless.†Referring to Obama as a “lame duck,†Farage said it “seems to me the chap is on the golf course every day. In terms of respect or fear of America, it is diminishing with this President.â€
And what was Obama doing Sunday after learning another hostage had been beheaded by ISIS?
@markknoller @southsalem @AndrewsAirForce must have had a beheading recently?? oh last night? he's late for golf then .. geez
— Nic_O_Tine (@Nic_O_tine) September 14, 2014
I want Obama to be strong on this. I want him to go after ISIS. I want him to succeed on this. He’s done a good job with his anti-terrorism actions so far. But, what I want from this president is not going to happen.
As is almost always the case, the US shouldered the burdens in Iraq. Our troops, our money, our grief. But the tragedies that resulted from our misguided invasion in 2003 are suffered today by the entire Middle East, if not the globe.
ISIS/ISIL is of little threat to the US, yet the same neocons and their media lapdogs that led us into Iraq in 2003 are seeking another invasion, and Obama is going along with it. We’ve learned nothing from the Bush/Cheney debacle. There is little political cost to Obama for listening to the neocons, and a potentially large upside for the Dems in the midterm elections.
The videos of slit throats were all it took to get the American people on board, just as ISIL hoped.
Mr. Teach,
You seem to be a young man, so have you signed up to fight ISIS yet, or are you content to cheerlead from an air-conditioned office, and encourage other young men and women to die for your dear cause in your stead?
You feel so strongly about ISIS that you want others to die, but not so strongly that you will personally risk anything beyond your dignity.
I recall in 2003 when FOX News was cheerleading the invasion that none of the 30ish and 40ish on-air millionaires signed up to fight.
I think invading is a bad idea and I criticize Obama for it. You feel that invading is a great idea (but not so great that you’d consider fighting) and you criticize Obama for it.
Did you read the NYT article where you claim they were super-enthused about Middle East nations agreeing to airstrikes against ISIL? What led you to claim they were super-enthused?
Jeff,
The invasion of Iraq was a fairly good idea. Remember, even the Democrats agreed to it. What went wrong was the peace and that I lay at the feet of people like you. Do you want to know why soldiers were needlessly killed and maimed? Just look in the mirror and say it was because of people like yourself.
dave,
Since I opposed the invasion from the start it’s hard to blame me for the results. I didn’t install a partisan ruler, al-Maliki, Mr. Bush’s team did. I didn’t dissolve the military infrastructure, Mr. Bush’s team did. There was never a peace, only a bubbling cauldron.
The neocons are re-writing history so as not to appear too naive.
Thousands dead, tens of thousands maimed, $2.2 trillions spent. Less stable now than before.
No wonder the neocons are lying about it.
Airstrikes will not eradicate ISIS. It will take many thousands of troops. Did you sign up? Will you pay up?
“Have you signed up to fight ISIS yet?..none of the 30-40ish on-air millionaires signed up to fight”. Talk about a straw-man argument, J- yours would be in the dictionary next to “straw man”. We have an all volunteer armed forces, so the question is irrelevant. The people who want to go, go. Pretty simple. As far as the “Fox News millionaires”, at 30 to 40 years of age they’d be too old for combat, and, also, see the above all volunteer army. But anyway, I’m sure you must have inadvertently hit the delete button because I didn’t see you asking the 82 House Dems and 29 Senate Dems who voted for the war the same question you asked of Teach and the “Fox News millionaires.”
j,
Lucky for you armchair warriors that we have an all-volunteer military, isn’t it? That way they can cheerlead, mock and goad without risk.
But having an all-volunteer doesn’t stop those “brave” warbloggers from volunteering, does it? But who can blame them for insisting that others fight in their stead. War is scary. And typing in the air conditioning is soooo comfy.
I know why the Dems voted in favor of the AUMF. They were cowards, afraid of political blowback.
[…] to cobble together a tiny little coalition to go after the Islamic State, and his friends in the liberal media think it’s peachy keen despite the fact that it’s only a fraction of the coalition his predecessor had going into […]