We hired a community organizer to be a president and that has been heavily on display the last couple of weeks. The best article I've seen covering the speech is the linked from the Onion: "ISIS Campaign Will Be Drawn-Out Ordeal We’re Used To"
One of the rules of the organizer is to "define your opponent" -- so he tries to build the straw man that ISIL is neither Islamic or a State.
As an aside, BO tends to use "ISIL" -- Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" bs "ISIS" - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The general term is ISIS, he persists in using ISIL. Two likely explanations are 1). The "Levant" is much bigger -- Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Cyprus, Southern Turkey, so maybe he wants to draw attention away from Iraq and Syria, two areas his foreign policy failures are especially glaring 2). As having been a strong supporter of Islamic conquest (eg. Muslim Brotherhood), I suspect he sees "The Levant" as all legitimate Muslim territory, including Israel, so it is natural for him to use that term
In community organizing or politics, especially with a helpful media, defining your opponent is a great thing -- thus we have Tea Party Racists, Republicans against ALL taxes, women, working families, Hispanics, the environment, etc and a host of other solid TP / media arm definitions -- they are false, but when you control the media, the majority can be largely confused. ISIS however, exists outside of our media fishbowl and trying to define them as just another BO straw man only highlights the glaring naivete of this JV president.
Telling your adversary what you WON'T do is foolish -- even if you can't be trusted. BO is already sending in "military advisors", no doubt there are special forces on the ground for at least target designation, so of course the "no troops" statement is a lie from the git go -- which both we and they know by now since his lips were moving. We and they also know that his weasel words will limit his ability to "do what is required" in the unpredictable future -- at least some, besides, he is always a tentative weasel.
Taking things off the table aids nothing but the enemy in the battle -- but it may assuage your political base, and both we and ISIS know that is what BO really cares about . It would better for ISIS to at least worry that we might lob a tactical nuke into Tkrit in the right situation -- a Predator fired nuke would be a good thing to show them, if for no reason but to give them something to think about at bedtime. NOTHING should be "off the table"!
W bore the burden of "going it alone" -- our TP controlled MSM constantly reminded us of this. America was "alone and misled". The ruse required not recognizing Britain a country, but when TP needs to make a false case, reality must suffer. Actual W coalition? 37 nations, 25K troops http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf Want to place any bets on the numbers in the BO Straw Coalition?
It isn't a "war" ... BO ends those. So what is it? Slow Surrender?
'via Blog this'