White House Says, “We Have a Strategy Against ISIL”

“Weakness is a friend of danger, the enemy of peace. Obama has been a weak president,” Sen. Marco Rubio said. We do not have to go to Hobbes or Machiavelli for ideas on how to deal with Putin or Assad. Clearly, the latter is a puppet of the former and both swiped the floor with Obama. What is Obama’s strategy? Does the Vacillator in Chief even know that, in order to execute a tactical operation with success, there must be a strategy? If not, we may win every little struggle, liberate 70 here, add 50 there, release 5 for 1 or 1 for 0 while 4 are still imprisoned in Iran… It seems to me that what the Red Liner in Chief is doing is playing fantasy football!

The White House provides the following “Four Pillars of the U.S Strategy against ISIL:”

1. A systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL, which begins: “Working with the Iraqi government…” proceeds to “humanitarian missions” so that “Iraqi forces go on the offense,” and bravely sums up that “the President will not hesitate to take action.” I do not see blowing a random truck in the desert and some vacuous warehouse elsewhere as a “systematic campaign.” Every strategy is drawn on paper. Its goals must be material, time-oriented and achievable. “Working with” the enemy (someone who burns your flag and calls for your death is an enemy) and supplying “humanitarian missions” do not constitute a strategy. Obama is like a girl looking for a strong boyfriend to protect her image and make her look good in front of other girlfriends. Of course, she will not be very close with the “boyfriend” and will not tell him everything… The chief complaint President Putin expressed (in his tête-à-tête with Charlie Rose) was lack of cooperation in the area of intelligence. Putin said he would at least like to know where our interests lie and where our strikes and forces, if any, operate.
2. Increased support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground is the second point given as “strategy” by the White House. We have just sent 50 “boots” (please, call them troops or military or simply men – when a man dies, the boots remain, a token of the dead soldier at his funeral, thus the term “boots” presumes his death – is that why you pronounce “corps” as “corpse?” Indeed, “They Died with Their Boots on…” but they were more than just “boots” before they died!

“The U.S. has sent a small contingent…” that does “not have a combat mission, but [is] providing the support needed for Iraqi forces to go on the offense,” the second point of this “strategy” reveals. What does this mean? There is no offense in progress (the Iraqis have to, as yet, go into offence) and our 50 Special Forces soldiers are there to somehow “stimulate” Iraqis courage. Imagine we had sent 50 tanks to the Western Front in 1945 but ordered them to just drive around and show off in order to stimulate the courage of the French resistance. Thank God there were no weaklings where it mattered when Hitler was in power!

3. Drawing on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks is proudly stated as the third point of this White House “strategy,” expounding that we should be “working with our partners, we are redoubling our efforts to cut off ISIL’s funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter ISIL’s warped ideology, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.” It is necessary to cite the whole sentence, in order to see the cringing spinelessness in context: What “partners?” Putin? Assad? We have as yet to see any military cooperation with Abdel el-Sisi or Netanyahu… Of course, it is difficult for a weak man to admit that he is weak and stand by someone stronger, self-assured, and decisive; someone who does not need flattery and mirrors of kowtowing faces to know where he stands.

“Redoubling our efforts…” – when you “redouble” zero, what do you get, Mr. O? Moreover, we are not “redoubling” airstrikes but our “efforts to cut off ISIL’s funding.” How? By lifting the sanctions on Iran and sending them $160bil? To “counter ISIL’s warped ideology” – what does that mean? Why can we not call a terrorist a TERRORIST?! “Warped ideology” literally means “thinking twisted by heat.”

I watched Fluffy Iglesias on Comedy Central the other day and he cracked a joke about his show in Saudi Arabia. They took him to a desert in the middle of nowhere (comedy is banned in public places, cities…). There, the audience was split in 2 halves by the center line (women to the right, men to the left) and the front rows of women all looked like terrorists (only a narrow chink for the eyes showing). Nonetheless, a Muslim man approached him before the show and said: “In America, you think we look sour, like dis, because we hate you,” he paused. “You should be living in 120 degrees all year round,” he explained. “It’s the heat! Not all Arabs hate Americans – most of us look like dis,” he said, warping and twisting his face, “because of the heat!”

I suppose Mr. O watched Comedy Central to pick up the language to formulate his strategy…

4. Providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced by ISIL is the final point of this “strategy.” White House says: “We cannot allow innocent communities to be driven from their homelands.” Really? I suppose Mr. O watches only NBC, because both operate under the same heading: “Too Little, Too Late!”

Last time I checked on the BBC World Service, the invasion of Muslims to Europe is in full swing. Some countries take only Christians (Slovakia, Czech Republic), others negotiate quota (Hungary, Poland, Denmark…), yet others plead with Brussels to “take and distribute them” (Italy, Greece) while most refuse to take any (Spain, Finland, Hungary, Slovenia) and others are left out to hang dry (Bulgaria, Romania). Germany and Sweden are the greatest of charities – provided that they can force the others into Banki Full Moon smiles. Are there any “innocent communities” left in Syria?

Naturally, it is a part and parcel of WH “strategy” to accept 250,000 Muslim dependents before Mr. O is out of office.

Of course, there are laws, but who bothers with laws – we have – ehm – a strategy!