Oh yeah, and to go back to this, part of making a superpower bog down in a third world country is aiding the rebel forces so they send Russian(or American) bodybags home. Apparently we’re not going to do that, so Russia has almost no opposition that really matters.
You see, in order to WIN wars, you have to be willing to FIGHT wars, or at least aid those who will do your fighting for you. Putin is doing what he’s doing because he knows Obama is scared. We’re not even doing the minimum that we would have done during the Cold War to contest this. We’re even backing off from their fighters. Thank God Putin can’t blockade Berlin, Obama would concede Berlin to him in a heartbeat. Airlifts are “half baked ideas” and too provocative.
They haven’t been attacking America, and they pose no threat to us anyway. We should watch them carefully to ensure they don’t gain that capacity, but right now they’re no threat whatsoever. Anything different right now is fear-mongering.
I’m not in favor of bombing them; I’m in favor of staying out, except perhaps with logistical assistance for our allies. As far as them attacking the homeland, they don’t have the capacity to do so, other than perhaps a shooting or something. And an invasion would kill a lot more Americans than a shooting.
The President is waging an undeclared, unapproved by Congress war against a group that poses no threat to us? If this was a Republican President you’d be calling for impeachment.
I never called for impeachment of Bush. I’d certainly support Congress passing bills on what they think the President should do, though, especially if they advocated for staying out. I’ve said many times that Obama shouldn’t be bombing them – just that bombing is far, far superior to invading. Again, invading weakens America greatly, full stop. There’s no real-world outcome from an invasion that doesn’t greatly weaken America.
The problem is that bombing makes invasion more likely. Historically, Presidents’ ability to control the scope of a war once involved is very limited. We’re bombing. If ISIS executes a successful attack here, we can’t just say, “Well, we’ll bomb them some more.” The President’s hand will be forced.
Which brings up the other problem: politics is ruling military strategy. We are in an election cycle. If ISIS pulls off a successful attack, or appears to be winning, the President’s hand will be forced again. The US can’t be seen to be losing a war in an election year.
Your argument that bombing is better than invasion isn’t really saying much, since bombing increases the likelihood that a ground operation will take place. The President has increased the number of personnel in Iraq and has ordered ground raids in Syria. The only thing a President has control over for sure is whether or not to go to war. Once he’s committed, his ability to control events is much reduced.
Invasion would be “losing” any war. We invade, we lose. I don’t buy that politics would require Obama to order invasion.
I suppose it raises the chances from staying out altogether, but I don’t buy the idea that he can’t withdraw. He can always withdraw – just as Bush could have. The President is the command in chief and can always say “Generals and Admirals, bring everyone home as soon as can be done safely”. When we haven’t invaded, it makes it even easier – many fewer troops and equipment to bring home.
That report came from the Henry Jackson Society. It’s like citing an anti-immigration group’s study finding that immigration is bad. Double points for citing it via the Daily Mail.
I took the liberty of looking up the report itself, and unsurprisingly, it’s sensationalism.
The President is absolutely right about it. Liberals just need to stop being hypocritcal about the use of force. Their criticism is notably muted when a Democrat is involved.
I’ll be critical of the staying-in-Afghanistan news – I’m against it. As to Boko Haram, I’m skeptical, but considering that we don’t have a history of getting mired into endless wars in that region, I’m open to being convinced that it’s the right policy.
Location has nothing to do with quagmires. We can have a quagmire in Haiti(and we once did) as easily as in Afghanistan. Boko Haram is pretty much the same threat as ISIS. But you are hitting on the politics of the issue. Africa doesn’t hold the same historical dread for Americans back home as the MIddle East or Southeast Asia, so the President can send troops there without the same risk of backlash.