WaPo: Obama’s wishful thinking won’t win war on terror

posted at 1:21 pm on August 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post’s editorial on the embassy closings and the worldwide terror alert is worth noting for a couple of reasons.  First, the Post’s editors call out Barack Obama for his naïveté in dealing with terrorism, especially on the issues of captured terrorists and the administration’s utter lack of preparation of dealing with that issue in the future:

THE STATE Department has shuttered 19 embassies for a week, fearing terrorist attacks. Hundreds of prisoners, including senior al-Qaeda operatives, have busted loose in prison breaks in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan. At Bagram air base in Afghanistan, The Post’s Kevin Sieff reports, U.S. forces are holding 67 non-Afghan prisoners, many of whom can’t be tried in court but are too dangerous to release.

Meanwhile President Obama says he wants to “refine and ultimately repeal” the mandate Congress has given him to fight the war on terror. What’s going on here?

Good question.  The forces of AQ have just exploded over the last three-plus weeks, thanks to the eleven jailbreaks that seem to have been coordinated in correlation, at least, to the current threat.  What will the US do with them if we capture those escapees in order to end the threat?  Er … no one really knows:

From the beginning of his tenure, the president has been reluctant to build a legal framework that would assume that the fight against al-Qaeda and like-minded groups might go on for a long time. He not only proposed closing the prison at Guantanamo, rightly given its poisonous effect on the United States’ image, but he also opposed options to hold prisoners taken in future operations. That may be one reason so many alleged terrorists have been killed during his time in office and so few captured.

This President has been reluctant to even use the terminology of war, preferring anodyne euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “kinetic military operations” (applied to Libyan intervention), and my favorite, “man-caused disasters.”  All of those replacements intended to downplay the threat of terrorism and the actions needed to address it.  That’s either explicitly dishonest or a case of wishful thinking, although I’d bet that it’s the latter more than the former.

The Post then gives a confused account of Obama’s strategy in the Middle East:

The president also has sought to minimize U.S. involvement in dangerous countries as much and as quickly as possible. He failed to negotiate a follow-on force in Iraq, where violence is again spiraling out of control. He has resisted engagement in Syria, where vicious brigades associated with al-Qaeda are establishing beachheads. He has provided little assistance to Tunisia or Libya, where emerging democracies are struggling to contain Islamist militias. He surged troops to Afghanistan but simultaneously announced a timetable for their withdrawal, which is underway.

It’s true that Obama has resisted engagement in Syria — but the Post seems to have missed the fact that Obama wants to engage on the same side as those al-Qaeda brigades and their beachheads.  Obama isn’t talking about intervening on the side of Bashar al-Assad, after all, and neither is John McCain.  The fact that we haven’t intervened so far (to our best knowledge) might be among the wiser war-on-terror choices Obama has made, or more accurately, has had forced upon him.  On Libya, Obama’s entire strategy was to avoid putting resources on the ground after forcing Qaddafi’s fall, which is what created that failed state and led to the invasion of Mali by AQ and the prison break last month.  Obama’s record on these points is so incoherent that even the Post can’t keep up.

Finally, the editors express amazement that Obama is talking about ending the war as AQ is obviously expanding it.  John Kerry made a commitment to end drone strikes in Pakistan “very, very soon,” based on a “very real timeline” from Obama himself, who said in May that “This war, like all wars, must end.” A refusal to fight a war is not the same as ending it, the Post reminds the President:

But like all wars, this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons. Neither appears likely any time soon, and the president’s eagerness to disengage, while understandable and in sync with U.S. public opinion, may in the end lengthen the conflict. His hope of fighting the bad guys as antiseptically as possible, with drone strikes and a minimal presence, may prove as forlorn as President Clinton’s similar effort in the 1990s, when the equivalent weapon at his disposal was cruise missiles.

That’s exactly correct.  The question will be whether this week’s events will change the calculus in the White House.  If ever there was a wake-up call on the danger of al-Qaeda that doesn’t involve a successful terrorist attack, this should be it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unicorn Cavalry most effected..

Joe Mama on August 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

“al-Qaeda is dead, al-Qaeda is dead…”

Nope.

Ward Cleaver on August 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

With the Muslim Brotherhood firmly installed in the White House, the “war on terror” is over. We LOST!

CrazyGene on August 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

broken clock

cmsinaz on August 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Amazonian Marketing Thinking kicking in already …

… if all else fails, Point Out the Obvious!!!

PolAgnostic on August 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

WaPo: Obama’s wishful thinking won’t win war on terror

There is no “war on terror”, only “Overseas Contingency Operations” … and thanks to the NSA and the feral goons we saw in Boston, “Domestic Contingency Operations”.

The only “terrorists” this America-hating junta worries about are Tea Partiers and Constitution-lovers. Barky and his gang of criminal idiots handle these problems by shredding the Constitution as they go after them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 6, 2013 at 1:26 PM

It’s obvious that we need someone with more foreign policy experience as our next president. Maybe an ex-Secretary of State. I wonder who fits that bill? She needs to be the smartest woman on the planet, too, and maybe great name recognition. Maybe someone who’s been shown on some primetime biographies.

No one comes to mind… I’m at a loss.

The MSM is so transparent in their machinations.

Wino on August 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Amazonian Marketing Thinking kicking in already …

PolAgnostic on August 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If Bezos can do that just by acquisition, then imagine how the Kochs will change the Tribune.

nobar on August 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

“al-Qaeda is dead, al-Qaeda is dead…”

Nope.

Ward Cleaver on August 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

.
I also thought the “War on Terror” was finished.

Huh … fancy that.

listens2glenn on August 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

These stories ‘critical’ of Obama still are relative puff pieces compared to what the media did to Reagan and both Presidents Bush. In a few hours, the lapdogs will forget about these matters and spend the rest of the day praising the wonder, brilliance, insight, and inspiration of Obama’s speech in Phoenix.

Liam on August 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If we are supposedly at war with terrorists and AQ then why are we supplying them with weapons in Libya and Syria…and in bed with the MB…

Its all BS…the War on Terror has turned into the War on Americans by the hands of their own government…

PatriotRider on August 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

First, the Post’s editors call out Barack Obama for his naïveté in dealing with terrorism

Me thinks Bezos isn’t going to be too happy with his editors…

pain train on August 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

So what you’re saying is the unicorns aren’t coming, isn’t it? Those colorful little piles out in the driveway really are just where the grand-kids stomped on the sidewalk.
How can you stand to read the WP editorials anyhow? It’s like reading groupie love letters to Lenin or some such.

onomo on August 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

What obama did to the USA.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

This President has been reluctant to even use the terminology of war, preferring anodyne euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “kinetic military operations” (applied to Libyan intervention), and my favorite, “man-caused disasters.” All of those replacements intended to downplay the threat of terrorism and the actions needed to address it. That’s either explicitly dishonest or a case of wishful thinking, although I’d bet that it’s the latter more than the former.

And, I’d bet that it’s the former rather than the latter. Obama isn’t naive. He and his string-puller, Valerie Jarrett, apparently support AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood. Their actions indicate as much. We have MB members in high places in government, *Huma, anyone?* and he’s busy, along with dopey McCain, making the case to arm more mid-east rebels with AQ cred. Nope. Not naive. Not by a long shot. He’s doing Soros’ bidding on this one and Valerie is making it all possible.

totherightofthem on August 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I saw a Politico piece yesterday: “HUMA in photos as you’ve never seen her!” and it made me just shake my head and wonder if Glenn Beck hasn’t been right all along.

Marcus on August 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

chalk. Sidewalk chalk. Unicorn poo. Never mind.

onomo on August 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

If ever there was a wake-up call on the danger of al-Qaeda that doesn’t involve a successful terrorist attack, this should be it.

But….. It is three o’clock in the morning. And the rat-eared coward has a party in Vegas the next day.

My point is that we had a wake-up call almost a year ago and instead of doing something about the terrorist threat, the administration has continued the narrative that terrorism in the region is waning because of a certain rat-eared genius.

Happy Nomad on August 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

If ever there was a wake-up call on the danger of al-Qaeda

But, I thought they were decimated.

When there is another domestic attack will it matter whether they are Afghan al-Qaeda or a Yemen al-Qaeda affiliate?

BacaDog on August 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

‏@GolfHacker_1

Obama called “war criminal” & “hypocrite of the century” in Irish Parliament.

http://youtu.be/QIMucHfUMyg

Resist We Much on August 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

People, pay attention. The media already has the presidency until 2016. They need to get their next president elected. This is merely to allow them to show Hillary in a better light. They can’t have the brightest beacon in the universe shining from the bully pulpit while they try to prop up their next anointed one.

No. Obama must be brought back to the status of merely “miracle worker,” so they can bring up the new messiah, the grand and glorious Hillary.

Wino on August 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

“BOMBSHELL REPORT: Valerie Jarrett Gave the Orders on 9/11/2012 and Blocked Rescue in Benghazi…”

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/08/bombshell-report-valerie-jarrett-gave.html#more

Somebody should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate President Jarrett Obama

workingclass artist on August 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Eleven jailbreaks in 25 days swells AQ’s ranks.

— Ed Morrissey, earlier thread

No coincidences, just the illusion thereof.

Also, a jail break, back when, gave birth to AlQuaida.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

At Bagram air base in Afghanistan, The Post’s Kevin Sieff reports, U.S. forces are holding 67 non-Afghan prisoners, many of whom can’t be tried in court but are too dangerous to release.

This is probably where Comrade O puts the few people he captures instead of assassinating by drone. There are probably some people here GWB would have sent to Gitmo.

Note the MSM and the world are uninterested in what happens there.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I thought NASA was focused like a laser on this?

Ellis on August 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Obama gets confused sometimes. On domestic policy, he can make pronouncements that clearly fly in the face of reality, and the lapdog media will pretend his false narrative is reality. The false narrative becomes a political reality, good enough for gubmint work.

But hen he tries this trick on foreign policy issues. Unfortunately, this tactic fails when reality crushes the narrative.Outside the bubble of the American media, reality is not nearly as malleable. Foreign actors are too likely to ignore the narrative.

novaculus on August 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

All the wild ones have to do now is wait.

The intelligence community is livid with the leaks and the way this stupid admin. has handled the communication.

The platinum-sprayed horsturd golfs and markets obama’care’ and ‘housing’, go figure…

Jarrett runs the place…into the arms of the wild ones.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Slightly OT:

AP

ACTING AS HIS OWN ATTORNEY and delivering an unrepentent opening statement in his court martial, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan calls himself a ‘mujahideen’ and brazenly admits ‘I am the shooter’ in the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre

In this particular case “mujahideen” means “master of workplace violence”.

BacaDog on August 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Think Jurassic Park.
Obama is Dr. Hammond. Islam is Dr. Malcolm.
World events are Chaos Theory.

Jabberwock on August 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

At Bagram air base in Afghanistan, The Post’s Kevin Sieff reports, U.S. forces are holding 67 non-Afghan prisoners, many of whom can’t be tried in court but are too dangerous to release.

This is probably where Comrade O puts the few people he captures instead of assassinating by drone. There are probably some people here GWB would have sent to Gitmo.

Note the MSM and the world are uninterested in what happens there.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

What ever happened to ‘shot while trying to escape’?

Liam on August 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Decimated gets reincarnated.

hillsoftx on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I can’t tell if Obama is the Commander in Chief for the US, or for Al Qaeda.

faraway on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

What ever happened to that oft repeated phrase of the Bush years, “we have to stop doing X because it’s an AQ recruiting tool”?

Aren ‘t drone strikes at least as good an “AQ recruiting tool” as Gitmo is? Seems to me the Gitmo folks are alive and well, reading racy American books in air conditioned comfort.

Also, that group at Bagram AFB too dangerous to release needs to be sent to Gitmo before there’s another jailbreak.

marybel on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

The Founding Fathers were vehement in their belief that American should “extend the hand of friendship and commerce to all, but entangling alliances with none.” They believed that the purpose of our government was to “ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” A nation dedicated to this policy would not likely be the target of a terror attack since groups involved in various disputes would have no real reason to do so.

The current elite culture in America has totally abandoned this doctrine. We now station American troops in over 100 nations scattered all across the globe. We have inserted ourselves into parochial conflicts in every inhabited continent on the planet. We have claimed the unilateral right to strike anywhere at anytime, even when we are not being explicitly threatened.

Consequently, America is now seen as a belligerent in all of these wars. Thus, we have given the antagonists in these conflicts the motive to launch attacks against us. And since we cannot ultimately prevent the proliferation of WMDs, our foreign policy has drastically increased the possibility that we will suffer a mass terror attack.

Even more tragic is the fact that our government, having engaged in these policies, is now trying to prevent just such an attack by militarizing our society and stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights. In what can only be described as a horrible “feedback loop,” our government is depriving us of our precious liberties in order prevent attacks which that very same government’s policies have gone so far to provoke.

And as icing on the cake, the doctrine of interventionism is helping to hurtle our nation towards bankruptcy. The cost of a global military, various pre-emptive wars, and homeland security have helped to explode our annual deficit to nearly trillion dollars per year.

Our nation’s reputation, finances, and liberty are thus all being compromised by this pernicious ideology. And taken together, it easily represents the gravest threat to our Republic and our way of life…far greater than the development of WMDs by various remote nations ever could.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Yet more proof that Obama is in over head. Pathetic.

Jack_Burton on August 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

from WaPo quote: But like all wars, this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons. Neither appears likely any time soon

Wrong-o WaPo.

The USA has been in slo-mo surrender mode since January 20, 2009.

Stunning cluelessness.

Bruno Strozek on August 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

That’s exactly correct. The question will be whether this week’s events will change the calculus in the White House.

No, but it diverts nicely from all the “phony scandals” and the devastating state of the US and obama’s ‘popularity’.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:41 PM

There have been presidents will little foreign policy experience. Those presidents put people in their cabinet who had experience to guide them. Not this president. His first, Hillary, had no foreign policy experience and the guy he has now can best be called an amateur, guided by the faculty lounge at Harvard.

bflat879 on August 6, 2013 at 1:41 PM

…he also opposed options to hold prisoners taken in future operations. That may be one reason so many alleged terrorists have been killed during his time in office and so few captured.

It was almost inevitable that a price would be paid eventually for assassinating targets with potentially high value knowledge instead of trying to capture them in order to learn something from them.

And it was likely it would take years for that to play out.

Considering how clueless this admin now seems to be, we may be starting to see the consequences of this policy.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Er, wasn’t the Post instrumental in creating the bad image of Gitmo it now laments?

stout77 on August 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM

In this particular case “mujahideen” means “master of workplace violence”.

BacaDog on August 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Imagine the int’l circus of him getting questioned by the victims’ families and related.

Once he renounced his citizenship, a word soon forbidden in Seattle, he should have been executed, after a brief trial.

All the salaries he received, from years ago, should go to funds for the victims, alas.

obama is not pro US, but pro his bros, Hasan just one of them.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

But, I thought they were decimated.

BacaDog on August 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

They were decimated. We captured or killed 1 in 10 of their most valuable people.

Chris of Rights on August 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

KABUL — Of all the challenges the United States faces as it winds down the Afghanistan war, the most difficult might be closing the prison nicknamed “The Second Guantanamo.”

The United States holds 67 non-Afghan prisoners there, including some described as hardened al-Qaeda operatives seized from around the world in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. More than a decade later, they’re still kept in the shadowy facility at Bagram air base outside Kabul.

Libs are such shameless lying friggin’ hypocrites.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM

In what can only be described as a horrible “feedback loop,” our government is depriving us of our precious liberties in order prevent attacks which that very same government’s policies have gone so far to provoke.

donabernathy on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

In addition, our government has gone so crazy that they see us as enemies just as equally if not more threatening to their power. The difference is we’re more at hand, easier to find and therefor easier to control. Washington see Christian,s Tea Partiers, and War on Terror veterans as serious threats, which Napolitano has said. There are the memos out there to prove it. But Moslems in our country are hands-off for watching. Obama won’t call AQ a terrorist group, but his Administration has no problem using the term to describe us citizens.

Oh, wait! He refuses to use the term ‘citizens’ any more, because it might ‘offend’ illegals.

This has all become insane under Obama, the Dems, and the Schumer Republicans.

Liam on August 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I do not think that the picture with this post portrays the actual feelings of our President. I really believe that he is pleased with the results of his leadership. Every bit of turmoil that he can generate brings us one more step closer to transforming America. The only wishful thinking that Obama has is his desire to accomplish his mission to put our country in its place.

mobydutch on August 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM

If Bezos can do that just by acquisition, then imagine how the Kochs will change the Tribune.

nobar on August 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

.
I think it has yet to occur to anyone in the MSM that Jeff Bezos did not buy the Washington Post as it were a vanity license plate.

Mr. Bezos believes in making a profit. Amazon is prima facie evidence of that fact.

“What if making the WaPo more objective would increase market share?”

said no liberal ever … or anyone with editorial control over the WaPo – but I repeat myself.

PolAgnostic on August 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Every single day we spiral ever closer to the drain.

trapeze on August 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

That’s either explicitly dishonest or a case of wishful thinking, although I’d bet that it’s the latter more than the former.

I think that bet is an even bigger case of wishful thinking. To the point of naivety.

tommyboy on August 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

All the salaries he received, from years ago, should go to funds for the victims, alas.

Schadenfreude on August 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Not a chance. That money goes back to the government, to ‘ease the effects of the Republican sequester’.

Liam on August 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

With the Muslim Brotherhood firmly installed in the White House, the “war on terror” is over. We LOST!

CrazyGene on August 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If you’re right then whoever the Muslim Brotherhood has installed at the White House needs to spread the news to his pals in Al Quaeda, who evidently don’t think the war is already won.

The outreach to the MB was a strategic error, a failed attempt by the Obama Administration to find an acceptable ally on the Islamic Street that could act as a not-so-hostile political alternative to Al Quaeda: jihad peacefully achieved through political parties rather than terrorist cells. The White House forgets (or refuses to acknowledge) that Islam, as practiced in the Middle East, is as much a political ideology as it is a religion, and that both terror and participation in the political process are viewed as equally valid means to an end.

A strategic error of the same magnitude (although dissimilar in details and scope) was made during the Cold War, when it was believed by many that Communism was a single monolithic entity working in harmony, all parts a unified whole, when in fact communist nation-states were behaving as disparate nation-states that happened to be communist. Hence Vietnam, which even the best and brightest at State and the Pentagon failed to perceive as the old-fashioned civil war that it truly was.

Anyway, Iran will have nukes soon enough. Whatever complicated, multi-tiered, three-dimensional game theory models going on at State and the Pentagon will be rendered moot the moment those Shahab-3 missiles waiting in their silos go live.

troyriser_gopftw on August 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“Detroit is dead and Al Qaeda is alive!

Bevan on August 6, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Decimated gets reincarnated.

hillsoftx on August 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If it’s decimated, then we only got every tenth one. The other nine are still out there.

Ward Cleaver on August 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Well, the good news, in all of this, is that we’ll get to hear about yet ANOTHER “Hard Pivot” to the economy./

Jabberwock on August 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM

You mean no one else likes the smell of what he’s been shoveling?

I’m shocked. Shocked!

CurtZHP on August 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

But like all wars, this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons.

from the WaPo?

hawkish

ted c on August 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

The President and his National Security / Foreign Policy do not see the world as it is – they see the world as they want to see it.

It is no different from the disconnect that is happening regarding economics – where the new normal is >7.4% ‘official’ unemployment, 93% of all new jobs created are part-time, a >11% ‘real’ unemployment rate, and three decade plus low in labor participation. They see the solution as higher taxes, more government regulation and pressure, and government picking winner’s / loser’s (green jobs / energy).

The problem with the WaPoo is that they abdicated their ethical responsibility when it comes to their journalistic integrity by their advocacy of the policies of this Administration. It’s why they and most of the rest of the lamestream media has lost 90% of their value in the last decade of biased ‘reporting’.

But in their desperate effort to restore to themselves lost credibility, and that of the progressive agenda, the problem isn’t that bankrupt agenda or the its naive / academia-theoretical view centered around ‘Blame America First’ – but the incompetent implementation of the Obama administration.

Note to the editorial board of the WaPoo – just as wishful thinking will not win the war on terror, wishful thinking will also not restore long lost journalistic credibility.

Athos on August 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

But like all wars, this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons.

Obama takes defeat, apparently.

ted c on August 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

If we are supposedly at war with terrorists and AQ then why are we supplying them with weapons in Libya and Syria…and in bed with the MB…

Its all BS…the War on Terror has turned into the War on Americans by the hands of their own government…

PatriotRider on August 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Bears repeating.

SailorMark on August 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Marc Thiessen in Post yesterday had an important piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-how-obamas-irs-scandal-harms-national-security/2013/08/05/9fea9616-fde1-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html

How Obama’s IRS scandal harms national security

jp on August 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

This man chose Susan Rice as his NSA…what else do you need to know?

d1carter on August 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

This assumes that his objective is to “win” or even control the terrorism. But I submit that his goal is, and always has been, the neutering of America. One component of that strategy is to heighten hatred among militant terrorists who will continue a campaign of hatred and revenge against America for decades to come — long after Obama is dead and buried.

clippermiami on August 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

There are no wake up calls when you’re on a permanent paid vacation.

The President is sleeping and does not wish to be disturbed.

NoDonkey on August 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

…the president’s eagerness to disengage, while understandable and in sync with U.S. public opinion, may in the end lengthen the conflict.

What?

I call BS.

I do not think “U.S. public opinion” is “in sync” with disengaging from the fight against Islamist terrorists. Anyone have any evidence of this?

The “U.S. public” is no longer interested in long term high head count boots on the ground interventions in ME countries. And especially not in nation building. Or in supporting either Islamist terrorists or murderous dictators in their fights against each other, such as in Syria.

Surgical strikes at terrorists and their bases using Special Ops teams who go in and out, Special Ops snatch and grab operations against terrorists, and destroying WMDs that terrorists might get their hands on are all entirely different matters.

Also, I think there would be plenty of support for “butcher and bolt” operations against terrorist and their supporters who successfully plan and execute terrorist attacks against the US or our embassies.

There is no “eagerness to disengage” from the fight against Islamist terrorists. There is a desire for a new strategy and for new tactics.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Tuesday Photo Essays…

The World’s Least Friendly Cities (Photo Essay)

#1?

Hint: Cory! Cory! Cory!

Paris, China (Photo Essay)

Resist We Much on August 6, 2013 at 2:06 PM

But wishful thinking and trillions of borrowed money have done such wonders for our economy.

No doubt least qualified person ever to be president and his merry band of idiots he surrounds himself with.

jukin3 on August 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Surgical strikes at terrorists and their bases using Special Ops teams who go in and out, Special Ops snatch and grab operations against terrorists, and destroying WMDs that terrorists might get their hands on are all entirely different matters

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Every time we send a team into a Sovereign Nation without their consent we are conducting an actionable Act of War. It is as simple as that. One uninvited soldier boots on the ground constitutes an invasion which by international law allows that country to use any means at it’s disposal to attack the US in kind. That is something that gets forgotten a whole lot in the War on Terror. The only reason Pakistan did not retaliate against the US after the OBL raid is that we give them gazillions of dollars in aid.

Drone strikes are also highly questionable in so far as we are “invading” the airspace of a Country. Some call that the same as putting people on the ground.

Johnnyreb on August 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Every single day we spiral ever closer to the drain.

trapeze on August 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Based on the comments by the Democrat Rocket Scientists at the WaPo link, we’ve already gone down.

Ready for some “fun”? First up, the ever-clueless Fergie Foont!

Terrorism is often the last resort of an oppressed people for whom all other avenues of redress are closed. One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.

(Gee, where have I heard that last sentence before?)

Fergie then wanders back a few minutes later with this gem:

Anyone who accuses the Post of being part of some fictional “liberal media” should read this piece of tripe.

(“It Burns!”)

And then Fergie utters these gems:

And it never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are to presume that they understand al-Qa’eda’s motives. I don’t. I’m pretty sure, however, that it has little or nothing to do with any notion that they “hate our freedom.”

Next up, a poster who names himself after Karl Marx. More like Groucho.

The “War on Terror” is an invention of neo-cons like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Gerson and Fred Hiatt – the author of this piece. All of them should hang for crimes against humanity.

More nonsense, from several assorted nuts:

BUSH and the neocons

It appears the neocon-dominated WaPo Editorial Board wants to prop up the myth that Obama has declared Victory in the War on Terrorism.

Since this myth is an essential part of the Benghazi false narrative, I expect to see that dead horse flogged again soon. And calls to invade some country or other.

This is another case where Bush borrowed a term from as early as the 1880′s. We may be vigilant in our efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism, but to call it a war is an error. Wars have beginnings and endings, and this activity has no end in sight. Adding to the war without end mentality is inflammatory and doesn’t serve us well. Terms such as “war on terror” are becoming as meaningless as foul language used repetitively. It is time to retire the term and the mentality that attends it.

Rare voice of sanity:

This is Hillary’s legacy of 4 years of trotting around the globe eating and having fun.

What difference does it make?

A female O’bama Fluffer quickly responds intelligently:

Right. Hillary controls world events. Are you a moron?

(“It Burns!”)

And you knew this one was coming…

This state of perpetual war with terrorist benefits only one segment of our society.
The military-industrial-petrochemical-secret surveillance complex.

The “Editors” damaged themselves right from the start by continuing to use the Karl Rove-approved political slogan, “The War On Terror.”

And this classic:

President Obama is the best president ever!

Happy 52nd!

“It Burns!”

BTW there are even some Troofers commenting there. Scary stuff.

Del Dolemonte on August 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

WaPo: Obama’s wishful thinking won’t win war on terror

It will, however, continue to get a whole lot of U.S. citizens killed.

My collie says:

How apropos. In less than 5 years, Obarky, the miracle worker, has managed to bring the value of U.S. currency and the value of our lives to an agreeable parity.

I think that the term that you are looking for, collie, is “valueless”.

CyberCipher on August 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

BTW there are even some Troofers commenting there. Scary stuff.

Del Dolemonte on August 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The overwhelming consensus I read in the comments there is that it is Bush’s fault. Amazing since Obama has been in Office for 6 years now. If you only have a hammer…..

Johnnyreb on August 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM

How much more evidence do we need to conclude that this “president” is actually a muslim extremist sympathizer or perhaps even operative? Name one overall policy, along with results, that has not benefitted or emboldened muslim extremist terrorists. A case could be made that he is also abetting them by his policies that are destroying America internally, economically and socially.

This man is an enemy combatant.

NOMOBO on August 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM

He said in May, “This war, like all wars, must end.”

Mr. Obama is right to worry about the corrosive effect, for example on civil liberties, of perpetual war.

First of all, “this war” began when the Qu’ran became the holy writ of Islam. If The One thinks he’s going to “end” it unilaterally, even by surrender, he needs to go back and read it again.

Second, of all the things he might worry about, any “corrosive effect” on our civil liberties is the one thing I’m sure he doesn’t even think about. Considering that he is philosophically opposed to our having any to begin with.

For those who worry that Bezos owning the WaPo will make things worse, I think it’s unlikely. Even if Bezos were the Jeff Immelt of the Internet, I doubt that an editorial board operating under “Worship and Celebrate The One in all ways” doctrines could come up with anything much more specious than this, which stems mainly from their apparent inability to see reality as it is, as opposed to through the clouded lens of their dogmas.

A trait they share with The One.

clear ether

eon

eon on August 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM

A refusal to fight a war is not the same as ending it…

In layman’s terms, it’s called “surrender”.

I wonder what kind of wonderful euphemism Team Obama will create in place of “surrender”…

“strategic disengagement from hostile action”?
“principled termination of offensive aggression”?
(“magical thinking”?)

olesparkie on August 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM

We do sem to have ended the War on Terror. We stopped fighting it (taking the ostrich approach). It isn’t looking like they did though.

krome on August 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Drone strikes are also highly questionable in so far as we are “invading” the airspace of a Country. Some call that the same as putting people on the ground.

Johnnyreb on August 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I don’t recall the United States invading any Sovereign Nation when a pack of nutcase terrorists killed thousands of our fellow citizens–but that’s right: according to some 911 Truther types, it was the Jooos, wasn’t it? Part of that whole Jewish Banker conspiracy, amirite? Fire doesn’t melt steel and all that?

I’m just about fed up with nutcase Ron Paul true believers. Your foreign policy ideas go back to the America Firsters prior to World War II and are just as irrational and nationally suicidal now as they were then. Christie was recently hammered for claiming libertarian ideas were dangerous to the GOP. The problem wasn’t that Christie was critizing traditional ‘leave the people alone’ libertarian message, which is well within the American historical mainstream. He was criticizing the loony offshoot of libertarianism, the one that believes, for example, that Iran is just a poor, persecuted victim of evil Israeli and American neocon machinations.

troyriser_gopftw on August 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

For the Community-organizer-in-Chief, foreign initiatives are conceived and driven by domestic politics.

Intelligence is politicized and transparency is a servant of political expediency.

His default position is to defund the military and redirect the money to his crony socialist domestic agenda.

Today we discover this:

Intelligence on Al Qaeda embassy threat was received “months” ago?

Had Benghazi (and other scandals) not been boiling over, the current terrorist threat would have been handled quietly and barely acknowledged at all.

It’s almost 1984.

petefrt on August 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Wouldn’t it more accurate to say:

Al Queda has been desseminated

KW64 on August 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

…But, he’s “historic!”

Remember?

CaptFlood on August 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Meh, Obama did not start the surrender. We surrendered on September 12, 2001 when we decided that being politically correct was more important than defending against the actual enemy, when we decided to put $7/hr security guards on gov’t payroll at $18/hr instead of starting a national “sensitive areas” conceal carry system for all citizens willing to go through a more thorough background check and some additional training, when we refused to close the porous southern border lest we offend some Mexican, when we refused to revoke and deny any future visas of any type from any predominately muslim country, when we refused and continue to refuse to fully develop our own natural energy resources thereby cutting off the terrorist organizations at the financial knees, when we decided that spying on and infringing the freedom of every American was more politically palatable than focusing on people who are demographically likely to be linked to terrorism, and finally, when we decided to focus on building our enemies new schools, hospitals, power plants, telephone systems, etc. instead of focusing on killing – not capturing but killing – people who wish to harm us, our spouses, our children, our mother and our fathers, which intent we know because they TOLD US!

No, Obama did not start the slow surrender. Bush and the neo-cons started it. Obama is just accelerating it. As much as I believe that Obama is destructive to this nation and its future, and as much as I believe that he and his administration have, at every step, exacerbated every international danger and problem, often by critically weakening the US, he has only continued what was started the day after.

deepdiver on August 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Please see Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian for foreign policy issues.

Baracka Obama is unavailable as he is giving a green energy and Fannie Mae speechifying session somewhere in the USA, and is unavailable for comment.

Jean Carray’ is also mumbling about peace with the Israeli’s and Pali’s while Joe Biden has been sent into hiding for the next three years.

Thank you,
The Oministration

Key West Reader on August 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Well, just keep referring to it as a “war on terror”, instead of what it really is – defensive maneuvers against radical and militant Islam – and you’re gonna keep making these stupid mistakes.

And there is no “winning” with this. We cannot eliminate Islam from the face of the earth. But we can, at least, stop pretending it’s a benign belief system compatible with ours ( whatever THAT might be these days).

Cleombrotus on August 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

No, Obama did not start the slow surrender. Bush and the neo-cons started it. Obama is just accelerating it.
deepdiver on August 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Both points need repeating.

Cleombrotus on August 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM

win war on terror

… neither will much of anything we’ve undertaken.

Midas on August 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Johnnyreb on August 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I guess you missed where I did not say we do these things without first trying to get the approval and the cooperation of whatever government is in place. I am not advocating starting a war to get at a couple of terrorists.

And every situation is different. Sometimes there is no effectively functioning national government — Somalia, Libya. Sometimes the government is already hostile to us. If the terrorists we are after happen to be in Iran and Iran denies it or is giving them sanctuary we have a problem. I’m pretty sure this has happened.

This is what diplomacy is for, often using carrot and stick methods.

Also, these types of operations are not new. We have been using them around the world for decades.

By international law we have a right to protect ourselves against terrorists who are plotting and planning attacks against us, wherever they may be.

The point is that AFAIK the “U.S. public” is not interested in disengaging from the fight against Islamist terrorists, as the author asserts. Rather a new strategy and new tactics are needed, even if that means old tactics are used more. What the American people do not want are more interventions like in Afghanistan and Iraq. No more nation building.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

King Barry’s problem is that he can’t find anyone to surrender to.

GarandFan on August 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM

But Obama is totally down with the Muslims! All of our problems are now ameliorated as a result!

OxyCon on August 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I’m just about fed up with nutcase Ron Paul true believers.

troyriser_gopftw on August 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Ah. I did not know that comment was from a Ron Paul foreign policy true believer.

I thought almost all of them retreated back into their tiny little fantasy world after the election.

farsighted on August 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

First, the Post’s editors call out Barack Obama for his naïveté in dealing with terrorism, especially on the issues of captured terrorists and the administration’s utter lack of preparation of dealing with that issue in the future:

That almost sounds like WAPO committing a random act of journalism.

cajunpatriot on August 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Unicorn-dreams, and Pixie-dust – that’s all he’s got!

A boy in a man’s body, trying to trod in the footsteps of giants.

Another Drew on August 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Remember shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when then-Senator Barry Obama pontificated in a speech that the reason terrorists attack the U.S. is because they’re poor and lack education? Never mind that it turned out that the 9/11 terrorists were anything but poor, and many of them held advanced degrees.

Barry’s understanding of terrorists and terrorism is as shallow and wrongheaded as he is. Yet even after his appalling, and dangerous, public display of naivete and foolishness about the causes of the 9/11 atrocity, he was still elected president a mere seven years later.

Congratulations Obama voters. You wanted a naive, Muslim-appeasing fool for your president, and you got one. It’s just too damn bad you were able to inflict him on the rest of us.

AZCoyote on August 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM

no more wars; we can police the earth by using the FBI to run guns to jihadists and drug cartels

burserker on August 6, 2013 at 4:24 PM

How exactly can we “win” a war against a tactic?

fatlibertarianinokc on August 6, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Everyone always forgets that decimated literally means “every tenth one.” So there is still 90% left of any force that is “decimated.”

PJ Emeritus on August 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Who said he actually wants to win?

Didn’t he say we could “absorb” another 9/11?

WryTrvllr on August 7, 2013 at 12:53 AM

And, by the way, we should be applauding China’s decision to eliminate, albeit gradually, their one child policy.

This is, will be, and was, since Manzikert and El Cid, a war of attrition.

So let’s cut our arsenal by 2/3rds OK????

WryTrvllr on August 7, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Obama appears to be wagging the dog at warp speed.

rplat on August 7, 2013 at 3:48 AM

Close Gitmo because it makes a bad image for the US? Can’t people think ahead a little? Just what do we do with the prisoners, let most free?

We know from experience that many of them freed will join terrorist forces against our troop or even us. Give them a fair trail in, say, a NY court like any suspected felon? Very time consuming, very expensive and risky. We don’t have the kind of evidence that is required for beyond a reasonable doubt convictions in our high standards judicial system. So they go free onto the streets or maybe get deported. In either case, after spending a lot of time & money we will have many of them as deadly enemies at us or at our foreign facilities.

As for our naive, bleeding heart critics here and abroad I say we should tell them to get lost: we will not shoot ourselves in the head for them.

Chessplayer on August 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM