PRESIDENT OBAMA LEADING FROM BEHIND - IS AN INACCURATE ACCUSATION

PRESIDENT OBAMA LEADING FROM BEHIND - IS AN INACCURATE ACCUSATION
by Andy Weddington
Wednesday, 13 August 2014

"The civilized world has a common stake in defeating the terrorists." George P. Schultz

 

 

President Obama was not bashful taking credit for getting America out of Iraq. But he left no force in place to give Iraq a fighting chance. And not surprisingly years of American (and others) sacrifices are proving for naught. What a waste. And now President Obama, though he says he is not, is taking America back to Iraq - trickling in "advisors" and bombing "selective targets" to prevent Christian Kurds from being slaughtered - the rightful action of a still moral nation. Yet the President and his Administration make it clear these are not combat operations.

So, if Americans on the ground, surely armed to the teeth (and killing people), and other Americans dropping bombs (and killing people and destroying things) on an enemy (with their long range sights on us), does not make for combat operations then what is the definition of combat operations?

Strange.

Even the so-called and self-proclaimed 'experts' are befuddled by President Obama's policy(s). No one can articulate it.

Recently a member of the Joints Chiefs (who'll remain nameless) decided, after four years, to offer criticism of American foreign policy. Where this newfound burst of moral courage came from is anyone's guess. Too late. For sundry reasons, his comments without credibility and pointless. Time to quietly pass the colors. Soon that happens. Maybe even in time.

The president's acolytes say he's leading from behind. His critics make the same claim. Bipolar - they differ on perspective and effectiveness. Imagine that.  

Regardless, what a damn mess.

But President Obama is not leading from behind. That is an inaccurate assessment and accusation. It's downright false.

President Obama is not leading anything.

President Obama is watching. He seems more the obligated but disinterested spectator - from the campaign trail; from golf courses; from Air Force One; today from Martha's Vineyard (and golf courses); and anywhere else he can find to escape from being annoyed with presidential responsibilities.

By behavior he's telling us, and the world, the job he asked for, twice and was granted, he does not want. And so responds the country and the world.

That's the honest perception. That's reality.

As an aside, military commanding officers and generals are relieved 'for cause.' Why not a president?

The reason President Obama's policy cannot be defined is there is no policy.

Further, the president's advisors do not know what they are doing nor does their boss.

Perhaps referring to the president's policies - foreign and domestic - as the 'Links Strategy' best sums it up. Both are full of holes. And a lot more than eighteen. With hazards, appropriately sand and water, at every turn.

No expert on foreign policy, I'm fairly certain by 'speak softly and carry a big stick' Teddy Roosevelt was not referring to whispering on the green and tending the flag stick.

This disaster in Iraq (and Syria) is easily solved.

Your order, Mister President, to the Secretary of Defense is simple: Decimate the enemy.

As Mr. Schultz opined, the civilized world has a stake in defeating the terrorists. And it's America's duty, like it or not, to lead the civilized world. If not us, whom?

So order today, Mister President.

And then watch what happens.

Post Script

And Secretaries of State Kerry and Clinton have their hands in this mess, too. Hillary's recent "distancing" (from President Obama) is typical Clinton; politics or not, detestable.