On Wednesday, President Obama will address the nation as he unveils his strategy for confronting ISIS. Even before the president addresses the nation, he will face a daunting challenge convincing a skeptical American public he has a viable strategy, considering his previous misstatements.
The biggest and one of the most controversial statements the president made when interviewed in January by David Remnick of The New Yorker, Obama tried to make the point all terror groups are different from each other and are not like al-Qaeda.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Remnick. He drew a distinction between Al Qaeda and “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
The New York Times reported the president tried to clarify what he meant when asked about that by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” last weekend, Mr. Obama denied that he necessarily meant ISIS. “Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIS,” he said, using an alternate acronym for the group.
“I’ve said that regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally — weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11,” Mr. Obama said. And some groups evolve, he noted. “They’re not a JV team,” he added of ISIS.
Transcripts of the interview clearly showed he made his JV comment when asked directly about terror groups in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS.
The Times continued to report as journalistic organizations like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker all rejected the contention that Mr. Obama was not referring to ISIS when he made his comment about JV teams.
The other misstatement by the president when the U.S. pulled out troops from Iraq he was quoted as saying, were “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government.” Obviously that never happened.
It’s ironic the U.S. is contemplating military action into Syria a year after the president’s “red line” with regard to the government of President Bashar al-Assad utilizing chemical weapons against his own people. The president backtracked on his statement to use military force if chemical weapons were moved, it set the stage and around the world that Obama cannot be trusted to follow through on what he says.
As the president lays out his strategy he will have to explain how he plans to make sure the new Iraq government becomes more inclusive of all ethnic groups especially Sunni tribes.
What is his plan to train and equip the Iraqi army, Kurdish fighter, and Sunni tribes, and how will this be done without “boots on the ground” by American forces?
What international coalition will part of his strategy? What capabilities will they bring? What Arab nations will participate and what will their role be?
The most daunting aspect is how will the president address ISIS sanctuaries in Syria, deal with Assad, and how will his strategy impact Russia and Iran who are strong supporters of the Assad regime? Will the president fully arm the free Syrian army?
The president faces a daunting challenge in convincing a skeptical nation that he has the correct strategy and he will follow through on what he says.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.