That is interesting, but I have an issue with hindsight being used to analyze Maliki asking for attack helicopters and fighter jets. His neighbor just used those types of weapons to kill his own population. Based on how Maliki governs and his complete refusal to work with other factions in the country, would you trust him and just send him attack helicopters and planes? We just spent 10 years training and arming the Iraqi army and police force. If they can't hold off groups with that why exactly would helicopters and planes make a difference? I think if we would of given the Iraqi's those weapons we would just have report of ISIS now in control of US attack helicopters and jets. They probably couldn't do anything with them, there's a lot that goes into operating and supporting those weapons, but I just don't see those tipping the balance.
ISIS swept through Iraq because the Iraqi army barely fired back and threw down their arms. We could of shipped Iraq 100 Abrams Tanks and I have the feeling the news would be the same as it is now except that ISIS now has even more advanced US weapon technology at their disposal.
Edit: At the end of the day the technology is only good as the person manning the weapon or the willingness of the force to fight. The Iraqi military wasn't willing to fight for their country
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
So then.....Why did BO's Iraq Ambassador point out otherwise? Why was he saying something needed to be done even before this last year? Why is it reported that BO knew ISIS was ready to go after Cities in Iraq and still did nothing.
Why couldn't BO figure out he could get more intel by assisting Maliki from last year where BO could control the situation? Since Maliki was coming to him. That BO could have dictated terms for Assistance to fight ISIL.
Under Obama we have either orchestrated, conducted operations with, or helped in some way plenty to carry out attacks, invasions of other nations, government overthrows and coups, and all sorts of other military and intelligence operations around the globe. From Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq we have our hands dirty, with plenty of drone strikes all over the middle east, and even killed a few terrorist leaders including going into Pakistan without permission to kill Bin Laden and recenty Somalia to kill another. At the same time we have awakened the cold war with Russia and are as of today dropping bombs on two nations. One of which makes Obama the 4th President in a row to do so (Iraq.)
What has not worked is Obama's continuation of a very confusing and hypocritical foreign policy. We have done anything but "mind our own business" and for you to suggest Obama has that mindset clearly is a head in the sand response.
I would argue ever since WWII (and in some ways well before even that) we as a nation have never tried to mind our own business to see if world relations calmed down. We have in fact always conducted operations as a military empire doing as we wish as the world's police department. With one hell of a cost, in lives and dollars, to show for it.
Last edited by iguanaman; 10-01-14 at 10:07 AM.
And no, the SOF agreement negotiated by Bush expired under Obama, but Obama was always free to negotiate a new SOF with Iraq. Obama simply didn't try and ignored the warnings of his military advisers in order to meet a campaign promise. It's all politics first and always with Obama.
And none of your defending explains why, when asked by the Iraqis, Obama didn't reinsert US power in the region. He was INVITED IN by the Iraqis and he turned them down. It is this critical failure that gave frickin' IRAN the open door to Iraq. Obama's decisions were all unmitigated disasters for US foreign policy.
So do the Iraqis, long before the disastrous ISIS campaign. When they were still sitting ducks in the desert border with Syria, when air power could have wiped them out, Obama refused. It would have looked bad in the reelection, you know! And the election is what was really important to Obama.In the Ukraine...the government and people of Ukraine strongly support European and US involvement.
As for the Security briefings, I posted in a thread the same thing I'll say here. Security briefings don't tell you if a President is involved in foreign policy or not. GW Bush attending almost every meeting after 9/11 and Reagan only attended one or two meetings in his entire 8 years...and that's during the Cold War. The President reads the daily briefings and asks any questions he has.
And, like I just said, you can make that argument all you want but the truth is that Obama himself admits to being ignorant of information that was clearly documented in those briefings. You can argue that Presidents don't need to attend those meetings but if the President is as ignorant as Obama is then whatever alternative method of getting briefed he was using was not (is not) working.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.