NY Times Admits Obama Terrorism Policies Falling Apart

by JASmius

And still, they describe that "falling apart" like it's a source of gob-smacking astonishment:

Problems with President Barack Obama’s plan to fight terrorism have been exposed by the Islamic insurgents in Iraq, the New York Times reported.

Obama outlined his blueprint for the war on terrorists while speaking in May to West Point graduates, declaring that instead of using American forces to contain violent extremists, the United States would train local troops to fight the threats.

The idea is to prevent expensive wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan that have resulted in a war-weary public reluctant to support further aggression. 

The old term for this was "Vietnamization".  Because that policy worked SO well for South Vietnam.

What's that?  There isn't any such country as South Vietnam anymore?  Hasn't been for forty years?

Oh.  Well, you might want to tell the New York Times that, because they don't appear to have gotten that particular memo.

But his hopes have quickly unraveled as extremist fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have captured vast regions of those countries in its attempt to create a caliphate in the war-torn zone, the Times said.

Actually, it's more than just an attempt; they declared it  the other day.  Now, it's on to America, and the confrontation.

The weaknesses in Obama’s plan were highlighted by the quick collapse of the American-trained Iraqi security forces, which have surrendered their weapons and millions of dollars of U.S. military arms while fleeing from the Sunni jihadists.

The weaknesses in Obama's "plan" were visible from parsecs away.  Which illustrates that Obama's "plan" was the diametric opposite of Bush's "plan".

ISIS has turned from a ragtag bunch of terrorists into a powerful army and administration officials admit it could take months or even years for Iraqis security forces to repel them, the Times said.

Just as Obama, well, "planned".  He's been arming the now-"Islamic State" for several years, and left behind all that U.S. weaponry for ISIS's taking.

But if you want to maintain the fiction that Barack Obama wants to fight jihadism, then the bottom line is that the only way that can be done is with U.S. military forces, in strength, on the ground.  And as I recall, the reason we sent U.S. military forces, in strength, to fight the jihadists overseas is that the alternative was being besieged by them here at home.  Which is the big difference between cutting and running from Vietnam and cutting and running from the Middle East.

Just because we decide we don't want to fight anymore doesn't mean the jihadists will abide by our desire to go home and be left alone.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

And yet the Times gives us this pap:

The United States will have to be patient while arming and training a "constantly shifting cast of surrogates" to confront the threats it once faced mainly by itself, the newspaper added.

One man's "patience" is another man's "futility".  Not a single damned one of them that has a prayer of defeating the jihadists.  And the White House knows it.

But then, winning the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism isn't the point for them.  They want all "foreign entanglements" to go away so that they can focus on the REAL war at home against the American people they rule.

And if their jihadist allies decide to "lend a hand" periodically, so much the better.  It's not like we didn't have it coming anyway, right?