Is this overblown, or is another constitutional crisis burgeoning before our very eyes?:
Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.
Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.
Retired Marine General James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”
Mattis’s comments came two days after Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander-in-chief could be reconsidered.
Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army General Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled.
Contra what Tony Salazar speculates, I don't think there's any Seven Days In May scenario in the offing. Generals Mattis and Dempsey are simply, as current and former professional military advisors to the Commander-in-Chief, pointing out the crippling military effects of a "strategy" that denies them the means they need to carry out the mission that has been assigned, and the geopolitical implications of that "strategy".
You can tell that this rift is already becoming a PR problem for the White House by the alacrity with which Commissar of Defense Chuck Hagel lunged to contradict pretty much all his previous rhetoric about ISIS being a dire threat to the U.S.:
Defense [Commissar] Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.”
Translation: "Shut up, Generals, and toe the party line, if you know what's good for you".
Some in Congress, at least, have noticed the rift and are not buying Hagel's dubious reassurances:
Some lawmakers were skeptical. Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA25), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggested that Obama should listen more closely to his commanders. “I think it’s very important that he does follow the advice and counsel that he receives, the professional advice of the military. They are the ones best suited to do that.”
“I realize he’s commander in chief, he has the final say and the final obligation and responsibility,” McKeon added. “I would also request that he not take options off the table.”
A little late for that, isn't it, Buck? Now that you've collectively signed off on the Regime arming and training Syrian "rebels" that have already signed a non-aggression pact with the Islamic State, thus pre-emptively removing what passes for "boots on the ground by proxy" from The One's already dubious "strategy".
For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is deliberately setting up what's left of the U.S. military to humiliatingly fail before the entire world and be beaten by our most visible, maniacal, and implacable foe.
Which, of course, reminds me of another movie line:
"Losing's really not an option for these guys." That sums up the U.S. military, doesn't it? And yet here and now, they are being, in effect, ordered to lose in advance, pawns in a pro-jihadist geopolitical play that will advance the Obama Doctrine by diminishing American power and influence another order of magnitude further.
That's not going to trigger a military coup. But you can certainly understand how that doesn't sit well with military leaders who can transparently see what's going on and what the inevitable outcome will be, and why their ability to muzzle their frustrations is eroding so quickly. Because they know that, sooner or later, they're going to be stuck fighting a much bigger war, much closer to home, on the enemy's initiative and terms, with other enemies joining in for the kill. A feeding frenzy, as it were.
And all of it deliberately precipitated by their Commander-in-Chief.
If any do have any temptations to be the real-life James Mattoon Scott, I'd be hard-pressed to blame them for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment