No doubt to give the three hundred trapped U.S. Marines a sneak preview of what's in store for them in the very near future:
Jihadist....s from [the] Islamic State (IS) have burned to death 45 people in the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, the local police chief says.
Exactly who these people were and why they were killed is not clear, but Colonel Qasim al-Obeidi said he believed some were members of the security forces.
IS fighters captured much of the town, near Ain al-Asad air base, last week.
Colonel Obeidi said a compound that houses the families of security personnel and local officials was now under attack.
He pleaded for help from the government and the international community.
Which he is not going to get. At least not from the Obama Regime, anyway.
At least until ISIS releases the videos of some Marines going up in flames and others having their heads sawed off their torsos. Maybe a lucky few will be treated to both at the same time. I have to wonder what galvanizing effect that would have on the American public. Might that not force Barack Obama's hand on his to-date phony war against ISIS and make him get serious in a big, big hurry to keep his approval numbers from deteriorating even further?:
Which begs the question of whether O might be perfectly well-aware of how this issue is polling and how to exploit that to his own propaganda advantage:
A majority of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of the terror group [the] Islamic State (ISIS), while 78% back a new authorization for use of military force against ISIS, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
The poll found 57% don't like how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS and 58% think American military action against the group is going badly. In the fall, both those numbers were at 49%. [emphasis added]
This would seem to easily answer why O is floating a new AUMF: to continue to create the impression that he's fighting ISIS without actually doing anything in reality to resist them. It's all, in other words, about his approval numbers, and what he was doing up to now to prop them up is no longer sufficient.
But then you look at O's proposed AUMF, with its ruling out of "boots on the ground" and its three-year sunset provision and its repeal of the 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2002 (Iraq) AUMF's, and you quickly arrive at the conclusion that its purpose is to further restrict and limit what the U.S. can do against ISIS, not expand it, thus guaranteeing a defeat that would have Republican fingerprints on it if they pass it. And yet almost four-fifths of Americans, if this CNN/ORC poll can be believed, want to see Congress do just that, not understanding what the new AUMF is actually designed to do, meaning that short-term blowback for its rejection will hit the GOP right between the PR eyes, and enabling President Degrade to pass the blame buck to the Republicans for being "weak on terrorism".
I'll say it again: Still think Barack Obama is "incompetent" and "in over his head"?
And yet, watching United States Marines meeting the same grisly fate we've seen so many others suffer at the hands of ISIS....you have to wonder if that might not be a game-changer, in the same metaphorical "ballpark" as 9/11 was. The public would demand retribution, and Congress could easily re-write the White House's AUMF to provide carte blanche to eradicate the Islamic State utterly, in the same avenging angel spirit as the Jordanians and Egyptians. Could The One dare issue a veto at that point?
Yes! He! Would! But his pro-ISIS cat would be out of the bag. Not that I think he really cares much at this stage of the fundamental transformation game.
The same PR dynamic would be at play if our Marines would be forced into the same Kobayashi Maru scenario as British Special Forces have been formally ordered:
One source said last night: “The SAS have been told that if they are captured they can expect to be tortured before being beheaded, disemboweled or burned alive. They know there is virtually no chance of being rescued.
The source said if SAS soldiers were captured they would expect the British Government to do the “honourable thing” and order an airstrike on the compound where they were being held.
The source said: “As a member of the SAS you know that you are going to be executed by the enemy if you’re captured.
“That’s why we carry pistols. It’s our secondary weapon. But it also allows us the choice of topping ourselves when all hope has gone. Better that than giving away where your mates are operating.” [emphasis added]
That's the scenario the three hundred U.S. Marines at al-Asad are looking at if they aren't relieved and the town of al-Baghdadi isn't retaken from ISIS, which cannot be accomplished without, yes, "boots on the ground": a horrible death or a quick one at their own hands. Or "fighting to the last man," since everybody knows what happens when you surrender to the Islamic State. The end result is, for all practical purposes, the same: They're almost certainly doomed. Which is to say, Barack Obama has almost certainly doomed them because he will never do what is necessary to rescue them.
Almost makes you wonder on whose side he is, doesn't it?
Actually, there's no doubt on which side Barack Obama resides. Just ask the Kurds, Jordanians, and Egyptians:
The Kurds are begging for military aid; Obama says no. Jordan and Egypt begged for intelligence sharing on ISIS targets; Obama said no. ISIS in Libya makes yet another maximally public spectacle of decapitating twenty-one Coptic Christians specifically because they were Christians, also declaring their intention to "conquer Rome" and "take the [jihad] to the land of the Cross," which has gotten even the Red Pope's attention, and Obama won't even acknowledge that the victims were Christian, referring to them only as "Egyptian civilians".
This is more than just stubborn, even fanatical, political correctness, my friends. Even Democrats will be prudently circumspect when the PR winds are blowing heavily against them. "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day," as the old saying goes. Or "a closed mouth gathers no feet". This is more than that. This is passive siding with the enemy. This is tacit approval of ISIS's genocidal actions because of their explicitly targeted groups. We already knew that Barack Obama hates Jews and Christians. His adamant refusal to "call a spade a spade," as it were, and to do anything to actually defeat ISIS, which is perfectly in line with his pro-jihadist policies going back at least four years to the so-called "Arab Spring," make it increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, he is himself an Islamic Fundamentalist after all.
And that loomingly inescapable conclusion is on a collision course with the equally inescapable confrontation with the Islamic State.
Either O is about to beat a hasty retreat, or We, The People, are about to discover The Enemy Within. Either way, the immediate days and weeks ahead will be very educational - and harrowing.
UPDATE: The Obama Regime has just come out in official opposition to Egypt's and the United Arab Emirate's airstrikes against ISIS targets in Libya:
The United States does not support Egyptian and Emirati airstrikes against Islamist militias in Libya because the U.S. believes the crisis in Libya must be resolved politically and without outside interference, a [Commissariat] of Defense spokesman said Tuesday.
Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) carrying out airstrikes in Libya was different from U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant forces in Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby told a briefing, because the U.S. was acting in Iraq, in a “very targeted” manner, at the request of its government.
“This wasn’t some unilateral decision by the United States to strike targets inside Iraq.” “We discourage other nations from taking a part in Libya’s issues through violence,” Kirby said. “We want the issues solved in Libya to be done peacefully and through good governance and politics and not violence.”
And we all know how Obamunists define "good governance" and "politics," don't we? As well as their affinity for violence as long as the "right" groups are targeted.
And remember the White House's recent meeting with Muslim Brotherhood operatives regarding aiding the latter in reconquering Egypt?
If Egyptian President al-Sisi (or Jordanian King Abdullah, for that matter) had any remaining doubts that Barack Obama is his enemy and an ally of the Islamic State, he would be well advised to abandon them forthwith.
And the same goes for the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment