If you do not will the means, you cannot will the ends. That is the message from the editors of the Washington Post on the president’s current bombing campaign against the “Islamic State”:
TWO MONTHS after the United States began airstrikes in Iraq, and two weeks after they were extended into Syria, the forces of the Islamic State are still advancing. Last week they captured the Iraqi towns of Hit and Kubaisa, northwest of Baghdad. On Tuesday they appeared close to overrunning Kobane, a strategic city on the border between Syria and Turkey that is populated by Kurds. The enemy victories are happening in spite of U.S. and allied airstrikes and resistance from local forces. They suggest that the U.S. air campaign is failing to achieve the minimal aim of stopping the expansion of the Islamic State — much less “degrading†and “destroying†it.
Why can’t the U.S.-led coalition prevent a ragtag insurgent army from overrunning large towns? The answers speak to the limitations imposed on the military campaign by President Obama as well as the continuing political complications of fighting the Islamic State. Military analysts point out that U.S. strikes on Islamic State forces around Kobane have come late and in small handfuls — not enough, as of Tuesday, to turn back thousands of fighters armed with tanks and artillery. In contrast with the successful 2002 air campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. pilots cannot rely on Special Forces spotters to identify targets. Mr. Obama has ruled out such ground personnel despite requests from military commanders.
They conclude:
The restrictions Mr. Obama has imposed on his commanders are not compatible with the objectives he has asked them to achieve.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal concur:
The Turks and friendly Arab are looking for American leadership in Kobani and beyond. The Syrian city needs weapons and fuel supplies, a more intense bombing campaign, and maybe U.S. Special Forces to end the ISIS siege. This early crisis in the Obama campaign exposes flaws in his strategy that will continue to undermine the military effort and the anti-ISIS regional alliance.
No successful war plan is static, and Mr. Obama needs to adjust his now if he wants to stop a massacre in Kobani and the continuing march of ISIS.
To clarify my own views on the campaign, I believe that our interests in opposing the “Islamic State” do not at this time reach the level of war, that the means by which the president has elected to oppose it are insufficient to achieve his stated goals, but the real goals—domestic political ones—have already been accomplished. I don’t believe the president will adjust the tactics being used to put more Americans in harm’s way. That would undermine those domestic objectives. I think it’s far more likely that he will reframe his objectives to lower expectations, blaming the Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, and, probably, the Republicans.
I’m not pro-war. I’m anti-bluster. I think that setting objectives you cannot hope to achieve by the means you are willing to utilize undermines the U. S. deterrent.
The answer to your Talking Turkey post is not yet.
For the remaining delusional hawks, Turkish Kurds crossed the border to help fight ISIS. Turkish Kurds are a problem for Turkey. As long as ISIS does not enter Turkey, they can kill as many Kurds as possible.
How many of these idiots thought the Turkish tanks were coming to the rescue, and even after they did not move across the border, how long did these idiots still think the Turks were actually going to help.
Imagining that countries have interests that they have not acted upon because they are waiting for US leadership is nonsense. Imagining that countries have interests that they have not acted upon because the US has not groveled enough is nonsense.
Magic fairy dust does not exist. Reality is all that exists, but we do paper over it with nice words to get along. This is called diplomacy. Your friends are often stabbing you in the back, and you are often working with your enemies behind the scenes. Get used to it kiddies.