Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
To me, one of the (if not the) most important considerations is to prevent any further terrorist attacks on US soil. So far, 0bama's administration has been successful at that goal.
I thought that the concept of engaging terrorists overseas, keeping them bottled up and busy fighting there and preventing them from having a safe haven, was quite shrewd. Unfortunately, the execution of that concept left a great deal to be desired.
Had 0bama any strategic sense, he'd have found a way to reject his predecessor's problems with execution while he kept the concept active (let's give him credit, he did keep the hunt for bin Laden at high heat until it succeeded).
People have asked me, "what would do?" If allowed, I'd go back to the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009. When 0bama was first elected, I wanted him to do well. Given that most politicians exaggerate, I hoped that if he lived up to 1/3 of what he promised, we'd be okay. Yet when the everyday people of Iran rose up against the theocrat thugs, he was passive and silent. I wasn't alone in wondering at the time, "what is wrong with him? this is one of the best opportunities we'll ever have to make the world a safer place!" I'd have done as much as I could, both overtly and covertly, to support the Iranian democrats, and have tried to engender as much international support for them as I could.
His failure to act in that instance was just part of a string of voting "present" when decisive action (defensible decisive action) would have made a crucial difference. There is a compounding effect in public affairs. You are seen as a bit weak, someone tests you, you fail that test, you get tested some more, you fail that test too, and then you have a real serious mess on your hands.
Now ISIS is actively recruiting US citizens with the express intent of sending them here to carry out terror attacks on US soil. Yet he still equivocates!
Number one job of the Commander in Chief is to protect the US against attack. They have declared outright war on us. Whether we like it or not, that means we are at war. No amount of denial nor equivocation will change that. They are going to keep attacking.
It makes no sense to me to be at war and not fight to win. Anything less leaves us exposed to way too much risk otherwise.
To me, one of the (if not the) most important considerations is to prevent any further terrorist attacks on US soil. So far, 0bama's administration has been successful at that goal.
I thought that the concept of engaging terrorists overseas, keeping them bottled up and busy fighting there and preventing them from having a safe haven, was quite shrewd. Unfortunately, the execution of that concept left a great deal to be desired.
Had 0bama any strategic sense, he'd have found a way to reject his predecessor's problems with execution while he kept the concept active (let's give him credit, he did keep the hunt for bin Laden at high heat until it succeeded).
People have asked me, "what would do?" If allowed, I'd go back to the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009. When 0bama was first elected, I wanted him to do well. Given that most politicians exaggerate, I hoped that if he lived up to 1/3 of what he promised, we'd be okay. Yet when the everyday people of Iran rose up against the theocrat thugs, he was passive and silent. I wasn't alone in wondering at the time, "what is wrong with him? this is one of the best opportunities we'll ever have to make the world a safer place!" I'd have done as much as I could, both overtly and covertly, to support the Iranian democrats, and have tried to engender as much international support for them as I could.
His failure to act in that instance was just part of a string of voting "present" when decisive action (defensible decisive action) would have made a crucial difference. There is a compounding effect in public affairs. You are seen as a bit weak, someone tests you, you fail that test, you get tested some more, you fail that test too, and then you have a real serious mess on your hands.
Now ISIS is actively recruiting US citizens with the express intent of sending them here to carry out terror attacks on US soil. Yet he still equivocates!
Number one job of the Commander in Chief is to protect the US against attack. They have declared outright war on us. Whether we like it or not, that means we are at war. No amount of denial nor equivocation will change that. They are going to keep attacking.
It makes no sense to me to be at war and not fight to win. Anything less leaves us exposed to way too much risk otherwise.
and Fishy doesn't bother to enlighen us, nor does he say what possible influence the US could have on Iranian domestic politics. Beyond that, there's vague platitudes about "fighting a war to win" (no sh ! t Sherlock, who fights a war to lose?) and other such stupidity but again, no suggestions no actions no solutions. Just talk.
