Click on links to see entire article
U.S. policymakers must commit themselves clearly to containing, disrupting, and defeating it.
By Bing West
By pulling our forces out of Iraq in 2011, Mr. Obama claimed, he “ended the war.” Three years later, the winner of that war is a barbarous Islamist army that has seized the northern half of Iraq, threatening both Kurdistan and Baghdad. An alarmed Iraqi parliament has just elected a new prime minister, opening the door for American assistance.
So what should we do? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, has suggested that we “initially contain, eventually disrupt, and finally defeat [the Islamists] over time.” Notice that the general used the word “defeat.”
What is necessary to put flesh on Dempsey’s objectives? First, both parties in Congress must agree that this Islamist army is a mortal threat to America’s core values and must be destroyed. General James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has testified that ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, poses a potential threat to the homeland. The phrase “potential threat” is fraught with ambiguity. Until catastrophe occurs, many will argue that ISIL is a ....
Breitbart News: Is the current US strategy implemented by the Obama administration sufficient in containing the Islamic State?
West: No. We have no strategy toward the Islamists. Not in regard to the air, and not regarding anything else. We are drifting.
Is the Islamic State the chief threat to US national security interests today?
20 Jan 2011
I saw a dramatic change in warfighting, as the BBC accurately reported.... click here
January 4, 2011
The end of the ground war in Afghanistan, already America’s longest, remains years in the future. Even as he assures America that “we are on track to achieve our goals,” President Obama has set 2014 for a complete handover of combat duties to local forces. Three factors have made the conflict so intractable—and two of them are beyond America’s control.
Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reports today that the U.S. Army’s official history of the tragic battle in Wanat, Afghanistan, places blame upon junior officers. Nine American soldiers were killed in the fight, which took place in July of 2008. General Petraeus ordered an investigation led by two combat-tested generals. Petraeus then issued letters of reprimand to a captain, a lieutenant colonel, and a colonel. Another Army general then rescinded the letters, asserting they would have a chilling effect upon performance in battle.
For more, click here...
Getting into the holiday spirit, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written that the commandant of the Marine Corps “is one step short of being a bigot.” Cohen, who strongly supports homosexuals in the military, insists that the commandant be fired because he held a different view. According to the dictionary, a bigot is “one who is strongly attached to his view of politics and intolerant of those who differ.” That definition fits Cohen, not the commandant of the Marine Corps.