Friday, February 06, 2015

Turkey Can Crush ISIS...Obama Won't Let Them

Does the barbarism have a logic? - Charles Krauthammer, MD

What's missing are serious boots on the ground, such as Syria's once-ascendant non-jihadist rebels, which Obama contemptuously dismissed and allowed to wither. And the Kurds, who are willing and able to fight, yet remain scandalously undersupplied by this administration.

Missing most of all is Turkey. It alone has the size and power to take on the Islamic State. But doing so would strengthen, indeed rescue, Turkey's primary nemesis, the Iranian-backed Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.
Turkey's price for entry was an American commitment to help bring down Assad. Obama refused. So Turkey sits it out.
Why doesn't Obama agree? Didn't he say that Assad must go? The reason is that Obama dares not upset Assad's patrons, the Iranian mullahs, with whom Obama dreams of concluding a grand rapprochement.

For Obama, this is his ticket to Mt. Rushmore. So in pursuit of his Nixon-to-China Iran fantasy, Obama eschews Turkey, our most formidable potential ally against both the Islamic State and Assad.  What's Obama left with? Fragile front-line Arab states, like Jordan.

But even they are mortified by Obama's blind pursuit of detente with Tehran, which would make the mullahs hegemonic over the Arab Middle East. Hence the Arabs, the Saudis especially, hold back from any major military commitment to us. Jordan, its hand now forced by its pilot's murder, may now bravely sally forth on its own. But at great risk and with little chance of ultimate success.
[Jewish World Review]

Iran Nuclear Deal Raises Major Concerns - Editorial

As the Obama administration pushes to complete a nuclear accord with Iran, numerous members of Congress, former secretaries of state and officials of allied governments are expressing concern about the contours of the emerging deal. Though we have long supported negotiations with Iran as well as the interim agreement, we share several of those concerns and believe they deserve more debate now - before negotiators present the world with a fait accompli.
(Washington Post)

What's at Stake with Iran? - Abraham H. Foxman

It is becoming more critical than ever to keep our eye on the ball. Whatever one's view of the decision by Speaker of the House John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, this unnecessary brouhaha should not divert us from the real issue: Will we stop Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power?

The writer is national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
(Times of Israel)


LHwrites said...

The 2nd and 3rd articles are more like blurbs stating the obvious. The fist article, by Krauthammer, is sheer nonsense as is just about everything that comes out of that boobs mouth. Thankfully he uses his idiocy as a pundit and not a practicing physician.
All the right wing pundits and GOP were impotent around Syria and only speak after they know no one will take their points seriously. There were no clear cut 'freedom fighters' in Syria for us to arm. And in fact, those many on the right were looking to align with turned out to be part of ISIS. As for Turkey, yes Obama would like to see Assad out of there as would many people. BUT Obama, unlike all the idiots at Fox and in the GOP, remembers Iraq and how things---never go the way you expect. Especially when you are ignorant of the issues. Many academicians predicted what would fill the vacuum after Iraq. Those same scholars are astutely pointing out that you can't tell the good from the bad in Syria without a scorecard---oh wait---even with a scorecard---because it's not clear anyone is good for us over there. It's easy to be a FNM (Fox News Moron) because lucky for them, the electorate voted in a President who listens to advisers, the learned and the experienced, and not just to a bunch of A%#es on tv. It isn't pretty to imagine a country that really was like the one those Fox pundits would have us in if we listened to even half their nonsense.

Bruce said...

I guess that means you don't like Dr. Krauthammer. Let's agree to disagree.

But you did not comment on the content. For instance, if you were President, would you make a deal with Turkey in exchange for their significant involvement in an ISIS offensive??

LHwrites said...

I mentioned Turkey. I pointed out that what seems obvious or expedient is neither when it comes to the MidEast. I'll leave that decision up to the President; this President who has been wise enough so far to not make the MidEast an even worse place than when he got there; unlike the last President. ISIS progress has been stopped and it has been rolled back in some areas. it might be slow but there might be good reasons not to involve Turkey. There are actually people who study the MidEast. Maybe the President is discussing this with them. The last President didn't because they were all pointing out two things back then: 1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and 2) Invading Iraq could destabilize the region, empowering Iran and possibly turning Iraq into another base for terrorism. Everything the academicians predicted came true. All the morons at Fox and many other places were proven completely wrong. Sorry, there is no credibility here. I'll leave it to people who haven't &^#%$# up everything.