He'll break the promise, he just won't make the announcement
The Common Ills
At Tuesday's US House Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declared:
Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL. These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.
For any confused as to what this actually means, Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Corky Siemaszko (NBC News) report:
"A raid is a combat operation, there's no way around that," said Colonel Steve Warren, the Baghdad-based spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve. "So yeah, more Americans will be coming here to Iraq and some of them will be conducting raids inside of both Iraq and Syria."
There's no way around it.
But there is a way around accountability.
And many in the press are happy to provide it.
US President Barack Obama swore no US troops would be involved in combat -- then it became ground combat -- war planes dropping bombs are combat fighters.
So now that there is no more weasel room for Barack and his broken promise is broken, how can you continue to shield the little tyke from criticism?
You offer headlines where the Pentagon becomes the subject and providing an active verb that places the decision on them -- as if the Pentagon is now commander-in-chief?
It's part of the whole rush to let the little tyke down easy, to spare him the responsibilities of the role of president because apparently he's never been up to the job. Part of the job, after all, is taking the heat.
Donald Trump, who is running for the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination, is criticizing Barack for making the issue public.
It could just as easily be argued that Donald's critique demonstrates a considerable lack of understanding with regard to democracy and an informed public.
The stronger critique of Barack on this would be: When he wanted to say no US troops in combat in Iraq, he made that announcement publicly in front of the cameras but, when it was time to change the policy, he left it to underlings to announce.
Again, part of the job of being US president is taking the heat for the decisions -- not hiding away behind the skirts and pants of others.
The editorial board of the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE argues, "Americans need to ask what is going on. Their military has been fighting in Iraq for 12 years. Most of the U.S. troops were withdrawn, with the agreement of the Iraqi government, four years ago. The government’s mostly Shiite Muslim forces, with extensive U.S. air and other support, are now trying to take back Ramadi, a Sunni Muslim city and famous American battleground, from Sunni Islamic State forces."
The following community sites updated:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL. These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.
For any confused as to what this actually means, Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Corky Siemaszko (NBC News) report:
"A raid is a combat operation, there's no way around that," said Colonel Steve Warren, the Baghdad-based spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve. "So yeah, more Americans will be coming here to Iraq and some of them will be conducting raids inside of both Iraq and Syria."
There's no way around it.
But there is a way around accountability.
And many in the press are happy to provide it.
US President Barack Obama swore no US troops would be involved in combat -- then it became ground combat -- war planes dropping bombs are combat fighters.
So now that there is no more weasel room for Barack and his broken promise is broken, how can you continue to shield the little tyke from criticism?
You offer headlines where the Pentagon becomes the subject and providing an active verb that places the decision on them -- as if the Pentagon is now commander-in-chief?
It's part of the whole rush to let the little tyke down easy, to spare him the responsibilities of the role of president because apparently he's never been up to the job. Part of the job, after all, is taking the heat.
Donald Trump, who is running for the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination, is criticizing Barack for making the issue public.
It could just as easily be argued that Donald's critique demonstrates a considerable lack of understanding with regard to democracy and an informed public.
The stronger critique of Barack on this would be: When he wanted to say no US troops in combat in Iraq, he made that announcement publicly in front of the cameras but, when it was time to change the policy, he left it to underlings to announce.
Again, part of the job of being US president is taking the heat for the decisions -- not hiding away behind the skirts and pants of others.
The editorial board of the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE argues, "Americans need to ask what is going on. Their military has been fighting in Iraq for 12 years. Most of the U.S. troops were withdrawn, with the agreement of the Iraqi government, four years ago. The government’s mostly Shiite Muslim forces, with extensive U.S. air and other support, are now trying to take back Ramadi, a Sunni Muslim city and famous American battleground, from Sunni Islamic State forces."
The following community sites updated:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
No comments: