First let's look at the situation in Ukraine.
- Ukraine is a non-aligned block per their laws and constitution.
- Ukraine is not a Nato country (see above).
So, Ukraine set a policy years ago under which they chose to not be aligned with either the Russian or western countries. Very few people, Republican or Democrat, are willing to go to war over this. This means that overt military intervention is really off the table. While it should not have been put out there by Obama or members of his administration, it is a fact. That leaves us to deal with this using diplomacy, covert action, and the courts. Using diplomacy, we have sanctions and restricting Russian diplomatic relations. Because of Russia's nuclear status, restricting their diplomatic status makes no sense unless we engage in all-out war. Therefore only sanctions and covert action are available. In the odd chance that eastern Ukraine attempts to become a separate state, we could deny them any diplomatic status. Sanctions that we, the US, might employ are limited by what the EU and Britain are willing to go along with. We could be openly talking about putting in anti-missile systems in NATO countries, a position Obama has backed away from and may be unacceptable if we look at the consequences. We could also aid the Ukrainians with anti-radar equipment, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and training.
Certainly Obama should not have stated the obvious, that we are not going to war over this, and we could already have anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles delivered to Kiev.
Let's look at our policy for dealing with ISIS.
- ISIS has been in existence since 2010.
- ISIS is an outgrowth of Al-Queda
ISIS should have been an issue in the 2012 elections but neither Romney nor Obama brought it up. Obama may have been motivated by politics but maybe their footprint was insufficient to cause any concern. Certainly the "mission accomplished" attitude of Obama during the 2012 elections is open to criticism now and ISIS has been an issue for several months now in Iraq. The US should have had a strategy for dealing with them at least 3 months ago.
The fact that Mr. Obama went on Television on 28 August of this year and stated that we have no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS whether he meant ISIS in Syria or ISIS in Iraq coupled with the fact that much territory in Iraq has fallen is certainly open for criticism and smacks of an enormous failure of leadership. The fact that he made that statement is typical.
Obama is not a leader. Obama is not a statesman. Obama is a far-left Democrat who doesn't believe that the US should be involved outside our borders. Obama and Rand Paul should form their own isolationist party. We can argue with where he stands and demand action but there really should be no surprise here. All we have to do is wait for the inevitable terrorist attack on the US or more territorial gains by ISIS, and Mr. Obama will either be compelled to act or there will be bipartisan pressure for his resignation. Impeachment is possible if the situation is dire enough but the articles of impeachment will not say that the ISIS policy is to blame, incompetence is allowed in politics. There could be bipartisan agreement on some other crime and misdemeanor, however, that results in his early retirement.
Bottom line, back off the calls for war in the Ukraine and recommend constructive additions to the Obama sanction policies. Keep in mind that the Ukraine is neither our fight nor responsibility. Keep up the pressure on the Whitehouse policy for dealing with ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and the entire mid-east. Recognize and elaborate on Obama's obvious weakness as president.
No comments:
Post a Comment