Thanks, Obama! It will take 80,000 troops to restore Iraq to where it was before Obama cut and ran

It's been almost three years since President Obama callously cut and ran from Iraq so he could proudly proclaim, “I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised," as he ran for reelection. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed he "viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests."

Panetta concluded that "to this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country." As predicted, because of Obama's actions, the country has fallen to Islamic terrorists, horrific violence, and more war.

So much has been lost to ISIS under Obama that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Thursday, "We're going to need about 80,000 competent Iraqi security forces to recapture territory lost, and eventually the city of Mosul, to restore the border."

America's top general also testified that because the Iraqi army is in such bad shape after losing its American support that he is considering sending in U.S. ground troops again:

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting, Dempsey acknowledged.

“I’m not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” he said.

... But should the Iraqi military prove unwilling to take back “al-Anbar province and Ninewa province” – the majority of territory in Iraq seized by Isis – or should the new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, exclude Sunnis from power, “I will have to adjust my recommendations,” Dempsey said.

Once again, if Obama had negotiated a responsible draw down that left provisional forces to protect our interests and progress, none of this would have happened.

Instead, Iraq will need 80,000 troops and additional U.S. ground troops to recover. Thanks, Obama!

Days before 9/11 Obama authorizes additional embassy security for Baghdad

On Tuesday, the White House announced that it's sending more troops to Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad:

Press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement that that the Defense Department authorization stemmed from a State Department request for “approximately 350 additional U.S. military personnel to protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel.”

“This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). These additional forces will not serve in a combat role,” Earnest said.

Thank God Obama seems to have learned from Benghazi that you don't deny State Department requests for more embassy security in a volatile region of the world - especially ahead of the anniversary of 9/11.

The PJ Tatler notes:

It also comes after Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned Sunday that Baghdad could be the next to fall.

“I believe their goal is Baghdad. I think it’s very, very serious and we have to have a strategy to deal with it in Syria and in Iraq in this new caliphate and to prevent that caliphate from expanding,” she said, stressing that ISIS “is on its way to Baghdad and I believe that they will try to attack our embassy from the West, which is a Sunni area where I believe they are infiltrating now.”

Scary stuff!

The infuriating part is that if we hadn't left in 2011, we wouldn't have to go back in now and the world would be a much safer place. Obama better get a strategy quick or ISIS is going to do a LOT worse than have a pool party at our embassy.

Originally posted at The Political Insider

SCARY: Obama doesn’t “have a strategy yet” for ISIS

Does Obama even care anymore? I mean, really, could he be any more aloof and detached? After last week's tone deaf, out-of-touch, "now watch this drive" moment when he golfed immediately after expressing his heartbreak over James Foley's execution and pledging vigilance, now he says he doesn't have a strategy against ISIS:

“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Mr. Obama said of his plans for defeating the Islamic State in Syria. “We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans. As our strategy develops, we will consult with Congress.”

After a week of speculation that he was about to expand U.S. airstrikes against the terrorist group — also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS — from its positions in Iraq to those in Syria, the president said he has ordered his military advisers to give him “a range of options.”

But Mr. Obama tried to tamp down the suggestion that his decision was imminent, saying “folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

That's because Obama should be much further ahead on this! This is an urgent situation and he's known about the threat from ISIS and its previous iterations for years (although he infamously dismissed them as the "jayvee team"). He should have already had a strategy and contingency plans, the admission that he doesn't is just more evidence of how unfit he is to be Commander-in-Chief.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest offered this inexplicable "clarification" of Obama's comments:

In his remarks today, POTUS was explicit - as he has been in the past - about the comprehensive strategy we'll use to confront ISIL threat.

— Josh Earnest (@PressSec) August 28, 2014

In what world is "we don't have a strategy" an "explicit...comprehensive strategy?!" A world where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Mind-boggling.

Originally published on The Political Insider.

The 5 most nauseating quotes from Obama’s American Legion speech

Originally posted at The Political Insider.



President Obama spoke to the American Legion National Convention in Charlotte yesterday, and the audience of vets was not impressed. Obama is used to appearing in front of vapid, adoring crowds so he was really out of his element speaking to serious men and women who have lived in the real world and made real sacrifices for our country.

The Daily Mail reports, "Most of the veterans sat on their hands, leaving awkward silences where White House speechwriters expected ovations." Who could blame them with disingenuous lines like these:

Even countries that criticize us – when the chips are down and they need help, they know who to call. They call us. That's what American leadership looks like.

... except for Ukraine. And Poland. And Israel. And Iraq. Well, maybe they call, but Obama doesn't answer. Suffice it to say, under Obama, our enemies are emboldened and our allies are frightened.

History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.

Ummmm, whose history? I know he's not talking about Iraq because there were 48 countries in the "Coalition of the Willing," 37 of which provided troops on the ground, and 22 of which suffered at least one fatality. I'm also wondering when there was a time - before the Obama Administration, of course - that we were spreading ourselves too thin. Obama is the one abandoning the two-war strategy with draconian cuts to our military capabilities that an independent defense panel says "will lead to an America that is not only less secure but also far less prosperous" without thinking through the consequences.

In reality, history teaches us of the dangers of appeasement, indecision, and lack of resolve - lessons Obama is forcing us to relearn the hard way. "Leading from behind," and "Don't do stupid sh*t" are not American foreign policy strategies, they're phrases more suitable for a frat basement.

We removed more than 140,000 troops from Iraq and welcomed those troops home. It was the right thing to do.

It was NOT the right thing to do, it was the wrong thing to do in every possible way - morally, strategically, and for our security. But Obama acts as if we're supposed to be grateful to him for pulling the rug out from Iraq, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, allowing terrorists to take over the country (as had been warned), and rendering the deaths of 4,500 of our armed forces and the sacrifice of countless others meaningless if we can't turn this around.

Here's a hint for Obama - and any other rote "bring our boys home" liberal - on military culture: Our soldiers don't want to be "brought home" just for the sake of being brought home - and certainly not to fulfill a campaign promise. They want to be brought home because the mission was successfully completed and structures put in place to ensure those gains are protected and progress continues.

Obama liked the symbolism of a full and complete withdrawal from Iraq, apparently not understanding what a residual force or its importance is. Until a month or two ago, we had 0 - ZERO!!! - troops in Iraq, a country that had just a few short years earlier been liberated from a murderous tyrant bent on supporting terrorism and threatening America. To put that in perspective, we have troops in 150 countries across the world, including our World War II enemies Japan and Germany where we have 50,000 and 40,000 troops stationed, respectively. When will the 70 year occupation of Japan end?!?! Let's welcome those troops home, it's the right thing to do!

Now, as I’ve always made clear, the blows we’ve struck against al Qaeda’s leadership don’t mean the end to the terrorist threat.

Now, whenever Obama talks about being clear, you can bet the words that follow are going to be lies or simply things Obama never made clear. In this case it's the latter. In just the three weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attacks, Obama said al-Qaeda had been "decimated" - or used similar language - a whopping 32 times! So, no, he hasn't always made clear that the blows against al-Qaeda were not the end of the terrorist threat (or should I say, "man-caused disasters?")

And let me say it again: American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq. I will not allow the United States to be dragged back into another ground war in Iraq.

Well, let ME say it again, we never should have left the way we did, and the fact that we did is what put us in this mess that we're even mentioning another ground war in Iraq!

#Protip: Never tell your enemy what you're doing or what you won't do. Let them know that all options are on the table, from combat troops to nukes, whatever is necessary to protect American interests and national security. Just like you never set a red line you're unwilling to enforce when someone crosses it. Oh, wait... I forgot you went to the Neville Chamberlain School of Leadership.

God bless you. God bless our veterans. God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much.

Ok, so Obama's speech wasn't ALL bad. He did give some good shout outs to a few of our post-9/11 vets, amongst other feel-good, rah-rah patriotic rhetoric. Here's the full transcript from the White House.

Even the French are Mocking Obama’s Vacations!

When even the French are calling you out, you know it’s bad:

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has a message about Iraq for Barack Obama: Get back to the White House and do something.

‘I know it is the holiday period in our Western countries,’ Fabius told a radio interviewer Tuesday in France, ‘but when people are dying, you must come back from vacation.’
Full-time workers in France are guaranteed a whopping five weeks of paid vacation every year, making his plea all the more urgent.

Obama is on a family and golfing holiday in a ritzy neighborhood of Martha’s Vineyard but says he will come back to Washington briefly on Tuesday before returning to fun, sun, and more golf.

Fabius visited refugees in Iraq on Sunday, Obama golfed.

Enough said.

Originally published on The Political Insider: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/even-french-mocking-obamas-vacations-now/#ixzz3B9lFn7jM

5 Times Mitt Romney was Right about the Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq

This article was originally published on The Political Insider:

America, you should have picked Mitt Romney. The last several years have shown Romney to be right, and Obama to be disastrously wrong on so many things — Russia, Obamacare, Detroit’s bankruptcy, just to name a few.

Right now we are watching in horror as terrorists take over Iraq after Obama cut and ran, leaving zero troops in the country, just so he could say he had fulfilled a campaign promise to “end” the War in Iraq. From the beginning, Mitt Romney warned against pulling out of Iraq too early and the importance of leaving enough troops to secure our victories.

Here are 5 times Romney was right about what would happen in Iraq:

In a speech announcing his entry into the 2008 presidential race, 2/13/2007:

“Across the nation, there is debate about our future course in Iraq. Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die; that Iraq’s Sunni region could become a base for Al Qaeda; that its Shia region could be seized by Iran; that Kurd tension could destabilize Turkey; and even that the broader Middle East could be drawn into conflict. The possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating. It could mean a future with far more military involvement and far more loss of American life. For these reasons, I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.”

At a veterans round table in South Carolina, 11/11/2011:

“It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.”

In a statement on the withdrawal of troops, 11/21/2011:

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”

On ‘Fox News Sunday,’ 12/17/2011:

“I think we’re going to find that this president, by not putting in place a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi leadership, has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way and we should have left 10-, 20-, 30-thousand personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi’s own military capabilities.”

In a speech at the Virginia Military Institute, 10/8/2012:

“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president tried — and failed — to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.”

I’d say Mitt Romney, and the many others who warned this would happen, gets the last laugh, but the situation in Iraq isn’t even remotely funny. There is no joy in this “I told you so,” only anguish at the lives lost in vain, progress squandered, and effort wasted.

As Romney once said, “I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed.” The problem is, we knew from the start Obama couldn’t succeed because he was just plain wrong. Mitt Romney was right.