'We don't have a strategy yet': What everyone gets wrong about the quote that will haunt Obama

[babylonsister]

Posting this to preempt the trash talk that is bound to come in about a minute.


'We don't have a strategy yet': What everyone gets wrong about the quote that will haunt Obama

Updated by Zack Beauchamp on August 28, 2014, 5:30 p.m. ET


When President Obama gave a press conference Thursday afternoon on Iraq and Ukraine, he mostly reiterated things he or his aides had already said. But there was one line that'll be quoted again and again, particularly by critics.

When asked about whether his future plans for combating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) required congressional authorization, Obama ducked. "I don't want to put the cart before the horse," he said, before uttering the line that'll likely haunt him for the rest of his presidency.

"We don't have a strategy yet."

On one level, it's an absolutely devastating indictment of the administration's approach to Iraq and Syria. The president took pains to emphasize the fact that his administration had been warning the Iraqi government, for at least a year, about the threat from ISIS. If his administration was so concerned about ISIS, why didn't it have a plan for dealing with its advance in place? Why do they seemingly have no plan for kicking ISIS, perhaps the most dangerous extremist group in the world, out of the Maryland-sized territory it controls?

snip//

There's also a more sympathetic interpretation.

Viewed in context with the rest of his remarks, Obama's point might be that there is no good strategy available for fully defeating ISIS in both Iraq and Syria — which is both consistent with his approach the crisis in those countries, in which he has primarily avoided risky escalation, and perhaps true.

Throughout Obama's addresses on ISIS, including this press conference, he's emphasized the need for a political strategy to defeat ISIS, one that focuses not on Washington but on Baghdad and, in an ideal world, Damascus. Barring political reform in the Iraqi government, and the development of some sort of peace in Syria, it'll be really hard to fully defeat ISIS. In a changing, complicated situation, Obama's thinking has long seemed to be, it's better not to prematurely commit to a specific problem that might not fit the changing situation.

You can't have a strategy for what can't be done, in other words.

more...

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6080031/obama-isis-no-strategy?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=thursday

[tanyev]

1. Already saw it in a different thread.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Will not change his policy, just cable and Twitter fodder. The new Obama suit is also trending.

And his comment was on ISIS in Syria, so it is all the usual noise crested when you have nothing else of your own other than all out war.

[Aerows]

5. The audacity

of taupe.

[randys1]

28. McCain or Romney would have had a strategy a long time ago

And now we would be watching hundreds of coffins coming back, with OTHER peoples kids in them...

We would be seeing the terrorist organizations multiplying on a daily basis with more and more people hating us like with Iraq war...

Nothing would be accomplished and these two assholes would double down on war and make it even worse...

thank GOD for Obama

[DinahMoeHum]

35. That's because those two characters think with their dicks. . .

. . .instead of their heads. Like too many other Republicans and other chickenhawks.

Letting the little head down there do the thinking for the big one up above the waist is piss-poor leadership. And it will get one in deep shit.

[randys1]

36. Love Carlin's dick wagging routine about them

miss him, miss Robin, fuck

[madokie]

3. The one thing I like about this President

is he does not put the cart before the horse and that he is honest to a fault. Both qualities endear him to me. Me, being a person who was lied too and led into a war with people who we had no business warring with. I speak with strength when I talk about unjust wars

[truedelphi]

8. But on the other hand, in addition to honesty, we needed a leader who could foresee the

Likely consequences of their own Administration's behavior.

From the end of summer 2010 for the next thirteen months, we gave away some 55 billions of dollars of weaponry to the UAE states and to Israel. And it looks like officials in some of the UAE states have gifted some of that equipment to ISIS!

Meanwhile we citizens were told that it would be far too expensive to have the government bail out our local governments, and help us keep needed jobs and projects here at home.

But we always have weaponry to give away!

[madokie]

13. Surely you aren't suggesting that that is all his doing

The pukes have been looking for any reason to hang him from day one and if he'd been seen as throwing a monkey wrench into the works they'd already have hung him. Surely you can see where he is on why he does what he does, surely. Yes I'm talking about racist no good dickheaded asshole jackasses

[Maedhros]

25. The reason we elect Democratic Presidents is to stand up to Republicans,

not shrug their shoulders and give in because they are "looking for a reason to hang him."

Obama allowed the transfer of those weapons because he agreed with the plan, not because he was forced to by the Republicans - and if he was forced to do it by the Republicans, I would say we need a stronger President.

[madokie]

27. I see you don't understand what I was getting at

I disagree with you but thats the way it is. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I'll argue the point not.

[leftstreet]

4. He should get a strategy for firing a speechwriter

Regardless of its to-be-parsed-for-weeks meaning, it's a really dumb thing for the President of the United States to say

[Fred Sanders]

6. Put it in context and you would also disagree with your assessment. And was it part of the speech,

because then context really does matter. "Part of" is the applicable word.

You can not have a strategy for something that can not be done, how is that going to haunt Obama for the rest of his presidency?

The last question is for the original author of the vox article, seems to be somewhat contradictory in the same article.

[leftstreet]

10. He's the US Prez, not a shift manager at McDonalds

**WHICH IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO DISPARAGE SHIFT MANAGERS AT MCDONALDS**



For the US Prez, there are certain and specific public expectations

Sorry, his speechwriters dropped the ball

[Fred Sanders]

11. It was in response to a question, not part of he opening speech, but to get back to the context

matters theme, I say again, context matters.

[leftstreet]

14. His people didn't anticipate that question?

Seriously?

That makes it even worse!

[Fred Sanders]

19. Not in context, I would disagree entirely with the whole shocked premise.

[leftstreet]

21. The WH calls ISIS 'a cancer' 'apocalyptic' 'imminent'

Hagel, Kerry, Obama, WH spokespeople

But no one anticipated a question about the response to this grave, grave situation?

Well....uh....we don't have a strategy

Good grief

[TwilightGardener]

24. You do understand that Obama was alluding to whether we would strike in

Syria, basically expanding our operations from defense to offense on ISIS? Right now we're on defense mode in Iraq, with the strategy to get them away from Kurdistan, Baghdad, and key things like dams so that Iraq can get its shit together and fight them more effectively. If we go on offense, that's a new chapter in the war on terror and opens up a whole can of worms--Assad, al Nusra, the Free Syrian Army, Russia, Iran...

[YvonneCa]

40. His complete answer was fine if...

...media could report the entire exchange. Context is important. The other side is trying to box him in with another 'red line' like they did before. His answers were clear and honest IF completely heard and reported.
Like that will happen...

[madokie]

16. You are spot on Mr Sanders

my hat is off to you. I used to have a hat tip smilie but can't find it right now, sorry

[Politicalboi]

7. This is ALL congresses fault

They impede him EVERY chance they get. They don't allow Obama to fill offices, they say NO!!! to EVERYTHING. Now they want him to go it alone with this, so they can sue him later for doing this on his own. If we lose the senate come November, Obama should just quit. Why should he have to put up with the stupidity of the congress and the American people.

[Vattel]

9. Maybe he should have just answered the question.

[Fred Sanders]

12. How do you have a strategy for something that can not be done? What is the end game? Is

Syria not a sovereign nation that might want a say when a foreign power starts bombing their lands?

[TheKentuckian]

44. If the premise is something cannot be done then why say yet?

This is an effect of threading the needle. We are seeing nothing but the obvious course of events and I do not understand the reaction at all from people who wanted to leave Iraq. Surely to God no one believed the farcical nonsense of standing up and training the new Iraqi military which would carry the day?

HELP! WE'RE STUPID AND WON'T GET OUT!

[Fred Sanders]

45. Iraq kicked America out at the end of the war America started, remember?

[TheKentuckian]

46. and stay out!

And actually they wouldn't give our troops immunity and no deal could be brokered so we just maintained our withdrawal schedule.

I will also say I have ZERO recollection of anyone other than the likes of McShame having any issue with getting out of Iraq and sooner for most of us.

BULLSHIT, leaving was on the list like a motherfucker and now folks want to pretend we weren't all about getting the fuck out of there to pretend to justify going right back/never really leaving because FUCKING DUH it was destined for meltdown from the moment we invaded and some are too proud, guilt ridden, and doped up on exceptionalism to accept we busted humpty dumpty and can't put him together again no matter how much blood and treasure is spent or how much destruction and worsening cycles of extremist we create.

[babylonsister]

15. Sounds like he did answer the question. nt

[madokie]

18. He did

just not the answer some wanted to hear is all

[YvonneCa]

41. They want a red line to take us to war.

He didn't allow it. They did the same with the Ukraine question. He said we aren't going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

[TwilightGardener]

17. He's still deciding what to do, in terms of whether to totally declare war and

defeat ISIS wherever it is (broad effort, long slog, Syria, Congress), or to limit the action to defense of our interests in Iraq. It's really a tough call. If he says ISIS must be defeated, the US under Obama will then be committed to doing whatever that takes, including ground troops, or it will never meet its objectives (probably wouldn't anyway--we still haven't defeated the Taliban and AQ). If he says Iraq/Kurdistan must be defended...well, that's what we're doing now, regardless of what happens in Syria.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Does America need the consent of Syria or is it entitled to just go in and bomb as it pleases?

[TwilightGardener]

22. Since it appears that Assad allowed ISIS to flourish, I don't think we'll be asking

permission. I wonder why Assad didn't fortify his air base very well (Taqba). That was totally overrun. Is he finally going to fight ISIS now?

[Fred Sanders]

29. Allowed them to flourish?......give your world view head a shake, sir. Did Iraq also allow this?

Perhaps the Kurds allowed it also?

[TwilightGardener]

30. Read the Wall Street Journal article from last week that lays out how

Assad pretty much ignored ISIS to fight other rebel groups, with the hope of forcing his enemies to decide between his awful regime or the totally godawful extremists. He's a devious and murderous bastard, but since ISIS is a threat to the US (and Assad really isn't), we'll work on them first, without his permission should we decide to strike.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Well, that does it, a WSJ Fox owned opinion piece is very convincing......not. Keep shaking.

[Vattel]

23. The question was whether he would need congressional authorization to pursue his plans in Iraq.

In response, he suggested that he hadn't settled on a plan yet and so could not answer the question. He could, of course, have identified whether he needs congressional authorization to pursue war at all in Iraq, or whether he would need such authorization to go beyond merely defending American personnel and facilities, or whether he would need such authorization to wage full-scale war against ISIS. My guess is that he didn't do that because he likes to keep his messed up views on executive war powers close to his chest. Hopefully I am wrong, though.

[TwilightGardener]

26. He was answering more broadly, I believe, than just whether or not he needed authorization--

that's why the cart before the horse comment. The authorization isn't very important in terms of airstrikes in Iraq, because he's using the justification that Americans and our interests are in harm's way and must be defended, and that's not going to be contentious in terms of Congressional approval. Expanding into other areas with the goal of defeating ISIS, rather than just directly protecting our people and interests, is going to be a bigger deal. He obviously hasn't made that decision yet, and doesn't know how it would be pursued just yet either (getting other countries involved, airstrikes vs. ground forces, whether to strengthen FSA or take out Assad, etc.). It's a sticky wicket.

[Doctor_J]

32. Poorly rendered as usual

His behavior in front of the cameras lately has been awful (Cheney - patriot; protesters - sanctimonious). It's a shame that you have to try to smooth this over for him.

[Fred Sanders]

33. Nothing to smooth over, that was the point. And since he has a rough ride even from Democrats, who

better to make repairs and ask for context?

[Doctor_J]

38. regardless of the situation, "We have no strategy" is a bizarre thing for a president to say

and invites ridicule.

[Fred Sanders]

42. In reference to war in Syria, it is not.

[YvonneCa]

43. They were pushing for another.,,

...red line. Then they would complain if he crossed it like last time. I think he's tired of being boxed in by media.

[babylonsister]

37. And it's a real shame you never have anything but criticism

for Obama.

[panader0]

34. Why lie? The situation is fluid. The US wants and needs support from other countries,

especially Middle Eastern countries. He also said that the US has the best military in the world. He could unleash hell on ISIS
(or is it ISIL?). But that's not a strategy, that's just a bunch of bombs. How can Obama alone determine the course of this? There needs to be local and European involvement. It's not just a military thing. People who will use that quote to discredit Obama are only exposing their own ignorance.

[moondust]

39. Yes.

Ignore the smallbrains who will never be able to grasp the complexity of this situation even if they want to.